Author: mars (Claude, on kee's behalf) Date: 2026-08-01 Status: PARKED as expansion plan (task #320). Not on immediate roadmap. Revisit when sales signal or capacity allows. Audience: kscope leadership + sales.
Don't compete with ZoomInfo directly. Sell MARS data TO their smaller competitors as a differentiator. WealthEngine, iWave, Cognism, Lusha, Apollo.io, Nuvi, Clearbit, People Data Labs — a crowded field of ZI-adjacent sales-intel vendors that can't out-scale ZI on phones and emails, and need something ZI doesn't have to differentiate. MARS's SEC + wealth + entity-graph substrate is exactly that.
Cleaner GTM than the family-office end-user product this brief originally sketched: - Buyer: 10-30 technical decision-makers at sales-intel vendors, not thousands of family offices we'd have to educate - Sale: recurring API license (per-lookup / bulk-file / seat-based) - Product: enrichment endpoints on our existing person + company graph - We don't build product for a new end-user segment; competitors build ON TOP of our data
Rest of the brief below stays useful as the substrate + capability picture. Ignore the family-office pilot pitch — it's superseded by the supplier-to-competitors framing.
MARS is already 60–70% of the way to a differentiated wealth-intelligence
product. We PROCESS every form ZoomInfo would ever want (Form 4, Form D,
Schedules 13D/G, Form 144, ADV, 990-PF) — 747,025 unique persons
already have full mailing addresses in mars.form_d_officers_v2 alone,
plus 183,233 companies. The remaining gap is (a) bridging what's
already extracted into a unified queryable person profile, (b) adding
FEC / property / voter (deeds vertical, already scaffolded), and (c)
packaging it as a product for the family-office / RIA / private-wealth
targeting buyer — a segment ZoomInfo doesn't serve. Ballpark: ~4–6
months, 1–2 engineers, ~$30–50K in data acquisition, to first pilot
customer at a family office. First-year revenue potential: $500K–$3M
ARR depending on how aggressively we go. Legal posture is clean —
everything on the roadmap is public record.
I initially reported "0 addresses in mars, all latent." That was wrong. Corrected picture:
| Source | Rows w/ address | Unique persons | Unique companies |
|---|---|---|---|
mars.form_d_officers_v2 — Form D officers |
1,440,030 | 747,025 | 183,233 |
mars.form_144_v2 — issuer street/city/state/zip |
115,853 | 27,452 (sellers) | ~28K issuers |
mars.schedule_13d_v2 — activist filer city/state/zip |
2,782 | — | — |
adrian adv.firm + adv.manager_profile (offices + individuals) |
~52K firms | ~30K individuals | ~52K RIA firms |
holdings cik_filer_meta (13F filer identity) |
11,525 | — | — |
mars.persons_v2.linkedin_url (bios team) |
45,997 | 45,997 | — |
mars.person_bios_v2 (rich career + credentials) |
716,258 | 610,071 | — |
Total unique persons with SOME contact atom already in-house: ~1M.
Not-yet-in-mars but processed elsewhere (bridging work only, no new
extraction):
- ADV Part 1A firm addresses live in adrian's adv postgres — need a
bridge into investors_v2.address
- Form 4 reporting-person addresses — in the raw XBRL we ingest, not
extracted into form_4_transactions_v2 yet (~2 days of extractor
work on 11.2M filings)
- 990-PF officer addresses — in raw filings, not extracted into
foundation_officers_v2 yet
Genuinely new work: FEC contributions + property records + voter files (deeds vertical, scaffolded but not populated).
Ballpark to calibrate the space:
Their motion is B2B sales-driven contact intel at scale. SDR calls VP of Marketing. That's not our lane. But the ADJACENT lane — the one they don't serve well — is:
These buyers want: name + address + employer + role + wealth signal (insider sales, board comp, exits, property holdings, foundation giving). ZoomInfo has the name/address/employer but ZERO wealth signal. Preqin has the wealth signal but nothing on individuals. Nobody bundles both.
A MARS MCP product surfacing per-person profiles with:
| Dimension | Sourced from |
|---|---|
| Name + address + role + employer | Form D officers + Form 144 + ADV + FEC (once loaded) |
| Career + education + credentials | person_bios_v2 (ADV Part 2B) + person_work_history_v2 |
| Insider transaction history | form_4_transactions_v2 (11.2M rows LIVE) |
| Board seats + compensation | foundation_officers_v2 (27M) + Schedule A/B |
| Private-market fund investments | Form D related-persons (LIVE) |
| 13F portfolio + AUM | thirteenf_manager_aum_v2 (LIVE, shipped today for bios) |
| Property holdings (deeds vertical) | County records (planned) |
| Political giving pattern | FEC contributions (planned) |
| Foundation giving | 990-PF (partial, address extraction pending) |
| Relationship graph (co-investors, co-directors, co-alumni) | graph_edge_catalog + MCP (LIVE) |
| Wealth event alerts | insider sales > $X, IPO seller, M&A payout, large FEC contribution burst |
MCP tools (spec-only estimate, not built):
- wealth_person_profile(name | cik | linkedin_url) — the composite view
- wealth_person_search(filters={role, min_net_worth_est, region, ...}) — the list-builder
- wealth_event_alerts(subscription={...}) — the real-time signal
- wealth_relationship_walk(person_id, depth=2) — the graph query
Positioning: not "cheaper ZoomInfo." Explicitly "the wealth-tier intelligence platform for private-wealth outreach" — an institutional-quality signal set priced to the family-office / RIA / wealth-manager buyer.
Phase A — bridge + unify (4-6 weeks, 1 engineer):
- Aggregate all in-house addresses into a mars.person_contact_v2 view
(form_d_officers, form_144 sellers, ADV manager_profile, 990 officers)
- Bridge adv db → investors_v2.address + investors_v2.executive_addresses
- Extract Form 4 reporting-person addresses (2d of work)
- Extract 990-PF officer addresses from raw filings (~1w Qwen)
- Ship wealth_person_profile MCP v0
Phase B — deeds vertical population (6-10 weeks, 1 engineer + $5-30K data costs): - FEC contributions historical + delta (~$0, bulk public) - Property records for top-10 wealth-relevant states (FL/CA/NY/TX/MA/CT/ NJ/IL/WA/VA), Zillow-parcel or ATTOM commercial (~$5-30K for bulk) - Voter registration where publicly obtainable (~$500-5K per state)
Phase C — product + pilot (4-6 weeks, PM + eng): - MCP tool suite ships - Pilot with 1-3 family offices (identify via kee's network) - Iterate on the queries they actually run
Total: 4-6 months, 1-2 engineers, $30-50K data acquisition.
For comparison: ZoomInfo spends ~$500M/yr in data-acquisition costs. We're building an adjacent product on substrate that's already sitting in our warehouse, extracted for other consumers, at ~0.01% of their cost.
Wealth-intelligence buyer segment sizing (rough):
Serviceable addressable market: ~13,500 firms. Realistic addressable early: 500-1,000 firms.
Price tier: $50K–$500K/yr per firm depending on seat count + use case (family office self-serve = $50K; wealth-manager team of 20 = $300K; private bank enterprise = $500K+).
Year 1 realistic: 5-20 pilot customers at $75K avg = $375K-$1.5M ARR to prove the wedge. Year 2 scale: 30-80 customers = $2M-$6M ARR. Compare to lp_data or reit vertical revenue potential individually. It's a real business line, not a side experiment.
identity_decisions_v2 with methodology tag; any
future privacy takedown request is one query away.Risk that isn't legal: - ZoomInfo could enter our lane. Unlikely: they're built on B2B SDR workflow, not investment-grade signal — retooling the whole product toward wealth-tier is a strategy pivot, not a feature ship. - Preqin could add contact atoms to their fund/GP data. More plausible — but they don't have SEC-filer identity graph resolution at our depth, and building it from scratch is where we're 3 years ahead. - WealthEngine / iWave (existing wealth-screening tools) exist. They're weak; our substrate is deeper on the SEC/finance side.
Formally decide whether to enter the space. Three postures:
YES, ship: Approve Phase A (4-6 weeks of engineer time), get Phase A live, then do a 2-week pilot with one identified family office to validate the "would you pay $75K/yr for this?" hypothesis before committing to Phase B. Total pre-customer investment: ~$40K in eng time + $0 in data. If pilot converts, Phase B is committed on validated revenue signal.
YES, but slower: Ship Phase A opportunistically over 3-4 months as we have engineering capacity, without a formal timeline. Wait for a family-office lead to inbound before committing to Phase B.
NO / not now: Stay focused on the funding + M&A + LP / reit / flare verticals. This lane is real but not urgent. Revisit in 6 months if a customer conversation surfaces.
My read: Posture 1 is cheapest to test, and the 4-6 week Phase A investment is small vs. the potential ARR if it works. Even if the family-office pilot doesn't convert, Phase A leaves us with a stronger person graph that reit, prospects, deeds, and existing bios consumers would all benefit from — so the work isn't wasted regardless.
The corrected framing (we're 60-70% there, not 0%) makes posture 1 materially more attractive than the original inventory suggested.
Companion detailed inventory: docs/CONTACT_ATOMS_INVENTORY.md
(operational — schema, coverage, tier-by-tier work items). This
document is the executive read; that one is the engineering read.