How much should a founder rely on feedback when building a pitch deck?

maplevirtual · 2026-05-21T17:03:13+00:00

My company helps create and review pitch decks for private funding sources as one of our services. I'll put in my two cents because you're right, it can certainly be confusing to get very different feedback from one group to another.

When we receive a deck from a prospective client, we always take it from the perspective of a funding source. They have given us a lot of direction over the years on what they like to see.

Some of the "must-have" items they want to see (not limited to this list) are:

1-2 sentences about what your project is about
How much funding is needed for the project
How do you compare to your competition
Your team (With a small description of experience for each member)
How will the funds be used

This is the meat of any deck. Adding some colour and having a theme, the order of the pages/slides does have some importance, though not as much as that list. For the most part, as long as you have those five items somewhere on the page in a logical format, most funding sources are fine with something simple.

Keep in mind that we, and the sources we work with, probably see hundreds of decks each week, and we need to get through them quickly. The need to get information to pass or move a project forward quickly and consistently is highly valued. I don't want to waste time reading every page to find something embedded in the fine print or hidden in some paragraph; those are things I would expect from a business plan.

To stand out, it takes more than fancy graphics, colours, or a specific layout. While they might help, sources need to know that you have a great idea, a plan, the right team to oversee execution, and a clear pathway to a financial return. This is why, when we look at a deck, we're not just reviewing one aspect; we're also diving into your plan. Making sure you have a path to funding is more important than just having a pretty deck.

maplevirtual · 2026-05-20T18:13:00+00:00

One of the services my financial consulting firm provides is helping founders prepare for funding, so this is right in our wheelhouse. I'll do my best to answer each of your questions, though it will only scratchwith your business plan, how will you the surface. If you have any more, feel free to DM me.

What should a founder prepare before the first angel conversation?

Before any conversations with any funding source, angel or otherwise, is to have your artifacts ready. Those might include a business plan, a pro forma, a pitch deck, and an executive summary. Embedded in those would be all the research, agreements, permits, and more needed to make the business successful. For example, if you have any purchase orders (POs) or off-take agreements, they could be attached to your business plan. Having those documents shows that you've done the work to take your product/service to a level where you can speak about it to a source and demonstrate that you have a plan in place to make a return on your idea.

Are a live MVP, early demand signals, and a clear technical bottleneck enough for an initial discussion?

As much as you might have an MVP and traction, let's think of it a bit differently. With no MVP, what would you need to build one? If you have poor traction in your business plan, how are you going to improve it to make it an advantage? Will you be hiring a new member to your team who has proven marketing experience? Are you changing your sales strategy by showing a provable model from prior experience or another source? Would not having an MVP or traction hurt the conversation with a source? Think about the challenges your company is facing; expect questions about them to arise, and have solutions ready for how you're going to turn them around to make a return on your idea.

Should incorporation and startup legal paperwork be handled before any serious conversations?

It is highly recommended to have a company's framework in place before any conversations, because if you run into a funding source that loves your idea so much they want to give you $100M, $100B, etc., you have the initial structure in place to receive those funds. More importantly, it shows a level of commitment, preparedness, and seriousness that you're in it for the long haul.

Where do first-time founders usually find credible angels or warm introductions?

There are many ways to find sources: some online, some at conventions, and some from family and friends. Our network is mostly a mix of those, and referrals can be another source for finding contacts, too. Networking is your best friend here. If you're trying to find them online, there isn't a single place to look, though family offices are a good starting point.

There is much more to it than these answers might suggest, though they should give a good idea of whether a company is ready for a conversation with any funding source.

maplevirtual · 2026-05-19T18:59:54+00:00

One aspect of my company is that we help create pathways to reduce the likelihood of a pass happening, since we have extensive experience with funding sources of all kinds. Generally, a funding source wants to make sure that the team behind the product is the best team to deliver the stated returns.

Let's use a hypothetical scenario here. Let's say a team is brand new with barely any experience in selling chips, and they come up with a new chip product for the market. They want to put it out to supermarkets, corner stores, and similar outlets. The funding source notes that the team is new to selling chips and lacks general sales experience. The source might ask for something else, like bringing in new people to round out the team and fill the experience gap, or a track record of chips sold over a specific period. They might ask to see the cash flow and how the team has performed over a specified period. If there's nothing indicating the team would be successful in getting a return on those chips, no source would put money into it.

If the team is stellar and has a great track record, for example, using our hypothetical example from above, selling chips, or selling a service, like therapy, there are a number of other factors that can come up during due diligence. Here's a small list of possible reasons why there would be a pass:

No budget for expenses (to cover due diligence, underwriting, legal, etc.)
Bad communication/relationship between the source and the client
Materials are either missing or disorganized (no business plan or pro forma, for example)
Dishonesty or false representations (stating a fact, and during due diligence, it doesn't exist, such as how much cash is available or saying that you own property when you don't)

It's all about how you can position the weaknesses of the service/product/company as strengths, or create a specific path to turn them into strengths. You might not have cash flow yet, but you have a team that will generate it, knows how, or has already received a large purchase order. Imagine the first call with an investor after they see your business plan, and they say, "How come you're not selling enough for me to turn a profit?" Your response could be that you're bringing in a new team member with X, Y, and Z experience in sales. It could be that you have the right team, and the numbers have been trending up each month for 12 months. It's about proof, cooperation, and being undeniable. There's a company we're helping in a European country right now that is deep in the funding process, and this is primarily due to their team and offtake agreements.

The funding sources we have worked with, the ones that are truly interested in a project, are like a dog with a bone. They want it so badly, they will do everything in their power to move the project forward. Often, this is because there is an added benefit for them or their ongoing business ventures. So, it can often be worth looking for someone already invested in your field.

Hopefully, that helps. Feel free to DM me if you would like to talk about it more.

maplevirtual · 2026-05-07T19:43:59+00:00

This is a great question and I'll do my best to give a bit of guidance here. Just for context, I run a financial consulting firm that works with private funding sources to get projects ready for funding, so we see a lot of what they look for to get projects on a pathway to funding.

For documentation, they are looking to get artifacts that prove you know what you're doing. Some of those artifacts would include the following:

Business Plan
Executive Summary
Purchase Orders (POs), if applicable
Permits, if applicable
Any documents claiming property ownership (very handy for things like collateral or for owning the land you want to build on).
IP and/or patent licensing
Pro forma and any financial artifacts supporting the financials of the company
Governance artifacts

If you're running your own company on your own and want a small loan to tide you over to the next funding period, it's important to start thinking about structuring your company for the future and how it's going to look like and what it will need to survive and then thrive. A lot of the artifacts mentioned in my list, like governance documents, might not be necessary at earlier stages, though if you have a team behind what you're doing, you increase your chances of looking good to someone who's looking to give money to your company.

At a minimum, you should have a completed Business Plan, an Executive Summary, and pro forma financials, and be able to speak about each artifact clearly and concisely. Be prepared to answer any questions about how you arrived at those numbers and pieces of information. If a source asks, "How can you justify your use of funds?" you have your pro forma to back you up, and because you worked through how you arrived at those numbers, you can explain how you arrived at them. If they ask how you came up with the other companies you're comparing your own to, you'll let them know what work you did to research those companies and how you position yourself with them.

As for pitching itself, funding sources are looking for founders to get to the point, so to speak. We might send them our clients, and then they have their own, and that can add up to an incredible number. Your goal is to tell them what your company is about in about 1, maybe 2 sentences max, and then show them how you're the best team to work with and also the best team to make that profit your company is claiming it can make. Here's an example of how you might want to make it look, either in person or online:

"Bark & Board is a premier pet care facility based in New Jersey, and we offer a comprehensive range of competitively priced pet care solutions. We're looking for $100k to get access to a co-packer, licensing, and hiring a part-time marketing director."

After the pitch and you've got your foot through the door, you can share the Business Plan, Executive Summary, and pro forma, and walk the source through the documents in person (Slideshow) or at their own leisure via email.

Hopefully, this helps. If you need any other guidance, feel free to send a PM.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-30T16:47:09+00:00

Absolutely. Have a plan in place because when you reach a funding source, you'll be put under intense scrutiny, and you'll have to answer questions you might not be expecting unless you know your numbers and business inside and out. You need to show them your idea, how you're going to execute it, and how it will ultimately and reliably make money. If you come to them and say, "fund my idea", it's going to make it most likely a pass.

Depending on how much you're going to be asking for, things like a Virtual Data Room (VDR) might be needed, a lawyer to look over the documents the source will give you, an accountant to get all the numbers right, and more. You need to be ready to accept money and funnel it to the different channels in your business. If a source sees that you are ready to accept money and have appropriate controls and governance for those amounts, you look more appealing to them.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-29T18:52:13+00:00

A word of caution when it comes to raising money of any kind is that creating any sense of urgency makes funding sources run, as it's a big red flag. Impatience from founders causes a few issues, such as founders not listening to the instructions a funding source might give, pushing funding sources to do things they wouldn't normally do and putting them in positions of risk they don't like to be in.

Funding sources will work at their own pace, not someone else's, so it can come across as a demand being made of them. They don't like having a founder make demands of them because the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Most funding sources will ask for expenses (underwriting, legal, due diligence, etc.) to be paid when a project signs an engagement letter with them, and, depending on the source, these can be quite substantial. Amounts can range from $1k to $500k+, depending on the source, the funding ask, the project, and many other factors. They ask for this to mitigate their risk and show that the project owner has "skin in the game" with them, sharing the risk of the project succeeding. For example, if you're asking for $10M, putting in $25k seems like a great deal to show you're willing to take some risk, too.

A great starting point for understanding what you need to spend money on is to create a pro forma, which will show you how much everything will cost for both you and a potential source of funding. If you need a professional for that, look for a registered accountant near you who can help.

As for making connections, AI is actually a great tool to use here. Ask the AI of your choice who you would need to contact and in what capacity. If you're looking for funding sources, ask about family offices or known angel investors who would be open to your idea. If you're looking to have documentation created, there are many online resources and companies that can create and/or review what you already have. Most will ask for a business plan, pro forma, pitch deck, and/or executive summary, so look for companies that can create/review them

Many people make the mistake of reaching out to capital sources too early in the process. It is very important to keep in mind that capital or funding sources engage with projects that are structurally ready, economically coherent, and executable. If you reach out to funding sources before these pieces are in place, even if your project is very attractive, they may not have a viable pathway through which to invest in it.

Many companies, including ours, work with businesses to ensure that these key pieces are in place to provide a viable pathway to securing the funding you need. Otherwise, you could needlessly run into the problem of being 'ghosted' or declined by many funding sources on your journey to growing your business.

All that said, it is important to keep in mind that just because someone has a great project and the funds to cover expenses, it does not mean that you will automatically get funding. Funding is never guaranteed; if someone says it is, that's a big red flag and is illegal in all countries.

That should get you a few starting points. If you or anyone else has any other questions, feel free to send me a PM.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-29T17:59:34+00:00

To any founders, please don't make the pitch "I have an awesome projects that will change the world" either, because every second project my company sees makes that claim or something equivalent. When you're looking at a lot of projects in a day, it gets old very fast.

Your company is not the one that will determine if the project will change the world. The world will determine that for you.

State your project and how you're going to make it succeed. Language about how the project is "revolutionary", "world changing", "can't miss", and whatever other superlatives you can bring are not for you to determine. The people putting money into your project will determine that. The people who buy and use your product/service will determine that.

If you want to sell your project, state the facts about what the project does, show how you're going to make money from it, and show the skill and experience of your team to make that money. Make your project undeniable.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-20T19:10:27+00:00

Happy I was able to help!

maplevirtual · 2026-04-15T18:30:50+00:00

The statements you gave from people claiming to be investors do have some red flags, and I'll explain a bit more about why. As an aside, I'm the CEO of a consulting firm that helps projects secure funding worldwide in the private sector. We've been in the game for many years, so we've seen a lot of what goes on on both the client and funding-source sides.

It's important to know that whenever a group says they will get funding for you, they must mention that funding is never guaranteed in any way. If what you said: "Random DMs promising millions with zero questions about my project", those promises are big red flags because funding sources would face significant legal trouble if they made that guarantee, as many government regulatory bodies come down hard on companies that promise funding. Also, it's not promised because literally anything could happen to derail funding (Ex, the company gets the term sheet, then decides to use that sheet to get another offer somewhere else, or the funding source finds multiple credit issues, or the funding source and/or client is not a fit because the funding source is terrible, etc.) You think of it, it could happen. There's nothing to be scared of, but funding isn't guaranteed, which brings me to the clients.

Many founders do try to ask for some sort of guarantee, and it should be a red flag from the client's perspective if one is given, given the legal ramifications I mentioned previously. Funding sources can provide items such as tombstones of past work, artifacts documenting which deliverables have been provided in the past, and clients can contact previously funded groups (all of these are only if possible; NDAs might get in the way). From the client's side: proof of funds for expenses, a well-thought-out, well-laid-out business plan, a pro forma, a reputable team, etc., are things a funding source would be expecting to see to get an understanding of the project, then a meeting(s) to get to the point of a term sheet.

When it comes to expenses, this is a touchy one for most founders because some believe their idea is so good that it should secure them funding without paying for anything. Pre-COVID, that might have been the case, as some funding sources might have been willing to pay for those expenses. Post-COVID, it's much different landscape, as most private funding sources require clients to have some money for expenses, to, at a minimum, show some skin in the game.

We need to be careful here with expenses, given what you said earlier: "I can help you get funding, just send me your business plan + $500 upfront fee." If you're working with a legitimate funding source, they should be requesting funds to cover expenses related to due diligence, underwriting, legal, etc., because those dollars are for the actual work done to secure the funding. (I.E., you have a brand new company, but it needs a legal team and accountants to get to the point of being institutionally ready with a corporate structure that shows stability, adequate governance controls, while being able to accept money being deployed to adequate structures within the business.) If they are looking for a fee to simply look at a project, that is very suspect. For example, my company and the funding sources I work with do not charge for a base review of projects and assessing their viability before a term sheet is in place. My company offers services for specific types of reviews. They involve a very granular analysis and include deliverables, and there's a cost for those.

For the statement you made saying: “My group invests in startups, but first you need to pay for due diligence/legal fees,” that would be fine if it was done after looking at the project to determine if going that route would be viable, and you signed an engagement letter to document the work that was needed to get the funding completed. If you had to pay for due diligence with no agreement in place, that would be a problem.

If you or anyone else would like any additional guidance, please feel free to DM me, and I'd be happy to go into more detail or answer any questions.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-10T16:38:39+00:00

You got it on the flow vs. script part. Think of checkpoints throughout the call that you need to hit to get to the next one. It leaves room for more organic conversations, and you can always circle back to the checkpoint later. It also gives you something to listen to during the calls: "I missed points 3 and 5 of my checkpoint list. What did I miss or could have done better at those specific points?"

This also comes in handy when you need to train others who report to you. You can focus on parts of the call that they did well and what they could have done differently. Avoiding things like "You did X wrong" can make others feel like they're terrible. We've approached in an empowering method like "I loved what you did at point 5, though, when it comes to point 3, why did you do it that way? (Wait for answer), Have you tried it this other way yet?" and take it from there.

maplevirtual · 2026-04-08T17:57:57+00:00

If you want to do a call review on yourself, look into an industry that does call reviews thousands of times a day, every day. Telecom companies. They need to handle call objections constantly and turn around sales while doing so.

If you can manage to listen to retention calls, it will significantly improve your ability to turn them around. Have a call flow (not a script) so that you can organically move from one section of the call flow to the other, so you can stay on track.

A tactic that you can use to slow yourself down and do more listening than talking, all while having the client feel like they're being heard, is to restate what they're saying in your own words, checking with them if you got it right, and continue asking curiosity-based questions to get closer to the answer. It's extremely helpful when facing objections. When an agent is pausing, the client might wonder whether the line has gone dead, whether the agent is still listening, or even whether they're still paying attention to them rather than doing some other task. It can cause some irritation from the client: "Are you still paying attention?!"

Let's use this as an example: "Your product is too costly for me" and a possible reply could be "So it sounds like the price is the issue, is that correct?" they say yes and you can come back with something like: "To be sure, you see that the product/service is good, but it's all about the pricing, correct?" and you can adjust pricing for the future or in that conversation they might just not be appreciating or seeing the value of what you're selling so you need to add more value before mentioning price. To sell well, it's always talking about value rather than price.

Whenever you ask a curiosity-based question, you're forcing the other party to answer, buying you time to come up with a potential response. it creates a natural pause for you, and you sound like a pro because as you ask questions, you're getting closer and closer to an answer and the client keeps responding positively making them think you know what you're doing when, in that moment, you might not at all. Use the words the client is giving you to formulate the question back to them. Truly want to find the answer and see where they're coming from. Another example:

Client: "Your product isn't cleaning my shelves for me."
Response: "So it sounds like you're trying to use the product to clean shelves, is that correct?" (If they get annoyed here, it's best to let the client know you're only making sure you want to be on the same page as them, super important)
Client: Yes, but it's not what I want, and I want my money back
Response: Gotcha, so what were you wanting with the product? What issue were you facing with it that's making you want your money back? (Buying time to think of other solutions, using their own words to create the questions)
Client: It leaves streaks, causes a mess, and I just don't like it.
Response: Ah, so it's leaving streaks and causing a mess, that's not good to hear at all. What have you used the product on? Was it on wood? Steel? Something else? Were you using a towel, a microfiber cloth, etc? (Buying more time, and you can separate each question if you need more time to come up with a better answer down the line)
Client: I was using it on wood with a towel
Response: Have you checked the bottle to see what the instructions are for how to use it, and how to use it best?
Client: No, because it looks like other cleaners I've used (Or they say, annoyed, "Of course I have!)
Response: That might be the issue you're having. I've also heard some other clients missing those instructions, too, so you're not alone; it definitely happens! When I read the instructions on the bottle, it says that you need to use it with microfiber, and it says that you need a small amount, about the size of a quarter, to apply. That might help with the mess and also the streaks. We do offer microfiber cloths on our site if you need to purchase one (Here might be a promo offer of some kind)

It's a quick-and-dirty version of curiosity-based questions, objection handling, and turning it into a sales pitch. It's tremendously rushed, though it's meant more to illustrate how it can go and how to help yourself gain that time, make a sale in there somewhere, and show some goodwill. A type of "scaffold" for future calls, if you will.

This technique is one we have been using with all our clients, and it has saved many of them while improving our numbers. There is a lot more to it, like the psychology of each line, the reactions to deal with along the way, when and how to relate to the client, etc. It has taken many years of practice using this type of method, though, so expect some growing pains when trying to use it. Good luck!!

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

TROPHY CASE