Project Meridian · synthetic management deck
MVR-20260912-MERIDIAN · prepared by Luis Fontana
Open source room
01 · Case in one page

Meridian asks the investor to underwrite a payments and token design story.

The deck below is a fictional management presentation assembled for challenge practice. Its figures are taken from the existing Meridian workbook and memoranda, with the stated 1.5× currency transformation preserved.

Read as claims to test. This is not management evidence, an external verification, an investment recommendation or a record of a completed meeting.
Illustrative ask
US$675k

Stated pre-seed case; another source states US$600k and 18 months.

Valuation cap
US$5.25m

Simulated SAFT+T transaction reference.

Decision posture
Hold

Critical commercial, funding, rights and mechanics evidence remains open.

02 · Commercial claims

Availability is visible. Demand and revenue are not yet reconciled.

Claim to test: the product is available.

Public Android and iOS listings support listing availability. They do not establish functionality, active use, payments or revenue.

Claim to test: payment operations are established.

Public status language describes payments as forthcoming, while the supplied commercial records mix pilot, live and not-activated descriptions.

Claim to test: traction shows retained paying demand.

Community, registered-user, active-user and venue-reach populations are not interchangeable. Cohort, payer and retention records are required.

Investor challenge. Ask for one dated period reconciled from transaction population to recognized revenue and settled cash. Separate contracted, active, paying and pipeline partners.

Workbook links: C01–C05, Q01–Q03 · Source-room specimen: PS02-A and blank self-test worksheet.

03 · Financial claims

The economics can be recomputed, but the operating case is not yet one coherent model.

Grant-free runway
12.857 mo.

US$675,000 ÷ US$52,500 monthly burn.

Illustrative low case
US$18.197m

US$2.599542m × 7 multiple, arithmetic re-performance.

DCF concentration
96.0%

US$40.810m terminal-value PV ÷ US$42.520m EV.

The same workbook presents a US$5.04m P&L GMV route and a US$39.312m transaction-engine route.
They use different population or period bases and do not reconcile.
Investor challenge. Require one selected operating case, fixed-cost budget, grant-free and delayed-funding cases, plus corrected valuation references before relying on runway or valuation outputs.

Workbook links: C07–C11, F01–F05 · Source-room specimen: DR05-A.

04 · Token and treasury claims

Design arithmetic is clear enough to challenge. Execution, limits and liquidity are not established.

Burn illustration
129.6m

Annual tokens at US$150m monthly GMV, 4% fee, 27% burn share and US$0.15 price.

Floor headroom
60m

100m supply less 40m stated floor.

Node yield
US$780

Monthly per node at US$75m monthly GMV and 500-node uptake.

US$150m GMV × 4% fees × 23% treasury = US$1.380m/month
Less 12.5% licensing = US$0.750m/month
Residual before cashback and other costs = US$0.630m/month
Investor challenge. Correct the transaction example’s 4% fee error, cap burns at the 40m floor, reconcile staking and circulation tables, and provide executed rights or observed secondary liquidity for the node design.

Workbook links: C12–C16, T01–T05 · Source-room specimens: DR06-A and PS02-A.

05 · Decision gates

What must be true before the investor can rely on the story?

Suggested next session. Walk the five gates using the evidence room, log each response in the blank self-test worksheet and preserve the original source locator beside every updated conclusion.

Open challenge brief · Open verification memorandum · Open evidence workbook

All records in this deck are fictional and were not independently verified.