Split promises are seldom made on purpose. They creep in through phrases such as "we'll sort out the economics later", a reciprocal "the next one is yours", or an LP letter that describes the introduction as a joint win. Each sets up an expectation the published terms cannot meet. Dividing a reward inside one firm is a different problem, covered in internal reward allocation, and two introductions racing for the same company are covered in when two partners refer the same company. This page is for two separate firms working on one company on purpose.
What SourceX pays, to whom, and what it never divides
The program draws its line around a single partner, and every rule below points the same way.
| Rule | Where it is written | What it means for two funds |
|---|---|---|
| One partner is credited per company | Terms, section 2 | The second fund receives nothing from SourceX for that company, whatever it contributed |
| An introduction alone creates no commission or minimum payment | Agreement sample, section 2.5, headed "No assumed fees" | The same discipline the funds should apply to each other |
| A partner is not SourceX's agent and cannot commit it to payouts | Agreement sample, section 7.1 | Fund A cannot promise Fund B money from SourceX |
| Assigning the agreement needs written consent, except in a merger or sale where the successor takes on the obligations | Agreement sample, section 7.6 | The introducer cannot hand its position to the other fund on its own |
| SourceX's confidential information may go only to employees, professional advisers and service providers bound by equally protective duties | Agreement sample, section 4.2 | A co-investor is not on that list, which limits status updates |
| Updates arrive as generic stages or reference codes | Agreement sample, section 4.6 | There is little to share even when sharing is allowed |
| The reward on a company's first qualifying transaction is the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months pay 15% | Terms, section 4 | Any side share is a slice of an amount that is uncertain until paid |
Funding plays no part in any of this. SourceX screens the company on its full-time headcount at peak (50 or more, contractors excluded), years of records it created, its rights to license them and a CEO who authorizes the discussion; a co-investment proves none of these.
Map the chain before anyone asks the CEO
Three links usually appear when two funds share a company, and they are rarely held by the same person.
| Link | Who usually holds it | What it adds | What it does not add |
|---|---|---|---|
| The CEO relationship | The partner the CEO already calls about operating questions | A hearing for the question | Any say over the answer |
| The context | The fund that spotted the fit or knows the sector | Better questions about records and systems | Credit at SourceX |
| The written introduction | One person who has signed the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement | The dated record SourceX credits | Authority over the company |
Above all three sits the CEO, who decides whether the company talks to SourceX at all, and SourceX's screening guidance treats an introduction the decision-maker did not know about as a poor fit. So the chain starts with the CEO's yes, and ideally the CEO also chooses which fund carries the question.
The no-assumed-split agreement checklist
Twelve lines for a one-page coordination note between the two funds, signed or acknowledged by email before outreach. Each line closes off one assumption.
| # | Write down | Program fact behind it | Assumption it removes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The introducer of record: one fund, the signatory on its partner agreement and the person who sends the written introduction | One partner credited per company | "We both submitted, so we both get something" |
| 2 | The other fund's contribution, in words: context, sector questions, a word to the CEO if the CEO asks | Contribution earns no credit at SourceX | "Our help entitles us to a share" |
| 3 | That no share of any reward is owed to the other fund | No assumed fees, section 2.5 | "We'll sort out the economics later" |
| 4 | Whether a separate side agreement exists: yes or no; if yes, signed by both funds before outreach, with SourceX not a party | The partner cannot commit SourceX to payouts | "SourceX will pay each of us" |
| 5 | If yes, that its base is the reward the introducer actually received, after any reduction | Before the company is paid, any reward shown is an estimate | "Twenty percent of whatever the deal was worth" |
| 6 | Each fund's own policy on accepting or paying out a referral reward, and who approved it | The program terms are silent on fund documents | "Compliance will be fine with it" |
| 7 | That no future company is owed to the other fund in return | Credit for each company follows dated records | "The next one is yours" |
| 8 | What the CEO hears: one ask, from the introducer, who discloses the possible reward personally | Decision-maker knowledge comes first | "Both funds are behind this" |
| 9 | What the introducer may pass on: only what the CEO allows and SourceX's confidentiality permits | Section 4.2 recipients; section 4.6 generic stages | "We'll copy you on everything" |
| 10 | That neither fund reports the introduction to LPs or portfolio companies as expected income or a joint win | A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment | "Pipeline: one referral, reward pending" |
| 11 | What happens if the introducer's agreement ends or the person leaves the fund | One-year term, 30 days' notice, a six-month Protection Period afterwards | "It passes to whoever is left" |
| 12 | A close date: the CEO declines, the application lapses, or the matter ends | Credit needs a verified application inside 90 days | "The understanding runs forever" |
Line 11 has a gap the funds cannot fill themselves. The published terms do not say what becomes of an introduction still in review when the partner behind it leaves the program, so record the question, ask SourceX if it arises, and do not write an answer into the note.
Method note. The twelve lines were derived on 2026-10-27 from SourceX's program terms (Version 2026-10-22.2, since replaced by version 2026-11-04) and the unsigned Channel Partner Agreement sample (version 2026-10-19): each line answers one clause that limits credit, payment, assignment or confidentiality to a single partner. The checklist was not tested on live fund collaborations, and no data on how often co-investors coordinate, or fall out, over referrals has been published.
Picking the introducer on four facts
Pick the introducer on four facts, in this order:
- The CEO's preference. If the CEO names a person, that settles it.
- The live relationship. The partner the CEO already talks to about operations beats the partner with the bigger stake.
- A signed agreement. The person must sign the SourceX Channel Partner Agreement before submitting, and someone at that fund tracks its one-year term.
- Policy room. That fund's own documents allow it to accept a reward, or the fund has asked SourceX in writing how an introducer who cannot accept one should proceed.
The fourth test is where hidden splits are born: the best-placed fund cannot take money, so it lets the other fund submit and "share". That swaps an honest no for a disguised arrangement. Choose the introducer who can act openly, or let the better-placed fund introduce on its own terms after it has SourceX's written answer.
Four ways two funds have arranged it (Illustrative)
Illustrative. Invented arrangements for one introduction of a 260-person freight brokerage, in which SourceX pays the company $400,000 under its signed Dataset Deal Confirmation. On the 2026 formula the first-transaction reward is $70,000: USD 50,000 plus 5% of $400,000, which is more than 15% of it. Each row is an alternative, not a sequence.
| Arrangement | What the funds wrote down | What SourceX pays | What the second fund receives | Where it breaks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. One introducer, no side agreement | All twelve lines; line 4 says no | $70,000 to the introducer | Nothing from anyone; its help is recognized between the funds | Seldom; it relies on goodwill |
| B. One introducer, side agreement at 20% of what is received | All twelve lines; line 4 says yes, signed before outreach | $70,000 to the introducer | $14,000 from the introducer, under their own contract | Either fund's policy may forbid it |
| C. Both funds submit | Nothing | Credit only to the first valid introduction | Nothing, and the CEO heard two asks | Always |
| D. A spoken "we'll split it" | Nothing | $70,000 to the introducer | Whatever the introducer decides to send | A dispute between funds that SourceX's dispute route does not cover |
Arrangement B also has to survive a reduction. Suppose the company's payout is later cut from $400,000 to $320,000. The reward is recalculated on the reduced total: USD 50,000 plus 5% of $320,000 is $66,000, still more than 15% of it, so the reward becomes $66,000 and the $4,000 already paid above it is adjusted. Under line 5 the second fund's share follows, from $14,000 to $13,200. A side agreement written on a dollar figure would now be wrong. Whatever the arrangement, SourceX funds the reward on its own account; it is never carved out of what the company is paid under its agreement.
Where a no-split collaboration fails
- Fund documents. A limited partnership agreement or compliance policy can treat any fee earned near a portfolio company in ways the program terms never mention. Only each fund's counsel or compliance team can answer line 6.
- Credit goes to nobody. If the company already has an application, account, lead or email history with SourceX, the introduction is a duplicate and no partner is credited, however well the funds coordinated.
- Demand. SourceX checks relevance to its current data needs only in review, so a clean collaboration can still end in a declined application.
- Goodwill. A fund that contributed and received nothing may feel shortchanged next time. Nobody has published how co-investors react; if your platform team tries this, record each collaboration's outcome and any friction.
- Status leaks. Forwarding SourceX's updates to a co-investor can step outside the recipients the agreement allows, which is why line 9 exists.
A measurable next step. Over two quarters, count three things: joint introductions attempted, coordination notes completed before outreach, and disagreements between funds afterwards. If notes are rarely completed before the CEO hears about it, the checklist is too long for how your funds actually work; cut it to lines 1, 3, 4 and 8. A blank version of the partner-side questions sits in the partner agreement checklist, and the platform view of the program is set out for venture platform teams.
Next step
Refer a company. No cap on rewards. Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
When the coordination note names one introducer and line 4 has a clear yes or no, that person can create a partner account, test the company on the published criteria and go through the program terms with the other fund before writing to the CEO; how to mention the reward in that first message is shown in disclosing a reward in an introductory email.
Coordinating an introduction with another fund is a referral decision; deciding whether SourceX itself merits a place in a portfolio is a different one, and investor materials for that are requested through the SourceX investor overview.
This article is for information only and is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. Any offering by SourceX is made only to verified accredited investors through its offering documents.