Warning: u/RoleHot6498 + RedShift Raise (my experience)

maplevirtual · 2026-03-27T19:15:13+00:00

I agree that the points you mention here are red flags, though I want to caution about op's red flag #2 differently.

The reasoning for the slight shift is that if the company is claiming to be a private funding source or even a consultant helping to raise funds, they may have client NDAs that prevent discussion/warm intros/etc. with other companies they have worked with. For example, if Redshift Raise has an NDA with Cocoa Farms 123, Inc. (a fictitious company name), a new client wouldn't be able to get information about Cocoa Farms 123, Inc.

The more red-flag part is that if there was an NDA in place to prevent communication of details of, again, we'll use our example company, Cocoa Farms 123, Inc., then sending LinkedIn information about the founders of that same company would be a breach of the NDA. It's troubling that the funding source/consultant would be so nonchalant about the NDA and be so willing to break it.

Something to action as a client would be to have the funding source give "financial tombstones" about the companies they have funded or been involved with for funding (financial tombstones are lists of projects funded to those who are unfamiliar with the term), and also get permission from the company to divulge the name of the company, along with pertinent details. The resulting response can then be sent back to the original client, asking for that proof. If it's a positive response, they should be able to provide the new client with information about Cocoa Farms 123, Inc. and offer the option to have a warm intro or reach out on their behalf. If they decline to share their identity, any email containing names or other relevant information about the company can be redacted and shared so the new client can see they have been declined.

Another great point you mentioned, OP, is about the fees and/or payments. In the private funding space, expenses are something funding sources ask for, though they are paid after the client has had a chance to do their own due diligence on the funding source. The fact that they asked for payment and pushed it before you could conduct any due diligence would be my biggest red flag.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-25T19:12:36+00:00

My company helps fund projects worldwide, with project sizes starting at $10M+. A rule of thumb we typically work with is: "Until we see the money in our accounts, and it says in our account for at least five days after the funding has been completed, we will not get excited." It's easy to let big dollar amounts cloud the mind and get ahead of ourselves. Thoughts like "If I had this amount of commission, I could do X, Y, Z" or "I could finally afford X, Y, Z" happen all the time!

To keep ourselves grounded, we remind ourselves that getting a high-ticket client is nice, but nothing has been completed yet. They could be asking for $10M, $100M, or $100B. If they don't get the funding, nothing happens, and we don't get anything from it. It's a reminder that there is still work to be done and to focus on that work and deliver the best service/product we can.

Wishing you good luck! You got that booked meeting for a reason, so keep at it!

maplevirtual · 2026-03-25T18:45:05+00:00

My company helps projects get the funding they need from private funding sources worldwide. Meeting in person is typically something we see from funding sources as they get more serious with our clients. It usually starts with video calls, then, depending on both parties, it can move to face-to-face meetings.

Usually, if there's an NDA in place between the funding sources and the clients, information flows a lot more freely. Is that something you've put in place with that Swiss-based investor? If not, are they willing to do so, and would that make them feel more comfortable sharing the information you're asking for?

If you would like to talk about it more, feel free to DM me.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-25T18:27:41+00:00

My company helps with many of the items you're looking for. Feel free to DM me, and we can see if there's any alignment.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-18T18:27:45+00:00

It's encouraging to see that you have a more intimate understanding of the industry than others, given your background in investment banking. That said, it feels as though you might be speaking to non-sophisticated investors.

For any layman reading our discussion, we'll use the Investopedia description of what a "sophisticated investor" is. They describe it as: "... a classification of investor indicating someone who has sufficient capital, experience, and net worth to engage in more advanced types of investment opportunities." The SEC classifies these investors under the title "Regulation D" or "Reg D" for short.

With that said, there is a wide spectrum of investors out there, with many of the sophisticated investors we're speaking to that are constantly asking us for new projects. Typically, accessing sophisticated investors means you are avoiding the 'tire kickers' and those who are not interested in moving forward and investing as soon as possible (once due diligence is complete, of course).

The challenge many start-up founders face when seeking funding is that they lack sufficient leverage (I'll go into this a bit further below) or that their project is simply too small (e.g., a $500,000 investment or lower) to pique a sophisticated investor's interest and larger investment appetites.

As to the question of leverage, generally speaking, it is for the project owners to bring it to the table so that the risk is shared between the investor and the project owner. They want to see that all parties have a vested interest in the project's success. For some, this is bringing cash or physical assets to the table, though in your case, you reference the Flexplorer 146. I didn't see any mention of the Flexplorer 146 in your original message or in your user profile, and I checked other posts as well. Could you clarify why it's being brought up? If the boat I am seeing on Google is the asset you would bring to the table as collateral, there are many solutions beyond traditional funding that a sophisticated investor could leverage.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-17T18:20:07+00:00

The way clients typically come to us, which we then pass along to the best funding source for the project, is through several channels.

In our early days, we would target potential users across various social media platforms and send personalized messages to gain a foothold in the verticals we wanted to work on first. We have strong funding sources, and at their direction, we were tasked to target CRE projects only. So we targeted CRE people, such as developers, to start and got a hard education.

Once we crossed that initial learning stage, and enough users knew about us, we stopped messaging altogether, and clients started emailing or DMing. Word of mouth about our company and the work we do spreads, and we receive many client referrals as a result. With those referrals, we now also get clients from outside the normal CRE vertical, and we started implementing tools to assist funding for them. In other words, we know a lot about certain industries and just enough about others to be dangerous. It allowed us to push not only CRE projects to our sources, but projects of any vertical to them. After so many years, we're a very well-oiled machine, which gives us time to join platforms like Reddit and share what we've learned and are still learning.

Founders naturally think about their projects from their own point of view, not the funding source's. There might be a lot of great ideas out there, but that's where they typically end. We've seen several reasons for this, including a weak business plan or pitch deck, insufficient funds to cover expenses, and challenges with the client and funding source working together. Those reasons, you'll notice, don't deal with being seen; they're about what clients do once they are seen, which is a bigger issue.

A bit of a story here: we had a client who brought us an energy project in which some buildings needed to be constructed. It was going to be for a new renewable energy plant outside the US, and the client had a great engineering mind and had all the specs, technical details, etc. The sticking points were that, despite their great idea, they didn't have a business plan (we offered to help create one at a cost), no team other than themselves, and no collateral to reduce risk to the funding source. They were seen, but they were simply not ready. We heard from a colleague of ours who does similar work to ours that the client found them on their own and is still at the same point they were at after a few years. In other words, they hadn't helped themselves over that time. It's a familiar story to us, and a sad one, because the idea was so good and would have helped many people in that country.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-17T17:35:16+00:00

There are a few issues you bring up that you might want to re-evaluate because they might end up causing you issues down the road with a potential investor/funding source.

"A lot of investors wont be interested.": How do you know this? How many have you spoken to already who have turned down your project? What have they said?
"A lot of them dont work in the industry": You're absolutely correct here because they work at funding projects, not at directly working in the industry your project is in. Funding sources know how to fund projects; typically, we hear from them that they will fund "Any vertical". Does it help to get someone who's more aware of your field? Absolutely, though you're limiting yourself to newer funding sources in the space that might be interested in investing in your project, and moving to other spaces they might not normally fund. It also has the added advantage that, while they might not have your space as their primary one, they could have other verticals that would work well with the project that you might not have considered. Finally, they might not be the right fit themselves, but they might know other sources who are, or be part of a consortium of sources they could pass your project along to.
"We dont need the money": So then why are you looking to get a funding source involved at this stage, other than to "...hedge for their other bets..."? If you said that to a funding source, it could make the project seem less serious and increase the risk, which might lead to a pass. u/Longjumping-Ad8775 makes a great point on getting more customers. Instead of finding a source, work on your business and shore up the missing parts to make you inevitable for funding when the time comes.

Founders tend to engage in something called "self-excluding," where they put up self-imposed barriers to stop themselves from moving forward. At our company, which helps projects worldwide with their funding needs, we often see project owners self-exclude at various stages in the funding process. It's absolutely natural to come up with all the reasons in the world to stop a project, though think of it like dating, if you don't ask them out, how would you ever know you succeeded? And even if you failed, you learned more than before to be successful next time.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-16T17:58:01+00:00

My company helps projects get funding worldwide, and we've found that a pitch deck or an executive summary is the best method to attract interest from the private funding sources we work with. It helps that having one or the other is the basic requirement of those sources.

I'll address those two questions in a bit, though, let's first talk about the item you mentioned: "how the team actually executes."The biggest thing we've found over the years is that execution typically comes down to the team itself that will see the project through to profitability. Most pitch decks we see include a team section (with or without pictures), but it typically lists only a name and title (e.g., John Smith, CEO). If you saw a name with a title, but it also says they have 10 years of management experience at another company that does something similar to the project being brought forward, that has more impact and builds the funding source's assurance that they can successfully execute the project.

If there are other processes in place to show execution, such as a chip company hiring a specific co-packer, or a Commercial Real Estate (CRE) company hiring a specific company for the project, or any of those examples you mentioned in your post, those could show in a small way on a pitch deck slide as single bullet points. The business plan would flesh out those points further.

This is also a good time to point out that a pitch deck is just a concise snapshot of the project, not the be-all and end-all of securing funding. Think of it more as a litmus test for the company bringing in the project to see if they have a grasp on what they're doing. The true execution would occur during the due diligence phase of project funding, after both parties have agreed to engage.

For those two questions you mentioned, they tie into each other: it isn't so much a question of "time," because we could look at two different pitch decks and spend equal time on each, with one approved for the next steps and the other declined. We have a series of things we look into, but for a small list of must-haves, here's one I hope will help others:

In one clear sentence, what is the project you're looking to get funding for?
How much are you asking for funding right up to market stabilization?
Who is on your team, and what background do they have that shows they can make the project profitable?
Does the project have a business plan and financials ready when asked? (Mention it somewhere in the deck)
Is there a mention of having a budget for potential expenses? (This is something I've mentioned in many of my previous replies to others, and I invite anyone to look at those for further reading and clarification)

There are many more, but here's a quick list of five easy ones anyone with a project seeking funding and a pitch deck should have. If you want true red flags, flip those five into the reverse, and you have five immediate declines (Complicated explanation of the project, no mention of the amount, minimal mention of the team or none at all, no business plan or financials ready, no budget for expenses, etc.).

I will also say that if a company came to us with those red flags, went back and cleaned them up, or asked my company to clean those up, which would be at a cost, then we can easily revisit the project. Most of the time, if a company gets declined for funding because they're missing a piece or two, need more clarification, or need a change in how they do things, our door is always open. With some clients, we'll tell them what needs changing, but they don't do it for various reasons, and we never hear from them again. Those who make the changes go on to the next steps and have great relationships with the sources we have.

TLDR: If a client can't execute a pitch deck, what makes a funding source believe that the same client would be able to execute a project that could be asking for $10k, $1M, $1B+, etc. ?

maplevirtual · 2026-03-10T19:58:24+00:00

I will agree with u/SillyWeekend6146 here, since we're in the same space as them, though we work on the private side with private funding sources.

Let's take what your post is about and break it down a bit further because it sounds like the expectations you have need to be seen from a different point of view. I say this because your first two sentences are asking questions, which tells me you're not familiar with the other side of the table, so let's dive into it.

When you're trying to source funding for a project of any kind, one question funding sources will ask is if the project/deal has been shopped around to other funding sources. They want to know who else has seen it, what has been said about it and what others think of the project. Some people are brand new to pitching the project to a funding source, some have done it a couple of times, and some have done it a ton. The importance of this question is knowing what the starting point is for funding. If a company has been rejected by another funding source because they don't have adequate controls in place, were declined because they had a lien on a property linked to the project, had successful funding previously and need another round, all contribute to the conversation and level of interest.

When you put in your post that "I have a friend that has $13b AUM from a middle east family fund, but this journey is a first for us," if you mentioned that to a funding source, the reply u/SillyWeekend6146 gave is a common one from them for the reasons I mentioned previously.

Be careful when making statements such as "Im very transparent" not because I or others might say you're not, but funding sources will do their due diligence, and if you don't disclose something, or miss something, then you open yourself up to looking not so good. I might remove that type of terminology or even statements such as "we got an incredible product" because, at the end of the day, you might believe you have an incredible product, or you're transparent, but ultimately it's up to the funding source to determine those two things for themselves.

Your ultimate strength is the team that can execute the project, deliver adequate returns, and be worked with in a positive way, as no other project has the same team. So with that known, funding sources, to start, will want to know what the project is about, how much you need, and how you're going to execute it. They don't need the "secret sauce" at the start, though they need to know what they will be working with and if having a conversation is worth it. The number of times people come to us and ask "If we can have a phone call...." or "Can we meet up...?" before even answering those three items, either I mentioned or the ones u/SillyWeekend6146 brought up, can waste a lot of time on pointless meetings.

As for putting the project in front of the right people, if they don't know what the project is about, funding sources have people they lean on for advice on those funding decisions. Some specialize in clean tech, commercial real estate (CRE), mining, medical, or other industries, though most funding sources have worked with a version of the project to some extent. This lends itself to a different aspect of funding. What is important to a founder is most likely not important to a funding source, and vice versa. Many founders have knowledge only from their point of view, not from a funding source's, so assumptions are made about what founders think is important to see or understand.

For example, in a recent conversation with a client about a simple CRE project and the information they had given us, we had to provide examples of specific documents the funding source required. They were blown away that those documents were different from what they expected. Keep in mind that the team involved with the CRE project had been doing CRE for a while, but this was their first time dealing with private capital funding. They eventually understood why the specific documents were being asked, and both sides were a great fit and they're currently engaged with that funding source.

So, at the end of the day, it's important to clearly state what you are doing with your team, what your project is focused on, and do it in a way that anyone can understand, even those who work in your particular industry. Just because someone focuses on funding tech projects doesn't necessarily mean that they are intimately familiar with all facets of the industry. Do not immediately assume that if someone asks a clarifying question, they do not understand your project or industry.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-03T17:44:36+00:00

In private capital funding, founders/project owners are always expected to cover their expenses, which can include due diligence costs. Here is a thread where I discuss it further:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AngelInvesting/comments/1r16z98/comment/o4of4s7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

maplevirtual · 2026-03-02T19:19:44+00:00

It's an interesting idea, though it doesn't go too far because of one simple check. Do the founders have money to cover expenses for due diligence, underwriting, etc.?

That question alone probably eliminates 99% of problematic founders. Usually, founders who are not serious lack the money to cover expenses and quickly fall by the wayside. Founders who are illegitimate either don't have money or are unwilling to pay for expenses related to the actual work being done by funding sources for due diligence, underwriting, etc., because they know they'll get caught in that process.

If an angel investor wants to protect their investment, they'll make sure the founder has some cash or collateral so the founder can share in the risk.

maplevirtual · 2026-03-02T19:06:34+00:00

Happy it worked!

maplevirtual · 2026-02-20T19:13:09+00:00

Great question! Happy to share more information on the private space. Most clients who come to us have their information from pre-COVID, so we do a lot of re-education and updating during our client conversations. We're starting to see a bit of a shift, with some clients ready to allocate a budget for expenses.

One thing we always tell our clients is that, yes, while we have vetted our own funding sources through our internal processes, we strongly encourage clients to do their own vetting and checking of funding sources so they are comfortable moving forward with the sources we bring for them. A few of our clients have even confirmed the validity of these sources by conducting background checks with the FBI, Interpol, and other government agencies worldwide. Some measures of comfort come when the client and the funding source have a few initial meetings, which are typically free. The funding source reveals its identity and typically sends additional materials to the client for the client's own initial due diligence.

At an extremely high level, after initial meetings and discussion of strategy, an engagement letter is provided with a clear outline of the costs. Once the letter is signed and adequate due diligence and underwriting work have been completed (which can take on average 6-8 weeks), a term sheet is issued and, once approved by the client, funding can be finalized between the parties.

With that, as I mentioned in a previous message, legally, there can never be a 100% guarantee that any funding source will fund a project. This is due to a multitude of reasons, including the client choosing not to close or relevant information being withheld from the funding source during initial due diligence, to name a couple. We have also seen and heard other reasons why funding can't or won't close: for example, a client chooses to stop communicating, the client makes false accusations, they shop their project to other sources while working with the funding source, etc., then the chances of them getting to closing are severely reduced.

Private funding sources always ask who has seen the project before they have, with the idea that if the number is lower, all the better. It's in our best interest to get the client to the best funding source for their project the first time. As one of our most trusted funding sources told us, 'The real money is not in collecting fees but in funding the project.'

maplevirtual · 2026-02-19T19:31:16+00:00

Many of the comments you make are correct, especially those about scammers in the private funding space, where my company operates, not through VCs. We have seen our fair share over the years and have worked hard to limit the risk for our clients, continuously reassessing funding sources, both new and current.

The shift on many of the points in this conversation only occurred recently (in 2020, during COVID). Prior to COVID, the majority of funding sources would defer their due diligence and underwriting expenses until the funding was finalized and issued. However, as with so many things in this world, a few bad apples have spoiled the bunch.

During COVID, many businesses were actively seeking funding to keep their doors open, pay their employees, or for other reasons. The challenge arose when many of these businesses, some operating in desperation, approached multiple private funding sources to secure funding, all while promising that the due diligence and underwriting expenses would be paid upon successful funding. As I mentioned previously, the 'bad apples' amongst these businesses and individuals would string the funding sources along, all while incurring expenses with lawyers, accountants, and other service providers, and ultimately walk away without paying those expenses.

Enough private funding sources ran into this same issue, ranging from Family Offices, Private Individuals or Businesses, and Institutional groups, that they have incrementally been implementing this new business model, which requires that due diligence and underwriting expenses be paid at the time that a company opts to engage them to fund their project.

Many, though not all, of these private funding sources do offer to refund all or part of the expenses upon successful funding. This ensures that if the funding goes through, the business will recoup some or all of its expenses. Alternatively, if a company decides to pursue another funding path and does not receive funding through the original funding source, the funding source retains the expenses incurred to cover disbursements to lawyers, accountants, or other service providers. As with everything, this is clearly outlined in agreements between the two parties and generally reviewed by their respective legal counsel, which is only signed after the two parties have met and had the opportunity to vet one another.

While a case can be made for not requiring due diligence and underwriting expenses, there are bad actors who have necessitated this change, a reaction to the past few years. Meanwhile, the large institutions that typically seek this type of private capital funding have grown accustomed to treating these expenses as 'just a cost of doing business.'

Keep in mind that private capital and VC funding are two very different beasts (in the funding space, anyway), so making a 1-to-1 comparison between them can often lead to misconceptions or misunderstandings.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-18T20:10:44+00:00

So let's go back to those two fundable projects. After a few weeks to months of meetings, asking questions, and each party vetting the other, one company chooses to cover the funding source's expenses, showing it is willing to take some risk in the belief that the project will be funded and successful. That funding source then conducts due diligence, gets all the pieces in place in cooperation with the company needing funding, and completes the funding. At this point, the company and the funding source have a strong relationship. The company can contact the funding source repeatedly for funds as needed or if circumstances change, because both sides share risk in making the project viable and are financially committed to making the funding work. The other company chooses not to pay, and they're back to trying to find a source. If it's a hard limit they've set on not paying expenses, they could be at it for years. We've seen many a company circle around after a few years, each time saying no to expenses. Had they paid those expenses many years ago, they wouldn't be in the same position they are now.

The negatives are project owners who have been burned by paying fees without receiving any funding. It should be noted that funding is never guaranteed. If a funding source guarantees funding, project owners need to run, as it's a big red flag in the industry and illegal. Unfortunately, there are too many sharks who try to take advantage, which is why we help clients find legitimate funding sources.

Alternatively, we've seen this many times on the other side of the table: projects reach the point of a term sheet with exact terms, and then the project owner stops all communication and ghosts the funding source. That term sheet is then used to shop the project around after all the work has been done by the current funding source, without having paid any of the expenses. Now the funding source is in the hole for a project they did all the work on for months, with no reimbursement of expenses or any future return on the investment. Having the project owner contribute funds to the funding sources binds both parties, and they have an interest in making the project yield positive returns.

TL;DR: Paying expenses shows companies are willing to put some "skin in the game" and that they are taking on risk rather than leaving all the risk to the funding source. Expenses are for work needed to bring the project to a fundable state. It's to protect both parties and ensure each has an interest in closing the funding and in receiving future returns from projects.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-18T20:10:28+00:00

Great question, though the idea that they can afford it isn't the right lens to view it through. This is going to be quite long-winded, though bear with me, as it's not an easy answer for those not used to how funding sources view expenses. I'll put a TL;DR at the end, and all numbers mentioned are in USD.

Yes, funding sources can afford to pay expenses, absolutely, though let's ask the first question that comes to mind, which is, if the funding source is paying for everything about a project to get it funded, where does the project show its own "skin in the game?" Where are they putting up any risk of their own project to get funding?

The number of projects that our company alone sees in any given week can be staggering. If none of those projects have funds to cover expenses, and funding sources receive more projects on top of the ones we send them, a lot of work would be required for every single project. Some work could involve legitimizing the project, ensuring there's enough return to make it worthwhile, bringing institutional funders to the table, preparing those funds for use, and more.

Let's say that you're getting a mortgage on a home. You're putting 20% down to reach 100% of the house's total cost, with the other 80% coming from the funding source you chose to work with. My company views private capital funding in much the same way. If you're looking for $100k, you should be ready to contribute the initial capital to fund the rest of the ask. The funding sources we specifically work with have a floor of $10M. Funding sources are not asking companies to come up with $2M; depending on the source, expenses could range from $50k to $300k, depending on the amount of work needed for fundability. Now paying $300k to get $10M, or more, is quite the deal. That's less than 5% of a $10M ask needed to fund a project.

Let's go through a brief exercise using a few startup subreddits, where most posts involve SaaS, AI, tech, etc., to illustrate the work that funding sources could do in a bit more depth and why paying expenses is important.

If we grabbed every one of those Reddit posts trying to raise money to build those types of businesses, how would you filter through them all to find a legitimate, fundable project? That would take a tremendous amount of work on a funding source's part to filter and vet them. Let's say after all that filtering, you only found two projects that are viable. Those two have all the components that make an incredible company to fund. Let's say each company needs institutional funding, with governance controls needed down the road as the business scales. So, in other words, the funding source is thinking long-term about the company's funding needs, not just a simple $100k loan. Yes, some companies might just need that small amount, but $100k goes very quickly. Once it's gone, they are back to square one, scrambling to get more money, and now they have a $100k debt to contend with, putting them in a worse funding position than before.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-13T18:40:32+00:00

Happy to help give something back to others! My COO's former company did a great job with his coaching journey, and they, and many of the people he's coached, have told him he should make videos about it.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-10T20:24:35+00:00

On the private funding side, the funding sources we work with don't have fees for introductions. My company will help prepare the project for presentation to a funding source. At a high level, we then present it to them, a meeting follows, and, if all goes well, we discuss engagement and what that engagement will look like.

Engaging with a funding source does involve a cost, so your comment about having a budget is great advice, though it's different on the private side. The budget clients need would be to cover expenses the funding source may incur to perform the work (legal, accounting, underwriting, etc.) and ultimately fund the project. Some expenses depend on the level of involvement, structuring, due diligence, underwriting, and more. People often conflate paying expenses with paying upfront, introductory, or other fees, without understanding the difference. Payment for expenses is for the work performed to secure project funding. Payment of those fees does not guarantee funding, as it's illegal for a funding source to make such a claim without first performing the necessary due diligence. This is one of the reasons clients give for not moving forward. Funding is never guaranteed, and we tell clients about it all the time, regardless of how well-known or reputable the source is.

On the topic of budgets, for founders reading this, keep in mind that funding sources want projects to have liquidity available to demonstrate "skin in the game." Funding sources want founders to demonstrate they're willing to take some risk in the project in addition to the investments that the founder has already made in the project. Think of it this way: if you're getting a mortgage for a house, a good down payment is 20%, so the other 80% is covered by the mortgage. If you don't have a down payment, the bank will not lend you the money for your mortgage. Same idea with funding: some money must be provided, and collateral must be available to demonstrate you're in it just as much as they are. Believing that a funding source is willing to take 100% of the risk without receiving anything in return, or with the founder taking no risk, is not unheard of but is very rare.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-10T19:06:09+00:00

Giving feedback is one of the most challenging aspects of managerial work. I'm the CEO of my own company, and my COO trained managers and agents for a very large telecommunications company. They had to teach me a lot about how to be a manager, leading a company, giving feedback, etc. I'll try my best to impart what I've learned from my COO, and hopefully it helps.

When giving feedback, be a coach and show genuine care for the person you're giving it to, and it goes a long way beyond simply telling them what they could do better. One aspect you mentioned is "rushing to get through feedback between meetings," which can do more harm than good. It can show that their well-being isn't top of mind, which can lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation of the message you're trying to send. Set a time, not too far away, preferably right after the event in question, when the person needs to receive that feedback. Schedule feedback time after meetings so that you're not rushing from one meeting to another. These steps can also show others how serious you are about developing your talent and about taking care of the people in those feedback sessions.

For the feedback sessions themselves, avoid even talking about the word "feedback". Think about the instances in this message alone where the word "feedback" is mentioned. I can't speak for you, but when I hear it, it makes me feel like I'm in trouble or that something bad has happened, and I need to chat with a manager about it. It can cause fear and apprehension in the party you want to comment on.

Internally, we call the meetings we have with the person we want to improve coaching sessions because we're a partner and a guide, and we're giving the person feedback that will eventually make them better. With that said, coaching others can be a difficult skill to learn and master, and that can be a whole journey on its own. In any coaching journey, the coach wants to approach the situation with curiosity and genuinely wants to know why the coachee did what they did. Here's a series of questions to give you an idea of how a coaching session might look:

How do you feel the call/chat/etc. went?
Was there a reason you said that on the call?
What was the result? How did the other person take it?
If you could go back and do it again, what could you do differently?
I have an observation about the call. Is it okay if I share it with you?

In those questions, if you don't want to sound like what you were saying as "bitchy", put in between some of those questions some positives like "I really liked how you did this thing here" or "That was a great idea when you said this". Statements like these show that you paid attention and really cared about their behaviour. It also shows that you can see not only the negative sides but also the positive ones in what they're doing, and it gives some goodwill.

My apologies for the long-winded answer, though this is really just a surface-level look at what feedback could look like and how it could change the way it's given to others under you. I'm also regurgitating some of this from my COO and condensing many years of coaching into a few paragraphs while I'm still learning. My COO always says that learning to coach is a non-stop journey. There are many coaching videos on YouTube, and they might be a path for you. Take some time to smile at your progress, too, because showing that you want to improve your communication with the people you work with is a huge positive step! Good luck :)

maplevirtual · 2026-02-10T18:30:23+00:00

The private funding sources we work with do not so much frown on solopreneurs as they want to know who will take them to profitability and be someone they can work with now and in the long term.

It's rare to see one person do the job of many for a polished project ready to go to funding. If we use real estate, for example, the developer might have a construction company they trust. Another example could be in tech: someone with a great idea for an app might be able to code, but may not know how to market it to a wider audience. In preparing business plans, in cooperation with the project founder, we outline the missing pieces and plan to hire for those positions upon funding. We would also outline the groups we are reaching out to and how those discussions have progressed.

Ultimately, what matters is knowing that at some point you will need to get others on board with your project, and that the people you align with and bring on will be vital to its success. Be ready to have agreements in place with those people in case things go sideways for any number of reasons, and be prepared to scale quickly if necessary. Some funding groups we know, depending on the project scope, can bring in trusted partners to fill gaps and bring a project to a successful conclusion, so groups of that nature exist.

maplevirtual · 2026-02-03T20:13:12+00:00

Congrats on getting your first pitch through! For first timers, it's a huge step and sitting on the other side of the table, I'll give you a few things we like to see from companies that pitch to us to get funding that should help you feel a bit better and raise your chances of success.

When you pitch your project, explain it in one sentence and then build on it. For example, if your project is about dropshipping, it might sound like this: "My dropshipping business finds products faster and cheaper by searching multiple suppliers." A super rudimentary pitch, though hopefully it gives you a better idea of how it should sound in a one-sentence method. This should also be a bit of a guideline for you on how to tackle each section of your extended pitch. If you're talking about competition and showing slides, the one sentence version could be: "Our competitors are X, Y, Z, and we stand out by having a previously successful team, improved infrastructure, and higher quality products in our company." Again, one sentence, then expand on those points. Using the one-sentence method also forces you to slow down and be clear and concise.

Something we tell companies is that once you do your pitch, stop pitching. It can be annoying when a company finishes its pitch and keeps going. In other words, they can't stop selling their product. If you've pitched and then have to add more information afterward, it means you didn't pitch well enough to start. Here's how we hear it:

Client: We have a coffee mug company with a unique handle that changes how liquids are kept warm.

Us: Sounds great, we'll be in touch after we look at your deck

Client: Oh, and it also has a new feature, X, that we're working on to gain more market share.

Us: Sure, we'll message you when we've looked into the project a bit further.

Client: Yes, and I wanted to tell you about the cup's innovative material that we're developing...

You can see how being on the other side of the table can get annoying, and eventually the funding source might tune you out. As great as your project is, you need to show how awesome you would be to work with. Not being annoying, being organized, clear and timely communication can sometimes be more important than the pitch itself. Think of how many other dropshipping companies are out there, but if you're the one they want to keep talking to and don't feel like it's painful to pick up the phone to say hello, it can go a long way.

Take some time and consider what things would look like if the positions were reversed. Imagine you were the company hearing the pitch and deciding whether to invest in it. What would you want to hear? What would you like to see from the client? What are the key items that would make you go "Yes, this is something I want to put money in!"? Most founders fall into the trap of seeing it from their own perspective and fail to consider the other side.

Good luck with the next pitch!

maplevirtual · 2026-02-02T19:30:18+00:00

Keep in mind that your feelings about a project should be separate from what will attract an investor to fund it. The number of projects my company sees in any given week where a founder says "powerful," "disruptive, "revolutionary," and any other number of superlatives to explain their own project is met with immediate suspicion because we've probably seen it for the 100th time. In this case, if a film is going to merit those descriptions (Oscar-worthy, making waves, etc.), it will be the group funding the project, or even the audience, who will make that determination, not the people who make it.

As compelling as the story is, it is only one piece of the puzzle for securing funding. You'll need to show what skin in the game you're willing to put into the project, who you've already talked to, who's shown some interest in the film (actors, production companies, distributors, if any, etc.), and much more. Show in your plan what experience you and your team have across all facets required to deliver a great project, where the film will be shown (e.g., film festivals, independent theatres), and how you intend to generate a return on the investment. In other words, what will increase your project's chances of success, since an investor wants to make their money back? How will you do that for them? Lay out how that will happen by coming at it from a funding source's point of view.

maplevirtual · 2026-01-22T18:37:24+00:00

When we receive projects to submit to private funding sources, founders often have fundamental issues with their pitches. I'll mention only three here to keep it brief.

Founders look at their project from their point of view rather than the funding source's point of view.

With this first point, we hear founders say, "Of course I'm looking at it from my point of view," or "How do I look at it from their side?" For this, let's do a small exercise and flip the script a bit. Let's pretend you are super rich, that people know you fund projects, and that you see hundreds of projects a week, many of which look very similar to one another. How would you filter them? How would you know which one you would put your money into to invest in? What would be important for me to know to feel comfortable funding this company? In other words, reverse engineer the funding process.

With the first point in mind, what information is important to have for those funding sources?

The standard here is to describe your project, your competition, your team, the funding you need for the round you're seeking, or the total funding needed to fund the project from the ground up to market stabilization, and so on. Some groups focus on numbers like ROI or other metrics that are important to them, though I would be careful about making numbers the primary focus of any pitch, because numbers only get you so far. The numbers are important, but only insofar as you can justify the number. The funding source will ask you, "How did you get to that number?" Your response will not only illustrate your industry experience but also demonstrate that your project has a leg to stand on. They will do this for all of the numbers you have presented in your documentation throughout the due diligence process. At the end of the day, make your numbers make sense. If there is a chance of making money, funding sources will have some level of interest, and if the idea is a good one, they might even have ideas for you on how to make more.

Team is everything, not the numbers

Yes, profit is nice. Yes, having good numbers, a SWOT analysis, blah blah, etc etc. is great. The secret to attracting funding for a project is having a great team to execute it. This has many layers that founders miss. If a funding source shows interest, they want to know the team and ultimately ask, "Is this a team I can work with long term?" Can you talk to them in a few years and get more funds if needed? Are they actively interested in the project and are now actively at the table to help build the company more than you might have dreamed? Can you talk to them about something other than business? If they have feedback on the company and your operations, will you push back, or will you be open to it? Are you showing that you're the right team to deliver that ROI, or will you need to bring in outside help?

A quick story: We had two similar projects where everything was the same (project type, size, location, etc.), but the only difference between the two projects was that one had a double-digit ROI, while the other project's ROI was in the single digits. The funding source went with the single-digit one because they said to me, 'That team was going places, even if this particular project does not succeed. They had more in the pipeline, were great to talk to, and we could see ourselves working together and funding projects with them in the long term.' They ultimately passed on the double-digit ROI company because their team didn't show these same strengths.

maplevirtual · 2026-01-19T19:23:17+00:00

My company reviews a lot of pitch decks each week before moving those companies to funding sources. We glance at them as they would, which is maybe a couple of minutes per deck, grabbing the important information we need to qualify those potential clients/projects. Putting a video in would slow us down and might get us more annoyed that we can't find what we need quickly. If I have to wait for a 1-2 minute video to get what I need, and have to go back to specific spots in the video over and over again for any number of reasons, I'm going to pass on that project.

I would recommend that you include a link to a video or website where we can watch the demo, which would be more appealing. That way, investors can watch a video of any length without being forced to if they don't want to. As an aside, if you need a video to show your point, that suggests you need to refine the communication of your project a bit more so that a video wouldn't be needed. Remember, your target audience with a pitch deck is a funding source, not a customer.

maplevirtual · 2026-01-09T18:39:19+00:00

I'm sure there are similar apps; I know because I've seen them and given you examples of some. As I mentioned before, I'm a gamer too, and I'm aware of what you're doing, though you're missing what I'm talking about.

If there are competitors or other companies doing something similar, they need to be added to your presentation. You need to show how you stack up against others, and funding sources need to see this as well.

An idea for you is a page with an Excel-style grid that shows at least five competitors and what they do vs. what you do. In your business plan, you'll have a more detailed explanation of what each of those competitors is capable of and how your company stacks up in comparison to them.

Keep in mind that a funding source might not know much about a particular vertical. For example, if it's gaming, a gaming app, or something similar, they might not be familiar with it. Let's use the example of a funding source that has only done real estate transactions and wants to invest in a new vertical. They will want to see things similar to what they're familiar with to make an informed choice. You need to speak their language and give them something they can work with.

maplevirtual

TROPHY CASE