What we ran
Community that could hold a technical conversation. Infrastructure products attract a more sceptical, more technical audience than consumer crypto. Moderation and daily presence had to be able to answer questions about the actual architecture, not deflect them upward.
Influencer work sized to the audience. Creators who could explain an infrastructure product to people evaluating it seriously, rather than the accounts whose audiences respond to price narratives.
Listing services across two rounds. Preparing the diligence file venues actually ask for — distribution and vesting transparency, contract position, evidence of genuine trading demand — rather than submitting applications and hoping.
Two audiences, one story
Enterprise readers and token buyers want completely different things from the same story. Enterprises want to know who is accountable when something goes wrong. Token buyers want to know why the token exists. A campaign that only speaks to one of them loses the other.
The resolution was not to soften the message for either group. It was to lead with the same verifiable facts for both and let the emphasis differ: architecture and accountability toward enterprise readers, distribution and utility toward token buyers.
That only works when the underlying facts hold up under both readings. Where they do not, no amount of framing rescues it — which is a conversation we have had with projects we then declined to work with.
The outcome
The programme raised $2.3M across two rounds. The part we find more interesting is what came after: Obortech went on to work with enterprise clients, which is the harder validation and the one that outlasts a raise number.
