'The Founding Five' is a new blog series highlighting the first five hires founders have made after securing funding. As a firm that focuses solely on leading pre-seed and seed stage deals, we meet with teams in the earliest stages of their journey—many of whom haven’t yet expanded beyond the founding leadership. I often hear that the majority of initial hires are technical but in practice this varies depending on the company’s domain, the expertise of the founders, stage of growth, and go-to-market strategy.
In this series, we’ll explore the world of pre-seed and seed-stage hiring, looking closely at who the first five hires were, the sequence in which they were brought on board, and the key takeaways from each founder’s experience.
For the third installment of this series, we sat down with Belsasar "Bel" Lepe, CoFounder & CEO of Cerby, an identity security company that addresses nonstandard application risk.
Prior to founding Cerby, Belasasar was previously Co-founder and CTO at Ooyala, where he led global product teams in achieving two successful exits. He is an active advisor and investor in start-ups, with a specific focus on Latin America.
Who were your first 5 hires and can you describe their roles?
Our first five hires consisted of a product designer and four engineers. We had already identified a couple of design partners and had a clear idea of what we wanted to build, so we decided to create a targeted micro-team capable of quick iteration and feedback loops. Our product designer is our longest-tenured employee!
The four engineers we hired were all full-stack. One of the key points my co-founder, Vidal, often emphasizes is that we've been intentional about hiring strong generalists, especially in our initial team. These engineers have the ability to contribute across the entire stack, allowing for greater flexibility and collaboration in the early days.
Were any of these hires different from what you had initially forecasted in your hiring plan when raising capital? If so, what influenced the change of mind?
The core team aligned with our initial hiring plan, though we made one significant unplanned addition: supplementing our full-time team with Wizeline’s build-operate-transfer model, where they seed the team and we later take over. While this was not in the original forecast, it allowed us to accelerate our development timeline. We structured a 90-day payment term with Wizeline to bridge the gap until our funding closed, enabling us to start building ahead of the round. This model can work really well because it allows you to quickly scale to a full-size team while maintaining the flexibility to evaluate talent and determine whether to hire them.
How did you find and recruit them?
Four out of the five team members were from our professional network, and the fifth was recruited via Wizeline’s build-operate-transfer model. This network-based hiring approach was intentional, helping us minimize risk and iterate faster in the early stages. Each hire was either someone Vidal or I had worked with previously or came highly recommended by former trusted colleagues.
At what point in your pre-seed/seed journey did you bring them onboard?
Upon securing pre-seed funding, we had three members start on the same day, with the remaining two joining shortly after.
How did you approach onboarding and training with limited resources?
We took a collaborative approach to onboarding, recognizing that everything we were doing was for the first time. We brought new hires on with the understanding that our onboarding process was a work in progress. As they built systems and processes, we encouraged the team to document their work to create a knowledge base for future hires. One advantage of being a small team was the ease of staying connected and aligned throughout the process.
Upon reflection, was there any criteria you initially overlooked when making these hires?
I actually think we hired really well— all five hires are still with us. The only thing I would have changed, particularly around our 20th hire, is starting to look outside of our network earlier. We did this closer to our 30th hire. While hiring within your network is effective early on, especially for moving fast and iterating quickly, it’s also important to optimize for diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences.
If anyone didn't work out, can you share why? Specifically, what went wrong?
Remarkably, all five original team members remain with the company and have grown into significant roles, whether managing teams, designing systems, or handling critical infrastructure. This success can be partially attributed to hiring in Mexico, where engineering tenure typically averages 4-5 years compared to 1-2 years in the US.
If a startup without any prior network or knowledge of the market was interested in exploring building a technical team in Mexico, would you recommend it?
Absolutely. Building a development team in Mexico can be highly beneficial, even for startups without an existing network or market knowledge. I do think it’s crucial to have a strong local leader who understands the talent landscape and can align with the company’s goals. If that’s not an option, leveraging a build-operate-transfer model through a partner like Wizeline can be an effective alternative. This allows startups to quickly scale from zero to a fully operational team with support in hiring, infrastructure, and onboarding. It is expensive, so perhaps a strategy to consider after you’ve raised a little bit extra in your initial round of funding but in the long run it is far more cost effective than building a technical team in the United States.
If you liked “The Founding Five: Belsasar Lepe of Cerby" and want to read more content from the Bowery Capital Team, check out other relevant posts from the Bowery Capital Blog.
