Community Member

August 18 at 09:57 pm

Is there a way to manage folder permissions for a small data room in Hub?

For example, I have one folder "Fund Overview" with the LP presentation, ExecSum and FAQs. Then I could have a separate folder(s) for a more detailed data room supplement. But I only grant access to that second folder for serious investors who ask for it.

I could create two separate data rooms that both contain "Fund Overview" (either with or without the supplemental folders), but then I have to update versions across 2 separate "Fund Overview" folders manually to keep them in sync. This could be managed by instead creating a hyperlink in the detailed data room that goes back to the "Fund Overview" folder.

I'm not sure what the best way to do this is inside the Hub data room. Any guidance is appreciated. Thanks

2 replies

Community Member

August 17 at 08:23 pm

Bug in MCP documentation . instructions for claude code mcp should not contain ${} as the token should be after the :

1 reply

Community Member

August 17 at 02:34 am

One last bit of feedback on Inbound Emails. I've noticed a lot of them are not actionable. It would help if AI could filter out and focus on those emails with action items or requests I need to reply to. This is where I could really use the help, especially to make sure an important email doesn't fall through the cracks.

1 reply

Community Member

August 15 at 05:19 pm

I love the Inbound Email tool to help put focus on relevant emails in my pipelines. Would it be possible to update this to capture inbound emails only from those who are in the given pipeline? Right now, it appears that the list of the same Inbound Emails is showing across all pipelines. Thank you!

3 replies

Community Member

August 13 at 04:01 pm

Thank you for adding the dismiss button to Inbound Emails! As a next addition, I'd like to be able to quickly add a note to that contact in order to capture my response to the communication in their profile. Can you add an "Add Note" button?

1 reply

Community Member

August 13 at 03:13 pm

Newsletters are great, but I'd like the ability to craft a personalized email to each LP as a header to the template newsletter. I appreciate visibility to open/click rate of the newsletters, and don't have that when I send individual emails.

2 replies

Community Member

August 12 at 08:44 pm

Feature Request: Cross-Fund Price-Per-Share & SAFE Benchmarking

Summary

Decile should build a shared, company-level object for pricing data — priced-round price per share (PPS) and SAFE terms — aggregated across the GPs on your platform who hold a position in that company. Today each fund's Decile instance is an island. If ten different GPs hold Company X, Decile has ten independent, unreconciled data points sitting in ten separate accounts, and none of us can see the other nine. Surface that as a shared object and you turn Decile from a bookkeeping system into the pricing utility of record for the venture asset class.

The Problem

Early-stage investors write small checks at pre-seed and seed and routinely lose contractual information rights by the Series A or B. By the time a company reaches Series C or D, we often have no reliable way to know the current price per share short of emailing the founder directly and hoping they respond. That means our marks on older, smaller positions are frequently stale, guessed, or simply carried at last-round cost long after the company has repriced multiple times in either direction.

This isn't a hypothetical. I'm currently running a reconciliation across our own fund between Decile, our internal Airtable, and our management schedule, and the discrepancies are exactly the kind of thing this feature would catch automatically instead of manually. Every GP on your platform has some version of this problem. You're sitting on the data to fix it and you're not using it.

Proposed Feature

1. Priced-round price per share, aggregated by company

For any portfolio company held by two or more funds on Decile, surface:

Latest price per share on file across all contributing funds, with the date and round name attached to each data point
Highest price per share in the system for that company, and which fund/round it corresponds to
Lowest price per share in the system for that company, and which fund/round it corresponds to
Median and count of contributing marks, so a GP can tell whether they're an outlier of one against a group of nine, or whether the "market" itself is only two data points deep and shouldn't be trusted
Your own fund's current mark shown side by side against that range, with a flag if you're above the highest peer mark or below the lowest

2. Do the same for SAFEs

SAFEs need their own version of this because they don't have a clean single "price" the way a priced round does. At minimum:

Valuation cap (and whether it's pre-money or post-money) — highest, lowest, latest, median across contributing funds
Discount rate, if any
MFN status and whether an MFN clause has since been triggered by a later, more favorable SAFE
Conversion status (converted / outstanding), and if converted, into what round and at what terms

3. A reconciliation and audit view for fund accounting

This is the actual deliverable GPs will pay for. Not just the numbers, but the workflow:

A per-portfolio-company report showing "here's what you're marked at, here's what the system-wide range is, here's the delta"
A portfolio-wide audit report that surfaces every position where a fund's mark falls outside the peer range (either direction), sorted by dollar impact so the biggest valuation errors surface first
A prompt, at the point a GP is about to lock a quarterly mark, showing the current cross-fund range for that company so the mark isn't made blind

4. Guidance, not just data, on aggressive vs. conservative marking

GPs are going to ask "should I mark at the high end or the low end of the range," and Decile is well positioned to give a defensible, documented answer rather than making every GP invent their own policy. At minimum, show standard conservative approaches (e.g., last-round price, or the lower of last-round price and the most recent contributing mark) next to the aggressive alternative (e.g., latest priced round regardless of recency, or highest observed mark), so a GP can pick a stated policy and apply it consistently, and so LPs and auditors can see the policy was applied consistently rather than cherry-picked deal by deal.

What Carta Already Does, and Where This Should Go Further

Carta has adjacent functionality worth being aware of. Their Data Desk / Round Benchmarking Tool surfaces aggregate round-size, valuation, and dilution benchmarks across their network, filterable by stage, sector, and region, and their platform description references "last preferred valuation" as a data point available to investors. That's market-level benchmarking (what are Series B valuations doing broadly), not the same thing as this request. It doesn't appear to give a GP a company-specific, cross-fund reconciliation view showing exactly who else holds Company X, what they're marked at, and where a specific fund's number is out of line with peers holding the identical security. That's the gap. Decile's fund administration relationship with GPs (as opposed to Carta's broader company-cap-table-plus-investor footprint) may actually put you in a better position to build the reconciliation and audit workflow specifically, rather than just the market-benchmarking layer Carta already has.

Implementation Considerations

Consent and disclosure. Funds will need to opt in (or out) to contributing their data to the shared pool, and probably opt in per-company or per-fund rather than as a blanket platform setting. Anonymize the contributing fund identity by default (show "Fund A held at $X, Fund B held at $Y" rather than naming funds), with an option for GPs to identify themselves to each other if they want to.
Data provenance. Every data point needs a timestamp, a source (priced round vs. secondary vs. GP-entered estimate), and ideally a confidence flag, since a number pulled from a signed round document is not the same quality as a number a GP typed in from memory.
Stale data handling. A "latest" price per share from fourteen months ago should be visually distinguished from one dated last week. Don't let an old number silently anchor a current mark.

The Ask

I'd like to talk through scoping this, including whether it's a near-term roadmap item or something that needs a design partner group of GPs to pilot. Happy to be a design partner given we're actively living this problem on our own portfolio reconciliation right now.

1 reply

Community Member

August 11 at 07:36 pm

Let's create a 2nd email field for deduplicating contacts, sometimes contacts use the wrong email, especially if logging in with LinkedIn.

0 replies

Community Member

August 06 at 10:00 pm

Add a more accessible button into the top nav to get from hub to base, right now the only obvious way for me to get there is by expanding hte left nav and clicking community

0 replies

Community Member

August 04 at 03:15 pm

The Inbound Emails feature in the pipeline dashboard is great, but I'd like to be able to quickly delete ones that are no longer relevant. Reply and Reply with AI are the only options. Perhaps close out with next step?

2 replies

Community Member

July 28 at 03:34 pm

A great feature for LPs would be a list of portfolio companies on Hub. I'd suggest the company icon, (4-7 word) high level description, and website url.

1 reply

Community Member

July 19 at 05:29 pm

I could not find dark mode settings in the homepage. Could the team please share the procedure to me ?? Best, Sai

0 replies

Community Member

July 15 at 07:06 pm

should be able to customize css and colors on PACT landing page, we do a black background for our website for instance

0 replies

Community Member

July 14 at 06:24 pm

Minor thing: when I'm editing emails in a given pipeline and I'm scrolling down through the list of emails and I click on an email, it resets the scroll of the email selection. I have to keep constantly scrolling down to select the next email.

0 replies

Community Member

July 13 at 06:43 pm

I tried using Claude Co-Work to review and update emails and received this message, which is probably a bug in the Claude connector:

Separately — I hit a real problem with the Decile Hub write tool available to me: attempting to update a person's email by ID silently created a brand-new duplicate contact instead of updating the original, for all 19 people I tried first. I caught it immediately and deleted all 19 duplicates, and verified the original records are untouched (still linked to the pipeline, still showing no email) — no lasting damage, but it means I can't safely write directly into Decile Hub from here until that's fixed on the tool side.

1 reply

Loading more posts...

Person Name Person Name

Prospect Name Prospect Name

Prospect Name

Organization Name

Capital Account Name

# Hub Feedback

Feature Request: Cross-Fund Price-Per-Share & SAFE Benchmarking

1. Priced-round price per share, aggregated by company

2. Do the same for SAFEs

3. A reconciliation and audit view for fund accounting

4. Guidance, not just data, on aggressive vs. conservative marking

Log In or Sign Up

Person Name Person Name

Prospect Name Prospect Name

Prospect Name

Organization Name

Capital Account Name

# Hub Feedback

Feature Request: Cross-Fund Price-Per-Share & SAFE Benchmarking

1. Priced-round price per share, aggregated by company

2. Do the same for SAFEs

3. A reconciliation and audit view for fund accounting

4. Guidance, not just data, on aggressive vs. conservative marking

Log In or Sign Up

Apply to VC Lab Cohort 22