Although the number of women-owned businesses keeps growing, startups led by women continue to fall behind their male counterparts when it comes to raising venture funding.

That’s why former executive teamed up with , a veteran and marketing executive, to found , an -registered, funding portal.

The platform, also called AQi, gives women-led businesses — those that are at least 50% women-owned — a way to raise capital through , a securities framework aimed at opening up startup investing.

Launched in 2024, AQi seeks to help female entrepreneurs reach everyday investors by simplifying regulatory disclosures and business documentation. As a member of the , the platform has passed a rigorous federal vetting process and agrees to operate under strict oversight to protect investors and ensure transparency.

Crunchbase News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don’t need to give up board seats early on, and how they want to help female entrepreneurs raise and hold on to more equity.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Crunchbase News: What is your platform’s mission and what led you to launch this company?

Huyck: I spent 21 years at PayPal, where I mentored women through a partnership with the . It was there I learned about the $5 trillion gap in global GDP resulting from women entrepreneurs lacking access to capital.

In the U.S., while women start nearly half of all businesses, they receive only 2% of venture capital and less than 20% of small business loans. I wanted to build an innovative system to solve this. I considered starting a fund, but many already exist. Instead, I wanted to create a crowdfunding platform exclusively for women, providing an additional avenue to raise money. The economic irony is that women entrepreneurs earn 78 cents for every dollar invested, compared to 31 cents for men. It simply didn’t make sense, and I wanted to build a system that truly enables women.

Konwinski: To add to that, we are a very distinct entity. We are not a broker-dealer; we are an SEC-registered and FINRA-member crowdfunding platform. Following the 2012 JOBS Act, Reg CF (Regulation Crowdfunding) was created to allow nonaccredited investors to invest in private, early-stage companies. There are about 50 active platforms in the U.S., but we are the only one founded by women, owned by women, and exclusively serving women-owned businesses.

Beyond just providing a neutral platform, we act as a “quarterback.” We help entrepreneurs navigate the process — whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” — by providing access to accountants, lawyers and marketing firms. We are creating a community where women can get the resources they need to build their businesses without competing for attention in male-dominated tech circles.

How does your platform differ from sites like ?

Konwinski: Kickstarter and are for charitable gifting. We are not asking for charity; we are facilitating investments. We are on par with platforms like or , but our fee structure is more founder-friendly. On platforms like Kickstarter, you might only keep about 60% of the funds raised. Our success fee is only 6.5%. When investors invest in these businesses, they receive equity in return. Furthermore, there is a clear social return: Studies show that for every dollar a woman earns in her business, she creates significant economic benefit for her community and family.

How many businesses have you helped raise capital for thus far?

Huyck: We spent our first year building the technology and another six months on the rigorous SEC and FINRA registration process. We believe this high level of regulation is critical to ensuring investor trust. We currently have a pipeline of 20 businesses. We closed our first campaign earlier this month and have two more launching in the coming weeks.

Since Reg CF has a $5 million cap per 12-month period, how do you position yourselves for high-growth startups? And do you view this as a permanent alternative to traditional venture capital, or a bridge?

Huyck: I don’t see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on “pattern matching,” where investors look for people and paths that resemble previous successes. Until that breaks, women founders face significant barriers. Crowdfunding is a vital, viable alternative.

Konwinski: I would challenge the notion that $5 million isn’t enough. For many of the companies we work with, that is a strong runway for 18 to 24 months. Because Reg CF allows for rolling raises, a company can raise up to $5 million every 12 months. We see companies use this to reach a significant milestone and then potentially pursue a Series A later. We aren’t trying to be a broker-dealer for Series A deals. We are here for those who get “ghosted” by VCs or don’t want to leverage their homes to secure an SBA loan.

Does a distributed ownership structure with many unaccredited investors create a “messy” cap table that scares off traditional VCs?

Huyck: We utilize special-purpose vehicles. This consolidates all Reg CF investors into a single line item on the company’s cap table, often with a lead investor managing voting rights. This keeps the cap table clean.

Konwinski: Additionally, one of the greatest benefits of our model is that founders retain autonomy. VCs often demand board seats, veto rights and up to 20% equity. With us, founders usually give up only 5%-10% equity, allowing them to maintain control of the company they built from the ground up.

Without the pressure of a VC board, how do you help founders maintain operational discipline? And what do exit horizons look like?

Konwinski: Women entrepreneurs are natural “hustlers” who are inherently self-motivated. They are also excellent at collaborating and leveraging their community rather than operating with ego. Many of the founders we work with are Gen X, balancing business with family, and they have developed an incredible ability to multitask and execute.

Huyck: We also encourage founders to bring on advisers rather than giving up board seats too early. As for exit strategies, many women founders are mission-driven and haven’t historically been forced to consider an exit. We provide the guidance to help them think through those horizons — whether that’s acquisition or long-term growth — so they can make informed decisions rather than being forced into a timeline by traditional VC pressure.

Finally, how does your platform compare to other equity crowdfunding sites like Wefunder?

Konwinski: It is apples-to-apples in terms of our SEC/FINRA licensing. Where we differ is our value proposition: we provide a “concierge” service. On many larger platforms, you are processed through an AI-driven, automated checklist. We are building relationships, talking to our founders, and acting as their partner throughout the process.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• How Female Founders Can Access Capital In A Tight VC Funding Market
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here’s How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

“I recognized both the massive potential AI brought to the tax world, as well as the risks to firms and clients by making mistakes and hallucinations,” he told Crunchbase News.

The accounting industry has historically been slow to adopt new technologies. As of today, the majority of small to mid-sized accounting firms — which make up 90% of the market — remain stuck in a cycle of manual data entry.

Addressing both the opportunities — and risks — that came with advances in AI, Haase started building , a tax prep automation startup, on the side in 2023. Rather than targeting the self-prep market, like does, or the mega-enterprise firms that can afford $15,000-per-return software, Juno was built for the underserved SMB accounting firm.

“We continuously ‘dog fed’ the early Juno prototypes into the firm to see what worked best, what slowed things down, and to make it the most efficient tax preparation platform as possible,” Haase said.

It took about a year and a half just to build integrations. “We had to do a bunch of hacky things to be able to work with the existing tax software,” he explained, “because your typical tax software is actually around 15 to 20 years old and they don’t have public APIs.”

By 2024, Juno had launched a co-pilot. Then, in July 2025, it had a tax product. The startup began onboarding other tax firms, growing to nearly 500 customers over the past year. Last year, Haase sold his accounting firm to focus on growing Juno full-time.

Today, he’s announcing that San Diego-based Juno has raised $12 million in a seed funding round led by , including participation from and .

AI to help humans ‘be the advisers they were trained to be’

What makes Juno different from others in the market, Haase believes, is that it operates on the premise that, at least for the foreseeable future, human tax preparers should be the ones driving the tax-return preparation process.

“A business or high-net-worth tax return requires hundreds of calculations, edge cases, deductions and more,” said Haase, who holds an MBA from . “AI simply can’t do that with the 100% accuracy required not to get audited or charged with tax fraud.”

Describing much of the manual work that most accountants must perform to complete returns as extremely tedious, Haase acknowledges that it’s also very easy for accountants to make mistakes that could prove very costly.

“In school, if you get a 93, an A, you get all the credits,” he said. “But on a tax return, if you have a 99%, you fail, and your client could pay the price in penalties.”

In a nutshell, Juno acts as the bridge between a client’s raw documents and the accountant’s filing software. It performs tasks like pulling data from IRS forms and even unstructured documents, such as business financial statements. Overall, it automates 90% of data entry across more than 90 document types while also flagging prior-year changes and inconsistencies for human validation.

The result is that a process that typically takes a human two to three hours is shrunk down to seven to 10 minutes, Haase estimates.

“We do 95% of a tax return in minutes, leaving the accountant to handle the strategic human decisions — the parts that actually save the client money,” he said.

While he declined to reveal hard revenue figures, Haase said that in just eight months, Juno grew to mid-seven-figure annual recurring revenue.

The startup sells on a per-return basis, starting around $45, dropping to the low $30s for high-volume firms.

‘s recent move into consumer taxes and OpenAI’s hiring of a tax director show that the bigger players are eyeing the tax market. But Haase doesn’t feel threatened.

“High-wealth individuals want assurance. If you’re paying $40,000 in taxes, you don’t want to ‘cross your fingers with a chatbot,” he said. “You want a human to talk to, someone who understands the context of your life.”

Juno isn’t trying to replace accountants, he added.

“It’s trying to rescue them from the data-entry basement so they can actually be the advisers they were trained to be,” Haase said.

The startup plans to roll out business returns soon, a move that Haase expects will significantly scale its customer base.

‘A huge, obvious pain point’

, co-founder and managing director of Bonfire Ventures, said he was drawn to invest in Juno because he believes the company is going after “a huge, obvious pain point in a category that hasn’t been meaningfully modernized in a long time.”

“The workflow pain is real, the labor dynamics make the timing right, and Dave brought exactly the kind of founder-market fit you hope to see,” Andelman told Crunchbase News via email. “He lived this problem before he built the company. That always matters.”

The investor believes that tax prep is a category where trust is crucial to product success.

“If you’re going to bring AI into that workflow, it has to be transparent, auditable, and built with a human in the loop,” Andelman added. “That’s what Juno understood early, and I think that’s a big part of why the product is resonating.”

Fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI to traditionally manual or burdensome processes, have benefited from increased investment in recent quarters. Total global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per Crunchbase . That’s a more than 29% increase from 2024’s total of $41.6 billion raised.

Related Crunchbase query:

Illustration:

Founders spend a lot of time thinking about capital. They model burn carefully. They negotiate valuation. They weigh hiring plans against runway.

But many startups overlook a source of capital that doesn’t require dilution at all: tax credits. And to be clear, this isn’t typically because a business doesn’t qualify. It’s because no one builds a process to identify and capture these credits consistently.

Most startups are aware of at least one major opportunity, and that’s the Research & Development tax credit. But fewer founders take a broader look at business decisions throughout the year and how many of those may lead to tax credit opportunities. Hiring decisions, benefit structures, accessibility upgrades, facility investments and certain energy projects all can carry incentives.

So, the issue isn’t eligibility. It’s ownership, timing and consistency.

In early-stage companies, finance teams are lean. Credits often get discussed once a year during tax preparation. However, by that point, it can be too late. The required elections may have been missed, documentation may not support a claim, or deadlines may have passed.

When that happens, the opportunity is gone. We see this pattern frequently in examples such as:

• A company hires several employees who may have qualified for a hiring credit, but no screening process was in place at onboarding.
• A retirement plan is launched without evaluating available startup or employer contribution credits.
• Paid leave policies are expanded without reviewing whether a federal credit applies.
• A facility upgrade is completed without considering whether accessibility- or energy-related incentives were available before the project was placed in service.

None of the above decisions are inherently wrong, but they are incomplete.

Coordinating credits

Tax credits don’t appear automatically because money was spent. Taking advantage requires planning, including specific documentation, elections and coordination between departments. Without that coordination, even well-managed startups leave savings unclaimed.

More-mature companies approach this differently.

Instead of waiting until year-end to ask, “Did we qualify for anything?” established organizations build periodic reviews into their operating cadence.

• Hiring processes include the necessary steps to preserve potential credits.
• Engineering teams track qualifying activities as projects progress.
• Finance evaluates larger operational investments before contracts are finalized.

This doesn’t mean turning every department into tax specialists. It requires clarity around who’s responsible for asking the question early enough, and it ideally includes expert guidance and support to get it right.

It’s helpful to think about this as an evolution.

At a reactive stage — which is most startups — credits are evaluated only when the tax return is being prepared. At a more structured stage, the company reviews credit opportunities quarterly and aligns documentation throughout the year. And in a strategic stage, leadership fully understands how certain business decisions may create incentives and ensures the right processes are in place before those decisions are implemented.

Multiple credits add up

The accumulated financial impact can be meaningful. While a single credit isn’t likely to transform a business, multiple credits across hiring, development and benefits can offset real costs. For companies focused on extending runway without raising additional capital, those offsets matter.

There’s also a governance component.

Investors and buyers increasingly review operational controls during diligence. A startup that has evaluated available credits and maintained documentation signals discipline. A company that hasn’t considered them at all may invite additional questions (especially if elections were missed or filings need to be amended).

None of this is to suggest credits should drive a founder’s core strategy. Product development, revenue growth and customer demand remain the priority. But when companies are already investing in innovation, hiring and infrastructure, it makes sense to evaluate whether part of that investment can be recovered.

The first step is simple: Get the full picture before making any decisions. In many cases, that includes working with an adviser who understands how credits apply to growing businesses.

Then, assign ownership. Determine who is responsible for reviewing credit opportunities throughout the year. Coordinate among departments like finance, HR and operations before major decisions are finalized. Make documentation part of the process rather than a reconstruction exercise at the end of the year.

Being proactive

Again, tax credits are not automatic. They’re for those who plan the entire year.

Startups looking to be more proactive should keep credits like the R&D in mind for its potentially meaningful offsets when investing in product or technical improvements. But don’t stop there.

If considering structured paid leave, review the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, which can apply when policies meet specific requirements. Businesses reviewing facility improvements may qualify for the Disabled Access Credit. While credits such as these don’t apply to every company, they’re common enough to demand attention before decisions are finalized — even seemingly unrelated ones.

Startups focused on capital efficiency will see this planning make a measurable difference over time.

is a tax supervisor specializing in research and development tax credits at . He holds a master of science in accounting from and has experience across both public and private sectors. Garba has spent several years advising companies on R&D tax credits, helping startups and growth-stage businesses navigate complex tax regulations and maximize available incentives.

Related reading:

• Sales And Use Tax: What Every High-Growth Startup Should Know About Compliance
• How Your Startup Can Take Advantage Of The R&D Tax Credit

Illustration:

His career, which spans his time as founder of , DFJ and thehas also included high-profile missteps — most notably — underscoring the risk and volatility that goes along with making bold wagers.

A frequent personality on TV and social media, Draper is also known as a relentless champion for decentralized technology and a leading voice for bitcoin and blockchain. In 2024, he launched Draper TV, a media network, where he continues to host a global pitch competition called “Meet the Drapers.” The series, which is now entering its ninth season, invites viewers at home to invest alongside him in innovative startups.

Draper exudes an almost schoolboy-like enthusiasm and passion when it comes to startups, technology, bitcoin and innovation. I recently spoke with him — while he was sporting his favorite purple and gold bitcoin tie — to get his thoughts on everything from his use of digital twins, how the current AI boom compares to previous cycles, and how he wishes policymakers approached tech regulation.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

Crunchbase News: What have you been up to lately? What’s occupying your time?

Draper: We are doing something interesting with — we’re joining them for something called America’s Startup. We’re going to do a business plan competition around the country for college students. It kind of dovetails into “Meet the Drapers.” is one of our sponsors, so we’re thinking about doing shows in “small bites” for them.

We’re also doing a lot with . This is the year we turn our distribution global. We had a reach of 300 million people, with 10 million seeing each episode, but we’re focusing on building the YouTube audience now because you get more control and understand the audience better.

Then there is . We’re building relationships with various countries that send their top students or potential entrepreneurs to us. People call it a “pre-accelerator,” but I call it a “human accelerator.” We accelerate the people —��they have to accelerate their own business. We take them through very difficult challenges: a three-day hackathon and survival training with the Navy SEALs, special forces and the . Then they have a two-minute presentation to VCs.

You’re using “digital twins.” How are you actually deploying AI in your daily operations?

Yes, they are helping. They answer questions from entrepreneurs. On our site, they can talk with me or my digital twin, or they can send in a deck.

My team has built these in a few different ways. One is a hologram by Proto at Draper University. On our website, we have a twin created by Randy Adams that can talk to entrepreneurs. We even have an AI — built by an intern — that evaluates pitch decks and “spits out” feedback.

Beyond that, we use a tool called Seer that uses video to detect facial expressions; it can determine if an entrepreneur is passionate, lying or genuinely interesting. We’re also using a voice analysis tool — similar to how reportedly hires people based on specific “voice models” that match their desired personality types — to identify the “entrepreneurial voice.”

What do you think feels fundamentally different about the cycle that we’re in right now compared to previous ones?

Weirdly, I don’t see a big difference. It’s as big as the dot-com boom, maybe bigger. I call it the Draper iS curve. Every industry goes through this. There is a little “i” — that’s the hype. It comes to a point (the dot on the i), and then it comes down because people are disenchanted. It sits there while engineers are hard at work, and then it grows into a big “S” that goes way bigger than the top of the i.

It happened with the internet: 1999 was the climb, 2000 was the top, and 2001 was the crash. From 2001 to 2008, it grew into a huge boom. It’s happening with bitcoin now. And AI is right at the “dot” on the i or coming down off it. People are disenchanted because of energy issues, but it will eventually be bigger than anyone imagined, especially in robotics.

What’s the trend that you think right now might be a little bit overhyped? And what’s something that’s underestimated?

The quick answer is AI is overhyped, but I don’t believe that. Under-noticed is that Big Pharma would have you believe chemotherapies are the most important thing — that you create a molecule and use it forever, and then need another molecule for the side effects. We’re moving from chemotherapies to bio-cures: stem cells, cloning and genetic engineering.

Also, companies we used to call “space and transportation” are now called dual-use. The and governments are buying in because they realize they are way behind the commercial sector. And bitcoin is in that period where “nobody cares,” but it’s slowly taking over.

Do you see bitcoin actually replacing the dollar for daily use?

For now, nobody wants to spend it because they think it will be worth more. But eventually, retailers will say, “We only take bitcoin.” If that happens, there will be a run on the dollar.

People worry about quantum computing hacking bitcoin, but they’ll hack the banks first — it’s way easier. I’d be more concerned about money in a bank than on a bitcoin ledger. Bitcoin also keeps perfect records; we wouldn’t need 85,000 agents because the blockchain can just pay whoever needs to be paid.

Where do you think the biggest potential for returns in the AI space are? Tooling, vertical AI, AI-native companies?

One or two general AI companies will win big and become “hungry giants,” the way was for software or bitcoin is for tech applications. A lot of people working around the edges might just be acquired by the AGI. We’ve funded companies doing vertical AI: AI for patents, AI for science.

But remember, the big winners at the start of the internet were , and , and none of them ended up being a big part of the internet later. We don’t know who will rise from the ashes yet.

If you could implement one policy to accelerate innovation, what would that policy be?

Don’t regulate in anticipation of fearful outcomes. Regulate after something bad happens. Otherwise, you put a dark cloud over every innovator. I would also sunset laws. The ’33 and ’40 Acts are just keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. We should create a free market in education, too — let the best schools thrive and the worst die.

Some would argue in the case of bitcoin, we were slow to regulate. Do you disagree?

The U.S. just decided everything was a security and made it illegal. That’s why innovators are geofencing the U.S. to protect themselves from the ‘s long arms. Countries like El Salvador, Japan, Dubai and Abu Dhabi are rocking because they say “do it.”

I say decentralize everything. The guy at the tiller of the ship knows better than the general in Washington, D.C. You don’t want a president telling you how to raise your kids; you’ll do a better job than they will.

What’s the trait you now prioritize in founders that you didn’t a decade ago?

A love for the customer. It has to be an obsession. That love becomes a viral effect; customers love the product so much they tell everyone. People will naturally follow a leader who is that obsessed with their customer.

Illustration:

With the latest Series B raise, Austin-based Ownwell says it has now raised $54 million in total equity funding since its 2020 inception. and co-led its latest round, which included participation from , , , , and . provided the $20 million in debt financing.

CEO said he and CTO started Ownwell to “democratize access to the tools and resources real estate experts use to build wealth and financial freedom.”

As a former asset manager, Pace said he worked for some of the wealthiest families and individuals in the world on the investment management side.

“I saw firsthand how billionaires manage their 28 homes and their apartment complexes and their retail across the country, and how everything is perfectly optimized,” he told Crunchbase News in an interview. “And so we built software for the purpose of providing tools for everyone, regardless of the value of their asset.”

Ownwell launched for customers in 2021, initially handling the property-tax appeal process. Pace said its tech automates “complex steps and analyzes millions of local records” to surface the strongest case to present to local municipalities to argue for a lower home assessment and, in turn, a lower property tax bill.

“We market to people that are typically very underserved,” Pace said. “That law firm down the street doesn’t want to help a $200,000 home [owner] appeal their property taxes. They want the skyscraper.”

Pace claims that Ownwell is the only multistate company of its kind. It currently operates with local tax consultants in about a dozen states: Texas, New York, Florida, California, Illinois, Georgia, Washington, Maryland, Colorado, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Part of the newly raised capital will go toward expanding to other markets, and “going deeper” into existing markets, he said.

A million appeals

Ownwell doesn’t charge customers unless it lowers their tax bill. Depending on the market, its contingency fee is 25% to 35% of the savings it earns for property owners. (The fee depends on its cost to operate in that market.)

“The majority of homeowners do not appeal or even think to appeal, so bringing consistent awareness to this for the average homeowner is the biggest challenge,” Pace said.

Recently, the company surpassed more than 1 million appeals processed, and says it has saved its customers over $400 million in property taxes.

Over the years, Ownwell has expanded its offering to include helping people get property exemptions, compare insurance providers and explore refinancing options. The company is also integrated with , and has partnerships with and . Ownwell gets commissions from carriers or lenders that it refers homeowners to, similar to ’s model, Pace said.

The startup also markets a nationwide property tax packet to help people outside of the 12 states in which it is operating to file their own appeals.

“We’re taking the internal data that we’ve collected over the past six years and over hundreds of thousands of appeals across the country, and figuring out what wins,” Pace told Crunchbase News. “We’re prompting AI tooling with all this proprietary data that we have to give customers a useful packet that basically is the ultimate ‘how to appeal’ in markets that we are not in yet.”

Ownwell has over 500,000 customers, including residential and commercial property owners throughout the country, in addition to homeowners. Since inception, Ownwell has maintained an annual growth rate of over 100% every year, according to Pace. In 2025, it grew customers by over 180%. Pace said the company is currently profitable (both cash flow and net income positive) but “is prioritizing growth.”

A ‘customer-obsessed experience in a much larger market’

In 2025, global real estate-related startups pulled in about $10.5 billion in seed- through growth-stage financing, per Crunchbase . That’s up about 17% from $9 billion in 2024.

For its part, Ownwell is not sharing its current valuation, with Pace saying only that it “has grown significantly from round to round.” Presently, it has 108 employees.

, managing partner at Left Lane Capital, which led Ownwell’s Series A round, notes that he served on Truebill’s board during its $1.5 billion acquisition by . “I’ve seen firsthand that helping consumers save money never goes out of style,” he wrote via email.

Ownwell, in Pujji’s view, has built a “customer-obsessed experience in a much larger market.”

“With a tech-enabled agentic product built for complex, local markets, “the team has achieved something you rarely see: tripling customers served annually at scale.”

In a blog post, Intuit Ventures said it was impressed with Pace’s vision “to help millions of homeowners and save money for the consumers who need it most.”

The firm added: “We’re proud to support the Ownwell team as they continue to deliver a product that creates holistic, money-saving experiences for consumers.”

Related Crunchbase queries:

Related reading:

• Sector Snapshot: Real Estate Tech Funding Sees Slight Rebound, But Still Far Lower Than Peak Years

Illustration:

For companies in rapid growth mode, sales and use tax compliance tends to sit low on the priority list. And then, it suddenly matters.

But as companies scale across states and/or add new revenue streams, tax exposure also can quietly expand in the background. The U.S. has more than 12,000 distinct sales tax jurisdictions, and each has its own rules and rates. So, even a small misstep can snowball into significant penalties or create challenges during due diligence.

At the most basic level, sales tax is what a business collects from customers on taxable goods or services. Use tax applies when a company purchases taxable items and no sales tax was charged (which commonly occurs from an out-of-state vendor).

For example, if a startup based in California orders $10,000 of equipment from an Oregon supplier, the business likely owes use tax to California. The point of the system is to keep local and remote sellers on equal footing.

However, complexity arises because rules differ dramatically by state and industry. For founders, that complexity becomes more than a compliance nuisance — it’s a business risk. Noncompliance can delay funding, lower valuation and, in some cases, create personal liability.

Legally, nexus is the connection that requires a company to collect and remit sales tax in a state. And historically, this required physical presence such as an office, a warehouse, or an employee. But after the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., states have imposed obligations based solely on economic nexus, meaning a certain level of sales or transactions within the state.

Most states set the threshold at $100,000 in annual sales. So, even fully remote SaaS or e-commerce companies may trigger nexus without realizing it. And today, more than 45 states enforce economic nexus standards, making it critical for startups to regularly review where their activity might create obligations.

Mapping your tax liability

A quarterly “nexus map” can help track thresholds and avoid surprises.

But it gets tricky because not everything a company sells is taxable.

Tangible goods are almost always taxable. However, digital products like software as a service vary: some states tax them fully, others exempt them, and a few tax only certain components and may do so at varying rates.

Services are often exempt, but are also increasingly being taxed as states broaden their bases to capture digital and professional offerings. Understanding the nuance isn’t just an accounting detail. It’s critical to ensure accurate pricing and revenue forecasting.

Further, marketplace facilitator laws mean that platforms such as or often collect and remit sales tax on behalf of third-party sellers.

Startups selling directly through their own website or issuing invoices must manage those obligations themselves — even marketplace sales could require a business to register and file in a state. Keeping marketplace and direct sales segmented in your accounting system avoids double taxation or missed remittances.

It’s worth noting that a big area that can trigger an audit is tax due on nontaxed purchases. Another is bundling a nontaxable service with a taxable product/service, which is an area sees come up frequently with our clients.

Additional detail on overlooked areas, which can create exposure:

• Shipping and handling: Taxable in some states if bundled as part of the sale and exempt if listed separately.
• B2B sales: Typically exempt if the buyer provides a resale or exemption certificate (missing or invalid certificates are a common audit trigger).

Do your diligence before due diligence

Sales and use tax issues don’t just surface in audits. They also appear in diligence.

Buyers and investors frequently uncover unpaid liabilities, and this can lead to escrow holds or valuation adjustments. By contrast, clean compliance records demonstrate operational maturity and readiness to scale. Penalties, back taxes and interest are painful enough, but once a state initiates an audit, it’s often too late to access Voluntary Disclosure Agreements. Proactive compliance is the only safe route.

So, sales and use tax may feel like a back-office issue. But for high-growth companies, it’s much more than that. It’s strategic. Founders and finance teams can stay ahead by engaging with a tax expert. In addition, consider:

• Mapping nexus exposure across states and updating this quarterly;
• Reviewing product and service taxability regularly;
• Tracking and validating exemption certificates; and
• Automating compliance through reliable software tools.

A thoughtful sales and use tax strategy preserves your runway, builds investor trust and prevents costly distractions down the road.

is ‘s indirect tax and compliance director. She has 25 years of industry and tax consulting experience. Since joining Burkland, she has significantly developed and expanded this practice area. Her substantial tax expertise spans sales/use/gross receipts, excise, and property tax, gained through various roles in public and private industry, and consulting — progressing from tax accountant to director. Her knowledge of tax law across diverse industries has positively influenced the key financial performance of the businesses she has served.

Illustration:

According to Judge James Boasberg, Meta did not break antitrust law when it bought in 2012 and in 2014. In other words, one of the largest and most influential companies on earth did nothing wrong when it scooped up two rising competitors that millions of people were flocking to.

If that sounds like a strange conclusion, that’s because it is. The ruling says Meta is not a monopoly. If that is true, we might need a new dictionary.

The entire decision rests on the idea that Meta faces plenty of competition. The judge pointed to and as proof that Facebook and Instagram are not all-powerful. This is a little like arguing that cannot dominate retail because people also buy things at the local farmers’ market. Yes, TikTok exists. That does not mean Meta is some scrappy underdog.

Looking at the market through a funhouse mirror

The government argued that Meta dominates personal social networking. That is the space where people connect with friends and family, share photos, send messages and scroll through updates from the people they know. This is the core of what Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp do.

Meta pushed back by reframing the market so broadly that almost anything counted as competition. If a platform lets you view videos or communicate in some way, Meta argued that it belongs in the same category. Suddenly YouTube, , , and pretty much anything with a login became fair game.

The judge accepted this view. Once the market was stretched to that size, it became almost impossible to say Meta held a monopoly. Which was exactly the point.

The evidence told a very different story

What makes this ruling more frustrating is what the evidence showed. Meta’s internal messages made it clear the company saw Instagram and WhatsApp as real threats. Executives said so directly. They worried that these smaller platforms could grow fast and compete for the same users. They did not want to risk it.

So Meta did what a company with almost unlimited resources does. It bought them.

This is a simple narrative. A giant company saw emerging rivals. It acquired them before they got too big. The result was a clear reduction in competition. Yet the court rejected that exact story and replaced it with something much hazier.

Our antitrust system is not built for companies this large

The ruling also reveals a deeper problem. To win the case, the government had to prove something impossible to prove. It needed to show that Instagram and WhatsApp would have become massive competitors if Meta had not bought them.

That is like asking someone to prove what their life would have looked like if they had moved to a different city 10 years ago. You can guess. You cannot prove it.

Antitrust law was written for a different era. Today’s tech giants move faster than regulators ever can. By the time the government files a case, the market has already shifted again. Meanwhile, companies like Meta keep growing and keep folding more products into their ecosystem.

This ruling rewards that speed. It tells large companies that if they acquire rivals early enough, while things are still developing, regulators will never be able to catch up.

The future of competition just got harder

The timing could not be worse. Meta is now pushing into artificial intelligence in ways that raise even bigger questions about power and control. The company owns the world’s largest social networks. It owns the messaging platforms used by billions of people. Now it is feeding all of that data into its next generation of AI tools.

If we cannot define a monopoly in the social media world, how will we define one in the AI world? How will we protect competition when the next big platforms do not even resemble the ones we use today?

The judge’s ruling may stand on firm legal ground, but it does not reflect how people actually live online. When most of your social life, communication and digital identity flow through one company, that company has enormous power. And once it buys up its rivals, it has even more.

This decision tells us that our system is struggling to recognize what dominance looks like in the modern internet. If we cannot see Meta as a monopoly, we have officially lost the thread.

is the chief strategy officer for. He holds a law degree and has taught entrepreneurship at and the, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. His writing has been featured in,,,,,,, and many other publications. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize .

Related reading:

• Regulation As Alpha: Why The Smartest Startups Now Build Legal Strategy Into Their DNA
• Startups And The Shutdown: When Your Primary Customer Folds Overnight
• Google’s Big Day In Court Wasn’t That Big

Illustration:

The U.S. government is the client for thousands of young companies, especially those in defense tech, climate tech, biotech and AI. A pilot program, an grant, an loan guarantee — these aren’t just contracts. They’re lifelines that validate your product, unlock venture funding and keep the team paid.

But contracts don’t mean much without appropriations. If the agency you’re working with doesn’t have authority to spend, the invoices sit in limbo. The most dangerous thing about a shutdown is that startups can do everything right — sign the deal, hit the milestones, file the paperwork — and still get left holding the bag.

That plays out in the one metric founders obsess over: runway. Most early-stage startups don’t have a year of cash just sitting there. If a big federal payment is frozen, it’s not just an accounting hiccup. It can cut months off survival time. Payroll suddenly looks dicey, milestones start slipping and investors get jumpy.

One defense tech founder told me, “We can survive a late-paying Fortune 500 client. We can’t survive a silent Pentagon.”

That’s the difference: Corporate clients might be slow, but they don’t disappear overnight because Congress got stuck in neutral.

Government as gatekeeper

And this isn’t just about cash flow. The government is also a gatekeeper. Need an green light for your trial? Need the to guarantee your loan? Need the to review your filing? If staff are furloughed, those processes stall. That delay ripples.

A biotech waiting on an FDA sign-off can lose an entire quarter of momentum. A climate startup waiting on a loan guarantee can watch investors walk. A fintech can’t move forward with an unanswered SEC question. In the startup world, where speed is survival, three months of dead air can be terminal.

If this all sounds familiar, that’s because it is. . Startups that leaned heavily on federal programs got walloped. A few pulled through by grabbing bridge financing or deferring expenses, but a lot of promising young companies simply ran out of oxygen. The ones that survived weren’t necessarily the best products — they were the ones whose founders had already gamed out what a shutdown meant for their business.

That’s the reality investors are grilling founders on right now. If you’re pitching in October 2025, you’re going to get one question before anyone cares about your TAM or your roadmap: “How exposed are you to the shutdown?”

Hand-waving won’t cut it. VCs want to see the actual scenarios: What happens to your cash if this drags on one month, three months, six months? How much revenue is locked up in frozen contracts? Do you have any commercial customers or international deals to balance it out?

A lot of valuations in defense and climate tech are going to get haircuts not because the ideas aren’t good, but because the revenue dependency is too concentrated in Washington, D.C.

What startup founders can do

So what should founders do?

First, over-communicate. Investors, employees and partners would much rather hear you acknowledge the risk than pretend everything’s fine.

Second, conserve cash. Delay nonessential spending, stretch out hiring, get creative on expenses.

Third, read your contracts carefully. Too many startups assume a signed agreement means money in the bank. It doesn’t if appropriations dry up. Know whether you can legally pause performance or if you’re on the hook to keep delivering with no payments coming in.

And fourth, diversify where you can, even if it feels inefficient. The startups with at least some commercial or international revenue are the ones with a cushion when Washington freezes.

Shutdowns also put the spotlight on something founders don’t like to think about: political risk. It’s not just noise on . It’s as real as supply chain delays or product-market fit.��

If shutdowns become a near-annual bargaining chip, the whole pitch about the government being a “stable anchor customer” starts to crumble. For , a shutdown is an inconvenience. For a 12-person startup in Arlington, it’s life or death. And if startups start backing away from government deals because they can’t stomach the uncertainty, that’s bad for everyone — especially the government, which needs their innovation in defense, AI and climate more than ever.

This is where resilience comes in. A shutdown isn’t a founder’s fault, but surviving one is part of the job. The smart teams are treating this as both a financial and legal challenge. They’re cutting burn, talking openly with investors, stress-testing scenarios, and yes, even calling lawyers about whether they can file declaratory judgments or push agencies for clarity. None of that is fun, but it’s better than waiting around and hoping Congress figures it out.

The bottom line is simple: political risk is business risk. When your primary customer folds overnight, it doesn’t matter how brilliant your tech is or how slick your deck looks. What matters is whether you’ve built a company resilient enough to survive the silence until Washington switches back on.

For now, the shutdown is only days old. Courts are still open, agencies are quiet, and founders are refreshing their bank dashboards like always. But the lesson is already obvious. Startups can’t afford to treat shutdowns as background noise anymore. They’re a line item in your financial model, a question in every term sheet, and a reality you have to plan around. If you don’t, the government might not be the only thing shutting down this fall.

�� is the chief strategy officer for. He holds a law degree and has taught entrepreneurship at and the, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. His writing has been featured in,,,,,,, and many other publications. He was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize .

Illustration:

In 2024, slightly less than half of planned, highlighting significant disruptions in the startup ecosystem due to market volatility and economic uncertainty.

Traditionally, IPOs have been pivotal exit strategies for venture-backed companies, enabling them to access liquidity and fuel growth. However, current market conditions have challenged their reliability, forcing many companies to reevaluate their paths to public markets. That’s why I’d like to delve into why companies are facing these challenges, but also how to adapt and explore alternative strategies.

Navigating delayed IPOs

Delayed IPOs significantly impact businesses, investors and employees. Market volatility, economic downturns and geopolitical tensions all create uncertainty, prompting companies to reconsider IPO timing and compressing the IPO window.

also deter IPO launches, as market corrections and heightened investor caution lead to diminished startup valuations. Regulatory scrutiny, with its evolving standards and stringent reporting requirements, adds another layer of complexity. Lastly, investor sentiment, whether bullish or pessimistic, directly influences IPO activity.

Stakeholders across the spectrum feel the pinch of delayed IPOs. Late-stage startups face funding shortfalls, while venture capital firms encounter extended timelines for their exits, complicating future fundraising.

Employees face consequences as well, as delayed IPOs affect stock option values, which are often central to their compensation packages.

Emerging risk profiles: valuation and financial risks

Delayed IPOs create a cascade of interconnected risks for startups. One of the primary concerns is valuation risk, where companies unable to meet their target IPO valuations may be forced into accepting down rounds. A down round means new financing occurs at a lower valuation than previous funding rounds, which can severely damage investor confidence.

This problem is compounded by a lack of liquidity; with IPOs delayed, investors face prolonged illiquidity, limiting their ability to capitalize on investment gains. This reduced liquidity strains investor patience and can pressure venture capitalists to seek alternative exit strategies, sometimes leading to hastened decisions.

Unfortunately, illiquidity also leads to significant financial risks. Startups reliant on IPO proceeds often face funding shortfalls and increasingly turn to debt financing. While this approach can temporarily ease cash flow pressures, it heightens financial vulnerability by increasing leverage and interest obligations, which may limit a company’s financial flexibility in the long term.

Moreover, these conditions can expose weaknesses in startups with unsustainable business models. Companies heavily dependent on continuous external funding may find their operational weaknesses starkly exposed when the IPO route is closed, risking insolvency or forced mergers and acquisitions at unfavorable terms without rapid adjustments.

IPO alternatives and risk management solutions

In this challenging environment, despite several companies kicking off roadshows, alternative exit strategies are becoming essential for startups. Mergers and acquisitions have gained prominence, with companies strategically aligning with larger entities to benefit from synergies, immediate financial returns and reduced market uncertainty.

Beyond M&A, other options have also emerged as viable paths to liquidity. For example, a direct listing allows a company to go public without issuing new shares, providing liquidity to existing shareholders without the typical IPO fanfare. Private equity buyouts also offer an by allowing a private equity firm to acquire a controlling stake in the company, providing an immediate exit for founders and investors.

Robust risk management solutions are also critical. Startups can proactively manage cash flow and anticipate funding shortfalls through accurate financial planning and forecasting. Streamlining operations, optimizing resource allocation and controlling costs can strengthen financial resilience, while detailed contingency plans ensure agility.

Additionally, comprehensive insurance solutions, such as directors and officers and errors and omissions coverage, protect startups and their leadership from financial and legal liabilities, maintaining stakeholder confidence amid uncertainty.

Best practices to avoid legal pitfalls

Directors and officers have fiduciary duties, which legally oblige them to prioritize the best interests of the company and its shareholders, ensuring responsible decision-making. Simply put, accuracy and transparency are crucial.

Regulatory compliance must be a priority. Failure to adhere to these regulations can result in significant legal and financial repercussions, undermining investor confidence and potentially jeopardizing the company’s future viability.

Companies should prioritize long-term sustainability and value creation, resisting pressures for short-term gains. By adopting these best practices, businesses foster investor confidence,, and ultimately position themselves for sustained success.

is the COO and co-founder of . Previously, he spent the first years of his career in roles across the venture ecosystem. From venture due diligence at to growth hacking and modeling for portfolio companies at to M&A negotiations at , he’s seen how companies succeed (and fail) from all angles. Niedbala is energized by the possibility of rethinking the way the insurance industry works through technology, best-in-class customer service, and cutting-edge marketing and branding. In 2021, Founder Shield joined , where Niedbala now leads digital product strategy and innovation.

Related Crunchbase query:

Related reading:

• 5 Companies Kick Off IPO Roadshow

Illustration:

Once upon a time, tech founders built toward IPOs — not tender offers. In 1999, the median tech startup went public just five years after its founding. Today, that figure has stretched to 14 years. Instead of ringing the opening bell, founders are increasingly turning to private liquidity, keeping equity locked in private hands long past the company’s breakout success.

That shift has created a far bigger — and increasingly private — pie. In 2005, the combined value of the 50 most-valuable private U.S. tech companies was less than $5 billion. Today, that number . Over the same period, private markets have matured from niche pools into deep oceans, with global private-market assets under management surpassing — up from just $100 billion in the mid-1990s, a 150x increase.

As a result, we’re entering an era where the most transformative value — like the impact projected from AI — could be created almost entirely within private markets, widening the wealth gap between insiders and everyone else.

The long-standing objections to broader VC participation — risk, illiquidity, transparency and fees — are rapidly losing relevance.

Let’s take them one by one.

‘Venture capital is too risky’

Risk is not monolithic. Late-stage companies such as , or look far more like mid-cap public equities than garage-stage moonshots. Investors can capture meaningful upside and diversify against individual company blow-ups by thoughtfully constructing a portfolio of 30 to 40 late-stage (post-Series C) funding rounds.

‘But it’s illiquid’

Illiquidity is relative. Half of U.S. public equities are already locked in passive funds that rarely trade. Meanwhile, the private secondary market hit a record $162 billion in transaction volume in 2024 — and continues to grow. Publicly registered VC funds can also hold 20% to 30% of assets in stocks or Treasuries to meet redemptions, bridging short-term liquidity needs with long-term exposure.

‘There isn’t enough oversight’

That’s changing. New publicly registered, evergreen VC funds, like the Innovation Fund, are subject to filings, audited financials and daily NAV disclosures.

‘The fees are outrageous’

Historically, yes. 2% management fees plus 20% carry were the norm. But new models are emerging. The Fundrise Innovation Fund, for instance, owns equity in nine of the 10 most well-known private U.S. tech companies — including and — and charges no carried interest, only a flat 1.85% management fee 1.

So why democratize VC now?

Momentum is finally on the side of access. In June 2025, the House passed the in a 397-12 landslide, directing the SEC to open private markets to knowledgeable investors, regardless of net worth.

The scale of the opportunity is enormous. Missing out on a $20 trillion AI wave isn’t just unfortunate — it’s locking out the majority of Americans of a generation-defining creation of wealth. Private tech also provides diversification in an era when public portfolios are dominated by the “Magnificent Seven.” And with 60% of public equity assets held passively, denying those same long-term investors access to private growth feels increasingly arbitrary.

Venture capital will always carry risk — but so did buying in 1997 or in 2015. What’s changed is the timeline: Today, the lion’s share of value is created before companies ever go public.

Publicly registered VC funds are a breakthrough. They pair regulatory oversight with access to innovation, offering everyday investors a chance to participate in the upside of early-stage growth. Just as ETFs transformed public markets, these vehicles could reshape the future of private capital.

The arc of innovation bends toward abundance. It’s time for venture finance to bend with it — toward the many, not the few.

is the CEO and co-founder of , the leading direct-to-consumer alternative investments manager.

• Breaking The Wealth Barrier: Why The SEC Should Redefine ‘Accredited Investor’

Illustration: