After a rejection typing no longer sweets you. lol so please i’ll do edits later but this is a summary of my rejection letter.
Assessment panel feedback:
The applicant is one of several co-founders of cryptocurrency exchange platform *** where he
operates as CIO. He has applied for the Exceptional Talent route selecting Optional Criteria 1 (a
proven innovation track record) and Optional Criteria 3 (significant contributions made as a founder).
The applicant has demonstrated in this application that he meets the requirements of Optional Criteria 3.
His first business, ****, which he started when he was still an undergraduate, was acquired
after it had been operating for 8 years. The applicant does not state whether he made any financial
gain from that transaction. The business of which he is currently one of the co-founders, ***, shows
strong growth and it has been successful in raising investment.
Unfortunately, the applicant has not in this application demonstrated that he meets the requirements of either the mandatory criteria or Optional Criteria 1.
In terms of OC1, neither the applicant’s first company, ****, or his current company, ***,
operates in an innovative space. The applicant has included a document called “Evidence of
Innovation” in his pack but it is a list of links to media coverage about both companies. Incidentally,
several of the applicant’s pieces of evidence exceed the page limit recommended in the Tech Nation
guidelines. Other evidence provided to support OC1 are an overview of the applicant’s commits into
private GitLab repositories and some screenshots of product metrics and usage. None of this evidence
relates in any way to innovation. The applicant has not attempted to explain in his application if he has
acquired an innovation track record elsewhere and therefore he does not meet the requirements of OC1.
What do they mean by innovative space.
- I know i made mistake with the evidence of innovation. I used a previous applicate format from 2021 before i found this group. and was hoping it was going to work for me since it worked for him.
- Maybe i should have called it Media coverage instead.
In terms of the mandatory criteria, the applicant has provided the required 3 letters of recommendation.
Two are from college classmates and the third is from a person he met and had a conversation with 3
years ago at a blockchain conference. These are not credible providers of letters of recommendation.
Additionally, the letters simply repeat information provided elsewhere in the application.
LOR submited
- LOR from a Health Tech CEO (Product Based)
- LOR from a Agric Tech CEO (Product Based)
- LOR from another Health Tech VP/CoFunder (Product Based)
The LOR’s they stated how they know me and have detailed knowledge of my work. all the LOR’s contained the below information. so i dont know what they mean by they are not credible providers. Note all 3 LOR’s providers are tech nation endorsed already.
a. Be about your Global Talent application - you cannot use a letter that was written for another reason
b. Explain how the author knows the applicant; and
c . Knows the applicant’s achievements in the relevant field; and
d. How the author considers the applicant shows exceptional talent or promise; and
e. the contribution the applicant would make to the UK digital economy.
The **** incorporation documents identify 5 original shareholders of which the applicant is one of th
minority shareholders. No current cap table is provided to show how much of the company the
applicant currently owns post the investment raise. He is not CEO and neither does he appear to have
a significant role in the company. As mentioned previously, he does not report the sale price of
first company so we are unable to assess whether it was a significant outcome for the applicant. He does
not provide any of the other information and evidence we would expect to see from an Exceptional
Talent applicant. There is no media coverage of him as an individual thought leader, no speaking
engagements at significant blockchain conferences, no independent awards won, no sharing of code
via open source, no mentoring of other founders. We see no evidence of exceptional talent presented
in this application and for that reason the applicant does not meet the requirements of the mandatory criteria.
- How did they determine I do not have a significant role in the company. lol
- I did not think the sale price for the first company was that much of a big deal was hoping they would focus more on my recent startup that currently process over $10M in revenue annually and have a staff strength of 100 people.
We regret that for the above reasons we are unable to endorse at this time.
Document submitted
3 LOR’s
CEO of a health tech company (TechNation Endorsed 2021) Business raised over $1.5M
Co-founder of a Agric-tech business (TechNation Endorsed 2022) Raised over $100M
VP and Co-founder of a Health tech company Raised over $5M (TechNation Endorsed 2022)Mandatory Document
- Employment Contract
- Salary Review Document
- Techstars Accelerator Email Welcome Message (2020 Techstars Toronto Canada 2020)
- Incorporation Doc and Incorporation Registration of Company
OC1:
Evidence of Innovation - mostly links about my company i think this should have been called media mention. the title might have been misleading.
Gitlab Contribution Evidence - Screenshot to company private repo
Proof of Product in Market - Screen shot of App reviews, google analytics,OC3:
Employment Contract
Salary Review
Gitlab Contribution Evidence
They seem to be okay with my OC3.
