In Web3, everything moves fast but building strong teams still takes intention. Marine Sully, who’s helped shape the culture and people systems at LI.FI and Arweave, shares a refreshingly honest take on what scaling really looks like behind the scenes. From why traditional HR frameworks often don’t fit, to how early ops infra prevents burnout later, this conversation covers what most startups overlook, until it’s too late. Whether you’re hiring your first 10 or your next 100, Marine’s insights are sharp, grounded, and instantly actionable.
You’ve built people and hiring systems at Web3 companies like LI.FI and Arweave. What’s different about scaling teams in Web3 compared to traditional startups?
Web3 culture often emphasizes transparency, ownership, and autonomy. Teams are flatter, people expect access to leadership, and they want to move fast without a lot of overhead.
Speed hits differently in this industry. I used to think I knew fast-paced until I joined Web3. This level of speed also reshapes what ownership means. You need to be okay with chaos, and comfortable running solo and execute from A to Z. That level of autonomy can be exhilarating, but it’s also a filter. Not everyone thrives in it.
Work-life balance also looks different in this space. People are chronically online. For some, there is no work-life separation, and that’s okay for them. The usual well-being frameworks don’t always apply here. Instead of forcing one model, I try to meet people where they are and support them in ways that actually match how they want to work and live.
In Web3, anything that feels even remotely “corporate” is immediately met with resistance. If it smells like bureaucracy, people will push back. So you need to be thoughtful in how you introduce structure, it has to feel natural and adapted to the culture of your team. There’s no one-size-fits-all. It’s all about the narrative.
I also have this unproven theory that Web3 tends to attract more neurodiverse people, which makes communication even more critical. You have to be extra intentional - make things concise, clear, engaging, and easy to digest - or they’ll simply tune it out.
At LI.FI, you rolled out both an ATS and a full HRIS - which most early-stage crypto teams delay. Why do you think people ops infra is so overlooked, and what does that cost later on?
I think overall operations (not just people ops infra) is overlooked because it’s not urgent until it is too urgent. Founders and teams are juggling hundreds of urgent priorities, and tend to see operations as a “nice to have” rather than a must-have. They want to be lean, and avoid unnecessary tools. But when you're the one handling all the hiring, tracking, follow-ups, scheduling, you start to feel the pain quickly.
A lot of early teams operate with this myth that "we're too small for process" or “we are a startup, we do not need processes.” But process is about clarity. Ignoring people ops infra makes it harder to identify issues early. Without good systems, you don’t know who’s performing, who’s blocked, or where things are breaking culturally. And by the time you do, it's usually already a problem.
At LI.FI, setting that foundation quite early meant we could scale without (too much) chaos. We could focus on how we grow, not just how fast. It also helped us create a better candidate and employee experience; which in Web3, where competition for talent is high, makes a real difference. The key lesson for me is: don’t wait until things break. The longer you delay building infra, the more expensive it gets - not just in time or tools, but in trust, burnout, and broken communication. It’s much easier to set things up for 20 people than to untangle a mess when you’re already at 60 or 100. Foundational ops aren’t overhead, they’re leverage. Be proactive, not reactive.
You’ve been both an operator and a freelancer. What are some things you can see clearly from the “outside” that internal teams often miss when it comes to hiring or culture?
When you’re external, you’re not as emotionally invested or stuck in internal politics, so you can ask the questions that no one else is asking.
You see that culture is not built in offsites but in the day-to-day operations: how feedback is given, how decisions are made, who’s in the room, and how people talk to each other. I think a lot of teams become overly protective of their culture - they want to hire people they could grab a beer with. And while “vibes” are important, that mindset can be limiting. Every new hire should bring something new. That’s how your culture evolves and improves. Culture shouldn’t be preserved in a glass box, it should evolve.
Most teams are reactive. They wait for problems to explode before addressing them - whether it’s a hiring bottleneck, a performance issue, or a cultural misalignment. From the outside, those red flags are obvious much earlier.
Internal teams get used to working around someone instead of having hard conversations and end up sometimes normalizing underperformance. Maybe someone who was great at 0–1 stage is not as effective now that the org is 50+ people… And of course, with the years, they become your friends, and you don't want to have this conversation with them.
I also think internal teams sometimes just accept how things are and start normalizing dysfunction. “That’s just how it is here” becomes the norm. Being an outsider lets you challenge that without baggage, and sometimes, that’s exactly what teams need.
You implemented performance reviews and learning frameworks at LI.FI. How do you approach “career growth” in Web3, where teams are flatter and roles often fluid?
We don’t have a fully mapped-out framework yet, but we’re working on building one. Still, even without formal career pathing, we’ve seen people move into new roles, new functions, and leadership positions. In the meantime, we’re helping people grow by giving them opportunities, context, and consistent feedback as much as we can.
In Web3, roles evolve, teams shift, priorities change overnight. So the first step is being honest about that. We don’t promise traditional promotion paths; but we do commit to growth, feedback, and skill-building. Some people grow by taking on cross-functional projects. Others want more depth in their craft. The key is knowing what each person wants and helping them move toward it.
Staying engaged is everything. Know what people want, what motivates them, and where they want to grow. Then involve them in the right projects and conversations. Transparency is crucial: let them know when roles are opening, what we’re hiring for, and give them the opportunity to raise their hand.
It doesn’t have to be complex. Just showing that you’re thinking about their future (and creating space for those conversations) goes a long way.
You’ve helped build some of the early team scaffolding at LI.FI - buddy systems, surveys, onboarding flows. What’s one initiative that had surprisingly high ROI?
This is still a work in progress. Tracking ROI in People Ops is notoriously tricky, but I focus on signals of engagement: Are people showing up? Volunteering? Giving feedback? Are they excited?
Two initiatives I’m really proud of: onboarding surveys and our buddy program. Surveys give people a space to share honest feedback - and when they see someone actually listens and responds to that feedback, they start trusting the process.
The buddy program has been especially impactful. It’s a simple idea: pairing new hires with someone outside of People Ops. We’ve intentionally made it cross-functional, so people got exposed to teams and projects they wouldn’t normally interact with. It helped build empathy and relationships early. Especially in a fully remote team, it gives people a human connection from day one and breaks down silos. What made it work was treating it as more than just a check-the-box task. We gave buddies a light framework, encouraged casual calls, and checked in with both sides afterward. It didn’t cost anything (just time and intention) but it created a real sense of belonging early on.
As someone who's worked across different org types - from Techstars to early-stage startups - what’s one pattern you’ve noticed about teams that scale well?
Honestly, most startups struggle with the same core issues: reactive behavior, lack of proactivity, underperformance that lingers too long, poor documentation, and systems built way too late. People make assumptions instead of talking to each other. I don’t think it’s about people not caring; it’s that everyone’s moving so fast, they don’t make time to pause, reflect, and lay the foundations.
The companies that scale well? They tackle those things before they become cultural debt. I haven’t yet been at a company that scaled really well. I’ve seen examples from afar, but not up close. I think it starts with doing the basics right: communicating well and proactively, investing in people, building systems before you desperately need them, and investing in clarity early. Not process for process’ sake, but clarity about how decisions are made, how feedback is given, what success looks like, and what behaviors are rewarded. They’re not afraid to say, “This isn’t working anymore,” and change course. That humility goes a long way. Teams that scale well are intentional, even if it’s messy at first.
