Some of the richest people in the world — Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg — made their fortunes in Silicon Valley. However, a new report in the Wall Street Journal suggests that most U.S. billionaires did not amass their wealth in tech. Instead, it’s the banking and finance fields that have produced most of the country’s super-rich.

According to data shared with the WSJ from wealth intelligence company Altrata, there were 1,135 billionaires in the U.S. last year, up from 927 in 2020. Approximately 300 billionaires made their money in banking and finance, while an estimated 110 came from the tech sector. Meanwhile, 75 billionaires earned their money in real estate.

Many, of course, got a head start by inheriting wealth. One-third of U.S. billionaires received some or all of their wealth from an inheritance, per Altrata.

Related: This 30-Year-Old Billionaire Says Life ‘Hasn’t Really Changed That Much’ After Making Billions. Here’s Where She Spends Money.

The data shows that U.S. billionaires are worth $5.7 trillion in total. Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg alone comprise about $1 trillion, or nearly one-sixth, of that wealth.

Altrata also found that billionaires tend to live in one state above all others: California. The highest percentage of them, about 255 people, live in the Golden State. However, they have primary businesses in nearly every U.S. state, except for Wyoming and Alaska.

The list of U.S. billionaires includes some recognizable names, including Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, as well as some more private individuals, like Diane Hendricks, co-founder of ABC Supply, North America’s biggest distributor of building products.

Hendricks, who is the richest self-made woman with a net worth of $22.3 billion, is one of 150 female billionaires based in the U.S., joining stars like Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez. Most of the list, 86%, is comprised of men.

Related: Is Selena Gomez the Next Beauty Billionaire?

When it comes to philanthropy, Altrata data shows that billionaires have donated or pledged to donate about $185 billion to charitable organizations over the past decade. Among them is Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who donated a record $6 billion to different foundations in June.

Nearly half of all overall donations from billionaires, $90 billion, went towards two causes: education and medical research. Some of the most popular organizations that received donations were the Central Park Conservancy in New York City, which received funds collectively worth about $100 million from 89 individuals, and Johns Hopkins University, which received donations from about 30 individuals totaling $7.5 billion.

However, charitable giving isn’t a priority for all billionaires. One in four has donated less than a million dollars each since 2015.

Over the past few months, I’ve received a surprising number of emails and even phone calls from private equity firms asking if I’d consider selling my business.

“Gene,” they all say, “we’ve followed your growth in the technology space and believe we can help you unlock value while preserving your legacy and team. Would you be open to a 20-minute call to discuss mutual opportunities?”

It’s flattering, sure. And it makes sense. According to Harvard’s Corporate Governance site, private equity exits jumped from $754 billion in 2023 to $902 billion in 2024 — about a 20% increase. Other reports show deal value rising by 50% in the first half of 2024 alone, with strategic acquisitions leading the way.

Private equity is everywhere — scooping up contractors, manufacturers, distributors and yes, even tech companies like mine.

Why? Because many business owners are aging out. The average small business owner in the U.S. is over 55, according to the Small Business Administration — and that was back in 2020. So a wave of exits is underway, and investors are eager to buy businesses with strong financials, recurring revenue and growth potential.

But my business? I don’t think I’m sellable. Not because I wouldn’t entertain an offer — but because once a buyer looks under the hood, they’ll realize the uncomfortable truth: My company has no real value.

Related: Want to Maximize the Sale Price of Your Business? Start with These 5 Value Drivers

The balance sheet no one wants

Let’s start with the basics. My business has no hard assets. No buildings, no equipment, no physical property. Just a bit of cash and accounts receivable.

Sure, we also have very few liabilities. In fact, most of our “payables” are actually prepaid client deposits — blocks of time that customers purchase in advance. It’s a great way to boost cash flow and reduce risk, but it creates a liability a buyer would need to honor. Not exactly attractive.

No contracts, no guarantees

We don’t lock clients into long-term contracts. We’ve never sold maintenance agreements or recurring support plans. Our clients use us when they need us — and leave when they don’t.

There’s no proprietary process or secret sauce. What we do isn’t complicated. In fact, anyone could learn it online. Our clients hire us not because we’re unique, but because they don’t have the bandwidth to do it themselves.

So if a private equity firm were to evaluate my company, they’d quickly realize there’s no predictable revenue stream to base a valuation on. No recurring income. No clear multiple to apply. We go project to project, client to client.

That might work for me. But it doesn’t work for them.

A team that disappears when I do

I do have employees. But most of the work is handled by independent contractors. That comes with its own risk — from worker classification issues to a lack of long-term commitment.

Our setup has always been virtual. We’ve been remote since 2005. No office. No shared culture. No in-person meetings. Everyone works independently, and I check in as needed. It works for us — but it doesn’t scream “scalable organization.”

The reality? This business doesn’t run without me. I do the selling. I do the marketing. I oversee projects, handle accounting, manage admin and lead the day-to-day. If I were hit by a bus tomorrow, this business would fold within 30 days — with contractors and staff likely splintering off to do their own thing.

No IP, no exclusivity, no moat

We implement CRM platforms. It’s a crowded, competitive space. The very vendors we represent are often our biggest competitors. There’s no barrier to entry. Competitors appear regularly — usually cheaper, often younger and sometimes better.

We don’t have any intellectual property, documented systems or defined processes. Every project is different, and it rarely makes sense to create templates or workflows that won’t apply next time.

So there’s nothing here to “buy.” No assets. No exclusivity. No edge.

So, what do I have?

I have a business that works for me.

For more than 25 years, it’s paid the bills, put my kids through college and built a retirement plan for my wife and me. It’s also supported dozens of employees and contractors along the way. That’s something I’m proud of.

My model has always been simple: do the work, bill for it, generate cash, save what you can. Rinse and repeat. And for me, it’s worked beautifully.

But let’s be honest: this model doesn’t build transferable value. There’s no goodwill. No buyer-ready systems. No brand equity. No enterprise value. Just a highly functional, one-person-driven operation that disappears without me.

Related: Starting a New Business? Here’s How to Leverage Transferable Skills From Your Prior Careers and Drive Success

If your business looks like mine

Don’t be discouraged. But do be realistic.

You may be generating cash — and that’s great. You may be living well — even better. But unless you’ve intentionally built for scale, structure and succession, your business may not be worth much to anyone else.

And that’s okay — as long as that’s the plan.

For me, it is.

Are you hungry for business? Burger franchises are sizzling hot, offering entrepreneurs a slice of one of the most enduring — and profitable — sectors in the food industry. From iconic, time-tested staples to bold newcomers flipping the script on fast-casual fare, the burger game is as competitive as it is delicious. What connects the biggest winners? Consistency, strong brand appeal and operations that can be replicated coast-to-coast — and even around the world.

In this ranking, we’ve rounded up the top 10 burger franchises lighting up the scene this year, based on the 2025 Franchise 500. Whether you’re craving the comfort of a beloved classic or chasing the next up-and-coming smash hit, these burger brands bring more than flame-grilled meat — they deliver scalable systems built to stand the heat.

This article will help you decide whether these burger giants — and rising stars — are serving up the right opportunity for you.

Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

1. Culver’s

• Founded: 1984
• Franchising since: 1988
• Overall rank: 7
• Number of units: 1,020
• Change in units: +17.1% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $2,642,500 – $8,573,000
• Leadership: Julie Fussner, CEO
• Parent company: Culver Franchising System LLC

Culver’s isn’t just slinging burgers — it’s crafting a cult following, one ButterBurger at a time. Born in Wisconsin and steeped in Midwestern hospitality, the brand has grown steadily to more than 1,000 units, thanks to its focus on quality, community and crinkle-cut fries done right. Under CEO Julie Fussner’s leadership, Culver’s has embraced calculated growth, posting a 17% unit increase over the past three years — not to mention a top 10 ranking in the 2025 Franchise 500. With an investment starting at just over $2.6 million, franchisees are buying into a system designed to last, backed by a brand that still feels like family.

Related: The Culver Family Opened Their First Restaurant in 1984 — Now Culver’s Has 1,000 Locations. What’s Its Secret?

2. Wendy’s

• Founded: 1969
• Franchising since: 1971
• Overall rank: 8
• Number of units: 7,282
• Change in units: +5.8% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $310,095 – $2,828,707
• Leadership: Kirk Tanner, president & CEO
• Parent company: Wendy’s

Wendy’s brings bold flavors and bigger ambitions to the quick-service burger game. Known for square patties, Frosty treats and fast-food snark, the brand continues to evolve with modern store formats and a push into digital ordering and global markets. Its relatively low entry point for a legacy brand — paired with strong consumer recognition and a multibillion-dollar support system — makes Wendy’s a compelling option for franchisees who want scale and staying power.

Related: From ‘Where’s the Beef?’ to the Metaverse — Here’s How Wendy’s Keeps Innovating Fast Food

3. McDonald’s

• Founded: 1955
• Franchising since: 1955
• Overall rank: 22
• Number of units: 42,406
• Change in units: +7.6% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,471,000 – $2,728,000
• Leadership: Chris Kempczinski, CEO
• Parent company: McDonald’s

McDonald’s reigns as the unrivaled titan of quick-service burger franchising. Its iconic Golden Arches are backed by a proven, scalable model and powerful real estate strategy. To own a slice of its legacy, franchisees must navigate a seven-figure investment alongside a $45,000 franchise fee and have at least $500,000 in liquid assets. But the payoff is baked in: McDonald’s strong brand, operational rigor and global footprint offer unmatched scale — and profitability — for those able to match its ambition.

4. Burger King

• Founded: 1954
• Franchising since: 1961
• Overall rank: 53
• Number of units: 19,732
• Change in units: +2.5% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $2,064,200 – $4,730,500
• Leadership: Chris Elias, senior director, business development and franchising
• Parent company: Restaurant Brands Int’l.

Burger King — originating in 1953 and franchising since 1959 — offers a storied license into fast-food royalty with a typical investment of $1.8 to $4.2 million and a $50,000-$55,000 franchise fee. Under the umbrella of Restaurant Brands International, Burger King is undergoing a bold transformation — acquiring its largest franchisee for $1 billion and rolling out a sweeping remodel plan dubbed “Reclaim the Flame.” The chain aims to modernize nearly 90% of U.S. outlets by 2028, blending heritage with sleek, high-tech efficiency.

Related: Burger King’s Owner Is Buying the Chain’s Biggest Franchisee for $1 Billion

5. Sonic Drive-In

• Founded: 1953
• Franchising since: 1959
• Overall rank: 56
• Number of units: 3,521
• Change in units: -0.11% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,714,200 – $3,370,900
• Leadership: Jim Taylor, brand president
• Parent company: Inspire Brands

Sonic Drive-In has carved out a lane all its own in the burger world — where roller skates meet cherry limeades and carhops still matter. Launched in 1953 and franchising since 1959, the brand now boasts more than 3,500 locations nationwide. Backed by Inspire Brands, Sonic offers flexible formats, from full-scale drive-ins to nontraditional locations, with startup costs ranging from roughly $669,000 to over $3.6 million. Franchisees need strong financials — typically $1 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid assets — and pay ongoing royalties and marketing fees. It’s not just nostalgia on wheels — Sonic is evolving fast, backed by serious tech, bold flavors and a fiercely loyal fan base.

6. Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers

• Founded: 2002
• Franchising since: 2004
• Overall rank: 59
• Number of units: 531
• Change in units: +30.8% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $897,836 – $2,753,566
• Leadership: Chris Dull, president & CEO
• Parent company: N/A

Founded in 2002 and named after a WWII veteran, Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers has become a fast-casual standout with over 500 units across the U.S. and strong systemwide sales near $1 billion. Franchisees invest between $786,000 and $2,750,000 up front, with typical minimum asset requirements of $850,000 net worth and $250,000 liquidity. Acquired by Thompson Street Capital Partners in 2021, Freddy’s is accelerating expansion — targeting Canadian provinces and opening locations like Beaumont, Texas, later this year. With strong growth and proven AUVs, Freddy’s remains a compelling franchise opportunity.

Related: Fried, Fast and Franchised — These Are The Top 10 Chicken Franchises in 2025

7. Habit Burger & Grill

• Founded: 1969
• Franchising since: 2013
• Overall rank: 107
• Number of units: 379
• Change in units: +10.2% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,026,000 – $2,859,000
• Leadership: Jonathan Trapesonian, head of franchising and development
• Parent company: Yum! Brands

Habit Burger & Grill started as a fast-casual restaurant called The Habit in Goleta, California, in 1969, and didn’t open its second location until 1996. It started franchising in 2013, and in 2020, Yum! Brands purchased the company and expanded it to more than 350 locations worldwide. The fast-casual chain is known for its charburgers, chicken and ahi tuna sandwiches. Franchisees interested in opening a Habit Burger & Grill must have a net worth of $3 million and a cash requirement of $1 million.

Related: This Is the Most Important Thing You Can Do to Improve Your Business, According to the Co-Founder of a $32 Billion Company

8. Jack in the Box

• Founded: 1951
• Franchising since: 1982
• Overall rank: 182
• Number of units: 2,178
• Change in units: -1% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,910,500 – $4,032,100
• Leadership: Van Ingram, CDO
• Parent company: Jack in the Box Inc.

Founded in 1951 in San Diego, Jack in the Box began franchising around 1982 and now operates nearly 2,200 restaurants across 22 states. Aspiring franchisees face an upfront investment ranging from about $2 to $4 million, alongside a $50,000 franchise fee. Ongoing fees include a 5% royalty and 5% marketing contribution. You must have at least $1.5 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid capital to open a Jack in the Box franchise. The brand is expanding into new markets like Georgia and Chicago, but is also streamlining operations: under its “Jack on Track” strategy, including closing underperforming locations to sharpen its long-term performance.

9. Carl’s Jr.

• Founded: 1945
• Franchising since: 1984
• Overall rank: 187
• Number of units: 1,719
• Change in units: +2.6% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,486,000 – $3,176,500
• Leadership: Joe Guith, CEO
• Parent company: CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

Carl’s Jr. has come a long way from its 1941 origins — franchising since 1984 and now operating around 1,700 U.S. restaurants. If you’re aiming to own one, be prepared for a startup cost between approximately $1.3 and $3.4 million, plus a franchise fee of nearly $25,000. Ongoing obligations include a royalty of around 4% of sales and marketing fees of about 6%. Candidates generally must have a net worth of at least $1 million and liquid capital between $300,000 and $500,000. The brand’s premium image and franchisor support make it a solid bet for seasoned operators.

Related: 3 Lessons I Learned Selling My Billion-Dollar Company

10. A&W Restaurants

• Founded: 1919
• Franchising since: 1925
• Overall rank: 193
• Number of units: 848
• Change in units: -5% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $298,899 – $1,639,906
• Leadership: Betsy Schmandt, CEO
• Parent company: A&W Restaurants

A&W is a storied icon of American fast food — founded in 1919 and franchising since 1926, it’s the nation’s oldest restaurant franchise still thriving today. With around 460 U.S. locations (and nearly as many worldwide), A&W has been fully franchisee-owned since 2011. Initial investments range from approximately $300,000 for compact formats to over $1.6 million for freestanding outlets, plus a $30,000 franchise fee (discounted for veterans). Ongoing costs include a 5% royalty and marketing fee. Franchisees need at least $500,000 in net worth and $250,000 in liquid capital.

Starbucks revealed its protein lineup on Tuesday, and the company is going “all in,” according to a press release.

Starbucks coffeehouses in the U.S. and Canada will offer a Protein Cold Foam topper alongside a new line of Protein Lattes starting September 29. The lattes are made with protein-boosted milk.

Related: Starbucks Is Betting on Protein Cold Foam and a ‘Sugar Reduction’ to Turn Around Lagging Sales. Here’s a Look at the Sweeping Changes.

“As we continue to get back to Starbucks, we’re focused on modernizing our menu with innovative, relevant, and hype-worthy products that will resonate with our customers,” said Tressie Leiberman, Starbucks’ global chief brand officer, in the release. “Our new protein beverages tap into the growing consumer demand for protein in an innovative, premium, and delicious way that only Starbucks can deliver.”

Starbucks says its Protein Cold Foam has been used in one out of every seven beverages since the company began testing the foam in July. The company also says the demand is there — 70% of Americans surveyed said they were interested in consuming more protein, according to the 2025 IFIC Food & Health Survey.

^Starbucks

The new drinks are customizable with sugar-free and unsweetened options.

Related: Starbucks Just Experienced a ‘Record-Breaking Sales Week’ Thanks to One Line of Products

What Is Starbucks Protein Cold Foam?

According to Starbucks, the foam is a “creamy, frothy topping that adds texture and flavor to any cold coffee, tea, or Refreshers, creating a delicious, layered drink” and adds 19 to 26 grams of protein per Grande beverage.

It also comes in various flavors (banana, vanilla, sugar-free vanilla, chocolate, matcha, salted caramel, brown sugar, and plain), and seasonal flavors, including pumpkin and pecan.

The new lattes, meanwhile, offer even more protein: 27 to 36 grams worth. Rather than the foam topper, these drinks are crafted with the newly introduced protein-rich milk.

Related: Starbucks Is Hiring a ‘Global Content Creator’ to Travel, Drink Coffee, and Get Paid Six Figures

As a founder, your focus is growth — more users, more features, more market share. But sometimes the biggest thing standing in your way isn’t your business model, marketing or funding. It’s your tech team.

Not because they’re doing something wrong — but because they’ve taken you as far as they can.

And when you finally bring in a new team or vendor, it’s a stress test. For the business, it means facing hard questions about control. For the new team, it means diving into someone else’s legacy code. And for you, the founder, there’s one phrase no one ever wants to hear:

“Honestly, it might be easier to rebuild this from scratch.”

But here’s the thing — you don’t need a fire to smell the smoke.

Related: The Top 2 Mistakes Founders Make That Hinder the Growth of Their Companies

The calm before the stall

Sometimes, founders realize something’s off when everything starts breaking — delivery delays, ballooning budgets or a tech stack that feels five years old. But just as often, things look fine on the surface.

Code is getting shipped. Deadlines are met. Users are active, maybe even paying. On paper, it all looks “on track.”

But under the hood, your product may already be maxed out. Not because of bugs — but because the team that built it wasn’t thinking far enough ahead.

This is the silent stall: when your product stops being a launchpad and becomes a ceiling. It still works, but it can’t grow.

No scalable tech foundation

Most growth plans boil down to a simple idea: make it work, then scale. But can your architecture, tools and infrastructure handle that scale?

If your tech partner lacks a long-term mindset, they’ll deliver what you ask for — but not what you’ll need next. That means you’ll constantly be in maintenance mode, fixing things that should’ve been built right the first time.

And growth adds pressure fast: more users, more data, more complexity. What works for a few thousand users might fall apart at scale — or cost you exponentially more to run.

A good tech partner doesn’t treat scalability as an upgrade. They design for it from day one. Modular systems, clean infrastructure and smart trade-offs aren’t technical luxuries — they’re what make future features (and funding rounds) possible.

Because rebuilding later costs more. In time, money and momentum you won’t get back.

An incomplete team

Here’s something that trips up a lot of startups: assuming developers alone can carry the product.

Developers are essential, of course. But building a successful digital product takes more than code. You also need:

• Business analysts to map user and market needs into features
• UX and UI designers to shape user experience
• Solution architects to plan scalable systems

If your current vendor only supplies engineers, you’re not working with a product partner — you’re working with a contractor. That might be fine early on, but over time, it’s a limitation.

Without the right roles in place, your product gets built in a vacuum. There’s no one translating strategy into functionality or guiding decisions with the bigger picture in mind.

A complete product team is cross-functional by design. The best vendors can pull in the right expertise when needed — not weeks later, but immediately.

No plan for what’s next

Plenty of teams are great at delivering today’s requirements. But what about tomorrow’s?

If your tech partner isn’t helping you plan for monetization, scale or the next fundraising round, you’re not set up for sustainable growth.

Think about how much future planning touches:

• Payment systems
• Onboarding flows
• App store requirements
• Subscription models
• Analytics and data tracking

Miss these pieces early, and you’ll end up rebuilding later — right when you should be scaling. Investors notice too. They expect clean data, thoughtful UX and systems that support growth, not just usage.

A strong tech partner will challenge assumptions and help you anticipate what comes after this version. Because scaling isn’t just more code — it’s pricing, performance, infrastructure and go-to-market timing all working together.

If your team isn’t thinking that far ahead, it’s time to find one that is.

Related: 6 Unconventional Habits That Actually Help Entrepreneurs Find Work-Life Sanity

Final thoughts

Not all stalled products fail loudly. Sometimes the most dangerous moment is when everything seems fine — but nothing’s moving forward.

You don’t need a crisis to justify a change. You need a vision that your current team can grow into — not just keep afloat.

Yes, switching vendors takes time, effort and sometimes cleanup. But it also gives you a reset — a chance to align your product with where your business is actually going.

If you’ve hit a ceiling, don’t wait until it becomes a wall. Find a partner who can build what’s next, not just maintain what’s now.

When uncertainty rises, many leaders do the reasonable thing. They become more careful. They slow spending. They pause plans. They wait for clearer signals before committing to big moves.

At first, it makes sense. The conditions are unclear. The pressure is real. No one wants to overcommit when the stakes are high and the path ahead is blurry. A measured pause can feel responsible, even necessary.

But over time, that caution can shift the culture. Motion slows. Teams hesitate. The energy that once kept people building begins to fade. Not because anyone made a bad decision, but because belief is no longer being modeled.

When leaders stop showing confidence in where the company is going, the whole system responds. This is not about charisma or volume. It is about posture, the way conviction shows up in tone, in timing, in the pace of decisions.

In moments like this, optimism is not a luxury. It is what keeps progress alive.

Related: How The Best Executives Show Leadership in Times of Uncertainty

The power of optimism

I have led through crises, pivots and culture resets. In each case, the same pattern showed up. When leaders carry belief, even when the path is unclear, teams keep moving. When belief disappears, momentum fades. People start waiting for clarity, direction or permission.

In complex environments, the emotional posture of leadership becomes the silent operating system. Optimism either sustains forward motion or its absence introduces friction. Even the best plans slow down when belief disappears from the room.

Optimism is not a personality trait. It is a leadership practice. It shapes how you speak, how you make decisions and how you guide others through complexity.

You do not need to be overly positive. You do not need to perform. You need to keep pointing forward with consistency. When your team sees that, they stay engaged.

The strongest leaders I’ve worked with are not the ones who avoid uncertainty. They are the ones who can hold it without handing it off to their teams. Optimism helps them do that. It keeps the weight from becoming the tone.

In most organizations, tone travels faster than tactics. If you grow more hesitant, your team will sense it. That is not a flaw. It is a human response to the emotional signals leaders send.

What you say may be precise, but how you say it often has more impact. A slight shift in energy from the top can change how an entire team interprets risk and momentum.

I experienced this in a high-pressure environment when our company came under scrutiny. We had a plan, but the atmosphere changed. People paused. Focus slipped. Energy became scattered. The quiet question in the room was clear. Do we still believe in what we are building?

In moments like that, no one waits for an all-hands meeting. People take their cues from daily tone, hallway conversations and executive language. That is why steady belief matters.

What helped us recover was not a new strategy. It was steady communication. We named the pressure. We spoke with clarity. We made sure people heard conviction in our voice. And we chose to keep moving.

That choice mattered. It gave people something to align around. It gave them permission to act.

Once teams see that leadership still believes, they recalibrate. Confidence comes back. Initiative returns. You do not need a perfect plan. You need clear, active belief.

This is what optimism does. It restores direction. It keeps systems in motion when certainty is unavailable.

Related: How to Lead With Positive Energy (Even When Times Get Tough)

Lead with belief

Optimism is not about ignoring risks. It is about leading with belief anyway. When that belief is present, teams stay focused. They solve problems faster. They keep building when others start waiting.

It helps people think creatively instead of defensively. It creates space to try instead of waiting to react.

If things feel stuck, take a closer look at how you are showing up. Not just in presentations or briefings, but in everyday conversations. Are you modeling progress or stalling? Are you holding direction or broadcasting hesitation?

Because people do not just need approval. They need to know their leaders still believe in what they are working toward. That belief, when communicated with intention, becomes contagious. It resets energy. It shifts momentum. It brings direction back into the room.

Optimism, when carried with clarity, cuts through noise. It is not emotional. It is structural. It sets pace. It creates alignment. It holds energy in motion.

The leaders who move teams through uncertainty are not always the ones with the perfect plan. They are the ones who give people a reason to keep going. They carry belief on purpose. They model direction even when the conditions are imperfect.

Optimism is not the opposite of realism. It is what makes realism useful.

When leaders carry it well, the effect spreads. Not because they are louder, but because their clarity steadies the room.

Related: How to Lead With a Balanced Sense of Optimism When The Future Looks Bleak

Chad and Tiffany Mussmon went from teachers to franchise owners in 1997, building from one The Little Gym (#198 on the Franchise 500) to seven locations across Maryland and Virginia — and adding two Snapology (#394 on the Franchise 500) territories along the way. This spring, they opened a co-branded Little Gym and Snapology hub in Leesburg, Virginia, giving parents one stop for physical development and STEAM. In this Q&A, they trace the journey, systems and family handoff behind that growth.

Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

Image Credit: Unleashed Brands

What made you take the leap from employee to owner back in 1997?
Chad: We were both teachers with a young family coming out of college and didn’t really have capital right away — we just worked our way through with sweat equity and put a business plan together. I didn’t come from an entrepreneurial family, but my uncle was an entrepreneur, and I loved his approach to mentoring people and creating his own destiny. Franchising was new to me — I knew McDonald’s, but I didn’t realize how widespread franchising was as a 23-year-old. We just started shifting our mindset from employee to ownership, with the awesome responsibility that comes with that.

In the early years, what was the hardest challenge, and how did you deal with it?
Chad: Back then, multi-unit ownership wasn’t common outside of the big guys. There wasn’t a lot of strategy for a single-unit operator moving to multiple locations. We had a mentor who gave us great real estate contacts. Local banking contacts were a big part of our ability to capitalize on growth.

Related: A.I. Could Destroy the Power of Video Marketing — But Only If We Allow It

What did Covid-19 change for your business?
Chad: With Covid, we had a rough time — we closed a bunch — and my entrepreneurial spirit was crushed. I told Tiffany I’d never open another business. But my spirit recovered, and we opened four in 18 months. We saw numbers in the aftermath of Covid we’d never seen. We never had a million-dollar revenue location before Covid-19; then, in the two years after, five out of six locations were million-dollar locations. Things are leveling off now, and the D.C. economy has its challenges, but we have become stronger. We also learned a lot about dealing with landlords — some worked with us, some didn’t. It was a learning curve.

What told you it was time to keep expanding and hiring management?
Tiffany: We saw the need locally — our county is one of the fastest-growing in America — and there was a big need for a non-competitive gymnastics program.

Chad: We knew we couldn’t do it by ourselves, nor did we want to work 60-70 hours a week. I was probably one of the first Little Gym people to step away from day-to-day operations. I’m still very active, just not day-to-day. I was able to do that by focusing closely on the type of quality instructors, directors and managers running our facilities.

How have parents responded to combining both brands under one roof?
Chad: It’s been phenomenal. For parents, it’s about the ease of bringing multiple children to one place. Some kids are more athletic, some are more into coding or STEM. The preliminary results are that parents love doing multiple activities under one roof — it really helps the modern family with their lifestyle.
Tiffany: Snapology goes perfectly with The Little Gym. Both concepts believe in the same thing — building confidence for kids. We even have kids doing both — two classes at The Little Gym and a class at Snapology — in one place.

Your kids now help manage the co-branded location. What does that look like?
Chad: They’re the new generation of that blood, sweat and equity. Their ownership will come based on the success of the location — they have an equity stake.
Tiffany: We’re mentoring them like we were mentored. It’s probably our favorite location now because we spend time with them. They’re both young parents, and we spend most of our time there.

How do you keep quality consistent across multiple units and brands?
Chad: It’s a challenge. I’ve been a “systems guy” for 20 years. I’m big on creating documented ways of doing things. Even in franchising, you still get discrepancies. But when systems are in place, we can direct things back to the right way when issues come up.

What’s next — more co-branded sites, new markets or a pause?
Chad: We’ll consider some markets in our territories over the next 12 to 18 months for The Little Gym. At some existing locations, as space becomes available, we may talk to landlords about adding Snapology. Some other concepts on the Unleashed platform are appealing, but I think we’re taking a pause to catch our breath.

This is the second installment in the “1,000 Days of AI” series. As an AI keynote speaker and strategic advisor on AI university strategy, I’ve seen firsthand how generative AI is transforming education — and why aligning with the future of learning is now a leadership imperative.

I’m starting with education, not because it was the most disrupted, but because it was the first to show us what disruption actually looks like in real time.

Why start here?

Education is upstream to everything. Every future engineer, policymaker, manager and founder is shaped by what happens in a classroom, a lecture hall or a late-night interaction with a search engine. When generative AI arrived, education didn’t have the luxury to wait. It was forced to adapt on the fly.

ChatGPT didn’t quietly enter higher education. It detonated. Assignments unraveled. Grading frameworks collapsed. Students accessed polished answers in seconds. Faculty were blindsided. Institutional responses were reactive, inconsistent and exposed deep fractures in how learning was being defined and delivered.

The idea that education meant memorization and regurgitation cracked almost overnight.

Related: How AI Is Transforming Education Forever — and What It Means for the Next Generation of Thinkers

AI in education didn’t break higher ed — It exposed the disconnect

Long before AI, colleges were already straining under somewhat outdated models — rigid lectures, static syllabi, compliance-heavy assessments and a widening chasm between classroom instruction and workforce reality. Students were evolving faster than the systems designed to serve them.

Generative AI made that gap impossible to ignore. Within months of its release, a majority of students admitted to using ChatGPT or similar tools for coursework. Meanwhile, most college presidents acknowledged they had no formal AI policy in place. The dissonance was loud, and it created not just urgency, but opportunity.

In the past year, I’ve partnered with some of the largest education systems in the world to help develop their AI strategies. We co-developed governance frameworks, launched executive working groups, crafted responsible use guidelines and trained thousands of faculty across campuses. The goal wasn’t just to respond; it was to lead.

At the same time, I’ve worked with community colleges — the frontline of workforce development. These institutions feel disruption first and move fastest. I’ve helped their leaders connect generative AI to student outcomes, integrate tools into classroom experimentation and align innovation with workforce readiness and equity.

Whether it’s a flagship university or a high-impact college, the principle is the same: Strategy must align with people, culture and mission. The institutions making the biggest strides aren’t the ones with perfect AI plans. They’re the ones willing to move while others wait. This momentum is powered by intrapreneurship on the inside, and increasingly, by student-driven entrepreneurship on the outside.

Students are becoming entrepreneurs

Students aren’t waiting for permission; they’re reinventing how learning works. They adapt quickly, embrace emerging technologies and experiment boldly. Some might call it cheating. I’d call it testing the system.

Today’s students no longer see education as a linear path to a degree. They see it as a launchpad for ideas.

They’re using not just ChatGPT, but a full arsenal of AI tools — Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and more — to write business plans, generate branding, build MVPs and pressure-test real-world ideas. In fact, some aren’t just using tools; they’re creating their own. They’re not waiting to be taught. They’re teaching themselves how to build, launch and iterate.

And yes, some of it is used for shortcuts. For cutting corners. For getting around assignments. Academic integrity is a real issue and one that institutions must address. But it’s also a signal that the system itself needs to evolve. These students are not just bypassing rules — they’re stress-testing the relevance of education as it exists today. And this is where intrapreneurs inside the system become critical to bridging the gap.

Related: Why We Shouldn’t Fear AI in Education (and How to Use It Effectively)

Intrapreneurs are moving institutions forward

We all know that innovation rarely happens in the corner offices. The most powerful change isn’t coming from executive memos. It’s coming from the ground up.

I’ve seen faculty members redesign assessments to include AI. Academic advisors build GPT-powered chatbots for student support. Department chairs test automated grading workflows while central IT is still writing policy. These are intrapreneurs — internal innovators leading with agility.

My work has always been to help them scale and to get out of their way. Real transformation happens when governance, incentives and innovation align — and when execution is taken seriously.

What institutions are doing that works

Here are five moves I’ve seen deliver the greatest impact across leadership, faculty and students alike.

1. Accept that change is inevitable: Ignoring, shaming or regulating innovation won’t stop it. Institutions must choose to engage with change, not resist it.

2. Acknowledge that learning is now co-created: In many cases, students are more fluent in new tools than faculty. It may feel awkward — but that discomfort is the birthplace of co-creation and collaborative innovation.

3. Support intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship: Encourage faculty and staff to experiment internally while also supporting students who are launching startups or prototyping ideas using AI.

Institutions that move now are defining the next decade of learning. That doesn’t mean ignoring issues of academic integrity or the risks of cognitive offloading — we don’t know what we don’t know. But that uncertainty should inform us, not paralyze us.

The institutions that will thrive in the next 1,000 days aren’t those with the most tech. They’re the ones that create space to adapt, listen and lead from every level — through both intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship.

Related: How AI, Funding Cuts and Shifting Skills Are Redefining Education — and What It Means for the Future of Work

Leadership is no longer a title; it’s a posture. Every instructor redesigning a course, every student experimenting with AI, every staffer who builds a better workflow is shaping the future of education.

According to the World Economic Forum, over 40% of core job skills will shift in the next five years. That’s not a prediction — it’s a mandate.

The only way forward is to build systems that learn as fast as the people in them. Presidents and provosts can provide vision, but it’s intrapreneurs who will make it real. Transformation won’t be dictated from above. It will be powered from within.

AI is not the end. It’s the beginning of a new way of learning and a new kind of leadership.

Coming next in the “1,000 Days of AI” series: Higher education wasn’t ready for AI, but students forced the conversation. K-12 is even more essential because critical thinking, ethical reasoning and digital fluency must begin long before college.

After Bitcoin launched in 2009, it became clear to proponents that it would have a difficult time ever becoming “electronic cash.” It was too slow and decentralized. Instead, the consensus was reached that its purpose should fit its architecture. The pivot was important: Bitcoin aimed to be a decentralized store of value — a digital vault. It wasn’t built for speed, and as a store of value, it would never need to be fast.

Ten-minute block times were acceptable because they didn’t need to be used for daily payments, let alone real-time gaming or algorithmic trading. It wouldn’t have to compete with Visa or PayPal; it simply had to serve as a hedge against macroeconomic and geopolitical risks, like its gold and rare metal counterparts.

As such, its limited throughput was reframed as a feature rather than a flaw, a security trade-off that prioritized immutability and decentralization over instant convenience.

In many ways, Bitcoin became a philosophical statement about the trade-offs inherent in trustless systems, teaching the industry that decentralization has costs, but those costs define its unique value proposition.

Related: America Needs a Bitcoin Reserve — Here’s Why

The blockchain space has evolved far beyond its origins, and no other chain can attempt to recreate Bitcoin’s narrative. In 2025, Web3 is no longer about theoretical use cases. It is powering actual economies, which rely on fast finality and battle-tested security. Tokenized assets, payments apps, decentralized finance, consumer loyalty, identity, gaming and increasingly AI systems all rely on the same foundation: scalable, low-latency infrastructure.

These real-world applications demand performance that was inconceivable in the early days of cryptocurrency. The promise of decentralized technology can no longer exist solely as a concept; it must operate at the speed, scale and reliability that modern users have come to expect.

But that foundation is nowhere near where it needs to be. Today’s blockchains are asked to perform like global-scale platforms, even as most still struggle with 1990s-era throughput. That mismatch is the biggest threat to Web3’s future, the distance between what’s demanded of a decentralized blockchain and what these protocols can actually offer.

Most chains today still process fewer than 100 transactions per second. Legacy networks like Visa can handle tens of thousands without breaking a sweat. High-frequency trading platforms operate with microsecond latency. And yet we expect developers, enterprises and users to build and transact on infrastructure that’s slower than dial-up.

Related: Why Gold and Bitcoin Are the Go-To Safe Havens in 2025

The public will not wait for us to catch up. They are used to seamless, real-time experiences. Anything less feels broken. This is not a matter of optimization. It is a question of survival. If we do not build for performance, we will not be taken seriously. Web3 cannot survive on nostalgia or theoretical ideals alone; it needs infrastructure capable of handling the realities of billions of users, each expecting instant results, frictionless interaction and financial security at all times.

What Web3 needs now is a clean break from legacy limitations. The next generation of chains must be built for speed from day one. This includes advanced sequencing architectures that allow networks to prioritize and order transactions efficiently. It also includes parallelized execution, which enables blockchains to process thousands of transactions simultaneously, rather than one after another, in a single line. On top of that, developers need predictable fee structures that make sense at scale. Micropayments don’t work when fees are higher than the transaction itself. Without these foundational changes, innovation will remain bottlenecked and adoption will stall.

None of this is optional anymore; If we want blockchain technology to serve billions of users, we need infrastructure that performs like global financial rails. That means sub-second latency. It means tens of thousands of transactions per second. It means costs that make sense for everyday use.

Some of this is already underway. Several high-throughput chains are being tested right now, and a few are in production. Polygon PoS is expected to cross 5,000 transactions per second this year. Within the next twelve to eighteen months, 100,000 TPS is within reach. At that point, Web3 can begin to seriously challenge legacy platforms.

Plus, with the power of ZK technology, we can now have institution-grade blockchains that can provide 10s of thousands of TPS with full control and compliance available to the corresponding institution. Zero-knowledge proofs allow for privacy-preserving verification and regulatory compliance simultaneously, making it possible for institutions to leverage public blockchains without compromising security or governance requirements.

Related: I Studied 233 Millionaires — These Are the 6 Habits That Made Them Rich

But we can’t afford to celebrate incremental improvements. Speed is not just a technical achievement. It is what unlocks the real-world applications we have been promising for over a decade. Without it, we stay stuck in the prototype phase.

The next generation of the internet won’t wait for us. It will move forward with or without blockchains at its core. If Web3 wants to be part of that future, it must start building like it.

Now.

In today’s world, not every founder comes from a technical background, and that’s no longer a dealbreaker. With AI projected to grow 28.5% by the end of the decade, even specialists are racing to keep up with emerging innovations. In such a fast-moving environment, the expectation that any one person, founder or otherwise, will master every detail is both unrealistic and counterproductive.

The reality is this: You don’t need to code to build in tech, but you do need to translate. The ability to connect across disciplines has become the most important skill to develop — not just as someone building a company, but as someone leading one.

If my experience in the NBA has taught me anything, it’s that every good team is made up of strong translators: people who understand both the locker room and the boardroom, coaches who can speak to data analysts and players, and leaders who can turn strategy into execution. Unsurprisingly, this is exactly what tech startups need, too.

Related: Having No Experience Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Start a Business

Clarity beats jargon

When I started building Tracy AI, I quickly learned that trying to sound technical wasn’t helpful and actually slowed things down. Translating product decisions into clear, outcome-based language helped us move much faster. We didn’t always need to build models from scratch, but we did need to understand what those models were aiming for. That’s the real distinction between technical literacy and technical fluency: One is about credibility, but the other is about clarity. When everyone’s on the same page, people align, and products get better.

Having this approach enabled us to bring in outside subject-matter experts, test assumptions early and avoid costly missteps that often come from internal echo chambers. Regardless of whether your team is fluent in Python, the ability to communicate clearly across complexity is what ultimately drives the company’s momentum.

Hire smart

I once read a quote from David Ogilvy that stuck with me: “Hire people who are better than you are, and then leave them to get on with it.” In tech, that means surrounding yourself with brilliant engineers, designers and product minds, and focusing your own energy on alignment, direction and decision-making.

Building a company is about asking better questions, setting the right priorities and making sure your team is rowing in the same direction. That requires trust, communication and discipline, not technical depth. It also means knowing how to translate business needs into technical priorities, and vice versa.

When it comes down to it, a founder’s job is to build bridges. Between vision and execution. Between product and people. Between strategy and reality. The most valuable skill in business isn’t your ability to code; it’s your ability to connect. Not being afraid of connecting strong, self-motivated individuals in your business is not only a recipe for success — it’s just good business sense.

Related: How (Not Why) You Need to Start Hiring People Smarter Than Yourself

Letting go

Rapid-growth companies face a specific leadership challenge: knowing when to direct and when to step back. For founders, especially those without technical backgrounds, there’s a strong temptation to stay hands-on with every detail. According to a Harvard Business Review study, 58% of founders struggle to let go of control, often remaining stuck in what’s known as “founder mode,” even when the company is ready to scale.

Being stuck in founder mode can slow down progress, stifle creativity and burn out the very experts hired to build. The job of the founder is to hold the vision and define the “what” and “why,” while trusting the team to figure out the “how.” That means giving engineers autonomy to explore solutions and trusting their understanding of the mechanics.

At the same time, it’s important to stay connected to the people you’re building for. From my experience, I made sure to spend time with athletes, coaches and trainers — not just as a former player, but as a product owner committed to learning. That user feedback wasn’t just helpful; it became a compass for the tech. Just because we may need to let go of day-to-day, doesn’t mean we can’t get involved in other ways.

At a certain point in any startup’s life, there is a transition from idea to alignment. Engineers speak in sprints and system architecture. Investors speak in ROI and risk. Users speak in frustrations, workarounds and outcomes. As a founder, your job is to be the connector between all of them, bridging the gap between engineers, users and investors, often speaking three very different languages in the same meeting.

Related: Are You Running Your Business — or Is It Running You? How to Escape ‘Founder Mode’ and Learn to Let Go

That means being able to explain what users actually want to your developers, breaking down technical constraints in a way your investors can understand and communicating a vision clearly enough that everyone in the business can see where they fit in. This is what makes a product usable, turns a group of builders into a team and ultimately transforms a good idea into a lasting company.