Yes, the good old spec work. I believe we can do better.

—

I’ve been a designer for almost 2 decades. I know the rules. I know what’s fair. I know what respects the value of creative labor, and what doesn’t. So, when a call went out for designers to submit spec work for a design challenge led by Octant, I knew I should have walked away.

But I didn’t. I went all in.

I researched each project. I developed full brand concepts. I created mascots, mood boards, landing page redesigns, icons, and merch. I spent real time, energy, and care on something that, structurally, was never going to value that investment. Why? Because it was still spec work.

So let me unpack this and then share a modest proposal for how the next challenge could work (spoiler: no one works for free).

Because I care about this space. Because Ethereum public goods matter. Because I'm a big fan of Octant. Because the projects they support are important and deserve better design. And because there’s still no real pipeline for them to get it.

We desperately need initiatives that raise the standard and visibility of design in Ethereum and in public goods. Octant taking action on this is incredible. And of course, some designers will find these challenges valuable for the exposure or practice, and that is valid. But I think we can do better.

To be clear: I believe Octant's team genuinely cares about design and had the best intentions with this challenge. Given a limited budget and time, they made a brave attempt to explore new ways of connecting designers and projects. That’s worth celebrating and encouraging.

And it’s also why I feel it's important to reflect on it. I want to see more design challenges in Web3, ones that genuinely support creative collaboration and value design as a profession. With this one, I told myself: 'This is for a cause I feel passionate about, and for projects I want to support. If I have time, why not take part?’

But here's the catch: challenges in this format are not raising the standard. They are flattening it.

They can unintentionally lower the bar by prioritizing speed and style over process and alignment. They ask professionals to gamble their labor for the chance of being picked, not based on process or dialogue, but on opaque, often entirely subjective preferences.

It’s not regenerative. It’s extractive. And it hurts exactly the people it's trying to uplift.

Spec work, short for “speculative work,” means doing design without a guarantee of payment, usually in the hopes of winning a competition, getting exposure, or being chosen for future work. It’s not new, and it’s not harmless. When designers are asked to produce finished work without context, collaboration, or compensation, everyone loses: designers, clients, and ultimately, users.

In the Octant challenge, the intention was good: connect public goods projects with design help. They deserve all the praise for their willingness to invest 4.33 ETH (around $11k at time of writing) towards this goal. But by setting it up as a traditional speculative design competition, they replicated a model that devalues our craft, no matter how well-meaning.

It’s bad because it skips essential parts of the design process. There’s no research, no deeper understanding, no feedback loops, no collaboration. Just surface-level outputs. Designers are shooting in the dark, playing the guessing game.

This setup removes the intentionality that good, meaningful design demands. And it can leave many participating designers scratching their heads as they stare in shock at what ends up being the winning design.

It also reinforces a harmful mindset: "Why pay for design when we can just run a contest and get lots of options for free?"

Design is not just about making things look nice or cool. It’s a problem-solving discipline rooted in process. When that process is bypassed, designers are reduced to decorators, not strategic partners, and we don’t just get weaker results: we undermine the role of design entirely.

I don’t regret doing the work. I’m proud of what I made. I had fun doing it. But I’m also naming the contradiction: I participated in a process that didn’t align with my professional values. And I’m calling it out not to point fingers, but to call us in.

Design is not decoration. It’s not optional. It’s infrastructure. And we should treat it with the same care, attention, and funding as we treat smart contracts or governance frameworks.

I also want to unpack the excuse I gave myself: “It’s for a good cause.” That felt like a justification at the time, but looking back, it doesn’t hold.

Good causes still need good process. Pro bono work should still be built on alignment, not competition. And no cause, no matter how noble, justifies models that normalize free labor or undermine professional standards. None of this needs to be solved by Octant alone; this can and should be a community effort.

But the whole process left me thinking: there must be better ways to build relationships with the creative talent this space so badly needs.

So, in the spirit of not just complaining but offering better alternatives, here's an idea for how the next Octant design challenge could be:

What if Octant played a matchmaking role, connecting the right designers with projects, and then paying them to execute focused sprints?

In this model, designers express interest in specific projects first. The most in-demand projects receive a budget to then work with two paid designers exploring distinct creative directions in a short sprint.

Same constraints:

• 4.33 ETH budget

• 7 projects in need of design support

• 1-week timeline

• Minimal effort/overhead from Octant and projects

But with the following format:

• Projects submit small briefs

  Projects fill a short template form outlining their design needs and goals.

• Open call for designers

  Designers fill a form, share portfolio link, and pick 2 projects they’d like to support based on the briefs.

• Top 4 projects selected

  The 4 most picked projects (by designers) receive a design budget of 1.08 ETH each (an incentive for projects to create clear, enticing briefs)

• Each project picks 2 designers from interest pool

  Octant can shortlist if projects are overwhelmed. Selected designers have a 20-min call with the project's team to align needs and vibes.

• Design sprint (3–4 days)

  Designers work independently and submit their solutions. Optional async check-in midway via 5-min Loom video.

• Final pick + payment

  Projects choose the best-fitting solution. Both designers get paid 0.45 ETH but winning concept earns a extra of 0.18 ETH for clean-up and delivery.

• Public outcomes

  Final picks and rationales are shared transparently. Both proposals are published.

TLDR: 1.08 ETH per project, each project working with 2 paid designers, winner gets a 40% bonus. With a slightly larger budget (like 7 ETH), all 7 teams can participate.

This format is fair, fast, avoids unpaid labor, promotes alignment, and produces stronger outcomes for projects without overburdening anyone. It does require more coordination and may not fit every context, but is still relatively simple to execute.

This piece isn’t meant to dunk on Octant or the projects. I truly appreciate the intention, the funding, and the community activation. I also understand the constraints.

We have a rare opportunity in this space to redefine how creative work is valued. Let’s not waste it using models that have failed designers elsewhere.

The next challenge could be different. And if it is, I’ll be first in line to join.

In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts. How would you run a design challenge that’s fair, fun, and effective for everyone involved: projects, designers, and organizers?

—

Ps: In case you're curious to see the work I've submitted to this challenge, they are here and here.

Yes, the good old spec work. I believe we can do better.

—

I’ve been a designer for almost 2 decades. I know the rules. I know what’s fair. I know what respects the value of creative labor, and what doesn’t. So, when a call went out for designers to submit spec work for a design challenge led by Octant, I knew I should have walked away.

But I didn’t. I went all in.

I researched each project. I developed full brand concepts. I created mascots, mood boards, landing page redesigns, icons, and merch. I spent real time, energy, and care on something that, structurally, was never going to value that investment. Why? Because it was still spec work.

So let me unpack this and then share a modest proposal for how the next challenge could work (spoiler: no one works for free).

Because I care about this space. Because Ethereum public goods matter. Because I'm a big fan of Octant. Because the projects they support are important and deserve better design. And because there’s still no real pipeline for them to get it.

We desperately need initiatives that raise the standard and visibility of design in Ethereum and in public goods. Octant taking action on this is incredible. And of course, some designers will find these challenges valuable for the exposure or practice, and that is valid. But I think we can do better.

To be clear: I believe Octant's team genuinely cares about design and had the best intentions with this challenge. Given a limited budget and time, they made a brave attempt to explore new ways of connecting designers and projects. That’s worth celebrating and encouraging.

And it’s also why I feel it's important to reflect on it. I want to see more design challenges in Web3, ones that genuinely support creative collaboration and value design as a profession. With this one, I told myself: 'This is for a cause I feel passionate about, and for projects I want to support. If I have time, why not take part?’

But here's the catch: challenges in this format are not raising the standard. They are flattening it.

They can unintentionally lower the bar by prioritizing speed and style over process and alignment. They ask professionals to gamble their labor for the chance of being picked, not based on process or dialogue, but on opaque, often entirely subjective preferences.

It’s not regenerative. It’s extractive. And it hurts exactly the people it's trying to uplift.

Spec work, short for “speculative work,” means doing design without a guarantee of payment, usually in the hopes of winning a competition, getting exposure, or being chosen for future work. It’s not new, and it’s not harmless. When designers are asked to produce finished work without context, collaboration, or compensation, everyone loses: designers, clients, and ultimately, users.

In the Octant challenge, the intention was good: connect public goods projects with design help. They deserve all the praise for their willingness to invest 4.33 ETH (around $11k at time of writing) towards this goal. But by setting it up as a traditional speculative design competition, they replicated a model that devalues our craft, no matter how well-meaning.

It’s bad because it skips essential parts of the design process. There’s no research, no deeper understanding, no feedback loops, no collaboration. Just surface-level outputs. Designers are shooting in the dark, playing the guessing game.

This setup removes the intentionality that good, meaningful design demands. And it can leave many participating designers scratching their heads as they stare in shock at what ends up being the winning design.

It also reinforces a harmful mindset: "Why pay for design when we can just run a contest and get lots of options for free?"

Design is not just about making things look nice or cool. It’s a problem-solving discipline rooted in process. When that process is bypassed, designers are reduced to decorators, not strategic partners, and we don’t just get weaker results: we undermine the role of design entirely.

I don’t regret doing the work. I’m proud of what I made. I had fun doing it. But I’m also naming the contradiction: I participated in a process that didn’t align with my professional values. And I’m calling it out not to point fingers, but to call us in.

Design is not decoration. It’s not optional. It’s infrastructure. And we should treat it with the same care, attention, and funding as we treat smart contracts or governance frameworks.

I also want to unpack the excuse I gave myself: “It’s for a good cause.” That felt like a justification at the time, but looking back, it doesn’t hold.

Good causes still need good process. Pro bono work should still be built on alignment, not competition. And no cause, no matter how noble, justifies models that normalize free labor or undermine professional standards. None of this needs to be solved by Octant alone; this can and should be a community effort.

But the whole process left me thinking: there must be better ways to build relationships with the creative talent this space so badly needs.

So, in the spirit of not just complaining but offering better alternatives, here's an idea for how the next Octant design challenge could be:

What if Octant played a matchmaking role, connecting the right designers with projects, and then paying them to execute focused sprints?

In this model, designers express interest in specific projects first. The most in-demand projects receive a budget to then work with two paid designers exploring distinct creative directions in a short sprint.

Same constraints:

• 4.33 ETH budget

• 7 projects in need of design support

• 1-week timeline

• Minimal effort/overhead from Octant and projects

But with the following format:

• Projects submit small briefs

  Projects fill a short template form outlining their design needs and goals.

• Open call for designers

  Designers fill a form, share portfolio link, and pick 2 projects they’d like to support based on the briefs.

• Top 4 projects selected

  The 4 most picked projects (by designers) receive a design budget of 1.08 ETH each (an incentive for projects to create clear, enticing briefs)

• Each project picks 2 designers from interest pool

  Octant can shortlist if projects are overwhelmed. Selected designers have a 20-min call with the project's team to align needs and vibes.

• Design sprint (3–4 days)

  Designers work independently and submit their solutions. Optional async check-in midway via 5-min Loom video.

• Final pick + payment

  Projects choose the best-fitting solution. Both designers get paid 0.45 ETH but winning concept earns a extra of 0.18 ETH for clean-up and delivery.

• Public outcomes

  Final picks and rationales are shared transparently. Both proposals are published.

TLDR: 1.08 ETH per project, each project working with 2 paid designers, winner gets a 40% bonus. With a slightly larger budget (like 7 ETH), all 7 teams can participate.

This format is fair, fast, avoids unpaid labor, promotes alignment, and produces stronger outcomes for projects without overburdening anyone. It does require more coordination and may not fit every context, but is still relatively simple to execute.

This piece isn’t meant to dunk on Octant or the projects. I truly appreciate the intention, the funding, and the community activation. I also understand the constraints.

We have a rare opportunity in this space to redefine how creative work is valued. Let’s not waste it using models that have failed designers elsewhere.

The next challenge could be different. And if it is, I’ll be first in line to join.

In the meantime, I’d love to hear your thoughts. How would you run a design challenge that’s fair, fun, and effective for everyone involved: projects, designers, and organizers?

—

Ps: In case you're curious to see the work I've submitted to this challenge, they are here and here.