Industrial automation in Southeast Asia is moving beyond experimentation into real-world execution, and the stakes are rising quickly. In January 2026, Singapore-based robotics company Botsync secured additional Series A funding from SGInnovate, signalling growing investor confidence in the region’s smart manufacturing push. But scaling robotics is not just about deploying machines but about integrating intelligence into complex, live operations.

In this interview with e27, Rahul Nambiar, CEO and co-founder of Botsync, breaks down what it takes to move from pilot projects to multi-site rollouts, where automation delivers real ROI, and why orchestration is becoming the true battleground. As labour shortages intensify and manufacturing digitises, Botsync’s journey offers a closer look at how robotics is evolving from a technical solution into critical industrial infrastructure.

Also Read: What’s changing inside Southeast Asia’s factories with IsCoolLab

Edited excerpts:

What’s the single most important capability this additional investment buys: hardware, software, talent, or market access?

The capital allows us to invest further in expanding the orchestration and intelligence capabilities of our no-code and vendor-agnostic automation control platform SyncOS. This will ensure our users get the most optimal solutions possible for their robotic fleets.

You’re positioning Botsync as moving from “startup momentum” to “regional scaleup”. What operational bottleneck tends to break first when autonomous mobile robots (AMR) deployments move from pilot to multi-site rollouts in the region?

During a pilot phase, users primarily focus on technical feasibility and whether your product can work in their facility. The impact on their operations is very minimal.

After transitioning to a full rollout, this changes quickly, as you become a critical component in their operations. Users now care more about whether their operation key performance indicators (KPIs) are being met than whether the technology looks feasible or impressive. This involves handling edge cases, defining response timelines in the event of failure, optimising systems based on continuous feedback, and implementing business continuity plans in the event of system failure.

The operational elements of the company, whether we have hired the right support team, built the right processes, and built redundancy into our systems and processes, soon become as critical as the technology itself.

Your pitch leans on labour shortages and inefficiencies. In practice, where does automation deliver the fastest payback in warehouses here: picking, putaway, replenishment, line-feeding, or yard operations? Where do buyers still overestimate what robots can do?

The greatest value from automation occurs when, in addition to automating a manual process, the data it collects enables users to further optimise their operations. This could be in the form of reduction of error rates of operation, ensuring accurate prioritisation, reduction of order fulfilment time, etc.

Also Read: Rise of the machines: 20 robotics startups shaping Southeast Asia’s future

In Botsync’s case, we leverage the integration enabled by SyncOS and the data we collect from multiple machines at each stage of production to ensure the accurate, timely delivery of parts between assembly lines and the warehouse within factories. This allows us to deliver value by ensuring higher manufacturing process uptime and better visibility into the entire process, in addition to the physical automation we provide.

Two hundred and thirty per cent revenue growth is big, but growth can be “cheap” or “expensive”. What’s driving it: larger contract values, more sites per customer, better margins, or simply more hardware shipped?

We are seeing revenue growth from these areas:

• Larger expansion within the same site of a customer
• Expansion to new sites by the same customer
• This has also allowed us to ensure customer acquisition costs are managed as we scale up.

Botsync works across manufacturing, warehousing, and intra-logistics. What’s your core product wedge today: fleet management software, the robots themselves, integration services, or a full-stack automation solution? How does that choice affect scalability?

Botsync’s primary product wedge today comes from the integration and process intelligence capabilities of SyncOS, which encompass fleet management, allowing AMRs and automated guided vehicles (AGVs) to communicate with other automation systems such as robotic arms, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and conveyor belts, and use AI to enable data-driven decision-making. This allows customers to maximise the efficiency of their deployed automation.

Singapore often talks about smart manufacturing and advanced automation. From your on-the-ground conversations with manufacturers and logistics players, where is policy genuinely accelerating adoption, and where is it still not translating into operational reality?

Singapore’s push for smart manufacturing and logistics automation is closely aligned with Manufacturing 2030, which aims to grow the sector by 50 per cent in value-added output and establish Singapore as a global hub for smart, green, and high-value manufacturing. Policies and funding have accelerated adoption among mid-sized manufacturers and third-party logistics (3PL) operators, while manpower constraints and tighter foreign worker quotas have made automation a commercial necessity. Budget 2026 further strengthens this drive, with expanded support under the productivity solutions grant (PSG) for AI and automation, the launch of National AI Missions and Council to coordinate sector-wide transformation, and continued RIE2030 investment in robotics, AI, and advanced manufacturing.

Despite these measures, adoption isn’t uniform. Legacy systems and fragmented operations continue to slow integration, and many companies that run successful pilots struggle to scale across multiple sites due to interoperability and workforce-readiness gaps. ROI expectations versus real-world deployment timelines also remain a challenge, particularly for smaller firms trying to translate grant support into measurable productivity gains.

Looking to 2026, what’s the biggest technical or commercial bet in your roadmap: multi-robot orchestration, richer perception and safety, interoperability with legacy systems, or moving towards robotics-as-a-service? What would make you change course?

Looking to 2026, this market insight shapes our biggest bets: multi-robot orchestration, interoperability with legacy systems, and enhanced intelligence to handle dynamic operations and edge cases.

Also Read: The transformative potential of humanoid robots: A VC perspective

Multi-robot orchestration is increasingly practical thanks to Singapore’s national robotics standards and testbeds, which enable coordination of heterogeneous fleets. Interoperability continues to be a challenge, as highlighted by IMDA’s AMR x Digital Leaders initiative, helping companies integrate new robotics with existing Warehouse Management Systems.

We continually assess the market landscape and customer needs, and we see growing demand for autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) and integrated robotics solutions. Our commitment remains to provide autonomous solutions tailored to our customers, and we would adjust our roadmap if breakthroughs in perception and safety, broader ecosystem standardisation, or shifts in customer priorities make alternative approaches more effective or efficient.

The post From pilot to production: Where robotics actually breaks appeared first on e27.

In the race to build autonomous AI agents—software that can book flights, negotiate contracts, execute financial transactions, or run entire workflows on behalf of humans—a quieter but equally critical debate is unfolding behind the scenes.

How do you identify and authorise an AI agent?

Right now, several major technology communities are attempting to answer that question simultaneously. Groups such as the World Wide Web Consortium, the OpenID Foundation, the Decentralised Identity Foundation, and the Trust Over IP Foundation are all exploring mechanisms for identity, authentication, and delegation in what many now call the agentic economy.

Each community brings its own philosophy.

The World Wide Web Consortium focuses on core web architecture and decentralised identifiers. The OpenID Foundation specialises in authentication protocols like OAuth and OpenID Connect. The Decentralised Identity Foundation builds open infrastructure for self-sovereign identity systems. Meanwhile, the Trust Over IP Foundation focuses on governance frameworks and trust networks.

Individually, each effort is valuable.

Collectively, they risk creating a fragmented identity landscape just as AI agents begin to proliferate across the internet.

And the stakes are high.

3If autonomous agents are going to operate in financial markets, government services, enterprise systems, and consumer platforms, the world will need a reliable way to verify who or what is acting.

Without that, the agentic internet could quickly become a chaotic ecosystem of unverifiable bots.

Why fragmentation is inevitable

The risk of fragmentation is not simply the result of organisational rivalry. It is largely structural. Technology evolves far faster than standards bodies.

Developers building agent frameworks today cannot wait three years for formal protocols to emerge. They will ship systems using whatever identity mechanisms exist — API keys, OAuth tokens, decentralised identifiers, or proprietary authentication models.

6Meanwhile, standards organisations deliberate carefully, balancing security, interoperability, and governance.

By the time a standard is finalised, the ecosystem may already have moved on.

This dynamic has played out before. The early internet saw competing encryption protocols, rival messaging systems, and incompatible browsers before a handful of dominant standards emerged.

The same evolutionary process may now be happening with agent identity.

Also Read: The digital lag: How traditional consulting is failing to grasp the agentic AI revolution

The real goal is interoperability

The instinctive response to fragmentation is often to call for a single universal standard.

But the internet rarely works that way.

Instead, it evolves through layers. Different technologies coexist, but they communicate through shared interfaces. Email servers may run different software, but they all speak SMTP. Websites may be built with different frameworks, but they all rely on HTTP and TLS.

The same layered model may be the best path forward for agent identity.

Rather than forcing convergence on one protocol, the ecosystem may need to focus on shared primitives that allow different systems to interoperate.

These primitives could include portable identity artefacts such as decentralised identifiers, verifiable credentials, and authorisation tokens.

An AI agent might authenticate using one protocol while presenting credentials issued by another system, with trust frameworks defining how those credentials are validated.

In other words, the agent identity ecosystem may look less like a single standard and more like a modular identity stack.

Open implementations matter more than documents

One lesson from past internet standards is that specifications alone rarely drive adoption.

Working code does.

Open reference implementations—wallets, credential exchanges, agent authorisation frameworks—can serve as anchors for the ecosystem. When multiple communities build on shared open-source infrastructure, fragmentation often resolves itself organically.

Developers gravitate toward tools that work. And once those tools gain momentum, standards tend to follow the architecture already in use.

The importance of cross-foundation collaboration

Another way to reduce fragmentation is simple: collaboration.

If the W3C defines core identity primitives, the OpenID Foundation could create authentication profiles for agents. The Decentralised Identity Foundation could build the supporting infrastructure. The Trust Over IP Foundation could establish governance frameworks that determine how trust is established between networks.

Also Read: Agentic AI in action: How Southeast Asia’s startups are turning constraints into strengths

This kind of layered collaboration mirrors how the internet itself evolved.

No single organisation built the web. Instead, a loose constellation of standards bodies, open-source communities, and industry alliances shaped its architecture over time.

Agent identity may require the same approach.

A new kind of digital identity

What makes the challenge especially complex is that agent identity is fundamentally different from human identity.

A human identity system answers questions like:

• Who is this person?

Agent identity must answer additional questions:

• Who authorised this agent?
• What permissions does it have?
• Who is accountable for its actions?

An AI agent booking a meeting might have minimal privileges. One managing supply chains or executing financial trades might have enormous authority.

Identity systems must therefore support delegation chains, where humans or organisations grant agents specific capabilities—and where those capabilities can be audited or revoked.

This problem sits at the intersection of identity, authorisation, and governance.

And no single standards body currently owns all three.

Competitive convergence

If fragmentation sounds alarming, history suggests it may also be necessary. Innovation often begins with competing ideas. Over time, the ecosystem experiments discard weak approaches and converge around the solutions that prove scalable and secure.

The early internet did not begin with cleanly aligned standards. Neither did cloud computing, mobile ecosystems, or cryptocurrencies.

Agent identity may follow the same trajectory.

A period of experimentation—messy, decentralised, and occasionally incompatible—may ultimately produce stronger systems than a prematurely unified standard.

The infrastructure of the agentic economy

As AI agents begin acting autonomously across the digital economy, identity will become one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure.

Without reliable identity and delegation mechanisms, autonomous agents cannot safely interact with banks, governments, enterprises, or consumers.

But solving the problem will require more than a single protocol.

It will require an ecosystem — a layered architecture where multiple standards, technologies, and governance models can interoperate.

Fragmentation may be unavoidable.

The real question is whether the communities building agent identity today can ensure that their systems eventually connect.

If they do, the agentic internet could become as interoperable as the web itself.

If they do not, the next generation of AI agents may inherit a fragmented identity landscape just as complex—and contentious—as the early days of the internet.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The post The coming identity crisis of agentic AI appeared first on e27.

For decades, governments have regulated companies as market participants. Tax them. License them. Fine them. Break them up if necessary.

But what happens when a company stops behaving like a firm — and starts functioning like infrastructure?

Not infrastructure in the traditional sense of roads or ports. Digital infrastructure.

Platforms that:

• Clear cross-border payments.
• Allocate capital at scale.
• Coordinate labour across jurisdictions.
• Optimise supply chains in real time.
• Govern participation through code.

In a previous piece, we explored how fintech and AI infrastructure startups could evolve into “meta-national” platforms — systems that operate across borders, arbitrage jurisdictions, and become indispensable to economic coordination.

The question now is no longer hypothetical. It is strategic.

What should governments do about them?

Ignore them? Co-opt them? Compete with them? Constrain them?

The wrong answer could accelerate fragmentation. The right answer could reshape sovereignty for the digital age.

• First: Recognise the shift from firms to systems

Governments often treat large platforms as “big companies.”

That’s outdated.

Some fintech and AI platforms are evolving into:

• Monetary rails.
• Identity layers.
• Capital allocation engines.
• Labour coordination networks.

When a platform becomes the default system through which millions earn, transact, and allocate capital, it is no longer just a private actor.

It becomes systemic infrastructure. And systemic infrastructure carries sovereign implications.

The first mistake governments make is assuming this is simply a competition issue.

It’s not.

It’s an institutional evolution.

• Second: Avoid reflexive overregulation

The instinctive response to systemic platforms is control:

• Heavy licensing regimes
• Data localisation mandates
• Strict capital restrictions
• Forced domestic hosting

These measures may protect short-term policy control.

But they also create fragmentation.

When digital systems are forced into rigid territorial silos, two outcomes emerge:

• Platforms are designed around the restrictions and relocated strategically
• Domestic innovation falls behind global infrastructure layers

Overregulation may weaken state control rather than strengthen it.

Meta-national platforms thrive in regulatory arbitrage environments.

If a government makes participation too difficult, the platform does not disappear.

It simply routes around.

• Third: Compete through performance, not prohibition

Digital platforms gain legitimacy through performance:

• Faster settlement
• Lower costs
• Better allocation
• Higher reliability

If citizens prefer digital currency rails over domestic banking systems, the problem is not merely regulatory. It is competitive.

Governments must ask:

Why are users choosing external platforms?

• Is domestic banking too slow?
• Are remittance costs too high?
• Is SME credit inaccessible?
• Is regulatory friction excessive?

The long-term solution is not prohibition.

It is upgrading domestic infrastructure.

Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), instant payment systems, open banking frameworks — these are performance responses, not defensive reactions.

States that compete on efficiency retain legitimacy. States that rely solely on restrictions lose them.

Also Read: The first Meta-nation won’t be a country — and it might be built in Southeast Asia

• Fourth: Engage platforms as strategic actors

As platforms scale, governments should shift from viewing them as adversaries to recognising them as stakeholders.

This does not mean surrendering authority. It means acknowledging mutual dependency.

Fintech platforms can:

• Expand financial inclusion
• Reduce remittance friction
• Enhance capital access for SMEs
• Improve transparency in economic flows

AI infrastructure platforms can:

• Improve supply chain resilience
• Enhance economic forecasting
• Optimise public resource allocation

Rather than defaulting to hostility, governments should create structured engagement channels:

• Regulatory sandboxes
• Joint policy forums
• Public-private coordination frameworks
• Crisis response integration

The goal is not to capture. It is alignment.

• Fifth: Preserve monetary sovereignty strategically

The greatest vulnerability meta-national platforms create is monetary.

If large segments of a population transact primarily in stable digital assets outside domestic banking systems, central banks lose:

• Policy transmission tools
• Visibility into capital flows
• Control over liquidity conditions

Governments should respond in three ways:

• Develop a credible digital currency infrastructure
• Modernise domestic payment rails
• Ensure interoperability with global systems

Total exclusion is unrealistic.

Interoperability preserves influence.

If domestic systems can plug into global digital infrastructure, states remain relevant in layered sovereignty rather than being sidelined by it.

• Sixth: Protect identity without over-centralising it

Digital identity is the next frontier of sovereignty.

If platforms control identity verification and reputation scoring, they influence access to credit, employment, and participation.

Governments should:

• Develop strong, portable digital identity frameworks
• Enable API-based integration with private platforms
• Ensure privacy standards are competitive globally

Over-centralised identity systems risk fragility.

Underdeveloped identity systems risk irrelevance.

The balance is delicate — but critical.

• Seventh: Prepare for layered sovereignty

The 20th-century model assumed sovereignty was exclusive. You belonged to one nation-state. Period. The 21st-century model is layered.

An individual may simultaneously belong to:

• A territorial state (passport)
• A digital monetary network
• An AI-driven labour marketplace
• A cross-border capital ecosystem

Governments should not attempt to eliminate these layers.

They should design policies assuming coexistence.

Layered sovereignty does not automatically erode state authority.

It reshapes it.

States that adapt will remain central nodes. States that resist entirely may find themselves bypassed.

Also Read: You’re designing the wrong thing: Why SEA founders should focus on decision environments, not culture decks

• Eighth: Avoid turning platforms into geopolitical weapons

In an era of US–China rivalry, digital infrastructure is increasingly politicised. Export controls. Sanctions. Data restrictions. Capital scrutiny.

But weaponising infrastructure has consequences. If digital platforms are perceived as extensions of geopolitical blocs, adoption narrows. Neutral platforms become more attractive.

This dynamic is especially important for Southeast Asia.

The region thrives on strategic balance. Governments here should resist binary alignment pressures that turn infrastructure into ideological tools. Neutrality enhances economic leverage.

• Ninth: Build domestic champions — but don’t cage them

Many governments aim to build national champions in fintech and AI. That’s sensible.

But overprotection can backfire.

If domestic startups are shielded from global competition through restrictive barriers, they may fail to scale beyond home markets.

Meta-national platforms require:

• Cross-border functionality
• Regulatory sophistication
• Global trust

Governments should:

• Support outward expansion
• Encourage global compliance capabilities
• Invest in regional interoperability frameworks

Champion-building should focus on capability, not containment.

• Tenth: Redefine sovereignty for the digital era

The deepest shift required is conceptual.

Sovereignty is no longer defined solely by territory.

It increasingly depends on:

• Control over infrastructure layers
• Influence over protocol standards
• Participation in global coordination networks

Governments that cling to a purely territorial model will struggle.

Those that embrace infrastructure diplomacy — shaping standards, fostering interoperability, and partnering with platforms — will remain central.

The meta-national future does not eliminate states. It challenges them to evolve.

The strategic choice ahead

Meta-national platforms will not announce themselves.

They will scale quietly:

• Through adoption in emerging markets.
• Through integration with global SMEs.
• Through developer ecosystems.
• Through performance advantages.

By the time governments recognise them as sovereignty-adjacent actors, they may already be embedded in economic life.

The choice for governments is not whether to allow them. They are already emerging. The choice is whether to:

• Fight them blindly,
• Partner strategically,
• Or upgrade state capacity to compete.

The most resilient governments will do all three — selectively.

Because the next decade will not be defined solely by great-power rivalry between states.

It will be defined by the rise of infrastructure actors that operate across them.

The most powerful economic system in your jurisdiction may not belong to your central bank.

It may run on code.

And how governments respond will determine whether sovereignty fractures — or adapts.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. You can also share your perspective by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of e27.

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

The post What should states do about Meta-national platforms appeared first on e27.

The crypto market’s modest 0.57 per cent gain, bringing total capitalisation to US$2.35T over the last 24 hours, tells a story far more nuanced than the headline suggests. The strength of the Ethereum ecosystem drove this movement, with the network outperforming the broader market by a significant margin. This divergence matters because it reveals where smart capital currently seeks refuge and growth. The 46 per cent correlation between crypto and Gold further underscores a market positioning itself for inflationary pressures, even as traditional risk assets rally on geopolitical hopes. I see this not as contradictory behaviour but as a sophisticated reallocation in which digital assets serve dual roles: as vehicles for speculative growth and as emerging stores of value.

Ethereum’s outperformance stems primarily from an unexpected source: a major security incident on Solana. The Drift Protocol exploit, where an attacker extracted substantial value, triggered a fascinating capital rotation. The exploiter now swaps over US$270M in stolen Solana-based assets into ETH, creating tangible on-chain buying pressure. This dynamic illustrates Ethereum’s evolving role as the preferred settlement layer during periods of uncertainty across competing chains. Rather than fleeing crypto entirely, capital seeks the network with the deepest liquidity, most robust developer activity, and strongest institutional recognition. I interpret this as validation of Ethereum’s long-term thesis: security and decentralisation compound value over time, especially when alternatives face stress. The market rewards resilience, and Ethereum’s ability to absorb this inflow without significant slippage demonstrates the maturity of its infrastructure.

Beyond the hack-driven flows, broader sentiment around Ethereum is supported by credible institutional developments and clarity on the protocol roadmap. Franklin Templeton’s move to launch an institutional crypto division signals traditional finance deepening its commitment to digital asset infrastructure. This is not speculative noise but strategic positioning by a firm managing hundreds of billions. Simultaneously, Ethereum’s 2026 protocol upgrades, including Glamsterdam and Hegotá, provide a tangible catalyst for long-term holders. These upgrades promise meaningful improvements to scalability and user experience, addressing the very concerns that limit broader adoption. Meanwhile, speculative capital rotates into low-market-cap tokens like StakeStone and TrustSwap, which posted triple-digit gains. This risk-taking behaviour indicates healthy market appetite, though I caution that such moves often precede consolidation. The combination of institutional validation and retail speculation creates a supportive, if uneven, foundation for prices.

Also Read:The keys to your kingdom: Navigating crypto custody in 2026

From a technical perspective, Ethereum’s near-term trajectory hinges on its ability to reclaim the US$2,400-US$2,600 resistance zone. A confirmed close above the 50-day exponential moving average would signal strengthening momentum, potentially opening a path toward US$3,000. Immediate support rests near US$2,200, a level bulls must defend to maintain the current structure. I watch these levels closely because they reflect not just chart patterns but the collective psychology of market participants. The situation remains fluid pending further details on the Drift Protocol exploit. Any new information could alter the flow dynamics currently supporting ETH. Protocol upgrades also warrant attention: successful testnet deployments and clear timelines would reinforce confidence, while delays might trigger profit-taking. Technical analysis in crypto never operates in isolation; it intersects with on-chain data, macro sentiment, and narrative shifts.

This crypto market movement unfolds against the backdrop of a rallying global risk-asset market. On 2 April 2026, major indices posted gains as de-escalating tensions in the Middle East reduced the geopolitical risk premium. The S&P 500 closed at 6,575.32, up 0.72 per cent, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 1.16 per cent to 21,840.95, led by technology stocks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.48 per cent to 46,565.74. Crude oil prices pulled back, with Brent futures falling 1.15 per cent to US$100.00 per barrel and WTI slipping to US$98.71 per barrel, as investors anticipated reduced risk of supply disruptions. Treasury yields edged higher, with the 10-year note yielding 4.33 per cent, reflecting capital rotation from safe-haven bonds into equities. Asian markets surged, notably South Korea’s KOSPI, which jumped 8.4 per cent. This global risk-on sentiment typically supports crypto, and Bitcoin traded relatively steady near US$68,103, suggesting digital assets currently follow idiosyncratic drivers more than broad equity beta.

Gold’s strength amid this risk-on environment deserves particular attention. Spot gold rose to approximately US$4,780.40 per ounce despite de-escalation headlines, indicating persistent demand for inflation hedges. The 46 per cent correlation between crypto and Gold suggests a segment of the market treats digital assets as complementary to precious metals in portfolio construction. I find this convergence logical: both assets offer alternatives to fiat currency systems, though through different mechanisms. Gold provides physical scarcity and historical precedent; crypto offers programmable scarcity and network utility. When investors allocate to both, they express a nuanced view: scepticism about long-term fiat stability coupled with confidence in technological innovation. This dual positioning explains why crypto can rise alongside traditional risk assets while maintaining a hedge-like correlation with gold.

Also Read: Breaking: US Labour Department opens door to crypto in 401(k) plans, market jumps 1.86%

The current market structure rewards selective participation. Broad index exposure may underperform focused positions in ecosystems demonstrating clear catalysts and resilient infrastructure. Ethereum’s dual role as a technological platform and a liquidity sink during cross-chain stress events positions it uniquely. I caution against overextrapolating short-term flows: the US$270M in exploited assets represents a transient catalyst, not a fundamental revaluation. Lasting gains require sustained developer activity, user adoption, and regulatory clarity. The convergence of institutional interest, protocol innovation, and macro hedging demand creates a compelling setup, but execution risk remains. I advocate for disciplined position sizing and continuous monitoring of on-chain metrics alongside traditional technical levels.

In this complex environment, my perspective emphasises independent analysis over narrative conformity. The market’s modest gain masks significant underlying dynamics: capital rotation among chains, shifts in institutional strategy, and macro hedging behaviour. These forces interact in ways that simple headlines cannot capture. I believe the next phase of crypto market development will reward those who understand network fundamentals, liquidity dynamics, and macro correlations simultaneously. 

—

The post While stocks rally, gold hits US$4,780 and crypto correlation tells a hidden story appeared first on e27.

Singapore-based Circulate Capital has raised US$220 million in the first close of its second Asia-focused fund, a vote of confidence for circular economy investing at a time when much of the market’s attention and money has been swallowed by artificial intelligence (AI).

The new vehicle, Circulate Capital Asia II, has already reached more than 70 per cent of its US$300 million target, surpassing the firm’s first fund, which closed at US$188 million. The capital will be deployed into recycling and circular supply chain businesses across India, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia, with a focus on plastics and packaging, as well as electronics and apparel.

Also Read: Circulate Capital makes final close of US$76M fund to advance circular economy for plastics

The investor line-up comprises strategic corporates, development finance institutions, pension-linked capital, and family offices. Returning backers include The Coca-Cola Company, Danone, Dow, Procter & Gamble, British International Investment, Proparco, IFC and Builders Vision, while new investors include EMCAF, Impact Fund Denmark, SIFEM and Australian Development Investments.

Why circular economy investing is growing

The broader investment case for circularity is getting harder to dismiss. Globally, companies are facing volatile raw material costs, supply chain disruptions, tighter environmental regulations, and rising pressure from customers and consumer brands to reduce waste. At the same time, the world still extracts more than 100 billion tonnes of raw materials each year while remaining only 7.2 per cent circular.

Asia is central to that story. The region combines rapid consumption growth with weak waste management systems and a manufacturing base that increasingly needs reliable, locally sourced recycled materials.

For investors, this creates a more direct commercial opportunity than the old sustainability pitch. Recycling, recovery, and reuse are no longer just about impact reports; they are about securing feedstock, reducing import dependence, and building more resilient supply chains.

Plastics remain the biggest entry point, but the market is widening. Investors are looking not only at mature recycling streams, such as PET, but also at harder-to-process materials, including polyolefins, flexible packaging, textiles, batteries and electronic waste.

Is AI crowding out circular economy funding?

In short, yes, but not completely.

AI is dominating global venture and growth funding, which makes life harder for circular-economy startups and infrastructure plays, especially in Asia, where many investors still prefer software-led models with faster scaling potential. Circularity businesses are usually more capital-intensive, more operationally messy and slower to mature. That is not exactly catnip for momentum-driven investors.

But the sector is not competing for the same pools of money. Much of Circulate Capital’s backing comes from corporates, development finance institutions, and impact-oriented investors with longer time horizons and strategic reasons to be in the market. For them, circular economy investing is less about chasing the next valuation spike and more about addressing supply chain risks, regulatory exposure, and material scarcity.

That distinction may help the sector keep growing even while AI hoovers up headlines.

Asia’s plastic problem is still severe

If anything, the region’s waste crisis remains underfinanced relative to its scale.

South and Southeast Asia generate vast volumes of plastic waste, while collection, sorting, and recycling systems often lag far behind demand. Low-value and flexible plastics remain especially difficult to recover at scale, and leakage into waterways and coastlines continues to be one of the region’s defining environmental failures.

Also Read: Circulate Capital joins bio-based plastic developer Algenesis’s US$5M seed round

Investors are paying more attention than they were a few years ago, but not enough to match the problem. Circulate Capital estimates that plastics alone represent a US$100 billion cumulative investment opportunity in collection and recycling infrastructure by 2030. That figure underlines the gap between what is needed and what has actually been deployed.

Where the market is heading

The next phase of circular economy investing in Asia is likely to move beyond straightforward bottle recycling into more complex areas: flexible plastics, alternative packaging, textile recovery, battery recycling, and the recovery of rare and critical materials from electronics.

That shift is important because the easiest opportunities have already been identified. The future will depend on whether investors can back businesses that not only process waste but also build dependable circular supply chains around it. The winners are likely to be firms that can supply recycled inputs to major manufacturers and consumer brands on an industrial scale.

Rob Kaplan, founder and CEO of Circulate Capital, said the firm’s track record shows the circular economy is “a sophisticated asset class that can deliver liquidity to private equity investors”.

Circulate Capital’s record so far

Circulate Capital said it has completed more circular economy deals in Asia than any other manager. However, it did not disclose the exact number of deals it has made since launch.

It did, however, point to exits as proof that the model can produce returns. Fund I has fully exited Indian digital waste management platform Recykal, and partially exited Lucro, a recycler focused on hard-to-manage flexible plastics, and Srichakra Polyplast, described as India’s first food-grade plastic recycler.

Since 2020, the firm says its Asia portfolio has added nearly 900,000 tonnes of annual collection and recycling capacity. Fund II aims to finance nearly two million tonnes more.

The bigger takeaway is that circular economy investing in Asia is no longer a fringe climate theme. It is slowly becoming an industrial and supply chain play. AI may still be the market’s favourite shiny object, but waste, unlike hype cycles, has a habit of sticking around.

The post Circulate Capital’s US$220M fund targets Asia’s recycling gap appeared first on e27.