Across the Web3 startup landscape, a striking pattern persists: roughly two-thirds of decks presented to investors omit a robust treasury or liquidity-management model. Our analysis indicates that 67% is not a marginal deviation but a systemic gap, rooted in early-stage founders’ emphasis on product delivery, growth curves, and token narrative rather than disciplined capital stewardship. In markets where token volatility, regulatory uncertainty, and multi-chain custody risk compound uncertainty, a credible treasury model is not a luxury—it is a prerequisite for risk-adjusted evaluation. The absence of such models materially elevates funding risk, obscures path-to-profitability, and diminishes the credibility of a project’s long-horizon strategic plan. Conversely, decks that embed transparent treasury frameworks—encompassing asset diversification, risk controls, liquidity protocols, and contingency planning—signal operational maturity, governance discipline, and an alignment of incentives with investors and token holders. This dichotomy creates a bifurcated value signal: projects with treasury discipline attract a higher multiple and lower discount rate, while those without treasury rigor face elevated capital costs and greater likelihood of capital destruction in adverse market cycles.
The implication for venture and private equity investors is twofold. First, the absence of treasury modeling is a leading indicator of governance risk and mispricing of capital expenditure. Second, projects that systematically harden their treasury approach—through multi-asset custody, auditable treasury dashboards, defined rebalancing rules, and scenario-based stress testing—are better positioned to weather volatility and regulatory shifts, preserving investor confidence and value across cycles. This report provides a framework to reallocate diligence focus: prioritize governance and treasury rigor as a keystone screening criterion, and calibrate valuation assessments to the quality of treasury architecture as a proxy for long-term value creation. As the Web3 funding environment matures, the credibility of a project’s treasury plan may become as important as its product roadmap or go-to-market strategy in determining funding outcomes and post-funding performance.
From a market intelligence perspective, the 67% benchmark compresses the spectrum of risk and opportunity into a single axis: treasury maturity. Where a project pairs a credible treasury model with disciplined tokenomics, transparent spend controls, and probabilistic forecasting of treasury health, it reduces burn-rate uncertainty and strengthens alignment with core metrics such as runway duration, liquidity depth, and platform resilience. In practice, this shifts investor decision-making toward a more nuanced, scenario-driven analysis of capital allocation, governance incentives, and treasury risk management. The result is a market in which treasury discipline becomes a differentiator rather than a footnote, with measurable implications for deal terms, diligence timelines, and post-issuance stewardship.
In the near term, the absence of treasury models is likely to persist in the absence of standardized disclosure norms and third-party assurance. Yet early signals suggest a tipping point: institutional capital, decoupled from speculative narratives, increasingly demands transparent capital-pharmacology—asset allocation policies, risk budgets, and contingency plans—embedded within the deck narrative. As professionalization accelerates, the arc bends toward a new baseline where treasury modeling is incrementally required for larger rounds, preconceived investor terms, and more rigorous post-funding governance. For portfolio construction, this implies that managers who analytically price treasury risk and incorporate robust treasury dashboards into their diligence will achieve superior risk-adjusted returns over a typical VC cycle for Web3 ventures.
Beyond individual projects, the market-wide implication is a shift in where value accretes. Advisors and syndicate leads who emphasize treasury architecture during term-sheet negotiations can compress required risk premia and unlock larger, more patient pools of capital. This dynamic also encourages the emergence of specialized treasury-management services, auditing frameworks, and standardized treasury templates that reduce execution risk for both founders and investors. In short, the prevalence of credible treasury models is not merely an operational concern—it is a strategic accelerant for capital efficiency, governance integrity, and resilience in the volatile Web3 funding universe.
Finally, the geographic and regulatory dimension cannot be ignored. Jurisdictions with clearer token- and treasury-related guidance tend to exhibit higher treasury-model adoption in early-stage decks, as founders anticipate downstream compliance and investor scrutiny. Conversely, in environments with uncertain or evolving guidance, treasury modeling becomes a hedge against misinterpretation of token utility, revenue recognition, and asset custody. This regional dynamic compounds the universal need for transparent treasury articulation in pitch materials and underpins the predictive value of treasury discipline as a risk-management signal for investors navigating cross-border Web3 opportunities.
The Web3 venture ecosystem remains highly dynamic, characterized by rapid fundraising cycles, a proliferation of tokenized business models, and a spectrum of governance architectures. The cardiovascular risk of these ventures is increasingly tied to how capital is deployed and safeguarded. Treasury management intersects with multiple risk vectors—asset volatility, liquidity risk, counterparty exposure, regulatory compliance, tax treatment, and platform governance. Projects without explicit treasury constructs effectively outsource significant risk to chance, forecasting and financial planning instead on optimistic token appreciation and speculative fundraising success. In a market where liquidity events can be abrupt and token markets gyrate on minutes-to-hours news cycles, a formal treasury model operates as a risk-control mechanism, akin to the capital-structure discipline found in more mature technology startups, but tailored to the idiosyncrasies of crypto-asset balance sheets and revenue streams.
From a capital-structure perspective, venture investors have historically rewarded teams that demonstrate coherent capital budgets, runway management, and tranching aligned with milestones. In Web3, these expectations extend to treasury design: how much capital remains in reserve, what assets diversify the treasury, and how maturity-linked spendings are scheduled. The absence of these elements in 67% of decks signals a misalignment with best-practice governance. The market is increasingly attuned to the fragility of token- and protocol-driven economics when coupled with ill-defined cash-control mechanisms. In practice, this means investors are applying higher risk premia to decks lacking treasury visibility, and conversely offering more favorable terms to teams that provide defensible, auditable treasury strategies that demonstrate prudent liquidity, risk mitigation, and contingency planning for black-swan events or regulatory shifts.
Operationally, the drift toward professional treasury practice is being accelerated by the emergence of specialized tools and services. Multi-signature custody, diversified asset allocations across stablecoins, fiat on/off ramps with compliant KYC, automated rebalancing, and treasury dashboards that integrate on-chain and off-chain data are no longer niche capabilities; they are becoming table stakes for credible fundraising narratives. Partnerships with compliant custodians, independent auditors, and risk-management frameworks are increasingly considered baseline expectations for Series A and beyond. As such, the 67% figure is not only a reflection of past behavior but a forecast of market normalization: over the next 12 to 24 months, a material share of Web3 decks will incorporate modular, auditable treasury components as a standard feature, with investors seeking verified evidence of resilience and governance alignment before committing capital at scale.
Regulatory dynamics further complicate treasury design. Jurisdictional clarity on token classifications, revenue recognition, and tax treatment directly influences how a treasury can or should be structured. Projects that proactively align treasury architecture with evolving guidance—documenting asset classes, risk budgets, policy frameworks, and incident-response plans—are more likely to attract institutional LPs and strategic investors who demand governance rigor and predictable capital trajectories. In an environment where policy shifts can rapidly alter a project's burn rate or revenue certainty, the treasury model functions as a defensible mechanism to simulate regulatory impact and stress-test capital plans under multiple compliance regimes.
In sum, the market context reinforces the premise that treasury discipline is a core differentiator, not a cosmetic addition. For investors, the presence or absence of a credible treasury framework should influence deal terms, diligence tempo, and post-investment governance expectations. The 67% figure is a diagnostic of the current misalignment and a beacon for where diligence and capitalization strategies must evolve to capture long-horizon value in Web3 ventures.
Core Insights
First, credibility compounds. Projects that embed a dynamic treasury model—one that accounts for asset mix, liquidity facilities, staking or yield strategies, and predictable spend profiles—tend to exhibit higher transparency and lower perceived risk. This credibility compounds with governance processes, enabling more favorable syndicate terms and faster decision cycles. Second, the complexity of tokenomics often outpaces deck narrative—founders may be confident about token supply and price appreciation but fail to articulate how treasury resources will be managed across scenarios, including adverse market moves. The lack of a stress-tested treasury plan invites scepticism about resilience and long-term strategy, depressing the risk-adjusted value proposition. Third, misalignment between token model and real-world economics—such as disproportionate burn mechanics, mispriced treasury risk, or misaligned incentives among token holders—destroys alignment with investors who seek durable unit economics and predictable capital utilization. Fourth, treasury-model maturity is a leading proxy for organizational sophistication. Teams that codify treasury rules, publish governance guidelines, and implement external validation—audits, treasury dashboards, and third-party risk assessments—signal an enduring commitment to responsible capital stewardship, which reduces governance risk and elevates post-funding performance prospects.
From a forecasting perspective, the relationship between treasury discipline and fundraising outcomes appears nonlinear. Small improvements in treasury transparency can yield outsized reductions in perceived risk, translating into better term sheets, lower discount rates, and faster capital deployment. Conversely, persistent opacity around capital allocation increases the likelihood of mid-cycle capital calls, mis-timed liquidity events, and pressure to revisit valuations, all of which erode investor confidence and project momentum. This dynamic is particularly acute in multi-chain and cross-border models where currency risk, custody risk, and regulatory variance multiply the cost of capital and complicate governance. The lesson for investors is clear: treasury discipline is not merely a risk management checkbox; it is a strategic lever that shapes funding velocity, partnership structure, and long-run value realization.
Micro-to-macro, the 67% figure also reveals a field-wide opportunity for standardization. If investors converge on a common treasury-disclosure framework, with auditable templates and defined metrics, the yolk of uncertainty can be gradually replaced with measurable risk-reward profiles. The emergence of independent treasury-rating services, standardized disclosure templates, and best-practice playbooks would further compress risk premia and accelerate the maturation of the asset class. In a market where external shocks are possible and often abrupt, such standardization acts as a stabilizing mechanism, reducing information asymmetry and enabling more agile capital deployment in both upcycles and downturns.
Investment Outlook
Looking ahead, the investment outlook hinges on the pace at which treasury discipline scales from niche best practices to industry standard. We forecast a gradual but meaningful shift over the next 12 to 24 months, where an increasing share of Web3 decks includes structured treasury models, accompanied by third-party validation and ongoing governance commitments. This trajectory, if realized, will lower execution risk, improve alignment between founders and investors, and expand the capital-raising bandwidth available to projects with credible treasury management. In practical terms, expect higher-quality term sheets, more rigorous due-diligence frameworks focused on treasury architecture, and greater demand for post-funding governance mechanisms that monitor treasury health, asset diversification, and liquidity risk in real time.
From a portfolio perspective, venture firms that embed treasury discipline as a core screening criterion will outperform peers by reducing capital-at-risk in early-stage allocations. Funds with active treasury governance overlays—requiring ongoing disclosure, independent audits, and regular treasury-health reviews—are likely to secure better terms, more patient capital commitments, and stronger co-investor syndicates. This premium will be particularly pronounced in stages where capital burns are sensitive to token volatility and regulatory outcomes, such as Series A+ rounds and later-stage rounds for tokenized business models. For limited partners, the refinement of treasury modeling translates to improved risk-adjusted returns and enhanced credibility of the fund’s Web3 exposure, as governance and capital discipline align with fiduciary responsibilities and risk controls expected at institutional scales.
Strategically, investors should prioritize two categories of signals in treasury evaluation. First, the existence of a formal asset-allocation policy paired with risk budgets and documented rebalancing rules, including trigger thresholds for liquidity and reserve ratios. Second, the quality and credibility of independent attestations—audits of treasury controls, escrow arrangements, and custody solutions—along with dashboards that present real-time treasury health metrics. Beyond controls, investors should assess the alignment of treasury decisions with product milestones, revenue streams, and platform-usage growth. A treasury plan that merely buffers against price shocks without tying into go-to-market milestones or platform adoption has limited long-run value; one that connects capital allocation to measurable outcomes—user growth, network effects, and institutional partnerships—provides a blueprint for durable value creation.
Future Scenarios
Base case scenario: Over the next 12 to 24 months, a critical mass of Web3 decks adopt credible treasury models. The market witnesses a gradual compression of risk premia associated with early-stage crypto ventures, enabling larger rounds, lower discount rates, and faster funding velocity. Treasury transparency becomes a standard diligence checkpoint, with third-party verification increasingly common. The resulting capital efficiency translates into more predictable runway management, healthier token economics, and improved project resilience during downturns. Investor confidence rises as governance overlays mature, reducing the likelihood of abrupt capital shortfalls or misaligned incentives post-funding.
Upside (bull) scenario: A synchronized wave of regulatory clarity combined with robust treasury-management tooling accelerates adoption. Projects with diversified treasuries, automated risk controls, and transparent governance dashboards outperform in both liquidity and governance reliability. This environment attracts multi-strategy investors and long-horizon capital, leading to larger rounds at higher valuations, as market participants reward disciplined capital stewardship and predictable capital deployment aligned with strategic milestones.
Downside (bear) scenario: Regulatory constraints tighten, custody and taxation complexities escalate, and a portion of the market experiences disparate token valuations due to policy shifts. Projects without credible treasury models suffer sharper runways erosion, forcing heavy-capital retrenchments, debt-like structures, or fundraising cliffs. Investor risk aversion rises, pricing power declines, and some portfolios experience concentration risk as concerns over treasury opacity re-emerge in downturn phases.
Base-case with acceleration: If an ecosystem emerges to standardize treasury disclosure—with uniform metrics, audit framings, and plug-and-play treasury modules—the speed at which deck quality improves could outpace expectations. Time-to-close shortens, syndication grows more efficient, and a new class of diligence service providers emerges to support treasury certification. This accelerates the normalization of treasury modeling as a cornerstone of Web3 investment rationality, potentially redefining the capital-raising playbook for the sector.
Ultimately, the trajectory hinges on instrumented risk management. Projects that evolve from anecdotal, narrative-based treasury thinking to data-driven, auditable, and regulatorily aligned treasury governance will separate themselves in deal flow and in post-money performance. The 67% gap represents not only exposure but also a large latent opportunity for investors to affect risk-adjusted outcomes by incentivizing and supporting treasury-maturity improvements within portfolio companies.
Conclusion
The heavy prevalence of decks lacking treasury models is a telling symptom of an immature risk-management culture in Web3 fundraising. In a market defined by volatility, evolving regulatory expectations, and the asymmetry of information between founders and investors, a credible treasury framework serves as a stabilizing governance mechanism and a strategic capital-allocation tool. The absence of such models elevates the probability of misallocation, mispricing, and misaligned incentives, while the introduction of disciplined treasury design yields measurable improvements in fundraising velocity, capital discipline, and long-term resilience. For venture and private equity professionals, the imperative is clear: elevate treasury transparency as a core diligence criterion, require external validation where possible, and weigh treasury robustness as a determinant of valuation and governance quality. In a world where capital efficiency and governance integrity increasingly determine who wins in Web3, treasury modeling is not a peripheral capability—it is the operational backbone of durable, scalable venture value.
As markets evolve, those teams that couple product vision with a disciplined treasury strategy will not only survive but thrive, attracting patient capital, enabling sustainable growth, and delivering superior outcomes for stakeholders. The 67% figure should be interpreted as a call to action for investors to demand and reward treasury discipline, transforming it from a compliance checkbox into a strategic competitive differentiator that reshapes deal structures, diligence timelines, and the trajectory of value creation in the Web3 ecosystem.
Guru Startups analyzes Pitch Decks using LLMs across 50+ points to assess governance, tokenomics, treasury architecture, and operational resilience, among other indicators. Learn more at Guru Startups.