Tourism industries worldwide face the same question: can automation coexist with warmth?

As destinations rush to deploy AI, self-service systems, and digital platforms, many are discovering an unintended consequence – efficiency gains at the cost of emotional connection. Singapore is taking a different approach: using technology not to replace people, but to create capacity for more meaningful human interactions.

The global challenge

Industry research suggests that while travellers appreciate efficiency, many remain dissatisfied with impersonal digital interactions. A 2025 Booking.com study found that a majority of travellers recognise AI’s role in making journeys easier. At the same time, research by Simon–Kucher indicates growing frustration with automated recommendations that fail to understand context, emotion, or intent.

These findings echo a warning from Wang Peng, an associate research fellow at the Beijing Academy of Social Sciences, who cautioned against blindly pursuing AI interaction at the expense of human warmth when discussing shifts in China’s tourism landscape. The message is clear: automation delivers speed and scale, but on its own, it struggles to replicate empathy, nuance, and trust.

As destinations worldwide automate, the main challenge would be to deploy technology without losing warmth.

Singapore’s approach

Singapore faces this challenge head-on. With 6,700 tourism vacancies in Q2 2025 and intense competition for talent, automation has become essential for maintaining personalised service at scale.

The Singapore Tourism Board’s (STB) Tourism 2040 strategy prioritises sustainable development while addressing evolving traveller preferences. The strategy targets between US$47 billion and US$50 billion in tourism receipts by 2040 while maintaining Singapore as a destination that residents proudly advocate for. To achieve this, the tourism industry is embracing automation strategically by using it to create capacity for human connection. 

Also Read: Singapore’s AI edge depends on slack

Freeing staff for what matters

Singapore’s indoor skydiving attraction iFly has self-service ticketing kiosks with facial recognition features that automate check-ins and payment processing for photos and videos taken during flights. Data analytics track visitor demographic profiles, allowing staff to personalise interactions and tailor experiences. What once required 10-15 minutes of staff time explaining waiver forms and processes now happens digitally, freeing staff to focus on other tasks like safety briefings and creating the reassuring presence that makes the experiences memorable.

At Mandai Wildlife Reserve, the mobile app enhances guests’ visits by providing digital wayfinding where visitors are presented with multiple routes to choose from, presentation reminders, and curated park itineraries. By handling these informational needs digitally, the app eliminates routine queries, allowing staff to focus more on deeper engagement and delivering more personalised interactions with visitors. This creates spontaneous educational moments that visitors remember long after leaving the park.

Behind the scenes, Gardens by the Bay’s Smart Garden project uses a consolidated IoT dashboard for real-time monitoring of plant health and environmental conditions. Over 250 wireless sensors track parameters like temperature, humidity, and soil moisture, while 200+ smart lamps are equipped with an intelligent lighting system that sends instant malfunction alerts.

In addition, wireless tree tilt sensors on mature specimens monitor structural stability, enabling early intervention. Instead of manual inspections, the horticulture team can access precise data on dashboards and prevent operational failures that may affect visitor experiences and cause disappointment. The time saved goes towards hands-on plant care and exhibit curation, ultimately enhancing the quality of each visit.

Immersive tech that creates a connection

Singapore is also exploring how Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) can create richer contexts for meaningful interactions.  

The ArtScience Museum exemplifies this approach by using VR and AR to deepen visitor engagement with complex themes. Its VR Gallery offers immersive experiences like The Drone Shepherd by Liam Young, a VR graphic novel set in Planet City, where Earth’s entire population lives in one hyper-dense city. Built from hand-painted illustrations, the work allows visitors to viscerally experience climate collapse.

While VR immerses visitors in complete worlds, AR invites them to participate in creating one. Installations like Deep Field by Tin&Ed allow visitors to design plants that bloom into augmented reality structures while hearing soundscapes of extinct species. This connects them emotionally to environmental loss.

Also Read: How I built Singapore’s 8th fastest-growing company without investors

These immersive experiences create space for conversations and questions beyond technology itself. Museum staff can assist with technical setup and support interactive workshops, creating touchpoints that transform solitary digital experiences into shared human moments.

What’s next

Singapore’s progress shows promise, but like destinations worldwide, the work continues.

Current priorities include predictive infrastructure monitoring, immersive experiences that do not require heavy physical installations, integrated data platforms across attractions, and safer methods for maintenance work in sensitive environments, including underwater operations that protect both staff and marine life.

Each of these challenges reflects a broader opportunity: to embed warmth more deeply into tourism systems by ensuring technology works quietly and reliably in the background.

At its best, automation does not replace human connections; it enables them. Every routine task automated is a human interaction made possible. Every operational failure prevented is an experience preserved. Every immersive tool thoughtfully deployed becomes a bridge, not a barrier, between people.

As Singapore continues to open real tourism environments for pilot deployments, initiatives such as the Singapore Tourism Accelerator play a role in connecting technology providers with operators to test deployable solutions that balance efficiency with empathy. The future of tourism innovation may be built on advanced systems — but it will be felt most strongly in the human moments they protect.

Applications for the Singapore Tourism Accelerator (STA) Cohort 8 are now open, addressing several priority challenges across the tourism sector. The application window closes in February 2026.

 —

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.

Featured image generated using AI.

The post From cold code to warm smiles: How Singapore automates human connection appeared first on e27.

The modern startup ecosystem has a paradox: we have more tools than ever, yet founders feel more disconnected than ever. The problem is not a lack of solutions. The problem is too many of them.

As someone who spent two years building a startup that ultimately failed, I learned this lesson the hard way. The ecosystem is not broken because we lack resources. It is broken because those resources are scattered across dozens of platforms that do not talk to each other.

The fragmentation problem facing Founders today

Consider the typical founder journey. You need to find a co-founder, so you post on LinkedIn, join Slack communities, and browse dedicated matching platforms. You need to hire, so you use AngelList, Wellfound, and traditional job boards. You want to raise funding, so you chase investors through warm intros, Twitter DMs, and pitch events. Each need requires a different platform, a different profile, and a different approach.

This fragmentation creates three major problems for the startup ecosystem.

• Time lost to platform hopping

Founders already wear too many hats. Adding platform management to the list steals hours that could go toward building product, talking to customers, or iterating on strategy. Every new tool requires onboarding, profile creation, and ongoing maintenance. The cognitive load adds up quickly.

• Signal buried in noise

When opportunities are spread across multiple platforms, finding the right match becomes exponentially harder. Investors miss promising startups because they are not on the right platform. Talented developers never see job posts because they are in the wrong Slack group. Co-founders who would be perfect together never connect because they use different tools.

• Vanity metrics over real performance

Most startup platforms rank companies by follower counts, funding announcements, or self-reported metrics. This creates perverse incentives where marketing prowess matters more than actual business performance. Founders optimise for visibility instead of value creation.

Also Read: When nation-states shape startup outcomes

What the startup ecosystem actually needs

The solution is not another niche platform. The solution is consolidation around verified value.

Imagine a single hub where founders can post any type of opportunity, whether they are hiring, seeking co-founders, raising capital, or selling their company. Where investors can discover startups ranked by actual revenue, verified through integrations with payment providers like Stripe. Where talent can browse opportunities without creating five different accounts.

This is not a radical idea. Other industries have already made this transition. E-commerce consolidated around a few major marketplaces. Professional networking consolidated around LinkedIn. The startup ecosystem is overdue for similar consolidation.

Principles for a unified startup platform

Any platform attempting to unify the startup ecosystem should follow several key principles.

• Verified metrics over self-reported data

Credibility should be earned through demonstrated performance, not claimed through marketing. Integration with revenue providers allows startups to verify their traction. This creates trust and helps investors, talent, and partners make better decisions.

• No gatekeeping on discovery

Connection requests, paywalls on viewing profiles, and algorithmic filtering all create artificial barriers. A truly open ecosystem lets anyone browse opportunities, explore profiles, and reach out directly. The startup world has enough barriers already.

• Multi-purpose profiles

Instead of maintaining separate identities across platforms, founders should have one profile that serves multiple purposes. The same profile can attract co-founders, investors, employees, and acquirers. Context determines how the profile is discovered, not which platform it lives on.

Also Read: Why startups need mobile apps to thrive in today’s competitive market

Lessons from two years of startup failure

My perspective comes from experience, including failure. I spent two years with co-founders building a mobile game. We travelled across Europe for events and flew to Australia to expand our network. We did everything the startup playbook said to do.

What I learned is that the ecosystem rewards activity over results. Posting updates, attending events, and growing followings felt productive, but moved us no closer to product-market fit. The fragmented ecosystem made it easy to stay busy without making progress.

This failure shaped a different philosophy: build fast, test immediately, be transparent about what works and what does not. Fail for others so they do not have to make the same mistakes.

The path forward for startup infrastructure

The startup ecosystem in Southeast Asia and globally is maturing. As it matures, the infrastructure supporting it should mature as well. This means moving from fragmentation toward consolidation, from vanity metrics toward verified performance, and from gatekeeping toward open access.

Founders deserve better than jumping between ten platforms to accomplish basic tasks. Investors deserve better than sorting through unverified claims. Talent deserves better than scattered job posts across incompatible systems.

The startup ecosystem does not need another tool. It needs fewer tools that do more. The question is not whether this consolidation will happen, but when and who will lead it.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy: Canva

The post The fragmentation trap: How too many platforms are killing startups appeared first on e27.

Nasdaq-listed Society Pass (SPI), which provides a data-driven loyalty platform,  and its former CMO Thomas O’Connor emerged from a bruising, multi‑year New York trial on February 5 with a mixed verdict that recalibrates liability, equity and control over contested stock issuances.

Justice Joel M. Cohen’s decision upholds earlier valuations of pre‑IPO warrants but applies New York’s “faithless servant” doctrine to strip O’Connor of pay and future vesting beyond July 2019.

Also Read: Dennis Nguyen steps down as Society Pass CEO amidst court cases, SEC probe

At the same time, the court rescinded key contracts executed by O’Connor’s Singapore vehicle, CVO Advisors, for fraudulent inducement. Several headline counterclaims by Society Pass were dismissed for lack of provable damages.

Background and the valuation fight

The dispute traces to a September 2023 ruling that O’Connor had validly exercised a Common Stock Purchase Warrant for 1,148 shares. The valuation of those warrant shares became the case’s financial core. After a 10‑day valuation hearing in late 2024, a Special Referee placed the per‑share value at US$5,763, a figure Justice Cohen confirmed in July 2025. That valuation implied roughly US$6.62 million for the block; with court‑sanctioned penalty interest set at 9 per cent per annum, accrual has pushed the total owed to about US$11.5 million, according to O’Connor’s counsel.

The judgment landed at a precarious juncture for Society Pass. Its SEC Form 10‑Q showed only US$10.9 million in cash; the company had been dropped from the Russell 2000 and its stock had plunged from a US$77 peak to roughly US$0.40. Court filings also disclosed an SEC investigation and a separate suit from ex‑CTO Rahul Narain seeking about US$1.3 million. Society Pass appealed the earlier partial judgment; that appeal remained pending when the trial verdict issued.

Key holdings from the trial

Faithless servant doctrine eliminates pay claims: Justice Cohen found that beginning in June 2019 O’Connor effectively abandoned his CMO responsibilities, including an unauthorised five‑week trip to Japan that produced no meaningful business outcomes. More seriously, in August 2019 he met a lead prospective investor, Lester Chan of Fund Singapore (an equity & lending-based crowdfunding platform), where the court found he disparaged Society Pass CEO Dennis Nguyen, expressed doubt about the company’s viability, and pitched an alternative investment. Under New York law, an employee who becomes disloyal forfeits compensation. The court therefore dismissed O’Connor’s claims for unpaid salary and severance.

Warrant rights preserved, but truncated: The judge reaffirmed that the Common Stock Purchase Warrant was a standalone agreement not tied to employment KPIs. O’Connor had already been awarded US$6,615,934 for shares that vested before June 2019. The trial award adds US$824,109 for shares vesting in June-July 2019. Crucially, any shares vesting from August 2019 onward were forfeited because the court pegged the start of his disloyal conduct to that month. The ruling effectively preserves equity that vested before the loyalty breach and cuts off later vesting.

CVO contracts rescinded for fraudulent inducement: The court found O’Connor misrepresented CVO’s ownership status when he executed a Subscription Agreement and a Software Development Agreement in November 2018, claiming to be CVO’s sole owner despite owning zero shares until May 2019. Because those misstatements materially induced Society Pass to contract, both agreements were rescinded and CVO must return all SPI shares issued under them.

Also Read: Ex-CTO drags Society Pass into court for “breaching employment contract”, seeks over US$1.3M in damages

SPI counterclaims fail for lack of proof: Society Pass argued O’Connor’s conduct reduced Fund Singapore’s expected investment from an anticipated US$10-15 million to just US$1 million. The court rejected that causation claim, pointing instead to SPI’s failures to secure a digital wallet license and a strategic partner. Claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment were dismissed where the company failed to present concrete damages or financial records proving improper personal spending.

Financial and corporate fallout

The judgment leaves SPI exposed to a material monetary liability tied to the warrant valuations — US$6.62 million already recognised plus US$0.82 million now, each carrying interest. O’Connor’s legal team places the aggregate with interest at roughly US$11.5 million. That sum is significant against SPI’s limited cash reserves and battered market capitalisation.

Rescinding the CVO agreements reduces dilution by clawing back shares issued under those contracts, but it does not erase SPI’s monetary exposure for warrants that vested through July 2019. The faithless‑servant finding curtails salary and severance outflows and narrows future vesting, providing the company partial financial relief.

Operationally, Society Pass must undertake a cap‑table cleanup to unwind share issuances, update registers and manage potential secondary disputes. Collections and enforcement of the monetary awards will hinge on appeals, interest computations, and any negotiated settlement. With several of SPI’s counterclaims dismissed, the company gains narrative relief but still faces the harder task of stabilising liquidity and restoring investor confidence.

Legal and governance lessons

The case is a stark illustration of how New York courts apply the faithless‑servant doctrine to senior executives, the separability of certain equity instruments from employment terms, and the perils of inaccurate or misleading representations in cross‑border deals. For founders and boards, the ruling underscores the need for meticulous documentation of ownership, clear linkage (or separation) of warrants from employment KPIs, and close oversight of executives’ conduct with investors.

Also Read: US court orders Society Pass to pay pre-IPO shares to co-founder and ex-CMO; company under SEC probe

Conclusion

Justice Cohen’s decision is a split result: O’Connor retains significant pre‑August 2019 equity value but loses salary and future vesting for disloyal conduct, while CVO’s contracts are voided for fraud. Society Pass limits several major counterclaims and claws back shares, yet remains on the hook for warrant‑linked awards and mounting interest — leaving both parties with partial victories and substantial follow‑on risks.

The post US$11.5M at stake: Society Pass and ex-CMO clash ends in mixed court ruling appeared first on e27.

The evolution of building material distribution in Singapore (1980–2020)

Between 1980 and 2020, Singapore’s building material industry underwent a seismic shift from fragmented hardware shops to highly integrated supply chain powerhouses. In the 1980s, the sector was defined by manual ledgers and localized trade, supporting the rapid urbanization of the HDB heartlands. By the 1990s, the push for “Construction 21” necessitated better logistics management. The 2000s saw the introduction of early digitalization, as firms moved toward basic inventory databases to manage the influx of imported aggregates and steel. By 2020, the industry had become a sophisticated hub of “Just-in-Time” delivery, necessitated by land scarcity and the high-speed requirements of iconic projects like the Marina Bay Sands and the expansion of Changi Airport.

Major challenges in 2026

As we navigate 2026, the building material business in Singapore faces unprecedented hurdles that demand digital resilience:

• Agentic AI Integration: The sudden shift toward AI-driven procurement means businesses without compatible data structures are losing out on automated bidding processes.
• Labor Scarcity and Automation: With tighter foreign labor quotas, firms must automate warehouse and back-office operations to maintain output.
• Real-time Cross-border Logistics: Volatility in regional supply chains requires instantaneous tracking of shipments from neighboring ASEAN partners to avoid project delays.
• Smart Site Requirements: Construction sites now demand digital “Product Data Templates” for every material delivered, requiring suppliers to provide complex metadata alongside physical goods.

Why industry-specific ERP software is non-negotiable

For the building material sector, ERP software for building material business in Singapore is far more than a financial tool; it is the central nervous system of the operation. Unlike conventional commercial software designed for generic retail, these ERPs handle the physical realities of “heavy” trade.

Key unique features include:

• Multi-Unit Conversion: Seamlessly switching between weight (tonnes), volume (cubic meters), and quantity (pallets) for a single SKU.
• Project-Based Pricing: Managing tiered pricing for different contractors across various long-term government or private tenders.
• Fleet & Logistics Integration: Coordinating heavy vehicle schedules with delivery windows to prevent NEA fines for site congestion.
• Batch & Heat Number Tracking: Essential for structural materials like steel or cement where quality certification is legally mandated.

Unique Singaporean system requirements

Operating in Singapore requires an ERP that understands the local regulatory and geographical nuances:

• Singapore GST & InvoiceNow: Full integration with the IMDA InvoiceNow network for automated e-invoicing.
• Land Transport Authority (LTA) Compliance: Managing permits and weight limits specific to Singapore’s road regulations for heavy material transport.
• High-Speed Inventory Turnover: Due to extremely high warehouse rentals, the system must support ultra-efficient cross-docking.
• Multi-Currency Regional Sourcing: Built-in capabilities to handle fluctuating exchange rates for materials sourced from Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam.

The cost of “cost saving”: Accounting packages vs. industrial ERP

Many firms attempt to save money by purchasing a general accounting package and layering on custom code. This often leads to “Digital Debt.” While the initial price tag is lower, the business impact is severe:

1. Siloed Data: Logistics and sales remain disconnected, leading to “phantom inventory” and missed delivery windows.
2. Expensive Maintenance: Every time the accounting software updates, the custom “building material” patches break, requiring expensive developer intervention.
3. Lack of Scalability: General packages cannot handle the complex contract variations common in Singapore’s construction industry, forcing staff back onto manual Excel sheets.

Also read: Why traditional SEO is dying in Singapore — and how AISEO pioneers are winning the next Blue Ocean

Top 5 best ERP software for building material business in Singapore

The current market in 2026 emphasizes AI readiness and Linux-based flexibility. Here are the leading contenders:

1. Multiable

As the top-ranked solution, Multiable offers a highly flexible architecture specifically tuned for the high-velocity trade environment of Singapore.

Pros:

• Native AI-ready data structure for agentic tool integration.
• Exceptional multi-unit of measurement (UOM) handling for complex building materials.
• Robust project-costing modules tailored for Singaporean contractors.
• Seamless integration with local Singaporean banking APIs and InvoiceNow.
• Cloud-native Linux architecture ensuring high performance and low TCO.

Cons:

• Proven successful cases with public companies & multinationals (may feel over-engineered for very small firms).
• Support service in weekend or public holiday will incur extra charge.
• Price may be out of touch for mom-and-pop business with less than 10 staff.

Why Multiable is in the list?:

• Matches the Singaporean need for rapid inventory turnover.
• Highly localized for Singapore GST and LTA delivery requirements.
• Linux-based system allows for future-proofing against AI obsolescence.

2. Oracle NetSuite

A global giant that provides a comprehensive cloud suite, though it comes with specific 2026 caveats.

Pros:

• Global visibility for companies with international sourcing offices.
• Extensive third-party marketplace for warehouse automation tools.
• Real-time financial reporting.

Cons:

• Steep increment in SaaS fee upon renewal; can be as high as 50% of first SaaS contract price.
• Service availability is a concern; there are three serious outages / malfunctions occurred in 2025.
• Lacks deep, out-of-the-box Singapore-specific construction contract localization.

Why NetSuite is in the list?:

• Strong multi-currency capabilities for regional material trading.
• Scalable for medium to large enterprises.

3. Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central

A popular choice for those already heavily invested in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Pros:

• Familiar user interface for Windows users.
• Deep integration with Excel and Outlook.
• Strong developer community in Singapore.

Cons:

• Resource-hungry Windows Server O/S means hardware cost incurred will be as high as 10x of those Linux-based solution.
• Performance issue of AzureSQL is a concern.
• Requires significant customization for the “heavy” material industry.

Why Microsoft D365 is in the list?:

• Ease of adoption for staff already using Office 365.
• Comprehensive partner network within Singapore for local support.

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

4. SAP S/4HANA

The gold standard for large-scale industrial operations and multi-national building material suppliers.

Pros:

• Unrivaled depth in supply chain and manufacturing modules.
• World-class security and data governance.
• Advanced predictive analytics for demand forecasting.
• Strong global compliance for cross-border trade.

Cons:

• Extremely high implementation and licensing costs.
• Complex user interface requires extensive staff training.
• Requires a large internal IT team for ongoing management.

Why SAP is in the list?:

• Superior handling of complex, multi-stage logistics and structural material certifications.
• Best-in-class for public-listed companies requiring strict audit trails.

5. Chillaccount

A streamlined solution for smaller players or specialized distributors in the Singapore market.

Pros:

• Affordable entry-level pricing for smaller distributors.
• User-friendly interface requiring minimal training.
• Quick implementation timelines.

Cons:

• Limited depth in complex project management features.
• Fewer integrations compared to larger ERP players.
• May require manual workarounds for very complex UOM conversions.

Why Chillaccount is in the list?:

• Provides essential Singapore GST compliance at a lower price point.
• Suitable for niche building material suppliers with straightforward logistics.

Precautions for business owners in 2026

When selecting a system this year, owners must look beyond the features of 2025:

• Avoid Windows-Only Ecosystems: You cannot select a system which is bound to the Windows Server ecosystem. Since all popular LLMs and agentic AI tools are running on Linux, a system which cannot run on Linux may become obsolete in the near future as it will lack native “hooks” into the AI economy.
• Asian Vendor Advantage: While AIs in Asia start to catch up with those in the US, Asian ERP vendors also start to provide better ROI than household ERP names from the US or EU. These vendors often understand local trade nuances—like the specific “Kopi” culture of business or unique Singaporean regulatory filings—more intuitively than Western counterparts.
• API Openness: Ensure the vendor provides a “Headless” or robust API architecture. In 2026, your ERP must be able to talk to autonomous delivery drones and smart site sensors without manual intervention.

Why we write this article

PRbyAI aims to share updated market news using our team’s tech knowledge, helping B2B customers make informed decisions.

—

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 leveraging cutting-edge AISEO to help customers generate leads and tap into new markets.

The post Top 5 best ERP software for building material business in Singapore | 2026 guide appeared first on e27.

DBS is stepping deeper into private markets, and it’s bringing its wealth clients along for the ride.

Singapore’s largest bank by assets has signed a three-year partnership with Granite Asia, a multi-asset investment platform, to build a pipeline of investment products and financing options aimed at high-growth Asian companies, with AI as the opening act.

Also Read: Granite Asia, Integral form US$100M JV to drive Japan-global tech expansion

The collaboration starts with money on the table: Granite Asia has closed a US$110 million AI-focused IPO fund, and DBS distributed it exclusively to its wealth clients. In plain terms, this is DBS using its private banking reach to funnel client capital into a specialist vehicle targeting a narrow slice of the market: AI-driven Asian companies heading towards public listings.

How many Asian AI firms could benefit?

The partnership points to a large addressable universe, and a narrowing funnel.

Citing Crunchbase data (as of 20 February 2026), the press release notes that over 13,000 AI-driven companies have been founded in Asia since 2015. Not all of these are IPO-bound (or even fundable), but that figure sets the backdrop: a crowded pipeline of AI startups now ageing into the “needs serious capital” phase.

The fund itself will ultimately back a much smaller subset — the companies that are both AI-driven and sufficiently mature to pursue IPOs — but the strategic pitch is that the collaboration is designed to keep producing vehicles that can tap different stages and structures of growth financing.

What DBS and Granite Asia are actually building (beyond the first fund)

The AI IPO fund is described as the first in a series. Under a memorandum of understanding formalising the partnership, Granite Asia will:

• Develop new funds exclusively for DBS clients
• Offer co-investment opportunities
• Launch a private capital product intended to provide non-dilutive capital to help tech-enabled Asian businesses transform and scale

That last item is where the deal tries to move from “another private bank product” to something more strategic. Non-dilutive capital typically refers to funding that doesn’t require founders to give up equity (often structured as credit or alternative financing). If executed well, that can matter in a region where valuation resets and tighter venture funding have made equity rounds more painful for founders.

How the partnership benefits high-growth companies

For high-growth firms, the headline isn’t just “more capital exists”; it’s that DBS is attaching its corporate and investment banking machinery to Granite Asia’s portfolio and future pipeline.

DBS says it will support Granite Asia’s funds and portfolio companies across the lifecycle, including:

• Subscription financing (often used by funds to smooth capital calls and liquidity timing)
• Corporate loans
• M&A advisory
• Support for bond issuances
• Work to prepare for an IPO

Also Read: The IPO window is open, and SEA startups are walking through

This matters because many growth-stage companies don’t just need cash; they need financing that matches their timing, plus help navigating transactions, capital markets, and cross-border expansion. A bank that can provide lending, advisory, and capital markets services can become an operating advantage, not merely a cheque.

What role AI plays in the collaboration

AI is not a side theme here; it’s the anchor product that kicks off the partnership.

Granite Asia’s first vehicle under the tie-up targets IPOs of high-growth AI-driven companies in Asia. The companies themselves aren’t named, but the intention is explicit: direct capital into IPOs and give investors “early access” to those opportunities.

The fund also drew investors beyond Singapore: the press release says it saw participation from Southeast Asia, as well as South Asia and Europe, signalling that the AI narrative and “Asia IPO access” angle is being marketed as a cross-region opportunity, not just a local product.

How private wealth clients are getting institutional-level access

The most consequential element for DBS’s private banking customers is distribution mechanics and product type:

• The US$110 million fund was distributed exclusively to DBS wealth clients, effectively a gated channel.
• Granite Asia will raise new funds exclusively for DBS clients and offer co-investments, structures commonly used by institutional allocators.
• A planned private capital product is explicitly positioned as giving clients access to an asset class “typically available to only institutional investors.”

In short: DBS is packaging private-market style access (funds, co-investments, private capital structures) into a wealth-channel offering, using Granite Asia as the sourcing and execution engine.

Granite Asia’s IPO track record, and why it’s being emphasised now

Granite Asia is heavily reliant on its ability to shepherd companies from private to public markets. The release claims that in the past six months alone, its portfolio companies recorded five listings and 10 additional IPO filings.

That’s a key selling point because the whole thesis of an “AI-focused IPO fund” depends on whether IPO exits are actually returning — and whether managers can consistently navigate listing windows when they open.

What the CEOs are saying (and what it signals)

Tan Su Shan, CEO of DBS, framed the move as a bank-wide push into funding and market access for the next wave of regional winners: “By combining DBS’ capabilities with Granite Asia’s deep founder relationships and track record in backing innovative Asian champions, we can offer differentiated investment opportunities to our clients and create new pathways for ambitious founders to expand internationally… this initiative also catalyses a vibrant funding ecosystem at a time when listings are returning to Asia’s equity markets.”

Granite Asia’s leadership pitched it as a scaling mechanism using DBS to amplify distribution and capital markets connectivity:

Also Read: AI for everyone: 25 tools to automate, create, and innovate

“This partnership unites two premier Asian institutions. Granite Asia brings a unique investment lens focused on technology and transformation, while DBS contributes unrivalled banking strength, capital markets expertise and regional networks. Together, we aim to support founders and companies as they scale across borders and mature into enduring global leaders,” added Jenny Lee, Senior Managing Partner, Granite Asia.

The bottom line

This isn’t a philanthropic push to “support innovation”. It’s a structured attempt to connect three forces:

• A large bank’s wealth distribution power
• An asset manager’s private-market sourcing and IPO pipeline
• A corporate and investment bank’s financing and capital markets toolkit

AI is the spearhead, but the real ambition is broader: build repeatable products that pull private wealth into growth financing — and in the process, give selected Asian companies more ways to raise money without waiting for the venture market to feel generous again.

The post DBS doubles down on private markets with US$110M AI IPO fund appeared first on e27.

It begins with a silence that lasts a few seconds too long. You have finished the presentation, the growth charts are still glowing on the screen, and the room feels electric until the questions shift from your vision to your vitals. The moment the due diligence team enters the room, the atmosphere of a venture changes.

For months, the leader has lived in a world of the pitch, which is a place where traction curves and the sheer force of personality carry the day. But when the professional cheque-writers arrive, whether they are private investors, VCs, or institutional capital allocators, the music stops. They are no longer listening to the story because they are looking for the scaffolding.

Now, let us be real about the ground reality. These allocators are not looking for perfection. In the high-growth corridors of Southeast Asia, we have all seen startups with messy back offices and established family firms with manual ledgers get funded. You do not need a pristine, corporate-ready headquarters to clear a growth round. If an allocator waited for every business in Jakarta or Ho Chi Minh City to have a flawless balance sheet, the region’s capital would never be deployed.

But there is a line. There is a specific kind of mess that an investor will forgive, and there is a specific kind of rot that makes a professional allocator run for the exit. The rejection that follows is not about the product or the history. Instead, it is about operational literacy, which is the invisible chasm between having a business and being a fundable asset.

The standard of evidence

To many founders and established business owners, the term Professional is mistaken for a fancy title. In reality, in the world of private equity and institutional capital, professionalism is a standard of control. Whether it is a solo angel investor or a regional trust, the allocator is not just buying your future cash flow. They are buying the assurance that the business is not held together by your personal hustle alone.

If a venture, whether it is a software firm or a manufacturing plant, relies entirely on the owner being in every WhatsApp group and approving every single expense to stay upright, it is not a venture. It is a solo act. A fundable business is a structure that survives the person.

A funding audit is not a test of how pretty your folders are. It is a test to see if you have built a machine or merely a high-growth hobby that is one owner-burnout away from collapse. When an allocator looks at your books, they are not looking for a strict teacher to grade your homework. They are looking for the exit. If the business cannot function without the owner’s daily manual intervention, there is no exit and therefore no deal.

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

The ghost in the machine

High-growth ventures often mistake early-stage validation for readiness. I have watched multi-million dollar cheques, cheques that were practically signed, vaporise in real-time because of what I call the ghost founder syndrome. This happens when a co-founder who left a year ago still sits on 20 per cent of the cap table with no vesting schedule or legal exit in place.

You might think that because you are growing at 30 per cent month-on-month, the cap table does not matter. To a professional investor or a fund allocator, that is not just a messy detail. It is a legal time bomb. They see a future where that ghost returns to claim a piece of a success they did not build, or worse, holds a future acquisition hostage. Under institutional scrutiny, messy is fine, but legally compromised is a dead end. They cannot deploy capital into a house where the title deed is in question.

The transparency wall for established players

For the traditional, established firm, the wall is often built out of history. These businesses are frequently bank-ready, meaning they have the collateral to secure a loan. But they are almost never investor-ready. A bank cares about your past and your physical assets, while a strategic allocator cares about your governance and your future scalability.

Consider a family-run firm that has dominated its local route for twenty years. They might miss a massive buyout offer or a strategic merger simply because their financial ledger looks like a household diary. Their scar tissue, such as years of tax optimisation and informal supplier deals, becomes a structural risk. It is not that the business is not profitable. It is that the profit is not verifiable. Their history becomes the weight that sinks the deal because an external allocator cannot trust a black box.

The audit of non-dilutive capital

The trap is even more dangerous when seeking non-dilutive capital, such as government-backed grants or venture debt. Founders often assume that because they are not selling a piece of the company, the capital audit will be softer. The opposite is true. I recently saw an established player fail to secure a significant impact grant, not because they did not have the impact, but because they lacked capital efficiency tracking.

The allocator required a granular trail of how every dollar of non-dilutive funds would be segregated and audited. The venture was used to a one big bucket approach to their bank account and could not provide it. Whether it is equity or debt, professional capital requires a level of measurement rigour that most ventures only start building when it is already too late.

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

The scaffolding of a deal

To pass the audit, a leader must stop thinking like a manager and start thinking like an architect. This begins with structural sovereignty, which is the clean ownership of your intellectual property and legal rights. If your core brand is trapped in a local entity that cannot be legally transferred or audited, you are effectively unfundable.

This must be paired with operational discipline. You do not need perfection, but you do need a trail of evidence. Documentation is the physical proof of your integrity. When an allocator asks a question about your unit economics, and you have to get back to them in a week while you scramble to update a spreadsheet, you have already lost the room. A thorough funding audit is not looking for a stamp from a global firm. It is looking for control.

Architecting the future

The transition from asking for a cheque to architecting capital is the ultimate competitive advantage in the modern economy. The Southeast Asian ecosystem is no longer starving for ideas. It is starving for system literacy.

The founders and established owners who will own the next decade are those who understand that institutional scrutiny is not a hurdle to be cleared. It is the blueprint for the business itself. It is time to stop pitching the dream and start building the structures that both investors and institutional allocators can actually trust.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy of the author.

The post The architecture of rejection: Why ventures fail funding audits across both investors and institutional allocators appeared first on e27.

When enterprises plan expansion across the Asia Pacific, connectivity is rarely treated as a strategic decision. It is assumed to be available, stable, and good enough to support daily operations. That assumption is increasingly costly.

Recent regional research shows that more than 30 per cent of organisations in APAC say inadequate network connectivity is actively threatening their growth plans. Nearly 44 per cent report that network limitations are restricting their ability to scale core initiatives such as cloud, data, and AI deployments. These are not edge cases. They signal that connectivity has shifted from a background utility to a critical operational dependency.

Yet many enterprises only realise this after expansion is underway.

Why APAC exposes the problem earlier

APAC is one of the most operationally fragmented regions in the world. Network quality, carrier behaviour, roaming performance, and access reliability vary widely across countries and, in some cases, within cities. For enterprises operating across multiple markets, this creates conditions where assumptions are tested immediately. 

Consider a regional enterprise team rolling out a new workflow across Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand. On paper, the process is identical. The tools are the same. The timelines are aligned. On day one, however, execution begins to diverge. Team members in one market access systems without issue, while others experience intermittent connectivity, delayed authentication, or partial access to critical tools. Work still gets done, but not in the same way or at the same speed.

Connectivity is exercised from the first moment of execution. Employees land and need access. Systems activate. Customers interact in real time. When access behaves differently than expected, teams adapt quickly to keep work moving. 

What makes this challenging is not severity, but frequency. These are rarely full outages. They are short interruptions, inconsistent performance, or partial access that do not justify escalation on their own. Over time, teams build informal workarounds. Meetings start later. Tasks are deferred. Processes vary by market. Execution appears intact, but consistency quietly erodes.

This pattern is not anecdotal. It is increasingly visible in enterprise data.

Also Read: How eSIM can cut costs, boost CX, and simplify global operations for APAC startups

Quiet failure is a documented enterprise risk

Industry research consistently shows that network and connectivity issues account for a significant share of unplanned IT incidents, with the average cost of downtime running into thousands of dollars per minute for large organisations. In APAC specifically, more than half of surveyed enterprises report multi-million-dollar revenue losses linked to network outages or poor connectivity performance. 

However, the more common impact is not headline-grabbing outages. It is operational drag. 

The risk for enterprises is that this drag rarely appears in formal reporting. Quiet failure does not trigger outage alerts or incident reviews. Performance metrics often remain within acceptable thresholds even as execution consistency degrades across markets. What looks like normal variance at a regional level is often the cumulative effect of access issues that were never designed for or owned. 

This is why connectivity issues are often detected late. By the time leadership sees inconsistent performance across markets or slower decision cycles, the behaviour has already normalised, making the root cause harder to identify and correct.

The planning gap that enterprises underestimate

Most enterprise planning frameworks assume that connectivity will be broadly consistent across markets. Risk assessments focus on regulation, supply chains, talent, and cost. Access is treated as an environmental constant, even though tools such as eSIM already exist to manage connectivity variability more deliberately across regions.

APAC challenges that assumption. Fragmentation means connectivity behaves as a variable, not a given. When this variable is not explicitly accounted for, execution gaps appear early and compound quietly. 

This is not a technology problem. It is a planning problem. 

Enterprises design processes that depend on continuous access without stress-testing how those processes behave under uneven conditions. When access falters, execution does not fail loudly. It bends. 

Also Read: The impact of eSIM on international roaming and travel

Why connectivity shapes execution before other factors 

Other expansion challenges emerge gradually. Pricing models can be adjusted. Regulatory gaps surface over time. Localisation issues are identified through feedback cycles. Connectivity does not offer that margin for correction.

Connectivity is immediate. There is no grace period. Every workflow depends on it from day one. 

Because of this, connectivity becomes the first operational dependency to reveal flawed assumptions. In APAC, that revelation happens faster due to fragmentation. In more uniform regions, it may take longer, but the underlying dynamic is the same. 

What APAC teaches global enterprises 

APAC does not create this risk. It exposes it. 

As enterprises become more distributed and mobile, execution increasingly depends on continuous access across locations, devices, and teams. Connectivity is no longer peripheral to operations. It shapes how work flows, how decisions are made, and how consistently processes perform across markets. 

The takeaway for enterprise leaders is not about adopting a specific technology. It is about recognising connectivity as an operational variable that must be designed for, not assumed away. In practice, this is why enterprises are increasingly looking at approaches such as eSIM, not as a travel feature, but as a way to introduce greater predictability into how connectivity behaves across markets.

In APAC, businesses feel the impact first because the region accelerates the gap between planning and reality. Enterprises that acknowledge this early avoid quiet failure, becoming standard practice. Those who do not often discover the issue later, when inconsistency has already taken root.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy: Canva

The post APAC is not a single market, and connectivity is where most businesses feel the impact first appeared first on e27.

Sea Limited is deepening its relationship with Google, signing a memorandum of understanding to advance AI across Shopee (commerce), Garena (gaming), and Monee (digital financial services).

While the announcement reads like a standard partnership update, the specific areas named (agentic commerce, agentic payments, and AI-assisted game operations) signal something more pointed: both companies want AI systems that don’t just recommend, but act.

That distinction matters. Most consumer AI in 2024-2025 was about chat and content. “Agentic” systems are about execution: software that can navigate interfaces, compare options, apply rules, and complete transactions with minimal human input. Done well, it removes friction.

Poorly done, it becomes an expensive layer of confusion, or worse, a security liability.

Also Read: Agentic AI is powerful – but power isn’t product-market fit

This expanded partnership builds on existing Sea-Google collaborations, such as the YouTube Shopping Affiliate Program with Shopee and Free Fire League on Google Play with Garena. The new element is explicit: Sea wants to operationalise AI at scale across its ecosystem, and Google wants distribution in some of the world’s most mobile-first markets.

Forrest Li, Sea’s Chairman and CEO, framed it as the next platform shift:
“At Sea, we have always believed in the fundamental power of technology to improve lives and create long-lasting value for the communities we serve.

AI is the next big technology revolution, and we believe that it has huge potential to positively transform our business and create value in our markets. This partnership with Google on AI will drive innovation in the business application of the technology at scale, and allow us to make AI more accessible to the digitally underserved in our markets,” Li added.

Google APAC President Sanjay Gupta struck a similar tone. “By combining Google’s AI leadership with Sea’s innovative ecosystem, we’re building products that don’t just solve today’s challenges but define the future of gaming, commerce, and financial services. And we’re developing these solutions responsibly, with user privacy and safety at the core. Together, we are accelerating the adoption of this transformative technology and unlocking the immense economic potential of Southeast Asia’s digital landscape.”

The real story is what “agentic” implies for shoppers, gamers, and people who still sit on the edge of formal finance.

1) AI-powered agents and the future of online shopping: from browsing to delegation

Shopee and Google say they will “jointly explore the building of an AI agentic shopping prototype” that “can seamlessly integrate across Shopee and Google platforms”.

If that prototype becomes a product, it could shift online shopping from search-and-scroll to goal-driven delegation. Instead of a user typing keywords, filtering, opening ten tabs, checking delivery dates, and messaging sellers, an agent could:

• Translate a vague intent (“cheap, reliable phone for my mum”) into specific constraints
• Compare sellers, shipping times, warranty terms, and return policies
• Watch prices over time, alert on drops, and execute purchases within a budget
• Bundle items to optimise shipping or apply the proper vouchers automatically
• Handle post-purchase steps: tracking, rescheduling delivery, filing returns

Southeast Asia is an unusually fertile market for this because commerce is already messy in the real world: multiple languages, informal sellers, heavy promotion mechanics, and a wide range of logistics reliability. An agent that can actually navigate those trade-offs could become the new front door to shopping.

Also Read: Why agentic AI isn’t what the hype suggests

But it also raises uncomfortable questions. Who does the agent really serve — buyer, seller, or platform margin? If an AI agent becomes the shopping interface, then ranking, sponsored placements, and “recommended” choices become even more consequential. Platforms will need to show that agents are not simply optimised to maximise take rate while wearing a friendly chatbot mask.

2) AI innovation in gaming: not just smarter NPCs, but faster live ops and globalisation

On the gaming side, Garena and Google are looking to use Google’s AI solutions to “enhance gamer experiences” and “transform the productivity of game development and operations”, with a line about early access pilots for Google’s latest AI research.

The obvious consumer-facing play is richer worlds: better non-player characters, more adaptive matchmaking, personalised onboarding, and dynamic content. The less glamorous—but likely more valuable—angle is operations:

• Faster content production (assets, localisation, event scripting) to keep live-service titles fresh
• Better moderation and trust-and-safety tooling for voice and chat, where toxicity kills communities
• Anti-cheat systems that can detect novel patterns rather than just known signatures
• Smarter A/B testing loops that tune difficulty and retention without breaking fairness

If Garena can shorten content cycles and improve trust and safety, it can scale globally with less operational drag. That matters because “global gaming experience” is often less about graphics and more about whether a game feels fair, stable, and culturally native in Bangkok, Manila, São Paulo, and Riyadh at the same time.

There’s a catch: generative tooling can also turbocharge bad actors—cheat creation, scams, and automated harassment. Any AI advantage in gaming will be matched by AI-powered abuse, and publishers will have to budget for that arms race.

3) AI and financial inclusion: fewer forms, more approvals, but also new kinds of exclusion

Sea’s financial arm, Monee, will work with Google on an “open, shared Agent Payments Protocol (AP2)”, where Monee will provide feedback to ensure it is “robust, secure, and suitable” for Southeast Asia, with an intention to later explore pilot experiences across platforms.

If AP2 evolves into something widely adopted, it could reduce one of the biggest blockers to financial inclusion: complexity. Many underbanked users don’t struggle with the idea of digital money; they struggle with onboarding steps, confusing user interfaces, and customer support that doesn’t speak their language or understand their context.

AI could help by:

• Turning onboarding into a guided, multilingual flow that adapts to user capability
• Automating dispute handling and customer service at lower cost
• Improving fraud detection to protect first-time users (who are prime scam targets)
• Enabling small merchants to accept digital payments and reconcile accounts without accounting expertise

For SMEs, inclusion is not philosophical; it is operational. If agents can reconcile transactions, chase invoices, or manage cashflow nudges, that’s not “AI magic”; it is time returned to a shop owner.

Still, AI-driven finance comes with a risk the industry often underplays: automated denial. Models can quietly exclude people with thin files, unstable device histories, or non-standard income patterns; the exact users inclusion efforts claim to prioritise. Any “agentic payments” system that touches identity, fraud, or credit will need strong controls, auditability, and clear recourse when automation gets it wrong.

Also Read: Agentic AI: The next frontier in technology

Sea and Google are calling this partnership “strategic”. The test will be whether these projects become everyday tools that work in the region’s real conditions: inconsistent connectivity, diverse languages, scam-heavy environments, and users who will not tolerate extra steps just because the system is “smart”. Agentic AI only wins if it makes life simpler — and doesn’t create a new category of problems that humans then have to clean up.

The post Shopee, Garena, Monee: Sea’s AI ambition gets serious appeared first on e27.

As Ramadan retail continues to evolve across Southeast Asia, brands are being urged to rethink how they plan, activate and optimise campaigns during the holy month. New insights from Criteo’s analysis of Ramadan 2025 reveal that shoppers are starting earlier, taking longer to decide and converting closer to peak festive moments–a behavioural shift that will intensify as Ramadan and Chinese New Year converge in 2026.

Retail sales across Southeast Asia rose 13 per cent year-on-year during Ramadan 2025, underlining the growing commercial significance of the season. Yet the headline growth masks a deeper transformation in consumer behaviour. For purchases made in the final two weeks of Ramadan, the average time between a shopper’s first product visit and completed purchase stretched to 19 days, with some journeys extending beyond 50 days.

Early discovery, however, did not eliminate late conversion. Indonesia recorded a 35 per cent uplift in retail sales during the last two weeks of Ramadan, peaking at 57 per cent on March 16. Malaysia saw sales climb 26 per cent, with a 52 per cent peak on March 23. Singapore’s sales pattern was more stable, reflecting its diversified retail calendar.

The takeaway for Ramadan retail strategies is clear: shoppers are browsing earlier but still buying closer to Eid.

“Ramadan 2025 underscored a fundamental shift in how consumers plan and purchase–discovery is happening earlier, and shopping journeys are becoming increasingly fluid across channels,” said Sukesh Singh, managing director, Southeast Asia at Criteo.

“As festive moments begin to overlap, this behaviour will only accelerate. At Criteo, our AI-powered intelligence helps brands identify the right audiences at the right time and place, adding relevance across touchpoints and strengthening full-funnel, cross-channel outcomes. Brands that anticipate demand and stay relevant across the entire journey will be far better positioned to earn attention that drives higher conversion.”

Also Read: AI shopping adoption surges 39 per cent in APAC, fueling retail tech investments

Preparing for a more compressed festive calendar

With Chinese New Year and Ramadan set to fall in the same week in 2026, businesses face a tighter and more competitive festive window. Criteo’s advice to brands centres on five strategic shifts:

Plan Ramadan as a multi-stage season

Ramadan retail can no longer be treated as a short, promotion-led sprint. With discovery beginning weeks ahead of purchase while conversion clusters around peak moments, brands must structure campaigns in phases. Early weeks should focus on awareness and consideration, capturing shoppers during research and comparison. As Eid approaches, messaging should pivot towards urgency, promotions and conversion-led tactics.

Prepare for demand compression

The convergence of major cultural moments is likely to compress demand into shorter timeframes. Shorter decision windows and heightened competition mean brands must be ready for sharper spikes in traffic and transactions. Budgets, inventory and activation plans should be flexible enough to scale quickly during high-intent moments, rather than being distributed evenly across the month.

Align with cultural and daily rhythms

Ramadan retail activity closely follows daily routines. While afternoons generate the highest overall sales, the largest uplift compared with pre-Ramadan levels occurs during Suhoor. In Indonesia, this surge is most pronounced between 3 AM and 5 AM, while in Malaysia it shifts later, between 4 AM and 7 AM. Campaign timing, creative and offers that reflect these culturally relevant windows can significantly improve engagement and conversion.

Also Read: Multimodal AI: Reshaping search and discovery in retail and travel

Design for non-linear purchase journeys

Ramadan 2025 demonstrated that there is no single path to purchase. Some consumers act quickly on high intent, while others deliberate for weeks. Brands must maintain visibility across multiple touchpoints, from early discovery to final checkout, adapting messaging as intent strengthens. Retail media becomes particularly valuable closer to purchase moments, where intent signals are clearer and performance outcomes are easier to measure.

Rely on data-led optimisation and automation

As festive calendars grow more crowded, static campaign plans struggle to keep pace. Data-driven optimisation and automation enable brands to anticipate demand peaks, detect emerging intent signals and adjust spend, messaging and targeting in real time. This shift towards more adaptive, AI-supported execution allows Ramadan retail campaigns to move from reactive planning to continuous optimisation.

For businesses across Southeast Asia, the message is unequivocal. Ramadan retail is expanding in scale and complexity. Success will not hinge solely on promotional intensity in the final days before Eid, but on sustained relevance throughout a longer, more fluid shopper journey. Brands that anticipate demand, respect cultural rhythms and harness data intelligently will be best placed to win attention — and sales — in the seasons ahead.

—

Image Credit: Rauf Alvi on Unsplash

The post How brands can win Ramadan retail sales as consumer journeys grow longer appeared first on e27.

At the start of 2025, speed felt like the only answer. Faster growth. Faster launches. Faster decisions. Like many founders, I believed momentum was something you either kept feeding or risked losing entirely. In hindsight, that belief shaped several decisions I wouldn’t make again today.

One of the biggest was expanding capacity before demand had fully stabilised. We hired ahead of confirmed pipelines, stretched teams across regions, and said yes to opportunities that looked good on paper but came with hidden complexity. At the time, it felt like the responsible thing to do was to prepare for growth before it arrived. But what I didn’t fully appreciate was how fragile early momentum can be when it isn’t supported by repeatable systems.

The cost wasn’t just financial. It showed up in scattered focus, stretched leadership bandwidth, and teams that were busy but not always effective. Growth happened, but it wasn’t clean. And some of it didn’t age well.

Another lesson came from the metrics we chose to celebrate. In 2025, we tracked volume obsessively, such as the number of leads, the number of projects, and the number of touchpoints. It felt reassuring to see activity increase. But over time, I realised we were mistaking motion for progress. We were moving fast, but not always in the right direction.

What we didn’t pay enough attention to were quieter indicators: operational strain, client fit, team energy, and the effort required to maintain momentum. Those didn’t show up neatly on dashboards, but they told a much more accurate story about sustainability. By the time we acknowledged them, some damage had already been done.

Also Read: Why Asian startups should focus on Southeast Asia in 2026

As budgets tightened towards the end of the year, reality forced a reset. We had to get sharper about how we spent, who we hired, and what we built. That constraint, uncomfortable as it was, became a turning point.

We stopped defaulting to headcount as a solution. Instead of asking who else we needed, we asked what we could simplify. We questioned whether a feature actually solved a problem or just made us feel innovative. We rewrote processes that had grown bloated under pressure and slowly, clarity returned.

Slowing down revealed things that rapid scaling had hidden. It exposed inefficiencies we had been compensating for with effort. It highlighted roles that lacked clear ownership. It showed where culture had been diluted by speed rather than strengthened by intention.

Most importantly, it reminded me that growth without coherence is not progress, but it is postponement. You can delay reckoning by moving fast, but eventually the business asks harder questions.

Going into 2026, my priorities look very different. I’m less interested in how quickly something can scale and more interested in whether it can be repeated without exhaustion. I think more about resilience than reach. I ask whether a decision gives us optionality or locks us into constant acceleration.

Also Read: Why the tech world is heading to Hong Kong in April 2026

If I were optimising purely for sustainability now, I’d do a few things differently. I’d build fewer things, but build them properly. I’d hire later, but onboard better. I’d choose clients and partners more carefully, even if it meant slower revenue in the short term. And I’d pay closer attention to the signals that don’t scream for attention because those are often the ones that matter most.

2025 wasn’t a failure. It was a necessary stress test. It showed me where ambition had outpaced structure and where optimism had overridden discipline. But it also clarified what kind of founder I want to be going forward.

I don’t want to build businesses that only work when everything goes right. I want to build ones that can withstand uncertainty, fatigue, and change. Ones that leave room for people to think, not just react. Ones that grow because they’re solid, not because they’re sprinting.

The market has matured. Expectations have shifted. And maybe that’s a good thing. Because sustainability isn’t about doing less, but it’s about doing what matters, for longer.

If there’s one question I’m carrying into 2026, it’s this. If growth stopped tomorrow, would what we’ve built still be worth sustaining?

That answer matters more to me now than any headline number ever did.

—

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.

Featured image courtesy: Canva

The post Resetting for sustainable growth: What 2025 taught me about building businesses that last appeared first on e27.