Looking at the ICAFR26 agenda, the focus is clear.

Secondary markets, investor experience, cross-border activity — all areas that are shaping how the market evolves.

Those are important topics, and they should be.

But in practice, conversations at these events often move in a slightly different direction.

Once discussions get going, a lot of attention shifts to what happens before a deal goes live.

The preparation.

The structuring of information.

The back-and-forth required to get everything aligned.

It’s less visible, but it’s where much of the work sits.

Even the main themes connect back to that.

Secondary markets depend on trust in the underlying deals.

Investor experience depends on how clearly information is presented.

Cross-border activity depends on how consistently things are structured.

So while the focus is often on what happens once a deal is live, many of the practical challenges sit earlier in the process.

That’s something that tends to come up repeatedly in conversations with platforms.

Looking forward to the discussions at ICAFR26.

For a long time, access to private markets was limited.

Early-stage companies, growth deals, and other private investments were mostly reserved for institutional capital and high-net-worth individuals. For most people, these opportunities simply weren’t available.

That has been changing.

Over the past few years, retail participation in private markets has increased, driven in part by regulatory changes and the growth of digital investment platforms. Recent analysis also highlights how retail-driven participation is playing a growing role in shaping market dynamics and access to capital.

In the US, frameworks like Regulation Crowdfunding (Reg CF) expanded access by allowing non-accredited investors to participate in early-stage funding rounds, within defined limits.

In the UK and parts of Europe, similar models have enabled broader participation through regulated platforms, making it possible for individuals to invest in private companies alongside other investors.

This shift has changed who participates in private markets.

Retail investors are no longer entirely on the outside. In many cases, they are part of the same funding rounds as institutional or accredited investors, contributing smaller amounts but in larger numbers.

At the same time, platforms have adapted to support this.

Investor onboarding processes, disclosures, and communication formats have evolved to accommodate a wider audience. Information that was once primarily designed for professional investors is now being presented in a way that can be understood more broadly.

None of this removes the complexity of private market investing.

Opportunities still carry risk. Information still requires interpretation. And regulatory frameworks continue to define how participation works and what protections are in place.

What has changed is access.

Retail investors can now participate in areas that were previously closed to them, and in some cases, play a meaningful role in how deals are funded.

This has also had an impact on how capital is distributed.

Instead of relying entirely on a small number of large investors, some deals now bring together a wider base of participants. That can influence how campaigns are structured, how information is presented, and how engagement is managed throughout a raise.

The result is a private market that is gradually becoming more open, while still operating within defined regulatory boundaries.

It’s not a complete shift, and access still varies by region. But the direction is clear.

Retail participation is no longer an exception. It’s becoming part of how private markets function.

On the surface, crowdfunding looks like it’s doing well.

Funding volumes have been increasing, and in some markets quite significantly. According to recent data from Crowdfund Watchdog, overall funding rose in 2025 even as the number of deals did not follow the same trend.

At first glance, that might seem like a contradiction. More money should mean more activity, more companies raising, more deals overall.

In practice, what’s happening is slightly different.

The capital is concentrating.

Instead of being spread across a larger number of campaigns, more funding is going into a smaller set of deals. Larger raises, stronger campaigns, and more established companies are capturing a bigger share of the available capital.

There are a few reasons behind this.

One is selectivity.

As the market matures, both platforms and investors are becoming more selective about which deals move forward. Not every company that applies ends up going live, and not every live campaign attracts meaningful capital.

Another is scale.

Some campaigns are simply raising more than before. Higher targets, larger rounds, and the ability to reach wider audiences mean that a single deal can absorb a significant amount of capital.

This changes how the market behaves.

If you’re only looking at total funding volume, it suggests growth and expansion. But when you look at deal count alongside it, a different picture appears — one where activity is becoming more concentrated.

That distinction matters.

Because it affects how opportunities are distributed.

For companies, it can mean a more competitive environment to get a deal live or to stand out once it is. For investors, it can mean more capital flowing into fewer opportunities, rather than being spread across a broader set of options.

It also highlights something else.

Growth in volume doesn’t necessarily mean broader participation.

It can also reflect deeper allocation into a smaller number of deals.

None of this suggests that the market is shrinking. But it does show that it’s evolving.

From a phase where access was expanding, to one where selection and allocation play a bigger role.

And that’s a different kind of growth.

When investors look at more than one deal, they’re not just assessing the companies themselves.

They’re also trying to compare them.

That sounds straightforward, but in practice it isn’t.

Because even when two deals contain similar information, they’re rarely presented in the same way.

One might show financials clearly, with assumptions explained. Another might include projections, but without much context. Risk sections can vary in detail. Use of funds might be specific in one case and broad in another.

Nothing is necessarily missing. But it’s not always consistent.

And that’s where things slow down.

When information is structured differently across deals, investors have to spend more time interpreting what they’re looking at. It’s harder to line things up, harder to compare like-for-like, and easier to miss details.

This doesn’t just affect investors.

Platforms, advisors, and internal teams also deal with the same issue. Each new deal often requires reworking information into a format that fits, even when the underlying content is similar.

Over time, this creates repetition.

The same types of data are collected again and again, but not always in the same structure. That makes it harder to reuse, harder to review, and harder to build on.

Consistency, in this context, doesn’t mean making every deal identical.

It means making information easier to understand across different deals.

That can be as simple as:

• presenting financials in a comparable format
• clearly stating assumptions
• structuring key sections in a predictable way

When that happens, comparison becomes faster. Patterns are easier to spot. Decisions take less effort.

Without it, most of the work shifts from evaluating the deal to interpreting the information.

And that’s where a lot of time gets lost.

Private market platforms have come a long way in the last few years.

It’s now much easier to find deals, browse opportunities, and get a quick sense of what’s out there. Compared to how fragmented things used to be, that’s real progress.

But once you get past that first layer, once you actually try to understand or compare opportunities, things start to slow down.

Because making something visible isn’t the same as making it usable.

Most deal pages do a decent job at presenting information. You’ll see summaries, some financials, maybe traction, maybe a deck. Everything you’d expect is technically there.

But the experience of actually working through that information is still quite uneven.

You open one deal and the financials are laid out one way. Another deal, completely different format. Sometimes assumptions are clear, sometimes they’re not. Sometimes key information is easy to find, sometimes you have to dig for it.

None of this is necessarily wrong; it just adds friction.

And that friction compounds when you’re looking at multiple opportunities side by side.

The same thing happens on the platform side, just less visible.

Before a deal even gets published, there’s a lot of work going on behind the scenes. Documents being reviewed, information being structured, compliance checks, internal discussions. A lot of that process is still manual, still fragmented, and often repeated from scratch for every deal.

By the time something shows up neatly on a deal page, a lot of effort has already gone into making it “presentable.”

But presentable doesn’t always mean easy to use.

If anything, it can hide how inconsistent the underlying data and process actually are.

That’s probably the gap.

A lot of infrastructure today is built to surface opportunities to make them visible and accessible. But less attention has gone into making those opportunities easy to work with, compare, and process efficiently.

And that’s where time gets lost. For investors trying to make decisions, and for platforms trying to get deals ready in the first place.

Visibility solved one problem.

Usability is still catching up.

Private market access is often divided into two categories: accredited investors and retail investors.

While the definitions vary by region, the practical differences come down to who can invest, how much they can invest, and what opportunities they can access.

Who Qualifies

In the United States, accredited investors are typically defined by income or net worth thresholds. For example, individuals earning over a certain annual income or holding a net worth above a defined level qualify for broader access.

Retail investors, by contrast, include the general public and are not required to meet these financial thresholds.

In other regions, similar distinctions exist, although the criteria and terminology may differ.

Access to Opportunities

Accredited investors generally have access to a wider range of private market opportunities.

These include:

• Private placements under exemptions such as Regulation D
• Venture capital and private equity funds
• Certain early-stage deals not available to the public

Retail investors typically access opportunities through regulated frameworks designed to allow broader participation. These are often facilitated by platforms operating under specific rules, such as Regulation Crowdfunding in the US or equivalent frameworks in other regions.

Investment Limits

One of the most practical differences is how much investors can commit.

Accredited investors are usually not subject to the same investment limits and can allocate capital freely within available opportunities.

Retail investors, however, are often subject to limits based on income or net worth, depending on the regulatory framework. These limits are designed to manage exposure to higher-risk investments.

Information and Experience

The investor experience also differs.

Opportunities available to accredited investors may come with fewer standardized disclosure requirements, depending on the structure of the offering.

Retail-accessible opportunities are typically presented within more structured environments, where information is standardized and platforms play a role in organizing how it is displayed.

This can result in:

• More consistent presentation for retail investors
• More flexibility, but less standardization, for accredited investors

Platform Role

Platforms often act as a bridge for retail participation.

They provide structured deal pages, standardized information, and processes designed to support investor understanding and compliance.

In accredited-only environments, the role of platforms may be reduced, with more reliance on direct relationships, networks, or intermediaries.

Final Thought

The distinction between accredited and retail investors is not only about eligibility. It shapes how opportunities are accessed, how much can be invested, and how information is presented.

Understanding these differences is essential for navigating private markets across regions and platforms.

Pitch decks are often described as storytelling tools.

In practice, most follow a repeatable structure, especially on equity crowdfunding platforms where information needs to be clear and easy to scan.

Looking across platforms like Seedrs (Republic Europe) and Wefunder, consistent patterns appear in both length and structure.

Length Is Surprisingly Standard

Most early-stage decks fall between 10 and 15 slides.

Some are shorter when the company is very early. Others extend slightly when including more traction or financial detail. But overall, the range is consistent.

The focus is not on covering everything, but on presenting enough information for a quick, clear understanding.

The Structure Rarely Changes

Despite differences in design, most decks follow the same sequence.

They begin with a problem, followed by a solution. Then come sections on market size, product, and traction. After that, the deck usually covers the business model and go-to-market approach.

Competition and team are almost always included, followed by basic financial projections and details of the raise.

The wording varies, but the structure is highly predictable.

Traction Is Almost Always Present

Even at early stages, most decks include some form of validation.

This can be revenue, user growth, partnerships, or early pilots. The format differs, but the presence of traction is consistent across platforms.

Decks Are Built for Speed

Most slides are light on text and rely on short statements, simple visuals, and charts.

The goal is clarity. Investors should be able to move through the deck quickly without needing detailed explanations.

The Role of Platforms

On crowdfunding platforms, the deck is not the only source of information.

Deal pages already include structured data such as risk disclosures and financial summaries. As a result, decks focus more on narrative and highlights rather than full detail.

Final Thought

Pitch decks may look different on the surface, but their structure is largely standardized.

Across platforms and regions, startups present information in similar ways, shaped by how investors review opportunities today.

For years, the conversation around startups has been simple: there isn’t enough capital.

That’s no longer entirely true.

Capital is available — but it’s not moving as easily as people think. And the reason isn’t demand. It’s verification.

Behind every deal, there’s a growing layer of work:

• compliance checks
• legal reviews
• financial validation
• investor questions
• back-and-forth across multiple systems

This is where things slow down.

The invisible friction

From the outside, fundraising looks fast — announcements, rounds closing, momentum.

But underneath, platforms and investors are dealing with something very different:

• manual due diligence processes
• fragmented data
• repeated checks across the same information
• long response cycles when questions come up

Even a single issue can stall a deal for days.

Multiply that across multiple deals, multiple jurisdictions, and multiple stakeholders — and the bottleneck becomes clear.

It’s not about more deals. It’s about better ones.

The industry doesn’t just need more opportunities.

It needs deals that are easier to understand, validate, and trust.

Right now, too much of the process depends on:

• subjective judgment
• incomplete information
• and time-consuming verification

That creates hesitation — especially in cross-border scenarios, where trust is harder to establish.

The real constraint: confidence

Investors don’t just ask “Is this a good deal?”

They ask:

• Can I trust the information?
• Has this been properly reviewed?
• Who stands behind this data?

When those answers aren’t clear, capital slows down — even if the opportunity is strong.

Where this is heading

Private markets are entering a phase where speed alone isn’t the advantage anymore.

Clarity is.

The platforms and ecosystems that move faster will be the ones that:

• reduce manual work
• standardize verification
• make evidence easier to access and trust

Because ultimately, capital doesn’t move when deals exist.

It moves when confidence exists.

Artificial intelligence is attracting extraordinary amounts of capital.

From massive infrastructure rounds to early-stage model startups, AI has quickly become the dominant theme in venture investment. In recent months alone, some of the largest funding rounds in startup history have gone to AI companies.

But the impact of this funding wave extends far beyond the AI sector itself.

It is quietly reshaping how venture capital works across the entire startup ecosystem.

Capital Is Concentrating

One clear trend is the concentration of capital.

Large investors are increasingly placing fewer, bigger bets on companies building core AI technologies or infrastructure. These rounds can reach billions of dollars and involve multiple major funds collaborating in a single deal.

While overall funding volumes remain strong, the number of deals across the broader market has not grown at the same pace. In many sectors, early-stage companies are finding that raising capital has become more selective.

The result is a venture landscape where capital is abundant — but not evenly distributed.

Talent Is Following the Money

Capital concentration also pulls talent in the same direction.

Engineers, researchers, and founders are increasingly drawn to AI projects because they offer the largest funding rounds, the highest valuations, and the most ambitious technological challenges.

This creates a feedback loop: more talent leads to faster innovation, which attracts even more capital.

At the same time, startups in other sectors must compete harder to attract both funding and technical talent.

Investors Are Becoming More Selective

As the AI wave accelerates, investors are also tightening their expectations in other sectors.

Startups that once raised funding based primarily on vision and potential are now more often asked to demonstrate:

• clear market traction
• strong operational discipline
• credible paths to revenue.

In other words, the bar is rising.

A New Venture Cycle

None of this means other sectors will stop receiving funding.

But it does suggest that the venture market is entering a new phase — one where capital moves in powerful waves around major technological shifts.

AI is currently that wave.

And like previous waves — cloud computing, mobile platforms, and internet infrastructure — its influence will shape not only the companies being funded today, but also the expectations investors bring to the rest of the market.

For decades, the typical startup story followed a familiar pattern.

A small team builds a product, raises capital, and then goes looking for customers.

But increasingly, that sequence is flipping.

Many of today’s most successful startups are not beginning with a product at all. They are beginning with a community.

And that shift is changing how companies are built, funded, and scaled.

Community Before Product

In traditional startup thinking, the community comes later — after the product proves itself.

Today, founders are increasingly building audiences first. These communities might form around an idea, a problem, a shared interest, or a new technology.

Only after that community exists does the product take shape.

This approach reduces one of the biggest risks in building a company: building something nobody wants.

When a community already exists, founders gain early signals about:

• what people actually need
• what features matter most
• how the product should evolve.

In many cases, the community becomes the startup’s first users, advocates, and contributors.

Where This Model Is Appearing

This community-first model is already visible across several parts of the startup ecosystem.

Developer communities often produce successful infrastructure startups because thousands of developers are already engaged with the tools being built.

Creator ecosystems are launching companies around audiences that already exist on platforms like YouTube, Substack, or Discord.

Crypto projects frequently build large communities before any technology is fully deployed.

Crowdfunding campaigns also demonstrate how early supporters can help validate demand long before a company reaches scale.

In each case, the startup is not starting from zero.

It is starting from shared belief and participation.

Community as an Early Trust Layer

Communities also serve another important function: trust.

In early-stage markets, uncertainty is high. Investors, partners, and early users are often evaluating ideas that have very little operating history.

A strong community can become a powerful signal.

If thousands of people are actively engaged around a project, contributing ideas, testing products, or supporting development, it suggests the startup is solving a real problem.

This kind of social validation is difficult to manufacture.

It has to be earned.

The New Startup Playbook

This does not mean product and execution matter less.

But it does mean the early stages of building a company may look different than they did a decade ago.

Instead of asking, “How do we build a product and then find users?”

More founders are asking:

“Where is the community that already cares about this problem?”

From there, the company grows alongside the people who helped bring it to life.

And in a world where attention and trust are increasingly scarce, that might be one of the strongest foundations a startup can build.