Primary · Internal

Choosing our
CRM.

Why the choice matters, what's broken today, and the real trade-offs behind every option.

Logan NashJuly 2026Press → to begin

The stakes

A people
business.

Our network is the asset. The CRM is where it lives — or where it leaks.

All we do here is find people — but they get lost.
CRM working session — June 2026

Our Affinity-Lovelace marriage is rocky.

Logging is still manual

Logger was a huge win, but capture is hand-work — and a CRM's whole value is automation.

Pipeline lives in two places

Lovelace is closer to what we want, but now what-to-sync and which-way is a constant battle.

Not everyone's on it

Seats cost too much, so half the firm's network never makes it in.

The field

Two shapes
of CRM.

Get the category right first — most CRMs solve a problem we don't have.

We have no customers.
We have a network.

Sales CRMs

Salesforce and kin drive a pipeline toward a close. Built for customers.

Relationship CRMs

Map who-knows-whom across years. Built for networks like ours.

The tell

A VC never “closes” a founder. The relationship is the product.

So the field narrows

Relationship-native is the only family worth our time.

Affinity — the
relationship CRM
we already run.

Pro — Purpose-built for VC

Auto-captures every email and meeting, out of the box.

Pro — Shared graph

Enriched by network data every other fund feeds the platform.

Con — The pipeline stays manual

It captures contacts, but the master deal pipeline we live in won't auto-update.

Con — Not builder-friendly

A walled API: rate limits cap what we build, and scale costs more.

Ring — the
VC-native
challenger.

Pro — Deep enrichment

Backfills 20–30 years of email; maps cap tables, boards, advisors.

Pro — Built to extend

50–60 tools and a REST API — some firms run it headless.

Con — Unlock's not shipped

Ring-to-Ring deal sharing is still in design — targeted, not guaranteed.

Con — Still rented

Seat-based paid pilot, and LinkedIn is manual CSVs.

Zero — AI-native,
wrong shape.

Pro — Genuinely AI-native

Zero-click capture across email and LinkedIn. Ex-Smartly.io, 20VC-backed.

Con — But it's a sales CRM

Built to prospect and close — the Salesforce shape, not ours.

Con — And too early

Design-partner stage: no general release, no public price.

Verdict

Inspiration for an AI-native tool — not one to adopt today.

The build-your-own option

Own
the stack.

Twenty is open source — the one option we can shape. Two ways to run it.

Twenty, hosted.
They run it.

Pro — $9 a seat

Custom objects, APIs, workflows, and the app builder — all included.

Pro — Vibe-code on top

Build our own apps and AI agents inside it, no infra to manage.

Con — App builder is brand-new

The custom app-building feature we'd build on is ~3 months old and changing weekly. Expect churn.

Con — And boxed into it

Customization is restricted to that app builder — we could lose things like event listeners for agents.

Twenty, self-hosted.
We run it.

Pro — Free license

Open source. Infra runs ~$200/mo, right beside Lovelace.

Pro — One database

Lovelace and Twenty share one Postgres — no sync lag or engine to build.

Pro — Anyone can vibe-code it

We control the source, so people across the firm could vibe-code solutions to their own problems.

Con — But it's ours to run

Upgrades, backups, security — we own all of it, and that's real, ongoing work.

The economics

~$200/mo

self-hosted for the whole firm — flat forever, while hosting charges by the seat.
$0open-source license — fork and own it
seats, no per-seat tax
$9/seathosted instead — climbing with every hire

Where we land

Toward
Twenty.

The only relationship-native option we can fully control — likely self-hosted.

What's left to decide

One direction, two open questions

  • 01PrivacySelf-hosting means we hold everyone's emails and calendar events ourselves — encrypted at rest, but still ours to protect.
  • 02A long-term commitmentSelf-hosting is significant, ongoing effort — are we ready to own it for the long haul?
Primary