Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Expert system for positioning Web3, blockchain, and crypto-native products and services for enterprise (B2B) buyers. Use this skill whenever the user needs to explain a Web3 product to traditional companies, develop messaging for a blockchain security service, build a pitch deck or one-pager for enterprise clients, translate technical Web3 features into business value, or create sales collateral for a protocol targeting institutional buyers. Also trigger for phrases like "enterprise pitch", "B2B
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 292% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 257% | 0% |
| case-17 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 168% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 125% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 156% | 0% |
For: Web3 founders, protocol marketing leads, blockchain solution sellers, security product marketers Philosophy: Enterprises don't buy technology — they buy reduced risk, increased efficiency, and competitive advantage. Speak their language, not yours.
| User says... | Go to module | |---|---| | "position my product for enterprises" / "B2B messaging" / "corporate clients" | → MODULE 1: Positioning Framework] | | "write my pitch" / "one-pager" / "executive summary" | → MODULE 2: Sales Collateral] | | "explain Web3 to a traditional company" / "remove jargon" | → MODULE 3: Translation Layer] | | "handle objections" / "they said it's too risky" / "compliance concerns" | → MODULE 4: Objection Handling] | | "identify enterprise buyers" / "ICP for B2B" / "who should I target" | → MODULE 5: ICP & Buyer Personas] | | "build trust with corporates" / "case studies" / "social proof" | → MODULE 6: Trust & Credibility] |
Trigger: User needs to define how to position a Web3 product for enterprise buyers.
Ask if not provided:
For every technical feature, translate into business language:
FEATURE → BENEFIT → BUSINESS VALUE → PROOF
[Technical Feature] → [What it does for the user] → [Business outcome] → [Metric or example]
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Smart contract audit → Finds vulnerabilities before → Prevents financial loss → "Average DeFi exploit
deployment and reputational damage costs $8.7M"
On-chain transparency → All transactions publicly → Reduces audit costs and → "35% reduction in
verifiable accelerates compliance compliance overhead"
Decentralized ID → Users control their own → Reduces KYC fraud and → "65% reduction in
credentials liability exposure identity fraud claims"Version A — Problem-led (for risk-averse buyers): > "Company] helps BUYER ROLE] at INDUSTRY] companies ELIMINATE SPECIFIC RISK] so they can BUSINESS OUTCOME] without COMMON FEAR]."
Version B — Opportunity-led (for growth-oriented buyers): > "Company] enables BUYER ROLE] to CAPTURE SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY] in MARKET] by HOW], giving them COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE] that ALTERNATIVES] can't match."
Version C — Category-led (for buyers who understand Web3): > "Company] is the CATEGORY LEADER] for PROTOCOL/ECOSYSTEM/SECTOR] — trusted by CREDIBILITY MARKER] to CORE CAPABILITY]."
Security product example (B2B):
MESSAGING HIERARCHY — [Product Name]
──────────────────────────────────────
HEADLINE MESSAGE (1 sentence — memorable, jargon-free):
[The single most important thing an enterprise buyer should understand]
SUPPORTING MESSAGES (3, one per key buyer concern):
1. [Risk/Security message — for CISO, Legal, Compliance]
2. [Efficiency/ROI message — for CFO, Operations]
3. [Innovation/Competitive message — for CEO, CTO, Product]
PROOF POINTS (evidence for each message):
1. [Statistic, case study, or third-party validation]
2. [Metric or outcome achieved with existing client]
3. [Industry recognition, audit, certification]
DIFFERENTIATORS vs. ALTERNATIVES:
[Us] does [X] that [Alt 1] and [Alt 2] cannot, because [specific reason]Trigger: User needs to create pitch materials for enterprise buyers.
[COMPANY LOGO]
HEADLINE: [Single sentence — problem solved or value delivered]
THE PROBLEM
[2–3 sentences: the real pain enterprises face WITHOUT getting technical about Web3]
HOW [COMPANY] SOLVES IT
[3 bullet points: specific capabilities, in business language]
• [Capability 1] → [Business outcome]
• [Capability 2] → [Business outcome]
• [Capability 3] → [Business outcome]
RESULTS
[3 metrics or outcomes, ideally from real clients]
• "[Client type] reduced [X] by [Y%]"
• "[Client] prevented [$X] in potential losses"
• "[Client] achieved [compliance/certification] in [X weeks]"
WHO WE WORK WITH
[3–5 client logos or client descriptions if logos can't be shown]
HOW TO GET STARTED
[Simple 3-step process: Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3]
CONTACT
[Name] | [Email] | [Website] | [LinkedIn]SLIDE 1: The problem (in enterprise terms — no blockchain jargon)
SLIDE 2: Why existing solutions fail
SLIDE 3: Our solution (1 sentence + diagram)
SLIDE 4: How it works (simplified — 3 steps)
SLIDE 5: What you get (outcomes, not features)
SLIDE 6: Proof (clients, case studies, metrics)
SLIDE 7: Security & compliance (the "is this legit?" slide)
SLIDE 8: Pricing / engagement model
SLIDE 9: Team (credibility markers — past companies, credentials)
SLIDE 10: Next step (specific CTA — pilot, call, assessment)Deck quality rules for enterprise Web3:
Trigger: User needs to explain Web3 concepts to a non-crypto audience without losing meaning.
| Web3 Term | Enterprise Translation | When to use the technical term | |---|---|---| | Smart contract | Self-executing business agreement | When buyer knows software contracts | | Blockchain | Shared, tamper-proof ledger | When discussing data integrity | | Decentralized | No single point of failure / control | When discussing resilience | | Token / crypto | Digital asset / incentive mechanism | Only with tech-savvy buyers | | Wallet | Digital credentials holder | When discussing identity | | Gas fees | Network transaction cost | Only when pricing conversations require it | | DeFi | Automated financial services | Only with fintech buyers | | DAO | Decentralized governance structure | Rarely — usually say "governance model" | | NFT | Digital ownership certificate | When discussing provenance/authenticity use cases | | On-chain | Publicly recorded / immutable | When discussing audit or compliance | | Audit (smart contract) | Code security review | Always — this term translates well | | Protocol | Software platform / network | Always acceptable |
Before sending any enterprise material, ask:
If any answer is "no" — revise before sending.
Trigger: Enterprise buyer has raised concerns or the sales process has stalled.
"This is too risky / unproven technology" > Response: "That's a fair concern, and it's why we built SPECIFIC TRUST MARKER — independent audit, certifications, existing enterprise clients]. Our clients at CLIENT TYPE] had the same concern before working with us — we can walk you through how they evaluated and mitigated that risk. Would a technical assessment help you get comfortable with the security model?"
"We have regulatory compliance concerns" > Response: "Compliance is the first thing we address with every enterprise client. PRODUCT] was designed to work within specific regulatory frameworks — GDPR, SOC2, MiCA, etc.]. We can connect you with our legal team to walk through the compliance documentation — this typically resolves concerns in one call."
"Our IT/security team won't approve this" > Response: "That's exactly who we want in the conversation. We have a technical package specifically for security teams that covers architecture, audit reports, penetration testing results]. Most IT approvals happen within X weeks] once they see the documentation. Should I send it directly to your security lead?"
"We don't have the internal expertise to manage this" > Response: "You don't need to. PRODUCT] is designed to integrate with existing systems] with X hours] of implementation time. We handle WHAT] and you own WHAT]. Ongoing management takes X hours/month] from your team."
"We're already working with competitor] / We built something internal" > Response: "That's common. The question isn't whether you have general capability] but whether it covers specific gap your product addresses]. Our clients often use us alongside competitor] for exactly this specific case]. Can I show you what that looks like in practice?"
"The price is too high" > Response: "I understand — let me reframe the cost. The average relevant incident — exploit, breach, audit failure] for a company at your scale costs $X]. Our annual engagement is $Y]. That's math]. But more importantly — what would it cost your team's time and your customers' trust if specific bad outcome] happened on your watch?"
Trigger: User needs to define who their ideal enterprise customer is.
IDEAL CUSTOMER PROFILE — [Company Name]
────────────────────────────────────────
COMPANY CHARACTERISTICS
├── Industry vertical: [fintech / banking / gaming / DeFi / enterprise tech / other]
├── Company size: [employees / revenue / AUM / TVL]
├── Technology maturity: [already in Web3 / exploring / traditional]
├── Geography: [North America / LATAM / Europe / Asia / global]
└── Regulatory environment: [heavily regulated / moderate / light]
TRIGGER EVENTS (companies actively looking for what you sell)
├── [Event 1: e.g., "recently launched a tokenization initiative"]
├── [Event 2: e.g., "had a security incident or near-miss"]
├── [Event 3: e.g., "competitor announced blockchain adoption"]
└── [Event 4: e.g., "hired a Chief Blockchain Officer or Web3 lead"]
DISQUALIFIERS (do not sell to)
├── [e.g., "company with no digital assets or blockchain initiative"]
├── [e.g., "company in a country with crypto ban"]
└── [e.g., "companies with <$X budget"]| Persona | Title | Primary Concern | Key Message | Decision Power | |---|---|---|---|---| | The Gatekeeper | CISO / Head of Security | "Will this create risk?" | Risk mitigation proof | Veto power | | The Operator | CTO / Engineering Lead | "Can we build on this?" | Integration + docs quality | Strong influence | | The Buyer | CFO / VP Finance | "What's the ROI?" | Cost-benefit, efficiency | Budget authority | | The Champion | Web3 Lead / Innovation | "How do we stay ahead?" | Competitive advantage | Internal advocate | | The Signer | CEO / Board | "Is this strategic?" | Market position + risk | Final authority |
Rule: Never pitch to one persona only. The CISO kills deals the CEO loves if they're not addressed. Map your message to all 5.
Trigger: User needs to build credibility with enterprise buyers who are skeptical of crypto.
Tier 1 — Must Have:
Tier 2 — Strongly Recommended:
Tier 3 — Differentiating:
CASE STUDY — [Client Name or "Major [Industry] Company"]
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
CHALLENGE:
[2–3 sentences: what specific problem they had before working with you]
SOLUTION:
[2–3 sentences: what you built or provided, in business language]
RESULTS:
• [Metric 1: quantified outcome]
• [Metric 2: quantified outcome]
• [Metric 3: time/cost/risk-based outcome]
QUOTE (if available):
"[Client quote about the experience or results]"
— [Name, Title, Company]
WHAT THIS MEANS:
[1 sentence connecting their success to your product's promise]Web3 B2B Positioning Skill v1.0 Built for Web3 founders and marketing leads bridging crypto-native products with traditional enterprise buyers.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.