The sixth FlexUp Startup Networking Workshop brought together entrepreneurs and professionals from very different backgrounds: enterprise software, HR SaaS, renewable energy, cloud services, baby & kids fashion e-commerce, and more.
As always, the goal was not simply to present FlexUp, but to create a space where participants could bring real business situations and collectively explore how a more flexible, contribution-based model can help them grow, collaborate, and de-risk their projects.
For confidentiality, some names and figures below have been adjusted, but the situations faithfully reflect what was discussed during the session.
Case 1 – SAP ecosystems: when large clients still want aligned partners
The opening case featured a participant who runs a company providing implementation and configuration services for SAP clients. Their typical clients are large corporations – major banks, multinationals, enterprises with well-resourced IT and finance teams. In this context, the financial dynamic is very different from a cash-strapped startup: clients generally have the money to pay for services in full.
At first glance, this might seem like a context where FlexUp is less relevant. But the conversation took a more interesting direction: a comparison between SAP and FlexUp as platforms – and a discussion of what it would mean to build a FlexUp advisory practice alongside a SAP implementation business.
The FlexUp-as-SAP parallel
SAP's model is built around a large ecosystem:
- a core software platform that does a great many things,
- surrounded by a global network of implementation partners, integrators, and advisors,
- serving large corporate clients.
In some ways, FlexUp follows a similar logic. It is, at its core, a form of ERP – it handles contracts, equity management, revenue sharing, and partner relationships in a unified system. But the differences are striking, and they matter for anyone considering adding FlexUp to their portfolio:
- Where SAP requires complex technical implementation – infrastructure setup, configuration, custom integrations, often spanning months – FlexUp requires no installation or configuration. It is a web-based SaaS that a client can access in minutes.
- Where SAP implementation partners are primarily technical consultants, FlexUp advisory partners are primarily business advisors – helping clients understand the model, structure their collaborations, and onboard their teams.
- Where SAP licences represent a significant investment, FlexUp's fee structure is low and transparent.
The implication: for an established SAP implementation firm, adding FlexUp to the portfolio is a genuine diversification opportunity – not a competing business, but a complementary one. The skills involved are different (less technical depth, more business design and change management), but the client relationships and credibility built over years of enterprise work transfer directly.
Can FlexUp add value even when clients can pay cash?
Yes – and in a specific way. Even when a large client has the budget to pay a service provider in full, they may still want to align that provider with the success of the project, not just its delivery.
A SAP implementation that goes over budget, takes longer than planned, or fails to deliver expected business value is a well-known risk. With FlexUp, an implementation partner could structure part of their remuneration as credits tied to the project's outcomes:
- the base fee covers the work,
- a performance component – paid in credits – gives the partner a share of the value created if the implementation succeeds.
This shifts the relationship from a pure fee-for-service model to a genuine shared stake in outcomes – which can be a meaningful differentiator when pitching to sophisticated clients who are already thinking beyond the lowest invoice.
Case 2 – Global HR SaaS: Localising in Germany without creating a new company
The second major case came from Deepak, founder of an HR SaaS with three main modules:
- Employee management
- HR administration
- Internal communication (Slack-like features)
The product works well in India and targets small and medium enterprises. The next step is international expansion – starting with Germany.
However, two key challenges quickly emerge:
-
Each new country requires localisation:
- adapting to local labour law and HR rules,
- adjusting payslip structures, paid leave, reporting obligations,
- translations and support. - Many ideal clients (SMEs) cannot pay large amounts upfront, even if they are interested.
In Germany, for example, localisation might cost on the order of 20 000 € before the first client can use the tool.
A FlexUp structure for country expansion
During the workshop, we built a model together for expanding to Germany without:
- creating a German subsidiary immediately, or
- giving away shares in the Indian parent company.
The key elements:
- The Indian HR SaaS business remains the core project.
- In FlexUp, the founder creates a sub-account dedicated to "HR SaaS – Germany".
-
Several partners collaborate around this sub-account:
- the Indian team invests development time and expertise to localise the product;
- a German HR / payroll / accounting expert contributes know-how and specifications;
- a local business developer or sales agent dedicates time to finding and signing clients.
Rather than creating a joint-venture company in Germany, this "German branch" exists as a project account inside FlexUp.
The business model could look like this (numbers illustrative):
- A German client pays, for example, 1 000 € per month for the SaaS.
-
Out of that:
- 500 € is allocated to the Indian core product (licence fee),
- 500 € remains in the German sub-account to:
- reimburse localisation efforts (credits invested by partners),
- share profits among the Indian team, the German expert, and the local sales partner.
Each contribution (cash or work) is recorded as credits at an agreed value:
- The Indian team might invest 10 000 € worth of development work.
- A German HR consultancy might invest 10 000 € in specifications and compliance work.
- A sales agent might accept a lower fixed salary (e.g. 1 000 €/month cash instead of 3 500 €) and take the remaining 2 500 €/month in credits during the launch phase.
Over 12 months, their respective credits might look like:
- Indian team: 10 000 €
- German HR partner: 10 000 €
- Sales agent: 30 000 € (i.e. 2 500 € x 12 months of credits)
When revenue arrives (for example 200 000 € over time):
- 50 % (100 000 €) goes to the Indian parent company as a licence fee for the core product, which is a fair and transparent way to share value with the team that built the software.
The remaining 100 000 € is split as follows:
2. 50 000 € to reimburse credits:
- 10 000 € to the Indian team (20% of the total credits)
- 10 000 € to the HR firm (20% of the total credits)
- 30 000 € to the sales agent (60% of the total credits)
3. The remaining 50 000 € (the "surplus" or "excess cash") is then shared proportionally to the risk each party took, based on their historic credits :
- Indian team: 20% of the surplus (10 000 €)
- German HR partner: 20% of the surplus (10 000 €)
- Sales agent: 60% of the surplus (30 000 €)
All of this is managed with simple contracts and transparent bookkeeping in the FlexUp app – no need to:
- create a German company,
- issue shares in India,
- or expose all detailed client payments.
The Indian founder simply reports aggregate monthly revenue for Germany into the FlexUp app (e.g. "March: 5 000 €; April: 6 000 €..."), which is sufficient to compute everyone's share.
This structure lets the startup:
- test and grow in a new country,
- share localisation costs and commercial risk with local partners,
- keep the parent company cap table clean, with no need to give equity in India to every foreign partner.
Case 3 – B2C & B2B e-commerce: Bringing in a partner and strategic suppliers as co-investors
Another rich discussion came from Dorothée, who runs a baby and kids clothing distribution business:
- a B2C e-commerce site selling directly to parents, and
- B2B sales to physical shops.
She has been building the company for several years, often paying herself below market and reinvesting almost everything into growth. She now wants:
- a business associate to share the workload and help scale;
- more financial flexibility to invest in marketing, logistics or team;
- without losing control or getting trapped in a rigid equity split decided too early.
Making the founder's past work visible
A core problem with traditional equity discussions is that past contributions are invisible.
Dorothée, like many founders, has invested:
- several years of work,
- often with very low or no salary,
- plus personal financial risk.
In FlexUp, we start by recognising this founder's invisible investment.
Even with rough numbers (for illustration):
- Suppose she effectively "invested" 3 000 €/month for 5 years in unpaid or underpaid work.
- That represents about 180 000 € of contribution.
- With a reasonable risk premium (for example 25% per year while the business was very fragile), this might correspond to a current "founder credit" of 300 000 €.
This is not a market valuation of the company; it is a cost- and risk-based valuation of past contributions, which serves as a fair starting point for any new partner.
A dynamic equity split with a new associate
Instead of negotiating a static "I give you 30% of my company", Dorothée and a future partner can:
- each define a target monthly remuneration (e.g. 7 000 € for the founder, 8 000 € for the associate, depending on role);
-
decide how that remuneration is split between:
- Cash: guaranteed salary actually paid today,
- Flex: "priority" remuneration paid if there is cash available, otherwise converted into credits,
- Credits: contributions fully invested into the project, which increase each person's share of future profits.
Example (illustrative):
- Dorothée: 7 000 €/month = 3 000 € Flex + 4 000 € Credits
- Associate: 8 000 €/month = 1 000 € Cash + 2 000 € Flex + 5 000 € Credits
Over time:
- Both accumulate credits recorded in the FlexUp system.
-
The equity split evolves dynamically as contributions accumulate:
- if the associate works a lot and accepts significant credits, their share increases;
- if at some point they reduce their involvement, their share stabilises while the founder's continues to grow.
No one ever receives a fixed 30% "once and for all" on day one. Instead, ownership follows real, measured contribution.
Turning a key supplier into a strategic partner
Dorothée also works with strategic suppliers, such as a main textile factory in Portugal. These suppliers want her to grow, because:
- the more she sells,
- the more they produce.
Rather than simply asking for longer payment terms (which eventually must be paid back in cash by a fixed date), FlexUp enables a different approach:
- The supplier agrees to be paid, for example, 80–90% in cash and 10–20% in credits.
-
Each month, if Dorothée buys 20 000 € of stock:
- 18 000 € is paid in cash,
- 2 000 € is recorded as credits for the supplier.
These credits:
- function as an investment in the business, not a classic trade payable,
- give the supplier a share of future profits,
- are reimbursed when cash is available, alongside the founder and other partners, according to transparent rules.
This changes the relationship:
- The supplier becomes a true partner, with visibility on the project's performance in the FlexUp app,
- and knows that they will not be paid after everyone else; their reimbursement and profit share follow the same logic as the founder's.
The result is working capital without bank loans, and a supply chain that is economically aligned with the distributor's success.
Case 4 – Co-developing new products and R&D with industrial partners
Building on a case shared by Manuel, we also explored how FlexUp can support R&D collaborations between technology startups and industrial clients.
Imagine a chemical company that has developed a nanotechnology additive which can improve many different types of coatings:
- paint for steel,
- paint for wood,
- indoor vs outdoor applications, etc.
For each new application, the startup needs 1–2 years of additional R&D to:
- adapt formulations,
- run tests and certifications,
- integrate into the client's production process.
The classic trap
Typically:
- multiple large clients express interest ("If you adapt this for our use, we will buy..."),
- but they do not commit real money upfront.
The startup then:
- spreads its small R&D team across too many projects,
- burns cash adapting the technology,
- and sometimes discovers, after months of work, that the client has changed priorities.
Turning clients into R&D co-investors
With FlexUp, the startup can propose a different model:
- For a specific application (e.g. an anti-corrosion coating for steel), the client agrees to finance or co-finance the R&D, say 100 000 €.
- The startup contributes lab work, know-how, and intellectual property, valued at an agreed amount.
- These contributions are recorded as credits in a dedicated FlexUp account for that R&D project.
Once the adapted product is ready:
- The startup sells it to the client (and potentially to other clients) at a market price (e.g. 100 € per unit).
- For the purposes of the joint project, the parties agree on a notional cost (e.g. 80 €), without revealing the full cost structure.
-
The margin above this notional cost is recorded in the FlexUp project and used to:
- first reimburse the initial R&D credits (the client's 100 000 € and the startup's contributions),
- then share profits between the client and the startup according to their contributions.
Legally, this is a partnership contract, not necessarily a new joint-venture company. Operationally, it is simply a FlexUp account with transparent bookkeeping, where:
- the industrial client becomes a co-investor in the technology they need,
- and the startup de-risks its R&D, avoids spreading itself too thin, and builds reusable assets it can sell to other clients.
A common thread: from fixed equity to living, contribution-based structures
Across all these examples – enterprise software ecosystems, HR SaaS localisation, e-commerce distribution, industrial R&D – the same patterns appear:
-
Traditional structures (fixed shareholdings, one-off fees, rigid contracts) struggle to reflect:
- ongoing contributions,
- evolving risk,
- and the need for flexibility in early-stage or cross-border projects. -
Founders often:
- work for years underpaid,
- give away equity too early,
- or carry all the risk while partners remain on fixed fees. - Suppliers, advisors, employees, early clients and industrial partners are often willing to share risk, but lack a simple, legal, and operational framework to do so.
FlexUp's model introduces:
- a unified way to measure contributions (credits) across cash, work, expertise, and risk,
- simple contracts and transparent bookkeeping rather than complex cap tables and endless legal negotiations,
- and a dynamic ownership and profit-sharing mechanism that evolves over time as people invest themselves into a project.
Far beyond "just a tool", FlexUp is an economic and organisational framework for structuring collaboration:
- between founders and early employees,
- between software creators and local partners in new countries,
- between distributors and their strategic suppliers,
- between deep-tech startups and industrial clients co-funding R&D.
And it is precisely in these workshops – when entrepreneurs bring their real cases, questions, and constraints – that new applications of the model continue to emerge.
Want to join our next workshop?
Our workshops are open to all entrepreneurs and founders who want to:
- structure fair collaborations,
- de-risk international expansion,
- or explore contribution-based partnerships.
You can find the schedule and register at: www.flexup.org/events
Further reading
Startup Networking Workshop #6, Online