Investment matching
We do not sell introductions.
We earn the right to make them.
When we put your name in front of an investor we know, our reputation rides along. So we only do it for founders we have actually built with and whose one number is moving. That is not a gate to keep you out. It is the reason the intro is worth anything at all.
A warm intro is not magic. It is a credibility transfer. If the person sending it has not seen you operate, has not watched the product under pressure, and cannot explain why now is the right time, the intro is mostly a forwarded deck with nicer wrapping. Investors can smell that in eight seconds.
The rule
We only introduce founders we have built with.
The build comes first because building exposes the truth quickly. fast we see how you make decisions, how fast you answer hard questions, whether the team owns the messy details, and whether there is a real workflow under the pitch. A deck can hide those things. Shipping cannot.
Our incentive is simple. If we introduce weak fits, investors stop taking our calls. If we wait until we have evidence, the intro carries weight. We are not a broker, a pay-to-play network, or a list of names. We are a builder that sometimes has enough conviction to say, “You should look at this founder.”
That constraint helps the founder too. The best intro is specific: why this company, why this investor, why this moment, and what proof changed. A build gives us the raw material. The thing exists. The number moved or it did not. The caveats are visible. That makes the note shorter, sharper, and harder to ignore.
If you only want access, we are wrong for you. If you want to manufacture the proof that makes access sane, the build is the door.
Readiness
What makes an intro worth sending.
Before we send a founder to an investor, we look for six things. You can use the same checklist even if we never work together. It will save you from burning good names on a weak ask.
Not just a deck.
A demo, build, workflow, or product path someone can touch. Investors discount nouns and pay attention to behavior.
Already moving.
Cycle time, activation, retention, revenue, cost-to-serve, accuracy with a baseline. Pick the number the business lives or dies by.
No “happy to chat.”
Round size, timing, use of funds, and what kind of partner helps. Vague asks create vague replies.
The investor actually writes this check.
A seed investor, Series A lead, and growth fund judge different evidence. Do not make them translate your stage.
Clean enough to diligence.
Cap table, legal, cofounder alignment, customer claims, data rights. A fixable mess is still worth fixing before the intro.
Timing beats a polished memo.
A market shift, new distribution path, regulatory opening, or proof point that just changed. The note needs urgency without theatrics.
Warm-intro readiness
After a DPR build, at least one box should be easier to check: one number is moving on real work. That is the part we can help manufacture honestly.
Stage fit
Seed vs A vs B: what each actually expects.
Founders waste months pitching the right company with the wrong evidence. The bar changes by stage. A strong seed story can look thin at Series A. A good Series A metric can look inefficient at Series B.
A wedge and early signal.
Investors want a believable team, a painful narrow opening, and evidence that someone cares. The product can be rough. The insight cannot be.
Repeatable motion.
The question becomes whether early pull can repeat. Retention, sales motion, payback shape, and one number that compounds matter more than a crowded feature list.
Efficient growth.
Growth needs a machine behind it: unit economics, durable channels, improving margins, and signs a moat is forming. “Big market” is no longer enough.
The honest move is to pitch the stage you are in, not the stage you wish you were in. We can help with intros only when the proof and the stage point to the same story.
Contrarian take
One relevant intro beats fifty cold ones.
Spray-and-pray feels productive because it creates activity. It also teaches the market to ignore you. A generic note to 50 investors says you did not think hard about fit, timing, or why that person should care. The reply rate may look like a funnel problem. Often it is a relevance problem.
A good intro is narrow. It says: this founder has a working thing; this one number moved; your fund has a reason to care because of stage, sector, or thesis; and the ask is clear. That note may only go to three people. But each person receives a reason, not a blast.
Reputation compounds in both directions. Founders remember who sent useless names. Investors remember who sent unfocused companies. We would rather make one intro we can defend than fifty that make everyone poorer.
The same discipline that makes a build work makes an intro work: one workflow, one number, one specific reason to act. That is the hidden connection between the two offers.
Start with proof
Build the reason first.
If we build together and the evidence is real, we may be able to make the right introduction. If the evidence is not there, we will say that too.
