At first blush, this looks like new lipstick on the old pig of the venture studio. The issue with venture studios is the same as with corporate "intrapreneurshi

At first blush, this looks like new lipstick on the old pig of the venture studio. The issue with venture studios is the same as with corporate "intrapreneurship" -- lower rewards and lower risks. Savvier founders will be more capable of either hiring the right talent and upselling equity, or having access to enough cash to hire the right talent outright. Consultants won't mind additional free leads, but good ones will do just fine without. So, the unit economics just don't work out as well for savvy founders or consultants, so you end up creating a market for lemons. The problem with this model is that consultants will want to be paid in liquid cash, companies will want to pay in illiquid equity, and someone would have to step into the middle and establish valuations and liquidity. This is the bigger problem with the increasing illiquidity associated with VC funded startups. Savvier would-be employees or consultants risk adjusting shares even further towards the direction of worthlessness and insisting on cash. With that said, perhaps the main silver lining I see here is of VCs playing a role in creating some kind of liquidity for shares. By establishing a three party transaction like this pegging exchange rates between hours of labor, shares and dollars, they're setting at least a stated valuation that allows companies to pay with either shares or cash to prospective employees and service providers, with the risk underwritten by the VC.