Team
Show why THIS team wins. The single slide investors spend the most time on at seed, they are betting on you.
Draft your slide, then click Mark complete to move forward. The checklist and quiz below are optional self-tests. You can mark complete anytime.
Include, tick each as you draft
Nothing checked yet. You can still mark this module complete and continue.
Cut
- ✕Long resumes and titles
- ✕Advisors crowding out founders
- ✕More than ~3 people on the main slide
- ✕Photos that look nothing like the founders in a meeting
Red flags investors call out
- !Advisors take more space than founders
- !No explanation of why this team wins this problem
- !Every founder has the same background (missing skill)
Common failure patterns
What experienced readers spot first when this slide is weak.
- 1Bios lead with degrees or titles instead of what each founder shipped.
- 2Advisors take more visual space than founders on the main slide.
- 3There's no line explaining why this team, specifically, wins this problem.
Run this against your own slide (60 seconds)
- ?Does each bio name a prior product or scope the reader can verify in one search?
- ?If you swapped 'we' for 'they', would the slide still argue for THIS team over any other?
If either answer is no, the fix is above in Include or in the Weak vs. strong block below.
Starter template
[Name], [role]. [One line proving relevant skill for THIS problem]. Co-founders since [year / context].
Weak vs. strong, the same slide, rewritten
“Passionate entrepreneurs with 20+ years of combined experience.”
“Jane Liu, CEO. Built Rippling's international contractor product 0 → $40M ARR across 40 countries. Marcus Osei, CTO. Owned Wise's SWIFT + stablecoin payout rails for 8 years. Priya Rao, Compliance. Wrote Deel's LATAM/APAC playbook.”
Each bio names the exact prior product and the exact scope, the same founder-market-fit story the Nimbus team slide tells.
Check yourself
Sources
See the full methodology for how dwell seconds and scoring weights are derived.