Samuel Mwendwa

I lead strategic finance for high-growth fintech and SaaS companies operating across complex, multi-country environments.

My core work is simple: help leadership teams make better capital decisions under uncertainty — how long the runway is, where cash should go, and what breaks if assumptions change.

I’ve built and led FP&A, treasury, and investor-grade reporting across 12+ markets, partnering directly with CEOs, CFOs, and boards during:

→ Fundraising and diligence cycles
→ Regulatory expansion
→ Efficiency resets
→ M&A readiness

What I’m known for

→ Turning messy operating data into clear, decision-ready financial models

→ Designing treasury and cash-flow structures that hold up under audit and scrutiny

→ Linking GTM, pricing, and unit economics to actual capital outcomes

Recent impact

→ Extended operating runway by 9+ months through forecasting and capital reallocation

→ Supported a $12M M&A transaction with investor-grade reporting and diligence readiness

→ Built global treasury and finance infrastructure spanning the US, UK, and Africa

I’m most effective with companies navigating growth, expansion, or capital events where financial clarity directly affects survival or valuation.

If you’re hiring a senior finance leader or need short-term strategic finance support around fundraising, expansion, or runway — feel free to reach out.

Group Tax and Accounting Manager

Why subtraction beats growth in capital-constrained startups

In today’s fundraising environment, chasing growth alone is rarely rewarded. More hires, more features, more markets—without discipline—become liabilities when capital tightens.

I’ve seen boards push relentless expansion, only for valuation multiples to stall while burn rates spiral and teams exhaust themselves.

The startups that outperform are those that prune relentlessly: stripping processes, discretionary spend, and initiatives that don’t move the valuation needle.

A framework I apply as a Fractional COO or Strategic Finance Advisor:

Identify activities that generate measurable value—revenue impact, customer retention, or margin improvement.

Map recurring costs and processes, then evaluate what could be paused or removed without harming delivery.

Institutionalize periodic review sessions and link incentives to operational efficiency, not just growth metrics.

The outcome is simple:

Leaner operations → higher margins

Simpler products → faster adoption

Smaller, focused teams → tighter accountability

Subtraction isn’t about survival. It’s strategic amplification. When markets tighten, disciplined simplification is what sustains runway, protects optionality, and unlocks higher valuations.

undefined undefined

Hey [First Name] — appreciate you jumping into the wallet convo!

As mentioned, I pulled together a brief on the latest Dune data + trends shaping how wallets are becoming crypto’s new control layer.

Here’s the link: 

Curious what your take is: are you more bullish on smart accounts, wallet infra, or UX-led plays right now?
Always down to trade thoughts if you're building or tracking in this space.

— Samuel

The hard lesson I’ve seen in web3 is counterintuitive: hype can inflate valuations, but only operational rigor preserves them. Burn multiple and GTM risk aren’t abstract—they are leading signals of whether capital and incentives actually create durable network value. I’ve watched promising protocols command headlines while quietly eroding optionality because adoption and token deployment weren’t sequenced for efficiency. Leadership here isn’t just about raising the next round; it’s structuring capital and go-to-market to compound value predictably under real-world constraints.

If you’re thinking about embedding burn efficiency and GTM risk into web3 valuation, I share actionable frameworks—follow or DM for insights.

nextlify-scale

Advanced Python: Working With Data

Advanced QGIS Analysis with AI and Machine Learning

Corporate Finance Foundations

Excel for Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A)

Finance Foundations: Risk Management

Financial Modeling and Forecasting Financial Statements

International Business and Finance

Power BI Data Analyst Associate (PL-300) Cert Prep: Advanced Reporting in Power BI

SQL Server Machine Learning Services: Python

SQL for Data Analysis

Six Sigma: Black Belt

Strategic Planning Foundations

Tableau Certified Data Analyst Cert Prep

Business Intelligence & Data Analyst (BIDA®)

Leveraging Generative AI in Finance and Accounting

The Role of the FP&A Professional

Data Visualization & Dashboards - The Basics

Intermediate DAX & Time Intelligence

Power BI  Case Study – CFI Capital Partners

SQL Case Study - WOWI Sales Analysis

The course has eneble me to demonstrate creative & innovative thinking in strategy development.
Understand management and organizational theory, and relate this to strategy development.
Identify strategic issues and design appropriate courses of action. 
Provide a basic understanding of the nature and dynamics of the strategy formulation and implementation processes as they occur in complex organizations. 
Understand the essentials of strategy management in a global economy. 


Women Empowerment Link

members economic empowerment and concern to the economy

STAREX S. H GROUP

Fractional CFO | Strategic Finance Leader for High-Growth Startups | Capital Planning • FP&A • M&A • GTM Enablement

As a strategic finance leader and fractional CFO, I help high-growth startups transform financial complexity into clarity—and clarity into action. My specialty is turning operational data into board-ready decisions that extend runway, increase valuation, and drive smart capital allocation.

I’ve built and led finance functions across VC-backed fintech, SaaS, and Regenerative ventures—from zero-to-one scaling to acquisition readiness. My approach combines lean systems, dynamic FP&A, and investor-grade decision support that aligns finance with product velocity, market expansion, and fundraising.

What I Deliver:

Capital Planning with Precision: Burn modeling, unit economics, multi-scenario forecasting, and capital allocation frameworks that sharpen board and investor decisions.

Finance Systems That Scale: Cloud ERP, dashboarding, automated workflows, and compliance infrastructure tailored for fast-growth startups.

Strategic M&A and Investor Readiness: Scenario modeling, audit-proof reporting, and real-time insights to support funding, exits, and GTM alignment.

Recent Wins:

Cut burn by 25% and extended runway by 9+ months through FP&A transformation

Led finance modeling for $12M M&A scenario resulting in acquisition

Built a tax intelligence engine that reduced audit risk by 18% across 3 continents

I’m most effective in moments of scale, shift, or scrutiny—pre-Series B, pre-acquisition, or prepping for a fundraise—where financial strategy is mission-critical and capital clarity drives velocity.

Let’s connect if you're leading a high-growth startup and want a finance partner who builds for what's next.

Strategic Finance & Capital Allocation Principal | Fintech Growth Accelerator & Runway Protector Unit Economics • High-Conviction Capital Deployment • Pricing & Incentive Optimization • Multi-Market Treasury & Payments

Layoffs are often a proxy decision. They feel decisive, visible, and fast. They’re also frequently the wrong first move.

I watched a SaaS company cut 20% of its team to extend runway. Morale dropped. Output slowed. Burn barely changed. The issue wasn’t people—it was the product footprint those people were propping up.

Years of reactive selling had turned the roadmap into a liability. Custom features, marginal integrations, edge-case workflows. Each one small. Together, they consumed engineering time, support capacity, and cash.

Instead of another reduction, we made a harder call: reduce the product surface area.

Every feature was tied to revenue and retention—not in theory, but in practice. Features with vocal internal champions but no measurable impact were sunset. Integrations used by one or two customers triggered uncomfortable conversations. Sales pushed back. Some customers complained. A few left.

What changed was focus. Engineering velocity improved because teams weren’t context-switching. Support load dropped. New deals were easier to explain and sell. Costs finally came down in a durable way.

Cutting headcount treats symptoms. Cutting product scope addresses cause—but it requires accepting near-term pain to avoid structural fragility.

When runway tightens, the first question isn’t who to cut.

It’s what you’re willing to stop supporting—and who might be unhappy when you do.

Why most SaaS & fintech forecasts silently sabotage growth

Copying a forecasting template from another SaaS company feels safe. It’s quick, it balances, and it ticks a box.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: generic FP&A models rarely reflect your actual business dynamics.

The consequences aren’t just imperfect numbers—they’re missed opportunities, wasted capital, and slow erosion of strategic advantage.

Common pitfalls I see:

Revenue assumptions and drivers that don’t match your customer lifecycle.

Expense ratios borrowed from unrelated businesses.

Capital planning misaligned with real operational levers.

A few principles for building forecasts that actually work:

Align with your business DNA – every driver should reflect your customers, churn, and cost structure.

Link numbers to action – every line item should map to a lever you can influence.

Stress test, don’t copy – models only add value when they answer the tough “what if” questions.

Custom models take longer, but they pay back in clarity, team alignment, and strategies that work in your market—not someone else’s.

In today’s capital-constrained, high-velocity environment, knowing where you stand—and where you’re going—is the difference between surviving and scaling.

When the bravest move isn’t scaling—it’s hitting pause

I once worked with a founder sprinting toward growth while the runway was shrinking. Revenue was flat, cash reserves were dwindling, and every instinct screamed: “Go faster!”

I told him the opposite: pause.

Across tech, healthcare, fintech, and media, I’ve seen the same pattern: chasing growth with limited capital is like pressing the gas with the fuel light on. It feels bold—but it’s risky.

Here’s how I guide leaders through capital-constrained periods:

→ Survival is a strategy.

Weathering tough markets preserves optionality and separates resilient companies from those that fail.

→ Pause ≠ standstill.

Use the time to prioritize spend, focus on essentials, and cut non-critical initiatives.

→ Get real about runway.

Forecast cash weekly, know your zero-cash date, and stress-test scenarios.

→ Engage customers meaningfully.

Identify what they value, what they’d pay more for, and where your efforts are wasted.

→ Question growth assumptions.

Is a new market a distraction? Is a feature just vanity? If it doesn’t drive retention or revenue, table it.

→ Communicate clearly and honestly.

The team will follow a realistic plan; investors respect pragmatism over bravado.

I’ve seen founders who hit pause return stronger. They didn’t win by scaling faster—they won by surviving strategically and coming back ready to accelerate.

Key takeaway: slowing down to focus is often the most courageous and profitable decision when capital is tight.

I watched a founder give up control of his company long before the Series B closed.

The dilution showed up on the cap table.
The mistake happened months earlier.

He optimized for percentage ownership while letting time run out. Cash tightened. Momentum slowed. Optionality disappeared. By the time he raised, the negotiation was mostly theater.

The uncomfortable truth: in fundraising, dilution is usually an outcome—not the problem. Timing is the variable that determines everything else.

Raising late doesn’t just lower valuation. It changes who has leverage in the room, which terms are non-negotiable, and how much governance you quietly surrender to survive the round.

Most teams say they’re waiting for “one more milestone.”
What they’re really doing is borrowing against future confidence.

Strong operators don’t ask, “How do we minimize dilution?”
They ask, “When do we still have choices?”

They raise when the business is trending up, not when cash dictates the calendar.
They align capital with value inflection points, not quarters.
They track investor appetite as a market signal, not a vanity exercise.

By the time your runway is red, the decision has already been made for you.

The real question isn’t how much ownership you give up.
It’s whether you raised while the clock was still on your side.

A founder once told me, “Our base case gives us 18 months of runway.”

I asked what happens if two assumptions break at the same time.

No one had an answer.

That’s the risk most teams underestimate. Not that the base case is wrong—but that it’s singular. One version of the future, treated as sufficient.

In practice, companies don’t fail because revenue misses by 5%. They fail when timing, customers, and capital all slip together—and there’s no pre-agreed response.

The uncomfortable truth: a base case is not a plan. It’s a reference point.

What separates resilient teams is not optimism or pessimism. It’s preparation for compound failure.

The strongest operators I’ve worked with do something different. They identify the few assumptions that would force irreversible decisions if they broke—liquidity, customer concentration, funding timing. Then they model those breaking fast, not gradually.

Not to predict outcomes, but to pre-decide actions.

What gets cut first.
What must not slow down.
Who communicates, and how.

When downside scenarios are explicit, execution gets calmer. Boards stay aligned. Teams move instead of debate.

You don’t need to be right about the future.
You need to know which version of it you’re not allowed to be surprised by.

Raising money creates a dangerous illusion: that speed is the same as progress.

I almost learned that the hard way.

After a round closed, every team had a “high-confidence” use for capital.
None of them were irrational.
Taken together, they would have quietly destroyed our margin for error.

That’s the trap.
Capital doesn’t disappear in one reckless decision.
It leaks out through reasonable ones.

The real risk wasn’t overspending.
It was committing cash in ways that narrowed future choices before the business had earned that certainty.

Every dollar forced the same question:
If this works, what does it unlock?
If it doesn’t, what have we permanently lost?

Some bets promised growth but locked us into cost structures we couldn’t unwind.
Others created motion with no path to learning.
Saying no slowed us down—and bought us time.

That trade-off is uncomfortable.
Boards want momentum.
Teams want resourcing.
Founders want to capitalize on the moment.

But liquidity isn’t fuel.
It’s leverage.
Used early, it should increase optionality, not consume it.

Most companies don’t run out of cash.
They run out of room to maneuver.

The hardest capital decisions aren’t about ROI.
They’re about which future you’re quietly ruling out when you say yes.

Most fintech expansion plans fail for reasons that never show up in the product roadmap.

FX is one of them.

I’ve seen teams execute flawlessly on market entry—regulatory approval, local partners, strong demand—only to watch margins erode quietly as currencies moved against them.
Nothing “broke.”
The economics just stopped working.

That’s the trap.
FX risk rarely announces itself as a crisis.
It shows up as missed forecasts, confusing variance, and a growing gap between reported growth and actual cash.

Founders tend to treat this as a finance clean-up item.
In reality, it’s a sequencing decision.

Every new currency exposure competes with growth for capital.
Hedging can stabilize outcomes, but it isn’t free.
Ignoring FX preserves speed—until volatility forces an unplanned correction.

The question isn’t whether FX matters.
It’s when it starts to matter enough to change behavior.

Teams that scale well make this explicit early.
They know which exposures are tolerable, which must be controlled, and which markets only make sense if margins can absorb volatility.
They plan for currency movement the same way they plan for churn or pricing pressure.

Product-market fit gets you permission to expand.
Financial control determines whether expansion compounds—or quietly reverses.

If your global model only works when currencies cooperate, you don’t have a scaling problem.
You have an assumptions problem.

Most founders overestimate how far a funding round actually takes them.

I once joined a company two weeks after a $5M raise. The team felt relieved. Hiring plans ballooned. Vendors pitched extras. Meetings began with, “We have time.”

The reality? Their 24 months of runway was closer to 11.

The uncomfortable truth: runway isn’t cash in the bank. It’s the discipline to turn spend into outcomes. Every hire, every vendor, every initiative is a trade-off. One misstep erodes optionality faster than you expect.

Teams that thrive under pressure link every dollar to learning, not comfort. They ask: Will this spend accelerate our next milestone—or just postpone hard decisions? They kill bad bets early, spot “runway leaks” before they metastasize, and focus on high-impact priorities.

I run a “Runway Reality Check” quarterly: list new spend, expected outcomes, actual outcomes, and whether it’s still the fastest path to your next milestone. The exercise forces clarity, speed, and accountability in a way no bank balance can.

The hardest question founders must ask themselves: Are you buying time—or buying comfort? The answer separates teams that survive from teams that thrive.

I’ve seen founders pitch with flawless slides, high-energy narratives, and stratospheric projections—yet they ignore the most important story: the downside.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your fundraising deck doesn’t model what can go wrong, you’re not raising capital—you’re selling fantasy.

Investors reward realism, not optimism. A missed downside case signals either inexperience or unwillingness to face reality. Both cost credibility, influence, and capital.

The cost of ignoring risk is real:
→ Blind growth decisions.
→ Misallocated resources.
→ Strategic missteps that compound before anyone notices.

The leaders who succeed don’t just inspire—they demonstrate discipline under uncertainty. They know: capital is limited, time is scarce, and every decision carries trade-offs. They quantify the worst case first, model levers to respond, and align the team around what survival—and acceleration—looks like.

The point isn’t pessimism. It’s credibility under pressure. Investors, boards, and teams bet on founders who can navigate adversity, not just celebrate upside.

Next time you raise capital, ask yourself: are you showing your business can survive reality, or just sell a dream? Because the difference between a good raise and a wasted one isn’t your valuation—it’s your judgment.

Most companies don’t fail because of dilution. They fail because they run out of time.

I’ve seen founders reject unattractive term sheets while telling themselves they were being disciplined. In reality, they were protecting an idea of ownership that only mattered if the company survived.

One boardroom still sticks with me. The offer on the table wasn’t good. Down valuation, heavy preferences, real control concessions. Walking away felt principled. Waiting felt optional.

It wasn’t.

Three months later, cash was gone. The option to choose disappeared. Employees left. Customers followed. The dilution he feared became irrelevant.

The uncomfortable part is this: dilution is a cost, but so is delay. And delay compounds quietly. Leverage erodes before panic shows up in the numbers.

That doesn’t mean you take any deal. Bad capital can cripple a company just as surely as no capital. Terms matter. Partners matter. Control matters.

But refusing to engage because a deal feels “ugly” is often just another way of betting that circumstances will improve in time.

Sometimes the real trade-off isn’t dilution versus control.

It’s dilution versus probability of survival.

And probability is what boards and operators are paid to protect, even when the optics are unpleasant.

Underpricing rarely feels dangerous. That’s what makes it expensive.

I watched a fintech CEO avoid a price increase for years because churn felt like the existential risk. Costs rose. Competitors repriced. He stayed “customer-friendly.” Revenue quietly capped itself.

The board didn’t panic at first. Then margins compressed. Then hiring slowed. Then the questions shifted from growth to durability.

Pricing isn’t a one-time decision—it’s a compounding one. Every quarter you delay, you train customers on what your product is worth and lock yourself into an operating model that assumes restraint forever.

When we revisited pricing, the hardest part wasn’t math. It was confronting which customers actually valued the product versus those simply enjoying a discount.

We didn’t reprice everyone. We started with new contracts and a narrow segment where the product was embedded in core workflows. Sales pushed back. A few deals slowed. That was the cost of information.

Churn didn’t spike. What changed was unit economics—and credibility. Suddenly the business could fund itself longer. The board conversation shifted from defense to choice.

Raising prices is risky. Not raising them is a slow commitment to subsidizing your customers with your future.

The real pricing question isn’t “Will we lose customers?”

It’s “Which customers are we implicitly choosing to keep at this price—and what does that choice cost us over time?”

The most dangerous finance teams aren’t sloppy. They’re punctual and irrelevant.

I watched a $100M SaaS company drift toward a cash crisis not because finance failed at reporting—but because it was structurally excluded from decision-making. The books were clean. The insights were late.

The business was expanding aggressively: new geographies, multiple currencies, overlapping bets. The board asked reasonable questions—downside scenarios, capital exposure, FX sensitivity. Finance could explain what had already happened. Not what was likely to happen next.

So strategy filled the gap. Optimism substituted for analysis. Europe scaled faster than demand. Currency exposure compounded losses. Forecasts assumed best-case execution because no one was incentivized to challenge them.

By the time finance raised concerns, reversing course meant layoffs and damaged credibility.

The lesson wasn’t “finance should move faster.” It was that finance has to accept discomfort earlier—pushing back on plans that look good in isolation but break under stress.

At scale, finance isn’t a control function. It’s a constraint engine. Its value is in narrowing choices before capital commits, not explaining variance after.

Accuracy keeps you compliant. Judgment keeps you solvent.

The real question for leadership isn’t whether finance has a seat at the table—but whether anyone is empowered to say, “If we do this, here’s what we’re betting the company on.”

The first time I watched a startup hemorrhage cash because of foreign exchange risk, it nearly made me quit coffee. Let me paint the scene. We were celebrating a big contract win. Five countries. Ten currencies. Big plans. Everyone was toasting the international expansion, but the finance team was quietly sweating. I asked the founders if they’d modeled FX exposure. They shrugged. We invoice in dollars. FX risk is for the IBMs, right? Wrong. Fast forward two quarters. Revenue looked great on paper. But each payout landed a little lighter than expected. The CFO blamed the payments processor. The CEO blamed the bank. But the real culprit? Currency swings. Every GBP or INR collected had quietly slipped through their fingers, chewed up by market moves. By the time they spotted it, six figures had evaporated—before the first invoice even cleared. Here’s the dirty little secret: You don’t need to be a global giant to bleed out from FX risk.

↳ Even a fivecountry fintech can see margins shredded. Most founders underestimate three things: → The lag between revenue recognition and cash collection.

→ Just how quickly currencies can shift—sometimes overnight.

→ The compounding effect of small misses, quarter after quarter. It’s not just about volatility—it’s about visibility. If you’re scaling across borders, you can’t afford to treat FX as an afterthought. Waiting until your controller flags a variance is too late. Here’s the approach I now swear by—one I wish I’d known back then: 1. Build FX exposure directly into your forecast models.

↳ Not just a line item, but a core scenario. 2. Set up realtime tracking dashboards.

↳ Use API feeds from your banks and payment providers. 3. Run monthly stress tests.

↳ Simulate 2%5% swings and watch the impact on gross margin. 4. Talk to your banking partner about locking in rates.

↳ Forward contracts aren’t just for the Fortune 500. 5. Assign an owner.

↳ If everyone owns FX, no one owns FX. The day we embedded this playbook, something changed. Founders stopped seeing FX as a footnote. They started treating it like any other business risk—one you measure, manage, and review. Suddenly, that sixfigure loss turned into a line of defense. Margins held steady. Planning finally felt real. If you’re scaling internationally, don’t wait for the first invoice to realize what’s at stake. Start treating FX risk as a strategic threat—and a growth lever. The best operators already do. Curious how fractional leaders approach FX for leaner, faster teams? Drop a comment if you want the full playbook.

You don’t lose marketplaces because revenue slows.
You lose them because you scale the wrong transactions.

Most founders know contribution margin matters.
What they underestimate is how long negative unit economics can stay hidden while everything looks fine.

GMV grows.
Revenue grows.
The board relaxes.

Meanwhile, every incremental transaction deepens dependence on subsidies, incentives, and service costs that don’t come back down. What started as “temporary investment” hardens into the business model.

The uncomfortable truth:
If contribution margin is negative at scale, growth is not optionality—it’s commitment. You’re locking in future cash burn and reducing your ability to change pricing, segments, or incentives without breaking the marketplace.

This is where decisions get hard.

Do you slow a high-visibility category because it never clears contribution margin?
Do you retrain demand away from subsidized supply even if GMV drops?
Do you accept flatter topline numbers to regain control of cash?

Strong marketplaces answer these questions early, when they still have degrees of freedom. Weak ones defer them until the math forces a reset—usually on someone else’s terms.

Revenue tells you how busy you are.
Contribution margin tells you whether that activity compounds or compounds the problem.

Most boards can tell which one you’re optimizing for within five minutes.

Most crisis responses fail because they optimize for visibility, not survival.

Boards panic about headlines.
Founders panic about morale.
Finance teams panic about burn.

None of those are the constraint.

Under pressure, leaders reach for actions that look decisive: layoffs, PR cleanups, revised forecasts.
They reduce noise.
They rarely change outcomes.

The uncomfortable reality is this:
In a real downturn, you don’t get to fix everything.
You choose which weakness gets to kill you.

I’ve seen companies cut deeply and still die because churn was accelerating.
I’ve seen others preserve teams and lose credibility because liquidity was ignored for one quarter too long.
Both were “rational” in isolation.
Neither confronted the binding constraint.

The hardest work in a crisis isn’t planning.
It’s sequencing.

What must be true six months from now for the company to exist?
What decision today makes that more likely—and what does it break in exchange?

Liquidity buys time, but can destroy momentum.
Product focus restores fit, but delays relief.
Optics calm stakeholders, but can mask decay.

Second-order effects matter more than the first move.

Most companies don’t collapse from a single mistake.
They make a series of reasonable decisions that all assume the same thing is wrong.

The question isn’t “What’s urgent?”
It’s: What, if left unaddressed, makes every other decision irrelevant?

Incremental fixes feel responsible in a crisis.
They’re usually a way to postpone the decision that actually determines survival.

I saw this clearly with a SaaS company that lost two major customers in a week.
The board defaulted to the usual responses: freeze hiring, trim spend, delay launches.
Each move was sensible.
Together, they bought days—not a future.

The real problem wasn’t cost discipline.
It was that the existing plan no longer worked, and everyone was trying to preserve it anyway.

That’s the mistake.
In a true cash crisis, incrementalism doesn’t reduce risk—it compounds it.
You keep funding a structure that may already be broken.

The harder path is narrowing early.
Choosing what the company will not be.
Accepting irreversible damage in exchange for time and clarity.

Those decisions carry real downside.
You lose people you value.
You concentrate bets before certainty arrives.
You risk being wrong in public.

But delay has a cost too: it quietly removes optionality.

The companies that survive crises don’t optimize for comfort or consensus.
They align quickly on what must be protected, what can be sacrificed, and what future they’re willing to abandon.

The question isn’t whether the cuts are painful.
It’s whether they meaningfully change the company’s odds—or just slow the countdown.

I’ve sat in boardrooms where a record valuation was treated like proof of safety.

It usually meant the opposite.

The celebration focused on the number.
No one wanted to talk about burn, sequencing, or what had to be true twelve months later for the company to exist on acceptable terms.

That’s the mistake.
Valuation is an outcome.
It doesn’t tell you *when* you can spend, *where* you can spend, or *what happens if the next round doesn’t show up on schedule*.

I’ve seen companies raise strong Series As, hire aggressively, and assume momentum would carry them.
Revenue grew.
So did fixed costs.
When the market tightened, the valuation didn’t protect them—it boxed them in.

The real work after a raise isn’t scaling.
It’s sequencing.

Which investments unlock the next credible milestone?
Which ones only make sense if the following round is guaranteed?
What must be preserved if conditions turn before you expect?

Capital deployed too early doesn’t just shorten runway.
It removes options.
It forces future rounds to solve yesterday’s optimism.

The teams that survive treat cash like a dependency chain, not a pile of fuel.
Every dollar either earns the right to deploy the next one—or it doesn’t get spent.

The uncomfortable question isn’t how impressive your valuation looks.
It’s whether your current spend still makes sense if the market doesn’t cooperate.

I used to believe headcount scaled output.
Then I watched a company spend $11M in under two years and end up with less clarity than it started with.

Demand was real.
The product worked.
What broke was the cost structure.

Under board pressure to “build ahead,” the team hired aggressively.
Burn doubled.
Execution slowed.
Every forecast—no matter how generous—ended with the same conclusion: the business had less room to maneuver each month.

That’s the part founders miss.
Hiring doesn’t just add capacity.
It hardens assumptions.

Once payroll expands, every plan has to justify the org chart.
Forecasts bend.
Rigor slips.
Hope fills the gap.

The mistake isn’t growth ambition.
It’s treating hiring as reversible.

In capital-constrained environments, headcount is the least flexible decision you make.
It locks in burn.
It amplifies coordination costs.
And it narrows your options if conditions change.

The teams that survive pressure don’t hire “carefully.”
They hire conditionally.

What outcome does this role unlock?
What happens if that outcome arrives late—or not at all?
What breaks if we wait?

Saying no to a hire rarely feels strategic in the moment.
Six months later, it often turns out to be the decision that kept the company alive.

The real question isn’t how fast you can staff up.
It’s how much certainty you actually have when you do.

I once met a founder who looked haunted.
Their startup had just raised a healthy seed round. The runway chart looked perfect—24 months of breathing room. Every line item triple-checked. Every assumption conservative.

And yet, the company was frozen.

Hiring slowed. Product experiments paused. Critical investments deferred. The logic was “survive longer.” The reality?

→ Competitors shipped features the team had only dreamed of.
→ Revenue stalled while expenses quietly climbed.
→ Talent grew restless and started looking elsewhere.

Obsessing over runway can backfire. Every month “saved” in cash is a month lost in market opportunity. Windows close. Momentum slips. The longer you hesitate, the harder it becomes to catch up.

Capital isn’t just a lifeline—it’s leverage.

The companies I advise don’t hoard runway; they deploy it strategically. They:

→ Identify inflection points where spending accelerates growth.
→ Burn faster on proven product-market fit signals.
→ Double down on what works—even if it shortens runway.

Survival isn’t measured in months of runway. It’s measured in whether you acted when the market allowed you to.

The startups that get remembered? They bet decisively, at the right time, with purpose—not cautiously, for comfort.

Ask yourself: is your runway a leash—or a weapon?

Product Marketing-oriented professional with hands-on experience across product discovery,
market research, positioning, and go-to-market execution. Strong at translating product
capabilities into clear messaging, launch plans, and growth initiatives, with a solid foundation
in product thinking and cross-functional collaboration.

Anthony Rahme

SEO vs AEO vs GEO

Knowing the difference between them is crucial.

SEO, AEO, and GEO aren't three versions of the same strategy, they're three completely different battles.

Here's what actually separates them:

SEO (Search Engine Optimization): The Old Guard

🔸 You optimize for blue links on page one 
🔸 Success = high rankings and click-through rates 
🔸 You chase keywords and backlinks 
🔸 Google sends traffic to YOUR site

This still works. But it's shrinking fast.

AEO (Answer Engine Optimization): The AI Middle Ground

🔸 You optimize for voice assistants and AI snippets 
🔸 Success = being the ONE answer Alexa reads out loud 
🔸 You structure content for questions, not keywords 
🔸 AI reads your content TO users (without the click)

The shift: you're feeding machines, not humans.

GEO (Generative Engine Optimization): The New Battlefield

🔸 You optimize for AI Overviews and ChatGPT citations 
🔸 Success = appearing in AI-generated summaries 
🔸 You need source authority and structured data 
🔸 AI summarizes you alongside competitors (zero clicks)

This is where traffic disappears completely.

What This Means For Your Strategy:

1️⃣ Track zero-click searches in your niche 
2️⃣ Build content that AI tools actually cite 
3️⃣ Add schema markup everywhere 
4️⃣ Create answer-focused content, not keyword-stuffed pages 
5️⃣ Monitor AI Overview appearances (not just rankings)

You need all three strategies running simultaneously. 

SEO for the clicks that remain. AEO for voice dominance. GEO for AI visibility.


♻️ Repost to help your network understand the difference between the 3.
👉 Follow me Anthony Rahme for more FREE marketing insights.

PS. Did you already know the difference between them?
Let me know in the comments.

I dive deeper into marketing, sales and sometimes AI

AI is taking over LinkedIn

Nearly every post you scroll past is written by AI.

Most of the creators showing up every single day rely on it.

So if you're still writing every post from scratch, you're already behind.

Here's what's actually happening:

Your competitors are using AI to post daily. Better content. Faster creation. Real growth.

But they're not just prompting ChatGPT and hitting publish.

Here's how to use AI to double your LinkedIn growth:

1️⃣ Train AI On Your Voice

Stop feeding AI generic prompts. Build a custom GPT that writes like you.

How: 

🔸 Upload your top 20 posts 
🔸 Add your writing style guide 
🔸 Include your strong opinions and frameworks

Now AI creates drafts that sound like you, not a robot.

2️⃣ Build Your Content Engine

Create a workflow that never breaks.

The system: 

🔸 Perplexity for research 
🔸 ChatGPT or Claude for first draft 
🔸 You edit and add punch

AI does 90%. You add the 10% that matters.

3️⃣ Mine Your Winners

Go to EasyGen.io and check the "Trending" tab.

Find posts with the best scores. Those are your viral hits.

Click "Repurpose." and turn one winner into 10 variations.

4️⃣ Never Stare at Blank Screens Again

Drop your best post into any AI chatbot.

Then tell it to generate 30 days of content ideas based on that framework.

All done in less then 10 minutes.

5️⃣ Make People Stop Scrolling

Search Pinterest: "[your topic] infographic" and copy the visual structure in Canva.

Visual posts get 3x more engagement than text blocks.

6️⃣ The Non-Negotiable Rule

Never publish raw AI output.

Edit for your voice. Add real examples. Insert personal takes.

Generic AI content kills credibility faster than not posting at all.

7️⃣ Create Your Own GPT's

Build 3 specialized GPTs: 

🔸 Content writer GPT 
🔸 Audience research GPT 
🔸 Hook generator GPT

Feed them data weekly. They improve. You get faster.

The Reality:

Your competitors already do this. The ones winning just do it better.

AI isn't a spam tool. It's a thinking partner that helps you create more quality content than humanly possible alone.


♻️ Repost this to help other creators grow faster using AI

P.S. Which step are you implementing first?

How to use AI to double your LinkedIn growth

Marketing without data is like driving at 100mph with your eyes closed

Every campaign you run on instinct alone burns money you'll never get back. 

And the worst part? You won't even know which half killed your budget.

Data isn't optional anymore. It's the difference between campaigns that print money and ones that drain your bank account.

Track these metrics or stay broke:

1️⃣ Customer acquisition cost by channel (not blended CAC, that hides your losers)

2️⃣ Time to payback on each customer segment

3️⃣ Conversion rate at every single funnel step

4️⃣ Customer retention rate (not vanity retention rates)

5️⃣ Attribution windows that match how long people take to buy

The data you're ignoring:

Your best customers don't look like your average customer. 

Pull the data on your top 10% by LTV. 

Now look at how they found you, what they bought first, and how long they took to convert.

That's your real acquisition playbook. Not the blended averages hiding in your dashboard.

Set this up today:

🔸 Tag every campaign with UTM parameters (yes, every single one)

🔸 Build a simple spreadsheet connecting spend to revenue by source

🔸 Review it weekly, not monthly

Your competitors are already doing this. 

They're taking your customers because they know exactly which messages work and which ads die.

Stop guessing and start measuring.


♻️ Repost to help other marketers start making smarter decisions.
👉 Follow me Anthony Rahme for more FREE marketing insights

P.S. Have you ever tried building a campaign only based on your assumptions?

How to turn any message into something people can't forget

Some of the best campaigns die within 72 hours of launch.

Not because they're bad. But because they never had the right structure to stick in the first place.

The Heath brothers cracked the code in "Made to Stick."

Here's how to make your marketing messages impossible to forget.

The SUCCESs Framework That Actually Works:

1️⃣ Simple = Core Message Only

Strip your idea down to one sentence. If you can't explain it in ten seconds, it's too complex.

Southwest Airlines nailed this: "THE low-fare airline." 
Not "affordable premium travel experience."

2️⃣ Unexpected = Break The Pattern

Start with what people expect, then shatter it. 

Your audience's brain perks up when something doesn't fit.

Think about movie trailers. The good ones show the hero winning, then flip it: "But what if everything he knew was a lie?"

3️⃣ Concrete = Specific Beats Abstract

Replace vague claims with tangible proof. 

Don't say "affordable." 
Say "costs less than your daily coffee."

Disney doesn't train "excellent customer service." 
They train: "Pick up any trash within ten steps."

4️⃣ Credible = Let Them Test It

The best proof isn't your data. It's something they can verify themselves right now.

Wendy's didn't show beef statistics. 

They asked: "Where's the beef?" People could check their competitors' burgers instantly.

5️⃣ Emotional = Make Them Feel Something

Stop selling features. Tap into what people already care about deeply.

Anti-smoking campaigns failed with lung cancer stats. 
They won with "secondhand smoke hurts your kids."

6️⃣ Stories = Give Them A Script

Data tells. Stories sell. People remember narratives, not bullet points.

Jared from Subway worked because it gave people a mental movie: "regular guy, same sandwich daily, lost weight."

Your Next Campaign Starts Here:

Test your current message against all six principles. If it hits three or more, you're golden.

Most marketing dies at principle one. It tries to say everything and ends up saying nothing.


The info from this book were taken from a book called ""Made to stick" it's an amazing book.

♻️ Repost to help other marketers make their ideas more memorable.

P.S. Which principle do you struggle with most when crafting messages?

50 Cent understands marketing better than your favorite agency

Most agencies charge $20K a month to post three times a week and run some ads.

50 Cent bought 200 Ja Rule concert tickets just to leave the seats empty. 

It cost him maybe $10K. But it got millions in free press.

That's the difference between studying marketing and understanding it.

He bought 200 Ja Rule concert tickets just to leave the seats empty. 
Petty? Sure. 
Brilliant marketing? Absolutely.

Everyone talked about it. The beef stayed alive. His name stayed in headlines.

When his album flopped, he didn't hide. 

He posted the numbers himself and made jokes about it. He controlled the story before anyone else could.

That's the pattern with 50. 

He turns losses into content. He turns beef into promotion. He makes himself the story.

Look at Instagram. He was one of the first rappers to truly understand it. 

Not just posting, actually using it like a weapon. 
Trolling and creating moments. 
Getting millions of eyes on everything he does.

He sells his TV shows by posting about them like a regular person would hype up their favorite show. No fancy ads needed.

The man filed for bankruptcy and somehow made that work for him too. 

He became more famous for the drama than the actual money problems.

50 understand that attention is the product. Everything else comes after.

You don't need a massive budget. You need to be willing to make people talk.


♻️ Repost to show others what actual marketing looks like.

P.S. Did you know that 50 Cent was actually good at marketing?
Let me know in the comments.

The best marketers rarely talk about their product

Watch the brands you actually remember.

They're not pitching features. They're telling stories that make you feel something.

Seth Godin said this: "Marketing is no longer about the stuff that you make, but about the stories you tell."

Think about the last ad that made you stop. 

It wasn't a list of what the product does. It was how it made you feel.

Apple doesn't sell phones. They sell creativity and freedom.
Nike doesn't sell shoes. They sell the athlete inside you.
Airbnb doesn't sell rooms. They sell belonging anywhere.

Your customers don't wake up thinking about your features. 
They wake up with problems, dreams, and fears.

Stories connect to those emotions. Facts just sit there.

Here's what to do: 

stop talking about "what we built" and start talking about "why it matters to the customer."

Sales conversations will get easier. Your content will get more shares.

Because stories make people see themselves in your message. 
Features make them yawn.

Your competitor can copy your product tomorrow. 
But they can't copy the story only you can tell.

The story of why you started. 
Who you're helping. 
What changes when they succeed.

That's the moat nobody can cross.


♻️ Repost to help other marketers understand why their content gets ignored.
👉 Follow me Anthony Rahme for more FREE marketing insights.

P.S. What's one brand whose story made YOU a loyal customer?

Your headline is worth 80% of the entire post

The other 20% doesn't matter if nobody reads it.

You spend an hour crafting insights, structuring paragraphs, and perfecting your message. 

Then you write a boring headline and get 9 views.

The headline is the only part everyone sees. The rest? Only the people who stop scrolling.

What makes people actually stop:

🔸 Specificity wins 

"I tested 47 headlines in 30 days" beats "How to write better headlines"

🔸 Numbers grab focus 

"3 mistakes" processes faster than "common mistakes"

🔸 Curiosity gaps work 

"Why your best posts get ignored" creates an itch people need to scratch

🔸 Contrarian takes interrupt 

"Stop posting valuable content" breaks patterns because it sounds wrong

Here's a simple test you can run:

1️⃣ Read your headline alone 
2️⃣ Ask: "Would I stop for this?" 
3️⃣ If you pause and take your time to answer, rewrite it

Most people write headlines last as an afterthought. 

The top performers write 10 versions first and choose the strongest.

Your post body might be brilliant. But if the headline fails, that brilliance stays hidden.

Start by writing the headline. Then write the rest of the post after.


♻️ Repost to save someone an hour of wasted writing time
👉 Follow me Anthony Rahme for more marketing insights you can apply to your work.

PS. Have you been following this rule?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Anthony Rahme

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreAnthony Rahme's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Samuel Mwendwa

Anthony Rahme

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);}Samuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreAnthony Rahme's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreSamuel Mwendwa's LinkedIn Performance