2Lock offers effective theft protection for e-bikes. Unlike conventional locks, it is integrated directly into the bike. The founders' aim is not only to make life difficult for bike thieves, but also to offer users a seamless and contactless locking process.
An excellent idea: the Regensburg-based start-up won the 2023 Northern Bavaria Business Plan Competition with this solution. Co-founder and CEO Benedikt Bäuml explains in an interview which path the team chose to pursue for further growth. As an industrial engineer, he is responsible for business development, sales and investor relations.
When did you realize that you wanted to scale up to a medium-sized company—and why?
When we started out, we honestly didn't have a clear picture of what exactly the difference was between a medium-sized company and a fast-growing startup. We were still very green and grew into this world step by step. It was only over time—about two years after founding the company—that we understood how our business model works most profitably, what the market mechanisms look like, and what potential our approach realistically has.
In the process, we realized that we probably don't have the potential to become a unicorn. Instead, we saw that we could position ourselves more as a “hidden champion”: a company that is capable of developing a global market technology, securing it sustainably, and generating a solid business model with a strong return – but without the pressure to break into the unicorn league at all costs. This realization then clearly led us in the direction of medium-sized scaling.
Why is hypergrowth not a good fit for you?
Hypergrowth requires a company to not only generate extremely strong market demand, but also to be able to meet that demand immediately. This is usually associated with rapid revenue growth, which is further fueled by large financing rounds. However, as a hardware startup in the mobility industry, this model is not realistic for us. Our customers' product cycles—especially those of OEMs and manufacturers—are very long, and this process cannot be significantly accelerated even with a lot of capital.
Even if we tried to force growth in this way, we would run the risk of failing to meet the expectations of large investors if sales did not follow suit quickly enough. Instead, we have deliberately chosen a more long-term and sustainable approach. It often takes years for a new product to gain a foothold in the market among manufacturers. Initially, small series are launched to test whether the technology proves itself. Only then do larger orders follow. This is precisely why a hyper-growth approach does not suit us – our growth is slower, but more stable and sustainable.
In your opinion, should startup financing be rethought?
In my opinion, startup financing does not need to be rethought. Rather, founders themselves should approach the topic more consciously and realistically. The crucial question is: Which business model really suits me? Am I really a potential unicorn – or a hidden champion? This honest self-assessment is the basis for developing a suitable financing strategy.
Our own approach was to bring external investors on board as late as possible. The reason: in the very early stages, a company is still worth very little. If you give away too many shares, you quickly lose your independence and freedom of decision-making – precisely the strengths that characterize medium-sized companies. If, on the other hand, you remain independent for longer, you can act more agilely, plan more strategically, and survive in the market in the long term, instead of being sold to a major player after a few years.
This is precisely where the social dimension comes in: when medium-sized startups without unicorn potential nevertheless attempt to pursue a financing model geared toward hypergrowth, no new hidden champions emerge in the end. Instead, the expectations of investors and founders alike are dashed, and promising companies disappear through acquisitions. Yet it is precisely independent, innovative market leaders that make our economy so strong. Therefore, the problem is not necessarily the lack of financing opportunities, but rather the lack of honesty and accuracy in choosing the financing model.
What would you like to see from investors who want to invest in medium-sized startups?
I want one thing above all else from investors who want to invest in medium-sized startups: a willingness to ensure the long-term independence of these companies. Our goal must be to ensure that young companies do not disappear prematurely into the structures of large corporations, but have the opportunity to grow independently into market-leading innovation leaders—the hidden champions of tomorrow.
However, this requires not only the right attitude on the part of investors, but also the right framework conditions from the government. Support programs should be designed in such a way that startups have enough breathing space and room to grow before they even have to take on investors. This includes, among other things, improved funding opportunities and the chance to obtain financing through special loan programs—programs that, for example, allow the government to assume partial personal liability. Once these conditions are in place, founders can bring investors on board at the right time and on the right terms, especially with regard to fair company valuations and risk.
My appeal is therefore directed at both sides: at the state to establish such support mechanisms, and at investors to be willing to recognize and promote the potential for sustainable independence of medium-sized startups rather than pushing them toward a quick exit. Only in this way can we preserve the innovative strength, agility, and flexibility of these young companies—and that is exactly what our society needs.