I'm curious why you call the first one cryptic though? It seems the opposite to me: it refers to all the elements by their actual, real-cryptocurrency-world names. To me, "cryptic" would mean that it abstracted away from all the actual terminology used, and just describes it in terms of pure mathematical finance, which would be cryptic since you'd be left wondering, "uh, what is this referring to? Is this an actual thing?"
I also don't see how it works as a recruiting tool. This is a space that involves exploiting domain knowledge, and it's trying to bring in expert outsiders who just haven't yet used their analytical expertise in this domain. But tweets heavily depend on you already knowing how all these protocols work (e.g. what staking/minting/gauge weight mean). Such a person, if an expert analyst as well, would already be working in the field or exploiting that knowledge themselves, and you wouldn't be plucking such diamonds out of the Twitter rough.
https://twitter.com/galois_capital/status/148693794923729715...