Maybe startup hiring isn't a talent problem at all.

A few days ago I asked how people evaluate potential before someone has the resume to prove it.

The responses were interesting.

Some people argued for proof of work.

Others argued for peer validation.

Others said good founders should simply talk to candidates and understand how they think.

What surprised me was that almost nobody argued that resumes or traditional interviews are particularly good signals.

The disagreement wasn't about whether hiring is broken.

It was about what should replace the current signals.

That got me thinking:

Maybe startup hiring isn't suffering from a shortage of talent.

Maybe it's suffering from a shortage of trusted signals.

Founders are trying to answer:

"Can this person actually execute?"

Builders are trying to answer:

"How do I prove that before someone gives me a chance?"

Curious where people stand on this.

If you could redesign startup hiring from scratch today, what would be the primary signal?