SCALE YOUR GROWTH ENGINE
Stage: Post-Seed / Pre-Series A Tech Startup
Growth existed, but it was unstable and hard to repeat. Deals closed inconsistently, forecasting was unreliable, and business development depended on the founder’s direct involvement. There was no clear ownership, no working KPIs, and no scalable sales system.
The Problem
- Took ownership of BD & Sales as a single growth function
- Audited the full revenue funnel and identified major leakage
- Rebuilt the sales process end-to-end (lead - to- qualify -to- close)
- Implemented ownership model, KPIs, CRM, and forecasting
- Hired and trained the BD team
- Closed strategic partnerships hands-on
what we did
Before:
After:
- ~$50k MRR
- Founder doing most BD
- No repeatable process
After:
- ~$180k MRR in 6 months
- Predictable, forecastable pipeline
- Independent BD team running the system
The Result
Enter a New Market with Confidence
Stage: Scale-up Tech & iGaming Companies Entering New Regions
Expansion looked promising, but the path was unclear. There was no local expertise, no trusted partners, and no proven execution model. One wrong move could cost time, budget, and credibility, while hiring a full local C-level team was too early and too risky.
The Problem
- Took ownership of market entry execution as a local growth team
- Ran market and competitive analysis across target regions
- Built and activated strategic partnerships
- Represented the company at tier-1 industry events (Web Summit, ICE Barcelona)
- Executed pilots, collected data, and adjusted the GTM model
- Hired and onboarded a local BD owner and transferred execution
what we did
Before:
After:
- No local presence
- No partnerships
- High uncertainty around market fit
After:
- Market entry in 4 months
- ~$400k ARR from the new region
- Local team and repeatable GTM model
The Result
Prepare for Your Next Round
Stage: Post-Seed / Growth-Stage Startup
Investor interest existed, but fundraising stalled.
Metrics, unit economics, and roadmap did not form a clear story. The process was slow, reactive, and lacked structure, reducing momentum and leverage.
Metrics, unit economics, and roadmap did not form a clear story. The process was slow, reactive, and lacked structure, reducing momentum and leverage.
The Problem
- Took ownership of the fundraising process end-to-end
- Built an investor-grade financial model and unit economics
- Reframed the pitch around scalability and systems
- Structured a complete data room
- Mapped relevant funds and managed warm introductions
- Ran the fundraising pipeline through negotiations and closing
what we did
Before:
After:
- 6 months fundraising
- No term sheets
- Momentum lost
After:
- 3 term sheets in 8 weeks
- $3.2M raised
- Better valuation and leverage
The Result
LAUNCH YOUR GO-TO-MARKET STRATEGY
Community-driven Web3 Product
The product had strong potential and an active audience, but growth and monetization were not systematized. Engagement depended on one-off activities, incentives were fragmented, and there was no clear go-to-market model that could scale predictably. The challenge was not attracting attention, but turning audience interest into sustainable growth and revenue.
The Problem
- Took ownership of GTM execution and monetization strategy
- Designed a community-led growth model with clear incentive mechanics
- Built and launched reward systems to drive engagement and retention
- Structured growth loops connecting activity, rewards, and monetization
- Aligned product mechanics with business goals
- Ran execution hands-on and iterated based on real user behavior
what we did
Before:
After:
- Active audience with no scalable GTM model
- Fragmented incentives
- Unclear monetization logic
After:
- 1.5M+ engaged community
- Working reward and incentive mechanics
- Successful monetization at scale
- Repeatable GTM model ready for further growth
The Result
BUILD THE SYSTEM THAT SCALES
Stage: Growth-Stage Tech Company (50–150 people)
The company had outgrown its original structure. Decisions bottlenecked at the founder level, ownership between teams was blurred, and execution depended on manual coordination. Growth increased complexity, but the operating model was not designed to handle it.
The Problem
- Took ownership of organizational design and operating architecture
- Ran full operational audit to map decision flows, ownership gaps, bottlenecks
- Designed a scalable org structure with clear responsibility zones
- Defined decision rights, escalation paths, and governance model
- Introduced operating cadence and management rhythms
what we did
Before:
After:
- Founder involved in most operational decisions
- Blurred ownership between teams
- Growth slowed by coordination overhead
After:
- Clear ownership and decision framework
- Governance model supporting scale
- Business operating without constant founder intervention
The Result
ALIGN YOUR CROSS-FUNCTIONAL TEAMS
Product & Engineering-driven Tech Company
Product, Tech, and Business teams were working hard — but not together. Each function operated in its own logic, priorities conflicted, roadmaps didn’t converge, and delivery slowed at every handoff. Execution issues were not caused by lack of talent, but by misalignment and unclear coordination.
The Problem
- Took ownership of cross-functional execution and delivery alignment
- Built a single shared roadmap across Product, Tech, and Business
- Introduced clear prioritization logic tied to business outcomes
- Translated business goals into product initiatives and technical scope
- Established execution cadence, sync rituals, and KPI-based reviews
what we did
Before:
After:
- Parallel roadmaps
- Constant re-prioritization
- Missed deadlines
After:
- Aligned execution across functions
- Decisions made in days, not weeks
- Predictable delivery cycles
The Result
Get in Touch with Our Team
Leave your Telegram contact. We’ll reach out to discuss your current growth challenges and how we take ownership to move them forward.