contract

Attention over time

7-day rolling share of analyzed posts/comments mentioning this entity · 90 daily points ending 2026-10-14

Final complete day: 2026-10-14. Attention was 1.7% — this entity appeared in 15 of 883 analyzed posts/comments in the seven days ending that day (30 mentions).

Each point is a seven-day rolling window of complete UTC days; a point is comparable only when at least 100 analyzed posts or comments fall inside it. A day with no analyzed records counts as zero; missing coverage is marked and never shown as zero. The series ends at the latest complete analyzed day — it never extends into the current incomplete day. How attention is measured.

Recent mentions

1. 2026-10-14 17:29 UTCComment

   He’s trying to get the employee like contract with the business pay. If he wants to be a business , make his pay outcome based. If not tell him he’s an employee who spent too much time on social media

2. 2026-10-14 16:34 UTCComment

   Hire B or look for someone else. If you need to plug a hole offer B the contract deal as a short term solution with the clear announcement that it is for X months only. People issues are the worst to resolve and hurt the whole team. The only upside of A's offer is that a contract is easier to cancel but the terms sound one sided and they possibly will do multiple roles and see how far they can push it. Think of the rest of the team first. If A blows up how will it affect the rest.

3. 2026-10-14 15:48 UTCPost

   A nuclear startup is suing its own seed investor. Who's right? (I will not promote) - Valar Atomics, a nuclear startup, is suing one of its own investors, Day One Ventures, over its \~$1B Series B. Day One put in $1M at seed and $15M at the A. They own under 5%, but they have pro-rata, so they can buy into each new round to keep their stake. The new lead wanted the whole round, so major investors got asked to waive. Everyone did except Day One. Their contract had a spring-back: if anyone who waived got an allocation anyway, everyone's rights came back. One big insider was going to get one. So the day before closing, the majority voted the clause out. Day One says they offered to give up most of their allocation and Valar wanted them to give up every future round instead. I can see both sides. The lead wants to deploy the full check. But seed funds lose on most bets and pro-rata is how you double down on the one that works. If the majority can just delete the clause, I'm not sure what that right was worth. Where do you land on this?

4. 2026-10-14 15:38 UTCComment

   He drafted his own contract and upped his own rate, then lied about it. That should've already made you reject him right away. He's milking you and if he gets hired probably won't even give you the time you paid for. He's scamming both his new employer and you at the same time.

5. 2026-10-14 15:20 UTCComment

   A already showed you his hand, he'll jump the second a better deal appears and the contract reads like he's drafting against an adversary not a team