Partners

The network is the second product. It is not finished either.

A constraint fund is only as good as the people who can tell it when it is wrong. Five participant groups, each answering a different question we cannot answer alone.

Who is in it

Five groups, five different questions.

01

Technical advisers

Researchers and engineers who can reproduce or dismantle a claim. They answer: is this actually novel, and does the measurement mean what the founder says it means?

02

Operators and robot builders

People running fleets and shipping machines. They answer: is this bottleneck expensive enough today that someone would pay to remove it?

03

Open-source maintainers

The people whose projects the field quietly depends on. They answer: where does this break at scale, and who already tried to fix it?

04

Test environments

Labs and facilities that can host a real evaluation. They answer: does the advantage survive contact with hardware that is not the founder's own?

05

Co-investors

Funds underwriting the same stack from a different angle. They answer: what does this look like to someone with no attachment to our thesis?

The ask

What we actually ask the network to do.

  1. Reproduce or challenge a claim

    Take the founder's central technical assertion and try to break it.

  2. Price the bottleneck

    Tell us what this constraint costs you in hours, hardware or lost contracts.

  3. Test the second system

    Run it on a platform the founder did not choose. Leverage is only real if it transfers.

  4. Recruit across the boundary

    Introduce the rare people who understand both the physics and the software.

Right now

Who we are looking for.

  • You own a constraint operationally and can price it
  • You have built this layer once already, successfully or not
  • You maintain something the field depends on
  • You can host a real test on hardware you control
  • You invest in this stack and will argue about it
  • You think we have this thesis wrong

The rule everyone works under: no adviser is asked to endorse a company publicly, and nothing shared in a diligence conversation is used to compete with the founder who shared it.

Adviser, operator, co-investor or sceptic?

We would rather be interrogated than marketed to. If you can tell us where this is wrong, that is the most useful thing you can send.

Start a conversation