ThinkLions

05/29/2026

This probably goes against what you think you know about fundraising… but…

Many founders don’t fail to raise because they start too late. The real problem comes when they try to raise TOO EARLY.

Fundraising can create this dangerous illusion where it feels like investor rejection just means you need MORE MEETINGS.

But often, the issue isn’t outreach. It’s TIMING.

I’ve dealt with founders who spend months chasing investor conversations while completely ignoring:

- Retention problems
- Weak validation
- Customer behavior gaps
- Unclear traction signals
- Unsolved risks

Unfortunately, more meetings don’t automatically make your startup investor-ready. Sometimes, the fastest path to funding is stepping back and building more evidence.

Agree or disagree?

05/28/2026

Over 500 startup assessments, and here’s what I’ve noticed. There are three things founders seem to consistently overestimate:

1. Customer Validation: Just because a few people said “this is cool” doesn’t mean your assumptions are validated.
2. Traction Strength: Growth activity and investor proof aren’t always the same thing.
3. Investor Readiness: Having a pitch deck doesn’t mean you’re ready to raise.

None of these things mean founders are unfundable. It just means you’ve become somewhat biased because you’re inside the business every day. As a result, it’s hard to objectively score your own startup.

Having a second set of eyes might be the difference in whether you get in front of investors with that same biased view, or whether you’re able to see it the way they do.

Which area feels strongest in your startup right now?

A) Validation
B) Traction
C) Team
D) Story

Drop your letter below!

05/28/2026

Founders… you’re probably not as far behind as you think. That’s not just motivation… I’m being serious.

I talk to hundreds of founders, and they all seem to think everyone else has:

- More traction
- Better investor connections
- Cleaner pitch decks
- Stronger businesses

Then we actually start digging into their business, and almost EVERY ONE of them has gaps.

Even the most impressive ones. Even the startups raising money. Even the founders who look like they have everything figured out online.

Building a startup creates this weird kind of tunnel vision where you’re spending months inside the product. You’re working INSIDE the metrics. INSIDE the stress. INSIDE the uncertainty.

Eventually, you lose perspective. Relax… you’re human, and “tunnel vision” doesn’t mean you’re doing something wrong.

Many times, founders don’t need more effort. They need outside visibility… a second eye on the issues.

What’s something you’ve been overthinking recently in your startup?

05/27/2026

Hundreds of startup assessments led me to one major realization.

The lowest scores don’t come from the weakest ideas. Usually, they come from founders building in isolation.

Founders without mentors or feedback loops. Those without investor conversation feedback or systems to spot blind spots.

It makes sense, though.

Because when you’re building everyday, it’s hard to see your own gaps. The gaps are there, you’re just too close to see them.

Most founders don’t wake up thinking that they need more proof or that their investor narrative is weak. Instead, they think they just need more meetings or better slides.

But sometimes, the issue isn’t effort. The real issue is visibility.

What’s harder for you right now? Finding investors or becoming investor ready?

Tell me in the comments.

05/27/2026

Sometimes, founders have to make an important mindset shift in fundraising.

Investors actually aren’t trying to prove your startup will succeed. They know there are many factors that can influence success and only 1/10 of their investments will be standouts.

What they are REALLY trying to prove is that the startup won’t FAIL. That’s looking at it from a very different lens.

Founders walk into meetings trying to convince investors that they have a great idea. But on the other end, investors walk into meetings wondering, “What risks still exist?” Market risk, customer risk, ex*****on risk, team risk, retention risk, business model risk… All of these influence their decision.

The strongest founders don’t avoid these questions. Instead, they attack them before the meeting ever happens.

Instead of saying, “we have a huge market…,” they show behavior.

Instead of saying, “people want this…,” they show evidence.

Instead of saying, “We think…,” they show real proof.

That’s usually the difference between fundraising failure and success.

Question: What risk do you think investors worry about most in your startup today?

05/26/2026

I’ve worked with hundreds of startup teams, and there’s one pattern that continues bothering me.

Even if founders discover their weaknesses in the fundraising game, they often have NO CLUE what to do next.

They figure out, “Okay, we need traction.” Now what? Get more users? Run ads? Cold outreach? Build new features?

Diagnosis is meaningless without a path forward.

That’s why we’re building GrowBase (https://growbase.co/). Founders don’t need another dashboard or another generic startup course.

They need a system that helps them: Find fundraising gaps → Prioritize them → Execute specific actions → and Build evidence investors actually want to see.

Knowing your weakness isn’t the hard part. The hard part is knowing exactly how to move forward when you wake up on a random Tuesday morning with a million things you COULD do, but no idea what you SHOULD do.

What’s one startup challenge you wish came with a step-by-step playbook?

05/26/2026

In startups, I think the word “traction” is totally misused.

Founders tell me “we have traction!” Then I ask them for details, and they say “We got 5,000 users” or “We have a waitlist”. Great, but these don’t mean you have TRACTION.

In reality, investors aren’t just measuring activity. They are measuring PROOF. Proof that customer behavior changed. Proof that they actually came back. Proof that customers cared enough to take action.

A founder with 500 retained users can possibly be stronger than a founder with 50,000 downloads. Because BEHAVIOR is what tells the story. Vanity metrics create noise.

When traction is based on real behavior shifts, that’s what creates investor confidence.

I broke down the traction signals investors actually pay attention to IN THE COMMENTS.

What metric are you tracking most closely right now?

05/25/2026

OUCH! The highest Investor Readiness score we saw last week was a 75.

Not 95. Not 88. Just 75…. It’s not the worst score possible, but I expected SOMEONE would break 90.

Here’s what surprised me though. I reviewed dozens of last week's assessment results, and NONE of the founders or startups came off as “weak.” Most had strong ideas and several had traction. A few even had paying customers.

But nearly every one of them had invisible gaps:

- Weak validation signals
- Investor story problems
- Traction assumptions
- Proof missing in key areas
- Hidden fundraising risks

Deals aren’t usually lost because of a lack of potential, but because founders don’t see the same gaps that investors see.

I’m curious… if you had to guess your startup’s Investor Readiness score today (out of 100)... What would you HONESTLY give yourself?

Drop your number in the comments.

capital

05/25/2026

Okay, here’s an “honesty” moment.

I spent way too much time in my career believing that founders struggled to raise money because of weak pitch decks. If the deck was a little stronger, their position would be a little stronger too. Or so I thought.

But I started seeing the same pattern over and over again. Founders would spend so much time in the process rewriting slides, changing colors, adjusting headlines, and adding more market statistics. But it still didn’t get them any closer to convincing investors.

Eventually, I realized that the deck itself wasn’t the problem. Even with 100 deck revisions, the REAL issue stayed the same – no evidence, no customer behavior, no real proof.

Here’s the reality. Investors don’t really reject startups because of presentation quality. The real reason they pass is UNRESOLVED RISK.

They aren’t wondering if your deck has the best color scheme. They are asking if customers can actually be acquired, if they’ll stay, and if there’s proof that people care enough to change their behavior.

Ultimately, you can’t “COMMUNICATE” your way out of problems that need to be solved operationally and at the foundational level.

The founders I see winning the fundraising game do something totally different. They stop focusing so much on, “how do I improve my pitch?” and start asking “what evidence am I missing?” There’s a huge difference between those approaches.

What’s one thing investors questioned that caught you off guard?

02/11/2022

Just because your business is getting sales doesn't mean you're on the path to success. If you're not tracking startup metrics, you might be closer to failure than you think.

In this video, I introduce you to PIRATE METRICS (AARRR), which details exactly how to track every metric across acquisition, activation, retention, referral, and revenue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHJ32LfZ7Os

It's impossible to know whether your startup is heading in the right direction if you aren't tracking the right metrics. Pirate metrics, or AARRR metrics, pr...