Skip to content
TASILDAR ACCESSBY APPLICATION ONLY

§ DOC — Documentation

The reference manual.

Public documentation for how Tasildar Access operates, who qualifies, and what a strong intake looks like. Read before submitting an application.

§ 04b — Apply

Decision criteria.

Above-threshold applications are scored on three axes. The weighting below is approximate, not algorithmic — reviewers are people, and judgment is the point. We publish the rubric so the questions we ask ourselves are the same questions you can ask of your own submission before sending it.

Alignment

WEIGHT — 40%

How closely the submission matches a current network mandate. Mandates are written, not implied — a strong submission against an absent mandate scores low here on purpose.

QUESTIONS REVIEWERS ASK

  • Is there an active counterparty seeking what this submission offers?
  • Are sectors, stage, geography, and check size compatible with named members?
  • Does the timeline of the ask match a window we can convene around?

Asymmetry

WEIGHT — 35%

What the applicant brings that capital alone cannot replicate. The presence of a defensible edge — distribution, audience, regulatory standing, operating leverage — is the strongest single predictor of admission.

QUESTIONS REVIEWERS ASK

  • What can this party do that a well-funded competitor cannot?
  • Is the edge documented, or asserted?
  • Does the edge compound, or decay?

Scalability

WEIGHT — 25%

Whether the partnership shape can expand without new structuring. A one-off deal scores lower than a structure that compounds across multiple network members.

QUESTIONS REVIEWERS ASK

  • Can the same structure absorb additional capital, distribution, or operators?
  • Does this open a category, or close one?
  • Is the principal someone the network would want to back twice?

Dispositive factors

These end the process regardless of score on the three axes:

  • Material undisclosed litigation, regulatory action, or reputational risk.
  • Mandate fundamentally outside the network's stated scope (we publish scope; we hold to it).
  • Indication that submitted materials misrepresent traction, capital, or counterparties.
  • Behavior during intake — adversarial, evasive, or disrespectful of reviewer time.

§ ON SCORING

Numerical scores are recorded internally to keep cohort comparisons honest. They are never shown to applicants. What you receive is a written reasoned outcome — see Review Process.