Last week I read a story that drew considerable attention in the startup world. IM8, the wellness brand whose co-founders include David Beckham, secured USD 1 billion in growth financing from General Catalyst. What was striking was not the amount but the structure: not a single share was given to the investor.
Let me first set the picture straight. IM8 is not an independent startup; it is a brand of Prenetics, a company listed on Nasdaq. Nor does the Customer Value Fund providing the financing operate like a classic venture capital fund. The fund covers up to 70 percent of IM8's customer acquisition spending; in return, it receives a share of the revenue generated by the customer cohorts it finances, up to a predetermined cap. Once the cap is reached, the arrangement ends for that cohort and all subsequent revenue stays with the company. What we have, then, is not a transfer of shares but a revenue-linked, capped repayment structure. This is not a model invented from scratch; it is revenue-based financing carried to institutional scale. What is new is that the structure has matured enough to support a billion-dollar transaction.
More Weight on the Contract Table
The question this story left me with is this: when equity disappears, what remains? The answer is clear: the contract. In a classic equity investment, the relationship between the parties is largely carried by company law and corporate governance. In a revenue-linked model, the entire relationship rests on contractual provisions: which customer belongs to which cohort, how will revenue be calculated, which marketing spending falls within the scope of the financing, what data will prove whether the cap has been reached, and who may audit what?
Each of these questions points to a type of disagreement very different from classic shareholder disputes. These are data-intensive, technical disagreements that require continuous measurement and must be resolved while the relationship is still running. When one party questions revenue attribution, what is at stake is not a one-off settling of accounts but a collaboration that continues each month with new cohorts.
Can These Disputes Be Taken to Court?
Of course they can; whether they should is another matter. Three features of these disagreements make litigation unappealing for the parties. First, the relationship requires continuity; while the financing proceeds in monthly cohorts, it is difficult for trust between the parties to survive years of proceedings. Second, the subject matter is technical: concepts such as customer acquisition cost, cohort revenue and attribution methodology call for expertise. Third, confidentiality: unit economics data are among a company's most sensitive information.
These three features describe precisely the ground where alternative dispute resolution methods are strongest. Structured negotiation allows problems to be resolved before they grow, within the natural flow of the relationship. Independent expert determination can settle calculation disputes within weeks. Mediation, preserving confidentiality and the commercial relationship, gives the parties a setting in which to review the revenue-sharing mechanism together. My advice to companies working with these models is to include a tiered dispute resolution clause in their contracts: first negotiation, then independent expert determination, and mediation as the final stage.
Is This Question Premature for the Turkish Ecosystem?
I do not think so. Revenue-based financing models are beginning to be discussed in Türkiye as well, and in an environment where capital is expensive, non-dilutive alternatives will become increasingly attractive to founders. For these models to work well, however, strong contract design must be matched by the capacity to resolve disagreements while preserving the relationship. As the rules of financing are being rewritten, the rules of dispute resolution should be written at the same table.
Whether the era of equity is coming to an end, I do not know. What I do know is that the contract, and the resolution mechanisms that keep it alive, have never mattered more.
Sources
1. Prenetics, IM8 Secures $1 Billion Growth Financing from General Catalyst's Customer Value Fund, 14 July 2026 - globenewswire.com
2. TechCrunch, David Beckham's health drink startup IM8 takes $1B from General Catalyst's unusual CVF fund, 14 July 2026
3. Bloomberg, Beckham's IM8 Gets $1 Billion From General Catalyst to Boost Marketing Spend, 14 July 2026