THE VOYAGER COFFINS AND CASKETS — For investors
Questions for Investors
Assessment: Are You the Right Partner?
This is not a standard investment screening
I'm not looking for money. I'm looking for a like-minded individual—someone who believes that death is transitioning from taboo to design, and who is ready to build a cultural movement, not just a profitable business.
These questions will help us understand if we share the same vision and values. Answer honestly. Your answers will tell us a lot about both of us.
These questions will help us understand if we share the same vision and values. Answer honestly. Your answers will tell us a lot about both of us.
IMPORTANT: If you're a financial engineer looking for a quick flip, or a numbers-driven investor who sees "casket market" instead of "cultural movement"—this partnership won't work. Save your time. We'll both know immediately.
QUESTION 1:
Do you believe that funeral rituals are shifting from the category of "avoid and hide" to "expression of personality and legacy"?
answer 1:
If you answered YES:
✓ LIKE-MINDED
You see what I see. Let's keep talking.
If you answered "MAYBE":
⟷ CONDITIONAL
I understand. The €46B market proves the potential exists. But make sure you're ready for a cultural shift, not just a financial one.
If you answered NO:
✗ MISALIGNED
Thank you for your honesty. This project is not for you.
✓ LIKE-MINDED
You see what I see. Let's keep talking.
If you answered "MAYBE":
⟷ CONDITIONAL
I understand. The €46B market proves the potential exists. But make sure you're ready for a cultural shift, not just a financial one.
If you answered NO:
✗ MISALIGNED
Thank you for your honesty. This project is not for you.
Why this matters: If you don't see the death-positive movement as real, you'll treat Voyager as a commodity business. You'll want to undercut prices, maximize margins, and minimize design investment. That's the path to destruction. Voyager is culture-first, margins-second. If that doesn't resonate, we have nothing to discuss.
QUESTION 2:
Why are you interested specifically in VOYAGER, rather than investing in 10 other luxury or lifestyle startups?
answer 2:
Answer 1 (LIKE-MINDED):
✓ PERFECT
"Because this is a cultural movement that needs to happen. You are the voice of this movement. I've seen other luxury projects, but none have such clear creative positioning, IP protection, and zero direct competitors."
Answer 2 (FINANCIAL FOCUSED): ⟷ CONDITIONAL
"The market is big (€46B), ROI is potentially good (8–12x EBITDA), and I see an opportunity for scaling."
Note: This isn't wrong, but it's incomplete. If ROI is your primary driver, a faster-growing company might attract you away.
Answer 3 (SPECULATIVE):
✗ RED FLAG
"I'm looking for quick returns. High growth potential. Can we scale fast and exit in 3–4 years?"
This partnership won't work. Luxury brands cannot be built in 3 years. Find a SaaS startup.
✓ PERFECT
"Because this is a cultural movement that needs to happen. You are the voice of this movement. I've seen other luxury projects, but none have such clear creative positioning, IP protection, and zero direct competitors."
Answer 2 (FINANCIAL FOCUSED): ⟷ CONDITIONAL
"The market is big (€46B), ROI is potentially good (8–12x EBITDA), and I see an opportunity for scaling."
Note: This isn't wrong, but it's incomplete. If ROI is your primary driver, a faster-growing company might attract you away.
Answer 3 (SPECULATIVE):
✗ RED FLAG
"I'm looking for quick returns. High growth potential. Can we scale fast and exit in 3–4 years?"
This partnership won't work. Luxury brands cannot be built in 3 years. Find a SaaS startup.
My perspective: If you're attracted ONLY by market size and financial numbers, you'll choose a competitor who promises faster returns (and will likely fail trying). I'm looking for a partner who sees the uniqueness of our positioning: founder-led, IP-protected, culturally defensible, zero competitors at premium tier.
QUESTION 3:
What is your ideal time horizon for investing in VOYAGER?
answer 3:
5–7 years minimum (could be longer):
✓ IDEAL
This is my ideal investor. Luxury brands are built over decades, not years. You understand that the first 2–3 years are about foundation. The profits come in years 3–5. The exit premium comes in years 5–7.
3–5 years:
⟷ COMPROMISE
We might make it work. But we need to discuss honestly: Can we achieve meaningful EBITDA and cultural positioning in that timeframe? If the answer is no, let's not waste each other's time.
1–3 years:
✗ IMPOSSIBLE
A luxury brand cannot be built in 2 years. If this is your horizon, we'll waste time on a conversation that leads nowhere. Thank you, but no.
✓ IDEAL
This is my ideal investor. Luxury brands are built over decades, not years. You understand that the first 2–3 years are about foundation. The profits come in years 3–5. The exit premium comes in years 5–7.
3–5 years:
⟷ COMPROMISE
We might make it work. But we need to discuss honestly: Can we achieve meaningful EBITDA and cultural positioning in that timeframe? If the answer is no, let's not waste each other's time.
1–3 years:
✗ IMPOSSIBLE
A luxury brand cannot be built in 2 years. If this is your horizon, we'll waste time on a conversation that leads nowhere. Thank you, but no.
Why this matters: Time horizon reveals your entire investment philosophy. If you need quick returns, you'll pressure me to cut corners on design, drop prices, and chase volume. That kills the brand. I won't do it. So we need to be aligned from day one.
QUESTION 4:
If in year 1 we achieve strong cultural positioning but modest revenue, would you accept this?
answer 4:
Yes, no questions asked:
✓ LIKE-MINDED
You understand that in luxury, positioning quality is more important than revenue speed. Year 1 is about setup. Explosive growth comes in years 2–3 once the brand foundation is solid.
Depends on the reason:
⟷ REASONABLE
Good answer. It shows you want to understand the strategy. This could work—if I can convince you the plan is sound and the positioning is exactly right.
No, we need revenue targets according to plan:
✗ MISALIGNED
You seek predictability. Luxury doesn't have that. This project isn't for you. Find a startup with a ready product and linear trajectory.
✓ LIKE-MINDED
You understand that in luxury, positioning quality is more important than revenue speed. Year 1 is about setup. Explosive growth comes in years 2–3 once the brand foundation is solid.
Depends on the reason:
⟷ REASONABLE
Good answer. It shows you want to understand the strategy. This could work—if I can convince you the plan is sound and the positioning is exactly right.
No, we need revenue targets according to plan:
✗ MISALIGNED
You seek predictability. Luxury doesn't have that. This project isn't for you. Find a startup with a ready product and linear trajectory.
Real example: Brunello Cucinelli lost money for 7 years while building brand positioning. Then the brand exploded in value. Today he's worth billions. That's the playbook. If you can't handle 1–2 years of cultural investment before revenue acceleration, you're betting against luxury brand history.
QUESTION 5:
Are you comfortable with me focusing ONLY on design, concept, and cultural positioning, while you handle all operational decisions?
answer 5:
Yes, that makes sense:
✓ PERFECT
You understand that in luxury, the creator is a multiplier, not an employee. We'll discuss strategy, but in different zones of responsibility. You don't micromanage my design. I don't micromanage your operations.
We'll consult on all matters:
⟷ POSSIBLE BUT SLOW
Possibly, but this slows the process. We need trust: you trust my taste in design, I trust your vision in operations. Constant consultation = decision paralysis.
No, I'll decide everything:
✗ NOT A PARTNERSHIP
This isn't a partnership, it's employment. I don't work under control. If this is your style—hire a designer and manage them. That's not me. I'm a partner, not a contractor.
✓ PERFECT
You understand that in luxury, the creator is a multiplier, not an employee. We'll discuss strategy, but in different zones of responsibility. You don't micromanage my design. I don't micromanage your operations.
We'll consult on all matters:
⟷ POSSIBLE BUT SLOW
Possibly, but this slows the process. We need trust: you trust my taste in design, I trust your vision in operations. Constant consultation = decision paralysis.
No, I'll decide everything:
✗ NOT A PARTNERSHIP
This isn't a partnership, it's employment. I don't work under control. If this is your style—hire a designer and manage them. That's not me. I'm a partner, not a contractor.
Why this matters: The entire partnership architecture depends on this clarity. If you want to control design, hire a design team and tell them what to do. If you want Voyager to work, you need to let the creative vision be autonomous. That's how Brunello Cucinelli operates. That's how LVMH acquired brands—it kept the creators in place and autonomous.
QUESTION 6:
How do you view the role of patents in our strategy?
answer 6:
Like-minded answer:
✓ CORRECT
"Patents aren't an expense—they're an investment. €50K on patents = protection of €25–50M in value. I would file every new design with WIPO automatically."
Speculator answer:
✗ RED FLAG
"Patents are expensive. Let's save money or wait. We can rely on market speed and being first."
This is dangerous. A competitor will copy the design in a month. Patents
✓ CORRECT
"Patents aren't an expense—they're an investment. €50K on patents = protection of €25–50M in value. I would file every new design with WIPO automatically."
Speculator answer:
✗ RED FLAG
"Patents are expensive. Let's save money or wait. We can rely on market speed and being first."
This is dangerous. A competitor will copy the design in a month. Patents
My perspective: If you don't understand that a patent is a strategy—not an option—we won't work well together. Our IP protection (2015–2030) is foundational to our defensibility. This is non-negotiable.
QUESTION 7:
Are you willing to invest in international patent protection (WIPO, EUIPO, USPTO)?
answer 7:
Yes, no questions asked:
✓ PERFECT
You see that 0.5–1% of budget protects 100% of value. This is the mathematics of a like-minded partner.
Yes, but we need clear strategy:
⟷ FAIR
Fair. Let's discuss why this is critical. I'll convince you.
That's expensive:
✗ RED FLAG
Relatively speaking: total investment is your choice of scale. IP protection is 0.5–1% of that. This is cheaper than a single month of marketing. But if you see IP investment as "a lot"—red flag.
✓ PERFECT
You see that 0.5–1% of budget protects 100% of value. This is the mathematics of a like-minded partner.
Yes, but we need clear strategy:
⟷ FAIR
Fair. Let's discuss why this is critical. I'll convince you.
That's expensive:
✗ RED FLAG
Relatively speaking: total investment is your choice of scale. IP protection is 0.5–1% of that. This is cheaper than a single month of marketing. But if you see IP investment as "a lot"—red flag.
QUESTION 8:
Is Dolphin Hub and social impact a real part of your investment thesis, or just marketing?
answer 8:
It's a real part:
✓ PERFECT
Perfect answer. This means your values align with ours. ESG for you isn't packaging—it's the core of the investment.
Sounds good, but profit is main:
⟷ HONEST
I understand, but Dolphin Hub isn't marketing. It's integrated into the business model. If you see it as separate from profit, we might not align perfectly. But we can discuss it.
It distracts from business:
✗ MISALIGNED
Thank you for your honesty. This isn't your project. Find a pure financial startup.
✓ PERFECT
Perfect answer. This means your values align with ours. ESG for you isn't packaging—it's the core of the investment.
Sounds good, but profit is main:
⟷ HONEST
I understand, but Dolphin Hub isn't marketing. It's integrated into the business model. If you see it as separate from profit, we might not align perfectly. But we can discuss it.
It distracts from business:
✗ MISALIGNED
Thank you for your honesty. This isn't your project. Find a pure financial startup.
Why this matters: Strategic buyers increasingly pay premiums for ESG-aligned brands. Dolphin Hub isn't a cost—it's a competitive advantage and exit premium driver. If you're purely financial, you miss the value creation mechanism.
QUESTION 9:
Do you have experience building luxury brands, design-oriented companies, or scaling lifestyle products?
answer 9:
Yes, 3+ areas of expertise:
✓ IDEAL
You know how luxury companies work from the inside. You don't need to learn—you're ready to act immediately.
1–2 areas of relevant experience:
⟷ ACCEPTABLE
Good. This is enough to understand the logic. But we'll need a strong operational team to fill the gaps.
No experience, but willing to learn:
✗ RISKY
I respect the ambition. But you must have experience in OPERATIONS somewhere. A purely financial investor without operational track record can kill a brand through inexperienced decisions.
✓ IDEAL
You know how luxury companies work from the inside. You don't need to learn—you're ready to act immediately.
1–2 areas of relevant experience:
⟷ ACCEPTABLE
Good. This is enough to understand the logic. But we'll need a strong operational team to fill the gaps.
No experience, but willing to learn:
✗ RISKY
I respect the ambition. But you must have experience in OPERATIONS somewhere. A purely financial investor without operational track record can kill a brand through inexperienced decisions.
QUESTION 10:
If in 10 years VOYAGER becomes an iconic global brand, but exit happens in years 8–10, are you okay with that?
answer 10:
Yes, legacy is more important than timing: ✓ IDEAL
Perfect. This is a like-minded partner. You're ready for the fact that the biggest companies are built over years—but worth tens of times more. Patience = premium returns.
Maybe, if growth is exponential after year 5:
⟷ CONDITIONAL
This works if we set clear metrics. By year 5, the growth trajectory should be undeniable and EBITDA clearly visible.
No, need exit in 5–7 years:
✗ MISALIGNED
I understand the pressure. But luxury brands command their highest valuations in years 7–10, not 5–7. If you're in a hurry, this project isn't for you.
Perfect. This is a like-minded partner. You're ready for the fact that the biggest companies are built over years—but worth tens of times more. Patience = premium returns.
Maybe, if growth is exponential after year 5:
⟷ CONDITIONAL
This works if we set clear metrics. By year 5, the growth trajectory should be undeniable and EBITDA clearly visible.
No, need exit in 5–7 years:
✗ MISALIGNED
I understand the pressure. But luxury brands command their highest valuations in years 7–10, not 5–7. If you're in a hurry, this project isn't for you.
Real math: A luxury brand at year 5 is worth 8–10x EBITDA. At year 7–10, it's worth 10–12x EBITDA (creator-embedded premium). That's 20–30% more value just from patience. The patience pays directly.
HOW TO SCORE YOURSELF
10/10 ✓ → Perfect like-minded partner. I'll call you directly within 48 hours.
8–9/10 ✓ → Strong potential. Let's schedule a 30–60 minute strategic conversation.
6–7/10 ✓ → Possible alignment. Let's discuss the misalignments in detail.
Below 6 ✓ → This partnership likely won't work. No hard feelings—better to know early.
8–9/10 ✓ → Strong potential. Let's schedule a 30–60 minute strategic conversation.
6–7/10 ✓ → Possible alignment. Let's discuss the misalignments in detail.
Below 6 ✓ → This partnership likely won't work. No hard feelings—better to know early.
Key Insight
These questions aren't about money. They're about philosophy. If you answered "like-minded" to 8–10 questions, you see what I see. Financial details (investment size, equity, structure) are secondary. Philosophy alignment is primary.
Ready to Talk?
If you scored 8–10 ✓, I want to hear your story and understand if we can build something culturally significant together.
What we'll discuss:
- Your operational strengths and existing assets (manufacturing, retail, geographic presence, team)
- Your investment thesis and exit vision
- How Voyager fits into your overall strategy
- The partnership structure and creative-operational division
- Next steps if we're truly aligned