Author: Alexandre Kotcherguine Vision Officer & Investor
Contributor: Marc Nasr , Corporate Finance & Strategy Officer
Parts 1 and 2 of this series established two foundational principles: that Web3 infrastructure projects must move beyond token-dependent capital formation, and that approaching institutional investors demands readiness across every dimension of the enterprise — as assessed through the Investor Readiness Framework introduced in Part 2.
This final instalment addresses the third reality that founding teams must confront: that building relationships with institutional investors is a sustained and deliberate effort that unfolds over months and years, not weeks.
The Fallacy of the Quick Close
There is a fantasy, particularly prevalent in technology circles, that fundraising is an event: one prepares a deck, books a series of meetings, delivers a compelling narrative, and receives a term sheet.
In reality — especially in the institutional capital markets that Web3 infrastructure projects must learn to navigate — fundraising is a process governed by the investor’s own fiduciary architecture and risk-mitigation mandates.
Institutional investors deploy capital on behalf of beneficiaries, limited partners, or sovereign mandates.
Their decision-making processes involve investment committees, external advisers, and multiple rounds of due diligence — each with its own cadence and requirements. A venture fund may take three to six months from initial meeting to signed term sheet. A family office may take longer. A sovereign vehicle, longer still.
The contrast with the bull-market dynamics of 2021 is instructive. During that period, founders reported receiving unsolicited investor interest on a near-daily basis (1). By 2023, the dynamic had inverted: one founder described approaching more than 200 investors before securing seven commitments (1).
By 2026, the market has matured into a “conviction-first” environment, where capital is abundant but exclusively reserved for teams that demonstrate operational longevity.
Founders who fail to account for institutional timelines set themselves up for frustration, cash-flow crises, and decision-making that leads to poor terms, misaligned investors, and governance complications persisting for years.
The Three Phases of Investor Engagement
Institutional fundraising proceeds through three distinct phases, each with its own objectives, timelines, and success criteria. Founders who understand this structure — and plan accordingly — are far better positioned than those who treat fundraising as an undifferentiated push.
Phase One: Awareness and Positioning (6–12 Months Before Fundraise)
Long before a formal fundraising process begins, the groundwork must be laid. Concretely, this means: presenting at relevant conferences — not simply Web3 events, but financial services, regulatory technology, and institutional investment gatherings where the target investor base is present; publishing substantive thought leadership that demonstrates regulatory and technical depth; and cultivating introductions through trusted intermediaries such as advisers, lawyers, or fellow founders.
The goal at this stage is not to pitch. It is to be known — to ensure that when the time comes to raise capital, the project is already a familiar name, associated with credibility, substance, and regulatory seriousness.
In the current 2026 landscape, “proof of presence” is the primary filter used by analysts before they ever open a pitch deck. Cold outreach to institutional investors is rarely effective. Warm introductions carry far more weight.
For Web3 infrastructure projects, this phase also involves demonstrating regulatory awareness and governance maturity. The collapses of FTX, Three Arrows Capital, Celsius, and Genesis in 2022 created lasting reputational damage across the ecosystem. The projects that stand out are those that signal from the outset that they understand the compliance landscape and have built accordingly.
Phase Two: Dialogue and Education (3–6 Months Before Fundraise)
Web3 infrastructure occupies a space that many institutional investors find intriguing but poorly understood. The technology is complex, the regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly, and the commercial models are unfamiliar. This creates both a challenge and an opportunity.
The challenge is that investors need to be educated before they can be convinced. The opportunity is that the process of education — done well — builds trust and demonstrates the team’s expertise in ways that no pitch deck can replicate.
In practice, this involves sharing post-MiCA compliance audits or technical briefings on zero-knowledge (ZK) infrastructure developments; inviting target investors to workshops or demos; providing commentary on industry events that demonstrates depth of knowledge; and asking investors about their own portfolio experience and thesis — because the founders who understand their investors’ constraints and incentives negotiate from a position of greater strength.
This phase cannot be compressed. Attempting to rush from introduction to term sheet signals desperation, not confidence. The most effective founders treat this dialogue as a genuine exchange — one that builds mutual understanding well before any capital is requested.
Phase Three: Formal Process and Due Diligence
When a formal fundraise is initiated, it should feel to the investor like a natural progression of an existing relationship, not a cold solicitation. The data room should be comprehensive from day one. At minimum, it should contain the following:
Due diligence for Web3 infrastructure projects is typically more extensive than for conventional technology ventures. Projects should anticipate questions about token classification, cross-border compliance, key management, treasury security, counterparty risk, and the interplay between decentralised governance and fiduciary responsibility. Having clear, well-documented answers to these questions before they are asked is a powerful signal of readiness.
Throughout this phase, responsiveness matters enormously. Delays in providing requested information, vague or contradictory answers, and an inability to produce documentation on demand all erode confidence. Investor relations is, in this sense, a live-fire exercise in operational competence.
It is also useful for founders to understand the investor’s own internal decision pipeline:
1. Introductory Meeting: Strategic fit assessment.
2. Technical Review: Architectural validation via specialist advisers.
3. Market Diligence: Commercial thesis validation.
4. Regulatory Assessment: Jurisdictional strategy and licensing audit.
5. Investment Committee: Internal advocacy and final debate.
6. Negotiation & Execution: Term sheet and closing.
The Compounding Value of Patience
There is a paradox at the heart of institutional fundraising: the less urgently one needs the capital, the easier it is to raise. Projects that approach the market from a position of strength — with runway, with traction, with the quiet confidence that comes from genuine readiness — negotiate better terms, attract better partners, and build more durable relationships.
Conversely, projects that approach the market in haste — driven by an evaporating runway, a token that has not delivered the expected liquidity, or a competitive pressure that feels existential — will find the market unforgiving. Institutional investors are expert at detecting “liquidity stress,” and they price it accordingly.
The lesson is straightforward: begin building investor relationships long before you need capital, and invest in those relationships as seriously as you invest in your technology.
Fundraising as Infrastructure
The Web3 ecosystem prides itself on building. Yet too often, the building ethos is applied selectively — lavished on code and architecture while capital strategy is treated as something that will resolve itself once the technology is impressive enough. Fundraising, done properly, is itself an infrastructure problem.
It requires the same discipline, the same long-term orientation, and the same willingness to do unglamorous preparatory work that good engineering demands.
The market has sent its signal. In Q3 2025, institutional capital returned decisively to the Web3 sector, but it flowed overwhelmingly towards projects demonstrating real utility, compliance, and scalability.
The shortcuts of the “token-first” era have been replaced by the rigorous requirements of the “infrastructure-first” era. The institutions are watching.
The capital is available. The question is whether Web3 infrastructure projects are willing to meet institutional standards — to treat every dimension of readiness with equal seriousness, to invest the time that genuine relationships require, and to accept that the shortcuts of an earlier era no longer exist.
This series has argued that disciplined fundraising for Web3 infrastructure demands three convergent commitments: the strategic clarity of equity-first capital formation, the rigour of multi-dimensional investor readiness, and the patience to build institutional relationships that compound over time.
These are not separate disciplines — they are interdependent elements of a single, integrated capital strategy. The projects that internalise this will not merely survive the current market; they will be the ones that institutional capital seeks out when the next wave of regulated digital infrastructure is built.
About Polity
The disciplined fundraising framework presented in this series is part of an ongoing programme of governance publications developed within the Polity governance model. Polity builds infrastructure for regulated digital finance. Its governance frameworks are designed to bridge decentralised systems and institutional-grade compliance requirements, with a focus on MiCA alignment across European and international markets.
Disclaimer: This article is published for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute investment advice, legal advice, or an endorsement of any product, service, or security practice. Polity does not provide investment advice, custody services, or regulated crypto-asset activities. Readers should conduct their own due diligence and consult qualified professionals before making any decisions based on the content of this publication. All third-party sources are cited for reference; their inclusion does not imply endorsement by or affiliation with Polity.
References
(1) TechCrunch (2023). ‘What the Bear Market Means for Crypto and Web3.’ TechCrunch. Available at: https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/23/crypto-bear-market/ (Accessed: 10 March 2026).
(2) CryptoRank (2025). ‘State of Venture Capital in Crypto, Q3 2025.’ CryptoRank. Available at: https://cryptorank.io/insights/reports/crypto-fundraising-report-Q3-25 (Accessed: 10 March 2026).
