All autopsies

// STARTUP COMPARISON

Flanks vs Fast

Flanks failed in 2024 due to Bad Timing. Fast failed in 2022 due to Unit Economics. Different causes, different sectors, different eras — but the same simulation outcome.

METRIC🔥 Flanks🔥 Fast
SectorFintechFintech
CountrySpainUSA
Founded20192019
Died20242022
Raised€10M$580M
Peak€10M raised$580M raised
Primary CauseBad TimingUnit Economics

// WHY EACH FAILED

🔥 Flanks
Bad Timing
Flanks built open finance infrastructure for wealth managers and banks in Spain, allowing them to aggregate client portfolios across custodians. The product was technically sound and the market need genuine. However, Spanish banks moved extremely slowly on open finance adoption, and the regulatory framework (PSD2 extensions for investment data) remained incomplete. Sales cycles of 18-24 months with major banks proved incompatible with startup runway. The company wound down in 2024 after Series A fell through.
// LESSON
B2B fintech selling to Spanish banks requires 3x the runway of a typical startup sales cycle. If you can't sign a pilot in 6 months, assume 24 months to revenue. Build the financial model accordingly or don't start.
🔥 Fast
Unit Economics
Fast raised $580M for a one-click checkout product. Internal reports cited by TechCrunch revealed the company had approximately $600K in monthly revenue against $10M+ in monthly burn — a 17x revenue-to-burn mismatch. Unable to raise a Series C in the 2022 market, Fast shut down in April 2022. Stripe had already launched Stripe Link (a competing product) and Shopify Payments dominated the checkout space.
// LESSON
$580M raised is not a business. $600K monthly revenue against $10M monthly burn is a company racing toward zero. No amount of capital fixes a 17x revenue-to-burn ratio in a checkout category dominated by Stripe and Shopify.

// EXPLORE FURTHER