Flagship onein preparation
The institutional map of Ethereum
Six organisations can answer when an institution calls. Who does what, where each lane ends, and how to engage each one, ourselves included, with our conflicts printed on the page.
The founding team
Working draft. What follows is an extract from the draft, published for its shape. It is not the volume, it will change, and it is not yet something to cite.
Why a map
When an institution decides to look seriously at Ethereum, its first problem is not technical. It is that nobody’s job is to answer the phone. The protocol has no sales desk, the foundation does not do vendor onboarding, and the companies that will answer have products to sell. The calls happen anyway — they land on whoever a board member happens to know.
This volume maps the organisations that can answer when an institution calls: who does what, where each lane ends, and how to engage each one. Not a directory — a map with edges, because the edges are what an institution actually needs to know before it relies on anyone.
What every entry states
Each organisation in the map gets the same four fields: what it does, stated in its own scope rather than its marketing; where its lane ends, which is the sentence most descriptions omit; how to engage it, with a named route rather than a contact form; and its conflicts, printed on the page.
The fields are the method. A map that flatters its subjects is a brochure, and the institutions this volume is for have read enough brochures.
Who is the counterparty when there is no counterparty?
Ourselves included
Ethereum Institutional appears in its own map, held to the same four fields. Our conflicts are already published: our anchor funders are among the largest corporate holders of ETH, and their chairman and chief executive hold two of three board seats. The volume restates them where the reader is, rather than a link away.