How can I assess if my java developer is doing a good job?

Yes absolutely. Depending on the needs of your service and database traffic, some chains are better than others to use. Steemit.com is a good example of blockchain, curation, filtering by users, with a built-in economy.

We have had good luck with both Survey Monkey and the survey tool built into Constant Contact

The best technology is whatever gets you up and running the quickest. You'll throw away the first iteration (and possibly the second and third...) anyway. What you need most in the beginning is to test your idea and get feedback, and you need it fast.

I've used outsourced services several times successfully. I don't think using geographic location is necessary a good indicator for outsourcing value. In my experience it depends on the type of service you are seeking. For example, I've used crowdsourcing services for logo and web designs and discovered creativity has no geographic boundaries. Neither is the skill level necessarily the only indicator for the best creative. Some designs have been submissions from design student or freelancers with no formal training. As for technical work, I seek service based on the following criteria: - technical competency and skills - communication skills - Process skills (to manage overall risk of project) - references from existing clients. Country is secondary to the above list.

If you and this person, *know* they won't be the CTO, then absolutely not. If there's an understanding that the engineer you are working with is going to "cap out" soon beyond the MVP, why would you ruin your cap table? This *should* help you get a reasonable amount of equity. http://foundrs.com/ The most crucial question is where this current contributor is likely going to be out of their element. Are they only front-end and have no back-end ability? If so, you really should raise (from a friend or family member) or borrow the money necessary to pay this person a reasonable cash rate. If on the other hand, they can take a successful MVP and build a reasonable back-end but will cap out on scaling it past 100,000 users, or for example, you're an enterprise company and you know you'll require a technical person to be part of closing early sales, then it's ok to give up meaningful equity. But another key question is: Are you ok to let this person define your company's engineering culture? If this person isn't capable of or comfortable managing your tech team in the early-days, this person should have no more than 10% equity. Of course, your shares and theirs (whatever you decide) should be subject to a vesting agreement (minimum 3 years and preferably 4). It's easy to give away equity when it's worth very little but as I've said here before on Clarity, imagine your company today being worth $100,000,000. Can you imagine this person contributing $20,000,000 worth of value to achieve that outcome? $30m? $50m? Here's the thing though. If this person can grow into a CTO, and wants the chance, and there's no warning signs that it will be a tough slog for them to get there, and they're a passionate believer in what's been built to date, then it's entirely reasonable to bet (with equity) that they can get there. I know a lot of CTO's of great Series A and beyond companies with amazing traction that started off as lacking a lot of the criteria of a great CTO candidate. This is an area I've helped coach a lot of startup CEOs through and have experience in myself. Happy to talk through in a call to understand the specifics of your scenario and provide more detailed advice.