What was the reason behind Passthrough choosing the subscription docs as the starting point, instead of accreditation and KYC like Parallel Markets?

I'm not sure if Parallel Markets and Passthrough are competitive. We're both going after some version of investor identity. Ours is pretty specific to this moment of investor onboarding and then the relationship that exists between funds and their investors and their service providers. I get the sense that Parallel Markets are thinking about it a little bit more broadly.

One, I think we have different goals. 

Two, I think we have slightly different beliefs around the key problem. Our point of view on it was basically that the first official beginning of a relationship between the fund manager and the investor happens with the processing of the subscription document. Then there are ancillary things that can happen alongside it. 

The Parallel Markets point of view is that there's this super deep problem of accreditation, compliance, and sanctions work that needs to happen, and without that, everything falls apart. I think they probably, actually work together.

Our experience has been that sub docs are a very strong wedge to go out and start to build a business. That's been proven out because 80% of our business has come in through network effects. Time is going to tell who's right on this. A big, key point here is that they care about a portal, regulated identity that can plug into anything and have an opinion on the investor. If you're a DAO, you can run an automated check with a parallel markets ID. We're tracking against different fund workflows and are specifically focused on private markets infrastructure instead.