Why More Growth Companies Are Looking Beyond the Traditional IPO
.jpg)
Enhanced Games at Resorts World Las Vegas. PHOTO: FACEBOOK@ENHANCEDGAMES
Enhanced Games reached the public markets in less than six months.
In an era where traditional IPOs can take more than a year to complete, the speed of the company’s merger with A Paradise Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: APAD) stands out, particularly given the significantly tighter regulatory scrutiny surrounding SPAC transactions since 2021.
The transaction highlights why some growth-stage companies are evaluating special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) as a viable alternative to the traditional IPO process.
Led by Dr. Aron D’Souza and backed by investors including Peter Thiel and Christian Angermayer, Enhanced Games announced its Business Combination Agreement with APAD in November 2025. The transaction closed in May 2026, bringing the company to the public markets materially faster than the timeline typically associated with a conventional IPO.
For decades, the traditional IPO has been considered the default route for private companies entering the public markets. But for many high-growth businesses today, the process has become increasingly slow, expensive, and difficult to execute efficiently.
A conventional IPO can take well over a year to prepare, involving extensive audits, regulatory reviews, underwriter coordination, investor roadshows, and careful timing against market conditions. During that period, companies remain exposed to volatility, shifting investor sentiment, and delayed access to capital. According to EY, many companies postponed planned IPOs amid market volatility and uncertainty surrounding U.S. tariff announcements, highlighting how sensitive IPO execution can be to broader market conditions.
For businesses operating in fast-moving industries, timing matters. Delayed access to liquidity can slow expansion, hiring, acquisitions, partnerships, and product development at critical stages of growth.
That is one reason why the merger between Enhanced Games and APAD is notable. The SPAC structure allowed Enhanced Games to negotiate valuation, governance terms, and financing arrangements early in the process, compressing many of the steps normally associated with a conventional IPO into a single transaction.
Enhanced Games operates across sports, media, performance science, and wellness, sectors that require significant upfront investment and rapid execution. Earlier access to public capital provided the company with liquidity, visibility, and strategic flexibility at an important stage of growth.
The public listing also gives the company tradable equity that can potentially support acquisitions, partnerships, athlete compensation structures, sponsorship arrangements, and future fundraising initiatives. These capabilities are particularly relevant in industries evolving as rapidly as sports entertainment, wellness, and human-performance science, where speed itself can become a competitive advantage.
The deal also highlights one of the SPAC market’s core advantages: the ability to combine capital raising and public-market entry within a single process.
Beyond speed, the SPAC structure offered Enhanced Games another major advantage: earlier visibility into valuation.
In a traditional IPO, pricing is largely determined near the end of the process through institutional book-building and investor demand during the roadshow phase. Even late-stage IPO candidates can face valuation cuts, downsized offerings, or postponed listings if market conditions weaken.
Recent IPO markets have repeatedly demonstrated this risk. Instacart went public in 2023 at an approximate US$9.9 billion valuation, which is dramatically below the US$39 billion private valuation it achieved during the 2021 market peak. Similarly, WeWork’s failed IPO attempt became one of the clearest examples of how rapidly investor sentiment can shift during the IPO process.
SPAC mergers operate differently.
Enhanced Games secured an implied enterprise valuation of approximately US$1.2 billion months before closing the transaction. While the merger still required SEC review and shareholder approval, the company gained significantly greater visibility into deal economics much earlier in the process.
That certainty is particularly valuable for growth companies whose valuations are tied more closely to long-term platform potential than near-term profitability.
Rather than relying entirely on shifting IPO market sentiment, the SPAC structure allowed Enhanced Games to negotiate around its broader growth strategy and future expansion plans from the outset.
The Enhanced Games transaction also reinforces why some growth-stage companies evaluate SPACs as an alternative to the traditional IPO process.
Traditional IPO investors often prefer businesses with long operating histories, stable earnings, and predictable growth profiles. Many expansion-stage companies simply do not fit that model yet, even if their long-term opportunities are substantial.
SPACs offer a different pathway.
Instead of waiting years to achieve the operational maturity typically expected in a conventional IPO, companies can access public-market capital earlier while still in growth mode.
For Enhanced Games, early access to the public markets provides more than capital. Public equity can support acquisitions, partnerships, athlete compensation structures, sponsorship arrangements, and future fundraising efforts. These capabilities are particularly important in sectors evolving as rapidly as sports entertainment, wellness, and human-performance science, where speed itself can become a competitive advantage.
The transaction also highlights how the SPAC market has evolved since the speculative boom of 2020 and 2021.
Today’s de-SPAC environment operates under significantly tighter regulatory scrutiny, including enhanced disclosure requirements, greater SEC oversight, and stricter treatment of projections and liability standards.
The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance noted that redemption rates spiked in 2022, in some cases approaching 100%, contributing to a significant slowdown of the SPAC activity.
In response to rising investor concerns and regulatory pressure, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission adopted enhanced SPAC disclosure and liability rules in 2024 designed to align de-SPAC transactions more closely with traditional IPO standards. Sponsors also faced greater pressure to demonstrate financing certainty, stronger disclosures, and more credible post-merger execution.
Enhanced Games completed its transaction within this more disciplined environment.
Its Form S-4 included audited financial statements, governance disclosures, transaction details, and extensive risk-factor analysis subject to SEC review. The company also supplemented SPAC trust proceeds with a separately arranged US$40 million PIPE financing commitment designed to strengthen liquidity and improve deal certainty.
That structure reflects a more institutional and disciplined SPAC market than the speculative wave seen several years ago.
The Enhanced Games transaction demonstrates that, despite tighter regulation and a far more selective market environment, SPACs can offer certain growth companies a practical alternative to the traditional IPO.
For businesses prioritising speed, capital access, and execution certainty, a well-structured de-SPAC transaction may provide a more efficient route to the public markets, particularly when supported by credible financing, disciplined structuring, and strong investor backing.
Keep Reading
A rare policy consensus emerges as AI’s impact moves beyond innovation into governance and societal risk
Updated
May 26, 2026 5:40 PM
A mechanical hand reaching for the hand of flesh. PHOTO: UNSPLASH
A new survey from Povaddo, a policy research firm, suggests that concern about artificial intelligence is no longer limited to industry or academia. It is now firmly present within the policy community.
The survey draws on responses from 301 public policy professionals across the United States and Europe, including lawmakers, staffers and analysts involved in shaping and evaluating public policy. A majority of respondents—61%—say governments are falling short in addressing the negative impacts of AI.
There is also broad agreement that regulation needs to increase. In the United States, 92% of respondents support stronger AI regulation, compared to 70% in Europe. At a time when consensus is often difficult, the findings point to a shared view across policy circles that current frameworks are not keeping pace with technological development.
Differences emerge when looking at how AI is affecting national contexts. In the U.S., 57% of policy experts believe AI is already harming the labor market. In Europe, 34% say the same. U.S. respondents are also more likely to see AI as a greater threat to jobs than immigration, with 63% holding that view compared to 47% in Europe.
On misinformation, responses are closely aligned. A large majority of policy experts in both regions expect an AI-driven misinformation crisis within the next one to two years—87% in the U.S. and 82% in Europe. Many also believe that AI-generated or AI-amplified misinformation could affect elections and public health information.
Some respondents frame the risks in more fundamental terms. In the United States, 41% of policy experts say AI poses an existential threat to humanity. In Europe, 29% share that view. U.S. respondents are also more likely to believe that advances in AI could harm global security and stability.
The findings come as policymakers begin to respond more actively. In the U.S., Senators Josh Hawley, Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner have introduced bipartisan legislation focused on AI accountability, including measures aimed at protecting workers and children.
In Europe, the introduction of the EU AI Act marks a more advanced regulatory approach. The framework sets out rules based on levels of risk and is widely seen as the first comprehensive attempt to govern AI at scale.
William Stewart, President and Founder of Povaddo, said: "What makes these findings so significant is who is saying it. These are the practitioners who work inside the policy process every day, spanning every corner of the policy world from defense to healthcare to finance, not activists or everyday citizens. These findings foreshadow real action. The current path of governments accelerating AI deployment while falling short on governance is not sustainable, and the people who know that best are the ones in this survey. You cannot have nine-in-ten policy insiders demanding more regulation and four-in-ten calling AI an existential threat without that eventually moving the needle in Washington and Brussels in terms of legislative or regulatory action".
Taken together, the survey reflects a shift in how AI is being discussed within policymaking circles. Concern is no longer limited to future risks. It is increasingly tied to current gaps in governance and the pace of deployment.