Why do crypto investment agreements rarely lock in founder full-time commitment clauses? It's a gap that VCs seem oddly comfortable with, even though it would address most misalignment concerns on their end. The logic is straightforward: requiring founders to dedicate themselves fully to the project reduces the risk of divided attention or founder exit scenarios. Yet these protections remain rare in deal structures. From the institutional investor perspective, it's a puzzle—such clauses could tighten governance and protect capital allocation. Of course, this mechanism does little for retail token holders, who remain exposed to founder actions regardless. The question worth asking: are we leaving obvious risk management tools on the table, or does the crypto landscape operate under different assumptions about founder commitment than traditional VC deals?