
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
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Bolles School names new baseball stadium after famed alumnus Chipper Jones
The new home of Bolles baseball will officially be known as Chipper Jones Stadium, after National Baseball Hall of Fame inductee and alumnus Larry 'Chipper' Jones Jr. '90. The renovation project at The Bolles School, designed by David Luke Architecture, is set to enhance the baseball facilities at the Upper School's San Jose Campus with a budget of $3.7 million. The lead gift for the renovation came from Jones himself, honoring the school and coaches who contributed to his career success. 'The heart and soul of Bolles Baseball will reside at this stadium where lifelong friendships will continue to form and teams grow stronger together,' Jones said. [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] The renovation includes a Fieldhouse named in honor of Jerry and Bruce Chappell, featuring approximately 3,000 square feet of space with locker rooms, a video room, coaches' offices, and an entrance lobby showcasing over half a century of baseball excellence. The stadium improvements will also feature an upper-level terrace with dual towers and a traditional architectural design that pays homage to historic Bolles Hall. Planning for the facility began in 2021, with a ceremonial groundbreaking last December. The aim is to wrap up construction before the 2026 season. Jones played his entire career with the Atlanta Braves, earning eight All-Star appearances and the 1999 National League MVP title before joining the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 2018. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wild ATO deductions called out as expert exposes tax 'grey area'
Depending on your area of employment, there is a range of tax deductions that could be available. The basic rule is that if you've incurred an expense as part of your job, you can claim it. For instance, if you're a taxi driver, you can claim fuel for your car. If you're a tradie, you can likely claim a deduction for an array of essential tools. Such examples are relatively straightforward and obvious, but with tax being something of a grey area for many, it is inevitable that some of the claims tax specialists encounter aren't always of the typical variety. Here are some of the examples that H&R Block has encountered. RELATED ATO's urgent warning to tradies over 'growing' tax trend FIFO worker's huge compensation win after being unfairly sacked Tradie loses $449,000 in an instant after missing key detail TV star's op shop gifts Each time a certain high-profile television personality graced our screens, he bought a new suit. Once he'd worn each suit, he gave it away to a charity shop. Not only did he want to claim a tax deduction for the cost of each new suit (which he said he was obliged to wear to maintain his personal brand), he also wanted to claim a further tax deduction for the donation to charity. Sadly for him, the ATO doesn't allow deductions for the cost of conventional clothing, a category that includes business suits, even those purchased by TV stars. As for the donations — well, in theory, a donation to a charity is tax-deductible, but what is the value of a second-hand suit? Our dapper star couldn't say because he didn't have receipts from the charity, and without a receipt, there is no possible surgery and tax Still with the rich and famous, a well-known fashion model had undertaken various cosmetic procedures to maintain her appearance. She argued that the work done was to maintain her career past the point that it would otherwise have faded out if she hadn't had the work done. As such, she argued there was a clear link between the cosmetic surgery and deriving her income. It's an argument that seems superficially compelling, but it's not one the ATO would agree with. As far as they are concerned, medical procedures are rarely, if ever, tax-deductible, no matter what the reason. Taxable boob job? Taxpayers in the adult entertainment industry can claim all manner of interesting deductions. Taxpayers in the US — but not here — have even claimed that breast enhancements could be tax-deductible as a 'tool of the trade' (not an argument that would find favour here, following the same logic as the cosmetic surgery for the model, above). So, it's a controversial claim even for adult performers but the lady — with no known connection to the adult industry — who tried to claim that her enhancements were necessary for work was facing even more of an uphill battle. The claim wasn't allowed. Breast enhancements might be a tax no-no, but adult performers can look at successfully making claims for items as diverse as dance lessons, hair care, oils, lingerie, costumes and 'toys'. Work clothes that can be taxed Another profession that can generate some very strange tax deductions is a circus performer. Not many people can successfully make a claim for a clown costume, but one client who did was a professional clown. The whole costume was allowable, including the red nose, as a work-related clothing claim. Similarly, the professional sword swallower was able to claim the ceremonial swords used in his act. Deductions for pets? Can you claim a tax deduction for your dog? In very limited circumstances, yes you can, both for the cost of acquiring the animal (the cost is depreciated over several years) and for the costs of keeping it (food, vet bills, etc). The two most common scenarios where the cost of a dog is tax-deductible are farming (where an animal might be used to round up sheep, for instance) and security (where the cost of a guard dog to patrol business premises might be allowable). Other than that, forget it. So, for the taxpayer who tried to claim for their pet poodle, no deductions were allowed. Claiming the daily commute Lots of people try to claim for the cost of traveling from home to work and back again. Usually, they are unsuccessful because the daily commute is regarded as private — not work-related — travel and hence not claimable. The only exception is where you're required to carry bulky tools and equipment and you have nowhere secure at work to store them. That exception didn't apply to the hairdresser who tried to claim the daily commute because she had to transport her scissors and clippers, which might have been sharp but certainly weren't bulky. When you can claim on a caravan Caravanning is a popular leisure pursuit among the 'young at heart' but is it possible to claim your caravan as a tax deduction? Surprisingly, the answer might be yes. One taxpayer who travelled extensively for work decided to buy a caravan to provide overnight accommodation whilst working away, rather than paying for a hotel room every night. From a tax point of view, that stacks up to be deductible. But if you are in the same situation and also use the caravan for holidays, you'll need to apportion the deduction between work use and private use. People who can claim gym memberships A very limited number of taxpayers can claim gym memberships. Amongst those who can are professional sportspersons, some police officers and some defence force personnel. Bouncers aren't on the list, so for the bouncer who wanted to claim his martial arts course fees, no deduction was allowed. Garden feature on tax Do you own a rental property? In among the usual deductions — mortgage interest, rates, repairs, etc — did you know that you can claim for items that improve your property's 'street appeal'? Whether you think garden gnomes do that or not is really a matter of personal taste, but several clients have successfully claimed them in respect of their rental property. Here's a tip — make sure the gnomes are actually for your rental property; if they turn up in the garden of your family home, they are not deductible! Thinking of claiming these? Don't — they're not deductible! Personal grooming (hair, make-up, etc) Child care Gym memberships and other club memberships Cost of attending social functions Driver's licence Fines Glasses and contact lenses Rent, mortgage and other 'ownership' costs when working from home 'Conventional' clothing Business suits Retail staff in clothing outlets Home to work travel With the exception of where you are required to carry bulky tools Undertaking incidental work related tasks on the way to or from work (eg, collecting the mail) won't make the journey deductible! Medical expenses (IT 2217) eg, sleep apnea machines, hearing aids, wheelchairs, artificial limbs What can I claim? Depending on your job, you might be eligible to claim the following: Bags, briefcases, etc Conferences, seminars and training courses Fares Fees for tax advice/preparation First-aid courses by a designated first-aid person Insurance of work-related equipment Overtime meal expenses Parking fees (eg, if visiting clients) Professional association fee Personal protective equipment (masks, sanitiser, etc) Self-education expenses directly connected with current employment (includes fees, travel, books and equipment) Specialist publications (not newspapers) Sun protection (if you work outside) Stationery used for work-related purposes Technical and professional publications Travel, accommodation and meals when traveling for work Work-related clothing Work-related car useError in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.