In the race to build the next “everything app” or AI-driven unicorn, we’ve become obsessed with velocity. We talk about time-to-market, sprint cycles, and acquisition costs. But we are overlooking the one metric that actually dictates whether a company scales or collapses: The trust gap.

The digital economy doesn’t just run on code; it runs on confidence. As we move into an era of ubiquitous AI and real-time everything, cybersecurity is evolving from a back-office technicality into a front-office growth engine.

The innovation paradox

We are currently experiencing significant tension. Generative AI has allowed teams to move at speeds we couldn’t imagine three years ago. But this “move fast and break things” ethos is hitting a ceiling.

When innovation outpaces governance, the result isn’t just “risk”-it’s friction. Ungoverned AI usage, often referred to as Shadow AI, can quietly expose sensitive data and create compliance blind spots. Deals stall in procurement for six months. Regulators pull the handbrake. Customers hesitate.

The most successful leaders I’m seeing today aren’t just building the fastest AI; they are building the safest AI. They understand a fundamental truth: Innovation gets you to the starting line, but trust determines how far you can run.

Security as a strategic gatekeeper

For years, security was the “department of No.” It was the final checkbox-the annoying hurdle at the end of a sales cycle.

That dynamic has flipped. In the enterprise world, security is now the first hurdle. Buyers are no longer asking “What can your tool do?” first. They are asking, “Where does my data live? How is it encrypted? Will your AI models learn from my proprietary secrets?”

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

According to PwC’s 2026 Global Digital Trust Insights survey, 60 per cent of organisations now rank cyber risk investment among their top three strategic priorities, reflecting how closely trust is tied to business resilience and growth.

If you don’t have clear, “trust-by-design” answers, you don’t have a seat at the table. In this light, cybersecurity isn’t a cost centre; it’s a competitive moat.

Case study: Engineering confidence at Agora

This becomes critical when discussing real-time engagement. When you’re dealing with live audio, video, and instant messaging, mistakes don’t just happen; they broadcast.

At Agora, we’ve found that the only way to maintain market-leading speed is to bake trust into the architecture itself. This “Trust-by-Design” framework is built on three pillars that any scaling tech company should adopt:

• Privacy by default: Data shouldn’t be harvested by default; it should be ephemeral. At Agora, we ensure customer data isn’t used to train AI models unless explicitly configured.
• Sovereignty as a service: Navigating the messy patchwork of global regulations requires technical agility. By using regional data routing and geofencing, we allow our partners to expand into new markets without violating local data laws.
• Encrypted integrity: Security shouldn’t be a plugin. Real-time media must be encrypted at the source to ensure that the “now” is always protected.

This matters in a landscape where true cyber readiness remains rare. The same PwC survey also shows that only six per cent of organisations say they are fully prepared across all major cyber risk areas, highlighting how trust-by-design is quickly becoming a competitive differentiator rather than a default capability.

Also Read: Cybersecurity and data governance in the boardroom: A strategic imperative for Asian boards

From “cost” to “growth multiplier”

Consider the global live-commerce marketplaces we support. These platforms host thousands of simultaneous auctions daily, handling identities, payments, and fraud risks in milliseconds.

They didn’t win by hiring more compliance officers. They won by building on a platform where trust was pre-engineered. This approach shortened their enterprise security reviews and allowed them to expand into new regions with zero friction.

In their case, security wasn’t a handbrake designed to stop them-it was the precision control that allowed them to navigate high-speed growth without spinning out.

The new measure of resilience

As we look toward the rest of 2026, we need to redefine what “resilience” means. It’s no longer just about 99.9 per cent uptime. It’s about 99.9 per cent confidence.

Resilience is your ability to convince a regulator, a partner, and a customer that their data is safer with you than it is anywhere else. Trust isn’t a byproduct of success; it is the prerequisite for it.

If you want to move fast, build a better engine. If you want to go far, build a better foundation of 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.

The post Why trust is the only currency that matters in the AI era appeared first on e27.

Deliveroo is leaving Singapore, and the message to the region’s food delivery market is blunt: scale without sustainable unit economics is no longer a strategy, it’s a countdown.

In a statement announcing an “orderly wind-down process”, Deliveroo said it will exit Singapore following “a review of country-specific conditions” and a renewed focus on “investing where we see the clearest path to sustainable scale and long-term leadership”. The platform will remain live until 4 March 2026 as it works with local teams to support “customers, partners and riders through the transition”.

The Singapore shutdown is part of a broader retrenchment. Its parent, Nasdaq-listed DoorDash, Inc., said it is exiting four countries across its Deliveroo and Wolt brands: Qatar, Singapore, Japan, and Uzbekistan. DoorDash added that it is also “implementing limited operational changes in select locations, including investing in certain engineering roles in the UK”, and that it “does not expect these actions to materially impact its financial outlook”.

Also Read: How mobile marketing is powering the next phase of food delivery growth in Southeast Asia

Miki Kuusi, Head of DoorDash International, CEO of Deliveroo and co-founder of Wolt, framed the decision as a painful but deliberate reallocation of resources:

“Over the last eleven years, we have been proud to help shape food delivery in Singapore, giving consumers access to a wide variety of restaurant and grocery partners.

To all of the employees, customers, partners, and riders who have been on this journey with us and supported us along this journey – thank you.”

“We’ve made the difficult decision to wind down operations in Qatar, Singapore, Japan, and Uzbekistan. Our priority is supporting our teams and partners through an orderly transition as we focus on the geographies where we can offer the best products and build for long-term success,” he wrote.

Why Deliveroo is exiting Singapore: the uncomfortable maths of “premium” delivery

Deliveroo’s public rationale is straightforward: Singapore no longer makes the cut under its country-by-country assessment of where it can reach “sustainable scale” and “long-term leadership”. The subtext — echoed by operators who have lived through the market’s bruising economics — is even more explicit: the unit economics of B2C food delivery in Singapore are punishing.

Varun Saraf, CEO and co-founder of WhyQ, described the market in unusually blunt terms: “The reality? B2C delivery in Singapore is extremely tough. High per-meal delivery costs and a discount-heavy culture mean operating on razor-thin margins.

This news highlights a brutal truth: Profitability is no longer optional. In 2026, being EBITDA positive is the ultimate “survival of the fittest” metric.”

That framing aligns with what the industry has been inching towards for years: customer acquisition and retention have often been subsidy-led, while fulfilment (riders, logistics, and service levels) remains expensive in a dense, high-expectation city. When price sensitivity meets “premium” positioning, the business can end up squeezed from both sides.

Deliveroo’s exit also signals a portfolio discipline shift: DoorDash described this as part of “a multi-month review” and reiterated a focus on geographies with the “clearest path” to scale and leadership, rather than simply maintaining flags on the map.

How Deliveroo has fared in Singapore since entry: a long run, real cultural imprint

Deliveroo is not a short-term tourist in Singapore. Kuusi’s statement points to eleven years in the market, enough time to influence consumer habits, restaurant operations, and expectations of delivery speed and quality.

It also pushed beyond restaurants into groceries and partnerships. In December 2021, Deliveroo announced a partnership with hawker food delivery startup WhyQ to expand its Mix & Match concept to hawker centres, an attempt to localise for Singapore’s most iconic food format and broaden the addressable market beyond mid-to-premium restaurant baskets.

Deliveroo’s brand imprint was tangible. Saraf put it in cultural terms that many diners will recognise: “They were the ‘premium’ pioneers—for years, brands like Blu Kouzina and Daily Cut were synonymous with the teal box.”

Also Read: The future of food tech lies in building digitally autonomous restaurants

That matters because it highlights what’s being lost: not just another app icon on a phone, but a distinct positioning that helped shape the “quality-first” lane in a market often trained to chase deals.

Competition, margins, and the grind: why “tough” is an understatement

Singapore’s food delivery space has never been a gentle arena. Competition is intense, switching costs for consumers are low, and restaurants often multi-home across platforms. The result is a market where discounting becomes a reflex, and where platforms fight for frequency while absorbing the costs of fulfilment and service.

Saraf’s summary lands like a post-mortem for the entire category: “High per-meal delivery costs and a discount-heavy culture mean operating on razor-thin margins.”

This is the core of the problem: delivery is operationally heavy, while consumer loyalty is often promo-driven. That combination makes margins fragile — and makes “sustainable scale” a higher bar than raw order volume.

The implication in DoorDash’s wording is that Deliveroo’s Singapore business, even after more than a decade, did not meet the internal threshold for long-term leadership with healthy economics — especially when capital and management attention can be redeployed to markets with clearer paths.

The ripple effect: what this signals for Singapore and Southeast Asia’s F&B and delivery ecosystem

Deliveroo’s exit is not just an industry headline, but an operational shockwave that hits restaurants, riders, and enterprise customers differently.

1-For restaurants and merchants: diversification is no longer optional

For F&B operators, the lesson is stark: platform concentration risk is real. A platform can be “here for years” and still decide the economics no longer justify staying. Merchants that rely heavily on one channel may face sudden demand cliffs, menu reconfiguration, and marketing re-spend to rebuild volume elsewhere.

2-For riders and couriers: volatility remains baked into the model

An “orderly wind-down” still means disruption: shifts in income stability, routing density, and competition for work across remaining platforms. The human layer of delivery — the riders who absorb weather, traffic, and service pressure — remains exposed to strategic decisions made far above street level.

3- For corporate meal programmes: this is an “infrastructure decision”, not a vendor swap

Rishabh Singhvi, COO and co-founder at WhyQ, warned that Deliveroo’s exit lands especially hard on organisations using Deliveroo for Work: “For companies relying on Deliveroo for Work, this isn’t just a vendor change. It’s an infrastructure decision.”

He added that corporate meal programmes touch “vendor continuity”, “billing stability”, “logistics reliability”, “dietary coverage”, and “employee experience” — and that an exit forces all of it to be “disrupted and re-evaluated”.

WhyQ, which has positioned itself as a workplace food infrastructure player, used the moment to underline its footprint:
“- 2,000+ merchants across hawkers and restaurants

• Structured monthly invoicing and reporting
• Dedicated account support
• Strong operational discipline across food safety and delivery

Platforms come and go. Infrastructure endures.”

4. For Southeast Asia: the era of “growth first, profit later” is closing fast

Even though this is a Singapore story, the subtext travels across Southeast Asia. Food delivery is often treated as a land-grab category, but Deliveroo’s departure reinforces Saraf’s point that, heading into 2026, EBITDA positivity is becoming the survival metric, not a nice-to-have.

Also Read: Automation, not apps: The next frontier in Southeast Asia’s F&B tech innovation

It also suggests the regional market is entering a phase where:

• Global and regional players will prune markets that lack a clear path to profitable leadership.
• Categories adjacent to B2C delivery — especially B2B/corporate meals and operational tooling — may look more attractive because they can offer more stable demand patterns and clearer economics.
• F&B operators will increasingly prioritise channel resilience (multiple platforms, direct ordering, catering, corporate partnerships) over platform dependence.

Deliveroo’s Singapore exit after 11 years is a reminder that even well-known, well-loved brands are ultimately governed by complex numbers. In a market where delivery costs stay high, and customers are trained to expect discounts, the teal box didn’t lose relevance — it lost the economic argument.

The post Deliveroo’s exit is a profitability warning shot appeared first on e27.

Bitcoin’s sharp rebound did more than reclaim lost ground. It triggered a broad crypto short squeeze that wiped out roughly US$400 million of bearish futures bets in a single day. This move reflects a market driven less by fresh fundamentals and more by crowded positioning, negative funding, and thin liquidity that amplified a relatively modest spot bid. The rally itself was a technical bounce driven by extreme fear and heavy short positioning, rather than a clear new macro catalyst. That distinction matters because it shapes how we interpret the next leg of price action.

The scale of the liquidation event underscores the fragility that had built up. One report estimates that over US$400 million in crypto shorts were liquidated in 24 hours, out of about US$463 million in total liquidations. Bitcoin led the charge, bouncing from the low US$60,000s to near US$69,000. Ethereum gained around 12 per cent while Solana advanced nearly 14 per cent in the same window. The broader market added about six per cent to seven per cent in a day. That liquidation tally included roughly US$200 million in Bitcoin shorts, US$153 million in Ethereum, and around US$22 million in Solana shorts across major derivatives venues. This forced buying from short sellers covering positions created a powerful feedback loop that pushed prices higher with remarkable speed.

Positioning had become dangerously one-sided in the weeks leading up to the rebound. Persistent outflows from Bitcoin products and fresh inflows into short Bitcoin vehicles showed investors had leaned bearish via derivatives and ETPs. Derivatives data revealed negative funding rates and liquidity skewed toward upside liquidations. One study highlighted roughly US$3.5 billion of shorts vulnerable if Bitcoin revisited US$70,000, versus about US$1 billion of longs at risk near US$63,000. That imbalance created an upside liquidity magnet for the price. Analysts characterised the rally as a technical bounce driven by extreme fear, heavy short positioning, and thin liquidity, rather than a clear new macro or fundamental catalyst. This dynamic rewards those who monitor funding rates and open interest as leading indicators of potential volatility.

Also Read: Why Bitcoin dropped to US$64,100: Trump tariffs, US$2.6B ETF outflows, and extreme fear grip crypto

The crypto move did not occur in isolation. Traditional markets provided a supportive backdrop. NVIDIA shares rose in extended trading after forecasting first-quarter revenue of US$76.4 billion to US$79.6 billion, significantly exceeding the US$72.8 billion analyst consensus. In the previous session, the S&P 500 reclaimed the 6,900 level, closing at 6,946.13 with a gain of 0.81 per cent. The Nasdaq Composite surged 1.26 per cent to end at 23,152.08. The US 10-year Treasury yield edged up slightly to 4.05 per cent. Markets remain focused on a 98 per cent probability that the Federal Reserve will hold interest rates steady at its March 18 meeting. Spot gold rose to US$5,186.22 per ounce, continuing its bullish trend amidst geopolitical tensions and trade uncertainty. Crude oil traded near US$65.68 a barrel as traders balanced high US inventories against potential sanctions on Iran. These cross-asset moves helped stabilise risk sentiment just as crypto derivatives were primed for a squeeze.

Regional developments added further nuance. The SET Index in Thailand rose 1.72 per cent following an unexpected 25-basis-point rate cut by the Bank of Thailand to 1.0 per cent. The South Korean won eased to approximately 1,446 per dollar as investors grew cautious ahead of the Bank of Korea’s policy meeting on February 26, where rates are expected to hold steady at 2.50 per cent. Corporate results are also filtered through. Karoon Energy reported 2025 sales revenue of US$628.6 million, noting headwinds from lower oil prices despite solid production. Integrated Research saw its shares fall 6.25 per cent following a challenging first-half fiscal report. These regional and corporate signals remind us that crypto does not trade in a vacuum. Global capital flows and risk appetite shift in tandem across asset classes and geographies.

Also Read: From extreme fear to opportunity: Why smart money is watching US$66K Bitcoin level

After the squeeze, Bitcoin futures open interest slipped from over 240,000 BTC to around 235,000 BTC while funding remained slightly negative. This suggests leverage was reduced, but the market has not fully flipped to aggressive longs. Option flows also matter. Around 115,000 BTC options, notionally worth several billion dollars, are set to expire at the end of the month. Positioning around max pain levels will likely influence short-term price paths. Key technical levels many traders watch are resistance zones near US$70,000 to US$72,000 and support in the low US$60,000s, where prior selling exhausted and buyers stepped in. These levels frame the battlefield for the next move.

For informed observers, this means we are in a positioning reset phase. If shorts rebuild near resistance, another squeeze remains possible. If longs crowd in and funding flips strongly positive, the next move could be a sharp pullback instead. The market now trades in a broad range with significant options and derivatives overhang. Volatility can stay elevated as participants navigate this delicate balance. I watch funding rates, open interest trends, and price behaviour around the US$70,000 to US$72,000 band as critical signals. The upcoming options expiry adds another layer of complexity that could amplify moves in either direction.

Those who focus on positioning data rather than headlines will be better equipped to navigate what comes next. In a market where technicals and leverage often overshadow fundamentals, disciplined analysis of derivatives flows remains the most reliable compass.

—

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.

The post Bitcoin short squeeze wipes out US$400M in 24 hours: What comes next appeared first on e27.

Expanding into overseas markets is often described as a natural next step for technology startups. Singapore and the United States, in particular, are frequently positioned as gateways to global capital, talent, and credibility.

For founders who have actually gone through the process, however, international expansion feels less like scaling what already works and more like entering a completely different game.

Recently, we held the second gathering of The Bridge Circle, a small founder-led community formed around a shared question. Is there a better way to approach cross-border expansion than learning everything the hard way, alone?

The reality behind overseas expansion

From the outside, global expansion looks strategic and linear. From the inside, it is far more fragmented.

Founders often encounter similar challenges. These include understanding local B2B sales dynamics and decision-making structures, building early trust and reference customers without an existing network, crafting an investor narrative that resonates with US-based investors, and managing distributed teams across time zones and cultures.

These challenges are rarely the result of a lack of capability. More often, they stem from information gaps and missing context that are difficult to bridge from afar.

What stood out in our conversations was how consistently these issues appeared across different companies, industries, and stages.

Why The Bridge Circle was formed

The Bridge Circle did not begin as a space to share success stories. It started from a different observation.

Failures, delays, and misjudgments in overseas expansion are rarely shared, even though they tend to follow similar patterns.

Most founders address these problems in isolation. Hard-earned lessons remain private knowledge and are rarely reused by others.

The Bridge Circle was formed around a simple belief. Founders should not have to relearn the same lessons repeatedly and alone.

Also Read: How to build deep tech startups across borders

A community designed for depth, not scale

The Bridge Circle is intentionally small.

Its members include founders and operators with prior startup experience, teams at Pre-A stage or later that are actively targeting Singapore or the United States, and individuals who have directly handled overseas sales, fundraising, or partnerships. Many members are also experienced contributors who regularly share insights through platforms such as LinkedIn or industry media.

This composition shapes the nature of the conversations. Discussions focus less on abstract strategy and more on concrete questions such as why a deal stalled, why a pilot failed to convert, or why an investor conversation went quiet.

Treating the community as a working system

Rather than positioning The Bridge Circle as a networking group, members agreed to treat it as a working community.

Three directions were established early on.

• First, the group committed to publishing practical insights on a weekly basis. The goal is not to present definitive answers, but to document decision-making frameworks and real-world learnings from cross-border execution.
• Second, the community decided to host focused, closed-door sessions. These sessions prioritise experience-sharing over presentations and include discussions of failed attempts that rarely appear in public narratives.
• Third, members agreed to explore small collaborative experiments that emerged directly from recurring pain points discussed within the group. These include a B2B sales AI assistant, a Medical DataOps solution, and a US-focused investor relations and fundraising advisory effort.

These initiatives are not designed for visibility. They are attempts to address problems that members themselves are actively facing.

Also Read: Laos local bank partners Everex to facilitate blockchain-based cross border payments

The role of documentation and distribution

One notable aspect of The Bridge Circle is that many members have experience creating and distributing content. This allows insights from within the community to extend outward, not as polished case studies, but as ongoing records of execution.

While information about global expansion is widely available, there is still limited documentation on how specific decisions play out in real operating environments. The Bridge Circle aims to help narrow that gap by sharing context-rich experiences rather than generalised advice.

Still an experiment

The Bridge Circle is still early. It is not a finished model, but an ongoing experiment.

What feels increasingly clear is that founders preparing for overseas expansion need less advice and more context-driven, experience-based knowledge.

If this community can serve as one small reference point for that, it will have fulfilled its purpose.

—

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.

The post The missing manual: How to actually succeed in cross-border growth appeared first on e27.

Most founders expect risk to show up loudly.

A sudden revenue drop. A major client is leaving. A deal that collapses.

In practice, the most dangerous phase often looks calm. Income is steady. The team performs. Nothing feels urgent. That is when risk quietly accumulates, unnoticed and unchallenged.

I learned this lesson when everything, on paper, was going well.

When success stops you from looking closely

By the early 2010s, my career felt established. I had years of consistent performance behind me, a growing leadership role, and an organisation that expanded rapidly in a short period. From the outside, the platform looked mature and well-run.

That perception became a blind spot.

When things work, founders naturally focus on growth rather than foundations. We assume durability because nothing has tested it yet. Early success builds confidence, but it can also delay scrutiny.

The risks that do not appear in reports

The most serious risks I carried during that period were not financial.

They did not appear in dashboards or rankings. They sat in areas that felt less measurable and therefore less urgent:

• Over reliance on key people: A small number of trusted individuals held disproportionate influence over decisions, information, and relationships.
• Assumed alignment: Shared history and past wins were mistaken for long term alignment of incentives.
• Delayed structure: Clear ownership, redundancy, and contingency planning felt unnecessary because results remained strong.

Nothing appeared broken, until conditions changed.

Also Read: Founders, stop listening to mentors who tell you to build an MVP

When stability disappears

The first disruption came externally.

A strategic decision by the institution I was part of led to a full shutdown of its agency distribution. Years of structure were dismantled in months.

What followed exposed a deeper vulnerability.

A senior downline leader I trusted quietly aligned with others and began persuading team members to leave. There was no confrontation and no public fallout. It unfolded through private conversations and shifting loyalties.

More than 35 people walked away with that senior downline leader, representing about 45% of the total manpower. Combined with the broader shutdown, 64 people were gone, or roughly 82% of the organisation.

The organisation did not collapse because people left.

It collapsed because it was not designed to withstand misalignment.

That was the painful lesson.

This pattern is more common than it appears

This risk is not unique to smaller organisations.

In industries such as banking, it is well understood that when a senior partner leaves, entire teams and sometimes clients can follow. Even institutions as established as Goldman Sachs have experienced this phenomenon, often referred to as a team lift out.

The firm may remain profitable. The brand remains intact. Yet the disruption reveals a critical truth. When trust, authority, and relationships are concentrated in individuals rather than systems, stability becomes fragile.

The numbers do not warn you. The structure does.

A client case that made the risk tangible

Years later, I saw the same risk play out with a business owner client of mine.

He ran a multi-million-dollar printing business. The company was profitable, operations were smooth, and staff turnover was low. One long-serving senior manager handled most operational decisions and many key client and vendor relationships.

On the surface, everything looked fine.

Based on my own experience, I raised a concern. This was outside my formal scope as a personal financial advisor, but the pattern was familiar. I asked one question:

What happens if this person is unavailable for three months?

At that point, there were no documented processes, no clear successor, and no separation between trust and control. Like many founders, he understood the risk but did not act immediately.

Over time, he began to diversify that keyman risk. The senior manager was promoted to a director role. The business portfolio was split across several units. Two internal senior managers were given clearer ownership, and a new senior hire was brought in. He also started building direct relationships with several key clients during this interim period.

Not long after, the risk materialised.

The newly appointed director left to set up his own company, bringing most of his team with him, along with several clients and vendors. The business lost roughly one-third of its staff and some client accounts.

It was a serious disruption. But it could have been far worse.

Also Read: The accidental Founder story: How Greytt began without a master plan

Because responsibilities, relationships, and knowledge had already been spread out, the company continued operating. The founder later shared that the steps taken during that transition helped protect a substantial portion of the business, amounting to well over eight figures in revenue and a seven-figure impact on profitability.

One key takeaway for founders: diversify keyman risk while things are calm, because the structure built early determines how much damage you absorb later.

Why this blind spot is common in Singapore

Singapore is an exceptionally stable environment to build a business. Systems work. Institutions are strong. Markets are orderly.

That stability is an advantage, but it also delays feedback.

When conditions are forgiving, internal weaknesses remain untested longer. Calm environments are mistaken for strong foundations.

I nearly made that mistake myself.

The two questions I now ask when things are going well

Today, I do not wait for pressure to force clarity.

When performance is strong, I ask two simple but uncomfortable questions:

• If a key person left tomorrow, what truly breaks?

Not what becomes inconvenient, but what actually stops.

• Where am I relying on trust instead of structure?

Trust is essential, but without structure, it becomes a single point of failure.

When everything looks “fine”

Most founders prepare the hardest when they are struggling.

In my experience, the more important work happens earlier, when numbers are good, morale is high, and nothing appears wrong.

That is when risk accumulates quietly.

Because by the time it becomes visible, the cost of fixing it is already high.

Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely the author’s and are for informational purposes only. They do not constitute financial advice or an offer of any financial product or service.

—

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.

The post The hidden risk most Founders don’t plan for: When everything looks “fine” appeared first on e27.