It took us a few painful lessons to figure out how to actually do it right. We went all-in on different experiments, believing each one would be 𝙩𝙝𝙚 way to systematically build great startups. We were wrong. Here’s what we tried, where we crashed and burned, and how it shaped our approach today.

The paying partner experiment

Our first attempt was simple: partners came to us, paid us to create a solution, and we delivered a proposition and an initial product with a few customers already onboard. Sounds promising, right?

The outcome?

A hefty price tag, a solution steered by the partner’s vision, and customers who weren’t in it for the long haul, they churned, and the product was left gathering digital dust. We ended up spending all the invested money. Completely out of cash. The lesson? Building something solely for someone else’s agenda rarely creates lasting value.

The perfect founder profile—or not

Next, we tried to do it all ourselves. We dove into desk and field research, methodically crafted what we thought was the perfect founder profile, and began headhunting. After countless conversations, we finally onboarded a CEO who seemed like “the one.” With high hopes, we then set out to find a CTO to build our envisioned product.

The twist?

As soon as the CTO was on board, the CEO’s vision shifted dramatically. Resulting in a product that was entirely different from what we’d originally planned. After cycling through three CTOs and pouring more money into management fees, spending every cent we had, we ended up with no solid product, no paying customers, and a painful reminder that even the perfect profile on paper doesn’t guarantee alignment in practice.

Opening the doors wide

After those early stumbles, we pivoted. Instead of trying to create and validate a concept in-house, we said, “Show us the problem you’ve seen—and let’s figure out if we can solve it together.” We cast a wide net within our scope and invited founders to join us in Rotterdam for round-the-clock collaboration.

The response? A flood of applications. I even built a GPT to sift through one-pagers and provide detailed feedback. But the real discovery came during our first calls. When founders began talking passionately about the actual problems they wanted to solve. That’s when the real “undeniable fire” emerged. It wasn’t evident just from their submissions, it showed up in the way they discussed their challenges. By “skin in the game,” I mean founders who are willing to commit to building something with us without any compensation until incorporation.

What did we learn?

That the passion and persistence of founders are worth more than a pre-packaged idea. You can sense that drive, even if they’re at the other side of the world. And after roughly 40 in-depth conversations on a specific problem, over three to four weeks. Averaging about 10 calls a week, you truly become a domain expert. It’s during this time that you realize the need isn’t always what you initially thought. Sometimes, it’s better to ditch the standard playbook and just focus on the desired outcome. (One of our ventures started when a founder came in with the idea of building the “Duolingo for employee development,” only to pivot into an AI-driven talent management platform built on real skill insights.)

Today’s game plan: Precision, speed, and guardrails

We’ve refined this process down to what works. No wasted cycles, no overthinking. Before we partner with a founder, we make sure we’re aligned on why this company should exist and why they’re the right person to build it.

On day one, we co-write a scope document together, locking in the market, problem statement, ICP, vision, timing, and founder fit. It’s not just a formality—it’s our way of cutting through the noise early and setting the foundation for execution. No endless debates, just sharp hypotheses and a clear path forward.

The process is straightforward: founders share a problem one-pager, we refine it together, and then we dive straight into validation. The first 1-3 weeks are intense. Calls, outreach, customer feedback—it’s overwhelming, but that’s the point. You don’t validate a company by theorizing; you validate by testing, iterating, and letting the market guide you in real time.

Over the first 10 weeks, we’re in this together—helping founders sharpen their ICP, fine-tune their pitch, and push past early uncertainty. The real signal? When that first cold outreach turns into 10 warm replies, then 20. That’s when we know we’re onto something.

The real test: Grit, execution, and founder DNA

This is where we see the difference between idea people and true builders. It doesn’t matter if your last company grew naturally or if you’ve spent years in custom solutions instead of SaaS. The same truth applies: we have to put in the work, together. That means showing up every day—reaching out, listening, iterating—not waiting for the perfect moment or a step-by-step guide. No one’s going to hand us the answers. We uncover them by taking action, learning from every conversation, and adapting in real time. It’s messy, but that’s how real companies are built.

Every lesson, every misstep, and every pivot has shaped how we work today. The playbook works because it’s been stress-tested. The companies that make it aren’t the ones with the most polished decks; they’re the ones solving real problems with real urgency.

If you’re ready to roll up your sleeves, take ownership, and build something that matters, we’re here—every step of the way.

Because at the end of the day, it’s not just about ideas. It’s about execution.