You have the metrics. Don't let a broken narrative kill your Series A fundraising.

You've hit $1M+ ARR. You have traction. You're ready to scale.

But when you bring a "Seed Mindset" into a Series A boardroom, you hit a wall.

Seed investors bought your potential. Series A investors are buying your machine.

If you walk in pitching features, technology, and "user love," you get categorized as a nice small business - not a venture-scale asset. This is why founders with great metrics still get flat rounds or polite pass emails from Tier-1 firms.

---

THE PROBLEM: The Operator's Curse

As a technical founder, you're too close to the product to see the asset. You're explaining how it works. The VC is trying to figure out how it monopolizes.

That gap between your metrics and your narrative? That's what's costing you valuation.

---

HOW I HELP

I built the DX Protocol - a clinical diagnostic that measures Series A readiness across seven dimensions. The same dimensions investors actually evaluate, whether they articulate them or not.

Your DX Score tells you exactly where you stand - and what's blocking your round.

I'm not a coach. I don't do "pitch practice." I don't review slides.

I diagnose the structural positioning underneath your pitch. The stuff you can't see from inside the business.

30 years. Founded 12 ventures. 7 exits. $75M+ raised. I've seen every failure pattern. I know what makes investors say yes.

---

THE DX SCORE DIAGNOSTIC

A comprehensive fundability assessment:
→ Pre-diagnostic questionnaire and materials review
→ 2-hour clinical deep-dive across all seven dimensions
→ 25-35 page DX Report with your score and prescription
→ 45-minute report review call

Investment: $3,500

---

WHO THIS IS FOR:
✅ Technical founders with $1M - $10M ARR
✅ Teams preparing for Series A (or late Seed extension)
✅ Founders who want precision, not cheerleading

WHO THIS IS NOT FOR:
❌ Pre-revenue or pre-product
❌ Founders looking for investor intros
❌ Anyone who wants a pitch deck review

---

NEXT STEP

If you're about to raise - or currently stalling - don't guess. Get your DX Score.

Book a free 30-minute triage call. I’ll ask a few questions to see if you’re a fit - and give you at least one insight about what might be blocking your round, whether we work together or not.


When an investor says “I don’t see the path to $100M” they’re not asking for a bigger TAM slide.

They’re telling you they can’t see how your wedge earns the right to expand.

Your market size is not the problem but your expansion logic is.

This is happening in that moment:

The investor looked at your product and saw a solid solution to a real problem with good metrics and real customers paying real money. There are perhaps even some logos that should make them lean in.

Then they ran the mental math.

And they couldn’t connect how you go from “great tool for X” to “platform that owns the category.”

So they asked for what feels objective - a bigger market, more research, fancier charts.

But that’s not the fix.

The fix is showing why solving problem A gives you permission to solve problem B. Then C. Then D. It’s not about how big the market is but rather about why customers will let you grow with them.

I’ve helped founders raise over $75M and this is one of the patterns I see constantly. Founders with real traction getting passed on because their growth story has a gap in the middle.

The beginning works and the end state sounds exciting. But the bridge between them is invisible.

And investors won’t build that bridge for you. That’s your job.

-----

If you keep hearing some version of “don’t see the path” - there’s a reason. I find it in 90 minutes.

DM me if you want to know what’s actually blocking your raise.

Mash Bonigala

Series A Deal Auditor | Red Teaming Technical Founders ($1M - $10M ARR). Ex-Founder | 12 Ventures | $75M Raised

I watched a founder with a mediocre product raise $3M last month.
The same week, a founder with genuinely better technology couldn't close $500K fundraise.

I've seen this pattern numerous times while raising $75M the past few years.

Technical founders always ask: "Why do worse products raise more money?"

Because investors are not buying your product. They are buying a story about the future and their possible role in that future.

For the founder who raised $3M, his product was mid but in 3 minutes, he made investors feel like they were about to miss the defining company in his category.

And the founder who couldn't close even though he had a better product and a better team was pitching a tour of features. By minute 5, investors were nodding politely and checking their phones.

The first founder sold a future while the second one sold a product. This is sometimes called positioning.

This is the gap I diagnose. And it's almost never visible to the founder who has it. DM me if you facing rejections and don't understand why.

Mash B.

I’m the founder’s strategist.

30+ years. 12 startups. 4 exits. $75M+ raised. 100s of brands built in my portfolio.
I’ve built brands for giants like Microsoft, ESPN, Target - and helped raw, gritty startups go from zero to funded to exit.

I don’t do fluff. I do clarity, cash, and category creation.
You come to me when you’re ready to go to war with your market - and win.
Because your brand isn’t your logo.
It’s your leverage.

* Creator of BRANDEM™ - a brand growth OS for startups that want to break the game, not play it.
* I run high-stakes founder cohorts + war room sessions that flip confusion into dominance.
* Built “The Truth Extraction Protocol™” - a diagnostic that reveals your brand’s hidden market power in 90 minutes.

If you’re a founder tired of surface-level advice and ready for real growth, raw truth, and sharp strategy - Let’s talk.

Raised $75M for startups ​> Now I diagnose what’s blocking your fundability in 90 minutes ​> 12 ventures, 7 exits, 30 years ​> Math not marketing vibes ​> For technical founders raising capital

I’ve spent a lot of time talking with technical founders who believe fundraising is stalling because of their pitch deck, their slide design, or their delivery. That assumption is understandable, but it usually misses the real issue.

In most cases, investors are not confused by the slides. They are confused by the positioning underneath them. They cannot quickly understand why this company matters now, how it fits into an existing category, or what makes it meaningfully different from the alternatives they already know. When that clarity is missing, conversations slow down or stop entirely.

This is why I focus on diagnosis rather than advice. 

Before changing a deck or booking more meetings, it is important to identify what is actually preventing investors from reaching conviction. That problem is often structural, not cosmetic, and it cannot be fixed by polishing what already exists.

When founders have clarity on what is blocking fundability, their next steps become obvious. They stop guessing and start making changes that directly address investor hesitation. That is usually when momentum returns.

I've raised $75M for startups. Most founders can't see what's blocking their fundability.

Last month a founder came me for a diagnosis: "We spent $40K on a rebrand. New logo, new website, new messaging. Still sounds exactly like our competitors."

Took me 15 minutes to find the problem: They were trying to fix positioning with design. But their Beacon was broken - they had no unique truth to stand on.

They kept saying "We help teams collaborate better." So do 50 other tools.

The real insight they were sitting on: "Remote teams fail because critical work happens in side channels and gets lost."

That's a positioning statement. The rebrand was just lipstick.

Changed the foundation in one 90-minute session. Now investors actually lean in instead of glazing over.

This is what I diagnose. Most founders waste time and money fixing symptoms instead of root causes.

DM me if you want diagnosed.

I worked with a founder recently who was convinced their problem was marketing.

Although the team was working hard and the pipeline looked fine, revenue had flattened at $1M.

The initial request was that they wanted better messaging to create more demand and perhaps even a new channel.

I suspected what may be wrong so I asked them to walk me through their last five decisions. Not the big ones but small decisions like hiring choices, what shipped first, what got delayed, what kept getting “revisited.” etc.

What came out was “We don’t agree on what kind of company we’re building anymore.”

Nothing was broken in the obvious sense but everything was compensating for that ambiguity and lack of clariy.

Marketing felt heavy because direction wasn’t settled and the execution felt slow because priorities kept shifting. Even hiring felt risky because ownership wasn’t clear.

They didn’t need a new growth plan but what they needed as to name the thing everyone was quietly working around. Once that was clear, the rest got simpler.
I am not easier but rather simpler.

That’s the difference most founders underestimate.

"Not our thesis." Three words that haunt technical founders.

You know what I've noticed after raising $75M and sitting on both sides of the table? That rejection almost never means what you think it means.

Last week I ran a diagnostic with a SaaS founder with a solid product and growing. But he'd been turned down by 9 investors. Every single one gave him some version of "not the right fit."

90 minutes later, we found it.

The investors weren't lying when they said "not our thesis." They just couldn't see a thesis at all.

Your product could be genuinely great and metrics could be solid. And you can still be completely unfundable because of how you're positioned.

That's what I diagnose.

If you're a fundraising founder doing $300K - $3M in revenue and you keep hearing vague rejections, there's probably one specific thing blocking you. 

Not ten things. One thing.

I find it in 90 minutes.

DM me if you want to know what's actually standing between you and your raise.

taplio

Mash Bonigala's Linkedin Analytics

Mash B.

Performance ScoreMash B.'s LinkedIn Performance

What is Mash talking about?

Mash B.'s Best Posts (last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

.css-6ytdur{background-image:linear-gradient(284deg, rgba(39, 43, 72, 1) 0%, rgba(33, 47, 183, 1) 100%);color:transparent;-webkit-background-clip:text;background-clip:text;}Mash Bonigala's Linkedin Analytics

Mash B.

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);}Mash B.'s LinkedIn Performance

What is Mash talking about?

Mash B.'s Best Posts .css-1emoo84{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:400;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);}(last 30 days)

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Mash Bonigala's Linkedin Analytics

Performance ScoreMash B.'s LinkedIn Performance

Mash B.'s Best Posts (last 30 days)