The encyclopedia · Strategy & Leadership · Strategic decision · 2013–2025
Biyao Mall pioneered C2M e-commerce — the cash gap swallowed it
The first C2M platform paid factories 50% upfront and waited 45 days for payment. $30M in funding, 35M users, and one seized-up cash cycle later, it shut down.
Biyao Mall
What happened
Biyao Mall (必要商城) launched in 2013 as China's first C2M (Customer-to-Manufacturer) e-commerce platform, the brainchild of Bi Sheng, a Baidu co-founder. It connected consumers directly to factories that manufactured for brands like Prada and Armani, cutting out the middleman. By its peak, Biyao had accumulated 35 million registered users and a 99%+ satisfaction rate, and had run aggressive ad campaigns declaring "Goodbye Taobao, goodbye Pinduoduo."
The model worked for users but bled cash for the platform. Biyao prepaid factories 50% upfront, then waited up to 45 days for customers to confirm receipt and release payment. The gap between outgoing and incoming cash grew with every order. The company raised only $30 million across two funding rounds (a 2013 Series A of roughly $2 million and a 2015 A+ round of $30 million), and reportedly turned down a $1 billion valuation offer. Its debt-to-asset ratio hovered above 120%, far above the retail industry average of 70%.
The end came in May 2025. A core factory was fined 500,000 yuan for environmental violations, triggering 12 other suppliers to collectively demand 15-day payment terms. The move drained Biyao's remaining 80 million yuan ($11 million) in working capital instantly. Founder Bi Sheng posted an open letter on the Biyao app announcing the platform would "hibernate" — all operations suspended. Products were cleared from the app, and users were asked to refund unfinished orders. Executorship records exceeding 500,000 yuan were filed the same day.
Why it happened
- A C2M platform that prepays suppliers and collects from customers weeks later is a financing business masquerading as a marketplace — the float only grows with scale and kills when it seizes up.
- $30 million was not enough to sustain the working capital gap across 16 product categories; the model needed either higher gross margins or supply-chain financing that was never built.
- Aggressive spending on elevator ads and subsidies (300 million yuan) compounded the cash drain, leaving the company with no buffer when suppliers tightened terms.
- Passing on a $1B acquisition offer meant betting the company on a model that was never capital-efficient — Biyao kept running a business whose unit economics didn't work at scale.
The lesson
A marketplace that prepays its suppliers and collects from customers weeks later is a financing business disguised as a platform — if that is not your core skill, the float kills you as it grows.
Sources
spotted an error? The club wants to know.
More like this
Yaowang Tech sold the shoe company it was born from to keep betting on livestreams
Alibaba sold Intime at a ¥9.3B loss — the end of its New Retail bet
A mooncake scandal shrank Crazy Brother Yang's ¥1bn livestream empire to ¥250k streams
Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →

Comments · 0
Sign in to join the comments.