1. Intro Email

The ICP is explicit, the pain is quantified, and the ask is reasonable for pre-seed. Slightly generic unhelpful framing (“straightforward scheduling”).

2. Problem

Well understood pain in hospitality SMBs, and the time + cost framing makes it tangible, however - not particularly novel.

3. Solution

Competent and sensible, but not obviously differentiated. Reads like a cleaner version of what already exists rather than a step-change - simplicity is the wedge, but that’s hard to defend.

4. Traction

$18.5k MRR from 92 customers with referral-driven growth suggests early signs of product-market fit. $18k MRR and building something that 92 customers pay for is not trivial & is impressive. That said, fees appear low, there’s limited data on retention/expansion, and hospitality SMB churn may structurally cap long-term value unless ARPU meaningfully expands.

5. Market

Honest, but highlights the ceiling. ANZ-only focus keeps things realistic, yet reinforces that this may be not have a venture-scale outcome.

What does “a venture-scale outcome” mean to you?

A venture-scale outcome is one that has credible potential to return a meaningful portion of the fund - ideally 1x+ the fund on its own, but at minimum a top-decile outcome that drives the power law meaning over $100m in recurring revenue, or a valuation over $1bn. The question isn’t whether this becomes a profitable, durable business (it might). The question is whether it has the characteristics to become one of the few outliers that matter disproportionately in a portfolio.

6. Competition / Alternatives

The deck acknowledges strong incumbents but underplays how entrenched they are. “Simplicity” alone may not be enough to win long-term against Deputy/Tanda without a clearer moat.

7. Team

Hospitality experience is a real asset here in terms of domain expertise but the team feels practical rather than aspirational. The team don’t immediately appear to have evidence of ambition and capability to build beyond a solid SMB SaaS e.g., prior scaling experience, asymmetric insight, technical edge, or vision to expand into a broader system-of-record platform but I’d definitely hold off on any judgment until I’ve spent some time with the team.

8. The Ask

Appropriate for traction and ambition. $750k pre-seed is sensible, though expansion to Australia this early may stretch focus unless NZ growth is already very repeatable.

But this team has 18.5K MRR and 92 customers. Isn’t this more traction (proof) than you normally see at Seed?

Yes - it is very real traction as noted above but the question isn’t validation; it’s velocity and ceiling. The bar isn’t “is this working?” - it’s “can this become disproportionately large?”

9. Overall

Primary reason you’d pass:

Crowded market with limited defensibility and a likely cap on venture-scale outcomes.

Primary reason you’d lean in:

Strong early traction, clear customer love, and a founder who deeply understands the problem.

10. 30-Minute Meeting?

No - while the execution looks solid, the market is crowded with well-funded incumbents and the current pitch doesn’t yet show a defensible path to venture-scale returns. We are always happy to be proven wrong though, and frequently are!