Day: April 10, 2026

While traditional equity markets celebrated a historic relief rally, the cryptocurrency market posted a 1.42 per cent decline, settling at US$2.41T. This divergence tells a compelling story about the maturing yet still volatile nature of digital assets. As Wall Street surged on news of a temporary peace deal between the US and Iran and promises to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, crypto investors chose to lock in profits and unwind leveraged positions rather than join the broader risk-on celebration.

The contrast between these markets could not be starker. The Dow Jones Industrial Average logged its best day since April 2025, jumping 2.85 per cent to 47,910.79. The S&P 500 climbed 2.51 per cent to 6,782.83, and the Nasdaq surged 2.80 per cent to 22,635.00. Crypto showed a 69 per cent correlation with the S&P 500 and an even stronger 77 per cent correlation with Gold, which climbed to US$4,800 per ounce. Digital assets underperformed significantly despite these correlations. Internal market dynamics within the crypto ecosystem overpowered the positive macroeconomic backdrop that sent traditional markets soaring.

The primary culprit behind crypto weakness was a broad-based altcoin sell-off accompanied by aggressive unwinding of leverage. The Altcoin Season Index plummeted 12.82 per cent over the past week, signalling a clear rotation of capital away from higher-beta, riskier assets. Sectors such as the Binance Ecosystem and tokens under SEC or CFTC scrutiny fell approximately 1.6 per cent to 1.75 per cent, underperforming the broader market. This was not a panic-driven exodus triggered by negative news, but rather a calculated reduction in speculative exposure after recent gains.

Derivatives data reveals the mechanics of this de-risking. Bitcoin saw US$74.66M in liquidations over the past 24 hours, with short liquidations dominating. This indicates that leveraged positions were forcibly closed as traders scrambled to reduce exposure. Such forced liquidations often create cascading effects, amplifying downward pressure as margin calls trigger additional selling. The market essentially experienced a healthy flush of excess leverage, removing the frothy speculative positions that had built up during the recent rally.

Also Read: The CLARITY Act countdown: How April 16 could make or break the US$2.36T crypto rally

Institutional demand, while still present, showed signs of cooling just when the market needed fresh capital inflows to counteract the profit-taking wave. Morgan Stanley’s spot Bitcoin ETF launch drew US$34M in day-one inflows, a respectable start but insufficient to offset the broader outflow pressure. The Fear and Greed Index sat at a neutral 43, representing a significant cooling from fear levels recorded last month. This neutral sentiment reflects a lack of the strong bullish conviction needed to push prices higher amid widespread profit-taking.

The timing of this crypto correction amid traditional market euphoria reveals an important maturation in the way digital assets respond to macroeconomic events. While equities rallied on the geopolitical breakthrough that sent crude oil prices plunging 16 per cent to US$94.41 a barrel, crypto investors appeared more focused on technical levels and internal market structure. The US Dollar Index, retreating 1.17 per cent to 98.6 points, and the 10-year Treasury yield, holding steady at 4.30 per cent, created a generally favourable macro backdrop, yet crypto remained constrained by its own internal dynamics.

Traditional market sector performance highlighted the dramatic shift in sentiment. Commercial airlines enjoyed robust gains as fuel cost concerns receded. Delta advanced 3.8 per cent, United climbed 7.9 per cent, and Carnival surged 11.2 per cent. The Energy sector was the sole laggard, down 3.7 per cent due to a plunge in crude oil prices. Asian markets showed mixed reactions. Japan Nikkei 225 rose to 56,395 points on April 9, gaining 0.15 per cent. The index has rebounded roughly four per cent month-to-date after a brutal March selloff caused by energy supply fears. Hong Kong Hang Seng volatility remains high, with recent data showing the index struggling to hold gains above the 25,000 level.

Commodities reflected the dramatic geopolitical shift. Benchmark US oil WTI plummeted 16 per cent to approximately US$94.41 per barrel, a drop reminiscent of the depths of the pandemic. Spot gold climbed to roughly US$4,800 per ounce while silver prices fell slightly on April 9 to US$73.49, down 0.85 per cent from the previous day. Currency markets saw the US Dollar Index retreat to 98.6, down 1.17 per cent, as geopolitical risk premiums unwound. Fixed income markets remained relatively stable with the US 10-year Treasury yield holding steady at 4.30 per cent on April 9.

Also Read: Good Friday crypto analysis: Is low liquidity and volume setting up a crypto crash to US$2.17T?

Looking ahead, the market’s near-term health hinges on Bitcoin stabilising above the critical US$2.39T support level, which represents the 50 per cent Fibonacci retracement. A sustained break below this threshold could trigger a swift move toward US$2.34T at the 78.6 per cent Fibonacci level, particularly if ETF flows remain subdued. Conversely, a rebound above US$2.45T, the 38.2 per cent Fibonacci level, would signal that bullish control has been regained.

All my retail investor friends are eyeing April 16, when the SEC holds its roundtable on the CLARITY Act. They are hopeful that this regulatory development could provide the catalyst needed to shift sentiment and override the current technical weakness. The market finds itself in a corrective consolidation phase, where the flush of excess leverage and rotation out of altcoins represents a healthy reset rather than a fundamental breakdown.

For me, I think it’s “priced-in” already.

—

The post Why institutional money isn’t saving crypto from this sell-off appeared first on e27.

India’s tech funding story is no longer one of breakneck exuberance. It is now a story of filtration.

Tracxn’s latest annual report shows Indian startups pulled in US$11.7 billion in FY2025-26, down 18 per cent from US$14.3 billion a year earlier. That decline is real, and it reflects a venture market that has become more selective, more valuation-conscious, and far less tolerant of growth without discipline.

But step back, and a more uncomfortable comparison emerges for Southeast Asia: even in a slower year, India still looks deeper, broader, and structurally more liquid than much of this region’s startup landscape.

Also Read: AI hype, hard lessons: Where SEA’s startup capital is really going

That matters because the gap is no longer just about market size, but it is increasingly about market shape.

India, despite the pullback, remained the fourth most-funded country globally, behind only the US, the UK, and China. Southeast Asia, by contrast, has spent the past two years grappling with a harsher reality: thinner late-stage pipelines, fewer outsized rounds, prolonged exit delays, and a capital base that has turned markedly defensive. The funding winter may have softened into a cooler spring in parts of Asia, but it has not ended.

If anything, Tracxn’s numbers underscore a broader truth. India’s correction is happening inside a still-functioning scale market. Southeast Asia’s correction is playing out across fragmented markets where scale itself is harder to build, defend, and monetise.

It’s a downturn but not a collapse

India’s US$11.7 billion haul is lower year on year, but it is still 20 per cent higher than the US$9.7 billion raised in FY2023-24. That alone tells a more nuanced story than the headline decline suggests. Capital has not disappeared. It has simply become choosier.

The stage-wise breakdown is where the signal gets stronger. Seed funding fell to US$1.3 billion, down 15 per cent from the prior year. Late-stage funding dropped sharply to US$5.6 billion, a 38 per cent fall from US$9.2 billion. But early-stage funding rose to US$4.8 billion, up 33 per cent year on year.

That is not the profile of an ecosystem in retreat. It is the profile of one undergoing repricing.

Investors are still backing younger companies, but they are doing so with more caution and a clearer view of what they want: stronger fundamentals, sharper product-market fit, and a more plausible path to profitability. That dynamic has also played out in Southeast Asia, though with a key difference.

In India, early-stage momentum is being sustained by a large domestic founder base and a market that can absorb multiple scaled bets. In Southeast Asia, early-stage appetite exists, but follow-on certainty remains shakier because the region still faces exit bottlenecks and cross-market execution risks.

In simpler terms: India is still funding tomorrow. Southeast Asia is still debating whether tomorrow will be financeable.

Fewer mega-rounds, more scrutiny

India recorded 13 funding rounds above US$100 million in FY2025-26, down from 23 the year before. That drop is significant. Large private rounds are harder to close, pricing is tighter, and investors are no longer willing to underwrite scale at any cost.

Also Read: Capital comes roaring back: Inside SEA’s March funding boom

Again, this sounds familiar to anyone tracking Southeast Asia. The region has also seen mega-rounds become rarer, especially outside AI, climate, and a small handful of strategic sectors. The difference is that India still has enough depth to produce large rounds in enterprise infrastructure, enterprise applications and fintech.

Standout deals such as Nxtra’s US$710 million private equity round, Neysa’s US$600 million Series B, and Inox Clean Energy’s US$344 million Series D show that serious capital will still move when the sector narrative and business model align.

Southeast Asia has not entirely lost that ability, but it has become far more episodic. Big rounds still happen, but they are less frequent and more concentrated among Singapore-based companies or businesses with a strong regional or global angle. The broader market has become less forgiving, especially for companies that depend on subsidies, weak gross margins or perpetual market-expansion stories.

That is the bigger shift now reshaping both markets: venture capital is no longer rewarding ambition alone. It is rewarding evidence.

India’s sector mix looks sturdier than Southeast Asia’s

One of the more telling parts of Tracxn’s report is where capital actually went.

Enterprise applications brought in US$3.6 billion, unchanged year on year. Fintech rose to US$2.4 billion, up 14 per cent. Retail also attracted US$2.4 billion, though that was down 32 per cent from the previous year.

The implication is hard to miss. Indian investors are still willing to back software and financial rails at scale even as consumer-facing categories become more difficult to defend. That is broadly consistent with what has happened in Southeast Asia, where B2B software, infrastructure, AI-enabled tooling, and fintech rails have generally held up better than pure consumer plays.

But India’s edge lies in the depth of its domestic market. Enterprise software built in India can sell locally and globally. Fintech startups can tap into a massive home market, benefiting from tailwinds from digital public infrastructure. Retail, even after cooling, still sits atop a massive and increasingly formalised consumption base.

Southeast Asia’s founders operate in a different geometry. A startup can gain traction in Singapore, Indonesia, or Vietnam, but regional expansion often means redoing payments, logistics, compliance, and go-to-market from scratch. “Southeast Asia” still exists more neatly in pitch decks than in operating reality. India’s market is not frictionless, but it is at least one market.

That distinction has become more valuable in a tighter capital cycle.

Exits show maturity and expose Southeast Asia’s lag

If funding tells one story, exits tell the one that investors care about more.

India logged 47 IPOs in FY2025–26, up 52 per cent from 31 a year earlier. It also produced six new unicorns, up from four in each of the previous two years. Acquisition activity softened, falling 15 per cent to 129 deals, but the market still produced sizeable outcomes, including Resulticks’ US$2 billion acquisition by Diginex and Brahma’s US$1.2 billion acquisition by Polymarket.

These are not just vanity metrics. They point to an ecosystem that, while imperfect, is still creating pathways to liquidity.

That is where Southeast Asia has struggled more visibly. The region has had notable public listings and M&A events, but the exit environment remains patchy. IPO windows are narrower, trade buyers are more selective, and many late-stage companies are still working through valuation resets from the 2021 peak years. The result is a capital cycle that feels slower and more strained. Without reliable exits, early-stage funding also becomes harder to sustain because investors cannot model returns with conviction.

Also Read: In Vietnam, the challenge isn’t talent but mindset, says Vertex’s Genping Liu

India is not immune to that problem. But it is further along in solving it.

Bengaluru looks like a gravity centre. Southeast Asia still looks scattered

City-level concentration is another revealing marker. Bengaluru accounted for 33 per cent of total funding, with Mumbai taking 21 per cent.

Southeast Asia has no direct equivalent to Bengaluru’s gravitational pull. Singapore is the region’s financial and legal centre, capturing a disproportionate share of venture activity. Still, much of that capital is deployed into companies building for Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and beyond. Jakarta remains critical for consumer and fintech scale. Ho Chi Minh City is emerging. Bangkok has depth in specific verticals. But the regional map is dispersed, and that fragmentation affects everything from talent density to investor access to follow-on funding.

India’s capital is concentrated because its ecosystem is concentrated. Southeast Asia’s capital is fragmented because its markets are fragmented.

That is not a moral victory for either side. But it does shape outcomes.

What this means for Southeast Asia

The blunt reading of Tracxn’s report is not that India is booming. It is that India is maturing faster than many of its regional peers.

Even after an 18 per cent drop in total funding, the country still commands global relevance, supports large rounds, generates IPO activity, and continues to produce unicorns. Southeast Asia, by comparison, remains investable but more uneven. Capital is available, yet increasingly reserved for businesses that can show regional defensibility, disciplined burn, and credible unit economics. The era of easy narratives is over.

For founders, that means less room for theatrics and more pressure to build substance. For investors, it means the India versus Southeast Asia conversation is no longer just about growth rates or demographics. It is about which ecosystems can convert innovation into durable liquidity.
Right now, India looks bruised but functional. Southeast Asia still looks promising but constrained.

And in venture capital, functionality tends to win.

The post India is slowing down but Southeast Asia is falling behind faster appeared first on e27.

OnMic, the Vietnamese social-audio startup that once tried to build a local answer to Clubhouse, is shutting down.

In a LinkedIn post, co-founder Trung Nguyen said: “Today, we’re making a difficult announcement: we will be shutting down OnMic.” He added that the platform had been born during COVID-19, when the team wanted “to help people feel heard, connected, and less alone through audio”.

It is a short statement, and notably light on detail. There is no mention of runway, user numbers at shutdown, acquisition talks, or a strategic pivot.
But the closure is still telling. OnMic’s rise and fall say as much about the limits of social audio as they do about the realities of building a consumer internet startup in Vietnam.

Also Read: The fundable founder trap: How to build a business that survives, not just one that raises

Back in December 2021, e27 reported that OnMic had raised an undisclosed seed round from Touchstone Partners, a Vietnam-focused venture capital firm. At the time, the startup presented itself as a voice-chat and streaming platform for Vietnam’s young population. Founded in June 2021 by Khanh Nguyen, Lam Kim, and Trung Nguyen, it offered live voice rooms with no video and minimal text, covering topics from spirituality and dating to job counselling and financial advice.

It was a bet that the intimacy of audio could become a durable consumer habit in Vietnam.

That bet has now ended.

A startup built in the shadow of lockdown

Timing was central to OnMic’s story. It launched in the middle of the pandemic, when live audio briefly looked like one of tech’s hottest frontiers. Clubhouse had exploded globally. Twitter rolled out Spaces. Spotify, Telegram, Discord, and Meta all moved to capture some version of the format. Venture capital rushed in. Audio was framed as a lighter, more authentic alternative to polished video and algorithm-heavy feeds.

OnMic entered that moment with a local spin. Unlike Clubhouse, which in its early days leaned heavily on exclusivity, tech circles and celebrity-adjacent conversations, OnMic targeted Gen Z users in Vietnam and pushed a more grassroots model. In its 2021 fundraising announcement, the company said it was building community not through celebrities but through “sharing authentically the ups and downs of life, love, careers and struggles”.

That positioning mattered. Vietnam’s digital economy is young, mobile-first and socially driven. OnMic claimed early traction, saying it had racked up more than 11 million live minutes and more than 20,000 programmes since launch. It also said growth was 100 per cent organic, driven by micro-KOLs and their communities.

For a while, that looked like a plausible local wedge.
The problem is that a wedge is not the same as a business.

Why OnMic probably shut down

OnMic has not publicly laid out the reasons for its closure beyond the emotional farewell. So any diagnosis has to remain an informed inference rather than a definitive account. Even so, several structural pressures stand out.

1. The pandemic tailwind disappeared: Social audio was a lockdown product as much as a product category. It thrived when people were stuck indoors, over-socialised online, and willing to spend time in experimental digital communities. Once physical life resumed, the novelty weakened. Audio rooms demand attention in real time. That is a harder habit to sustain than scrolling short videos on demand.

2. Monetisation was always difficult: Live audio can be intimate, but intimacy does not automatically convert into revenue. Unlike video, it offers fewer obvious advertising surfaces. Unlike SaaS, it does not benefit from straightforward subscription logic unless users are deeply attached to specific creators or communities. A platform like OnMic needed to solve both engagement and monetisation at once, which is rarely kind to early-stage consumer startups.

3. Creator retention is expensive: Platforms built on user-generated content live and die by creator energy. OnMic’s early growth was reportedly driven by micro-KOLs, but keeping creators active over time requires better tools, clearer monetisation, and stronger audience conversion. If creators can build larger audiences on TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, or even podcasts distributed via Spotify and Apple, a standalone audio platform starts to look like extra work for an uncertain return.

4. Vietnam is digital-first, but highly competitive: Vietnam has strong smartphone adoption and a young online population, but consumer attention is brutally contested. TikTok dominates short-form entertainment. YouTube remains massive. Facebook is still deeply embedded. Messaging and community behaviour often run through apps that already have enormous scale. A specialist live-audio app has to fight for both time and habit in a crowded field.

5. Funding conditions turned colder: OnMic raised investments during a period when capital was still chasing consumer experiments. The market has changed sharply since then. Southeast Asia’s venture scene has become more selective, and securing later-stage funding has become harder.

Investors now demand clearer paths to revenue. For niche consumer platforms without obvious monetisation, that funding environment can become suffocating.

Also Read: “There’s no excuse”: Aqua-Spark calls out eFishery’s deception

In short, OnMic was trying to scale a difficult format in a market where user enthusiasm may have been real, but durable economics were far less certain.

OnMic versus Clubhouse: similar format, different market

The easiest label for OnMic was always “Vietnam’s Clubhouse”. It was not entirely wrong, but it was incomplete.

Both platforms were built around live voice rooms, low-friction participation, and the idea that people do not always need cameras or polished content to connect. Both leaned into spontaneity. Both also emerged in a pandemic context where digital companionship had become a category of its own.

But there were important differences.

Clubhouse began as a global, invite-only network with strong elite signalling. It grew through scarcity, Silicon Valley chatter and celebrity drop-ins. Its early appeal was less “community therapy” and more “digital salon”.

OnMic, by contrast, appears to have gone after a more localised and emotionally grounded use case. It focused on Vietnamese-language rooms, younger communities and everyday subjects such as relationships, spirituality and career struggles. It was not trying to be the app where global tech investors listened to Marc Andreessen. It was trying to be the app where ordinary young Vietnamese users talked.

That local relevance may have helped OnMic initially. But Clubhouse’s broader trajectory also offered a warning: if even the global category leader struggled to turn hype into durable growth, smaller local clones faced even steeper odds.

How Clubhouse makes money and why that matters

Clubhouse’s own monetisation journey helps explain the challenge.
The company experimented with creator payments, ticketed events, and other creator-led monetisation features. It also explored subscriptions and community support tools. But public evidence suggests Clubhouse never built a large, stable revenue engine on the scale of major ad-driven social platforms. It relied heavily, especially in its early years, on venture backing while searching for a business model that could match user behaviour.

That matters because OnMic was operating in an even tougher environment. Vietnam’s digital advertising market is growing, but monetisation per user is lower than in the US. Consumer willingness to pay for niche social products is also less straightforward. If Clubhouse struggled to build a robust business in larger markets with global brand recognition, OnMic’s path would have been narrower still.

Was the OnMic idea scalable in Vietnam?

As a feature or community layer, perhaps. As a standalone venture-scale consumer platform, the answer looks far less convincing.

Vietnam absolutely has the ingredients for strong digital content businesses: a young population, high mobile usage, improving digital payments, and a growing creator economy. Audio itself is not the issue. Podcasts, audiobooks, and conversational content can work. Players such as Fonos have already shown that there is demand for structured audio products.

But live social audio is a harder proposition.

It depends on:

• constant creator supply,
• recurring real-time attendance,
• careful moderation,
• healthy community culture,
• monetisation that does not alienate users too early.

That is a demanding stack. It becomes even harder in a market where visual content is dominant and where large horizontal platforms already own user attention. OnMic’s idea may have been scalable to a niche, but scaling to a large, durable, venture-style outcome in Vietnam alone was always going to be difficult.

What the shutdown says about Vietnam’s startup market

OnMic’s closure does not mean Vietnam’s startup ecosystem is weak. Far from it. Vietnam remains one of Southeast Asia’s most compelling long-term markets, supported by strong digital adoption, a growing middle class, improving technical talent and a government that broadly wants the innovation economy to expand.

But the ecosystem is also going through the same discipline cycle seen across the region.

The easy-money era has ended. Investors are more cautious. Consumer startups without obvious monetisation face tougher scrutiny. Founders are being pushed towards capital efficiency, clearer differentiation and sectors with stronger revenue logic, including fintech infrastructure, enterprise software, logistics, climate and applied AI.

Vietnam still produces ambitious founders and serious companies. What is less likely to be rewarded now is category enthusiasm unsupported by economics.

That is what makes OnMic’s shutdown more than a single startup story. It is a reminder that product-market fit during an unusual moment, especially a global lockdown, is not the same as long-term market fit. Social audio briefly looked like the future. In reality, it turned out to be a mood, a use case and, for some startups, a window that closed faster than expected.

OnMic managed to catch that window. It just could not keep it open.

The post From hype to silence: Why Vietnam’s Clubhouse-like app OnMic couldn’t survive appeared first on e27.

Singapore-based AI health tech company injewelme has closed a US$1.2 million funding round led by Catalytic Capital for Climate and Health (C3H), a catalytic vehicle of Temasek Trust, with co-investment from Richardson Family (RF), a UK-based family office.

The capital will be used to accelerate the development of injewelme’s proprietary Deep Health Vision (DHV) technology and support its commercial expansion across Southeast Asia.

injewelme’s DHV platform uses remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) to measure more than 20 vital health parameters — including heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen saturation via a standard camera in approximately 30 seconds, requiring no physical contact with the patient. Powered by in-house software and predictive AI models, the company said the system has achieved 95 per cent detection accuracy in real-world pilot programmes.

The new funding will enable injewelme to broaden the DHV platform’s capabilities, adding measurement of blood glucose, stress index, fatigue and hydration levels. A particular focus will be heat stress detection, a capability the company says is increasingly relevant as climate change intensifies physiological strain on workers and communities in tropical environments.

Ryan Tan, Head of C3H, said the technology addresses a pressing gap at the intersection of climate and public health. “A rise in climate-related stressors will result in increased physiological strain on individuals and communities,” he said. “We are pleased to support injewelme in the deployment and further development of their technology to anticipate and address the impact of heat-related stress.”

Also Read: Why corporate mental health fails and how AI can fix it

The DHV system has already been trialled through SingHealth Polyclinics and in private-sector settings in Singapore, and is currently being evaluated for deployment in healthcare, eldercare, insurance and workforce safety. SJ Integrated Solutions, a business line under SJ Group that delivers fitness and wellness programmes at active ageing centres, has used the technology as a contactless pre-activity screening tool, reporting that screening time fell by around 50 per cent compared with manual processes.

Koh Yong Jin, Director of Fitness and Wellness at SJ Group’s Integrated Solutions division, said the platform had improved both efficiency and safety by flagging individuals who may not be physically ready for exercise, allowing staff to focus on delivering a more inclusive experience for clients.

Digital impact marketplace Co-Axis, which connects funders with social and environmental impact opportunities, facilitated the introduction between injewelme and the round’s investors. Richardson Family’s participation forms part of a previously announced commitment of S$250,000 over two years to co-fund impact opportunities curated through Co-Axis, with support from C3H.

As a strategic partner, C3H will also provide injewelme with access to networks across the Temasek Trust ecosystem to help accelerate its commercial deployments and inform product development.

James Moon, Founder and Chief Executive of injewelme, said the financing would advance the company’s mission to deliver proactive, data-driven health monitoring at scale. “Beyond one-time health snapshots, we aim to enable anyone to easily and continuously track their health in everyday life, unlocking long-term health insights and advancing AI-driven predictive, preventive care,” he said.

The company intends to use the funds to deepen its customer base in Singapore while pursuing expansion into new Southeast Asian markets.

—

Image Credit: injewelme

The post Singapore AI health startup injewelme raises US$1.2M to scale contactless vital-signs technology appeared first on e27.

Board diversity in Asia has improved meaningfully over the last decade, especially in the areas of gender representation and sector experience. But as companies enter an era defined by AI, geopolitics, digital disruption, climate risk, and workforce shifts, a new gap has emerged — one that cannot be filled by gender diversity alone.

Asian boards are beginning to recognise that the next competitive frontier will depend on cognitive, generational, and digital diversity. In other words, boards need different ways of thinking, not just different categories of people. The question is no longer, “Do we have enough diversity?” but rather, “Do we have the right diversity for the next decade of risk and strategy?”

The diversity gap no one is talking about

While gender representation has increased — with many markets implementing voluntary targets — other forms of diversity remain significantly underdeveloped:

• Digital and AI literacy is low across most Asian boards
• Generational representation is narrow, with a heavy concentration of directors over 55
• Cognitive diversity (different problem-solving styles, perspectives, and thinking models) has not been systematically incorporated into board recruitment
• Boards remain dominated by finance, legal, and industry veterans, limiting exposure to customer, technology, and workforce transformation insights

This creates a strategic blind spot. Companies are facing disruptions that did not exist a decade ago, yet boards are still structured for the world of yesterday.

To put it simply: you cannot govern the future with a board built for the past.

Why cognitive diversity drives better governance and strategy

There is deep research supporting the value of cognitive diversity — the diversity of experiences, mental models, and approaches to problem solving.

Boards with high cognitive diversity demonstrate:

• 20-30 per cent better performance in crisis navigation
• Stronger challenge culture, leading to fewer governance failures
• More robust strategic scenario planning
• Improved resilience during volatile market conditions

When boards include directors with backgrounds in technology, customer experience, geopolitics, sustainability, and human capital strategy, management receives stronger oversight and more innovative challenge.

Homogeneous boards may be harmonious — but they are rarely high-performing.

Also Read: Why the future of AI needs more of diversity and the arts

The skills Asian boards will need by 2030

The next wave of corporate leadership demands a board that is structurally different from today. By 2030, boards will prioritise directors who bring:

• Digital and AI literacy: Not coding skills — but understanding how AI works, what risks it creates, how it shifts competitors, and how it transforms business models.
• ESG and climate competence: Climate risk, energy transition, and supply chain ethics are strategic, not compliance matters.
• Geopolitical understanding: Boards must interpret macro volatility, trade fragmentation, technology bifurcation, and regional risk dynamics.
• Human capital and talent strategy: Automation, workforce redesign, leadership succession, and cultural health are now enterprise risks.
• Customer and experience insight: Digital behaviour, platform ecosystems, and data-driven engagement must inform board conversations.

Very few boards today cover all five areas. That gap is a governance risk.

How boards can reframe diversity: A practical framework

Boards often approach diversity reactively — filling a gap when it becomes visible. The future requires more intentionality.

Here is a structured roadmap for chairs and nomination committees:

Redesign the board skills matrix: Move beyond industry and functional experience. Include:

• AI & data
• Cybersecurity
• ESG/Climate
• Digital customer behaviour
• Supply chain resilience
• Human capital strategy

Also Read: Leading a multigenerational workforce: How Singapore’s employers can turn diversity into strength

Introduce term limits and staggered refresh cycles: Diversity without turnover is impossible. Term limits — even soft ones — create natural renewal.

Build a talent pipeline of future directors: Start identifying potential first-time directors from:

• Technology companies
• High-growth digital firms
• Sustainability and climate expertise
• International markets
• Younger executives with transformation experience

Conduct annual board capability reviews: Not just performance evaluations, but assessments of whether the board still matches the strategic direction of the company.

Focus on diversity of thought, not just identity: Identity diversity is necessary, but not sufficient. The strategic value lies in how people think — not just who they are.

The future: Diversity as a competitive advantage, not a compliance requirement

Boards that embrace Diversity 2.0 will have a far greater capacity to manage complexity, innovate under pressure, and guide companies through disruption.

This shift is not about political correctness or optics. It is about strengthening governance and future-proofing organisations.

A board that includes different generations, different thinking models, different industry exposures, and different lived experiences will be better equipped to:

• Anticipate risks
• Challenge assumptions
• Navigate ambiguity
• Create strategic resilience

As Asia enters a decade defined by uncertainty, boards must move beyond representation to true capability diversity.

The question chairpersons should be asking is no longer, “Do we have diverse directors?”

The real question is, “Do we have the diversity of thinking required to steward the business into the future?”

This article was first published on The Boardroom Edge.

—

The post Board diversity 2.0: The strategic advantage Asian boards are still underestimating appeared first on e27.