Flexible engagement models.

The default for most engagements. You define the scope, we agree on a price, and engineering starts on a clear timeline. The resulting code and intellectual property belong to you. No warrants, no vesting schedules, no cap table conversations. When the work is done, the relationship ends cleanly unless both sides want to continue.

This model works best when the project has a well defined scope, a known budget, and a team that will own the system after launch. It is also the right starting point when the relationship is new. Most of our engagements begin here and stay here, because simplicity is a feature.

For a small number of projects each year, we reduce or waive our fee in exchange for a meaningful equity stake. This is not a discount program. It is a deliberate decision to stand closer to the outcome, which means both sides have skin in the game. We look for founders with conviction, a problem that is genuinely interesting, and a realistic path to a product that people will pay for.

When engineering is core to the product's success, equity alignment changes how the team shows up. We stop thinking like a vendor filling a statement of work and start thinking like a partner invested in long term outcomes. Terms are negotiated individually, documented simply, and structured so incentives stay aligned through launch and beyond.

For platforms that generate recurring revenue, the engagement trades part of the fee for a percentage of revenue over an agreed period. This aligns incentives directly with the product's commercial success. The engineering team is motivated to build systems that perform in production, not just pass acceptance testing, because the revenue share only flows when the platform is live and earning.

Revenue share works well when the platform has a clear monetization model, whether that is transaction fees, subscription revenue, or settlement margins. Terms are structured around a defined revenue metric, a percentage, and a duration. Both sides understand exactly what success looks like and how the economics flow.

A combination of fee, equity, and revenue share tailored to the project's constraints. Maybe a reduced monthly fee paired with equity upside. Maybe a standard fee with a revenue share tail that rewards long term performance. Maybe a milestone based structure where the fee adjusts as the project hits commercial targets.

Every hybrid is structured around the specific situation. Limited early capital, uncertain timeline, revenue that is close but not yet flowing. The terms are explained in writing before any paperwork moves, so nothing in the final agreement comes as a surprise.