Edited by ChatGPT
Over the past few months, I've had time to reflect on what it means to be a designer in the web3 space and how to adopt more of an investor mindset. This has been an ongoing journey, and here, I'm sharing some of my reflections.
We launched We3.co as a collective of designers with the promise and core belief that a group of fairly senior and specialized designers could significantly turbocharge early-stage startups. Our concept is simple: as an early-stage founder, you either hire a design generalist to cover all your needs from branding to UI, or you bring us in, and we tackle this as a collective of specialists. We work closely with you to help you launch with a minimal, lovable brand and product rapidly.
This approach has generally proven successful. We've had the joy of working with some of the best founders and teams in recent years, delving deep into the full stack of web3—from DeFi to open social graphs, from AI to reputation, from capital formation and governance to ZK and gaming.
Along the way, I've come to a few realizations. One of the core challenges is simple: good design—and especially good talent that is web3 native, skilled, and truly flexible—is not cheap. This prompted us to explore various models, from working for equity and tokens only to a mix of compensation methods. Internally, this meant that we all had to develop an investor mindset, a significant shift for someone like me, who was more accustomed to being a freelance design mercenary. Thus, this piece is a personal work-in-progress reflection on some of those learnings.
The truth is, the most promising projects that we could most significantly boost often couldn't afford us. As we navigate these design challenges and opportunities, I find myself learning a great deal about how to be a good time investor.
Personally, this journey has been challenging. I love writing detailed memos, diving into the broader landscape to understand market opportunities, and honing my intuition to identify promising founding teams. A good process is key here, though this piece won't focus on a traditional venture capital process, which assesses whether something is a good "cash" investment. Instead, it's a starting point for a broader reflection on whether something is also good "time" investment.
I'm currently wrestling with a Faustian challenge: the process of making a cash investment involves a lot of upfront effort to determine if it's a wise choice. While there is portfolio support and engagement post-investment, the depth of collaboration with a "creative" time investment—where we agree to work for a specific time together—is same same but also quite a bit different. The real work starts after deciding it's a good investment. To be honest, I sometimes feel a bit like a confused Pikachu right now.
The idea of investing time as a form of capital fascinates me. At first glance, they seem very similar, but their differences, though nuanced, are significant. So, how do I currently think about this?
Quoting Faust again, at the puddle's core is the fact that time is potentially much more limited and, therefore, more precious than capital. Depending on the fund size, the number of "seats on the bus" is normally limited too. But in reality, if I want to work and maintain the quality standard I've set for myself, and if I do some of the creative work myself, the number of projects I take on per year is likely even smaller. (This is also built on the belief that a massive community of designers does not necessarily mean better work; I believe curation is key here.)
A good collaboration extends beyond a one-week design sprint. It usually starts with in-depth collaboration over a few weeks to set a shared foundation, followed by a gradual handover where we intentionally design ourselves out. This might involve helping to hire a project's first designer or working part-time on it. Internally, we talk a lot about how to design for a soft landing, an intentional fade-out. In the meantime, I strive to stay updated on tools, best practices for designing with development teams, and, most importantly, a deep understanding of the market and landscape I operate in. If the number of projects we can take on as a tightly curated collective is extremely limited, what am I looking to decide beyond our "cash" investment process to conclude whether something is worth my/our time?
"What does a team mean by 'design'?"
In my humble opinion, design is somewhat of a misunderstood or overused term; it can mean so much and, therefore, often be somewhat meaningless. For some, design is a simple paint job—an iteration on the current brand and a bit of tuning on the UI. For others, design is an elaborate process to explore, test, define opportunity areas, and ultimately articulate their vision and strategy. Most of the time, it's somewhere in between. For me, it's crucial early on to learn and establish what a team means by "we need design." Truth be told, I love all aspects of it, from the straightforward "we know exactly what we need, but we just need to make it sexier" briefs to the "we know there's an aspect we haven't fully uncovered yet, and design is a tool to help us explore, define, and ultimately make better decisions" projects. When I think about investing time, it's important to truly understand what my future collaborators mean when they ask for “design”.
For me the potential of design is much more than just UX and UI or brand articulation. Brand design is a tool to truly hone in and define on who your customer is, what language is appropriate and opens your customers imagination, and what is the right resolution to attract and tell your broader vision. UX/UI design is not just about executing button styles and the right corner radius but designing systems that can extend beyond the initial key flows to launch, that can be taken on by a broader team easily. It's also a tool to explore the opportunities a team is tackling, a way to rapidly prototype and test ideas early, to make better decisions, so we all focus on the right focus to launch while hinting at the broader future. So, for me, when I talk with early-stage teams, I strive to better understand and define together with them what they mean by "design."
"What design do they need?"
Over the last few years, I've observed a diversity of projects take shape and start to see some patterns. We encounter many "traditional" projects where teams have already set the right seeds and direction for a project, have been building the tech and infrastructure, and have an early internal or testnet version of their product ready but know they can gradually improve their brand and product. I love these projects as we can closely work with the teams and often bring in improvements rapidly. These projects are often the closest things to a traditional product or service, with a clear value proposition to their users and a very clear step by step need for design.
Beyond these lie more infrastructure protocol-related asks. Operating mainly in web3, many of our partnerships are with infrastructure tools, etc. These often cater to multiple users, not just end-users but often as an intermediary to more B2B partners. This presents fascinating design challenges: how do you communicate to your customers how they can enhance their customers' experience with your offering? On the product side, the ask is often more about helping future customers envision what a protocol or infrastructure piece can enable for them, or, as we've seen time and again, to help their partners build the best possible products. Personally I love the projects where we work with a partner to work with their partner to integrate their work in the best possible way.
As I reflect on these considerations, a key question for me regarding whether something is a good time investment often comes down to what a team really needs from us, or from me, at this or future moments. How clearly does a potential team know what they need from us? Bluntly, the best teams wouldn't need us, but they come to us because they are realistic and straightforward and know that design can offer this one unfair advantage, they lack right now, but want to build up. If I see time as an investment, and we focus mainly on taking equity on a project in exchange for time, then I favor teams that already know not just what they need, but why they need us.
"When and who do they need from us?"
This is slightly less important but still a significant question when I use my own framework to evaluate if something is a good time investment. One observation along my design career is the tendency for design teams to take on work but then staff it with junior people. I do not like this way of working and selling work, but I truly understand why it’s done. Good talent is expensive and must be available. Often, asks want a very distinct style or a very specific expertise that allows us all to be faster. This means if the ask is specifically for one of us, the amount of work we can take on is even smaller, which forces us to be more diligent and focused on who we want to work with. There's a lot of work that can benefit from our services, but the more we lean into investing time for equity, the more we need to vet and adopt an investor mindset.
This leads me often to consider as early as possible what and when do they want to work with us, but also who they want to actually work with. The best design often requires building relationships. We see projects that often need us right in the very moment they reach out, which is a challenge itself because we need to stick to our due diligence process. On the other hand, we want to meet projects as early as possible simply because the terms are best in the early stages and we are equity-focused. We don't want to enter a conversation a few rounds in; we want to be there as early as possible, so we may agree on design work to be done at a later point in time. I am a fan of this, and I am scared of this simultaneously; it allows us to create a pipeline itself, but for this to work well, I am experimenting with and prototyping ways to work more efficiently. Agreeing to work later on, comes with a massive benefit though, together with the team we “invest” time in, we can truly scope and build the right vehicle for design.
So, as I share these early reflections as a designer who considers time as a form of investment for equity, I am eager to explore this realm further. I am especially curious to get better at sharing the true power that design can bring to projects, to help projects at any stage better understand and define what is most impactful at that moment in time, and find new ways to collaborate. If you're dabbling with similar thoughts, or you are an early-stage team working currently looking for investment and support with creative work DM me.
