Mylestone: Can Multiple Pivots Preserve the Life of a Death Tech Startup?

Dave Balter and Jim Myers co-founded Mylestone, a death tech startup that applied technology to transform how grieving people memorialize the dead. The startup addressed a cultural problem and promised to solve a pressing need in the antiquated, multi-billion dollar death industry. But despite a well-defined market and positive response to the idea, Mylestone made little headway in the funeral industry during its first eighteen months. In response to a series of obstacles, the company made a number of pivots.

All startups pivot. But recent changes felt more fundamental. The company had moved away from its initial purpose, business model, and early team. Now, user demand suggested the startup should pivot again, away from death tech to produce custom photo books. The company had pivoted so much already that it barely resembled the venture they founded. Had they pivoted to an entirely new business? With each major change, the passion both founders felt when they started Mylestone waned. Did they want to continue leading the company in the new direction?

Balter believed that the new direction would limit the startup's growth capacity and, to complicate matters further, Balter and Myers recently discovered a mutual interest in cryptocurrency. They started a side project in crypto trading that showed signs of taking off in a way Mylestone never would. If they harbored doubts about Mylestone, should they inform investors, close the company, and focus their energy on founding a venture based on their side project? What legal and ethical obligations did they have to Mylestone’s investors and employees?