The ninth FlexUp Startup Networking Workshop brought together entrepreneurs, consultants, and startup builders at Station F for a conversation that moved beyond the usual early-stage startup questions.
As in our previous workshops, the objective was not simply to present FlexUp as a concept. It was to use real business situations to explore how flexible equity, shared risk, and contribution-based remuneration can help founders and teams move forward when the classic model becomes too rigid.
This workshop was especially interesting because one of the main examples was not a new startup at all. It was an existing B2B business with products, employees, suppliers, customers, and a real operational challenge: how do you transform a traditional phone-based sales company into a more efficient, AI-supported, web-based business without destroying the team in the process?
For confidentiality, some details and numbers have been simplified. The scenarios below are illustrative, but they reflect the substance of the discussion.
Case 1 – Restructuring an existing B2B sales business
The main case came from Stefan, one of the owners of an established B2B consumables business, alongside other major shareholders and the sales director. The company sells products such as chemical consumables, light bulbs, and other maintenance-related supplies to professional clients. Part of the product range is produced internally, while another part comes from external suppliers.
Historically, the business has relied heavily on phone sales. Salespeople call existing customers, take orders, and process transactions directly. This model may have worked well in the past, but it now creates a difficult cost structure. Labour costs are high, order processing is inefficient, and the company needs to generate more new business rather than simply rely on manual handling of recurring orders.
At the same time, the situation is not simply a matter of closing the company and walking away. Some products are proprietary, including internally developed chemical formulas. The company also has supplier relationships, customer knowledge, and a commercial history that still have value.
The real question is therefore not: should the business be shut down?
The more useful question is: can the business be redesigned around a new economic model?
From phone orders to an AI-supported sales engine
One possible restructuring path discussed during the workshop was to shift the company away from manual phone-based order processing and towards a more scalable model.
That could include:
- a web-based online shop where professional clients can order recurring consumables directly;
- supplier integration, so external products can be shipped or fulfilled more efficiently;
- CRM automation, so customer history, product needs, and reorder cycles become easier to manage;
- AI-assisted lead generation, so the sales team spends more time finding and converting new clients; and
- quarterly performance analysis, so the team can measure whether the new system is actually improving lead generation, online order volume, sales conversion, margins, and cash generation.
In this structure, the sales team does not disappear. Its role changes.
Instead of spending most of its time processing existing orders by phone, the team can focus more on higher-value work: identifying new prospects, reactivating dormant clients, supporting larger accounts, and helping customers navigate products that require advice.
That transformation can create value, but it also requires investment. The company needs software development, operational redesign, supplier cooperation, management commitment, and employee buy-in. In a traditional turnaround, that usually creates a painful choice: either cut costs aggressively, or ask shareholders to inject more cash.
FlexUp creates another possibility.
Turning a turnaround into a shared investment
The workshop explored an illustrative restructuring scenario using the FlexUp model.
Instead of changing the nominal remuneration already agreed with the team, the company could ask different stakeholders to invest part of their remuneration or commercial value into the turnaround. The nominal value of their contribution remains recognised. Using the standard FlexUp credit method, the invested amount becomes credits, meaning it remains recorded as value owed to the contributor, and it also generates tokens that give the contributor a share in the future upside.
For example, the company could propose:
- employees invest 25% of their remuneration into the turnaround;
- managers invest 50% of their remuneration;
- the software development partner invests 50% of its services;
- strategic suppliers invest 10% of the value of the products they sell into the transformed business; and
- existing shareholders keep their current ownership structure, but agree that the turnaround project uses the FlexUp model to allocate new future upside based on real contributions and risk taken.
The idea is simple but powerful. If the alternative is to shut down the company, everybody loses: employees lose their jobs, managers lose their platform, suppliers lose a customer, and shareholders lose the remaining value of the business.
With a FlexUp structure, the company can instead say:
We keep the team together. We invest together. If the turnaround works, the people who helped make it happen recover their credits and participate in the upside.
That changes the psychology of the restructuring.
Employees are not merely being asked to accept sacrifice. They are being invited to become associates in the turnaround. Managers are not simply imposing a plan from above. They are taking more risk themselves. Software developers and suppliers are not only service providers. They are participants in the recovery of the business.
Why the same system matters
One of the key principles of FlexUp is non-discrimination between types of contributors. An employee, a manager, a supplier, a software company, an investor, and a founder can all use the same remuneration logic.
That matters in a restructuring context.
In the classic model, each stakeholder normally negotiates separately:
- employees discuss salaries and job security;
- managers discuss bonuses;
- suppliers discuss payment terms;
- software developers discuss cash fees;
- shareholders discuss capital injections and control; and
- investors discuss preferred rights.
Each negotiation can create tension because each group has a different economic position.
In the FlexUp model, the conversation can become more transparent. Each participant has a contribution. That contribution has a value. Each participant decides how much of that value they are willing to receive in firm cash and how much they are willing to invest as credits. The more risk they take, the more tokens they receive.
If the company later generates excess cash, credits can be progressively repaid. If the turnaround creates long-term value, token holders can participate in that upside.
This is why the example is so important. FlexUp is often discussed in the context of new startups, but the same logic can apply to existing businesses that need to change direction. In some cases, the most valuable application of flexible equity may not be creating a company from scratch. It may be giving an existing company a credible path to reinvent itself before it runs out of time.
Case 2 – A student housing platform and the problem of co-founder equity
Another case came from a founder building a student housing exchange platform. The project is still early-stage, and the team includes two co-founders with different levels of commitment. One is working full-time. The other is contributing part-time and may or may not become more involved later.
This is one of the most common startup problems. Founders often split equity before the real work begins, based on expectations rather than actual contributions.
That can work when reality matches the original plan. But reality rarely does.
One co-founder may work full-time while another remains part-time. One may bring more technical work, another may bring more commercial value. One may leave after a few months. Another may invest cash because they cannot contribute as much time.
With a fixed equity split, all of these changes create tension. Renegotiating equity later is usually difficult, especially once the company has started to gain value.
The FlexUp approach is different. Instead of deciding a permanent split too early, the team can define the value of each person's contribution and let equity-type rights evolve over time.
For example, if both co-founders have the same seniority but different availability, the full-time founder may accrue 10 000 € of credits per month while the part-time founder accrues 5 000 €. If the part-time founder later joins full-time, the contribution level can increase. If someone stops contributing, they stop accruing new credits and tokens.
This does not require endless renegotiation. The rules are agreed once, then the economic split evolves based on what actually happens.
For early-stage teams, this can remove a major source of future conflict. Instead of asking "What percentage should each founder get today?", the better question becomes: How do we record contributions fairly as the project develops?
Case 3 – Extending runway for a deep-tech startup
A third case involved a deep-tech startup building a simulation platform for robotics and space systems. The company had incorporated in the United States, was working with a small international team, and needed runway to finish its beta product and bring it to market.
The challenge was familiar: the product is technically ambitious, the team needs to keep building, and a large fundraising round is difficult to close quickly.
In this situation, FlexUp can help in two ways.
First, it allows the startup to reduce immediate cash burn by paying part of the team through credits and tokens instead of full cash remuneration. This does not mean that people work for free. Their contribution is recorded at an agreed value, but part of that value is invested into the company.
Second, it gives early investors, friends, family, advisors, and service providers a clearer framework for participating in the project. Rather than using informal promises or arbitrary equity percentages, the startup can record who contributed what, how much cash or work they invested, and how much risk they accepted.
This is especially useful before a conventional venture capital round. A startup may not yet be ready for institutional funding, but it still needs a professional structure to manage contributions transparently. FlexUp can help bridge that gap by extending runway while keeping the team and early supporters aligned.
A common thread – restructuring is also entrepreneurship
The three cases were very different: an established B2B sales business, a student housing platform, and a deep-tech simulation startup.
But they all pointed to the same underlying issue.
Business challenges are often presented as operational problems: sales are too manual, the co-founder split is unclear, the startup does not have enough runway. Underneath, however, the deeper problem is often structural. The economic model does not reflect how value is actually being created, who is taking risk, and who should participate in the upside.
In the B2B restructuring case, the key insight was that a turnaround can be treated as a collective investment. Employees, managers, suppliers, software developers, and shareholders can all participate in the same recovery plan using the same logic.
In the student housing platform case, the key insight was that founder equity should reflect real contribution over time rather than a static agreement made too early.
In the deep-tech case, the key insight was that runway can be extended when team members, advisors, and early investors share risk through a transparent framework instead of relying only on cash.
Across all three, FlexUp offers the same core proposition: a practical way to align contributors around contribution, risk, and future value.
That is why these workshops are so useful. They show that flexible equity is not only a financing tool. It is a way to design better business relationships. It can help launch startups, but it can also help restructure existing companies, onboard suppliers, motivate employees, and turn difficult transitions into shared opportunities.
Want to join our next workshop?
Our workshops are open to entrepreneurs, founders, and professionals who want to explore fairer ways to structure partnerships, finance growth, and collaborate when cash is limited.
You can find the schedule and register at: www.flexup.org/events
Further reading
- Read about our previous workshops
- How FlexUp works: https://flexup.org/economic-model
Startup Networking Workshop #9, Station F, Paris