// STARTUP COMPARISON
Geopagos (2022 crisis) vs Silicon Valley Bank
Geopagos (2022 crisis) failed in 2022 due to Unit Economics. Silicon Valley Bank failed in 2023 due to Unit Economics. Both failed for the same reason — Unit Economics.
| METRIC | 🔥 Geopagos (2022 crisis) | 🔥 Silicon Valley Bank |
|---|---|---|
| Sector | Fintech | Fintech |
| Country | Argentina | USA |
| Founded | 2013 | 1983 |
| Died | 2022 | 2023 |
| Raised | $35M | Public company (SIVB) |
| Peak | $35M raised | $209B assets |
| Primary Cause | Unit Economics | Unit Economics |
// WHY EACH FAILED
Infrastructure plays selling to banks have elongated revenue recognition cycles. You need 18-24 months of runway beyond the point you expect the first enterprise contract to close. If you don't have it, you run out before you get paid.
Asset-liability duration matching is not optional for banks. Investing short-term deposits in long-term bonds is a structural bet against rising rates. SVB had $80B in long-duration bonds when the Fed began the fastest rate rise cycle in 40 years.
// IN THE SIMULATION
Geopagos triggers B2B_SALES_CYCLE_RISK — bank client implementations have 12-18 month sales cycles. In a funding crunch, runway runs out before the enterprise revenue materializes. The simulation flags infrastructure companies with >80% bank-client revenue as having elongated revenue recognition risk.
SVB triggers DURATION_MISMATCH_BANK_RUN — the simulation models banks with long-duration bond portfolios as having existential rate sensitivity. A 400bps rate rise on a long-duration portfolio creates mark-to-market losses that exceed capital when forced to sell.
// EXPLORE FURTHER