sales business developmentcrypto sourcingdao hiringtoken compensationweb3 recruiting
Complete evaluation framework
What to assess and how to score it
Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.
01
Evaluation factor
Track record
35% weight
Ask for hire counts by role type (Solidity, Rust, protocol research, growth), time-to-fill, offer acceptance rates, and which chains or protocols the employers built on.
Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
Can describe a deal they lost and why
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.
2
Needs Improvement
Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.
3
Satisfactory
Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.
4
Very Good
Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.
5
Excellent
Names specific closed roles with headcount, fill times and acceptance rates, plus the protocols and token ecosystems those teams shipped on.
02
Evaluation factor
Method and qualification
25% weight
Probe how they source pseudonymous candidates: GitHub commit history, ENS handles, Discord and Telegram communities, ETHGlobal hackathon rosters, and how they qualify on-chain contributions.
Evidence to listen for
Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
Knows when to disqualify
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.
2
Needs Improvement
Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.
3
Satisfactory
Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.
4
Very Good
Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.
5
Excellent
Describes a repeatable crypto-native sourcing motion, screens for real repo and protocol contributions, and disqualifies weak candidates early with clear criteria.
03
Evaluation factor
Relationships and trust
25% weight
Test how they build trust with skeptical engineers and founders: explaining token grants, cliffs and vesting, contractor structures across jurisdictions, and honest talk about runway or rug risk.
Evidence to listen for
Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
Builds rapport across seniority levels
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Transactional; burns relationships for a close.
2
Needs Improvement
Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.
3
Satisfactory
Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.
4
Very Good
Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.
5
Excellent
Handles token comp and treasury risk questions candidly, keeps warm pipelines through bear markets, and cites candidates who referred others.
04
Evaluation factor
Drive and resilience
15% weight
Judge their response to volatile markets: hiring freezes after price drops, roles reopened, candidates ghosting for competing L2 offers, and pipeline rebuilt from scratch.
Evidence to listen for
Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
Coachable on feedback
Honest in how they represent the product and themselves
Five-point scoring guide
1
Poor
Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.
2
Needs Improvement
Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.
3
Satisfactory
Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.
4
Very Good
Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.
5
Excellent
Gives concrete recovery examples with numbers, kept sourcing volume through a downturn, and shows no dependence on inbound applicant flow.
Put this rubric to work
Score every candidate against the same standard
Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.
