What a SPAC Does to a Company Before the Market Ever Sees It

Most people think a SPAC is a financial event.

It isn’t.

A SPAC is an operating event that begins long before a ticker symbol appears, long before the roadshow deck is finalized, and long before the market decides what story it wants to tell about you.

By the time a company rings the bell, the real transformation has already happened quietly inside the business. Incentives shift. Timelines collide. Language changes. The company stops being a product organization and becomes a narrative machine that must satisfy multiple audiences at once.

I learned this firsthand as the founder of Near Intelligence, while navigating a SPAC transaction and a Nasdaq listing.

This isn’t a retrospective victory lap. It’s an operator’s map of what actually changes when a private company transitions toward public-market scrutiny—and why founders who treat a SPAC as “just a faster IPO” are usually the least prepared for what follows.

The first thing that breaks is time

Private companies live on one timeline: execution.

Public-bound companies live on at least three.

There’s the product timeline, where real work happens and progress is measured in weeks and months.

There’s the financial timeline, where quarters suddenly matter more than intuition and every projection becomes a promise someone else will hold you to.

And then there’s the legal and disclosure timeline, which moves at its own pace and does not care how fast your team can ship.

A SPAC compresses these timelines into each other. Instead of allowing a company to mature into public-company behavior over years, the transition is accelerated. What would normally unfold gradually now happens under pressure, with limited room for correction.

Founders underestimate this because they assume the pressure arrives after the listing. In reality, it arrives the moment you commit to the process.

The company stops being “yours” earlier than you expect

This is uncomfortable to admit, but it matters.

The psychological shift happens well before the SPAC merger closes. Once projections are locked, narratives are drafted, and disclosures begin, the company is no longer just an internal system optimized for learning.

It becomes a shared object.

Lawyers, bankers, analysts, and eventually public investors all interact with different versions of your company. Each version emphasizes a different truth, and none of them are fully under your control.

The hardest adjustment for founders isn’t compliance. It’s letting go of the idea that intent matters more than interpretation.

In private companies, intent is assumed. In public-bound companies, interpretation dominates.

Incentives quietly realign

In early-stage companies, incentives are mostly aligned by proximity. Everyone can see what everyone else is doing. Information is messy, but visible.

As the SPAC process advances, that proximity dissolves.

Suddenly:

• performance is measured through reporting structures rather than shared context
• decisions are filtered through risk frameworks
• exceptions require documentation instead of trust

This isn’t inherently bad. It’s necessary.

But if incentive systems aren’t redesigned intentionally, they begin to drift. People optimize for what is visible, reportable, and defensible instead of what is simply true.

Founders who don’t notice this early often misdiagnose the symptoms later. They think the team “lost its edge” or “got political.” More often, the system changed and nobody updated the rules.

Controls are not the enemy of speed

There’s a popular myth that controls slow companies down.

Bad controls do. Good controls prevent the wrong work from consuming your best people.

The mistake many teams make during a SPAC transition is bolting on compliance as an external layer rather than embedding it into operating rhythm. Policies appear, but behaviors don’t change.

Checklists exist, but ownership remains fuzzy.

Real controls are not documents. They are repeatable behaviors that reduce ambiguity.

When done correctly, they create speed by narrowing the range of acceptable decisions so execution energy isn’t wasted on re-litigating fundamentals.

This is where many public-bound companies stumble. They treat controls as protection instead of infrastructure.

The narrative becomes a living thing

Before a SPAC, most companies don’t have a narrative. They have a story they tell themselves.

During a SPAC, that story is formalized, refined, and eventually externalized. At that point, it takes on a life of its own.

Every metric reinforces or contradicts it. Every update feeds it. Every miss distorts it under public-market scrutiny.

Founders often believe the narrative exists to explain the business to the market. In reality, it also shapes how the business explains itself internally.

This feedback loop is powerful and dangerous. If the narrative drifts too far from operational reality, the organization starts optimizing for appearances instead of outcomes.

The strongest companies are the ones where the narrative is constrained by truth, not ambition.

What I would do differently

With the benefit of hindsight, there are a few things I would anchor earlier.

I would separate projection confidence from execution confidence more clearly. Just because a model supports a scenario doesn’t mean the organization is ready to live inside it.

I would invest sooner in internal reporting that tells uncomfortable truths, not just clean summaries.

And I would treat the SPAC process less like a transaction and more like a forced operating upgrade that requires its own roadmap.

None of these are philosophical lessons. They are structural ones.

A practical checklist for founders considering a SPAC

If you’re evaluating a SPAC or already inside the process, here are questions worth answering honestly:

• Do you have one source of truth for metrics that both operators and external stakeholders trust?
• Are incentives explicitly aligned with long-term outcomes, or implicitly shaped by reporting optics?
• Can your team explain not just what the numbers are, but why they changed?
• Are controls embedded into daily workflows, or do they live in separate documents?
• Is your narrative constrained by reality, or is reality being bent to protect the narrative?

If any of these feel fuzzy, the work is not done.

The quiet truth about going public

Going public doesn’t make a company better or worse. It makes it more itself.

A SPAC accelerates that exposure. It compresses learning cycles and amplifies weaknesses at the same time.

Founders who understand this early treat the process with the seriousness it deserves. They don’t rush to ring the bell. They use the transition to harden systems, clarify incentives, and build the kind of boring strength that survives scrutiny.

The market eventually sees what the company already is. The real work happens long before that.

——

Anil Mathews is an entrepreneur and author, founder of Alphabyte Ventures and author of The Start Switch. His writing focuses on execution, momentum, and building enduring companies.