Institutional benchmark OS for crypto fund ICs
Request institutional accessFund IC workspace
Select a deal, run protected diligence, review the valuation range, then generate a memo and record the committee action.
Average score
76/100
1 computed deal
Avg benchmark
79/100
Institutional benchmark standing
Average DAQ
75/100
Decision-quality assessment
Avg friction
64/100
Execution drag containment
Recommended capital
$0
Current pipeline basis
IC actions
3
Exportable committee record
Intake
Deal selected
Diligence
Score computed
Valuation
Range prepared
Memo
Memo generated
Decision
Decision recorded
How to use this screen
A non-finance user can select a deal and run the diligence score. The investment team can expand tokenomics, valuation, source, and simulation panels when they need the full evidence pack.
1. Input
Use company, token, stage, ask, valuation, and thesis for a fast first pass.
2. Process
Run scoring to compute benchmark standing, empirical risk, tokenomics, and valuation outputs.
3. Decide
Generate the memo, record the IC action, and export the committee packet or audit log.
Input
Defaults are already populated. Open this when the investment team wants to change supply, unlock, treasury, or market-maker assumptions.
Buyer-facing sector, operating model, value capture, governance, and token-right inputs used by the cryptoeconomic intelligence layer.
Processing
Overall
76/100
more diligence
DAQ
75/100
Silver
Check
$0
Recommended capital
Diligence dimensions
ComputedValuation
ReadyBear
$37.9M
Downside case
Base
$102.3M
Blended range
Bull
$161.1M
Upside case
Output
Server template
Orion Agents IC Memo Recommendation: revisit at reset valuation - structure passes, entry price fails Score: 76/100 DAQ: DAQ-Score 75/100, Silver tier, expected net crypto alpha 3-6% (computed range), max risk exposure <= 4.5% of allocable capital. Benchmark: Institutional benchmark layer not generated yet. Valuation: Seven-model valuation range: bear $37,854,395, base $102,309,177, bull $161,136,954. Base token price $0.32; entry valuation requires reset discipline; model gap is 4.3x. Decision assurance: Decision support only. UV Terminal prepares evidence, scoring, and IC artifacts; investment authority remains with the fund committee. Confidence: Computed from structured inputs. Provenance: Deal facts=provided, Technical evidence=provided, DAQ score=computed, Valuation range=computed, Memo narrative=generated. Check: $0 recommended check for 0% target ownership. Summary: Autonomous agent settlement layer that lets AI operators escrow, pay, and prove work across crypto rails. Risks: Agent liability model still early; Token launch dependency unclear; Entry valuation 4.3x above blended model value Next work: Prepare partner memo and reference calls for IC.; Revisit only at reset valuation or with milestone-based terms.
Required diligence
Key risks
Agent liability model still early
Token launch dependency unclear
Entry valuation 4.3x above blended model value
Required next diligence
Prepare partner memo and reference calls for IC.
Revisit only at reset valuation or with milestone-based terms.
Partner questions
What breaks if Ethereum / Base adoption is slower than expected?
Which part of the system is defensible if incumbents copy the interface?
Can the team explain the hardest protocol tradeoff in one architecture review?
What reset valuation makes the structure investable without underwriting inflated entry price?
Decision recorder
Decision log
