
Startup Wars: Raised Millions, Fell Hard
(Business Consultant, CEO of Inside Business Consulting)
In September 2021, Capiter was hailed as one of Egypt's most promising B2B marketplace startups. Backed by a $33 million Series A round, it had the funding, the media attention, and the momentum every startup dreams of. For a moment, it looked like they were on the brink of regional dominance, investors were confident and growth seemed inevitable. Funding That Broke It
Yet, barely a year later, the company unraveled in silence. Its co-founders were removed by the board, operations stalled, employees were left unpaid, and no clear recovery plan ever surfaced. The startup vanished almost as quickly as it rose—without an acquisition, a pivot, or even a public explanation.
This wasn't a failure caused by scarcity. It was a failure made possible by abundance—with no direction to support it. Capiter didn't fall because it lacked resources. It fell because it lacked a roadmap. Despite having money, it had no clear endgame, no internal structure built around a defined outcome, and no exit strategy that justified the pace or size of its raise. Capiter is far from alone
Across the region, we celebrate when startups secure funding. We headline the number, amplify the hype, and assume that money equals success. But rarely do we ask the more important question: what is the money for? What path does it serve? Where is it meant to take you?
This is not just a story about one startup. It's a reflection of a deeper structural blind spot: raising capital with no plan to finish the race.
The next section is not about caution. It's about clarity—and how to avoid building a business that grows fast but goes nowhere.
More Money, More Mess
Funding is supposed to solve problems. But in many startups, especially in early or unstable stages, it ends up creating new ones—or exposing the ones you've been ignoring.
When capital enters a business that doesn't have a solid operational core, it doesn't accelerate growth—it accelerates dysfunction. It inflates hiring without clarity. It enables marketing spend without positioning. It allows expansion without readiness. Suddenly, a team that was struggling to handle one market is asked to handle three. A product that barely serves existing users is now expected to scale. Pressure rises, focus scatters and burn multiplies.
What makes this more dangerous is that funding success feels like real success. Founders start thinking they've made it, when in reality, they've only bought time. Investors expect traction, teams expect promotions and the public expects greatness. But if the internal foundation isn't ready, all that funding becomes a spotlight—illuminating every operational flaw and strategic gap that was once easy to hide.
In that sense, money doesn't break startups. It simply speeds up whatever direction they're already headed. If the strategy is sound, capital compounds the value. If it's vague or reactive, the money becomes noise—expensive, fast-moving noise that often leads to collapse.
Before you celebrate the raise, ask yourself: is your business even capable of absorbing it?
Because in the world of startups, money doesn't always mean growth. Sometimes, it means pressure you're not prepared for. No Exit in Mind
Every startup wants to grow—but few take the time to define what 'success' actually looks like. Growth becomes the default goal. Fundraising becomes the trophy. Somehow, the conversation about where this is all going is either delayed… or never happens at all.
That's where most founders fall into a strategic trap: they raise capital without aligning it to a clear exit plan.
An exit strategy isn't just something you prepare when you're ready to sell. It's a core part of how you build. It shapes how you allocate resources, how you prioritize markets, how you communicate with investors, and how you lead your team. Without it, every decision becomes reactive. You're not scaling toward a defined outcome—you're just scaling because you can.
When there's no North Star, funding makes the business heavier, not stronger.
What's more dangerous is that many founders do have a vague idea of their preferred exit—but they don't translate that into a real roadmap. Saying 'We might IPO one day' or 'maybe a big player will acquire us' isn't strategy. It's wishful thinking which doesn't justify millions in capital.
The question isn't can you raise?
The question is: what's the raise in service of?
A solid exit strategy doesn't restrict growth. It focuses it. It gives investors confidence, it keeps your team aligned, and most importantly, it prevents you from chasing short-term wins that sabotage long-term viability.
Because when you don't know how this ends, you're far more likely to burn out before you get there.
Building with End in Mind
Startups aren't supposed to last forever. They're designed to move—toward acquisition, toward IPO, toward sustainability, or sometimes, toward shutdown. That's the nature of the game. But if you're building without a clear end in mind, you're not running a business—you're running a loop.
An exit strategy isn't just about how you leave. It's about how you build from the beginning .
The kind of exit you aim for should directly shape your operating model, your hiring plan, your product roadmap, and your use of capital. Not all exits are created equal—and neither are the strategies required to reach them.
Let's break that down:
Exit Strategy Matrix Exit Strategy Best For What You Need to Build Early Acquisition (M&A) SaaS, logistics, data-driven products Clear market niche, scalable tech, strategic partnerships IPO Fintech, marketplaces, high-scale ops Strong financial governance, growth discipline, public readiness Acquihire Niche tech teams, developer platforms Top talent, clean IP ownership, team cohesion Lifestyle Business Bootstrapped, niche/creator-led brands Early profitability, low burn, sustainable growth Strategic Merge Vertical integrations, B2B services Operational synergy, clean books, modular growth
Each of these paths requires different types of discipline. If you want to be acquired, you should know who your acquirers could be—and what makes you valuable to them. If you're heading toward an IPO, then every system you build needs to be auditable, explainable, and repeatable. If your plan is to grow profitably and keep control, then fundraising might not even be the right move for you in the first place.
But no matter which path you choose, one rule holds true:
Your funding strategy should serve your exit strategy—not replace it.
Too many founders raise capital to 'see what happens.'
Great founders raise capital because they know exactly what needs to happen—and why.
Examples in Action: When Exit Was Baked from Day One
Some startups didn't wait to 'figure it out later.' They defined the endgame early—and built backwards from it. Their decisions about product, team, capital, and speed were all shaped by a clear understanding of why they were building, for whom , and for how long .
Let's take a look: Careem – Acquisition Path
From the beginning, Careem positioned itself not just as a local ride-hailing service, but as a full-stack mobility and payment platform in a region ripe for consolidation. Their infrastructure investments, tech stack, and customer data strategy were tailored for scale and integration. By the time Uber entered the market aggressively, Careem was too good to compete with—and too aligned not to acquire. The $3.1 billion acquisition wasn't a lucky outcome. It was an engineered one. Fawry – Built for IPO
Fawry, Egypt's digital payments giant, didn't chase attention or overextend early. It focused on financial transparency, disciplined scalability, and creating a digital infrastructure that could serve millions. Its gradual, controlled growth made it one of the few tech companies in the region to go public successfully—and stay stable after listing. The IPO was never an afterthought. It was a milestone on a well-defined roadmap.
Instabug – Product-Led Exit Readiness
Instabug didn't go after massive funding rounds in its early years. Instead, it focused on building a product that solved a clear pain for developers, with sticky usage metrics and deep tech defensibility. That made it an attractive potential acquisition for dev-focused platforms—or a strong candidate for organic, sustained growth. Their roadmap shows a business designed with multiple exit paths in mind, not just one-shot bets.
Each of these companies had different exit strategies. But they shared one thing in common:
They knew what success looked like—long before success came.
In addition, knowledge shaped every decision along the way.
Don't Raise to Grow — Raise to Arrive
Funding isn't the enemy. It's a powerful tool. But tools are only useful when you know what you're building—and where you're heading.
Raising capital is not a badge of honor. It's a commitment. However, when that commitment is made without a destination, the capital turns into pressure, misalignment, and eventually… collapse.
You don't need to raise less. You need to raise with intention. You need to raise with a strategy that includes the end, not just the start.
You need to build a company that knows the difference between looking big… and going somewhere.
Because in the world of startups, growth without direction doesn't scale; it spins.
So next time you sit across the table from an investor, don't just ask for money. Be ready to answer the one question that separates the noise from the legacy:
'What exactly are we raising towards?'
Related Topics :
Saudi Arabia Ignites AI Innovation with Groundbreaking Startup Incubator
Startup Wars: When Data Said No, Anghami Said Go!
Biban24: LBS Expands MENA Startup Competition to Saudi Arabia
Tamkeen, Riyada Launch New Startups Initiative
Short link :
Post Views: 9

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Baking giant Bimbo vows to cut artificial colorings by end-2026
By Sarah Morland MEXICO CITY (Reuters) -Grupo Bimbo, one of the world's largest breadmakers, said on Thursday it would cut artificial colorings from all of its products by the end of next year, as consumers turn more health-conscious when shopping for staple foods. Shorter term, executives at the Mexico City-based company said Bimbo's entire bread bun and breakfast range would by the end of this year have a positive nutrition - or a so-called health star rating - of at least 3.5 stars, as it looks to simplify recipes and boost nutrition by 2030. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT Scientists have linked synthetic dyes such as Red 40 and Yellow 5 to behavioral challenges, allergies and respiratory issues in children and other vulnerable consumers, and some major regulators have ordered usage caps and label warnings. In parts of the U.S., some activists have pushed for bans on synthetic dyes particularly in food destined for school meals. BY THE NUMBERS Bimbo estimates it is the largest single supplier of baked goods worldwide, with a close to 4% global market share of a $641 billion industry. It sells thousands of well-known staple products worldwide such as sliced bread and packaged snacks. Last year, these brought in $22 billion in sales. Executives said they did not expect a major cost impact from cutting artificial colorings. KEY QUOTES "By the end of 2026, we will have removed artificial colors from all our portfolio and by 2030 we're going to ensure that 100% of our baked goods and snacks will be made with simple, natural recipes," Bimbo Chief Financial Officer Diego Gaxiola told analysts in a call. "We're seeing that for younger consumers functional benefits are clearly important. It's not a fad, it's a trend." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Rangers hope to flip World Series title script, and finish this regular season how they started '23
ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Chris Young is hoping that the Texas Rangers can flip the script from 2023, when they won their only World Series title. The Rangers would like to finish this regular season the way they started that championship one two years ago. Texas (53-50) went into its day off Thursday, after a three-game series sweep of the Athletics and a week before the trade deadline, with 59 games left. 'I look back on 2023 and we went 40-20 in our first 60 games. And after that, you know, the next 102 we were two games under .500,' Young, the team's president of baseball operations, said before the opener of that series against the A's. "Every season has a different ebb and flow to it. And my hope is that the next 62 games are our best 62 games of our season. If that's the case, then we'll look back and say, hey, the first half of the season wasn't as much fun as we had hoped, but it was all worth it to get where we wanted to go." While third in the American League West behind Houston and Seattle, the Rangers were only 1 1/2 games out of the league's final wild-card spot. They won two of three games at the division-leading Astros before the All-Star break, and are 5-1 since, including a series win over AL Central leader Detroit. There are three games at home this weekend against Atlanta and then three in Los Angeles against the Angels before the trade deadline. Texas is 12-6 in July and averaged 5.6 runs per game, nearly two runs a game more than in their first 85 games before that. The pitching and defense have been good all season, with the staff's MLB-best 3.16 ERA and a majors-low 32 fielding errors. The Rangers have allowed two runs or fewer in their last seven games, matching the longest such streak in Texas history. 'If we can continue the progress we've shown over the last several weeks ... it's going to determine a lot,' Young said about what the team might do before the deadline. 'So not to put any more pressure on anything, it's just the reality of this point in the season, and we're looking up in the standings.' Streaking Seager Corey Seager, in the fourth season of his $325 million, 10-year deal with Texas, has a 24-game on-base streak. He has hit .356 with eight homers and 22 RBIs in what is the second-longest active streak in the majors, behind the 29 by Milwaukee's Christian Yelich. The two-time World Series MVP shortstop had a 30-game streak last year and a 26-gamer in 2023, making him the only player with streaks of at least 24 games in each of those seasons. Topping the rotation Right-hander Jacob deGrom (10-2, 2.28 ERA) was the only Rangers player picked as an All-Star, but the team gave right-hander Nathan Eovaldi (7-3, 1.58) the $100,000 All-Star bonus from his contract even after he was left off the American League squad. Eovaldi is set to start Friday against the Braves, his first game since July 13, when he went 7 2/3 innings in a 5-1 win at Houston before the break. The 35-year-old right-hander was scratched because of back stiffness from last Sunday's game against Oakland, and a matchup with AL All-Star starter Tarik Skubal. The 37-year-old deGrom missed most of the past two seasons after Tommy John surgery, and his 118 1/3 innings pitched are already his most since 2019, when he won his second consecutive NL Cy Young Award with the New York Mets. DeGrom went to Atlanta last week but opted against pitching in the All-Star Game, and the Rangers intentionally gave him a nine-day break between starts. 'If we can keep him out there and keep getting the best version of Jacob for another 10 or so starts, it's a great thing for our club,' Young said. "He's feeling really good, and we're doing our best to try to protect him from a health and recovery standpoint.' Bringing them back Josh Jung is 4 for 8 with a homer and four runs scored in three games since being recalled from Triple-A Round Rock, where the third baseman was sent July 2 when in a bad slump. Jon Gray made his season debut Wednesday against the A's, pitching two innings in relief for the win. The right-hander, who can be a starter or reliever, suffered a fractured forearm when struck by a comeback liner in a spring training game. Joc Pederson, the offseason addition out since May 25 because of a broken right hand, could re-join the team next week after a rehab assignment. ___ AP MLB: