# Investor & Audience Guide — Tailoring + Scoring Rubrics

Five audience types with deep guidance and self-assessment rubrics to score your deck before presenting.

**Sources:** YC Startup Library, a16z crypto CSX program, Colosseum hackathon judging criteria, Solana Foundation grants.

---

## Hackathon Judges (Colosseum, Superteam, Grizzlython)

**What they care about:** Innovation, technical execution, completeness, potential impact
**Time:** 3-5 minutes (some allow 7)
**Format:** Live presentation + demo
**Focus:** Demo > slides. Show something working.
**Tone:** Enthusiastic, technically impressive, scrappy

**Key slides:** Problem → Solution → Demo → Why Crypto → Ask
**Skip:** Detailed financials, long market analysis, tokenomics, regulatory

**Narrative framework:** PAS (Problem-Agitate-Solve) — create urgency, then show the demo.

**Pro tips:**
- Judges see 50+ projects. Your FIRST SENTENCE must hook.
- Spend 60% of your time on the demo, 40% on slides
- Show the hardest technical thing you built — judges are devs
- "We built this in 48 hours" is impressive. "We've been working on this for 6 months" is not (at a hackathon).
- Have a devnet link judges can try immediately after your pitch

### Scoring Rubric — Hackathon

| Dimension | 🟢 Strong (8-10) | 🟡 Moderate (5-7) | 🔴 Weak (1-4) |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Innovation** | Novel approach, hasn't been done | Interesting twist on existing | Clone or minor variation |
| **Technical Execution** | Working demo, clean code, handles edge cases | Demo works but rough | Broken demo or just mockups |
| **Completeness** | End-to-end flow works | Core flow works, edges broken | Partial implementation |
| **Crypto Necessity** | Couldn't work without blockchain | Blockchain adds clear value | Blockchain feels forced |
| **Presentation** | Clear hook, compelling demo, memorable | Decent presentation, demo works | Confusing, no demo, forgettable |

---

## Venture Capital (Pre-seed / Seed)

**What they care about:** Team, market size, traction, defensibility, timing
**Time:** 20-30 minutes (with Q&A)
**Format:** Deck + conversation. The deck starts the conversation; Q&A reveals the insight.
**Focus:** Market opportunity + your ability to capture it
**Tone:** Confident but honest about risks. Never oversell.

**Key slides:** All 12-14. Heavy on Market, Traction, Team, Why Now.
**Skip:** Nothing, but keep technical details high-level unless the VC is technical.

**Narrative framework:** 6-Part Investor Arc (The Shift → The Enemy → The Tool → The Proof → The Future → The Invitation)

**Pro tips:**
- **VCs invest in people.** Your "why you" story matters most. (a16z rule)
- Know your numbers cold. If a VC asks "what's your D7 retention?" and you don't know, the meeting is over.
- Have answers ready for: "What happens in a bear market?", "Why not use [existing protocol]?", "What's your burn rate?"
- Don't use complicated lingo. "We're building a decentralized liquidity aggregation protocol" → "We find the best swap price across all DEXes."
- Up-to-date website is a prerequisite. If your website looks abandoned, VCs won't take the meeting.
- Send the deck 24 hours before the meeting. Let them read it; use the meeting for conversation.

### 2026 Crypto VC Expectations (beyond standard slides)

| Extra Slide | What They Want |
|-------------|---------------|
| **Tokenomics** | Utility, distribution, vesting, bear-market resilience |
| **On-chain traction** | DAU, retention, TVL, tx count — NOT Discord/Twitter |
| **Regulatory readiness** | MiCA, securities considerations, legal counsel |
| **Unit economics after gas** | Margins AFTER blockchain costs |
| **Why decentralized** | What's impossible without blockchain |

### Scoring Rubric — VC

| Dimension | 🟢 Strong (8-10) | 🟡 Moderate (5-7) | 🔴 Weak (1-4) |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Team** | Domain experts with shipping track record | Capable but unproven in crypto | First-time founders with no domain fit |
| **Market** | Bottom-up TAM, clear wedge, growing market | Reasonable sizing but top-down | "The crypto market is $2T" |
| **Traction** | Real on-chain metrics with growth rate | Some users but unclear retention | Pre-product or vanity metrics only |
| **Defensibility** | Network effects, data moat, ecosystem lock-in | Some switching costs | Easily forkable with no moat |
| **Why Now** | Clear catalyst in last 12 months | Reasonable timing argument | No timing explanation |
| **Business Model** | Clear revenue with unit economics | Revenue path but no economics | "We'll figure it out later" |
| **Crypto Necessity** | Couldn't work without blockchain | Blockchain adds clear value | Blockchain feels optional |
| **Ask Clarity** | Specific: amount, instrument, use, timeline | Amount and general use | "We're raising" |

---

## Ecosystem Grants (Solana Foundation, Superteam, Marinade Grants)

**What they care about:** Ecosystem value, open source contribution, community impact, public goods
**Time:** Written application (1-2 pages) + optional 15-minute call
**Format:** Written proposal with links to code/demo
**Focus:** How does this benefit the Solana ecosystem?
**Tone:** Builder-focused, community-oriented, humble

**Key slides:** Problem → Solution → Why Solana → Demo → Ecosystem Impact → Traction → Ask
**Skip:** Heavy financials, token economics, competitive positioning vs other L1s

**Narrative framework:** Hero's Journey (the Solana ecosystem is the hero, your product is the mentor)

**Pro tips:**
- Show how OTHER Solana builders will benefit from your work
- Open source contributions matter more than revenue
- Reference specific Solana ecosystem needs (e.g., "no good TypeScript SDK for Token Extensions")
- Link to your GitHub with commit history — grants reviewers check activity
- Quantify impact: "This SDK will save 2 weeks of dev time for every new Solana project"
- Previous grant delivery track record is the #1 signal

### Scoring Rubric — Grants

| Dimension | 🟢 Strong (8-10) | 🟡 Moderate (5-7) | 🔴 Weak (1-4) |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Ecosystem Value** | Other builders will use this daily | Useful but niche | Only benefits your project |
| **Open Source** | Fully open, well-documented, maintained | Open source but minimal docs | Closed source or abandoned |
| **Why Solana** | Leverages Solana-unique features | Could be on Solana or other L1 | No Solana-specific value |
| **Delivery Track Record** | Previous grants delivered on time | First grant but active GitHub | No shipping history |
| **Scope Clarity** | Clear milestones, realistic timeline | Reasonable scope | Vague deliverables |

---

## Accelerators (Colosseum, Alliance, Solana Ventures)

**What they care about:** Speed of execution, coachability, market timing, founder grit
**Time:** 10-15 minute interview
**Format:** Conversation (not a deck presentation). Bring a deck as backup.
**Focus:** Can you ship fast? Are you listening to users?
**Tone:** Scrappy, fast-moving, open to feedback, honest about what you don't know

**Key slides:** Problem → Solution → Demo → Traction → Team → Ask
**Skip:** Grand vision — focus on next 3 months

**Narrative framework:** Before-After-Bridge (show what you've already built, not what you plan to build)

**Pro tips:**
- Show what you built in the LAST 2 WEEKS, not what you plan for next year
- "We talked to 30 users and 22 said X" beats any market analysis
- Be coachable in real-time: if they push back on something, adapt, don't defend
- They want to see: "We shipped V1, users said X, we're building V2 with Y changes"
- Speed signals: "We went from idea to 500 users in 3 weeks"
- Know your user acquisition cost and be honest if it's high

### Scoring Rubric — Accelerators

| Dimension | 🟢 Strong (8-10) | 🟡 Moderate (5-7) | 🔴 Weak (1-4) |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Execution Speed** | Shipped in weeks, iterating fast | Building but slow | Still planning |
| **User Signal** | Talked to 20+ users, have quotes | Some user conversations | No user research |
| **Coachability** | Adapts to feedback in real-time | Listens but defensive | Rigid, won't pivot |
| **Market Timing** | Clear catalyst, growing fast now | Reasonable timing | "Someday this will be big" |
| **Team Grit** | Founder-problem fit, obsessed | Interested but not all-in | Side project energy |

---

## Strategic Partners (Protocols, DAOs, Ecosystem Players)

**What they care about:** Integration value, mutual benefit, technical compatibility, user overlap
**Time:** 30-minute call
**Format:** Collaborative discussion, not a pitch. Bring integration docs.
**Focus:** How does this help THEIR users?
**Tone:** Partnership-oriented, technical depth welcome, mutual benefit

**Key slides:** Problem → Solution → Demo → Integration Plan → Mutual Benefit → Ask
**Skip:** Your fundraising plans, your token economics (unless relevant to integration)

**Narrative framework:** Before-After-Bridge (their users' current experience vs. with your integration)

**Pro tips:**
- Frame EVERYTHING as "here's what we do for YOUR users"
- Have a technical integration spec or API docs ready
- Show existing integrations as proof you're easy to work with
- Know their product deeply — reference specific features and user flows
- Propose a pilot: "Let's do a 30-day integration with 100 users and measure X"
- Come with a draft co-marketing plan

### Scoring Rubric — Partners

| Dimension | 🟢 Strong (8-10) | 🟡 Moderate (5-7) | 🔴 Weak (1-4) |
|-----------|-----------------|-------------------|----------------|
| **Integration Value** | Clear user benefit, easy to implement | Some value but complex | Unclear benefit |
| **Technical Readiness** | SDK/API docs ready, reference implementation | Prototype but no docs | Concept only |
| **Mutual Benefit** | Both sides gain users/revenue/features | One-sided benefit | Only benefits you |
| **User Overlap** | Same target users, complementary | Some overlap | Different audiences |
| **Track Record** | Live integrations with other protocols | First integration | No shipping history |