e27 has been nurturing a supportive ecosystem for entrepreneurs since its inception. Our Contributor Programme offers a platform for sharing unique insights. As part of our ‘Contributor Spotlight’ series, we shine a spotlight on an outstanding contributor and dive into the vastness of their knowledge and expertise.

In the sections below, she reflects on her journey, the lessons she’s learned, and what keeps her going.

How I found my place

I see myself, and hope people see me, as a connector of talent, be it in my primary expertise (technical recruitment), or making connections between investors, educators, speakers and builders. For many, many years, I’ve had the pleasure of partnering with visionary deep tech and high-growth founders, investors, and companies to find the best minds who will bring their technological dreams to life. It’s a heartfelt process of weaving together strategy, empathy, and a relentless search for the right people to create the engineering and leadership foundations for Asia’s next wave of innovation.

A perspective that evolved over time

I once believed that scaling technology unicorns was the most meaningful work. I am now more drawn to the raw energy of early-stage deep tech. It’s really quite exciting being there from the very beginning, knowing that every person you bring on board will be writing the chapter of the story for the future.

Also Read: The art and science of feedback: A guide for first-time founders and new managers

The problem I’m focused on solving

In a nutshell, I connect brilliant ideas with brilliant people. Founders have these innovative, world-changing visions, but they can’t build them alone. Investors keep working passionately on making Singapore a viable place to safeguard and grow industries. My work is to dive into that vision and passion and then go out to find the amazing engineers, leaders, and creators who can turn those dreams into a reality.

The startup conversation we’re still not having

The startup world is a rollercoaster right now, and it’s not just about hiring fast during the good times. The real opportunity is in creating strong, connected teams from the start that can stick together and innovate through anything. It’s about building a culture where people feel secure and motivated to do their best work, no matter what the market looks like.

Why I write

I’ve been really lucky to have had a front-row seat to some of Asia’s biggest tech growth stories, and I’ve seen what works and what doesn’t. I’m currently embracing my granny-goddess era by sharing those hard-won lessons by writing here, to help other founders succeed on their own journeys.

My advice for aspiring thought leaders

The most articulate people I know are often great listeners as well. Be sincerely curious about what others think. If you communicate from a place of empathy and a desire to connect, your message naturally becomes clearer and more powerful. It’s less about sounding smart and more about being understood.

Also Read: A founder’s field guide to managing performance and giving feedback that lands

Influences that shaped my thinking

I’m on a mission to read everything Bill Bryson has written. I’ve been a fan of his books for a few years now. Past influences include Haruki Murakami, Milan Kundera — when I find an author I love, I often go on a hunt to track down and procure their “hidden gems”. Years ago, someone who was in love with me said that Eva Luna (by Isabel Allende) was his favourite book — it still remains the book that I aim to reread, every single year.

What drives my curiosity

Being a design-led person and a brand owner, I’m fascinated by how great design can spark positive social change. To see a well-designed product create deep conversations, or even a simple well-designed process, make life better and more equitable for people, this really floats my boat. It’s a wonderful reminder about how creativity matters and can even be a powerful force for good in the world.

Take a look at Lee’s articles here for more insights and perspectives on her expertise.

—

Are you ready to join a vibrant community of entrepreneurs and industry experts? Do you have insights, experiences, and knowledge to share?

Join the e27 Contributor Programme and become a valuable voice in our ecosystem.

The post Rachel Lee: The talent connector building Asia’s deep tech dreams appeared first on e27.

Investors processed unexpectedly soft retail sales data that simultaneously lifted hopes for Federal Reserve easing while exposing fragility across multiple asset classes. The Dow Jones Industrial Average managed a modest 0.1 per cent gain to establish a new record closing high. This narrow advance masked broader weakness as the S&P 500 declined 0.34 per cent to 6,941.33 and the Nasdaq Composite fell 0.6 per cent to 23,099.18. This divergence reflected a rotation away from technology and growth-oriented assets toward more defensive industrial names.

The fundamental catalyst, December retail sales, suggested a concerning loss of consumer momentum. Core sales dipped 0.1 per cent, contrary to expectations of expansion. This signalled that household spending power may have peaked by the end of 2025, with potential implications for fourth-quarter GDP growth calculations.

The bond market reacted decisively to the economic softening, with Treasury yields dropping sharply. The 10-year yield fell to approximately 4.14 per cent, its lowest level in a month. This move underscored how quickly market participants recalibrated their expectations for monetary policy. Money markets now price in elevated probabilities for three interest rate cuts during 2026. Federal Reserve officials, including Cleveland President Beth Hammack, emphasised that there is no immediate urgency for policy adjustments. This tension between market pricing and central bank communication created an undercurrent of uncertainty that permeated risk assets throughout the session.

Gold capitalised on the lower-yield environment, surging to consolidate above the psychologically significant US$5,000 per ounce threshold. Its non-yielding appeal has strengthened relative to fixed-income alternatives. WTI crude oil held steady near US$64.20 per barrel. Diplomatic developments in US-Iran negotiations supported prices by tempering fears of supply disruptions.

Also Read: The US$71000 Bitcoin bounce lacks foundation but Japan’s rally has real teeth

A noteworthy disruption emerged in the financial services sector, with shares of Charles Schwab and LPL Financial plummeting by at least seven per cent. Altruist Corp launched an AI-driven tax strategy tool, triggering broader anxiety about technological displacement across wealth management. This industry had long been considered relatively insulated from automation.

The severity of the reaction suggested investors recognised this as more than a niche competitive threat. It represented a potential inflection point for an entire professional services category. Global markets displayed their own complexities with Asian equities reaching an all-time high earlier in the trading day. South Korean strength led these gains, though Treasury trading remained subdued due to a Japanese market holiday. This limited cross-market feedback loops during a pivotal session.

The cryptocurrency market reflected these macro crosscurrents, declining 2.03 per cent to a total valuation of $2.35 trillion over the preceding 24 hours. This move exhibited a moderate 50 per cent correlation with the S&P 500. Digital assets increasingly moved in tandem with traditional risk sentiment rather than operating as an independent store of value. Beneath this surface correlation lay crypto-specific stressors of alarming magnitude. Bitcoin mining difficulty experienced its largest downward adjustment since 2021.

This signalled widespread miner capitulation as operational unprofitability forced network participants to shut down equipment. The exodus created direct selling pressure while simultaneously undermining confidence in the ecosystem’s foundational security layer. When those responsible for transaction validation and network integrity face existential financial pressure, the implications extend far beyond immediate price action.

Compounding this structural weakness, institutional capital continued its retreat from regulated Bitcoin exposure. Spot ETF assets under management contracted by US$13.6 billion within a single week, falling from US$110.92 billion to US$97.31 billion. This outflow represented a reversal of one of the primary drivers behind the previous bull market cycle. Derivatives markets experienced a violent deleveraging event, with open interest dropping 9.76 per cent in 24 hours.

Funding rates turned negative, triggering forced liquidations of overextended long positions. The convergence of miner distress, institutional withdrawal, and speculative unwinding created a self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. Each element amplified the others, producing cascading selling pressure across the digital asset landscape.

Also Read: From US$70K to freefall: Can Bitcoin hold the US$60K lifeline after US$1B liquidation event?

Technical indicators suggested the market was approaching an inflection point, with Bitcoin’s relative strength index plunging to 24.33. This indicated an oversold condition that historically precedes short-term bounces. The critical threshold rested at US$68,000, where a successful defence could catalyse a relief rally toward US$70,500.

A breakdown below this support level threatened to extend the downtrend significantly. The path forward depended on two key variables. ETF flows needed to reverse before additional miner selling emerged. The outcome of White House stablecoin legislation talks also mattered, with a policy deadline approaching at the end of February 2026. Regulatory clarity around stablecoin yields might provide the catalyst needed to restore institutional confidence, though timing remained uncertain.

The day ultimately revealed markets operating at an inflection point, with traditional and digital asset classes moving in concert yet retaining distinct vulnerability profiles. Traditional markets grappled with the contradiction between softening economic data and still hawkish central bank rhetoric. Crypto markets faced acute structural pressures at their operational core. The miner capitulation represented more than a price catalyst. It signalled stress at the very foundation of blockchain security models.

This moment of fragility also contained the seeds of potential renewal. Network difficulty adjustments have historically preceded major cycle bottoms by forcing inefficient participants out of the ecosystem. The coming weeks would test whether coordinated policy responses and technological adaptation could stabilise these interconnected markets.

Deeper recalibration might remain necessary before sustainable growth could resume. Investors now faced the challenge of distinguishing between temporary volatility and fundamental regime shifts across both traditional finance and its emerging digital counterpart.

The interplay among macroeconomic data points, technological disruption, and network-level stressors created a multifaceted environment that demands nuanced analysis rather than simplistic narratives. Market participants who recognised these layered dynamics stood better positioned to navigate the uncertain terrain ahead.

—

The post Dow hits record high, Nasdaq tumbles 0.6 per cent, Bitcoin miners flee: Signals deeper stress than price alone appeared first on e27.

In startup conversations, few phrases raise a quieter red flag than this one: “I want to sell to everyone.”

It’s usually said with optimism. Sometimes with ambition. Often with confidence. But almost always, it signals a deeper issue, not of scale, but of clarity.

Founders don’t struggle because they think too big. They struggle because they think too vaguely.

The most expensive confusion in the go-to-market

A brand cannot speak to a first-time founder the same way it speaks to a seasoned operator. A product cannot sell to a solo creator the same way it sells to an enterprise team. And yet, many early-stage startups attempt to do exactly that, flattening their message in the hope of maximising reach.

The result is predictable. Messaging becomes generic. Value propositions blur. Sales conversations stretch. And the product slowly morphs into something that tries to please everyone, and resonates deeply with no one.

When a founder says “everyone”, what they are really saying is: “I haven’t made the hard decision yet.”

Luck, budget, and brute force are not a strategy

Of course, there are exceptions.

With enough capital, distribution power, or sheer luck, a broadly positioned product may still find traction. But luck is not a repeatable system, and brute force is not a defensible moat.

In the early stages of a company, clarity consistently outperforms scale. The startups that move fastest are not the ones shouting the loudest; they are the ones that know exactly who they are speaking to and why.

Also Read: Revisiting “Something Ventured”: What the birth of venture capital still teaches Founders today

What strategic clarity looks like in practice

Founders who build multiple businesses quickly learn this lesson the hard way. Different products require different audiences.
Different audiences require different languages. And different problems demand different promises.

An AI platform designed to act as a founder’s digital twin, Seraphina AI, for example, is not competing with generic productivity tools. It is built for people who already have opinions, frameworks, and a voice, and want leverage, not replacement.

A female founders community, Royal Visionary Society, focused on freedom, sustainability, and long-term well-being, is not optimised for founders chasing growth at any cost.

A speaking ecosystem, Speakers Society, designed around placement, positioning, and monetisation, is not for hobbyists looking to overcome stage fright.

A marketing automation platform, People’s Inc. 360, built for operational scale, is not meant for teams that equate growth with hiring more people.

Each of these businesses succeeds not by expanding its audience indiscriminately, but by narrowing its focus deliberately.

Different doors. Different conversations. Same strategic discipline.

The quiet advantage of being clear

The strongest brands in the ecosystem share a common trait: restraint.

They know who they are for. They know who they are not for. And they design their product, messaging, pricing, and systems around that decision.

This clarity shows up everywhere, from onboarding flows to sales conversations, from roadmap decisions to customer support.

Trying to appeal to everyone does not make a company more inclusive. It makes it forgettable.

Also Read: Bridging innovation and market success: The role of a commercial co-founder in biotech startups

The hidden cost of over-inclusivity

When founders avoid choosing a clear audience, the costs compound quietly:

• Product roadmaps bloat with edge cases.
• Marketing messages lose sharpness.
• Sales teams struggle to qualify leads.
• Customers feel vaguely interested, but never fully committed.

Most churn is not caused by poor execution. It is caused by unclear positioning.

People do not leave because a product is too specific. They leave because they never felt seen.

A simple clarity test for founders

Before worrying about traffic, funding, or scale, founders should be able to answer three questions clearly:

• Who should immediately feel understood when they encounter this product? Not impressed. Understood.
• Who is this deliberately not built for? Every strong brand repels by design.
• If this product disappeared tomorrow, who would genuinely feel the loss? If the answer is “anyone”, it is probably no one.

If these answers are unclear, the problem is not distribution. It is positioning.

Conviction is the real growth lever

The companies that scale well are not the ones that hedge their message. They are the ones who commit.

They choose a lane. They build with intention. They speak directly, even when it means being misunderstood by those outside their audience.

Because in a crowded ecosystem, clarity is not a limitation. It is leverage.

And real growth does not come from dilution. It comes from conviction.

—

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 courtesy: Canva

The post If you’re building for everyone, you’re building for no one appeared first on e27.

Startup ecosystems are often portrayed as bottom-up systems driven by founders, venture capital, and technological breakthroughs. That view is incomplete. In practice, startup ecosystems are also downstream expressions of state power, shaped by policy decisions, institutional participation, and geopolitical alignment.

This US withdrawal from international climate and energy institutions alters the conditions under which startups are built, financed, and scaled, where climate and energy governance are strategic infrastructure for global markets.

The climate-energy stack the US stepped away from

The US withdrawal spans a broad range of climate, energy, and environmental institutions. Together, these bodies form the global climate–energy operating system. They do not build grids, finance startups, or operate markets directly. Their influence is structural rather than transactional.

Climate science bodies establish baselines that flow into regulation, finance, and insurance. Energy agencies coordinate definitions of “renewable,” “transition,” and “clean” that underpin procurement and investment decisions. Nature and forestry platforms shape land-use rules, carbon markets, and supply-chain traceability. UN coordination mechanisms align agencies, donors, and reporting frameworks across borders.

These institutions sit upstream of markets. They determine what is measured, how it is measured, and which activities are recognised as legitimate or investable. Startups rarely engage with them directly, but their outputs shape the environment in which startups operate.

By withdrawing, the United States is not exiting climate or energy markets. It is exiting the multilateral rule-shaping layer that influences how those markets evolve globally.

Survival without the US does not mean neutrality

From a financial perspective, most affected institutions are likely to survive. European governments, Japan, Nordic states, and philanthropic actors can backfill near-term funding gaps. Many of these bodies already operate with diversified funding sources and experience donor volatility.

Institutional survival, however, should not be confused with institutional neutrality or effectiveness.

Also Read: Code, power, and chaos: The geopolitics of cybersecurity

As US participation recedes, three structural shifts are likely. First, agenda-setting power (and hence influence) concentrates among the remaining major funders. Second, standards and methodologies evolve according to the regulatory philosophies of those still at the table, gradually redefining what becomes “normal” or “default” in global markets. Third, even modest funding disruptions can slow research cycles, narrow mandates, and reduce technical ambition.

For startups and investors, the critical point is not collapse but tilt. The global climate–energy regime becomes less US-centric and more shaped by European regulatory logic, Asian industrial priorities, and Global South adaptation needs.

That tilt matters because it reshapes the assumptions embedded in products, platforms, and business models.

The fiscal reality: Small savings, large signals

From the US federal budget perspective, the direct savings from withdrawal are modest. The combined reduction in assessed dues and typical voluntary contributions amounts to tens of millions of dollars per year.

Measured against a federal budget and annual deficits exceeding a trillion dollars, and rapidly rising interest costs, these savings are economically immaterial. They do not alter the debt trajectory or meaningfully expand fiscal space.

Markets, however, respond less to absolute numbers than to signals of power and intent. A decision to step away from rule-writing institutions sends a strong signal about priorities, alignment, and future engagement. That signal reshapes expectations about where standards will be set, where capital will flow, and which jurisdictions will define the next generation of market rules.

The financial impact is small. The geopolitical signal is large, and the market price signals.

What this means for corporates: The end of a single global rulebook

For large enterprises, the immediate impact is not loss of market access but loss of predictability.

As climate and energy governance fragments, companies face growing divergence between US, European, and Asia-Pacific standards. The assumption that a single global compliance strategy will suffice becomes increasingly untenable. Firms operating across regions must navigate multiple definitions, reporting regimes, and certification systems.

The strategic response is operational rather than ideological. Climate and energy policy must be treated as trade policy, supply-chain policy, and security policy. Scenario planning must assume fragmentation, not convergence.

The era in which global companies could rely on a single, slowly evolving rulebook is ending.

What this means for startups: Geopolitics enters the product roadmap

Startups experience these shifts earlier and more acutely than incumbents. The most exposed ones are climate tech, energy software, grid and storage systems, ESG and climate data platforms, supply-chain SaaS, carbon markets, advanced materials, and industrial automation.

The core challenge is that global scalability becomes more complex. Different blocs increasingly favour distinct standards, data requirements, and compliance pathways. A product designed around US regulatory assumptions may encounter friction in Europe or Asia—not because it lacks technical merit, but because it no longer aligns with how legitimacy is defined.

For founders, the implications are practical. Go-to-market strategies must account for regulatory geography alongside customer geography. Early product decisions may need to anticipate multiple standards regimes. Policy and regulatory expertise may need to be integrated earlier than in previous startup cycles.

There is an opportunity embedded in this complexity. Startups that can bridge standards, abstract compliance, or translate between regimes gain value as fragmentation increases. In a splintered system, interoperability becomes a competitive moat.

Also Read: How cybersecurity companies can build trust through digital PR

What this means for investors: Repricing policy risk

For investors, the withdrawal changes how climate and energy risk should be underwritten. Policy convergence can no longer be assumed. This increases jurisdictional risk, complicates exit pathways, and heightens sensitivity to political change.

Capital will increasingly favour companies with geographic optionality, diversified revenue exposure, and resilience to policy shifts. Business models that depend heavily on continued US federal leadership or multilateral climate mechanisms will be discounted.

The investor question shifts from “Is this aligned with climate policy?” to a more strategic inquiry: “Which political system does this company scale under?”

Geopolitical literacy becomes a core investment competency rather than a peripheral concern.

Supply chains: Where geopolitics becomes physical

Beyond software and data, the effects propagate into physical value chains. Critical minerals, energy hardware, batteries, grid equipment, and industrial manufacturing face higher coordination costs, greater reliance on bilateral agreements, and increased exposure to sanctions and political risk. Governments must now work a lot harder to find bilateral partners, as multilateralism now breaks up.

For startups embedded in these chains, technical excellence alone is no longer sufficient. Understanding geopolitical context—who controls resources, who sets standards, and who provides security—becomes central to long-term viability.

Conclusion: Geopolitics as a startup variable

This is not a story about climate virtue or environmental ambition. It is a story about how state power reshapes markets and innovation ecosystems.

The US withdrawal from international climate and energy institutions saves little money, but it changes who writes the rules that govern future markets. That shift increases complexity, raises the premium on geopolitical awareness, and alters competitive dynamics across the startup stack.

For founders, executives, and investors, the implication is clear:

Geopolitics is no longer background noise. It is a core variable in startup strategy, capital allocation, and scale.

Those who understand this will adapt early. Those who do not will experience it as friction they cannot fully explain—until it becomes a constraint they cannot escape.

—

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 courtesy: Canva

The post When nation-states shape startup outcomes appeared first on e27.

In the high-growth markets of Southeast Asia, a recurring frustration exists among fund allocators and regional strategists: The funding gap. You identify a venture with a brilliant solution, provide non-dilutive funding and grants, and the project delivers great short-term results. But the moment the funding cycle ends, the venture struggles to secure independent funding, and the momentum evaporates.

This is not just an operational problem; it is a structural failure. When an otherwise strong venture is rejected for a follow-on institutional fund, it is rarely because its idea failed. It is because they lack structural alignment with the allocator’s logic.

The rigour gap: From pilot to audit

Institutional fund allocators, from foundations and development banks to multilateral agencies, do not invest in upside in the same way a private seed investor might. They invest in the removal of systemic risk.

For a venture to be ready, it must withstand a level of audit rigour that most early-stage ventures are not built for. Rejection often stems from the fact that while a venture is operationally fast, it lacks the institutional legacy required to track and justify funds to a fiduciary standard. If the internal operations are not built for transparency, the venture is an institutional mismatch, regardless of how viable the solution appears to be.

Avoiding the funding cliff

The biggest pain point for fund allocators is the project cycle cliff. Allocators want to know that their fund is a catalyst, not a life support system.

They reject ventures that appear to have a fund-seeking model rather than a fund-ready model. A fund-seeking model relies on the next check for survival; a fund-ready venture uses non-dilutive funding and grants to build financial sovereignty. If a venture cannot demonstrate how its operations survive long after the funding cycle closes, it represents a failed evaluation metric for the allocator’s portfolio.

Also Read: The cold logic of the angel: Stop funding dreams, start funding plumbing

The logic gap: Why market traction is not a proxy for institutional readiness

This is where the distinction becomes critical for growth operators. In the private sector, specifically with Venture Capital, validation is often proven by revenue and rapid market capture. VCs buy your future and your speed to market.

However, an institutional fund allocator funds your proof. They require technical validation benchmarks for data privacy, clinical safety, or financial inclusion that the private market often overlooks in the early stages. A venture can have massive market traction but zero technical de-risking. To an institutional allocator, that traction is unproven because it has not passed the technical hurdles of the sector’s rigour.

Real-world examples of structural alignment

Consider the case of Zipline, the logistics venture. While their core funding came from venture capital, their early deployments in the region were enabled through formal government and institutional partnerships. These relationships required strict operational, safety, and regulatory compliance. These institutional engagements served as de-risking mechanisms that helped demonstrate to private investors that the venture could operate under real regulatory constraints. By meeting these institutional standards early, Zipline provided the operational validation that supported later equity investment.

On the other side, consider an impact-driven social venture (registered as a non-profit) like One Acre Fund. While they prioritise social outcomes, they operate with the operational discipline of a scaled retail system. Grants and philanthropic funds are not treated as subsidies, but as a risk fund used to design, test, and refine agricultural interventions.

What distinguishes them is operational rigour. Performance is measured with audit-level precision, unit economics are tracked closely, and program effectiveness is evaluated continuously. For institutional funders, this shifts the posture from funding activities to a delivery system capable of converting funds into measurable funding outcomes.

Professionalising the funding answer key

To bridge the gap between private sector speed and development sector rigour, a venture must move from being the Hero who survives by grit to the architect who builds by system.

This requires what I call the allocator’s logic, which means building a venture structure that mirrors the answer key reviewers use when evaluating multi-million dollar funds:

• Systemic transparency: Financial and operational reporting must be built for an institutional audit, not just a pitch deck.
• Funding longevity metrics: Defining clear indicators for how the venture generates independent funding or survives once the institutional cycle ends.
• Outcome sovereignty: Showing that the venture is building a proprietary methodology that can be replicated across Southeast Asia without the founder’s constant intervention.

Also Read: In Southeast Asia, cybersecurity is booming, but funding is not

The strategic value of a non-dilutive fund

Securing non-dilutive funds and grants is not just about the money; it is about the signalling effect. When a venture passes the rigour of an institutional allocator, it tells the rest of the market that the venture is de-risked. This makes future equity rounds or strategic exits much cleaner, as the institutional legacy has already been established.

For the growth operator, this fund protects ownership when valuations are at their most vulnerable. For the fund allocator, it ensures that their deployment leads to a permanent shift in the regional market, rather than a temporary pilot that disappears when the budget does.

Closing the gap

We must stop treating non-dilutive funds and grants as free money and start treating them as high rigour funds. The ventures that succeed in Southeast Asia over the next decade will be those that can speak both languages: the language of private sector speed and the language of institutional rigour.

In the institutional world, the best venture does not always win; the most prepared structure does.

After 15-plus years in the regional trenches, I have seen that the scar tissue you build by professionalising for institutional funds is the same asset that makes your venture unignorable to strategic partners in the long run.

Build for rigour, and the capital and the impact will follow.

—

The post The hidden reason institutional fund allocators reject otherwise good ventures appeared first on e27.