A crypto advisory firm should own the commercial plan, from strategy and token economics to fundraising, distribution, partner contracts and launch readiness, and leave legal opinions, audits and tax to specialists. Price it by scope, not by month. PwC’s Channel Islands practice lists seven service areas for tokenisation work, which shows how wide the field is and why the board must decide which parts one firm owns.
Who decides this
The board decides what the adviser covers and what it costs. The CEO can run the selection, but the board approves the scope, the fee structure and the list of work that stays with other firms. The board is accountable for three outcomes: one party answerable for how the plan fits together, no conflict left undisclosed, and a fee tied to delivered work rather than elapsed time.
What should a crypto advisory firm cover?
A crypto advisory firm should cover every commercial decision that has to agree with every other one before launch. That means the strategy and positioning, the token economics and vesting, the fundraising plan, the distribution plan, the partner contracts and the readiness review. These pieces depend on each other. A vesting schedule changes the float; the float changes what a market maker can do; the market-making terms change what an exchange will accept.
The work that should sit elsewhere is the work that needs a licence, a legal opinion or independence. Counsel structures entities and advises on securities law. An audit firm reviews smart contracts. An accountant handles tax and financial statements. A custodian holds assets. The adviser should coordinate with each, but should not be the one signing their opinions.
| Workstream | Owned by the advisory firm? | Who else is involved | Why it sits there |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategy, positioning, sequencing | Yes | Board, CEO | Sets the plan every other workstream follows |
| Token economics, vesting, allocation | Yes | Counsel reviews; CFO signs off | Drives float, unlocks and investor terms |
| Fundraising plan and round structure | Yes | Counsel drafts the documents | Terms must match the token model |
| Go-to-market and distribution | Yes | Agencies, community lead | Agencies deliver; the plan decides where |
| Market-maker, listing and partner contracts | Reviews and negotiates | Counsel signs off | Terms must match float and treasury |
| Launch-readiness review | Coordinates | Audit firm, engineers | Checks that contracts match the published model |
| Entity structure and legal opinions | No | Counsel | Requires a law firm |
| Smart contract audit | No | Independent audit firm | Requires independence |
| Tax and accounting | No | Accountant, auditor | Requires professional sign-off |
| Custody | No | Qualified custodian | Requires a licensed holder |
If a firm proposes to own a row marked “No”, ask why, and ask who signs the opinion.
Which conflicts should the board rule out before scoping?
The board should rule out any arrangement where the adviser profits from a recommendation it has not disclosed. The global securities standard-setter IOSCO put conflicts from vertical integration first among the six areas covered by its 18 recommendations for crypto markets in November 2023. The same logic applies to an adviser that also runs, or is paid by, launchpads, exchanges, market makers or tooling vendors.
Ownership of products is not disqualifying on its own. Hidden ownership is. Ask every firm for a written list of its commercial ties and its own products, and how it decides when not to recommend them.
Promotion is a separate risk. When the SEC settled a 2022 touting case for about $1.26 million, it stated that anyone promoting a crypto asset security must disclose the nature, source and amount of the payment. A firm that also markets the token it is paid in should show how it handles that disclosure.
How should crypto advisory services be priced?
Crypto advisory services should be priced as a fixed-scope first phase, then as a programme tied to named outputs. There is no reliable public benchmark for web3 advisory fees. We did not find a published rate card or fee range from a primary source that a board could rely on. Any number quoted to you is that firm’s number.
That makes the scope the real price. A board can compare two proposals only if both describe the same work, the same deliverables and the same owners. The structure below is the one we would ask for.
The first phase is a paid assessment with a fixed fee and a fixed end date, usually measured in weeks, not months. It ends with a written document the board can act on even if it hires no one else. A good firm will credit that fee against further work. The second phase is the plan itself, priced by programme with a deliverable list and a named owner for each part. Later phases, such as launch support or quarterly reviews, are priced separately so the board can stop at any point.
Should the board pay in cash or in tokens?
The board should pay advisory fees in cash. A token component is defensible only if it is capped, vested on the same schedule as the team and reviewed by counsel before signature. A firm paid mainly in the client’s token has an interest in the price at its own unlock date, which may not be the organization’s interest.
Ask three questions of any token-based proposal. What share of the total fee is in tokens? When does it unlock, compared with the team and investors? Will the firm promote the token, and if so, how is the payment disclosed?
What should the board get for the first fee?
For the first fee, the board should get a short written assessment that it could hand to any other firm. At minimum it should contain:
- A plain statement of the outcome the plan is built to reach, and by when.
- The three or four decisions that block everything else, in order.
- A first view of the token model, float and vesting, with the risks named.
- A list of the other specialists needed, and what each must deliver.
- A proposed plan scope and fee, with a named owner for every workstream.
If the document only makes sense with the firm in the room, the phase has not done its job. A good assessment is useful on its own.
How should the board compare two proposals?
The board should compare proposals on scope, people and exit terms before it compares price. Two fees can only be read side by side when the work behind them is the same.
Put every proposal into one grid. List the workstreams from the table above down the side and the firms across the top. For each cell, record whether the firm owns the work, coordinates it or excludes it, and which named person does it. Gaps show up quickly. One firm will have left distribution to an agency it has not named. Another will have priced launch support into the plan without saying so.
Then read the exit terms. Can the board stop after the first phase without penalty? Who owns the models, documents and contact lists if it does? Is any part of the fee due on a token event rather than on delivered work? A firm that is confident in its first phase will make stopping easy.
Last, check the people against the work. A proposal that names two senior partners for a ten-workstream plan either has more staff than it is showing or will not do all ten. Ask which. The cheapest proposal is often the one that has quietly scoped out the hardest workstream.
What goes wrong: five advisers, one blind spot each
The expensive failure is not a weak adviser. It is five capable ones, each hired for one slice, none responsible for whether the slices fit.
It tends to unfold like this. A tokenomics specialist models supply. Counsel structures the foundation without seeing the unlock schedule. A listing agent introduces a market maker whose loan terms assume a float the model does not produce. A marketing agency is paid in tokens that unlock before the team’s. The auditor reviews contracts that no longer match the published allocation. Each firm did its job. The board still owns a launch where the numbers disagree, and nobody was paid to notice.
The fix is in the scope, not the roster. Give one firm responsibility for the whole commercial plan. Require every specialist to work to that plan. Ask for one document that shows who owns each part, and read it before the fee is approved.
How Alcyone approaches it
Alcyone, TrustSwap’s advisory practice, scopes work in the order this guide describes. Alcyone’s advisory services are grouped as strategy and growth, fundraising and tokenomics, marketing and visibility, business development and partnerships, and quality and security; legal structuring is not on that list and sits with counsel. An engagement starts with a thirty-minute call with a senior partner, then a fixed-scope, fixed-fee assessment credited against further work, then a plan built over three to six weeks with a named owner for every part. There is no obligation to use TrustSwap products. The partners have launched 80+ projects through the TrustSwap Launchpad.