Shane Ian Murphy: Defining a Commercial Role for a Cambridge Project

I am Shane Ian Murphy, a former co-founder and Chief Business Development Officer of Limitless Mobile and cofounder of Dual Party Capital. I am writing as an affiliated founder about an approach I want the business to take in asset tokenisation, structured financing and investment discussions. One distinction deserves particular care: bringing two parties into contact does not, by itself, establish a mandate. The difference matters because an introduction and an ongoing commercial role create different expectations about work, authority, communication and responsibility.

An introduction has a relatively straightforward purpose. One party believes that two people may have a reason to speak and helps that conversation begin. A mandate needs a more specific explanation. Who has engaged whom? What task has been requested? What boundaries apply? What would completion look like? If those questions remain unanswered, participants can attach very different meanings to the same meeting, even when everybody begins with reasonable intentions.

I would want the scope written in language that the people doing the work can use. A broad description of support may sound accommodating, but it can obscure the actual assignment. Preparing information, identifying potential discussion partners, coordinating responses and negotiating terms are different activities. The relevant parties should understand which activities are included, which require separate agreement and which are outside the proposed role altogether. Clarity at this point prevents an ambiguous relationship from becoming an expensive misunderstanding.

Authority deserves its own discussion. Being asked to arrange a conversation does not automatically mean being authorised to speak for the business on commercial terms. Receiving a document does not automatically make it appropriate to distribute that document further. I would rather establish who can approve an external statement and who can answer a substantive question before a process gathers momentum. This is practical coordination, and it supports a more orderly exchange of information.

Compensation should also be understandable. Participants need to know what service a fee relates to, when any payment becomes due and what conditions apply. I do not think those matters become easier by leaving them until the end. A clear commercial arrangement allows the parties to evaluate the proposed relationship alongside the work itself. It also helps separate a payment obligation from assumptions about an outcome that no participant can responsibly promise in advance.

Consider a fictional Cambridge project team that asks someone to arrange an introductory meeting. The team still needs to decide whether it also wants help preparing material, coordinating questions or representing its position. Those additional tasks should be discussed explicitly. The example is hypothetical: it illustrates the difference between making a connection and accepting responsibility for a defined piece of work, without describing any actual client engagement.

Another area that needs attention is how the parties will communicate. A process can become confused when several people provide different versions of the same update. I favour identifying a principal contact, recording substantive decisions and making unresolved questions visible. This does not require an elaborate system. A clear record of what was requested, what was supplied and what remains outstanding can be more useful than a high volume of informal messages.

I would also want a mandate to address how it changes or ends. A project may develop in a direction that was not anticipated at the start. The required work may increase, a different counterparty may become relevant or the business may decide to pause. Those changes should lead to an explicit discussion of scope. Continuing by assumption can leave one party expecting work that another party never agreed to undertake.

The distinction between mandate and introduction is therefore about the quality of the working relationship. It helps everyone understand the next action, the person responsible and the limits of the engagement. An introduction can be valuable on its own terms. A mandate can be useful when its terms reflect a real assignment. At Dual Party Capital, I want our commercial explanations to respect that distinction and make the proposed contribution clear before activity is mistaken for agreement.