TEMP CHECK – I’m back @ Gitcoin, should I be in founder mode?

🧙 🧙‍♀️ Ideas and Open Discussion
1

TEMP CHECK – I’m back @ Gitcoin, should I be in founder mode?

TLDR

I am asking the Gitcoin community whether I should lean back into “founder mode” (direct focus on value creation, hands-on product + vision anchoring, faster decisions, direct accountability) or stay in “steward mode” (supporting distributed governance, coaching domains).

Founder mode could bring clarity and momentum but risks centralization and clashing with Gitcoin’s decentralization values. The temp check is to calibrate what best serves Gitcoin’s mission at this crossroads.

Intro

Over the last few months, the conversation about “founder mode” has bubbled up across the tech ecosystem. Paul Graham has written about it, Brian Chesky has evangelized it at Airbnb, and there’s been plenty of praise and criticism in between. Founder mode is loosely defined as a leadership style where the founder remains deeply involved in product, vision, and culture, bypassing the clean org chart abstractions of “manager mode.” It can mean showing up in the details, making direct calls, and anchoring the team’s energy around the founder’s vision.

At Gitcoin, I’ve tried to balance multiple hats over the years: steward of the mission, convener of community, and contributor to the product/protocol. In the 1.0 era, it was a company and I was in founder mode. In the 2.0 era, we attempted to decentralize that role. We’ve shifted toward distributed stewardship and decentralized governance. That’s healthy and necessary. But we also saw a lot of value destruction (look at GTCUSD, our inability to build a software business/consistently ship market leading software, also the recession of Gitcoin as a leading brand in the market). During this era, I found myself frustrated by the inability to enact changes within/across the organization when I saw it was failing in market. At the same time, the people with whom I tried to work with became frustrated with me and (in some cases) tuned me out because they knew I believed in decentralization and lacked the formal power to force change.

It looks like the vote to ratify me as Executive Director of Gitcoin is going to pass. So this raises a live question for me, and for us: is there value in me operating in “founder mode” inside Gitcoin’s current phase?

Some tradeoffs worth surfacing:

  • Pros of founder mode: clarity of vision, faster decision-making, re-anchoring to the core mission, direct accountability.
  • Cons of founder mode: risks of over-centralization, founder bottlenecks, potential clash with decentralized governance values, and the optics of reverting to “person over process.”
  • Context today: Gitcoin is in some ways still a fragile early-stage startup, but in other ways it is a maturing ecosystem. But we are also at a crossroads — moving from Gitcoin 3.0 → 3.2, iterating on Allo, and refining how domains operate. The cost of diffusion is real. The cost of founder re-insertion is also real.

I think some ways we could mitigate those concerns

  1. I put all of the (non-PII) information I have / all of my agenda on the forum to prevent information asymmetries from developing.
  2. I form a steward council of individuals with high context and high character who serve as a check/balance on me in founder mode.
  3. Time limit my founder-mode (say, for 12 months, or 3 GG rounds)
  4. Something else I’ve not thought of.

So I want to bring this question to the community as a temp check:

  • Would Gitcoin benefit from me stepping more directly into “founder mode” (value creation, vision anchoring, product detail involvement)?
  • Or is the higher-leverage move to remain primarily in “manager mode” or “steward mode” (supporting domains, coaching, and keeping power distributed)?

So what should it be? I think these are the options.

  1. Full Founder Mode
  2. Full Steward Mode
  3. Something in between (comment below)

I’m committed to what best serves Gitcoin’s mission and ecosystem long-term, not to any personal ego role. Your feedback here will help me calibrate.

Thanks for reading and sharing your perspective.

— Kevin

Founder Mode Definitions

1. Paul Graham’s Original Definition

  • Origins: Coined in a September 2024 essay, Paul Graham (co‑founder of Y Combinator) introduced “founder mode” as a contrasting approach to the conventional “manager mode” used to scale companies (paulgraham.com).

  • Core Concept: Founder mode emphasizes deep, hands-on involvement—even bypassing organizational structure. Think skip-level meetings, direct engagement with employees at all levels, and not treating organizational charts as boundaries (paulgraham.com).

  • Why It Matters: Graham observed that the advice “hire good people and then step back” often fails—leading to “professional fakers” diluting the founder’s vision. He argues founders possess qualities and insights that managers simply lack (paulgraham.com).

  • Still Evolving: He acknowledged founder mode isn’t fully defined yet—no textbooks teach it. It varies based on individual company dynamics and grows murkier as organizations scale (paulgraham.com).

2. Brian Chesky and Airbnb’s Interpretation

  • The Catalyst: Chesky’s influential talk at YC inspired Graham’s essay. He criticized the “manager mode” model, which failed at Airbnb, and adopted a style more like Steve Jobs—deeply embedded in product and decision-making (Wikipedia).

  • Details Matter: Chesky clarifies that founder mode isn’t micromanagement, but being the Chief Product Officer, fully invested in product details and deeply aligned with vision and execution (The Verge).

  • Practical Advice: Chip Conley (ex‑Airbnb) recently shared how to work with a founder in founder mode: align decisions with broader strategy, avoid rigid slide decks—be adaptable and context-aware in communication (Business Insider).

  • Vision Beyond Product: Chesky’s version also translates to obsessively design-oriented leadership—expanding Airbnb’s platform into services and lifestyle offerings through detailed oversight (The Wall Street Journal).

3. Broader Definitions and Critical Perspectives

Other Thought-Leadership

  • Marty Cagan (SVPG): Refines the idea beyond just founders—describing it as a passionate, engaged leadership style. This contrasts both with the delegation-focused manager mode and the heavy-handed micromanager notion (Silicon Valley Product Group).

  • Amir Shevat (Medium): Acknowledges the power of founder mode as situational (“war-time CEOs,” early stages), but warns it’s not a long-term strategy—arguing for sustainable leadership and culture over perpetual founder intervention (Medium).

Critiques & Cautions

  • Some say founder mode glamorizes micromanagement and ego-driven decisions, and may not be sustainable—or accessible—to everyone, particularly women leaders (Wikipedia, Business Insider).

  • Studies show founder-style leaders bring strengths like creativity and drive, but also weaknesses—difficulty replacing themselves, resistance to structure, and poor adaptation to scale—suggesting a hybrid approach may be necessary (Wikipedia).

4. Owockis take

from this tweet:

GWelYTQWYAAVhPV| 690x345
GWelYTQWYAAVhPV| 690x3451600×800 97.1 KB

5. Summarizing the Differing Views

Perspective Core Idea
Paul Graham Founders operate differently—engaging directly, bypassing hierarchy, creating radically hands-on leadership.
Brian Chesky / Airbnb Founder role = chief product visionary; deeply involved in execution and detail. Adaptability and cultural design are key.
Marty Cagan / SVPG Passionate engagement can be taught beyond founders. Leader’s involvement is about vision, not control.
Critics / Thought Pieces Founder mode risks burnout, central dependency, and toxic leadership. Sustainability and team autonomy matter.

So when someone asks “What is founder mode?”, it could mean:

  • Graham’s concept: a macroscopic lens on founder-specific leadership style, rejecting delegation as the default.

  • Chesky’s practical lens: staying close to product and detail, modeling leadership after Jobs.

  • As a broader mindset: engaged and mission-driven leadership that goes beyond “just managing.”

More links:

6 Likes
2

Yes. If we want to scale funding what matters to Billions of $$ a year, we need those capable of steering the orgs in this direction to lock-in and lead our collective actions.

As the industry becomes increasingly competitive and result-driven, and the World’s largest problems are increasingly underfunded, now is the moment to go all-in.

What governance or other changes would you need in practice to go Founder Mode?

3 Likes
3

Thanks for putting this out so openly. From my limited but meaningful experience working alongside you, I’ve noticed that the times when you’ve leaned into founder mode were when the most got done. That energy of directly shaping product, pushing vision, and rallying momentum is something unique to you and something I think Gitcoin could really benefit from at this stage.

It will give you more space and clarity to set the vision and also delegate effectively. I think that’s exactly what’s needed right now.

2 Likes
4

Sounds great! I believe a new hybrid founder hyper beast mode approach is crucial for Gitcoin. It combines the intense, hands-on energy of hyper beast founder mode with the distributed stewardship, coaching, and governance of steward mode, creating balance and strength. This blend brings clarity, momentum, and accountability while empowering community leadership and decentralized decision-making.

Using hyper beast founder mode energy in focused, time-bound bursts alongside strong stewardship builds a resilient and adaptive ecosystem. This approach prevents bottlenecks, burnout, fragmentation, and delays. It’s not about fully returning to founder mode or staying in steward mode but about combining visionary leadership with distributed autonomy, aligned with Gitcoin’s mission and suited to its challenges.

1 Like
5

As someone on the outskirts, I believe founder mode is the answer but the naming is a bit simplistic and misleading.

What I see as valuable (from a decade obsessing about organisation design and human collaboration):

  • those with vision drive forward, developing a vision but also spend time getting A LOT of input and feedback so others understand. A vision without broad understanding is pointless. Getting ratification on vision is key as buy-in is critical.
  • Same as above with strategy (visioning and strategy are two different skills)
  • The above two fail when there’s no clear decision-making method to ratify things and when those driving them don’t have the tools to get input/feedback quickly. Also fail when the community gets stuck looking for perfection as opposed to action. Note in the second case, I believe it’s best to power through and lose people along the way (enable them to fork/ragequit gracefully is the best approach IMO. I have often not been as garcious and they still hound me…)
  • Getting involved in details is critical for the vision to take hold, so all in for “the source” to be engaged directly on details and “micromanaging” as needed.

The key thing is not having an organisation design that’s monolithic and where everything depends on the source. Haier is the example I reference all the time where they don’t have a massive org depedant on founder vision but founder vision enables a paltform where many visions and visioners are empowered to move fast and thrive. RnDAO also follows this design and is one of the bets decisions I think we have made.

1 Like
6

I’m in favor. Having someone passionate about Gitcoin who can give clear direction and reduce the coordination tax is positive for the organization imo.

7

@owocki has years of experience with proven leadership. So this is amazing. :man_mage:

8
  • Build (start centralized)
  • Grow (begin decentralizing)
  • Spread ( peak )
  • Learn from mistakes (start re-centralizing)
  • Build (the cycle continues)

What i mean? That its cycle. And that looks good time to collect feedback, learn from mistakes and “rebuild”.

Great ideas to experiment.

Yeah, some mix between it

Yeah that why my diagram cycle in the beginner, that its part of it, the ego driven, that can be good or bad, depending of the maturity of the person.

That same question i have, hear in the tweet /sodofi_/status/1830683989201604887 anwering you about Teal framework at Celo, what do you thing about?

Agreed it.

9

PII = Personally Identifiable Information

The wording should include confidential, potentially market moving, sensitive or otherwise private. It is pretty much common sense.

I personally like founder mode, moving fast, executive decisions as executive director. While still adhering to decentralisation principles, building in public, open-source from the ground up.