Kairos — Proposal Input (Lee → Šaras)

Lee's input to the proposal Šaras is drafting. Built from Kairos — Meeting Prep (2026-07-04) + the meeting debrief. Decision markers: ⟦Lee⟧ = Lee decides, ⟦Šaras⟧ = Šaras's call or his negotiation to run.

The frame (why this framing wins Ro)

Ro is mission-driven and money-nonchalant, but named one hard constraint: break even. So the proposal speaks his language while carrying our metric: profit is what keeps the mission sovereign — a network that loses money serves someone else's values eventually. The SWAT team's job: find the shortest credible path toward break-even and put visible motion on it within the trial month.

Goal & the trial bet (one month, one number)

The sharpest fact from the meeting: the founder couldn't name the dVPN vs B2B revenue split. Whether anyone is steering by the money — Ieva may well have the page — is unknown (Lee's flag, 07-05: don't assume they lack it); the X-ray either surfaces the existing picture or creates it. Either way the first lever is concrete:

Week 1–2 — the Commercial X-ray. Map where money actually enters and leaks: revenue and cost per product line (dVPN vs B2B proxy vs agent-access work), distance to break-even, and the top 3 levers ranked by effort-to-impact. Deliverable: one page Ro and Ieva both nod at. (This needs access to whoever holds the numbers — a proposal precondition, see Way of Working.)

Week 3–4 — move the #1 lever. Chosen FROM the X-ray, not preassigned. Live candidates given what we know: focused outbound to agent-access buyers in ONE vertical (Ro confirmed universality is impossible — LinkedIn ≠ Facebook — which is an argument FOR vertical focus, not against the play); repricing premium geographies; or a positioning/GTM fix on whichever product the X-ray shows is quietly the margin engine. Deliverable: the lever in motion with an early signal — a named number (sales meetings with serious buyers, € of deals set in motion, revenue lift from repricing).

Trial success = X-ray delivered + top lever moving + early signal by day 30. Honest, testable, and it sets up the 90-day engagement with a metric nobody has to invent later.

Way of working

• The SWAT method, as Šaras himself framed it in his post-meeting message: research × torpedoes. Lee goes deep — systematic research that finds where the asymmetry actually is. Šaras launches live tests — quick probes, "torpedoes," create an opportunity and scan the response. The X-ray feeds the torpedoes; the torpedoes validate the X-ray. This division belongs IN the proposal — it's the honest answer to "why these two."
• Embedded or outside? Šaras raised it: do we work inside the Mysterium team or operate from the outside? Lee's lean: outside, with named data-access points — that's what makes a SWAT team fast ⟦Šaras⟧ confirm his read.
• Self-contained duo: we bring strategy, narrative, GTM execution, and our own AI leverage; we buy our own tools.
• Weekly written update to Ro: decisions made, numbers moved, next week — plus a shared chat as an open channel (Ro requested it by text 07-06: "gal verta bendrą chat'ą pasikurti"). Still no meetings-as-progress.
• Precondition: direct access to revenue/cost data and whoever holds it. If the X-ray can't be fed, the trial can't be honest — say this in the proposal.

Money ⟦Šaras runs this⟧

• €10k gross for both, one month, as you referenced. Fine with me.
• The all-in envelope needs one guardrail — sharpened 07-05 with Lee's real numbers. Taxes come off the €10k FIRST, so every euro of tools or ads spent from the envelope is post-tax money — it gets expensive real fast. No pooled unit budget for tools: each covers his own toolkit. Lee's hard personal cap: €300/mo total, Claude Max 20× (~€200) included — leaving ~€100 of headroom for everything else. What Šaras subscribes to is his own call. Anything needing real cash (paid traffic, bigger test accounts) is proposed case-by-case and Mysterium-funded on approval. This softly corrects Ro's "all-in, don't bother us" framing — Šaras carries it, and the argument is the tax math, not appetite.
• Invoicing: half on signing, half at day 30 — frame as standard for short engagements, not distrust. ⟦Šaras⟧ knows the room; the prep-note logic stands (never more than 2–4 weeks unpaid exposure) even though payment risk looks low (you've been paid 6 months).

Duration & what happens after

1. Month 1: the trial (above).
2. Go/no-go, both sides, against the trial metric — written into the proposal so nobody has to improvise the conversation.
3. If go: the 90-day engagement — the full bet on the lever the X-ray validated, with a pre-agreed target number.
4. The jackpot clause, made light but real: Ro already implied percentage/ownership on trust. Encode it as one sentence — "if a lever we build produces sustained recurring revenue above €X/mo, we open the upside conversation (revenue share / equity / token)" — trust-basis preserved, but the trigger named. ⟦Šaras⟧: calibrate €X.
5. Hours cap: ⟦Lee⟧ propose 15–25 h/wk each. This protects my own build (non-negotiable for me) and honestly it protects the engagement too — SWAT means surgical, not resident.

Timing

Ro flies out Tuesday 07-07 for an extended trip. Either the proposal (even a one-pager version) reaches him Monday, or we accept it waits for/travels with him. Recommend: one-pager Monday, full version follows. Momentum from Saturday's yes is an asset with a shelf life.

Open items

• Šaras's message folded in (transcript: Šaras voice message 2026-07-04 — Mysterium proposal thoughts). Two garbled passages need his confirmation: the quick-test-into-Africa idea (what exactly — node supply? lead gen?) and the embedded-vs-outside phrasing.
• Šaras named the proposal dimensions himself: budget, timeline, goals (can be modest), working mode. This doc covers all four — the structure is agreed in spirit before the first sit-down.
• ⟦Lee⟧ hours/week number; ⟦Šaras⟧ advance framing, jackpot threshold, whether Ieva gets the proposal directly or via Ro.