Sourcing opportunities means building a path from discovering a business to understanding why it deserves investigation. For angel investors considering new teams, validation and initial sales, an appealing presentation leaves essential questions unanswered: who will execute, which uncertainty will the money reduce, and how will that reduction be observed? The initial task is to select the next investigation, without turning interest into a premature commitment.
Start with the decision the opportunity needs to support
A useful investment thesis defines problems and observable conditions. For example, it might focus on businesses selling to small companies that have received payment from an independent customer and now need to demonstrate repeatable sales. This makes opportunities facing similar obstacles easier to compare. Placing a functioning product beside a project still dependent on a technical breakthrough may produce an attractive list with little decision value.
Before reviewing proposals, write down requirements for advancing, negotiable issues and reasons to stop. Willingness to share relevant data might be essential, while initial team size could allow several workable arrangements. A disqualifying condition should not appear merely because another project seems more exciting. Written criteria limit the influence of an enthusiastic meeting, while remaining open to revision when evidence exposes a poorly framed requirement.
The result is a specific investment question: can this team turn its first delivery into repeatable sales within its available cash? The analysis then seeks evidence answering that question. Market conditions, contractual instruments and ownership matter because they affect this decision. An investor does not need to claim precision about the distant future to decide whether a present opportunity deserves further work.
Diversify sourcing channels and record where introductions come from
Founder referrals, industry communities, universities, specialist service providers and commercial contacts reveal different opportunities. A network dominated by people with similar backgrounds can reproduce familiar solutions and exclude teams outside established circles. Broader sourcing widens observation, but requires consistent screening. An introduction opens a conversation; it does not establish execution ability or customer demand.
For each introduction, record who presented the project, their relationship with the founders and whether they will receive compensation if an investment closes. A consultant may understand the business deeply while having a financial interest in the transaction. That does not make their contribution worthless. It requires separating verifiable information, personal interpretation and commercial incentives, including when the introduction comes from someone the investor respects.
A short intake form can ask about the problem, intended customer, solution stage, team, sales payments actually received and intended use of capital. An extensive plan is unnecessary before establishing fit with the thesis. Request a verifiable sample: a demonstration, a commercial document stripped of unnecessary data, or a clear account of an experiment. The response also reveals how the team organizes knowledge and acknowledges gaps.
KEZS connects entrepreneurial projects and potential funders through technology and intermediation. Organizing information around a project can help readers understand objectives, documents and funding needs. Investors remain responsible for their own diligence and decisions. Presentation on a platform is not a recommendation, a credit score, business approval or automatic confirmation that supplied information is accurate.
Make opportunities at different stages comparable
An initial comparison should distinguish the stage claimed from the stage demonstrated. A business may describe itself as commercially validated because it signed three pilots, although none has paid or completed implementation. Another may have few sales but already understand buying reasons, delivery time and support costs. The amount of presentation material cannot resolve this difference; reconstruct what actually happened.
Use common fields: problem, buyer, user, delivered solution, payment evidence, implementation effort, dependencies and next milestone. Include unanswered questions and the source of each claim. Instead of recording only 'five customers,' specify how many are independent, have paid, use the product and required special adaptations. The same headline number can otherwise conceal very different commercial situations.
Consider two hypothetical opportunities. One has been paid for two customized projects and shows an apparently healthy margin, but each implementation occupies a founder for weeks. The other has one paying customer, recurring use and documented implementation. Neither automatically wins. If the thesis depends on repeatability with a small team, the second provides evidence closer to that hypothesis; the first must demonstrate standardization or justify a services model.
Comparison should produce decisions proportionate to available information: investigate further, request specific evidence, monitor without investing, or end the review. Avoid filling gaps with arbitrary scores merely to complete a ranking. A promising opportunity can remain incomparable on a decisive issue. Recognizing that gap helps define the next check without rewarding the team that submitted the most optimistic estimates.
Build a chain from claim to document to conclusion
Every material claim needs an evidence trail. If founders say customers will pay for a feature, identify who made the buying decision, what was contracted, how much was received and what happened afterward. A sales conversation shows interest; a contract establishes agreed obligations; a receipt shows cash entering the business. Each answers a different question, and none alone establishes retention or satisfaction.
Separate facts, hypotheses and estimates. 'Two customers paid' may be documented fact. 'Similar customers will buy' remains a hypothesis. 'Implementation will fall from twenty hours to eight' is an estimate until tested. This distinction prevents a sequence of true statements from appearing to prove an untested conclusion, particularly when presentations place past results and projections together.
Documents have limits too. An issued invoice may remain unpaid; a bank statement may include shareholder contributions; a contract may allow cancellation before the main delivery. Reconcile records in proportion to the risk and record exceptions. Where authorized, confirm a sample with customers while protecting confidentiality. Focused questions about buying, usage and difficulties can reveal details omitted from a carefully selected testimonial.
Evidence quality depends on origin, context and reproducibility. An organized file is helpful, but its existence does not make its contents true. Digital integrity records have the same limitation: showing that a document has not changed does not establish the economic reality it describes. State what was confirmed, what still relies on founder accounts and which unresolved issue could change the decision.
Assess founder experience through work actually performed
Relevant experience is more than a previous title, educational institution or number of companies incorporated. A venture undergoing validation needs founders who can discover needs, deliver a solution, sell and manage constraints. Large-company experience may provide sector knowledge without preparing someone to sell without a familiar brand. First-time founders may offset limited formal experience through rapid learning and consistent execution.
Ask for specific episodes. Which hypothesis was abandoned? What complaint changed the product? How was a lost sale investigated? Who resolved the latest delivery failure? Look for the sequence of situation, decision, action and outcome, including unsuccessful outcomes. Answers acknowledging responsibility and limits reveal more than accounts in which every problem came from the market, suppliers or former colleagues.
Examine complementary capabilities and actual availability. Three technical founders may still leave nobody responsible for customer discovery and collections. A founder with another job can contribute meaningfully if the commitment is explicit and compatible with the plan. Compare available hours, responsibilities, expected compensation and personal dependencies. Stated dedication does not establish that every critical function has an owner.
References should explore investment-relevant behavior without intruding into unrelated personal matters. Ask about honoring commitments, responding to criticism and collaborating effectively. Differences between references and founder accounts deserve clarification. The objective is not a flawless biography, but an understanding of whether this team learns, communicates difficulties and can execute the next stage with the resources requested.
Read initial sales as economic experiments
A first sale may establish willingness to pay without demonstrating a repeatable sales process. Investigate how the customer arrived, who negotiated, what concessions were made and how much work was excluded from the price. A sale through a founder's personal relationship is meaningful evidence. The additional hypothesis is that unrelated buyers will accept similar terms with effort the operation can sustain.
Consider a hypothetical monthly fee of R$ 1,000 per customer. If variable support and infrastructure cost R$ 250, monthly contribution is R$ 750 before fixed expenses and other excluded costs. If acquisition and implementation require R$ 3,000 in incremental cash spending, recovering that spending takes four full months of contribution, assuming full payment, continued customer retention and stable costs: R$ 3,000 divided by R$ 750 equals four.
This calculation does not prove viability. It may exclude adequate founder compensation, product maintenance, taxes, defaults and administration. A few weeks of use cannot establish long retention. The calculation identifies the question: will the customer stay while requiring effort consistent with that contribution? With few buyers, describe individual trajectories and ranges rather than averages that conceal one exceptional customer.
Also distinguish collected sales, signed contracts and negotiations. Existing eligible receivables depend on their underlying obligations and applicable criteria; expected sales are not receivables already established. A project seeking cash to discover whether it can sell faces different risk from one that has delivered and awaits payment. This distinction clarifies funding needs and prevents commercial expectations from being presented as available assets.
Use comparison to generate questions, not a false credit score
A qualitative comparison matrix can organize investor reasoning without claiming to calculate an objective probability of success. Consider commercial evidence, execution capability, cash needs, ownership clarity and access to information. For each dimension, record observations and confidence in the evidence. The purpose is to expose differences, rather than turn weak opinions into numbers with an appearance of scientific precision.
In the two-opportunity example, the customized-project business may have better documented collections and greater founder dependence. The recurring-product business may show simpler implementation but evidence concentrated in one buyer. Put those conditions side by side. Then identify which risk matters most to the thesis and which can be investigated at a cost and within a timeframe compatible with the negotiation.
If using weights, explain them and test whether small changes reverse the conclusion. An opportunity that looks superior only when potential market size receives disproportionate weight deserves scrutiny. A strong sales presentation cannot compensate for missing product ownership or refusal to provide essential information. Some issues are necessary conditions; others permit trade-offs. Adding both into one total can hide a concrete obstacle.
Record the strongest opposing decision. Before advancing, write the best argument against investing and the evidence that could support it. Before declining, identify what would justify reopening the review. This reduces emotional attachment to an initial preference. Transparent project documentation can support this work, but KEZS does not assign a credit score or replace independent investor judgment.
Reconstruct the cap table before discussing ownership
A cap table records who holds economic and ownership rights, their conditions and possible changes. Comparing opportunities requires more than the percentage offered today. List owners, percentages, options, promised interests, convertibles and commitments to issue interests. Two companies offering the same percentage may carry very different earlier obligations capable of changing an investor's future ownership.
Reconcile the spreadsheet with corporate documents and relevant contracts. An informal promise to a contributor may not yet create the ownership described by founders, but could represent an obligation or dispute requiring clarification. Identify who owns the code, brand and other essential assets. Investors need to know whether the funded company owns, or can lawfully use, the assets supporting the business.
A basic Brazilian restriction matters here: a MEI, the individual microentrepreneur category, cannot admit equity partners while remaining a MEI. An equity proposal therefore requires an appropriately changed legal structure before the corresponding transaction is implemented. A spreadsheet calling the investor a partner or an improvised contract cannot resolve the incompatibility. Legal form determines which rights can validly be established.
Beyond percentages, examine decision rules, transfers, founder departures and future fundraising. A small interest accompanied by extensive obligations may differ substantially from what the headline number suggests. Arrangements tied to founders remaining and delivering require appropriate legal and operational definitions. The purpose is to anticipate specific misalignments while preserving the team's ability to work and the investor's understanding of exposure.
Work through ownership and dilution in full
Consider a hypothetical company with two founders: Ana owns 60% and Bruno 40%, with no other interests or convertibles. An investor contributes R$ 200,000 through newly issued interests at an agreed pre-money valuation of R$ 800,000. Post-money valuation is R$ 1 million. In this simplified model, the investor owns 20%, Ana 48% and Bruno 32%. The contribution goes into the company.
Purchasing existing founder interests would produce a different transaction because payment would go to the sellers. Distinguish primary investment from secondary sales. Now assume an incentive pool representing 10% of the total after its creation, with everyone diluted proportionately. On a fully diluted basis, Ana holds 43.2%, Bruno 28.8%, the investor 18% and the pool 10%. Each previous holding was multiplied by 90%.
In a later hypothetical round, a new investor contributes R$ 500,000 at a pre-money valuation of R$ 2 million. Post-money valuation becomes R$ 2.5 million, giving the new investor 20%. Multiply all previous percentages by 80%: Ana holds 34.56%, Bruno 23.04%, the first investor 14.4% and the pool 8%. Together with the new investor's 20%, these interests total 100%.
The first investor has not sold; the holding has been diluted. The final 14.4% establishes neither a realized gain nor liquidity. These calculations exclude preferences and other rights that could change economic distributions. They also assume everyone shared the pool's dilution; founder-only dilution would change the outcome. Negotiate the percentage basis, sequence of events and associated rights, rather than relying on a percentage alone.
Compare instruments by the risks and rights they create
Equity, convertibles and debt address different needs. Equity provides exposure to residual business results and rights under the applicable structure. A convertible sets conditions for possible conversion and other contractual consequences. Debt creates payment obligations on agreed terms. No commercial label removes loss risk. Suitability depends on the entity, the transaction and its ability to meet the resulting obligations.
A convertible can postpone part of the valuation negotiation while moving complexity into conversion terms. Examine the trigger, term, discount, any valuation cap, calculation basis and treatment if no further round occurs. Model the entire transaction, including existing instruments. Two contracts with identical discounts can produce different ownership if they define the capital base or new investor participation differently.
For debt, assess whether cash can support maturities without relying on uncertain fundraising. As hypothetical arithmetic, receiving R$ 200,000 and undertaking to repay R$ 240,000 means a nominal outflow R$ 40,000 greater than the amount received, before other costs or terms. This is not a market rate or evidence of repayment capacity. For a team still discovering how to sell, that obligation can distort decisions and accelerate a cash crisis.
A donation to a nonprofit is neither an equity investment nor a promise of financial return. Receivables transactions require separate examination of existence, eligibility and risk. Describe the right created before explaining the need it serves. Commercial validation should not be funded under an appearance of predictability unsupported by evidence. The concrete structure requires appropriate legal and accounting review.
Connect the investment to cash and time available for learning
Return to the R$ 200,000 primary investment. Assume the company already has R$ 50,000 in unrestricted cash, without omitted obligations affecting that amount. It starts with R$ 250,000 after investment. Planned net cash consumption is R$ 35,000 in month one, R$ 35,000 in month two and R$ 40,000 in month three, leaving R$ 140,000. Net consumption means outflows minus operating inflows included in the plan.
If each of the next three months consumes R$ 40,000, month six ends with R$ 20,000. That does not mean six comfortable months of operation: obligations, variations and a business-specific minimum reserve still matter. The later R$ 500,000 round used to illustrate dilution is only a financing assumption. It should not enter the base case as available cash until actually completed.
Commercial milestones must arrive early enough to permit a response. Results delivered only at the end of month six could leave the company negotiating under pressure or stopping before another round closes. Intermediate evidence in months two and three allows spending reductions, product changes or funding discussions supported by data. The necessary lead time depends on the actual process, rather than a universal fundraising timetable.
Compare the relationship between requested capital, time and uncertainty reduced. R$ 200,000 might fund decisive learning in a simple operation yet be insufficient where validation requires lengthy implementation. Request base and adverse cases with explicit assumptions. Separate immediately achievable cost reductions from savings requiring renegotiation, dismissal or third-party decisions. A cash forecast is useful when its dependencies are visible.
Define verifiable milestones and monitoring conditions
A useful milestone combines an outcome, evidence and a review point. 'Improve sales' is vague. 'Complete three paid implementations for independent customers and record the effort for each' allows examination of demand and delivery capacity. Even then, three cases do not establish the entire market. Interpret the milestone as a bounded reduction in uncertainty, with criteria agreed before seeing the result.
In the cash example, month one could focus on documenting implementation and confirming the problem with buyers. By month three, the team seeks to repeat delivery for independent customers, recording payments, usage and hours spent. The investor checks whether the illustrative R$ 750 customer contribution remains plausible once actual support is included. Evidence may support the hypothesis, weaken it or identify a more suitable customer segment.
If disbursements occur in installments, negotiate objective conditions, responsibilities and consequences from the outset. A company should not discover later that the second installment depends on an investor's subjective preference. It must also understand the danger of funding present commitments with conditional money. One approach is to ensure each contracted stage fits within available capital, leaving room to decide before undertaking the next.
New information can justify revising milestones. A test revealing longer implementation may require a different question without pretending the original objective was achieved. Record the outcome, reason for revision, cash effect and required approval. This preserves learning while avoiding automatic funding despite deterioration or penalties for useful discoveries simply because they contradicted the initial forecast.
Negotiate information rights the team can fulfill
Information rights help investors understand how their exposure evolves. Define content, frequency, deadlines, responsible people and exceptions. For a small team, a concise monthly report might cover cash, material obligations, collected sales, active customers, deliveries, risks and performance against plan. The format should support oversight without absorbing the time needed to sell and operate. Preparation effort is a real cost of the arrangement.
Define metrics in the contract or an appropriately linked operating document. 'Revenue,' 'active customer' and 'cancellation' can mean different things to different readers. Where relevant, separate contracted, recognized and collected amounts, explaining the basis used. If a definition changes, preserve historical comparability or provide a reconciliation. Apparent improvement should not arise solely from changing labels.
Provide exceptional reporting for material events such as losing a major customer, an ownership dispute, a data incident or insufficient cash. Criteria should fit the business and include a clear communication channel. Monthly reporting cannot address an event requiring immediate action. Conversely, continuous, scattered requests from individual investors can immobilize the team; coordinated requests and designated contacts reduce that burden.
Information access does not permit unrestricted circulation of personal documents, full contracts or trade secrets. Establish confidentiality, permissions, storage and aggregated reporting methods. Private documents should not be placed on public blockchains. Integrity records may have limited uses, but do not establish truth, legal title, reserve solvency or payment guarantees. The central control remains relevant, verifiable and protected information.
Treat disagreement and negotiation as tests of alignment
Disagreement about valuation, hiring pace or commercial priorities reveals how the relationship may function under pressure. Make the underlying assumption explicit. If a founder wants two hires and an investor prefers to wait, the difference may concern sales capacity, delivery timing or cash risk. Each explanation calls for different evidence and may allow an intermediate solution.
Read entry price alongside rights, obligations and future capital needs. A larger holding may come with an underfunded company, poor founder incentives or obligations that obstruct the next round. Compare proposals in a clear term sheet covering dilution basis, expenses, conditions precedent, information and decision mechanisms. Its language should reflect the commercial understanding before legal documentation formalizes it.
The angel's contribution also needs operating boundaries. If the investor will help with customers, product or hiring, record the type of assistance and expected time. A commercial introduction is not a promised sale; product advice does not transfer management. Founders remain operationally responsible under the agreed structure. Close involvement works better when support, decision authority and accountability are clearly distinguished.
Disclose conflicts before investment. An investor may hold a competitor interest, recommend a related supplier or receive an intermediation fee. Founders may maintain contracts with businesses they own. These relationships require transparency, assessment and suitable procedures for affected decisions. If a material issue cannot be clarified, ending negotiations may be appropriate even when the rest of the opportunity appears attractive.
Simulate losses, delays and errors before committing capital
A useful adverse case changes specific mechanisms. Suppose the cash example instead consumes R$ 50,000 monthly for the first three months, rather than R$ 35,000, R$ 35,000 and R$ 40,000. Initial cash of R$ 250,000 falls to R$ 100,000. At R$ 40,000 consumption in each subsequent month, cash becomes R$ 60,000 after month four and R$ 20,000 after month five. The response window has narrowed.
Investigate the cause before choosing a response. Exceptional implementation work may require revised pricing and scope. Missing sales may make additional hiring harmful. Delayed collections require confirmation of the obligation and collection prospects. Identical closing balances can reflect different failures, each changing how the opportunity compares with alternatives and whether continued support makes sense.
Another adverse case is the departure of a founder holding concentrated technical knowledge or customer relationships. Examine documentation, access credentials, asset ownership and replacement capability, rather than simply counting remaining people. Investors may also suffer total loss, be unable to convert an instrument or find no buyer for an ownership interest for a prolonged period. Operational growth does not ensure distributions or an exit.
Correct analytical errors through revised records. If reported revenue included shareholder contributions, rebuild the series, margins and cash forecast rather than merely appending a warning. If customers were double-counted, revise affected milestones. Distinguish a correctable mistake from deliberate deception. Founder responses, the problem's extent and recurrence help determine whether sufficient trust remains to continue.
Close the review with a documented, executable decision
Before committing funds, prepare a decision memo another person can understand. Explain the investment hypothesis, confirmed evidence, main gaps, intended structure, cap table, cash use and monitoring milestones. Include the adverse case, outstanding conditions and reasons for accepting the risks. This allows later assessment of the reasoning even if the investment performs poorly; an unfavorable outcome alone does not explain whether the original analysis was sound.
Documentation must match the actual transaction. Public securities distribution and regulated financial activities require appropriate structures and providers. Technology or a Brazilian CNAE economic activity classification is not permission. Connecting a project and investor does not resolve instrument or offering requirements. Professional review must address the specific case. General regulatory references are entry points for research, not proof that KEZS or another company is authorized.
After deciding, confirm documents, conditions precedent, the destination of funds and responsibility for initial reports. If monitoring without investing, record what evidence would justify another discussion and avoid implying commitment. If declining, give proportionate reasons and preserve confidentiality. Diligence costs both sides time and money; a clear conclusion prevents an indefinite negotiation from being mistaken for probable funding.
Monitoring begins with a consistent baseline of ownership, cash, commitments, customers and open hypotheses. At each review, compare changes with the intended learning and decide whether to maintain, adjust or end support within agreed rights. Good sourcing makes opportunities understandable; good comparison makes selected risks explainable. No method guarantees approval, repayment, profitability, liquidity or capital preservation, or eliminates uncertainty and loss.
Frequently asked questions.
How should I compare an experienced team without sales against a new team that has received customer payments?
Separate relevant experience from commercial evidence. The experienced team may know buyers and execute well but still needs to show its proposition generates payment. The newer team has established some willingness to buy yet may lack delivery or management capability. Compare the dominant uncertainty, the cost of reducing it and whether the team can do so before cash runs short. Founder history does not replace sales evidence, and initial sales do not replace execution capability.
Does a larger ownership percentage make an opportunity more attractive?
A percentage alone is insufficient. Establish its calculation basis, economic rights, prior obligations and dilution under explicit scenarios. A larger holding in a company unable to fund its next milestone may be a fragile position. Also compare founder incentives, information quality and exit restrictions. Negotiated valuation and projected growth are not realizable sale prices or guaranteed returns. The dilution example shows ownership arithmetic, not an amount an investor could actually collect.
Can I take an equity interest in a business that is still a MEI?
A MEI cannot admit equity partners while retaining that status. A transaction creating an ownership interest requires a compatible structure and corresponding changes, appropriately reviewed before implementation. Calling someone a partner in a presentation does not resolve the restriction. Other instruments also need assessment against the actual transaction; they should not conceal incompatible equity participation or purport to create rights that the parties merely assume exist.
What if a founder refuses to share information because it is confidential?
Explore aggregated data, partially redacted documents or restricted access under confidentiality commitments. Investors should explain why requested information matters and avoid unnecessary personal data. If essential information remains unavailable, record the gap and its effect on the decision. Confidentiality can change the form of access, but missing evidence does not confirm an investment hypothesis. Where the uncertainty is decisive, advancing may be unjustified despite an otherwise appealing presentation.
Can a convertible leave dilution discussions until later?
It can postpone agreement on some elements, but dilution should still be modeled before signing. The discount, any valuation cap, calculation basis, other instruments and conversion event affect ownership. Understand what happens if no further round occurs. Request consistent scenarios and confirm the contract produces the modeled results. Deferring negotiation does not remove its consequences or ensure favorable conversion, and a convertible's label does not guarantee that conversion will occur.
How much close monitoring does an angel investment need?
Frequency should reflect risk and decision needs. Monthly reporting may suit routine oversight, supplemented by prompt material-event communication and milestone reviews. Clear responsibilities, stable definitions and time to respond before cash runs out matter more than meeting volume. Monitoring should produce decisions and bounded support while preserving founder responsibility for operations. Its administrative cost should remain proportionate, and separate investor requests should be coordinated where possible.
Does presentation on KEZS establish that a project is safe or authorized to raise funds?
No. KEZS connects entrepreneurial projects and potential funders through technology and intermediation; it does not assign credit scores. Presentation does not replace diligence, documentary verification or assessment of the applicable legal structure. Investors make independent decisions while considering costs, conflicts, uncertainty and possible loss. There is no guarantee of approval, repayment, profitability, liquidity or capital preservation. The rights and requirements also differ across loans, receivables, equity, convertibles and donations.
References and context
Institutional reference points for checking applicable rules and guidance. Calculations and scenarios are original examples, not quotes, historical results or individualized recommendations.
- Banco Central — correspondentes no País ↗
- CVM — Resolução 88, texto e alterações ↗
- CVM — Resolução 175, fundos de investimento ↗
- Portal do Empreendedor — perguntas sobre MEI ↗
- ANPD — orientações e perguntas frequentes ↗
AI-assisted educational content. Decisions require verification of the information, instruments and providers in each actual case.
