Hey Leib,
Thanks for the call — really enjoyed getting into Lioncrest’s story and the two-fund positioning challenge. Based on everything we covered, here’s my proposal: design and development in a single continuous cycle, so there’s no handoff gap between how the site looks and how it actually performs live.
x
What will be implemented
A standalone Lioncrest website, designed and built as one cycle — spare, confident, Tier-1 visual language benchmarked against Aleph, Viola, Kickstart, Lux Capital, and Greylock — not a generic startup landing page.
LP-first architecture — built around your current audience priority (LPs for the next 6 months, shifting toward a 50/50 founder split after), structured so the founder-facing layer can be added later without rebuilding the IA from scratch.
One consolidated site for both funds, not two separate websites — Prospeq (credit) content migrates fully into the new Lioncrest site instead of living on its own domain, so anyone researching the firm gets one continuous story instead of being routed off to a disconnected second site.
Two distinct investor profiles, clearly separated — the equity side speaks to the “futuristic, where-the-world-is-going” upside story, while Prospeq speaks to risk-adjusted, cash-flow-driven returns. Same visual system, different messaging register, so each investor type immediately recognizes which story is meant for them.
Tangible portfolio storytelling — space for concrete, visual proof of the thesis (e.g. video/clip content from portfolio companies like the drone-software investment), not just logos or generic case-study text.
Full responsive build, all animations and interactions included as part of the same phase — not a separate pass after design is “done.”
Process
1. Discovery Call — Free
Already covered. This is where we align on audience, structure, and the LP/founder balance.
2. Research
Structural and messaging research — how firms like Aleph, Viola, Kickstart, Lux Capital, and Greylock organize and present themselves. This isn’t competitive analysis (I know Lioncrest sees these firms more as collaborators and co-investors than competitors) — it’s about identifying patterns and sections that work well across the space and adapting them to Lioncrest’s specific two-product situation. Everything gets shared with you as we go — you’ll see the hypotheses and reasoning behind the direction, not just a final answer.
3. Wireframes + IA
This is where we lock the structure — page hierarchy, how the two funds sit relative to each other, how “Funds and Strategy” maps to the site. I use Lovable to move through this stage with AI-assisted iteration, which cuts what’s normally a 1–2 week wireframing process down to about 2–3 days. That means we can go through a couple of structural variants together and get fully aligned on direction fast, before any visual work starts — so there’s minimal time lost to back-and-forth later.
4. Brief + UI Evaluation
A short, focused brief — about 5 minutes of your time — to pin down your visual preferences precisely. From there, you’ll get 2–3 real visual directions, built with live animation and interaction (not static mockups), so you’re evaluating something close to the actual feel of the finished site, not guessing from a flat image.
5. Full Design + Development
Once a direction is locked, everything moves forward as one continuous phase — full design and build together, not design-then-handoff. You’ll see progress as it happens and get notified on every meaningful change, so there’s never a question of what’s happening or where things stand. This includes structured feedback rounds, and finishes with QA — a full pass to catch and fix errors and bugs across browsers and devices before anything goes live.
PROJECT TIMELINE
Discovery Call
Free
Research
2–3 days
Wireframes + IA
2–3 days
Brief + UI Evaluation
2–3 days
Full Design + Development
10–14 days
Way to run this
Both packages cover the same design + development scope end to end. They differ in post-launch support and how copy gets written.
Launch
Launch + Partner
Recommended
I will be happy to discuss either option, just write me — but I’m confident both reflect the amount of work involved and the quality of the result.
Everything listed per package above is a starting point, not a fixed menu — if something would fit your and Ryan’s needs better (e.g. shifting support length, adjusting what’s covered in revisions, or how the credit side is handled), happy to adjust individually rather than force it into one of these two boxes.
Why I added a logo revamp to Launch + Partner
This isn’t a full redesign from scratch — your current mark stays recognizable. It’s a smaller refinement pass to bring it in line with the new site’s visual language, so once the Tier-1, spare-and-confident direction is in place, the logo feels like it belongs to that system rather than a step behind it. I know a designer who does this kind of considered refinement work without agency-level pricing, so it’s folded into the Launch + Partner package rather than scoped as a separate add-on later.
Result
The site won’t just look the part of a Tier-1 fund — it’ll actually do the job of making the LP case clearly in the first few seconds, with room to bring founders into the story once fundraising priorities shift.
Payment
30% pre-payment — before work starts
30% — after UI Evaluation is approved
40% — after full design + development + QA, once you confirm you’re ready to publish
Payment methods: SWIFT or ACH.
Ready to move forward?
Pick the package that works for you, and I'll send over the kickoff details and invoice within 24 hours.