Joint ventures (JVs) are a form of partnerships which offer startups opportunities to pool resources, share risks, and accelerate growth.

However, misaligned expectations or poorly drafted JV agreements can lead to disputes, deadlocks, or financial losses. This guide sets out the legal and operational considerations for founders exploring such a partnership.

Is JV the best structure for my company?

The main advantages of forming a JV entity include the ability to allocate legal ownership and profits based on the respective parties’ contributions, formalise roles and responsibilities, and limit liability to the assets of the JV itself. 

However, JVs can also be complex to manage, potentially leading to conflicts, loss of control, or misaligned objectives among partners. 

In contrast, unincorporated JVs or simple collaborations, often governed by a contract rather than a new legal entity, may likely offer greater flexibility and speed, making them ideal for short-term projects or when partners want to “test the waters” before committing fully. 

These arrangements typically involve less administrative burden and allow each party to retain its independence, but they also expose participants to greater personal liability and may lack the credibility or structure needed for larger-scale ventures. 

For many startups, starting with a contractual collaboration can be a measured approach to build trust and assess compatibility before formalising a deeper, more integrated joint venture.

Establishing the JV entity and structure

Once you’ve decided that setting up a JV entity is the best way forward to formalise the legal relationship with the potential partner, the next step is to choose the right legal structure to define liability, tax obligations, and governance.

The legal vehicle is usually a company which provides asset protection and clear ownership shares. 

Also Read: The startup equity mirage: Why most employees never cash in

You can define equity splits based on contributions (cash, intellectual property, or labour). For example, if Shareholder A invests US$200,000 and Partner B contributes proprietary technology, you may have to agree on the IP valuation of the said proprietary technology so that you can allocate ownership percentages transparently. 

Considerations include:

• Agreement on equity ownership and equity distribution. Parties may want to allocate equity based on contributions (cash, IP, or labor) and agree on vesting schedules (e.g., four year vesting with a one year cliff) to incentivise long-term commitment.
• Anti-dilution provisions to protect your startup’s stakes during future funding rounds.
• Engaging a corporate lawyer to draft the term sheet and shareholders agreement.

Aligning roles, duties, and decision making

Ambiguity in roles is a common catalyst for conflict. Generally, the board members of the JV entity will appoint the senior management team in the entity. We recommend parties to define roles explicitly to avoid overlaps or gaps in responsibilities. Considerations include:

• Assigning operational roles (e.g., CEO, CTO). Document these roles in the JV agreement or in respective service agreements executed by the relevant role and the JV entity.
• Implementing reserved matters list or  special majority (i.e. >75 per cent) voting for critical decisions (e.g., mergers, IP licensing).

Planning for deadlocks, exit strategies and termination

A deadlock in a joint venture occurs when partners are unable to reach an agreement on key decisions, causing the business to stall or become inoperable.

We recommend including escalation clauses before triggering exit mechanisms.  The usual process may include an internal negotiation among the disputing parties before resorting to a third party (e.g. mediation or arbitration).

Mitigating fallout strategies may include:

• Buy-sell clause (e.g. Russian Roulette clause) sets out buyout terms if a deadlock remains unresolved, founder leaves, becomes incapacitated, or breaches the agreement
• Voluntary exit clauses: Allow founders to sell their stakes after a notice period, with first-refusal rights for partners.
• Drag-along/Tag-along rights: Protect minority shareholders during acquisitions by letting them join or force a sale.
• Termination triggers: Automatically dissolve the JV if milestones (e.g., revenue targets) aren’t met within a certain agreed timeframe.

Also Read: Why VCs dislike messy cap tables in startups

Intellectual property (IP) and confidentiality

IP disputes may also derail startup partnerships. Before starting a new JV, define ownership of existing and new IP, including  whether pre-existing IP remains with original owners or transfers to the JV. Get a legal counsel to draft clear terms for joint IP ownership, licensing, or revenue-sharing from new innovations.

Considerations include:

• Retaining pre-JV IP: Specify that existing intellectual property assets (e.g. patents or trademarks) remain with their original owners.
• Where possible, avoid joint IP ownership (e.g., 50/50 splits) unless the parties can agree if the JV develops new technology, agree upfront on the revenue-sharing terms and licensing rights.

Risk mitigation and dispute resolution

Before starting a new JV, conduct due diligence on partners’ financial health, reputation, and cultural fit to avoid mismatches. Considerations include:

• Including an arbitration clause to resolve disputes efficiently without litigation.
• Due diligence: Investigate partners’ financial history, litigation records, and cultural fit.
• Insurance: Secure liability coverage for breaches or operational errors.

Final thoughts

A well drafted JV agreement balances flexibility with legal safeguards. Founders should consult a startup lawyer to tailor terms to their venture’s needs, ensuring compliance and minimising risks. By addressing these issues upfront, startups can transform joint ventures from potential liabilities into strategic new growth.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and our WA community to stay connected.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Navigating joint ventures: A startup founder’s legal checklist appeared first on e27.

Every startup dreams of a pipeline brimming with opportunities. But chasing the lead count instead of deal clarity is a fundamental flaw. The real growth begins not with generating more contacts, but by following the discipline of pipeline hygiene.

As someone who has drawn on decades of experience in sales and manages a 360-degree marketing agency, I’ve observed numerous trends rise and fall over the past few decades. Yet, one pitfall that remains consistently pervasive is the failure of startups to convert initial lead gen into sustainable revenue.

For instance, I have seen startups run multi-channel campaigns generating over 1,000 leads. Yet without immediate, disciplined follow-up, the final pipeline value was reduced by more than two-thirds.

It’s common for leads to pour in where dashboards indicate green marks more than red. It may signal that an organisation is going in the right direction. But that’s not where the process ends; it’s the starting point. Due to many unpredictable factors, deals are delayed, follow-ups are missed, and months of hard work go by without deriving any substantial revenue.

What many startups miss is not the acquisition of leads but following the essential process of effectively managing them.

Is chasing lead volume a hidden growth trap? 

Startups often celebrate lead volume as the ultimate sign of success. However, in my experience, chasing quantity over quality is a deceptive trap. A high volume of unqualified leads can overwhelm sales teams, dilute their focus, and significantly reduce conversion rates.

The real challenge for many startups is identifying lead quality and knowing which prospects are actually worth pursuing.

The solution to this systemic issue is a strategic shift. It begins with defining an Ideal Customer Profile (ICP), implementing robust lead scoring, and precisely segmenting the audience. This disciplined approach allows teams to concentrate their energy on the opportunities that truly matter. It is not about simply getting more leads; it’s about acquiring the right kind of leads.

For example, in some lead generation campaigns for an IT tech giant, we focused on the aspect of qualification. The team observed that in the case of high propensity leads, partners achieved a 97 per cent lead acceptance rate in one program and 95 per cent in another. This proved that proper qualification dramatically improved identification of lead quality.

Also Read: From greenwashing to green living: A guide for startups on sustainable marketing

Is pipeline hygiene your silent revenue killer? 

I see too many startups fix their top-of-funnel strategy but overlook what happens once a lead enters the system. Even well-qualified, high-potential leads are wasted if the subsequent pipeline is neglected.

It’s an observation that startups treat their Customer Relationship Management (CRM) platform as a static repository rather than a living, strategic system. This leads to stale growth, follow-ups to be inevitably missed, and revenue opportunities to vanish without being predicted.

If you are aware of this neglect happening, then it’s a major red flag. Regular pipeline audits, timely engagement, and disciplined CRM updates are not optional tasks; they are essential pillars of a high-performing sales engine.

What common mistakes are slowing your lead conversion?

Working closely with startups, I’ve noticed even the most promising ones repeat a set of high-impact mistakes that slow growth and hurt conversion.

The one solution I always suggest is to treat lead conversion as a disciplined, end-to-end process, not a series of disconnected actions. Instead, every interaction should build on the last, guiding leads smoothly toward conversion.

• Focusing on vanity metrics: Success is measured by the overall lead count, instead of the crucial metrics of conversion rate, pipeline velocity, or revenue generated.
• Ignoring nurturing as a process: Leads are treated as one-time contacts. They require a structured, nurturing strategy to mature into valuable opportunities.
• Siloed team operations: When marketing and sales teams operate independently, leads are inevitably mishandled, misqualified, or completely lost between hand-offs.
• Process gaps: A lack of structured follow-up routines or maintenance protocols invariably leads to missed deals and a stagnant pipeline.

Recognising these pitfalls is the first necessary step toward building a disciplined, high-performing revenue engine.

Also Read: AI in influencer marketing: Transforming trends and shaping the future

How to turn strategic discipline into tangible results?

The startups that treat their pipeline not as a database, but as a strategic asset see definitive, tangible results.

For example, when one of our clients was struggling with low lead engagement, we changed their client engagement strategy. We built a personalised outreach program with relevant follow-up actions based on the lead’s engagement history, segment, and expressed interest.

It took time, but with consistent performance tracking, we managed to significantly boost lead engagement and create a more predictable, high-quality pipeline for the client. We adopted multi-channel re-engagement, and with consistent communication, we successfully reactivated old pipelines and generated a new pipeline valued at over US$15 million in just two quarters.

Performance tracking is essential as it robustly measures conversion rates, pipeline velocity, and stage progression to uncover and eliminate critical bottlenecks.

The overarching rule to keep in mind is to maintain data hygiene and treat it as a core value that enables the resource desk team to regularly clean and update CRM entries, ensuring every record is accurate and actionable.

This ultimately facilitates achieving the goal of transforming leads from passive contacts into revenue-generating opportunities.

Final takeaways for a smooth and sustainable lead pipeline

Lead generation is merely the foundational step. Startups that combine smart, targeted acquisition with ruthless, disciplined pipeline management can convert opportunities more efficiently, shorten their sales cycles, and, most importantly, build predictable growth.

I’ve consistently observed that leads are only truly valuable when they are nurtured, tracked, and acted upon strategically. Startups that embrace this transformative mindset will find that the same effort invested in generating contacts can yield vastly greater, more reliable returns when paired with a clean, high-velocity pipeline.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image credit: Canva

The post From lead generation to pipeline hygiene: What startups often miss appeared first on e27.

You’ve built something real. Your product works. Your customers are happy. Your metrics are climbing. But when you pitch US investors, something breaks down. They’re polite, they’re interested, but they don’t commit. The email threads go quiet. The follow-up calls never happen.

You assume it’s your pitch deck, your valuation, or your market size. It’s not.

US investors aren’t ignoring you because your business isn’t good enough. They’re walking away because you’re sending the wrong signals. And most founders operating outside North America have no idea they’re doing it.

I’ve spent years working with startups across Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. I’ve seen brilliant founders with traction get passed over while mediocre ideas with the right signals get funded. The difference isn’t quality. It’s legibility.

Here are the three signals US investors actually look for, and why your startup keeps missing them.

Signal one: Institutional legitimacy (not just revenue)

Most founders believe that showing revenue proves legitimacy. It doesn’t. Revenue proves demand. Legitimacy proves that your organisation can absorb capital without collapsing.

US investors want to see that you’ve built systems, not just sales. They’re looking for:

• Formalised governance structures. Do you have a board? Do you hold regular meetings? Is there documentation?
• Clean financial records. Are your books audit-ready, or are they held together with spreadsheets and good intentions?
• Compliance infrastructure. Can you demonstrate that you understand and follow local regulations?
• Operational transparency. Can you show where money goes, how decisions get made, and who’s accountable?

If your business runs on informal agreements, handshake deals, and “we’ll figure it out later” financial planning, US investors see risk, not opportunity. They’re not investing in your ability to hustle. They’re investing in your ability to scale without constant firefighting.

Why you’re missing it: In many emerging markets, informal systems work better than formal ones. You’ve optimised for speed and flexibility. But to US investors, that looks like chaos waiting to happen.

How to fix it: Start documenting everything. Formalise your governance. Hold regular board meetings, even if it’s just you and two advisors. Get your books clean enough that an accountant could audit them tomorrow. Build the infrastructure before you need it, because by the time investors ask for it, it’s too late.

Also Read: Data-driven or gut-led? Why the best startups do both

Signal two: Cultural fluency (not just English fluency)

You speak English. Your pitch deck is in English. Your financials are converted to USD. But you’re still not speaking the language US investors understand.

Cultural fluency isn’t about translation. It’s about framing. US investors evaluate risk, opportunity, and credibility through a specific cultural lens. If your messaging doesn’t align with that lens, they’ll misread you, even if every word is technically correct.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:

• Payment structure. If you’re asking for payment via wire transfer to a personal account, that’s a red flag. US investors expect payments routed through recognised business banking infrastructure.
• Communication style. If your emails are overly formal, vague about next steps, or avoid direct answers, that reads as evasive, even if it’s just cultural politeness.
• Social proof. Name-dropping a local accelerator or regional award means nothing if the investor has never heard of it. You need recognisable reference points, or you need to build credibility from scratch.
• Transparency norms. In some cultures, sharing bad news or admitting problems is seen as a weakness. In the US investment culture, hiding problems is seen as dishonesty. Investors want to see that you can name risks clearly and explain how you’re managing them.

Why you’re missing it: You’ve adapted your content for a US audience, but you haven’t adapted your signals. You’re optimising for what you think investors want to hear instead of how they actually evaluate trust.

How to fix it: Study how US-based founders communicate with investors. Notice the directness, the transparency about challenges, the way they frame problems as “here’s what we’re fixing” instead of “everything is fine.” Adjust your tone to match that standard. Use payment methods that feel institutional. Build reference points that US investors recognise, or partner with people who already have that credibility.

Signal three: Exit optionality (not just growth potential)

Most founders pitch growth. US investors are betting on exits.

They don’t just want to know that your business can grow. They want to know how they’ll get their money back, multiplied. That means demonstrating that your business can either:

• Be acquired by a larger player in a market they understand, or
• Go public in a jurisdiction with functioning capital markets, or
• Generate enough cash flow to buy them out at a meaningful multiple

If your startup is growing in a market with weak M&A infrastructure, limited acquirer interest, or unstable regulatory environments, US investors see a trap. They’ll make money on paper, but they’ll never be able to extract it.

This is especially true for startups in frontier or emerging markets. You might have product-market fit, real traction, and a path to profitability. But if there’s no clear mechanism for liquidity, institutional investors will pass.

Why you’re missing it: You’re focused on building a sustainable business. That’s admirable. But US venture investors aren’t optimising for sustainability. They’re optimising for 10x returns in 7-10 years. If they can’t see the exit, they won’t take the entrance.

How to fix it: Build your exit narrative early. Identify potential acquirers in your space. Show that large regional players or multinational companies have a history of acquiring startups like yours. If M&A isn’t realistic, demonstrate that you can build a cash-generating business that could support a buyback or dividend structure. Make the exit legible, or the investment won’t happen.

Also Read: The age gap in startups: Why Southeast Asia needs both 22 year old hackers and 40 year old operators

The real problem: You’re not speaking their language

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: US investors aren’t trying to understand you. They’re trying to de-risk you.

They receive hundreds of pitches. They can’t spend weeks learning the nuances of your market, your culture, or your operating environment. So they rely on shortcuts. They look for signals they recognise. If those signals aren’t there, they move on.

That’s not fair. But it’s reality.

The startups that win US investment aren’t necessarily the best businesses. They’re the ones that make themselves legible to US investors. They speak the language. They send the right signals. They remove friction from the decision-making process.

You don’t have to change who you are or compromise your mission. But you do have to understand what game you’re playing. And right now, you’re playing a game where the rules are invisible to you, but obvious to everyone else.

What this means for your startup

If you’re serious about raising capital from US investors, stop optimising your pitch deck. Start optimising your signals.

• Formalise your governance, even if it feels like bureaucratic overhead.
• Learn how US investors evaluate trust, and adjust your messaging accordingly.
• Build a clear, credible exit narrative, or be prepared to fund your growth differently.

The gap between “good business” and “investable business” isn’t quality. It’s legibility. And legibility is a skill you can learn.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image credit: Canva

The post The three signals US investors actually look for (and why your startup keeps missing them) appeared first on e27.

Shadow AI is emerging as the most pressing cybersecurity risk 2026 will bring, overtaking ransomware and phishing as the primary driver of sensitive data exposure. As organisations accelerate AI adoption, employees are increasingly turning to unauthorised or unmonitored AI tools to boost productivity, often without understanding the security consequences. The result is a growing blind spot that security teams are struggling to contain.

“Shadow AI is projected to become the top source of sensitive data exposure in 2026,” said Findlay Whitelaw, security researcher and strategist at Exabeam. He likened the phenomenon to the early days of USB drives, which once triggered widespread data leaks before governance caught up. “Just as USB drives created large-scale data loss events, Shadow AI is becoming the next major epidemic for organisations.”

The issue is not malicious intent. Employees are often inputting confidential customer data, source code, or internal documents into external AI chatbots simply to work faster. However, once sensitive data leaves controlled systems, organisations lose visibility and control over how that information is stored, processed, or reused.

This makes Shadow AI a defining cybersecurity risk 2026 leaders cannot afford to ignore. As AI tools proliferate, outright bans are proving ineffective. Instead, organisations need to rethink governance models to enable AI use safely rather than driving it underground.

“Organisations must move from blanket restrictions to safe AI enablement frameworks,” Whitelaw said.

Also Read: Leading the pivot: Transforming B2B marketing in the age of AI

He pointed to AI gateways and data loss prevention systems designed specifically for generative AI as critical controls. These tools allow security teams to monitor how AI is used, restrict sensitive inputs, and reduce the risk of inadvertent data leakage without stifling innovation.

Yet Shadow AI is only one side of a broader shift reshaping the threat landscape. Alongside unauthorised tools, AI agents are redefining what insider risk looks like across Asia Pacific and Japan (APJ), adding further complexity to the cybersecurity risk 2026 scenario.

“The agentic era is here,” said Gareth Cox, vice president for APJ at Exabeam. Citing IDC research, Cox noted that 40 per cent of APJ organisations already use AI agents, with more than half planning to implement them within the next year. These agents operate autonomously, often with wide-ranging privileges, allowing them to act at machine speed and scale.

As a result, insider risk is no longer limited to rogue employees or compromised credentials. “Insider threats now include AI agents that can bypass traditional security oversight and amplify data exposure,” Cox said.

He explained that organisations are facing new categories of risk, from malfunctioning agents behaving unpredictably to misaligned agents following flawed prompts into compliance or privacy violations.

Exabeam’s research underscores the urgency. According to the company, 75 per cent of APJ cybersecurity professionals believe AI is making insider threats more effective, while 69 per cent expect insider incidents to rise in the next year. These findings suggest that insider risk is accelerating faster than traditional security controls can adapt, making it a central pillar of the cybersecurity risk 2026 outlook.

Despite this, many organisations remain unprepared. Cox said most lack clear frameworks for managing AI agents and rely on security tools that cannot capture the behaviour patterns or decision-making processes of autonomous systems. “That creates blind spots where AI agents can act outside their intended purpose without detection,” he said.

Also Read: Dancing through data: What can AI-powered insights into my own music tastes reveal?

Addressing this challenge requires clearer operational boundaries and better visibility. Organisations must define how AI agents are allowed to operate and adopt solutions capable of monitoring unusual agent behaviour in real time. Exabeam, for example, baselines both human and AI activity to surface anomalies, enabling security teams to understand whether actions represent legitimate automation or potential misuse.

—

Image Credit: Jefferson Santos on Unsplash

The post Unchecked shadow AI poses a major cybersecurity risk for 2026: Exabeam appeared first on e27.

Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software is a comprehensive suite of integrated applications designed to streamline and automate core business processes. From finance and human resources to supply chain and customer relationship management, ERP systems provide a unified platform that enhances efficiency, reduces redundancy, and enables data-driven decision-making. In today’s competitive environment, ERP software is no longer a luxury but a necessity for businesses seeking scalability and operational excellence.

Unique requirement of ERP software in Singapore

Singapore’s business ecosystem is unique, characterized by its highly globalized economy, stringent compliance standards, and emphasis on digital transformation. ERP solutions in Singapore must cater to:

• Regulatory compliance with local tax laws, GST, and employment regulations.
• Multilingual and multi-currency support to serve regional and international operations.
• Scalability for SMEs and large enterprises alike, given Singapore’s diverse business landscape.
• Cloud readiness to align with the nation’s Smart Nation initiative.

Benefits of using ERP software for business in Singapore

Implementing ERP software offers several advantages for Singaporean businesses:

• Operational efficiency: Automates repetitive tasks and integrates workflows.
• Regulatory compliance: Ensures adherence to Singapore’s strict financial and employment laws.
• Data-driven insights: Provides real-time analytics for strategic decision-making.
• Scalability: Supports business growth across Southeast Asia and beyond.
• Enhanced collaboration: Breaks down silos between departments, fostering transparency and accountability.

Also read: Why Singapore manufacturers must embrace MES for the future

Top 10 ERP software in Singapore

Below is a curated list of the top 10 ERP solutions in Singapore, with Multiable and Chillaccount leading the pack. Each vendor is evaluated with three pros and three cons.

Also read: How the top 10 best HR systems in Singapore reveal the new standards for HR technology

Criteria for our evaluation of ERP system

Our evaluation framework for ERP systems includes:

• Scalability: Ability to support business growth.
• Compliance: Alignment with Singapore’s regulatory environment.
• Integration: Seamless connectivity across departments and third-party applications.
• User experience: Ease of use and accessibility.
• Cost-effectiveness: Transparent pricing and long-term value.

Why we write this analysis

PRbyAI aims to provide updated market insights using our team’s technical expertise. This analysis is designed to help B2B customers, especially non-technical decision-makers, make informed choices about ERP solutions in Singapore. By breaking down complex technology into digestible insights, we empower businesses to navigate digital transformation with confidence.

—

Want updates like this delivered directly? Join our WhatsApp channel and stay in the loop.

This article was shared with us by PRbyAI

We can share your story at e27 too! Engage the Southeast Asian tech ecosystem by bringing your story to the world. You can reach out to us here to get started.

Featured Image Credit: Canva Images

About PRbyAI

PRbyAI is a tech-driven Martech startup focused on delivering AI-powered insights for businesses. Our mission is to bridge the gap between technology and decision-making, ensuring enterprises stay ahead in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.

The post How the top 10 best ERP software in Singapore are reshaping business operations appeared first on e27.

The nation-state has long served as the planet’s default operating system, but the code is creaking. Satellites now rent cloud capacity above every frontier; smart contracts manage treasuries larger than many central banks; fandoms and faiths funnel billions through apps that answer to no capital city.

This two-part essay is exploratory: we scout the places where sovereignty itself is decoupling from soil, flag and parliament, migrating instead to servers, stages and shared myths.

Part one traces the cultural franchises that already behave like embryonic kingdoms. Part two will sketch the wilder scenarios that could jolt Southeast-Asian boardrooms and regulators.

Consider what follows an exploratory map—drawn in pencil, not ink—of a frontier whose co-ordinates (or lines) are still being coded.

Seoul’s idol-state, Rome’s click-cathedral and the stadium sovereigns

South Korea’s entertainment giants may have built the world’s first metaverse micro-kingdom. Zepeto, the Naver-backed avatar universe, boasts 400 million registered accounts and roughly 20 million monthly active users.

Within its digital walls, HYBE’s fan-token experiments let holders vote on merchandise drops and playlist decisions—an embryonic parliament for a population larger than many Pacific island states. With low-Earth-orbit (LEO) compute leased from satellite operators, even the Montevideo Convention’s “territory” box is partly ticked.

The Catholic Church is taking a parallel road in cassock rather than sequins. A “digital baptistry” project run by the Vatican Apostolic Library awards non-transferable NFTs to donors and aims to register sacramental records on-chain, widening Rome’s flock through Web3 rails. Where indulgences once rang through bronze coffers, stable-coin alms may soon glide across blockchains.

Then come the stadium sovereigns. Taylor Swift’s Eras tour has grossed about US$2.1 billion, overtaking the annual GDP of several UN member states. Dynamic pricing, resale taxes and geo-fenced AR quests turn her ticketing stack into a de-facto central bank for “Swifties.”

Lady Gaga’s fan economy, meanwhile, channels cosmetics revenue from Haus Labs into LGBTQ+ mental-health grants, knitting welfare functions into a merch machine. Across the Pacific, China’s animated blockbuster Ne Zha 2 has become the first domestic film to smash the CNY10 billion (US$1.4 billion) box-office mark, spawning deity NFTs and VR temples that rally Mandarin speakers as effectively as any passport.

Also Read: How to scale voluntary carbon markets with DeFi and Web3

If digital congregations can already levy taxes, adjudicate disputes and defend virtual borders with copyright takedowns, how long before their “citizens” demand a seat in the General Assembly?

When super-apps become shadow states

Southeast Asia already hosts contenders for post-national power—and they hide in plain sight on smartphones.

Grab logged 44.5 million monthly transacting users in early 2025. Those riders and diners possess an e-wallet, a credit score and a tiered loyalty status; one firmware update could re-badge that status as a passport and float GrabRewards as a sovereign token. If a K-pop agency can run a playlist legislature, a super-app can convene a budget committee for promo subsidies.

The blueprint—and the competitive threat—comes from the north. Tencent’s WeChat fields about 1.38 billion monthly actives , issues tax receipts, settles court fines and, during the pandemic, controlled internal movement through health-code passes. Mini-program “consulates” already handle property transfers for Chinese expatriates; bolt on a dispute-resolution DAO and WeChat begins to look less like an app and more like an administrative capital floating above 190 jurisdictions.

GoTo, Indonesia’s home-grown giant, wields a different asset: religious affinity. The group counts 20.6 million monthly transacting users and dominates local halal commerce. Imagination: picture GoTo launching “Home-to-Haram”—a single flow that books a scooter to Soekarno-Hatta, bundles an e-visa, charters a group flight, hails a ride in Jeddah and settles all fees with a Sharia-compliant stable-coin. In effect, one app would shepherd pilgrims from doorstep to the Kaaba, minting a Sharia Cloud-State whose jurisdiction is faith, not latitude.

Hovering above these contenders is a purely borderless behemoth. Ethereum now lists more than 321 million cumulative unique addresses and, at roughly US$300 billion in market capitalisation, would rank comfortably inside the G-20. Its protocol upgrades (EIPs) function like constitutional conventions; its 2016 hard-fork—The DAO bailout—was effectively a civil-war reconstruction act.

The inflection point

Combine a tokenised treasury, an on-chain court, rented LEO compute and—crucially—millions who recognise a claim of sovereign immunity, and a network no longer fits inside any national rule-book. Enforcement tools built for banks and telcos fail against smart contracts that migrate chains at block-confirmation speed. The result is not an outlaw realm so much as a shadow state—negotiated with, taxed lightly, but increasingly able to set its own rules.

Next we examine how ASEAN and global frameworks might—perhaps unintentionally—midwife these entities, and what happens when the child pulls away from the midwife’s arms.

Borrowing the rule-book, then setting it on fire

ASEAN’s legal scaffolding is, ironically, primed to help the first borderless “cloud-state” get off the ground.

The upcoming Digital Economy Framework Agreement (DEFA) pledges trusted cross-border data flows, common e-ID standards and interoperable e-payments across the ten-member bloc. National privacy laws are converging too: Malaysia’s refreshed PDPA guidelines now codify how firms may export personal data overseas, provided they tick transparency boxes.

On the payment side, Singapore’s PayNow already pipes retail QR transfers into Thailand’s PromptPay network, with caps of SG$1 000 per day, while Malaysia’s DuitNow wallet now scans Indonesia’s QRIS and Singapore’s NETS codes at thousands of stores.

For a cultural or faith-based DAO, these look like a ready-made customs union, for example:

• Step one: use DEFA’s “free-flow-of-data” clause to host an on-chain census in a low-cost data centre.
• Step two: rely on PDPA reciprocity to shuttle member data around the region without forced localisation.
• Step three: plug into the QR-linkage mesh; tithe payments clear in seconds from Chiang Mai to Penang.

The moment of sovereign over-ride

But what if, having exploited the plumbing, the DAO decides it no longer needs the plumber?

• Declaration of immunity – a super-majority vote writes a new article: “Our treasury and token holders are exempt from national securities and AML statutes.”
• Network recognition – millions accept the clause; merchants follow the money; satellite operators lease compute because the DAO pays on time.
• Enforcement gridlock – regulators issue takedown orders, only to find there is no domain registrar, no bank account, and smart contracts that migrate chains at the speed of a block confirmation.
• Host-state competition – smaller economies, hungry for data-centre jobs, quietly offer the DAO tax holidays and legal “innovation zones” in exchange for being named an official edge-node capital.

Also Read: Building foundations, not just speed: Why Web3’s next chapter must be about meaning

In effect, the same DEFA clauses designed to knit ASEAN together also allow a digital polity to step outside the stitching. The plumber hands over the wrench—and the house declares itself independent.

Conclusion: A frontier of risks and rewards

What unites a K-pop avatar kingdom, a pilgrimage super-app and an on-chain commonwealth is not geography but gravity: each pulls people, payments and purpose into a centre of authority that sits outside the Westphalian grid. For Southeast-Asian companies and investors, this presents a two-sided frontier.

On one flank lie the opportunities—new revenue ladders (fan taxes, pilgrim-as-a-service packages, tokenised loyalty float), cheaper entry to overseas markets via cultural or faith networks, and first-mover advantage in edge-compute or language-model infrastructure that tomorrow’s digital polities will need.

On the other flank gather the risks—regulators struggling to tax or tame borderless treasuries, brand damage if cultural tokens misfire, and new choke-points where a satellite licence or API ban can strand millions of users overnight.

Whether these proto-sovereigns mature into recognised partners or remain tantalising anomalies will depend on how quickly policy catches up with code—and how deftly firms hedge across both realms. The border between digital and physical; corporation and country is blurring; so too is the line between customer and citizen. In such terrain, map-making becomes strategy.

Part two will chart the wilder horizons (e.g. DAO freeports) and suggest early markers that companies and investors should watch. See you then!

You can also find me on my podcast and newsletter, where I share regular insights on geopolitics and leadership.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and our WA community to stay connected.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Beyond borders, beyond brands: Why the next sovereign might be a concert tour – Part 1 appeared first on e27.

2.5 days. Three brands. Three locales. Nine languages. One person — and Claude.

I built a custom e-commerce platform covering Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Different business rules, offerings, and compliance requirements for each market.

The team? Me, Claude Opus 4.5, and Claude Code — multiple instances running in parallel.

What would this have taken with an offshore team?

The hidden tax

For decades, the dominant model for software development looked like this: Product managers sit near the business. They write detailed specs. Those specs get shipped to a large development team — often offshore in the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and India. Each developer gets a well-defined slice. They implement exactly what’s described. Ship it back.

The economics seemed compelling. Local engineers cost more. Offshore developers cost a fraction. Scale up the team, ship the specs, get the code back.

But much of the logic rests on a fallacy Fred Brooks identified in 1975 in his classic software text: if it takes a woman nine months to have a baby, can nine women have a baby in one month?

Brooks’ The Mythical Man-Month taught us that adding people to a late software project makes it later. The corollary: throwing bodies at software development doesn’t scale linearly. Communication overhead grows exponentially with team size.

And yet the offshore model doubled down on exactly this fallacy — betting that cheap labour would compensate for coordination costs.

It doesn’t.

A systematic literature review of offshore software development identified 18 problem areas. But they all boil down to, in one form or another, the bandwidth, latency, and cost of communications.

What you save in labour, you lose in agility and velocity.

Also Read: Why Singapore startups are sleeping on their secret weapon (spoiler: it’s not AI)

What we built

Let me be transparent: nothing we — me, Claude Opus 4.5, and Claude Code — built was groundbreaking. It’s foundational platform work — the kind of thing that’s been sitting in someone’s product backlog “for way too long.”

A multi-brand, multi-locale e-commerce platform supporting Singapore (English, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil), Hong Kong (Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, English), and Japan (Japanese, English). Each locale with its own business rules and compliance requirements.

But this platform enables what comes next:

• AI Agent for Pre-Sales Consultation on features and benefits
• AI Agent for Pre-Appointment Consultation — gathering the information that matters before a customer meets with a representative and making that appointment for the face-to-face meeting
• AI Agent for Customer Support and Success
• A next-generation customer database

We laid out 14 sprints. Cleared 7 in 2.5 days. Halfway there — and tracking toward something I’m excited to show in the New Year.

What’s coming is harder. But the foundation is solid.

And that foundation? A two-pizza team without AI would have taken at least a week. Maybe longer.

The workflow

A solid workflow was what made this possible — and it started with augmentation at the meta level.

I’ve spent months developing an AI-Augmented Writing workflow. Project instructions that evolved from three sentences to over 2,000 words. A system of editorial calendar chats, handoff briefs, and sprint-style execution.

To bootstrap the development workflow, I took those writing instructions into a new Claude Project in a chat dedicated to creating and evolving project instructions for AI-augmented Development. Then I worked with Claude Opus 4.5 to identify what was different between writing and coding.

The gap was smaller than I expected. The same patterns that make AI-augmented Writing effective — sharp instructions, short time horizons, iterative refinement, clear handoffs — translate directly to development.

Call it augmentation, augmenting itself. I used AI collaboration to build a better system for AI collaboration. Yes, this might be a bit too meta, but then I’m a nerd, and the results speak for themselves.

The workflow:

• Project-instructions chat: Establish the workflow and working agreements — bootstrapped from my writing system
• Product-definition chat: Lay out the vision, analyse existing platforms, generate a product spec
• Mission-control chat: Break the spec into sprints, create handoffs for each sprint, coordinate the whole, and keep track of everything (including reminders for me)
• Sprint chats: Individual chats for each sprint, feeding work to Claude Code

But here’s what made even greater velocity possible: parallel workflows and automated validation.

I used Claude Chrome — which Anthropic opened to all paid plans on December 18 — with shortcuts to automate the analysis phase. Nine websites across three brands and three markets, each captured and audited automatically. Those audits fed directly into the product definition.

I had separate chats for mundane automation: translation verification, repetitive code generation, quality gates, and testing. And I used Claude Chrome integrated with Claude Code to validate work in the browser — catching errors, verifying before the next sprint.

Original expectation: one sprint per day. Blindingly fast compared to non-AI-augmented teams.

Actual result: seven sprints in 2.5 days. Framework running locally in two hours. Up and running in the cloud with CI/CD pipeline the same day. With time and bandwidth to tackle even more.

The formation that emerged:

Jordan
(orchestrator)
    │
    ▼
Claude Opus 4.5
(planning + coordination)
    │         │
    ▼         ▼
Claude Code #1   Claude Code #2
(core features)  (content/polish)
    │         │
    ▼         ▼
Working Software

While one Claude Code instance worked, I planned the next sprint. Claude Opus 4.5 tracked time on tasks and prevented conflicts. After every sprint, a quick retro is conducted to revise the project instructions.

I’ll publish a detailed breakdown of the Claude Chrome workflow next Tuesday, December 30 — the shortcuts, the automation patterns, and what I learned.

Also Read: Why Asia sits at the centre of the global AI chip disruption?

The cost

I used to be a Claude Pro subscriber at US$20/month. That was sufficient — until Opus 4.5.

To get the capacity I needed for this kind of intensive work, I upgraded. First to Max 5x at US$100/month. Then to Max 20x at US$200/month.

US$200/month for what would have been weeks of a distributed team’s time.

Have the ups and downs of Claude’s stability the last few days been frustrating? Sure. But I’ve worked through them and am still moving fast.

The fluency insight

Here’s what struck me: we’ve been applying the wrong framework. With people, not just AI.

For decades, we tried to “automate product development” by sending work wherever labour is cheaper and plentiful. Directed Contribution work — well-defined tasks in unambiguous contexts — shipped over the wall.

The result is what we see when we have AI write for us instead of writing with AI. Slop.

And more slop.

We were using the fluency framework wrong.

In my previous piece, I described three modes of contribution:

• Directed Contribution: Under someone’s guidance, executing well-defined tasks in unambiguous contexts
• Independent Contribution: Operating autonomously, first in well-defined situations, then in ambiguous ones
• Working through others: Setting vision and direction, guiding others toward outcomes

The offshore model was built on Directed Contribution — the work AI now handles.

But software development requires augmentation and collaboration. Human-AI collaboration (and human-human collaboration). High-bandwidth communication. Real-time problem-solving. The ability to clarify the problem space as you go.

You can’t do that across communication gaps — whether those gaps are time zones, organisational silos, or oceans.

What this means for Southeast Asia

The offshore model that built much of SEA’s IT services industry is dying.

Vietnam produces 50,000 IT graduates annually. Over 45 per cent of its developer workforce operates at the junior level — trained to do Directed Contribution work. The Philippines has built a massive tech services industry on similar foundations.

The question for the region isn’t whether AI will disrupt this model. It already is.

The question is whether Southeast Asia can compete on value, not volume.

Can the region produce engineers who operate in Independent Contribution mode? Engineers who understand the What and Why, not just the How? Engineers who can be part of elite, co-located teams — whether those teams sit in Singapore, Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, or alongside clients in Tokyo, Sydney, or San Francisco?

The opportunity isn’t to fight the transformation. It’s to ride it.

Small teams. Co-located. High-bandwidth. Fully exploiting AI augmentation.

For this project, I was flying solo, but I built what would have taken a distributed team weeks, or a co-located two-pizza team at least a week. This is solo development — team workflows are still being invented. But it proves the thesis: a small, focused team that can understand and clarify the problem space in real-time can build and deploy at a velocity that human waves cannot match.

The equation has changed

Labour cost arbitrage no longer compensates for the collaboration tax.

The hidden costs — communication latency, coordination overhead, the telephone effect, revision cycles — matter more when AI handles the Directed Contribution work that justified the offshore model.

It’s time to reshore. Not to human waves in different locations. To small, AI-augmented teams that can think, iterate, and ship.

The question is whether you’re building the team that leads, or the team that gets left behind.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image generated using AI.

The post It’s time to reshore: Why AI-augmented development changes the equation appeared first on e27.

The terms “vicious cycle” and “virtuous cycle” originate from Latin – circulus vitiosus (flawed circle) and circulus virtuosus (excellent circle). This describes self-reinforcing feedback loops where negative outcomes perpetuate decline or, when positive, outcomes compound growth.

Welcome to the Fractional Executive hiring playbook. This is the field guide for leaders who are intrigued by the fractional promise but terrified of the potential fallout.

Part one: Is this role even fractionalisable?

Do you need a scalpel or a Swiss Army knife?

• Scalpel (fractional friendly):

You have a specific, well-defined problem. IE: “We need to be SOC2 compliant in 10 months” / “Our Series B pitch deck needs a complete overhaul”

These are projects for a specialist.

• Swiss Army knife (full-time required):

The role is a blend of strategy, team management, cultural leadership, and crisis-of-the-day firefighting. “We need a lead to build our culture from scratch and also manage payroll”. That’s not a fractional job; that’s a co-founder you haven’t hired yet.

Can the outcomes be measured independently?

• Yes (fractional friendly):

The success of the role can be tied to clear, objective metrics. “Increase the headcount of the R&D team by 10 per cent.” “Reduce customer churn by 50 per cent.” “Successfully implement the new systems by Q4”

• No (full-time required):

Suppose success is deeply intertwined with team morale, cross-functional collaboration, and lots of cultural influence. These are nearly impossible to achieve in 15 hours per week.

What’s your corporate bureaucracy score? (be honest)

• Low (fractional friendly):

A Fractional Executive can get a decision from the CEO in a single discussion. They have access to all the data and people they need.

• High (full-time required):

Decisions require three committees and a VP’s sign-off. Accessing data involves a formal request to another department. If your Fractional Executive needs to spend the duration of their entire retained time emailing back and forth, they will leave out of frustration.

Part two: Spotting the master from the Mercenary

Once you have confirmed that the role is fractional friendly, the next filter would be a series of interview questions you should not forget to ask. This is not for assessing skill; you are assessing mindset.

Fractional talent interview questions:

Walk me through your most successful and least successful fractional engagements. What was the difference?

• A maestro will talk about client readiness, clear objectives, and their own abilities. A mercenary will blame the client for the failure.

Here’s our current challenge. (Describe your scalpel problem.) What would your first 30 days look like?

• Look for a bias towards action, and an analytic mind towards diagnostics. They should be talking about looking into your data, interviewing key team members, and delivering a concise plan – not about “getting to know the culture.”

How do you usually handle knowledge transfer at the end of an engagement?

• This is the million-dollar question. A great Fractional leader is obsessed with making themselves obsolete. If they have a clear methodology for documenting their work, plus training your internal team, and ensuring a seamless handoff, you’ve won. If they look confused by the question, they are the type of consultant who plans to be on your payroll forever.

Like every successful relationship, an immediate note-taking of red and green flags would be of interest for a successful fractional project outcome.

Also Read: Why inclusive hiring matters for a startup ecosystem

Red flags to watch out for:

• Mr Big (Name Dropper) – talks more about the big logos on their CV than the specific problems they solved
• Madame Woof – a process-worshipper, they are dogmatic about a specific methodology, “We have to use my eight-step framework”, without first understanding your needs and context.
• Mr #ForeverAlone – has a lone wolf mentality and is likely to be found in the jungles of Bali as a buff digital nomad. They seem uninterested in mentoring your team. They see their job as doing the work, not upgrading your organisation.

Part three: Onboarding blueprint pitfalls and pleasures

Not all gloomy news here, though. Research shows that there is a high success rate in hiring Fractional talent – it comes with a giant, bold print: if onboarding is deliberate. A fractional executive that is poorly onboarded is just a very expensive consultant.

Here is what deliberate onboarding looks like:

• Effective meetings

The CEO and our hire sit down with the executive team. The CEO gives the mandate: “Ms Lee is here for the next six months with one goal: to fix our hiring needs. She has my full authority to get it done. Your job is to help her, not hinder her.” This grants our Fractional hire the political capital they need to be effective.

• Be good at interviewing, and interview the right folks

Week 1 consisted of interviewing all the people that matter, right from the senior exec us to the junior analyst who actually knows where the data is buried. This provides powerful context for our hire.

• Data-driven immersion

Weeks 2–3: Our Fractional hire takes a deep dive – unrestricted access to all relevant dashboards, reports, and historical data without any delays.

• The Master Plan

By Week 4, they present their 30, 60 and 90-day plan to the executive team. It should be strong, outcome-focused and have concise metrics. This document becomes the capstone of the engagement.

A big plus: the Fractional Executives who do not forget about the exit plan – if he is a true maestro, he should begin planning his departure from day one. Their last deliverable might be a comprehensive playbook that documents everything they’ve built, why they built it, and how to maintain it. It’s the instruction machine for the machine they’ve created.

Final thoughts – Escher’s staircase – The two fates of fractional hiring

Four years prior, I was lucky to have the time to visit the exhibition of M.C. Escher’s work in Europe. There is a paradoxical beauty to M.C. Esher’s 1960 lithograph, Ascending and Descending. It depicts a monastery rooftop where two lines of identical, cowled monks trudge alone a squarish, continuous staircase.

One line shuffles endlessly upwards, the other, endlessly downwards. They are busy; they are moving with purpose. Yet they are trapped in an impossible loop.

This architectural illusion is known as the Penrose Staircase, an impossible object that can be depicted in a 2D drawing but cannot exist in three-dimensional space. It creates the paradox of a perpetual climb or descent.

For a leader, this is the unintentional perfect allegory for the two destinies that await any company that steps onto the path of fractional hiring.

Also Read: Levelling the playing field: How AI can transform SME hiring

Here’s how to avoid the descending staircase

For a startup founder, the risk of accidentally building a Penrose staircase to nowhere is particularly high. Here are four steps on how to avoid it:

• Hire for the battlefield, not the boardroom

Prioritise hires who have recent, relevant experience in your startup’s size and stage. A VP from a 10,000-person company has a different skill set than someone who helped a 50-person company get to 200.

• Define the mission, not the title

Be ruthlessly specific about the one or two key outcomes you need. This forces clarity and makes it easier to measure success. Don’t just hire a “Fractional CMO”, hire a “Lead Generation Builder for a B2B SaaS Product.” A vague title invites a vague approach.

• Rent the scalpel, not the surgeon

You are not hiring a person, you are hiring a specific, high-impact skill for a limited time. Make it clear from the start that their goal is not to “run the department” but to solve a specific problem and, most importantly, to upskill your internal team in the process.

• Give them a crowbar, not a suggestion box

If you’ve decided to bring in an expert, empower them. A Fractional leader bogged down by politics and bureaucracy is a waste of everyone’s time. Grant them the authority to make changes and show your team that the hire has your full support. If you are not ready to do this, you are not ready for a fractional hire.

Consider how hiring the right fractional talent can create a positive, self-reinforcing loop.

The five-step virtuous cycle

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Header image credit: Canva

The post Fractional executive hiring: Break the vicious cycle, build the virtuous one appeared first on e27.

Marketing for startups has been a buzzing topic for many years. Still, no matter how much it gets discussed, early-stage tech startups often wrestle with some persistent misconceptions about how to handle marketing.

Let’s clear up the confusion and steer you away from some of the classic marketing pitfalls, so your startup gains unstoppable momentum right from the very beginning.

“Our product is so good, it’ll sell itself”

This is a phrase often spoken by founders who come from a strong technical background. The reasoning often is: “We’ve invested considerable effort into creating something exceptional—surely it will naturally attract attention and draw people in.”

The truth? Even remarkable products need to be seen and understood to catch on.

As a mentor, I’ve met a hardware startup that dedicated all its resources to perfecting the technical side of its product. However, when they finally launched, they realised that their brand was virtually unknown to their potential customers. This forced them into a costly scramble to create quick advertising campaigns just to appear on their customers’ radar. Had they started their marketing efforts earlier, they could have avoided this scramble and used their resources more efficiently.

“Marketing means advertising”

Many technical founders consider marketing as synonymous with ads—Google banners, Instagram promos, maybe a couple of paid posts on digital media. But that barely scratches the surface.

Marketing is much broader: it is how you figure out if your offering fits what your potential customers actually want, what price they’re willing to pay, and how you’re different from (and better than) your competition. A smart marketing plan is as much about understanding people’s problems and mapping their journey as it is about running campaigns.

Ideally, you start thinking about this the moment you’ve got a product hypothesis, not waiting until launch time.

Also Read: The human factor: B2B marketing in 2025

“We’ll just handle marketing ourselves”

It’s tempting to try everything yourself, especially when budgets are tight. But unless you have a knack and experience for marketing, it’s easy to get stuck running inconsistent campaigns, trying random tactics, and chasing what your competitors are doing.

Sometimes, bringing in marketing expertise—even if just for guidance—helps you stretch your limited resources much further. For instance, one deeptech company realised early on that they needed help with product marketing and positioning. By working with a marketing advisor to define their positioning and messaging before launching, they set themselves up for a much stronger debut and better long-term outcomes than if they had gone it alone.

“We’ll start marketing once we launch (or gain traction)”

It’s common for founders to want to wait until the product’s “ready”—or even until there’s already traction—before thinking about marketing. But doing so misses out on the huge value strategic marketing brings earlier in the journey.

Getting marketing involved from the get-go means you’ll better understand market needs and avoid costly missteps. You’ll be far less likely to end up launching something nobody’s interested in. The sooner you start, the stronger your launch will be—and the faster you’ll find your real target audience.

Of course, there are other myths out there, but these four tend to pop up again and again. If you’re a founder, rethinking these beliefs can unlock new possibilities and significantly improve your startup’s chances for success.

The post 4 marketing myths early-stage startups fall for (and how to avoid them) appeared first on e27.

Many of us discover new things by accident. A curious click, a small experiment, a playful idea. That is how Aunty Good Good began.

When I first started playing with AI, I did not plan to build a project or brand. I was simply curious about how AI could speak Singlish, make videos, or tell stories. It was meant to be fun, a bit of learning mixed with laughter.

But somewhere along the way, that fun became something more serious. Play turned into purpose. And that shift is what creativity in the age of AI is all about.

Curiosity is not childish

Adults often forget how to play. We are taught to be efficient, serious and productive. Yet curiosity is the first step of every innovation we admire.

Playfulness opens space for discovery. It gives us permission to fail safely. And when there is no pressure to be perfect, imagination comes alive.

When Aunty Good Good started teaching Singlish through AI, it was not part of a business plan. But the laughter that followed showed something deeper. People learn faster when they are relaxed. They connect better when they can laugh at themselves.

Small experiments lead to big ideas

Every major innovation begins with a small “what if.” What if AI could speak our language? What if seniors could use AI to tell their life stories?What if midlifers could create digital art without training?

These small questions are seeds. When we water them with play, they grow into solutions that serve real needs.

In my workshops, I notice that once adults stop saying “I am not creative,” ideas begin to flow naturally. A little curiosity removes fear. A little success builds confidence. That combination creates transformation.

Also Read: A prettier you: How AI avatars make storytelling easier for midlifers

The mindset that matters

Technology changes fast, but mindset changes slowly. The people who thrive in the AI era are not the ones who know the most tools. They are the ones who stay curious, adaptable and open.

You do not need to be a coder to be creative. You only need to ask better questions and dare to explore.

When we treat AI as a partner instead of a threat, we rediscover the joy of making things again. That joy is what keeps us relevant. It turns learning into living.

From curiosity to contribution

Purpose is born when curiosity finds direction. Once you learn to play with AI, you start to see ways it can help others.

Teachers use it to personalise lessons. Artists use it to explore new media. Midlife creators use it to tell stories and reconnect with their communities.

Play opens the door. Purpose keeps you walking through it.

When I see learners light up after completing their first AI project, I realise that the real innovation is not the tool itself. It is the courage to try.

The gentle reminder

Play is not a waste of time. It is practice for a purpose. When you allow yourself to explore without fear, clarity follows.

The age of AI rewards the curious. Those who start small today will lead with wisdom tomorrow.

So the next time you open an app or try a new tool, do not worry about results. Just play. You might discover not only how AI works, but how imagination works inside you.

—

The post From play to purpose. How curiosity can lead to meaningful innovation appeared first on e27.