Web3 Competition Slide Examples: Crypto and Blockchain
How crypto, token and blockchain pitch decks name their competitors and show a real difference. Six real web3 competition slides compared.
Web3 Competition Slide Examples: Crypto and Blockchain Competitors
Six competition slides from real crypto, token and blockchain pitch decks, shown in full, compare who each deck names as a rival, what it compares them on, and whether the difference can be checked.
TL;DR
A web3 competition slide works best when it names the crypto rivals a buyer would actually consider and compares them on facts that can be checked, such as fees. CoinMall compares itself with three named crypto marketplaces on five features, including platform fees (0% vs "up to 8%" and "more than 10%"). AGV Protocol compares itself with three named tokenized-asset platforms. Genotik names Poloniex, Kraken and Bitfinex and gives four reasons it expects to win. Kruma compares itself only with banks and money transfer brands, Moneybridge lists strengths without naming any rival, and JSEcoin shares its competition slide with a "potential for 100x growth" token price claim.
Web3 competition slides from real pitch decks
Each example shows the exact stored slide above its analysis and links to the full teardown. Stage and year are given only where the deck states them. Competitor claims are quoted as the slide states them; we have not checked them.
CoinMall competition slide — slide 7
Marketplace for digital goods paid in cryptocurrency. The web3 market, web3 business model and marketplace problem guides use different slides from this deck.
CoinMall deck, slide 7. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It names three rivals a crypto buyer would recognize, and the fee column gives a figure a reader can check rather than a tick.
Evidence and limitation: A tick in every column for yourself reads as marketing. OpenBazaar also charges 0%, so the table should say what CoinMall does better there, not just claim it is "safer".
What a founder can adapt: Put at least one column of checkable figures in your table, and name rivals your buyers actually use.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitive Landscape": a table comparing CoinMall, OpenBazaar, Particl and Bitify on low barrier to entry, secure dispute mediation, platform fees, multi-crypto support and automated product delivery. Fees: CoinMall 0%, OpenBazaar 0%, Particl "More than 10%", Bitify "Up to 8%". CoinMall has a tick in every column. Caption: "CoinMall is easier to access, safer, offers more features and is more user-friendly than the competition".
Presentation choice: It names three rivals a crypto buyer would recognize, and the fee column gives a figure a reader can check rather than a tick.
When it does not fit: A tick in every column for yourself reads as marketing. OpenBazaar also charges 0%, so the table should say what CoinMall does better there, not just claim it is "safer".
Tokenized real-world assets (orchards, solar and compute). Business development version of the deck. The web3 market guide uses a slide from AGV's institutional deck.
AGV Protocol deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Each named rival gets a one-line description of what it does, so the reader can see AGV's claimed difference: several income streams instead of one.
Evidence and limitation: The column headings and the rows don't line up (asset types sit under "Yield Range"), the 18–26% figure is a target rather than a result, and "scalable geography" is marked X for every rival with no explanation.
What a founder can adapt: Describe each rival fairly in one line, then state the one thing you do that none of them do.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitive Positioning": ONDO ("Bonds/debt RWA platform offering 3–6% fixed yield", "Limited to debt products"), PEAQ ("Focuses on IoT and DePIN"), GLOW ("Emphasizes farms and carbon credits", "Node rewards can be volatile"), each marked X for scalable geography. "AGV's Advantage": "Triple income streams—orchards, solar, and compute—deliver 18–26% targeted IRR" and "a path toward a regulated listing". Footer: alignment with Nasdaq's RWA initiatives.
Presentation choice: Each named rival gets a one-line description of what it does, so the reader can see AGV's claimed difference: several income streams instead of one.
When it does not fit: The column headings and the rows don't line up (asset types sit under "Yield Range"), the 18–26% figure is a target rather than a result, and "scalable geography" is marked X for every rival with no explanation.
Cryptocurrency exchange aimed at the Indian market. Stage and year not stated.
Genotik deck, slide 12. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It admits the market is crowded, names real rivals and gives specific reasons, including regulation and fiat deposits, which matter to buyers in a single country.
Evidence and limitation: It is a paragraph of text with no comparison, and it doesn't say whether Genotik itself is regulated or which fiat options it supports, so the reasons can't be checked.
What a founder can adapt: Say how crowded your market is, name the leaders, and give reasons tied to what your buyers need.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors": "more than 150 cryptocurrency exchanges", naming Poloniex.com, Kraken.com and bitfinex.com. Four reasons their growth will be limited: lack of depth and breadth of services; no regional focus with global presence, so they "face lack of liquidity"; "Most of the exchange working in the cryptocurrency space are unregulated and may face future ban"; most don't support fiat deposits or allow only a few fiat options.
Presentation choice: It admits the market is crowded, names real rivals and gives specific reasons, including regulation and fiat deposits, which matter to buyers in a single country.
When it does not fit: It is a paragraph of text with no comparison, and it doesn't say whether Genotik itself is regulated or which fiat options it supports, so the reasons can't be checked.
Fiat and cryptocurrency exchange focused on migrant communities. Stage and year not stated.
Kruma deck, slide 8. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: Grouping rivals by the problem each group leaves unsolved is clearer than a wall of logos.
Evidence and limitation: It names no crypto exchange, although Kruma calls itself one, and gives no fee figures to back "expensive". Investors will ask how it compares with other crypto on-ramps.
What a founder can adapt: Group rivals by the problem they leave open, and put a number (a fee, a currency count) against each group.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competitors": "The Big Banks and companies are expensive with no fee transparency" (Citibank, Chase, Bank of America, PNC, US Bank, Wells Fargo, Travelex logos); "Not enough currency options and not solving problems for migrant communities" (two money transfer app logos); "Kruma is the future of fiat and cryptocurrency exchanges."
Presentation choice: Grouping rivals by the problem each group leaves unsolved is clearer than a wall of logos.
When it does not fit: It names no crypto exchange, although Kruma calls itself one, and gives no fee figures to back "expensive". Investors will ask how it compares with other crypto on-ramps.
Fiat-to-crypto on-ramp. The deck's file is dated 2024; stage not stated.
Moneybridge deck, slide 9. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: The team's combined compliance experience is a relevant strength for a regulated on-ramp.
Evidence and limitation: No competitor appears, so "unique" can't be judged, and "premier" and "strong insight" are claims without evidence.
What a founder can adapt: Keep your strengths, but show them against named on-ramps so the reader can see why they matter.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "We Have Strategic Combination of Unique Competitive Advantages": "On-Ramp Innovation" ("In 1.5 years, we've crafted a premier fiat-to-crypto on-ramp solution"), "Financial & Crypto Expertise" ("over 50 years of collective expertise in institutional investing, compliance, and international financial regulations") and "Strong Insight" into blockchain limitations.
Presentation choice: The team's combined compliance experience is a relevant strength for a regulated on-ramp.
When it does not fit: No competitor appears, so "unique" can't be judged, and "premier" and "strong insight" are claims without evidence.
Browser-based cryptocurrency mining. Seed (recorded). The web3 product guide uses a different slide from this deck.
JSEcoin deck, slide 4. Exact stored slide matched to this analysis.
Our analysis: It recognizes that its rivals come from three different categories, which shows the reader where it sits.
Evidence and limitation: The token price projection has nothing to do with competition, assumes the company reaches a rival's valuation, and reads as a promise of returns. Keep projections like this out of the deck.
What a founder can adapt: Show the categories you compete with, and give each a fair, specific weakness.
Supporting analysis
What the deck claims: "Competition": three circles, Monero miners ("Resource Intensive", "Unethical Hidden Mining", "Blocked By Antivirus"), Bitcoin ("Large Carbon Footprint", "Scaling Issues") and ad networks ("Monopolised Marketplace", "Obtrusive User Experience"). Beside it, "Investor Opportunity": Monero market cap $3.7b (May 2018); if JSEcoin reached the same valuation, "price per token would be $0.638" against an ICO price of $0.006; "Potential for 100x growth".
Presentation choice: It recognizes that its rivals come from three different categories, which shows the reader where it sits.
When it does not fit: The token price projection has nothing to do with competition, assumes the company reaches a rival's valuation, and reads as a promise of returns. Keep projections like this out of the deck.
Named crypto rivals and checkable figures make a comparison credible.
Example
Crypto rivals named
Checkable figures
Stated difference
Distractions
CoinMall
3
Fees (0%, up to 8%, more than 10%)
Features and fees
Tick in every column
AGV Protocol
3
Rival yield 3–6%; own IRR is a target
Several income streams
Mismatched columns
Genotik
3 (of 150+)
No
Regional focus, regulation, fiat
Text only
Kruma
0 (banks, transfer apps)
No
Fees, migrant focus
None
Moneybridge
0
No
Team expertise
None
JSEcoin
Categories only
No
Ethical, low-footprint mining
Token price projection
Key Takeaways
Name the crypto products a buyer would actually compare you with, not only banks or "the old system".
Compare on facts a reader can check (fees, supported assets, regulation), not only ticks you award yourself.
Regulation is a real difference in crypto, but say what licence you hold or are seeking.
A list of your strengths is not a competition slide if no competitor appears.
Keep token price projections off the competition slide. They distract from the comparison and invite scrutiny.
Build your web3 competition slide
Answer these before designing the slide.
Rivals. Which crypto products would your buyer compare you with? Name three.
Incumbents. Which non-crypto option (banks, transfer apps, ad networks) do buyers use today?
Facts. Which differences can be checked: fees, supported coins or countries, settlement time, licences?
Regulation. What licence or registration do you hold or plan, and where?
Honesty. Where does a rival beat you, and why does it matter less to your buyer?
Copyable framework: [Rival]: [fee / coverage / licence]. Us: [same measure]. Why it matters to [buyer]: [one line].
Illustrative example 1 — written by us
Before: We Have Strategic Combination of Unique Competitive Advantages
After: vs [on-ramp A] and [on-ramp B]: fees [x% vs y%], countries [N vs M], licence [held / applied for]
What improved: Our illustrative rewrite, not Moneybridge's text. Bracketed parts are placeholders, not company facts. It turns a list of strengths into a comparison.
How this guide relates to the other competition and web3 guides
The main competition guide covers comparison tables, positioning maps and feature matrices for any company, and the fintech competition guide includes one crypto wallet. This guide covers what is specific to web3 decks: rivals that are often other protocols or exchanges rather than companies, fees and supported coins as the main points of comparison, regulation as a difference, and token price claims that sometimes appear beside the comparison.
Common mistakes
No crypto rivals. Comparing only with banks skips the products investors will ask about.
Ticks you award yourself. Add figures a reader can check.
Unexplained regulation claims. Say which licence you hold or seek.
Strengths with no competitor. Show them against named rivals.
Token price upside. Keep return projections off the slide.
Diagnostic checklist
At least two named crypto rivals.
At least one checkable figure per rival.
The difference that matters most to your buyer is stated plainly.
Any regulation claim names the licence and place.
No token price or return projections.
Frequently asked questions
How we chose these examples
Corpus: published pitch deck teardowns on StartupFundraising.com. Founder-uploaded private decks are excluded.
Selection (2026-09-28): we searched extracted slide text for slides whose opening words include "competition", "competitors", "competitive", "landscape" or "alternatives" and whose text mentions crypto, blockchain, web3, NFTs, DeFi, tokens, wallets or bitcoin. Excluded: slides already used by another guide (Hoard's competition slide is in the fintech competition guide), market-landscape slides and non-web3 companies.
Images: five slide images were rendered from the published deck PDFs and stored on 2026-09-28; JSEcoin's was already stored.
Overlap check: no competition-slide facet for web3 existed. CoinMall, AGV Protocol and JSEcoin appear in other guides with different slides.
Review: all six stored slide images were inspected on 2026-09-28 and matched to company, deck and slide number (editorial model review). Competitor claims are quoted from the slides and were not checked. No person has yet completed an editorial review of this page.
We make no claim that any slide caused a fundraising outcome.
