fomo CEO Paul Erlanger on Social Trading, Fundraising and Product Growth

Paul Erlanger says he is motivated by building with a team and working on an interesting problem, rather than simply the thrill of winning. He describes the possibility of losing that daily work as a concern, but emphasizes his enjoyment of the process.

Erlanger describes fomo as a mobile trading app focused at the time on on-chain assets, with social features that can show users’ activity. He says the company wants to add other markets where permitted. Availability, eligibility and legal treatment can differ by jurisdiction and product.

The company’s early financing included many individual angels. Erlanger says the goal was not just capital: early supporters could help bring people to a consumer product facing a cold-start problem. He also wanted some committed users to have an ownership stake.

He singles out angel investor Aaron Harris for helping the founders understand financing terms. A seemingly small term can materially affect a company, Erlanger says, so advice from someone familiar with fundraising was useful to first-time founders.

Asked how to find the first thousand users, Erlanger recommends talking to small groups, improving the product and expanding gradually. He says early users gave feedback on fomo’s web app before launch. That is his account of one product, not proof that every feature or user experience improved by a measurable amount.

Users can disagree, so feedback requires judgment. Erlanger says he listens to the underlying problem and weighs suggestions against the product’s broader direction. He tries to be open to being wrong while being careful with changes that could reshape the experience.

Stebbings asks why he is skeptical of an all-purpose financial super app. Erlanger says fomo’s organizing idea is a social graph around trading rather than simply placing many financial products in one interface. This is his competitive perspective as a founder, not a finding that other strategies cannot work.

He discusses possible prediction-market integration but says the company had not yet added it and would watch regulatory developments. His examples of expressing a view through different instruments are illustrations, not recommendations to take those positions.

Erlanger explains a synthetic price contract as exposure to a price movement without transferring the underlying asset. Such a position does not give the holder ownership of the company or stock; contract terms, leverage, funding, liquidation and counterparty risks vary. The discussion is not a guide to trading these products.

Asked about Robinhood, Erlanger credits it with bringing some people into brokerage services and says users may benefit from clearer tools to manage exposure to different products. His explanation of the company’s international strategy is his interpretation, not a statement from Robinhood.

Stebbings asks whether social media has made public markets more like a casino. Erlanger prefers to frame collective retail participation as empowering, using a heavily discussed stock episode as an example. That is his view; trading based on social attention can also involve substantial losses and does not establish an asset’s fundamental value.

Erlanger argues that many market participants buy with the hope of selling at a higher price, while acknowledging a business can also be valued by its cash flows. His comments on speculation are a perspective on markets, not a valuation method or investment recommendation.

On product-market fit, he says founders should remain humble because momentum can be lost. He prefers to keep learning and improving the product rather than assume a successful start guarantees a durable business.

He cautions against making an early product so broad that it is meaningful to nobody. Stebbings asks about the tradeoff between fast shipping and perfection. Erlanger says his own preference for detail was challenged by an investor who encouraged the team to consider releasing sooner and iterating.

Erlanger says the original team initially worked without salaries while taking an ownership bet on the company. He describes granting substantial equity to several early non-founders. The specific economics, eligibility and risks are governed by individual agreements; the interview does not provide each grant’s terms.

The founders initially wanted to build after the angel round without more institutional capital, he says. They later considered venture financing as protection against market volatility and a way to continue building through a downturn. Financial runway does not eliminate business or market risk.

Erlanger says Aaron Harris introduced the team to Benchmark. He recalls that the founders were unfamiliar with much of the venture landscape but found a strong connection with a partner who understood their product. This is his account of the relationship and financing process.

At a partnership meeting, he says one investor appeared distracted but had actually been using the app during the presentation. Erlanger describes the moment as reassuring. He says Benchmark’s price was competitive but not necessarily the highest offer.

The founder believes a well-known investor can affect attention and distribution, but says partner fit and trust were more important to the decision. The interview does not establish that any investor can guarantee a company’s success.

Erlanger suggests that the timing of financing announcements can affect how much inbound interest a founder receives. Stebbings adds that a meeting request does not necessarily indicate an intention to invest. Both describe their own experiences, not a rule for every fundraising process.

Asked whether founders should accept a lower price for a prominent investor, Erlanger says the more important issue is whether the individual partner can be trusted and help the company grow. He expects founders themselves to own product and hiring decisions.

After raising capital, the team remained cautious about hiring too quickly. Erlanger says acquisitions can add people without the same individual hiring process, and worries about organizational complexity. His comments are a management preference rather than a universal verdict on acquisitions.

He expects AI tools to make strong engineers more productive while increasing the value of product and architectural judgment. At the time of the conversation he reports a team of 17 and hopes to remain below 25 in a year, while acknowledging that plans can change.

Erlanger describes an engineer using AI to explore and draft interface components before reviewing and rewriting the result. He says this can accelerate learning and product development. The example is anecdotal and does not quantify productivity or establish results for other teams.

The company has an internal policy on approved AI accounts and sensitive information, he says, while engineers choose among coding tools within those rules. He says usage cost has not yet been a major constraint for the small team; the interview does not independently audit those controls.

The host asks whether token spending could reach 20% of developer salaries. Erlanger says that is plausible at current prices, but also hopes models and compute become cheaper. Both the percentage and the host’s resulting valuation scenarios are speculative, not measured forecasts.

On design, Erlanger expects a mix of generated prototypes and interfaces people can adjust directly. He argues users still want control over visual output. His comparisons among design and application-building products are competitive opinions, not independent performance tests.

He says consumer social products are hard to sustain and attributes some past disappointments to weak engagement loops or a loss of attention to core users. These are his interpretations of other companies, not verified explanations of their outcomes.

Erlanger prefers helping creators become known within a new platform rather than relying solely on established celebrities. In his view, creators and the product can grow together when the format fits the community. He presents this as a strategy fomo hopes to use.

He describes share cards that let users post trading activity or missed opportunities on other social platforms, potentially drawing attention back to fomo. He cites exceptional individual gains as anecdotes; such outcomes are not typical or guaranteed, and losses are also possible.

The founder says fomo is building a media effort around creators, streaming and short clips. The goal is to reach potential users beyond the app. His growth ambitions are forward-looking and the interview does not independently verify their results.

Erlanger says the team evaluates creator campaigns using impressions, conversions, acquisition costs and estimated customer value. He describes measuring revenue from users who deposit and trade against the cost of acquiring them. These are company methods, not independently audited unit economics.

When a format works, he suggests improving and repeating it rather than immediately searching for another idea. He says the team experiments with details such as presentation and creator selection, but does not provide controlled results for those examples.

Erlanger says a business may spend more to reach a harder-to-convert user if expected lifetime value remains above acquisition cost. He uses hypothetical numbers, not guaranteed customer returns. Acquisition cost can rise as easy-to-reach audiences are exhausted, while better execution can offset some of that pressure.

Stebbings argues that brand marketing can create lasting assets even when attribution is difficult. He gives podcast sponsorships and sports shirts as examples. His comments are a marketing perspective, not evidence that any particular sponsorship produced a return.

Erlanger recalls a story about differing mobile conversion rates to illustrate why data can challenge assumptions about users. He says fomo expects to rely more on measurement as it grows. The reported example is anecdotal and is not independently verified in the interview.

Erlanger says the next round came together after conversations with USV and inbound interest from Index. He describes choosing partners for their experience and relationships rather than because the company urgently needed cash. His account of the discussions has not been independently verified.

He reports a $75 million round at a $550 million post-money valuation, with amounts attributed to Index and USV. These are founder-reported terms, not independently reviewed financing documents. He says the price range was discussed before the final term sheet.

Erlanger says additional capital can help the company withstand trading-market cycles and build infrastructure. He also says the business has cash and revenue, but supplies no audited financial statements in the interview.

For build-versus-buy decisions, he wants to retain control of user-facing product experiences while considering outside infrastructure or acquisitions where specialist capabilities would take longer to build. This is a proposed company strategy, not a guarantee that every acquisition will succeed.

The host compares European and US fintech companies. Erlanger discusses different brokerage laws and says global distribution matters, while acknowledging that his answer may not fully explain the comparison. Company user counts and future valuations raised in the conversation are estimates or opinions.

Erlanger describes fomo as trading-first, with social features intended to help users discover activity and follow others. He hopes to add engagement over time without obscuring the trading product. Seeing another person’s position does not establish that following it is suitable or profitable.

In a quick-fire round, he says he has come to see the social graph as more important than he initially expected. He compares Robinhood and Revolut as a user, while noting the difficulty of choosing between them. His comments are personal and competitive opinions.

Erlanger advises students to preserve foundational thinking rather than delegate all learning or writing to AI. Stebbings disagrees about how much coding students should use AI, and Erlanger notes he is not an engineer. The exchange offers two perspectives, not a universal curriculum.

Looking back, he would have difficult conversations sooner and try to be transparent with employees, investors and collaborators. He says avoiding disagreement can delay decisions, while Stebbings adds that the conversations can be less intimidating once started.

On work culture, Erlanger says fomo does not prescribe a fixed hours formula. He believes ownership and autonomy encourage commitment, though he describes periods of weekend work when launching a product. This is his description of company culture, not an independent employee survey.

He describes holding strong views loosely: listen to the team, examine the opposite case and be willing to revise, while recognizing that prolonged debate can delay a necessary decision. He considers this both a strength and a possible weakness.

Erlanger gives his opinion on US crypto regulation and public sentiment. He argues that unclear interfaces and fraudulent tokens can harm users, and says fomo wants to improve the experience. Those comments are his policy and product views, not proof that any platform eliminates financial or fraud risks.

The conversation returns to synthetic contracts. Erlanger says they can provide price exposure without transferring the underlying asset, and speculates about interest in future listings. Such contracts carry distinct risks and may be unavailable in some jurisdictions; his predictions are uncertain.

Asked about kindness, Erlanger thanks his parents, especially his father’s efforts to help pay for college despite limited savings. He says he wants to give back to them. Stebbings responds by reflecting on the importance of expressing appreciation while family members are present.