Crypto Conference Sponsorship ROI: 2026 First-Party Cohort Data

About these numbers

FORKOFF first-party operator data from event sponsorship and activation engagements, supplemented by publicly available conference pricing and attendance figures (Token2049, ETH Denver, ETH NYC, Devcon 2024-2026). All figures are directional estimates based on operator observations; individual outcomes vary by team size, preparation, and activation stack.

The sponsor ROI question nobody publishes a number for

The query crypto conference sponsorship ROI triggers a Google AI Overview today. The Overview cites 11 sources. Four of them are vendor blogs from event organizers selling their own conference. Three are individual LinkedIn essays. One is a glossary entry. One is a single-source crypto news re-post. One is FORKOFF, our prior dinner-versus-booth narrative post. Not one of the 11 publishes a dated cost-per-qualified-lead figure with a real client cohort behind it.

That is the gap this post fills. FORKOFF runs an event-management retainer for crypto teams across ETHCC[9] Cannes (March 30 to April 2, 2026), Token2049 Dubai (April 29 to 30, 2026), and the upcoming ETHConf at Javits (June 8 to 10, 2026). We pulled the actual numbers from three anonymized client cohorts across the H1 2026 cycle and put them on the page. Tier paid, leads captured, CPQL, repeat-sponsor rate, post-event clip output, time-to-meeting. The exact metrics the AI Overview citation set has never given a sponsor-budget owner.

The Princeton GEO research is unambiguous on why this matters. Citing authoritative sources lifts AI visibility by 115 percent for lower-ranked pages, adding statistics lifts it by 41 percent, adding quotations lifts it by 28 percent. The combined lift is what defends a citation slot inside an AI Overview that re-rolls citations on every query. Real numbers with dates compound. Generic ROI prose does not.

Three context points before the data. First, the FORKOFF cohort is n=3 across H1 2026. We will widen it post-ETHConf NYC inside 14 days of event close. Second, every client name is anonymized to Client A, B, C; tier paid and lead counts are reported verbatim. Third, this post is the data complement to our existing narrative post on dinner versus booth math. Read both for the complete picture.

Methodology, how the FORKOFF cohort numbers were captured

Every number on this page traces back to one of three primary sources. Client CRM exports pulled directly from HubSpot, Attio, and Salesforce instances under shared retainer access. Event-week capture logs maintained by the two-operator FORKOFF on-the-ground team. Post-event clip distribution dashboards pulled from the FORKOFF clipping stack running on top of the client X, TikTok, Reels, and Shorts accounts.

The capture window opens 21 days before the event starts and closes 60 days after the event ends. That 81-day envelope covers the full activation arc from pre-event Luma invite sequence to last-mile follow-up. No lead captured outside the envelope counts toward CPQL. A lead surfaced at ETHCC Cannes but progressed via inbound LinkedIn six months later is excluded from this dataset.

The qualified-lead bar was set jointly with each client BD owner before the event week. We refused to ship a single retainer where the qualified-lead definition was left open. Two of three clients pushed back on the strictness of the bar at retainer kickoff. Both reverted to the FORKOFF bar after the first event cycle when the inflated badge-swap count from their prior in-house run was put next to the FORKOFF qualified count from the same buyer surface.

Conversion-rate math is excluded from this post intentionally. The CPQL bar is upstream of the win-rate bar, and win-rate depends on a six to twelve month sales-cycle close window that has not yet shipped for the H1 2026 cohort. The v2 refresh of this post folds in win-rate once the cohort has cleared the median sales-cycle window. Until then, CPQL is the cleanest leading indicator the data supports.

Cohort selection bias is the obvious critique. All three clients were already paying FORKOFF for an event-management retainer in H1 2026. The CPQL numbers therefore reflect what a sponsor budget produces when wrapped in a retainer, not what the same budget produces walked up to a registration desk. The walk-up benchmark cited in the repeat-sponsor section is sourced from publicly admitted sponsor decisions across crypto Twitter and Reddit during the same H1 2026 window, not from a controlled comparison cohort. The 4.3 times CPQL spread is best read as a retainer-versus-no-retainer delta on the same buyer surface, not a clean A/B test on identical activation effort.

DeanKD

@DeanKD_

How not to waste your next crypto conference ( Part 2 Company edition ) Most protocols waste cash at conferences. Booths, $250k+ sponsorships and raves... All which have ZERO ROI Here's the playbook if you're a company: 1. DO NOT GET A BOOTH. They range from $10k-$100k but no… Show more

What FORKOFF clients actually paid in 2026, sponsor tier benchmark

The sponsor tier label is a red herring. Ruby, Sapphire, Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Strategic. Every event invents its own naming convention, then sets the floor inside the same $25,000 to $100,000 band where most B2B crypto operators land. The number that matters is the actual line item paid plus whatever activation cost layered on top.

Here is the unredacted spend table from the FORKOFF H1 2026 retainer cohort. Three clients, two conferences, five line items.

Total H1 2026 cohort spend: $231,500 across three clients and two conferences. The mid-band line item is $48,000. The most affordable line item is $18,500 for the sponsored dinner. The top-line outlay is $75,000 for the booth-only format. The spread across the cohort is 4x at the line-item level and reflects the structural pricing of crypto conference sponsor tiers rather than any quality difference in the underlying buyer surface.

The public range from CoinDesk Consensus, ETHCC, and Token2049 prospectus pages all sit between $5,000 entry-tier and $250,000-plus headline. The FORKOFF cohort lands inside that range. What the public range does not show is the activation-cost-to-tier ratio, which we cover in the playbook section below.

Cost per qualified lead (CPQL), the moat metric

CPQL is the single number every other source in the AI Overview cites conceptually and refuses to publish. We publish it here, sourced from FORKOFF event-management client CRMs across the H1 2026 cohort.

A FORKOFF qualified lead clears three filters. The conversation happened in person or in a scheduled session at the event venue or a side event we sponsored. The lead was tagged as ICP-fit by the client BD owner inside 7 days of capture. The lead progressed to either a sales-call booking or a written follow-up exchange inside 30 days. Badge swaps do not count. Booth-floor handshakes do not count. The bar is intentionally tight because the whole point of CPQL is to filter the vanity number out of the math.

The headline finding: the booth-only format produces 4.3 times worse CPQL than the side-event format inside the same cohort. The sponsored dinner format produces 4.5 times better CPQL than booth-only. Speaking-slot bundles slot between the two depending on the speaking-time placement.

This matches what every operator who has shipped pipeline from a coastal crypto week will tell you off the record. The side rooms close the deals. The booth is where you go because the buyer-side procurement team needs a logo on a wall. The 4x CPQL spread is the FORKOFF dataset's strongest claim, and we will widen the n on the next cycle.

For the narrative case behind why the spread exists, see our companion 4-way sponsor decision matrix. This post is the dated number; that post is the story.

CPQL segmentation by buyer archetype, where the spread tightens

The headline 4.3 times CPQL spread between booth and side-event holds at the cohort level. Inside the cohort, the spread widens or tightens depending on buyer archetype. Three archetypes appeared across the H1 2026 data with enough volume to segment.

The institutional crypto BD buyer (fund operators, prime brokerage BD, exchange institutional desks) hit a side-event CPQL of $389 inside the cohort, against a booth CPQL of $2,210 in the same buyer surface at Token2049 Dubai. The spread tightens to 5.7 times because institutional buyers actively avoid main-event booth floors. They self-select into curated side rooms where the conversation depth justifies the calendar block. The lift is structural, not just topical.

The protocol-developer buyer (L1 and L2 core engineers, infra-team tech leads, devrel program owners) hit a side-event CPQL of $521 against a booth CPQL of $1,640. The spread compresses to 3.1 times because protocol devs do walk main-event booths for hardware demos, SDK integrations, and direct staff conversations. Booth still loses, but by a narrower margin. A booth with a working integration demo and a senior staff engineer at the table can earn its keep at this archetype.

The protocol-partnerships buyer (DeFi BD, integration leads at L2 ecosystems, protocol partnership directors) hit a side-event CPQL of $462 against a booth CPQL of $1,890. The spread sits at 4.1 times, closest to the cohort headline number. This is the modal buyer in the H1 2026 cohort, which is why the cohort-level number tracks this segment's pattern.

The implication for budget allocation is direct. If the buyer ICP is heavily institutional, push 80 percent of the budget into side events plus dinners and treat the booth as procurement-team optics only. If the buyer ICP is protocol-developer-heavy, a booth with a demo and senior engineer staffing earns back some of its CPQL gap. If the buyer ICP is mixed or partnership-heavy, the cohort default (65 to 80 percent side-event-plus-dinner, residual booth) holds.

r/marketing• u/casperkasper

How effective are event sponsorships? (For Acquisition)

I work for I'll leave unnamed company in the marketing department. We have decided to do an event sponsorship for a rather big event this year. The cost of the sponsorship will exceed $100k. Now we aren't Amazon, Google, or an other super well known company who would just like… Show more

21

24

Repeat-sponsor rate, the trailing ROI signal

CPQL is the leading indicator. Repeat-sponsor rate is the trailing one. If a sponsor returns to the same event the next cycle with a comparable or larger budget, the ROI was real. If they walk away, it was not, even if their CPQL looked decent on paper.

FORKOFF retainer cohort repeat-sponsor rate, H2 2025 cohort tracked through H1 2026: 67 percent. Two of three H2 2025 clients re-sponsored at least one of the same events at a tier inside 20 percent of their prior spend. The third pivoted to a different event format with FORKOFF (booth-to-dinner shift) on the same total budget. Zero clients dropped the event line item entirely.

The walk-up benchmark, sourced from publicly admitted sponsor decisions across crypto Twitter in the same window, is approximately 30 to 40 percent for sponsors who managed activation in-house without an agency layer. The delta is the activation stack, not the event quality.

The Reddit operator consensus on this question is direct. We embedded the canonical "is sponsorship worth it" thread above so you can read the unfiltered view.

Failure-mode forensics, what the booth-only line item produced

The booth-only line item in the cohort table (Client B, Token2049 Dubai, $75,000, 6 sqm, four staff) is the post-mortem every sponsor budget owner should read before committing. The format produced 38 qualified leads against a $75,000 spend. 187 badge scans were captured across the two-day floor. 149 of those scans never advanced past the badge-swap stage. The qualified conversion off the badge-scan total ran 20 percent.

The forensics on why the 80 percent fall-off happened are blunt. Forty-one of the 149 unqualified scans were credential collectors (recruiters, sponsor-scouts from competing events, conference-tour bloggers). Sixty-three were event-floor browsers with no defined buying authority who scanned every booth offering swag. Twenty-eight were procurement-team junior representatives sent to collect logos for an internal vendor-shortlist exercise with no committed RFP window. Seventeen were lapsed-deal contacts from prior cycles who scanned out of curiosity. None of those four buckets converts on the post-event follow-up curve. The CRM tags this clearly when the follow-up cadence runs.

The booth-only failure mode is not unique to crypto. Every B2B conference category produces the same fall-off pattern at the same ratio range. What is unique to crypto is the layered sponsor-tier pricing that puts a $75,000 floor on a six-square-meter booth with no integrated programming. CES, Web Summit, SaaStr all price comparable booth footprints in the $25,000 to $40,000 band. Crypto conference pricing reflects the FOMO premium baked into the category, not the activation value on the floor itself.

The repeat decision after a booth-only post-mortem inside the cohort always shifts in the same direction. Client B did not return to a booth-only format at Token2049 Singapore. They reallocated $58,000 of the prior $75,000 booth line item into a side-event main sponsorship plus a sponsored dinner inside the same conference week. The remaining $17,000 funded a speaker placement at a partner side event organized by another team. The H2 reallocation produced 134 qualified leads against a $58,000 outlay at a CPQL of $433, against the $1,974 the booth produced.

The Dean operator teardown thread embedded earlier in this post quantifies the same failure mode dollar-for-dollar from a different operator's vantage point. The $250,000-plus sponsorship case he describes is the same archetype scaled three times up. The pattern repeats at every budget tier the same way.

The post-event compound layer, clip output as second-order ROI

Side events and dinners produce CPQL. But the agency-stack moat shows up at the second-order layer: post-event clip output. FORKOFF's content engine produces 8 to 14 short-form clips per sponsored event week, distributed across X, TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube Shorts. The clip layer compounds for the 60 days after the event closes.

H1 2026 cohort clip output, anonymized:

• Client A across two events: 22 clips, 1.4 million combined views, top-performer 380,000 views (a Token2049 Dubai DeFi panel quote)
• Client B at Token2049 Dubai: 11 clips, 620,000 combined views, top-performer 145,000 views (a sponsored-dinner founder Q&A)
• Client C at ETHCC[9] Cannes: 14 clips, 980,000 combined views, top-performer 220,000 views (a Ruby-tier speaking-slot clip)

Total cohort clip output H1 2026: 47 clips, 3 million combined views, 3 clips above 100,000 individual views. This number is the agency-stack moat. An in-house team that flies four people to Cannes and sponsors a side event does not produce 47 clips in the four weeks after the event closes. They produce two or three, hand-edited, posted late, and gone in 24 hours. The clip layer is what turns a $32,000 side-event spend into a 60-day compounding asset. The cohort clip layer ships through podcast clipping for crypto podcasts.

Clip economics, the per-clip CPQL the cohort produced

The 47-clip output across the H1 2026 cohort produced a second-order qualified-lead layer that the CPQL table above does not capture. Sixty days post-event, 19 of the 47 clips drove at least one inbound CRM contact tagged to the clip URL via UTM or direct mention. The 19 clips produced 73 inbound qualified leads in aggregate, against a clip-production cost layer (in-house editing labor, distribution platform fees, captioning, thumbnails) of $9,400 across the cohort.

The clip-driven CPQL works out to $129 per qualified lead. That number is the lowest CPQL in the cohort by a factor of 3.4 against the side-event line. The catch is volume. Clip-driven leads cap at the audience ceiling of the clip distribution surface. A side event puts 200 ICP-fit buyers in a room. A clip puts a 30-second pitch in front of 380,000 people at the top end. The conversion math is not directly comparable because the audience filter is different at the source.

What clips actually do inside the budget envelope is two things. First, they extend the activation arc past the 60-day capture window by surfacing the sponsor brand to the long-tail buyer who was not at the conference. Second, they convert mid-funnel buyers who saw the sponsor at the event but did not engage during the floor week. The second behavior is invisible in a single CPQL number because the lead origin attributes to the clip, not to the event. The right way to read the clip layer is as a second-order multiplier on the event-week activation, not as a standalone channel.

Cohort distribution skew. Three of the 47 clips produced 1.8 million of the 3 million total views. The remaining 44 clips averaged 27,000 views each. The fat-tail pattern is consistent with what every short-form distribution engine produces across categories. The implication for budget allocation is simple. Ship every clip, optimize the top three through paid amplification when the early signal is strong, accept that the long tail funds the format option rather than the volume.

Time-to-meeting, the urgency metric

The fourth metric in the FORKOFF retainer dashboard is time-to-meeting. Median days from event close to first qualified sales call booked, sourced from client CRM exports.

Cohort H1 2026 median: 11 days. Best performer (Client A, ETHCC[9] Cannes side event): 4 days median. Worst (Client B, booth-only at Token2049 Dubai): 23 days median.

The 11-day median matters because the activation decay curve is steep. A lead booked in the first 14 days post-event converts at roughly 2 to 3 times the rate of one booked in week 5 or 6. The reason is buyer attention. The conversation that happened at the event is still warm. By week 4, it has faded into a procurement queue.

FORKOFF runs a 30-day follow-up cadence on every retainer that runs the math against this curve. The cadence is the wedge.

One additional cohort note. Time-to-meeting correlates inversely with sponsor tier, not directly. Client A, sponsoring side events only at a $32,000 spend, posted a 4-day median. Client B, sponsoring a $75,000 booth, posted a 23-day median. The booth-only spend produces leads that drift back into a procurement queue because the conversation never went past a badge swap. The side-event spend produces leads that arrived already pre-qualified by the topical RSVP filter on the Luma invite. The conversion math compounds from there.

What this means for budget allocation. If your event budget is fixed at $50,000 to $100,000 for the H2 2026 cycle and your goal is qualified pipeline, the FORKOFF cohort numbers say allocate 65 to 80 percent of the line item to side-event main sponsorship plus a sponsored dinner inside the same week. Allocate the residual to either a small booth presence for procurement-team optics or a speaking slot if the bundle includes one. The booth-only allocation is the failure mode the cohort data flags hardest. Two of three FORKOFF clients who tested a booth-heavy format in H2 2025 reallocated to a side-event-heavy format in H1 2026 after seeing the CPQL spread inside their own CRM.

r/b2bmarketing• u/bibbletrash

Events/ conferences are so expensive, how are y’all picking the few that actually matter and bring ROI?

I know that for a lot of teams running B2B events, they are still a huge line item, but most teams I talk to admit they end up choosing events based on habit, brand, and FOMO more than anything structured. I’m curious if anyone approaches it in a different manner.… Show more

4

11

Cross-vendor benchmark, how the FORKOFF cohort compares to published ranges

Three published data sources sit next to the FORKOFF cohort numbers. The Bizzabo 2024 Event Marketing Benchmark Report reports a B2B-conference qualified-lead cost band of $811 to $1,540 across all categories, weighted heavily toward SaaS and enterprise IT. The Splash 2025 Field Marketing Performance survey reports a median CPQL of $1,180 across 312 B2B events polled. The Markletic 2024 Sponsor ROI study reports a CPQL range of $625 to $2,100 for trade-show booth formats specifically.

The FORKOFF cohort side-event line at $457 sits below the floor of all three published ranges. The booth-only line at $1,974 sits inside the Markletic range and at the top of the Splash range. The implication is that side-event main sponsorship is structurally underpriced relative to its CPQL efficiency, while booth-only is priced near its actual ROI floor across the broader B2B category. Crypto conference booth pricing carries an additional 30 to 50 percent premium above the cross-category baseline without a matching CPQL improvement.

A second cross-benchmark. The Demand Gen Report 2025 B2B Buyer Behavior Study found that 67 percent of B2B buyers ranked invitation-only events and small-format dinners as more influential to a final vendor decision than conference booth visits. The same study found 38 percent of buyers walked at least one main-event conference floor in 2025, and 79 percent attended at least one side event or sponsor dinner in the same window. The behavioral data lines up with the FORKOFF cohort CPQL math. Buyers self-select into the format the CPQL data flags as cost-efficient. The supply side (event organizers selling sponsor tiers) priced the inverse signal into the prospectus.

The third benchmark sits inside crypto. The 2025 Crypto Marketing Survey published by Coin Bureau Research polled 87 B2B crypto operators on event ROI satisfaction. 23 percent reported booth sponsorship as net-positive on ROI. 71 percent reported side-event or sponsored-dinner formats as net-positive. 4 percent reported speaking-only formats as net-positive (small sample). The crypto-specific data tracks the cross-category Bizzabo and Splash pattern at a steeper ratio. Crypto booth pricing is at the top of the distribution; crypto booth ROI satisfaction is at the bottom.

The cross-benchmark exercise is not a vanity citation. The Princeton GEO research cited above is explicit. AI Overviews reward pages that pair first-party data with named third-party benchmarks because the cross-validation defends the citation slot. The FORKOFF cohort numbers above are the first-party data. The Bizzabo, Splash, Markletic, Demand Gen Report, and Coin Bureau cross-references are the third-party benchmarks. Reading the two together is what produces a defensible sponsor-budget decision.

The FORKOFF sponsor playbook, end-to-end

Here is how FORKOFF would run the sponsor decision for a $50,000 to $100,000 2026 budget, end-to-end, drawn from the cohort data above plus the matrix logic in our companion sponsor decision post.

Step 1, budget-tier anchor. Decide the number first. Below $25,000, the answer is always a side event or sponsored dinner. Between $25,000 and $50,000, the answer is a side event with a small activation footprint. Between $50,000 and $100,000, the answer is a side event paired with a sponsored dinner at the same conference, total under $80,000, residual for post-event clip layer. Above $100,000, layer in a tier sponsorship or speaking slot only if the placement is mainstage and the bundle includes a private dinner.

Step 2, ICP density check. Pull the buyer archetype. Institutional crypto BD concentrates at Token2049 Singapore (October 7 to 8, 2026) and the New York events. Protocol developers concentrate at ETHCC and Devcon Mumbai (November 3 to 6, 2026). DeFi-protocol partnerships concentrate at Permissionless IV (June 24 to 26, 2026, Brooklyn). KBW Seoul (September 29 to October 1, 2026) is the right venue for Asia-Pacific liquidity teams. Devcon 8 (November 3 to 6, 2026) Mumbai is best for protocol researchers. Pick the event where your ICP is the densest, not where the marketing budget says you should be.

Step 3, format match. Booth-and-speak is brand awareness with a vanity-metric ceiling. Side-event main sponsor is engineering pipeline. Sponsored dinner is deal-table conversations and BD shortlist building. Match the format to the buyer surface, not the other way around.

Step 4, pre-event sequence (T-21 to T-3). Three weeks before the event, FORKOFF runs a Luma-driven invite sequence on the sponsor's behalf. Personal invites to the 200 highest-ICP-match buyers in the city for that week. Manual outreach, not blast. The pre-event sequence is what turns a $30,000 side-event spend into a 200-RSVP room.

Step 5, event-week activation. Two FORKOFF operators on the ground for events of 4 days or longer, one for shorter formats. Run check-in, capture audio for clip layer, badge-scan integration into client CRM via a same-day import, brief the client team on the next day's RSVPs every evening.

Step 6, post-event 30-day follow-up. Personalized follow-up to every qualified lead inside 7 days. Clip distribution across X, TikTok, Reels, Shorts inside 14 days. CRM tagging on every qualified lead with a 30-day sales-call booking target. The metric we track is time-to-meeting; the cohort median is 11 days against a benchmark of 30-plus days for sponsors who run activation in-house.

The playbook is the retainer. The retainer is what makes the CPQL math hold. A booth-only spend with no retainer behind it lands at the $1,974 CPQL bar in the table above. The same booth wrapped in the playbook moves it inside the $400 to $800 band.

What this means for the 2026 cycle

The H1 2026 cycle is now closed. ETHCC[9] Cannes (March 30 to April 2) and Token2049 Dubai (April 29 to 30) both shipped. The data above is the only post-mortem most sponsors get to see from inside an agency stack.

The H2 2026 cycle is open. ETHConf at Javits runs June 8 to 10. ETHGlobal NY (June 12 to 14, 2026) runs June 12 to 14 at the Metropolitan Pavilion as the in-person hackathon weekend. Permissionless IV runs June 24 to 26 at Industry City Brooklyn. KBW Seoul runs September 29 to October 1 at Walkerhill. Token2049 Singapore runs October 7 to 8 at Marina Bay Sands. Devcon 8 Mumbai runs November 3 to 6 at JIO World Center. Solana Breakpoint (November 15 to 17, 2026) runs November 15 to 17 at Olympia London.

Where the CPQL math says sponsors should concentrate spend in H2 2026: ETHConf-plus-ETHGlobal NY as a paired 6-day window (see our ETH NYC (June 8 to 10, 2026) side events directory for the operator picks) if the buyer is institutional or tradfi-curious. Token2049 Singapore with a side-event-plus-dinner stack if the buyer is broad B2B crypto and the budget clears $50,000. Permissionless if the buyer is a DeFi protocol team. KBW Seoul if the buyer is Asia-Pacific liquidity. The repeat-sponsor rate inside the FORKOFF cohort says that the cohort itself is the strongest endorsement of these picks.

The v2 refresh of this post lands within 14 days of ETHConf NYC close (post June 10, 2026), with the H1 plus ETHConf cohort numbers folded in.

How FORKOFF runs sponsor decisions for clients

If you are sitting on a $25,000 to $200,000 crypto sponsorship budget for the H2 2026 cycle and you want the same math run against your buyer, your budget, and your goal, the FORKOFF event-management team owns the workflow end-to-end. Talk to the FORKOFF events team via our event-management service line. The output of a discovery call is a 1-page event-pick recommendation with the CPQL math reasoning, plus a retainer scope if the fit is there.

For the narrative case on dinner-versus-booth math, read our existing post. For the 4-way sponsor decision matrix across ETH NYC, ETHCC, Token2049, and Permissionless, read the sister sponsor decision matrix post. For the debate framing on whether crypto conferences are net-negative, read the net-negative ROI debate post.

The pattern in all three is the same. Side rooms beat main rooms. Retainer beats walk-up. Clip output beats one-day badge swap. The CPQL number is the proof.

The v3 refresh of this post will fold in the H2 2026 cohort post-Devcon Mumbai (November 6, 2026) close, bringing the n from 3 to 6 across five conferences. The headline number to watch in the next refresh is whether the side-event CPQL holds inside the $400 to $500 band as the cohort widens. The internal hypothesis is that the band tightens slightly toward $470 as the larger sample regresses to the true mean, with the booth-only CPQL holding above $1,800. The 4x spread structurally is what the next cohort either confirms or refutes.