Kumar Sambhav

Every founder in B2B dreams of selling a huuuuuuge platform. But this can be a huuuuuuge mistake. The almost magnetic pull towards positioning as a platform makes sense: ✅ higher perceived value ✅ bigger ACV ✅ better customer stickiness ✅ greater investor appeal But not all multi-product companies have the makings of a true platform. Whether you position in the market as a platform or a suite of products starts way earlier in the startup journey — beginning with your product strategy. (Yes, ideally your marketing strategy & product strategy should have collaborated since day 1... but they rarely do). The normal flow goes something like this: 1) a founder creates a product that solves a problem related to a use case 2) customers come with adjacent use cases and say, "can you help us too?" 3) not wanting to turn away revenue, founders will say, "yes!" 4) each different customer segment has different needs 5) the founder starts building for all these different segments 6) suddenly, they're left with a collection of disconnected products At this moment, the founder has two choices... 1️⃣ market & sell these products individually 2️⃣ attempt to combine them into one large platform Because of the positive associations with platforms that I mentioned above, most founders will opt for the latter. And yet... a lot of time, no category really exists that makes sense of all these disparate use cases. No company is shopping for a solution that can help them incorporate their startup in Delaware, AND contribute to carbon removal projects, AND set up identity verification (among many other unrelated use cases, as with a product suite like Stripe). Most founders (who are not the Collison brothers) will embark on a multi-year "category creation" process, attempting to cover an undisciplined product strategy with marketing fluff. And yet, the founder would have been much better off keeping these products separate. If each product is doing sufficiently well (as they were/are with Stripe), the startup should (eventually) be able to fully staff each product line and achieve healthy individual P&Ls. On the flip side, some companies DO begin with the end in mind. Companies like Clari started with a simple use case (like forecasting) but then began to own the connected use cases in order to create a true one-stop shop for revenue teams. Their platform angle ACTUALLY makes sense because their ideal customers likely ARE doing forecasting, prospecting, mutual action plans, etc all at once. And so, they likely would consider Clari as a powerful consolidation tool that could replace a handful of tools to solve one big connected workflow. -------- One caveat: → there's another definition of "platform" that is widely used and refers to software that others can build their own software on top of (i.e., Shopify, Salesforce, etc.) I am referring to the other, more colloquial definition of "platform" used in product packaging.

344

57 Comments

As a founder, you get used to living in extremes. One morning you feel unstoppable - the product demo clicked, a customer said “this is a game-changer.” By evening, you’re struck with fixing some issues wondering if you’ve been delusional all along. The swing can be brutal. But here’s the insight: stability doesn’t come from the business, it comes from you. Learning to be calm when things are on fire and grounded when things are soaring - is the real superpower. Because the company will always ride waves. Your job is to be the one who doesn’t drown in them. #founder #startups #entrepreneurship #work #founderlife

79

14 Comments

Builder.ai's $450M Collapse: The AI Unicorn That Was Actually "A Guy Instead" From $1.5B valuation to bankruptcy in months. Here's what every AI founder needs to know: The Deception Chain: → 700+ human developers in India manually coded apps → "Natasha AI" was just a chatbot collecting requirements → 300% revenue inflation through fake contracts with VerSe Innovation → $60M in circular invoicing without actual services The Warning Signs Timeline: 2019: Wall Street Journal exposes AI claims 2023: CFO position vacant during critical growth 2024: Whistleblower allegations surface 2025: Viola Credit seizes $37M, bankruptcy filed across 5 countries The Brutal Math: ↳ 90% of AI startups fail within 5 years ↳ 75% engage in revenue overstatement ↳ Only 3% achieve successful exits ↳ 1,000 employees lost jobs ↳ 500+ customers lost apps and data Critical Lessons for AI Founders: → Technology Transparency: Build real AI before claiming AI-powered solutions → Financial Integrity: Hire experienced CFOs early, not during crisis → Business Model Reality: Align pricing with operational costs → Governance Strength: Experienced leadership with proper oversight The Ripple Effect: Global AI investment declined 18-45% across regions post-collapse. The hype-driven era is ending. Swipe through our Global AI Forum breakdown → Research shows the AI industry needs substance over spectacle. Builder.ai's failure wasn't market rejection it was self-inflicted through systematic deception. Key Takeaway: Hype can fuel growth, but only substance sustains it.

312

88 Comments

Ever watched your startup go from calm to chaos in 48 hours? 48 hours ago, Kartik and I thought we had steady growth figured out. Nothing crazy, just consistent users. Boy, were we wrong. Today? Our servers are literally melting 🔥 Yesterday alone, Omnara processed 30,000+ messages. Our single cloud instance? OBLITERATED. We had to emergency scale to FIVE Render instances just to stay online. The catalyst? One Hacker News post hit #2 and triggered an avalanche. Lessons from our first viral moment: → Always have a scaling plan (we definitely didn't) → Server costs can 10x overnight (painful lesson) → Community-driven growth is incredibly powerful Easily the wildest 48 hours of our startup journey. Want to see what caused all the chaos? Check out our open-source repo: https://lnkd.in/gJjjGtVc

289

39 Comments

Yesterday I got asked the most popular question: What’s the fastest way to grow a SaaS startup? Answer, just 3 simple things. 1. Raise millions dollar Before writing a single line of code. 2. Hire a 20-member team Before getting your first customer. 3. Spend on billboards and fancy branding Before revenue. And congraculations, Your startup is selected for “How to go bankrupt faster then expected." With, 1. $00000 in depth 2. 25 employees salary to pay. 3. Great branding which noone like. Just kidding, 😂 Here’s my real answer Building a SaaS startup isn’t about shortcuts. It’s not about speed. And it’s definitely not about the destination. But it’s a journey Between the founder and the market. Which begins with identifying the problem. And ends with delivering the right solution. And everything in between? It’s just market testing the founder - For his vision. - For his purpose. - For his patience to build. So, SaaS founders remember. Don't look forward to destination, Before you have start enjoying The Journey of to be. (Other wise, you will be soon get, welcome to bankruptcy club of SaaS)... 😂 P.S. Would you like to get membership in Bankruptcy club ! If so, comment down to get added.... 😂

67

3 Comments

90% of startups don’t die from competition. They die from 4 silent traps. Trap 1: No Product–Market Fit Pets.com raised $82M in the 90s and collapsed in under two years. They sold what local stores already offered. India’s quick commerce feels eerily similar. Burning crores to deliver things your kirana already sends for free. Trap 2: Vanity Spending OurBeginnings.com spent $4M on a Super Bowl ad. Their revenue that year? Less than $4M. Today, it’s like a startup with ₹20 crore revenue dropping ₹25 crore on IPL ads. Hype doesn’t pay the bills. Trap 3: Regulation Napster had 80M users before lawsuits shut it down. Closer home, ONDC is rewriting the rules for food delivery. If Swiggy or Zomato lean too hard on data-led cloud kitchens, they could face the same fate. Trap 4: Too Early Z.com tried to be YouTube in 1999, before broadband. It died. YouTube launched in 2005, when the market was ready, and thrived. Being early doesn’t make you a visionary. It makes you broke. Most founders think they’ll die fighting competitors. In reality, the killers are invisible until it’s too late. Which Indian startups do you think are closest to falling into one of these traps?

158

60 Comments

𝐆𝐓𝐌 𝐢𝐧 𝐁𝐅𝐒𝐈 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 And if you’re building in India, you quickly realize: it’s less about speed and more about understanding how things actually move. 1. There’s no single buyer. Product might love you, but Ops is risk-averse. Compliance wants a legal opinion. Tech wants infra docs. Everyone has veto power, and timelines don’t move till all green lights align. 2. Bottom-up sounds democratic, but is painfully slow. You find a champion, you do a free POC, you show result, and still nothing moves. Because decision-making sits way higher. And often, the folks you start with aren’t even in the room when final calls are made. 3. Top-down works better - if you can get in. Senior leaders care about org-wide impact and risk savings. If your pitch solves a board-level problem, you skip 6 layers of internal selling. Otherwise, you’re just another tool in the pile. 4. Security, infra, and compliance are not “later” conversations. If you’re not enterprise-ready from Day 1, most BFSI players won’t even let you inside the building. 5. Everyone’s overloaded. The risk lead is doing 3 roles. The Ops lead is managing 10 vendors. If your solution isn’t dead simple to understand - and implement - they’ll thank you and never call back. This is a market that tests your GTM clarity more than your tech Get it right, and you build deep moats. Get it wrong, and you waste a year chasing the wrong door. #AI #Founderslife

54

2 Comments