Establishing Exponent’s Institutional Capital-Markets Function: A 30-60-90-Day Plan

Hello. This lesson turns the product, market, and institutional-diligence work of the course into an operating plan for an institutional capital-markets function at Exponent.

A strong 30–60–90-day plan is not a promise to manufacture a particular TVL or revenue figure on a fixed date. In an on-chain rate market, deployment depends on client diligence, custody and legal constraints, available market depth, and product readiness. The plan should instead show that you can establish a repeatable system that converts institutional interest into appropriately risk-assessed, execution-ready, and retained capital.

By the end, you will have a practical draft you can adapt for an Exponent interview: one that treats institutional acquisition as a two-sided market-building problem rather than generic sales outreach.

---

Start with the mandate, not the activity

A conventional enterprise-sales plan can focus mainly on qualified pipeline, bookings, and retention. Exponent’s institutional capital-markets function has a broader job. It must coordinate four conditions:

1. Allocator demand for fixed-rate exposure, yield trading, managed strategies, or protection.
2. Market quality, including reliable execution and sufficient liquidity for the intended size.
3. Institutional readiness, including diligence materials, custody workflows, reporting, and appropriate legal or compliance pathways.
4. Product feedback, so recurring client objections and unmet requirements inform the product and partnerships roadmap.

That is why outreach volume alone is a weak measure of success. A treasury may like a fixed-rate proposition but be unable to deploy without a custody workflow. A market maker may be interested in Rate Order Book or Rate CLMM liquidity but require clearer economics, data, and operational support. A large allocator may want protection, but only if the relevant risk-tranching product is live, eligible, and fits its mandate.

Exponent’s v2 announcement provides the working product context for the plan: a rate-oriented Order Book, Rate CLMM, Strategy Vaults, and developing risk-tranching products. Treat the announcement as a product hypothesis and starting point, not as a substitute for validating current live-market status, terms, liquidity, security documentation, and client eligibility.

Translate products into institutional jobs to be done

Your plan should not lead with a catalogue of features. Lead with the client decision each product may support.

Institutional segment	Primary job to be done	Initial Exponent hypothesis	What must be validated
Crypto asset managers and yield funds	Obtain fixed or diversified on-chain yield within a defined risk and liquidity budget	Principal-token fixed-rate positions, yield trading, or Strategy Vaults	Underlying asset risk, maturity, redemption route, fees, manager mandate, reporting
Professional market makers and active LPs	Quote rates, earn execution economics, and manage inventory actively	Rate Order Book and Rate CLMM	Market depth, order flow, rate volatility, incentives, API or execution workflow, rebalancing burden
Protocol treasuries and sophisticated family offices	Improve treasury yield without losing control of liquidity and downside constraints	Maturity ladder, managed strategy, or a protected structure where available	Liquidity horizon, governance approvals, custody, tax and accounting treatment, downside tolerance
Larger allocators seeking capital protection	Access yield exposure with defined loss absorption or protection terms	Risk-tranching products, only when live and suitable	Legal eligibility, tranche waterfall, counterparty and underlying risks, utilization, exit terms

The same institution can appear in more than one segment. A market maker can provide liquidity and trade yield; an asset manager can allocate to a vault and seek rate execution; a treasury can be both a fixed-rate buyer and a liquidity source. Segment by mandate and capability, not merely by firm label.

---

Make the plan measurable without pretending to know internal targets

A useful interview plan uses a three-part structure for every commitment:

• Objective: What business capability or outcome will exist?
• Actions and artifact: What will you do, and what tangible output will remain?
• Evidence: What metric, decision, or approval demonstrates progress?

For Exponent, separate leading indicators from lagging outcomes.

Category	Leading indicators you can influence early	Lagging outcome
Institutional demand	Named-account coverage, senior discovery meetings, completed requirement matrices, qualified opportunities	Deployed and retained capital
Market formation	Market-maker conversations, quoting commitments, assessed depth needs, live market feedback	Sustained liquidity and improved execution quality
Operational readiness	Completed diligence pack, custody-path confirmation, approved transaction workflow	Successful funding and post-trade operations
Revenue quality	Economics modelled by product and client type, fee assumptions documented	Net protocol or business revenue, where applicable
Retention	Monitoring cadence, client reviews, rollover and exit plans	Capital retained, expanded, or redeployed at maturity

Avoid two common errors:

• Do not count soft interest as capital. “Interested,” “exploring,” and “awaiting diligence” are different pipeline stages.
• Do not use TVL as the sole scorecard. Incentivized or short-duration deposits can increase TVL without establishing durable institutional demand, healthy liquidity, or revenue quality.

Before putting numeric targets in an interview document, label them as proposed targets to calibrate in the first two weeks. For example, a 30-account priority list, 15 high-quality discovery conversations, and three execution-ready pilot opportunities are reasonable planning placeholders. They are not claims about Exponent’s current pipeline, addressable market, or expected close rate.

---

The 30–60–90-day plan

Days 1–30: Diagnose, align, and build the institutional fact base

The first month should establish credibility through precision. The goal is not to rush into mass outreach. It is to learn how Exponent currently creates value, where capital formation is constrained, and what the company considers a successful institutional channel.

Objective: Agree on the function’s mandate, success metrics, client priorities, and risk boundaries.

Actions

1. Hold a mandate-alignment session with leadership and the relevant product, operations, partnerships, risk, and legal stakeholders. Establish:

   • Which capital matters most: fixed-rate demand, vault deposits, liquidity-provider capital, tranching demand, or some combination.
   • Priority client geographies and client types.
   • Revenue and liquidity objectives.
   • Product and client-risk boundaries.
   • Decision rights: who approves commercial terms, onboarding exceptions, product claims, and client-facing risk materials.

2. Create an institutional product-and-market fact base. For each priority product or live market, record:

   • Target user and institutional use case.
   • Underlying asset and key dependencies.
   • Available maturity, execution route, liquidity evidence, fees, and exit route.
   • Security and diligence documents.
   • Known operational constraints and unresolved questions.

3. Map the current capital ecosystem. Interview internal teams and, where appropriate, existing users, partners, market makers, and curators. The purpose is to determine why capital currently arrives, what blocks larger tickets, and where execution quality limits demand.

4. Build a named-account map. Start with roughly 30 accounts, divided among:

   • Professional market makers and liquidity firms.
   • Crypto-native asset managers and yield funds.
   • Treasuries, sophisticated family offices, and strategic allocators.

   Score each account on product fit, likely ticket size, decision complexity, time sensitivity, relationship access, and ability to improve market quality.

Artifacts by day 30

• A one-page institutional capital-markets charter.
• A product-to-client use-case matrix with claims that have been checked by product and risk teams.
• A prioritized named-account list and stakeholder map.
• A first version of an institutional diligence pack: architecture, live products, key dependencies, security materials, execution and exit considerations.
• A metric dictionary defining “qualified opportunity,” “execution-ready,” “funded capital,” and “retained capital.”

Evidence of progress

• Leadership approves the mandate, priority segments, and metric definitions.
• Every priority product has an owner-validated client narrative and a documented “do not say” list.
• The account map has senior contact hypotheses and a clear next action for the highest-priority accounts.
• A recurring weekly capital-markets review is on the calendar.

The output of days 1–30 is clarity. It prevents a sales motion from promising liquidity, protection, fixed returns, or operational ease that the protocol or partner ecosystem cannot currently substantiate.

---

Days 31–60: Validate the sales plays and install market-building infrastructure

The second month shifts from internal diagnosis to controlled external validation. Rather than run many loosely defined campaigns, run a small number of distinct sales plays.

Objective: Convert target-account hypotheses into qualified, execution-ready opportunities while creating a disciplined pipeline and feedback loop.

Two initial plays are especially plausible:

1. Allocator fixed-rate and managed-yield play.
   Target asset managers, crypto funds, and treasuries that have a defined asset base, return objective, and liquidity horizon. The discussion should begin with their desired yield certainty, maturity preference, and tolerance for protocol and underlying-asset risk—not with an advertised APY.

2. Professional liquidity and rate-execution play.
   Target market makers and sophisticated DeFi firms. The conversation should cover rate-market inventory, desired implied-rate ranges, expected flow, quote-management process, and the economics of active liquidity. Exponent’s Order Book and Rate CLMM are relevant because they are designed for rate execution and active liquidity management, but potential partners must independently underwrite the risk and economics.

A third play involving principal-protection or risk tranches should be pursued only after the product’s current status, terms, access requirements, and legal path are confirmed.

Actions

• Conduct structured discovery with priority accounts. Use one consistent discovery record covering:
  • Portfolio assets and return target.
  • Deployment size and desired duration.
  • Liquidity and early-exit requirements.
  • Underlying-protocol, smart-contract, and asset-risk limits.
  • Custody, wallet-signing, legal, accounting, and reporting requirements.
  • Decision-makers, investment-committee process, and timing.
• Turn discovery responses into a requirements matrix. A client is qualified only when you can identify a product fit and explain the remaining constraints.
• Create client-specific diligence responses with product, risk, operations, and legal owners. No unsupported claim should remain in a pitch deck simply because it is commercially attractive.
• Establish a CRM pipeline with explicit evidence-based stages.
• Run dry operational walkthroughs with at least one willing prospect or partner: custody setup, wallet permissions, transaction approval, trade or deposit route, reporting, monitoring, and exit scenario.

A proposed institutional pipeline can use the following gates:

Stage	Exit evidence required
Targeted	Account fits the ideal-client profile and has an identified sponsor hypothesis
Engaged	Senior contact has participated in a relevant conversation
Qualified	Mandate, size range, liquidity horizon, risk constraints, and decision process are documented
Solution mapped	Specific Exponent product and execution route fit the requirements matrix
Diligence active	Risk, operational, custody, legal, or compliance questions have named owners and due dates
Execution ready	Wallet, approvals, market route, position limits, and monitoring plan are agreed
Funded	Capital is deployed on-chain and reconciled
Retained or expanded	Client has completed a review and has a documented hold, exit, rollover, or expansion decision

Evidence of progress by day 60

• A calibrated priority-account list with live senior-level conversations.
• A proposed target of 15 substantive discovery conversations, adjusted for the actual sales cycle and available relationship access.
• At least several opportunities that meet the qualified definition, rather than a large pool of unscored interest.
• A documented pilot pathway for each priority sales play.
• Weekly pipeline review and biweekly product-and-market feedback session operating with named owners.

The key principle is that a market maker with no feasible onboarding route is not execution-ready, and an allocator who has not completed risk review is not funded capital waiting to happen.

---

Days 61–90: Launch pilots, report honestly, and institutionalize the rhythm

The final month demonstrates that the function can operate rather than merely diagnose. Its purpose is to show visible traction, establish a credible forecast, and leave behind processes that survive beyond the initial hire.

Objective: Advance the highest-quality opportunities into pilots or deployment, while creating a repeatable operating cadence for acquisition, liquidity, and retention.

Actions

1. Run one or two high-conviction pilot initiatives. Examples:

   • A market-maker onboarding program tied to specific rate markets and documented quoting needs.
   • An allocator pilot focused on a defined fixed-rate maturity or managed-yield allocation.
   • A capital-markets briefing for a small set of qualified managers, built around a live opportunity and its risks rather than broad promotional messaging.

2. Create an institutional deployment plan for each execution-ready account. It should specify:

   • Position size and sizing rationale.
   • Product, market, maturity, and execution venue.
   • Expected liquidity and exit route.
   • Approved custody and signing workflow.
   • Monitoring metrics and escalation contacts.
   • Review date, including a rollover or maturity plan where relevant.

3. Install the retention loop. Capital is not durable merely because it has been deposited. For each funded client, schedule a post-trade review covering execution versus expectation, reporting quality, risk events, liquidity, and next maturity or strategy decision.

4. Deliver a 90-day executive review. Report:

   • What was learned about each segment and sales play.
   • Pipeline by evidence-based stage, not inflated notional.
   • Product, liquidity, and operational blockers.
   • Early wins and lessons from non-conversions.
   • A resourced next-quarter plan with explicit decisions requested from leadership.

Evidence of progress by day 90

Area	Desired evidence
Commercial traction	One or more pilots or initial deployments, if diligence and sales-cycle timing permit
Pipeline integrity	A forecast based on documented stages, probability logic, and known dependencies
Market quality	Specific market-maker, allocator, or liquidity feedback translated into actions and owners
Institutional readiness	Reusable diligence, onboarding, and deployment materials tested with real counterparties
Retention	Every funded client has a monitoring and review cadence
Management system	Weekly pipeline review, monthly product-risk review, and quarterly capital-markets review are in place

A first deployment is desirable, but it should not be the only definition of success. If a large institution requires a longer legal, custody, or investment-committee process, forcing a rushed allocation would be counterproductive. The stronger result is a transparent forecast, well-qualified pipeline, and a resolved path through the constraints that genuinely govern institutional deployment.

---

How to present the plan in an interview

Deliver the plan as a decision framework, not a 90-day activity diary:

“My first 30 days would establish the institutional fact base: priority products and markets, current liquidity constraints, client-risk boundaries, and a named-account map. By day 60, I would validate two focused sales plays—allocator yield deployment and professional liquidity provision—using evidence-based qualification and a tested operational path. By day 90, I would aim to have pilots or initial deployments progressing, but more importantly a repeatable capital-markets operating system: disciplined pipeline governance, client diligence materials, product-feedback loops, and a retention cadence. I would measure success by qualified and execution-ready capital, market-quality improvement, and retained deployments—not activity or headline TVL alone.”

This wording communicates ambition while acknowledging that institutional capital is earned through diligence, execution quality, and operational trust.

---

Key takeaways

• Exponent’s institutional capital-markets function should build both client demand and the market conditions needed for that demand to deploy.
• The first 30 days are for mandate alignment, product fact-finding, account prioritization, and metric definitions.
• Days 31–60 validate focused sales plays, install stage gates, and test custody, execution, and diligence workflows.
• Days 61–90 convert the best opportunities into pilots where appropriate and establish the governance and retention systems that make the function scalable.
• Use measurable evidence, but calibrate numeric targets after access to Exponent’s actual pipeline, product status, resources, and client constraints.

Next, you will formulate the evidence-based market thesis behind this plan: why institutional on-chain yield trading matters now, what conditions are creating demand, and where Exponent can credibly differentiate.