Justin McKelvey

Building technology that shapes the future | SaaS | eComm | B2B | B2C

Helping to level-up your team & get more work done... faster!

I’m a creator, speaker, engineer, & consultant. I have a passion to partner with leaders and organizations to help them boost their growth through clear messaging and simplified technologies in accomplishing their goals. I love coming alongside from strategy to development to create KPI measurements and implementing the correct analytics to track success. 

I have partnered with a few of my closest friends, who are incredibly talented in their fields to start SuperDupr. SuperDupr helps businesses clarify their messaging to boost revenue, by offering custom software, web design, social media advertising, video production, digital marketing, graphic design, branding, SaaS & eCommerce consulting. 

I most recently architected a multi-level marketing ecommerce platform for a direct to consumer (B2C) subscription service, and B2B component to scale. (It's a mouthful ... I know)

When I'm not helping businesses reach their max potential, you can find me hunting down a good coffee shop or planning my next trip to the mountains.

You can see more of my work on my website: https://JustinMcKelvey.com or https://SuperDupr.com

I would love to connect with you on Twitter or Instagram: @JustinMcKelvey

Chief Technology Officer

The first media buying platform built for sales.

I’m the Co-founder & COO of Swipelux — an API-first fiat payment infrastructure backed with stablecoins.

Our mission is to connect the fiat world with Web3 by offering frictionless crypto purchases, seamless on/off ramping, and decentralized identity tools for the next generation of digital users.

Over the past 4+ years, I’ve led operations, go-to-market strategy, compliance support, and investor relations — helping scale Swipelux to 180+ clients globally, raise multimillion-dollar funding, and secure a VASP license in Estonia.

I’m deeply passionate about the intersection of technology, finance, and human behavior, and I’m especially excited by the transformative potential of AI and startups to reshape how we live, work, and connect.

Whether I’m building infrastructure, mentoring early-stage founders, or exploring new ways to reduce friction in the digital economy — I care about creating tools that enable progress, inclusion, and better user experiences.

Filip Kollert

4 things that kill your pitch in the first 90 seconds (that have nothing to do with your deck)

I've sat through hundreds of founder pitches. On both sides of the table.

Most founders think they lost because of slides or polish. 

They didn't.

They lost in the first answer they gave.

Here's what actually kills the conversation before it starts:

1. You can't name your round size in one breath

"We're raising between 500K and 1.5M depending on investor interest and..."

Stop. Pick a number. Investors read indecision as lack of conviction. If you don't know what you need, they assume you don't know what you're building.

2. Your use of funds is a shopping list

"Engineering, marketing, ops, maybe some product..."

That's not a plan. That's a budget you made up yesterday. Investors fund milestones, not line items. Tell me what changes in 12 months.

3. Zero reference points

You can't say "We're like X meets Y for Z." You think it sounds reductive. It doesn't. It sounds clear. Investors need to map you to something they already understand. Give them the shortcut.

4. You take 4 sentences to explain the problem

If I don't get it in one, you haven't crystallized it yet. And if you haven't, your customers probably don't either.

Big takeaway: Your pitch doesn't fail because of what's in your deck. It fails because of what's missing in your head. Clarity beats charisma every time.

When you pitch, which of these 4 trips you up most?

#startups #fundraising #venturecapital #founders #pitching

Helping startups fundraise | Founder at Swipelux | Startup advisor | Fundraising, GTM & Scaling

Your pitch deck has 40 seconds to answer the only question that matters: "Why will this be worth $100M?"

Most founders spend weeks perfecting 15 slides.
Then wonder why investors zone out by slide 3.

The problem isn't your design. It's that you're answering questions no one asked yet.

Here's the structure I use with founders to build inevitability into slides 2-5:

1. Market size that feels real
Not "$50B TAM by 2030." That's noise.
Show me the wedge you're attacking first. The specific customer segment. The pain so sharp they'll pay now.

2. Differentiation that removes doubt
"We're Uber for X" tells me nothing.
What can you do today that competitors can't replicate in 6 months? Distribution advantage? Regulatory moat? Locked-in supply?

3. Traction proof that shows you cracked distribution
Revenue is great. But what I'm really looking for: proof you know how to acquire customers repeatably.
MRR growth. CAC payback. Retention curve. Pick one metric that shows the engine works.

When we I raising, I restructured our deck around this exact flow. Conversations shifted from "tell me more" to "when are you closing the round?"

Big takeaway: Investors don't fund ideas. They fund inevitability. Your deck should make the path to $100M feel obvious, not aspirational.

The one-sentence test: Can someone explain your business model and why it'll scale after seeing slides 2-5?

What's the one slide in your deck that always kills momentum?

How I turn broken pitch decks into funded startups.

Most pitch decks don’t fail because founders are bad — they fail because investors don’t understand them fast enough.

Here’s the exact system I use to turn “no replies” into term sheets.

I used to think fundraising was about better design.

So I redesigned slides.
Added charts.
Polished visuals.

Still — silence.

Everything changed when I stopped building decks for founders
and started building decks for investors.

Here’s what actually works (and how to do it right):

1️⃣ Start with the investor problem, not yours
→ Show why this market must be solved now.

2️⃣ Kill complexity in the first 30 seconds
→ One idea per slide. No cognitive load.

3️⃣ Make traction undeniable
→ Revenue > users > vibes.

4️⃣ Frame risk before investors do
→ Address objections proactively.

5️⃣ Turn your story into a decision narrative
→ Investors invest in momentum, not features.

6️⃣ Show why you win this market
→ Founder-market fit beats everything.

7️⃣ Design for scanning, not reading
→ If it can’t be skimmed, it won’t be funded.

8️⃣ Anchor valuation with logic, not hope
→ Numbers must tell a believable story.

9️⃣ Make the ask crystal clear
→ Amount, use of funds, milestones.

🔟 Optimize for follow-up, not applause
→ A good deck creates meetings, not compliments.

Most founders already have a good business.

They just communicate it in a way investors can’t process.

Repost for more real startup lessons. ♻️

What part of your pitch deck do you struggle with the most — story, traction, or positioning?

If you want my 15 free real pitch decks that actually raised money (and templates you can copy), DM me and I’ll send them over.

On my way to a client today, I caught myself thinking about something simple that many founders underestimate:

Some of the most important startup conversations shouldn’t happen on Zoom.

I was heading to an offline strategy session with a founder I’m helping with fundraising — a few hours to think, iterate, and pressure-test ideas together.

And every time I do these sessions, I notice the same thing:

The quality of thinking changes when you change the environment.

We meet online regularly — quick syncs, updates, small decisions.
But when we meet in person, something different happens.

The energy is different.
The focus is deeper.
And the ideas usually go much further.

In a 2–3 hour offline session, we usually:
• go deeper into strategy instead of just status updates
• iterate on ideas multiple times until they’re sharp
• uncover problems that didn’t even surface on calls
• build a stronger working relationship — which makes everything else easier

There’s also something very practical most people don’t admit:

On online calls, everyone is distracted.
Emails. Slack. Notifications.
Even the most disciplined founders split attention.

Offline, you’re fully present. And that compounds.

That doesn’t mean offline meetings are always better.

Here’s the simple rule I use:

Use online meetings for:
• quick syncs
• stand-ups
• one-topic decisions
• updates and follow-ups

Use offline meetings for:
• strategy
• fundraising positioning
• big decisions
• problem-solving that needs multiple iterations

If I had to give one piece of advice to founders, it would be this:

Try to meet your key partners, advisors, or co-founders offline at least once per quarter.
You’ll think better, decide faster, and build stronger trust.

And honestly — it’s also just more fun, which matters more than most founders realize.

How often do you meet your key people offline vs online?

AI didn’t just change startups.
It changed fundraising expectations.

What got investor attention in 2024 is often just baseline in 2026.

Here’s what shifted:

1️⃣ MVP is no longer impressive

Building got easier.

Investors now expect proof that people actually use the product — not just that it exists.

2️⃣ Early traction is required earlier

Not huge revenue.

But signals like:
 • first paying customers
 • real usage
 • retention
 • fast iteration

The question changed from “Can you build?” to “Does the market care?”

3️⃣ Distribution became the real moat

AI lowered the barrier to building.

It did NOT lower the barrier to getting users.

Strong distribution beats perfect tech.

4️⃣ Founder presence matters more

Audience = leverage.

Investors increasingly look at founders who already create pull — not just products.

5️⃣ Speed is the new baseline

What used to take 18 months now happens in 6.

Investors compare you to AI-native teams moving fast — not to last year’s startups.

Big takeaway:

Fundraising used to reward potential.
Now it rewards early momentum.
AI didn’t make fundraising harder.
It made expectations clearer.

Curious — are founders feeling more pressure to show traction earlier than before?

Newsletter #3 where I share startup tips & news from the startup world.

Most founders think execution is everything — but they miss the real levers that turn traction into funding, speed into outcomes, and hustle into stra

Open article: 🚀 Why Most Founders Lose Momentum — And How the Best Ones Win in 2026 & News from startups by Filip Kollert • 4 min read

🚀 Why Most Founders Lose Momentum — And How the Best Ones Win in 2026 & News from startups

The fastest way to lose an investor is to answer for 10 minutes.

Most founders think investor meetings are about giving as much information as possible.

So they explain everything:
the product,
the roadmap,
the features,
the edge cases,
the entire market history…

And somewhere around minute six, the investor has already checked out.

Not because the idea is bad.
But because confidence drops when clarity disappears.

After sitting in many fundraising meetings — both as a founder and helping startups raise — I’ve noticed a pattern:

Strong founders answer in 20–40 seconds.
Average founders answer in 5–10 minutes.

Here’s why shorter answers win:

1️⃣ Investors are testing clarity, not knowledge
If you truly understand your business, you can explain it simply.

2️⃣ Long answers signal uncertainty
The more you talk, the more doubts you introduce.

3️⃣ Meetings are about momentum
Fast, clear answers keep energy high and move the conversation forward.

4️⃣ Investors ask follow-ups anyway

You don’t need to pre-answer five questions that weren’t asked.

One simple rule I often give founders:

Answer the question in one clear sentence.
Pause.
Let the investor ask the next question.

Silence in a meeting isn’t awkward.
It’s powerful.

The best fundraising conversations feel like a dialogue, not a lecture.

Curious — what do you find harder in investor meetings:
answering clearly, or knowing when to stop talking?

Most investors won’t tell you why they passed.

They’ll say things like:

“Not the right fit.”
“Too early for us.”
“Let’s stay in touch.”

But after sitting on both sides of fundraising conversations, I’ve noticed the same real reasons come up again and again.

If investors ghost you, it’s usually one of these 4:

1️⃣ The market feels too small (or unclear)

Even strong products struggle if investors can’t quickly see a big outcome.

If they have to calculate the upside themselves — you’ve already lost momentum.

Your job isn’t to show a market.
It’s to make scale feel inevitable.

2️⃣ Differentiation isn’t sharp enough

“AI-powered.”
“Better UX.”
“Faster.”

These are not positioning.

Investors want to understand why you win — not just why you exist.
If they can’t explain your edge in one sentence after the call, you’re forgettable.

3️⃣ Traction doesn’t reduce risk

Users, pilots, signups — they sound good.

But investors are asking a different question:

Does this prove something that wasn’t obvious before?
Good traction removes doubt.
Weak traction just adds numbers.

4️⃣ Founder signal isn’t strong enough

This one founders rarely hear directly.

Investors ask themselves:
“Is this the person who will dominate this category for the next 10 years?”
It’s not about charisma.

It’s about clarity, conviction, and how you think.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:
Most rejections aren’t about the idea.
They’re about how clearly investors can see the path to a big outcome.

When that picture is blurry — they pass quietly.

Curious — which one do you think founders underestimate the most?

3 equity decisions that feel fine today but wreck your cap table by Series A.

I've seen founders give away 25% of their company before they even have a term sheet. Not to investors. To "helpers."

Here's what actually breaks cap tables early:

1. Giving 5-10% equity to an advisor who "knows investors"

You meet someone with a decent network. They offer intros. You give them 2-5% because it feels small and you need the help.

Six months later: zero intros that led anywhere. They still own a chunk of your company. And Series A investors now see a cap table red flag.

Advice has to be paid in cash or tiny equity with brutal vesting cliffs. Intros are never worth points.

2. Pricing your SAFE at $3M to "close it fast"

Low valuation feels like momentum. You just want the cash in the bank.

But you just gave away 16% for $500K instead of 8%. Do that twice and you're diluted to 60% before your seed round even starts.

Speed matters. But underpricing yourself by 50% because you're desperate isn't speed, it's expensive.

3. Raising 3 small friends-and-family rounds with no plan

$50K here. $75K there. Each one a new SAFE or convertible note.

By the time you talk to real investors, you've got 15 small checks on the cap table and no clear conversion strategy. It looks messy. It is messy.

Big takeaway: Your cap table is a signal. Investors read it like a psychological profile. Sloppy early decisions don't just cost equity, they cost credibility.

What's the worst cap table mistake you've seen or made yourself?

In 2026, your MVP proves nothing. Your distribution proves everything.

I've sat in 100+ investor meetings this year — both sides of the table.

The pitch hasn't changed. Founders still lead with product features.

But the questions have shifted completely.

VCs don't ask "what does it do?" anymore.

They ask: "Who's already paying? How did they find you? What's your channel cost? How are you building an audience?"

Because AI killed the moat around building product.

Your competitor can ship your MVP in 6 weeks. Maybe faster.

What they can't copy: your 10,000 email subscribers. Your inbound pipeline. Your founder-led content engine. Your early customer stories spreading on their own.

Here's what traction looks like now:

1. You have a repeatable channel — not just early customers
2. People are discovering you organically, not just through your network
3. You can articulate cost per lead and close rate — even if the numbers are rough
4. Investors see proof you can distribute, not just build

When I raised for Swipelux, product was the story.

Today, if you're building in stealth until launch, you're already 6 months behind someone building their audience in public.

Big takeaway: MVP gets you to the table. Distribution gets you the term sheet.

Stop perfecting features in private. Start proving you can reach people at scale.

What's harder for you right now — building product or finding your first 100 customers?

#startupfundraising #foundertips #vcfundraising #preseed #seedfunding

Most founders answer the retention question like they're trying to hide something.

They stumble. They qualify. They explain why the numbers "aren't representative yet."

I've watched this kill momentum in dozens of investor meetings.

Here's what actually happens when investors ask about retention:

1. The defensive founder says: "Well, it's still early and we're iterating on product-market fit, so our retention isn't where we want it yet, but we're seeing some promising signals..."

Investor translation: They don't know their numbers or they're bad.

2. The transparent founder says: "Month 1 retention is 45%. Month 3 is 28%. We know that's below benchmark for our category."

Then they explain what they're doing about it.

3. The smart founder goes further: "Here's our retention by cohort. February cohort retained 31% better than January. We changed onboarding flow and added this specific feature."

They show the trend, not just the snapshot.

4. The exceptional founder anticipates it: "Our retention story has two parts - where we are and where we're going. Current numbers and our three retention experiments running now."

They own the narrative before the investor even asks.

Big takeaway: Investors aren't looking for perfect numbers. They're looking for founders who understand their business and think like operators.

How do you typically handle the retention question in investor meetings?

#fundraising #startups #founders #retention #investors

The 40-second pitch deck test most founders fail.

Here's what happens: investor opens your deck, scans slides 2-5, and decides if you're worth 20 minutes.

Most founders pack these slides with fluff. Wrong move.

Here's the framework that works for me: 

1. Problem (Slide 2): One sentence. One painful truth your market feels daily. Not three paragraphs about industry trends.

2. Solution (Slide 3): What you built in 10 words or less. Then one line on why it's inevitable, not innovative.

3. Market Size (Slide 4): TAM number that makes them lean forward. Skip the math lesson. Just the number that matters.

4. Traction (Slide 5): Your best metric. Revenue, retention, or growth rate. One number that removes all doubt about momentum.

The test: can someone understand your entire opportunity in 40 seconds of scanning?

I've watched investors flip through decks during calls while founders are still talking. Brutal but real.

Your slides 2-5 aren't storytelling. They're proof you can think clearly under pressure.

Big takeaway: Investors scan first, listen second. If they can't grasp your inevitability in 40 seconds, they won't give you 40 minutes.

Which slide do you struggle to keep simple?

#fundraising #startups #pitchdeck #venturecapital #founders

taplio

The Battle

Justin McKelvey

Filip Kollert

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreFilip Kollert's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Justin McKelvey

Filip Kollert

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Filip Kollert's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreFilip Kollert's LinkedIn Performance