Singapore-based blockchain startup Startale Group has closed a US$63 million Series A funding round, led by a US$50 million injection from financial powerhouse SBI Group, with an additional US$13 million from Sony Innovation Fund.

The capital raise marks a significant leap for Startale’s ambitions to transform Asia’s on-chain capital markets and push the boundaries of blockchain adoption beyond niche use cases.

Also Read: Stablecoins are becoming ‘dollars as a service’ for emerging markets

At its core, Startale builds infrastructure and applications that bring traditional financial assets and services onto the blockchain, creating seamless tokenised securities trading, stablecoin payments, and consumer-facing blockchain solutions. The company is co-developing Strium, a Layer 1 blockchain platform tailored for institutional investors to trade tokenised securities and real-world assets (RWA) around the clock.

Meanwhile, Startale’s native stablecoins—JPYSC, pegged to the Japanese yen, and USDSC, tied to the US dollar—are central to providing smooth fiat-to-crypto gateways alongside innovative features such as onchain dividend and yield distribution.

The latest funding round solidifies Startale’s strategy to vertically integrate blockchain infrastructure, financial ecosystems, and consumer applications into a comprehensive stack. This is particularly critical in Asia, where the complexity of legacy systems and regulatory fragmentation have hindered blockchain’s broader adoption in finance.

SBI Group’s involvement is not new; it has been a strategic partner since 2025, working alongside Startale to co-create core products, including Strium and JPYSC. With over 80 million customers across securities, banking, and insurance, SBI’s confidence in Startale reflects the startup’s ability to deliver institutional-grade financial products on-chain at scale, promising a radical overhaul of how banking and securities operate in the digital era.

Yoshitaka Kitao, SBI Group’s Chairman and CEO, summarised the partnership’s potential succinctly: “By joining the SBI Group’s digital space ecosystem, I am confident we can accelerate the on-chain transformation of society and demonstrate a strong competitive advantage by driving a vertical integration strategy in the digital finance sector.”

Also Read: How stablecoins are quietly reinventing the global dollar system

The growing adoption of stablecoins in Japan provides fertile ground for Startale’s ambitions. Japan’s regulatory environment has evolved to accommodate stablecoins, with growing institutional interest and consumer adoption driven by the need for faster, cheaper, and more transparent cross-border payments and settlements. The trust bank-backed JPYSC stablecoin is Japan’s first of its kind, offering greater legal certainty and security than many other stablecoins. This regulatory clarity, combined with the burgeoning demand for digital financial products, is rapidly accelerating Japan’s stablecoin ecosystem.

Startale intends to expand the adoption of JPYSC and USDSC across retail, enterprise, and institutional users. Their utility extends beyond simple payment instruments, providing functionalities such as automatic distribution of on-chain dividends and yields, integrating traditional finance’s value propositions with blockchain’s efficiencies.

In parallel, Startale is scaling Strium as an institutional-grade settlement and exchange framework for Asia’s trading of tokenised securities and real-world assets (RWA). This platform promises to enable 24/7 trading and real-time settlements, significantly enhancing liquidity and transparency compared to traditional markets tethered to business hours and manual reconciliation processes.

On the consumer front, Startale’s SuperApp platform is designed to abstract blockchain complexity behind a sleek interface that combines asset management, social features, payments, and “mini apps.” This unified experience aims to onboard millions of users to on-chain finance and the broader blockchain economy, further accelerating mainstream adoption.

This Series A round is also a testament to the growing convergence between finance, entertainment, and blockchain technology in Asia. Startale is building on partnerships with Sony that explore novel ways to integrate entertainment content and blockchain applications, carving out new user experiences and monetisation models.

Also Read: How stablecoins are disrupting traditional financial systems

For Southeast Asia, a region ramping up blockchain adoption amid diverse regulatory frameworks and vibrant fintech ecosystems, the rise of companies like Startale signals a maturing market infrastructure. Providing scalable, compliant blockchain solutions that bridge traditional finance and on-chain systems will be crucial to driving regional digital economy growth.

By weaving together infrastructure, stablecoins, institutional offerings, and consumer applications, Startale is strategically positioning itself as a cornerstone in the emerging on-chain financial landscape. The Series A funding not only validates this approach but also injects the firepower needed to execute aggressive growth plans.

In short, Startale’s ability to deliver on-chain financial products at an institutional scale could redefine banking, securities, and financial services in Asia. The move towards tokenisation and stablecoin-driven ecosystems has the potential to drastically cut costs, speed up transactions, and open new avenues for investment and consumer engagement—ushering in a new era of digital finance.

Also Read: How SMEs are using stablecoins to beat currency swings

With the support of SBI Group and Sony, and Japan’s expanding stablecoin market, Startale is primed to lead Asia’s on-chain revolution.

The post Startale secures US$63M to rebuild finance on blockchain rails appeared first on e27.

Supply chain cyberattacks are no longer a niche concern reserved for multinationals with sprawling vendor networks. They are becoming a routine business risk, and Southeast Asia is entering that reality while still short of security talent, uneven in basic cyber hygiene and heavily dependent on third-party technology providers.

That is the clearest takeaway from a new Kaspersky-commissioned survey of 1,714 enterprise IT and security decision-makers across 16 countries, including Singapore, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, and China.

Also Read: Digital Growth, fragile defences: Inside Philippines’s cybersecurity gap

The headline finding is stark: one in three organisations globally said they had been hit by a supply chain attack in the past year. Yet many still lack the people, internal discipline, and contractual leverage needed to deal with the problem.

Talent shortages and operational overload are compounding risk

Globally, 42 per cent of respondents said the shortage of qualified IT security workers was a major barrier to reducing supply chain and trusted relationship risks. The same share said organisations are struggling to prioritise among too many security tasks, leaving third-party risk management exposed.

That lands uncomfortably well in Southeast Asia, where businesses have spent the past decade digitising operations, moving workloads into the cloud, integrating payments and logistics systems, and stitching together regional expansion plans with software from dozens of external partners. Every API, contractor platform, cloud dashboard, and outsourced IT function expands the attack surface. And in many companies, especially those scaling quickly, vendor risk management has not kept up.

The Kaspersky data shows just how uneven the region has become. In APAC markets covered by the study, the share of organisations citing a lack of qualified IT security staff ranged from 34 per cent in Singapore to 57 per cent in Vietnam. Those figures suggest the issue is not limited to less mature digital economies. Even Singapore, Southeast Asia’s most developed technology and regulatory hub, is still wrestling with capacity constraints.

The difference is that in places such as Vietnam, the talent gap appears more acute, while in Singapore the problem is increasingly one of overload. Nearly half of respondents in Singapore, or 47 per cent, said they were juggling multiple cybersecurity priorities. In Vietnam, that figure stood at 48 per cent. India was even higher at 54 per cent.

That matters because supply chain security is rarely urgent until something breaks. Security teams tend to focus first on patching internal systems, responding to active incidents, dealing with audits and meeting compliance demands. The slower, messier work of assessing vendors, reviewing contractor access, updating third-party clauses and validating partners’ controls often gets pushed down the list. Attackers count on exactly that.

Weak governance and trust-based relationships create hidden vulnerabilities

This pattern has been visible in major breaches over the past few years. The SolarWinds compromise showed how malicious code inserted upstream can cascade across customer networks. The MOVEit attacks demonstrated how a single exploited third-party tool can expose multiple downstream victims.

Also Read: The founder’s blind spot: The security question you must answer before growth

Southeast Asian firms were not always named as primary targets in those cases, but the region’s businesses are deeply embedded in the same global software and services supply chains. They do not need to be the original target to suffer the fallout.

What makes the current moment especially risky for Southeast Asia is the region’s uneven cyber maturity. Large enterprises and regulated sectors such as banking and telecoms have generally improved their internal controls. But supply chain security depends on the weakest link across a broader ecosystem that includes software vendors, contractors, managed service providers, logistics partners, outsourced development teams and small suppliers.

The survey suggests many of those relationships are still governed too loosely. Across APAC markets, between 30 per cent and 61 per cent of respondents said their contracts did not include IT security obligations for contractors. Between 25 per cent and 38 per cent said non-IT staff did not fully understand supply chain and trusted relationship risks.

Those are not small operational gaps. They point to a deeper governance problem: cybersecurity remains too often confined to technical teams, while procurement, legal, finance and operations continue to sign or manage vendor relationships without strong, enforceable security baselines. In high-growth companies, especially across Southeast Asia’s startup and mid-market segments, that is a familiar weakness. Vendor onboarding is usually optimised for speed, cost and functionality — not for resilience.

Malaysia offers a useful illustration of the structural challenge. The country is trying to strengthen its cyber capability under the Malaysia Cyber Security Strategy 2025-2030, but the labour pipeline remains under pressure. The Ministry of Digital has projected that Malaysia will need 28,068 cybersecurity professionals by 2026, while earlier estimates placed the existing workforce at roughly 16,765. That gap helps explain why many organisations struggle to continuously monitor third-party exposures even when they know the risks are real.

Even basic cybersecurity practices remain inconsistent

The confidence problem is just as telling. Globally, 85 per cent of businesses said they need to improve protection against supply chain and trusted relationship risks. Only 15 per cent considered their current measures effective.

Also Read: Why AI security demands a different playbook in Asia

In APAC, confidence varied sharply. India, Indonesia and Singapore reported low confidence levels of 11 per cent, 14 per cent and 14 per cent respectively. Vietnam came in at 21 per cent, while China stood out at 34 per cent. That spread may reflect real differences in preparedness, but it may also reflect differences in perception. Either way, low confidence in Singapore and Indonesia is significant. These are markets with growing digital economies, dense vendor ecosystems and rising exposure to cloud and software dependencies.

One especially revealing finding concerns two-factor authentication. It was the most common protective measure identified in the survey, yet adoption remained patchy. Singapore stood out for the wrong reason, with an adoption rate of just 28 per cent. Other APAC markets reported rates above 35 per cent, but still below the global average.

For a region that often presents itself as digitally ambitious, weak uptake of such a basic safeguard is hard to ignore. Two-factor authentication is not a silver bullet, but low adoption suggests that even foundational controls are not being applied consistently across partner relationships. That is often where attackers find room to manoeuvre: not through sophisticated zero-day exploits alone, but through ordinary lapses in identity management, access control and vendor oversight.

Sergey Soldatov, Head of Security Operations Centre at Kaspersky, put the problem plainly: “When security teams are overstretched, understaffed and have to prioritise urgent tasks over long-term resilience priorities, organisations are left exposed to threats that can move silently through their provider ecosystem.”

A fast-growing digital economy built on fragile foundations

That assessment lines up with how many security incidents now unfold. Rather than battering down the front door, attackers compromise a supplier, abuse a trusted connection, hijack credentials or exploit neglected third-party software. The result is the same: businesses inherit risk from partners they depend on but do not fully control.

There is one encouraging signal in the survey, though it comes with a catch. Companies that had already experienced supply chain or trusted relationship attacks were more likely to adopt stronger security practices afterwards. Victims of supply chain incidents were more likely to request penetration test results from suppliers, while organisations hit by trusted relationship breaches more often checked for compliance with industry standards and their contractors’ own supply chain policies.

In other words, some firms are learning — but mostly after taking a hit.
That is a costly way to mature, particularly in Southeast Asia, where digital trust is becoming a competitive issue as much as a technical one. Financial services, healthcare, logistics, e-commerce and manufacturing all depend on interconnected systems and outsourced capabilities. A weak vendor risk posture no longer threatens only internal operations; it can disrupt customer experience, trigger regulatory scrutiny and damage expansion plans across borders.

For startups and growth-stage companies, the message is even sharper. Supply chain security is not just a big-enterprise compliance chore. The moment a company plugs into payment gateways, cloud infrastructure, SaaS tools, outsourced developers or regional fulfilment networks, it becomes part of someone else’s attack path.

Also Read: Cybersecurity has a prioritisation problem, and Hackuity wants to fix it

The survey itself should be read with the usual caution attached to vendor-sponsored research. But its core finding is difficult to dismiss. Southeast Asia’s supply chain cyber problem is not simply about technology gaps. It is about a region moving fast on digital transformation while still underinvested in cyber talent, inconsistent in basic controls and too willing to trust third parties without demanding proof.

That combination is exactly what attackers prefer: fast growth, fragmented oversight and plenty of invisible dependencies.

The post Supply chain attacks are becoming SEA’s new normal appeared first on e27.

Deep learning, a part of machine learning, simulates the processes of the human brain to solve complex tasks with neural networks. Though it drives everything from fraud detection to supply chain prediction, implementing deep learning in enterprise environments is a game altogether. 

Unlike research or laboratory settings, companies must deal with operational constraints, regulatory concerns, and the demand for ROI. That’s where the real challenge begins. 

Some of the challenges of deep learning are: 

• Data quality and quantity

Deep learning is fuelled by huge, high-quality data sets. Enterprise data, however, whether customer files and transaction logs or sensor data and email, is dirty, siloed, and in short supply. Thus, enterprise data rarely amounts to AI-ready. 

Labelling data at scale is also slow and expensive. When you throw in data privacy laws (like GDPR or HIPAA), it’s easy to see why getting the best training data is a significant obstacle. 

• Model interpretability and transparency

Once again, deep learning models are black boxes that provide the answers without explaining how they arrive at them. This is not ideal for regulated industries like healthcare, finance, or manufacturing. 

Executives and decision-makers will require authority and audit trails, compliance-ready output, and, as they will be cognisant of escalation in tech debt, standardisation, reliability, and usability. Explainable AI (XAI) is increasingly becoming popular, but the maturity of the XAI domain with deep learning models is slow. 

• Scalability and infrastructure needs

Deep learning models require higher-powered GPUs, more memory, and more compute time, along with ongoing deployment costs to stream. After deployment, maintaining low latency and responsiveness across enterprise-sized systems can be a costly engineering challenge. 

Also Read: How early-stage deep-tech startups can attract and retain the right talent

Companies must consider what their cloud/on-prem/hybrid platform will do for these requirements and, importantly, whether they expect real-time inference for mission-critical situations. 

• Legacy system integration

Most companies still have many legacy systems, such as ERP suites, mainframes, and software developed decades ago. There are no plug-and-play deep learning libraries for these old systems. 

It usually means significant customisation, middleware, or even re-architecting parts of the systems. Going from predictive insight to actions within legacy processes is time-consuming and expensive. 

• Cross-team collaboration and talent

Deploying deep learning isn’t hiring a data scientist. It’s a close interaction between domain experts, software engineers, data engineers, and DevOps teams. 

Misalignment between these stakeholders is a typical reason for failed projects or models that aren’t created. Deep learning projects require good communication loops and joint responsibility between departments. 

• Model drift and continual learning

The only constant in life is change. A model trained on data collected twelve months ago will be unable to locate anomalies or patterns that are present today. In commercial applications like e-commerce, fraud detection or prevention, and transport planning, even the slightest drift pattern in the data can dramatically affect the business. 

Businesses require systems that can track performance, recognise model drift, and launch retraining pipelines. Without lifecycle management, even the best models will fade quickly. 

Best practices to overcome these challenges 

To fully realise the benefits that deep learning can provide, companies need to have an approach based on technical maturity and target the industry.

Also Read: 3 ways AI and deep learning is now changing the education industry

Some of the critical best practices include: 

• Develop MLOps pipelines that deploy models, monitor, and retrain automatically – all are important to manage accuracy in fast-changing domains such as patient care or diagnostics.  
• In the design phase of any AI application, make data lineage and governance a priority for HIPAA compliance, auditability, and compliant use of AI, particularly for sensitive patient health records and medical images.  
• Include domain knowledge from clinicians and other medical experts in the model development process to increase the relevance and acceptance of AI models in healthcare. 
• Design scalable with hybrid capabilities using one pipeline for hospital/health systems networks, remote-monitoring systems/devices with AI hosted in the cloud. 
• Integrate explainability into the life cycle of an AI model, as stakeholders in the healthcare industry need to understand what the AI recommends and why. 

Conclusion 

Deep learning has the potential to be a great solution, but fulfilling that potential in the enterprise space requires much more than simply neural networks.

It requires clean data, interpretable models, scalable platforms, and a business strategy. Getting there isn’t easy, but the advantages of automating, customising, predicting, and uniquely differentiating your business are worth 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.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Why enterprises struggle to make deep learning deliver appeared first on e27.

As billions in investment pour into Southeast Asia’s data centre sector, US$6.3 billion to be specific, a rising tide of public scepticism over energy and land consumption has been raised at the Singapore-Johor-Riau (SIJORI) dialogue.

This, in turn, could create a critical public relations challenge – for digital infrastructure investors, operators and players, this could create a wider Public Relations problem on how they engage meaningfully with regulators.

Southeast Asia is aggressively building the engine rooms of the digital economy. With a staggering US$6.3 billion invested in the sector in 2024 alone, the race to power AI, cloud computing, and digital banking is undeniable. Hotspots like Johor in Malaysia are booming, absorbing demand from constrained neighbours, while Thailand and the Philippines are rolling out the red carpet for hyperscale operators. Malaysia, in particular, is taking a leading role. Its digital investments surged 125 per cent quarter on quarter in the second quarter of 2025, per the Malaysian Digital Economic Corporation.

But beneath the headline figures lies a potential disconnect. As government and industry leaders conceded at the recent SIJORI dialogue, immense strains on energy grids, water resources, and land availability – with a lack of viable solutions – could create friction, breaking momentum. This is also, in part, fuelling a perception gap where communities see only resource-intensive black boxes, not strategic assets. This disconnect is fast becoming a significant business risk, escalating into a looming public relations crisis for the industry.

According to industry analysts, this perception problem is largely self-inflicted. The historical model of development prioritised speed and discretion over public dialogue, creating a communications vacuum. This is a reactive situation that a specialised PR agency that works closely with media and other stakeholders are brought in to carefully manage, rather than a proactive strategy to build trust from the outset.

From technical problem to PR solution

The tough questions about sustainability are now driving policy. In Singapore, where data centres strain the power grid, the government’s post-moratorium criteria heavily favour green efficiency, a direct response to public and environmental pressure. For operators, navigating this complex landscape now requires more than just engineering excellence; it demands sophisticated communications, often leading them to seek specialist PR experts to help articulate their value proposition.

Also Read: From silicon to sustainability: Data centres in a warming world

Forward-thinking developers argue that the solution to these challenges is a new, holistic development model, built around sustainability. We talk to technology leaders – from hybrid cooling systems to quantum computing innovators; water treatment providers; renewable energy providers – all focused and committed towards sustainable, responsible growth.

This strategy transforms an infrastructure project into a positive PR story. New development models, for instance, are integrating vast green spaces, contributing to local community funds, and sharing network capacity to boost rural connectivity. In the process these infrastructure operators and partners are creating jobs, and becoming a visible community partner.

The next wave demands a new narrative

The need for a better public relations strategy is being amplified by the arrival of next-generation technology. The immense power and stability required by AI and quantum computing render the old development model obsolete.

This future is already here: For instance, BDx Data Centres recently announced the launch of Singapore’s first commercial use of quantum computing within its facilities, with the potential to drive further advancements in technology innovation and sustainability. This highlights the region’s technological ambition, but also underscores the urgent need for a public mandate to support such powerful infrastructure.

Ultimately, the entire region requires a more cohesive communications strategy. The scale and cross-border nature of the industry suggest a growing need for a strategic PR across Southeast Asia that can tailor a compelling narrative to the unique cultural and political nuances of each market.

Data centre operators, governments and developers must urgently reframe the conversation. They must proactively explain not just what data centres are, but what they do for society. If the industry continues to treat community engagement as an afterthought, it will find its path to growth blocked not by a lack of capital, but by a lack of trust. The race for Southeast Asia’s digital future will be won not just by building infrastructure, but by building understanding.

—

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

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

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Is Southeast Asia’s data centre boom headed for a PR crisis? appeared first on e27.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues have moved from the periphery of corporate strategy to the centre of boardroom attention. Yet in Asia, many boards still treat ESG primarily as a reporting obligation or a compliance checkbox — not as a strategic lever for long-term resilience and value creation.

As independent and non-executive directors, we must recognise that boards need to advance their perspective. ESG has moved beyond being a mere obligation; it now represents a driver of competitive advantage, a safeguard against risk, and a foundation for stakeholder confidence. Boards that embed ESG into governance and strategy are positioned to surpass their peers in sustainable growth, reputation, and long-term resilience.

Why ESG is now a board-level imperative

Several forces are converging to make ESG a core board responsibility:

• Regulatory pressure: Governments across Asia are introducing ESG disclosure requirements, carbon reduction mandates, and reporting standards aligned with TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures).
• Investor expectations: Institutional investors increasingly link capital allocation to ESG performance. Firms with poor ESG records face higher cost of capital.
• Stakeholder scrutiny: Customers, employees, and communities are demanding ethical practices, sustainability, and transparency.
• Operational risk: Climate-related events, supply chain disruptions, and labour issues directly impact financial performance.

Boards can no longer delegate ESG oversight to management; it has become a fiduciary responsibility. Ignoring ESG is a governance failure.

The danger of treating ESG as “cosmetic compliance”

Too often, boards focus on what is easy to measure: carbon reporting, policy statements, and social initiatives. While necessary, these activities do not create meaningful value unless linked to strategy.

The pitfalls of cosmetic ESG include:

• Misalignment between ESG reporting and business priorities
• Tokenistic initiatives that fail to influence culture or operations
• Reputation risk if stakeholders perceive ESG as performative
• Missed opportunities to embed ESG into product innovation, market positioning, and long-term planning

Asian boards must recognise that ESG is not a moral add-on – it is a strategic lever that drives growth and reduces risk.

Also Read: ESG frameworks and standards: Cutting through the complexity for private markets

What board oversight of ESG should look like

Effective boards go beyond disclosure. They define the frameworks, KPIs, and accountability mechanisms for ESG. Key areas include:

Climate and environmental risk

• Scenario analysis for physical and transition risks
• Alignment with net-zero or national climate targets
• Oversight of resource efficiency, waste reduction, and energy management

Social and human capital

• Employee well-being, inclusion, and skills development
• Supplier ethics, labour rights, and community engagement
• Board oversight of culture, retention, and succession planning

Governance and accountability

• Integration of ESG KPIs into executive compensation
• Clear ownership for ESG outcomes across the organisation
• Transparent reporting to regulators, investors, and stakeholders

Boards should request ESG assurance reports, similar to financial audits, to validate progress and performance.

ESG as a strategic growth engine

Boards that treat ESG strategically can unlock multiple benefits:

• Financial performance: Companies with strong ESG metrics attract lower-cost capital, better credit ratings, and loyal investors.
• Innovation: Sustainability challenges inspire new products, services, and operational efficiencies.
• Resilience: ESG-oriented companies are better prepared for regulatory, reputational, and supply chain shocks.
• Stakeholder trust: Employees, customers, and communities increasingly reward responsible companies with loyalty and advocacy.

Asian boards must view ESG not as a compliance cost, but as an investment in long-term resilience and competitive advantage.

Also Read: The future of finance: ESG integration in tokenised funding

How boards can build ESG competence

To embed ESG into governance effectively, boards should:

• Conduct ESG capability assessments: Identify gaps in expertise, particularly around climate science, sustainable finance, and social impact.
• Upskill directors and management: Offer workshops, briefings, and scenario planning exercises.
• Integrate ESG into strategy sessions: ESG should be part of the discussion in every strategic review, not a standalone agenda item.
• Link ESG metrics to executive accountability: Align compensation with measurable ESG outcomes.
• Use ESG as a risk lens: Consider climate, social, and governance risks in capital allocation, M&A, and operational planning.

The future board: ESG-embedded and forward-looking

By 2030, the most successful boards in Asia will not be the ones that simply report ESG metrics. They will be the boards that:

• Anticipate regulatory and societal shifts
• Integrate ESG into strategy, risk, and culture
• Drive innovation while reducing negative environmental and social impacts
• Communicate openly with investors, employees, and communities

For aspiring independent directors, understanding ESG deeply is no longer optional. It is a core competency, a strategic differentiator, and a sign of governance maturity.

Boards that embrace ESG as strategic value creation, not just disclosure, will position their organisations for resilience, trust, and long-term success.

This article was first published on The Boardroom Edge.

—

The post ESG as strategic value: Why Asian boards must move beyond disclosure appeared first on e27.