Module 09 · The fundraising deck~20s dwell · weight 9
Traction
Prove momentum with honest numbers. At Series A this leads the deck; investors' eyes linger here longest.
Include
- Revenue (ARR or MRR), growth rate, and retention
- The single graph that best tells the story, with labeled axes
- Pilots, LOIs, design partners (named, if allowed)
- The driver behind the numbers ('outbound to remote-native CFOs', 'PLG SEO')
Cut
- Vanity metrics with no context (registered users, app installs)
- Cherry-picked date windows
- Screenshots standing in for real numbers
- Cumulative curves that hide flat months
Red flags a reader notices
- Charts with no y-axis labels
- Only cumulative curves (hides flat months)
- Growth-rate quoted with no absolute number
Pitfalls behind them
- The chart is cumulative-only, hiding any flat or declining months.
- Growth rate is quoted without the absolute number behind it.
- Vanity metrics (signups, waitlist, GitHub stars) stand in for revenue or retention.
60-second self-test
- · Can you walk any partner through what happened in your weakest month, unprompted?
- · Are both a growth rate and a retention number visible on the slide?
Template
$[start] → $[current] [MRR/ARR] over [N months], driven by [channel]. Retention: [logo]% / [net dollar]%.
Weak
"Users love us, 4.8 star reviews and growing every week!"
Strong
"$4K → $196K ARR over 8 months (34 customers), driven by founder-led outbound to remote-native CFOs. 22% net-new MoM. Net dollar retention 118% at the 6mo cohort."
Named metric, timeframe, driver, and the two retention numbers a partner asks for anyway, matching the chart on Nimbus's traction slide.
Quick quiz
1. Which traction claim is strongest?
- ○ 'Users love us, 4.8 star reviews!'
- ✓ 'ARR grew $4K → $196K over 8 months, driven by outbound to remote-native CFOs.'
Named metric, timeframe, and driver.
2. Why is a cumulative chart alone a red flag?
- ✓ It hides flat or declining months.
- ○ It looks unprofessional.
Cumulative can only go up. Show weekly or monthly bars too.