We have entered a cautious stretch. Bitcoin has slipped 0.72 per cent over the past 24 hours to US$76,697.14. Ethereum has fallen harder, down 1.95 per cent to US$2,474.93. This pullback reflects a broader market decline of 0.99 per cent. The dominant force behind this move is macro uncertainty ahead of the Federal Reserve’s September 16 interest rate decision.

Traders are pricing in a high probability of a rate hike. That expectation has triggered risk-off sentiment across financial markets. A cascade of leveraged long liquidations has added pressure. My own view is simple. This is not a crypto story right now. This is a Fed story.

Bitcoin and Ethereum are trading as risk assets. Their next major move will come from the central bank, not from their own networks or adoption trends. The market-wide nature of this decline matters. Bitcoin does not show a unique weakness. It follows the same liquidity and policy expectations that shape other risk assets. That is why I focus on the Fed rather than on crypto-specific headlines.

Bitcoin’s decline looks modest on its own. Its alignment with the broader market matters more. The total crypto market cap has fallen 0.99 per cent. Bitcoin’s 0.72 per cent drop closely mirrors that move. This correlation tells me Bitcoin is following market beta rather than reacting to a coin-specific catalyst. The derivatives data shows a sharp spike in liquidations, up 1,331.93 per cent in 24 hours. That number sounds dramatic. This is a symptom of the sell-off and a leverage flush, not the primary cause. Forced selling from over-leveraged longs can accelerate a decline. It does not create the original spark. The provided data did not show a clear secondary driver for Bitcoin. I found no specific news event, exploit, or technical failure that explains the move independently of the macro backdrop.

The near-term path for Bitcoin depends on one level. The US$76,000 support zone is critical. If Bitcoin holds above US$76,000, a rebound toward US$78,500 is possible. A break below that support would risk a drop to US$74,000. This makes the Fed’s decision and its commentary on September 16 the key watch point. The market is in a holding pattern. Bitcoin sits at the centre of that wait. There is no need to overinterpret the small percentage decline. The larger signal is that traders have reduced risk ahead of a major policy event. Liquidity expectations and rate projections now matter more than short-term chart patterns for the largest cryptocurrency.

Also Read: Bitcoin drops to US$76,796.54 as 91% S&P 500 correlation exposes crypto’s macro trap

Ethereum faces a more difficult setup. Its 1.95 per cent decline to US$2,474.93 means it has underperformed a slightly weaker Bitcoin. The primary driver is a technical rejection at the US$2,530 to US$2,550 resistance zone. That area has drawn attention from multiple analysts as a critical ceiling. Ethereum tested it and failed to break through. This rejection occurred alongside rising Treasury yields and tightening macro expectations for a Fed rate hike. Those forces dampen appetite for risk assets like crypto. The provided data showed no clear coin-specific catalyst.

The move aligns with broader macro-driven caution. In my view, Ethereum’s underperformance makes sense. It faced a technical barrier and macro headwinds at the same time. Ethereum’s failure at resistance carries more weight because it happened during a macro-sensitive window. Traders already faced rising Treasury yields. A high probability of a Fed rate hike made them less willing to chase a breakout. The rejection at US$2,530 to US$2,550 gave them a reason to sell.

Forced selling from derivative liquidations amplified Ethereum’s decline. Liquidations wiped out over US$8.9M in ETH positions recently. One post highlighted US$8.9M in ETH liquidations at the US$2,523 level. The majority came from longs. That kind of forced selling creates short-term downward pressure. It does not necessarily reflect a fundamental shift in sentiment. A flush of over-leveraged traders exacerbated the drop. This is a common feature in volatile markets. This as a leverage cleanout rather than a verdict on Ethereum’s long-term value. The technical rejection gave the initial push. The liquidation cascade turned that push into a faster slide.

The near-term outlook for Ethereum is neutral to bearish while it remains below US$2,550. If ETH holds above the US$2,450 support, it could regroup for another attempt at the US$2,550 resistance. A decisive break below US$2,450 would target the next significant support zone around US$2,350 to US$2,400. Short-term moving averages converge in that zone. The critical event remains the Federal Open Market Committee meeting concluding September 16.

Market-implied probability for a hike is high. That creates uncertainty. The Fed’s policy statement and any changes in rate projections will likely drive the next significant move across crypto markets. My bias here is cautious. Ethereum needs to defend US$2,450 through the Fed announcement. A hawkish surprise could trigger a deeper correction toward US$2,350. I would treat the US$2,450 support as the line that separates a pause from a deeper move. A hold there keeps the current range intact. A break there shifts the focus to US$2,350 to US$2,400.

Also Read: Will Bitcoin hold US$77,000 or drag the market to US$2.51T? The September 10 answer

My point of view on this entire setup is that the crypto market is trading on macro beta, not on its own fundamentals. Bitcoin’s slight dip is a function of macro-driven, market-wide risk aversion ahead of a key Fed meeting. A flush of leveraged long positions amplified that move. The move lacks a distinct, coin-specific catalyst.

Ethereum’s pullback combines a failed technical breakout with pre-Fed risk reduction. Derivative liquidations added fuel. I would watch Bitcoin at US$76,000 and Ethereum at US$2,450. Those levels define the near-term battle lines. If support holds, both assets can attempt rebounds. Bitcoin could target US$78,500. Ethereum could retest US$2,550. If support breaks, Bitcoin risks US$74,000. Ethereum risks US$2,350 to US$2,400.

The broader market outlook is neutral to cautious for Bitcoin and cautiously bearish for Ethereum. The Fed’s interest rate decision and forward guidance on September 16 will set the tone for Bitcoin and other risk assets. Until that event passes, I expect choppy, headline-driven price action. The modest Bitcoin decline does not alarm me on its own. The Ethereum underperformance deserves more attention because it combines technical rejection, macro pressure, and a leverage flush. Both assets are waiting on the same catalyst. That catalyst is the Fed. The market has already moved into a defensive stance. Now it waits to see whether the central bank confirms or challenges that caution.

—

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 WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post The Fed is the real crypto story, Bitcoin and Ethereum are just following appeared first on e27.

Tesla has formally established a Vietnamese subsidiary, marking a small but closely watched step into one of Southeast Asia’s most dynamic electric vehicle markets.

According to a filing on Vietnam’s National Business Registration Portal dated September 12, Tesla Motors Vietnam LLC has been incorporated in Ho Chi Minh City with charter capital of VND77.7 billion (about US$3 million).

Also Read: Electric vehicles at the crossroads: Trust vs innovation

The company is registered across seven business sectors, including wholesale and retail sales of vehicles, sales of vehicle parts, sales of machinery, and other wholesale and retail activities.

The filing does not confirm when Tesla vehicles will be sold in Vietnam, whether the company plans to open showrooms or service centres, or if it will begin with imports before considering deeper operations. But for a company that has so far had only limited direct exposure to much of Southeast Asia, the creation of a local entity is a meaningful signal.

Tesla Motors Vietnam has three legal representatives: David Jon Feinstein, listed as president; Isabel Ching Fan, listed as general director; and Nguyen Manh Hung, listed as assistant to the general director. Feinstein is a senior Tesla executive, and the filing lists his address as 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas, the US headquarters of Tesla.

The move comes at a time when Vietnam’s automotive market is being reshaped by electrification, local industrial policy, and the rapid rise of homegrown EV maker VinFast.

Why Vietnam matters

Vietnam is not Southeast Asia’s largest car market. Indonesia and Thailand remain far bigger in terms of vehicle sales and manufacturing capacity. Yet Vietnam has become one of the region’s most interesting EV markets because electric cars are already visible on the road, helped by VinFast’s aggressive rollout of vehicles, charging infrastructure, and taxi fleets.

Automobile sales in Vietnam reached 48,484 units in August 2026, down 18 per cent from July, according to the data cited in the filing-related source material. VinFast accounted for 20,161 units, or 42 per cent of the total. That figure excludes imported cars, but it still underlines how unusual Vietnam has become: a Southeast Asian market where an EV-focused domestic brand is already a major force in overall vehicle sales.

For Tesla, Vietnam presents both an opportunity and a complication. On one hand, the country has a young, increasingly urban consumer base, rising incomes, and a government that has shown interest in cleaner transport and industrial upgrading. On the other, its car market remains price-sensitive, import duties and taxes can affect affordability, and public charging access outside major cities is still developing.

Tesla’s global playbook has typically relied on direct sales, strong brand recognition, over-the-air software updates, and an expanding charging ecosystem. In Vietnam, however, it will be entering a market where the most important EV infrastructure advantage currently belongs to VinFast, not to foreign entrants.

A local filing, not yet a full launch

The incorporation of Tesla Motors Vietnam should not be read as an immediate product launch. Multinationals often establish local companies before making decisions on distribution, hiring, compliance, supply chain arrangements, or after-sales service. In the automotive sector, those steps matter especially because buyers need confidence that vehicles can be serviced, repaired, and supported over many years.

Still, the scope of Tesla’s registered business activities is notable. The company is not only registered for vehicle sales, but also for vehicle parts and machinery-related activities. That gives it room to operate beyond simple brand representation if it chooses to do so.

Also Read: Electrifying Southeast Asia: Unleashing the radical potential of electric vehicles

For Vietnamese consumers, Tesla is already a familiar name, even if official access has been limited. Imported Tesla cars have appeared in the country through private channels, usually at prices that reflect the cost of importing a premium foreign EV into a regulated market. A direct presence could, over time, improve pricing transparency, servicing, software support, and warranty coverage.

The bigger question is whether Tesla sees Vietnam as a standalone sales market, a node in a broader Southeast Asian strategy, or both.

Tesla has already made moves in parts of the region, including Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Southeast Asia is becoming more important to global automakers as EV adoption rises from a low base and governments compete to attract investment in batteries, assembly, and charging networks. Thailand has positioned itself as a regional EV production hub, while Indonesia has used its nickel reserves to court battery and EV manufacturers. Vietnam’s edge is different: it has a domestic EV champion that has created local market momentum.

The competitive field

If Tesla begins selling directly in Vietnam, it will face a very different competitive environment from its early days in the US or Europe. VinFast is the obvious local rival, with a wide domestic footprint, strong brand visibility, and an expanding EV line-up. It also benefits from local familiarity and infrastructure, particularly charging.

Chinese automakers are another major factor. BYD, which has become one of the world’s largest EV makers, is expanding across Southeast Asia and has been increasingly active in markets such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. Other Chinese brands, including SAIC-backed MG and Wuling, have shown that more affordable EVs can gain traction among Southeast Asian buyers who may be curious about electrification but unwilling to pay premium prices.

Traditional automakers cannot be ignored either. Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, and BMW all have varying degrees of EV or hybrid presence in the region. In Vietnam, as elsewhere in Southeast Asia, hybrids may remain attractive for consumers who want lower fuel consumption without depending fully on charging infrastructure.

Tesla’s advantage is brand power. Its challenge is localisation. Vietnamese buyers are not only comparing acceleration, software, or range; they are also comparing price, service access, financing options, charging convenience, and resale value.

Southeast Asia’s EV race gets more crowded

Tesla’s Vietnam filing also reflects a wider shift in Southeast Asia’s automotive sector. For years, the region was seen mainly as a market for petrol cars, motorcycles, and later ride-hailing. EV adoption was slowed by cost, limited charging, and uncertainty over battery performance in tropical climates.

That picture is changing. Governments are offering incentives, charging networks are growing, and fleet operators are experimenting with electric taxis, vans, and two-wheelers. Consumers are also becoming more familiar with EV ownership as more models enter the market at different price points.

Vietnam sits at the centre of this transition because it is not waiting for foreign brands alone to create demand. VinFast’s domestic push has effectively educated the market, normalised EVs, and forced competitors to think more seriously about the country. In that sense, Tesla may benefit from groundwork laid by a rival.

Also Read: Thinking out loud: Are electric vehicles as sustainable as we believe?

But entering a market after EV awareness has already formed also means Tesla cannot define the category on its own. In Vietnam, electric mobility already has a local face. Tesla will need to show not just that it is a global EV leader, but that it can meet the everyday needs of Vietnamese drivers.

For now, the filing is a beginning rather than a launch. Yet it is the clearest sign so far that Tesla is preparing for a more formal role in Vietnam’s auto market. If that turns into direct sales, Vietnam’s EV race could move from a domestic-led story to a more open contest between local ambition, Chinese scale, and American brand power.

The post Tesla establishes Vietnam subsidiary as EV rivalry with VinFast looms appeared first on e27.

MoneyHero’s latest earnings tell two stories. The first is the one the NASDAQ-listed fintech aggregator wants investors to focus on: artificial intelligence automation, better approval rates, and a more efficient operating model. The second sits deeper in the numbers: falling revenue, weaker user traffic, wider losses, and a sharp rise in cash incentives used to keep transaction activity from slipping.

The Singapore-based company, which operates financial comparison and application platforms across markets including Singapore, Hong Kong and the Philippines, reported revenue of US$15.8 million for the second quarter of 2026, down 13 per cent from US$18.0 million a year earlier. For the first half, revenue was almost flat at US$32.3 million.

Also Read: MoneyHero swings to profit, but only on cost cuts and FX gains

For a consumer fintech platform in Southeast Asia, where customer acquisition has long been expensive and loyalty is thin, that would be notable on its own. But MoneyHero’s disclosures show the pressure is not just on headline revenue. It is also on the mechanics of how the company is sustaining activity on its platform.

Incentives rise as reported revenue falls

Management attributed part of the second-quarter revenue decline to higher cash rewards offered to users in Singapore and Hong Kong. Under IFRS 15 accounting rules, such rewards are deducted from gross revenue rather than booked as marketing expenses. In simple terms, if MoneyHero pays users cash to complete financial product applications, those payouts reduce the revenue it reports.

To provide what it says is a fuller picture of platform activity, the company introduced “Total Transaction Value”, or TTV, a non-standard metric that adds cash rewards back to revenue. On that basis, MoneyHero said platform volume was broadly flat year on year at US$20.9 million.

The problem is the cost of holding that line. Cash rewards reached US$5.1 million in the quarter, up 77 per cent from US$2.9 million a year earlier. In Singapore alone, cash handouts totalled US$4.2 million, while reported revenue in the market fell 20 per cent year on year.

That matters because aggregators such as MoneyHero sit between consumers and financial institutions, earning fees when users apply for or take up products such as credit cards, loans and insurance. The model works best when platforms can attract users cheaply and convert them efficiently. Heavy incentives can boost applications, but they also raise the question of whether demand is organic or being rented with cash.

Core operations swing into the red

MoneyHero’s executive commentary pointed to foreign exchange fluctuations as a key reason for the company’s US$1.2 million net loss in the quarter. Currency movements can be meaningful for a company operating across several Asian markets and reporting in US dollars.

Still, the operating line shows a more direct deterioration. MoneyHero swung to an operating loss in the second quarter of 2025, moving from operating income of US$366,000 to an operating loss of US$2.52 million in the latest quarter. For the first half of 2026, its net loss widened to US$7.95 million, compared with US$2.23 million a year earlier, an increase of 256 per cent. Cash reserves declined by US$3.0 million to US$28.2 million.

The company’s Credit Cards segment, historically a major revenue engine for comparison platforms in Asia, also weakened. Revenue from the segment fell 18 per cent year on year to US$8.9 million. The Philippines, where MoneyHero has built a large registered user base, saw revenue fall 43 per cent to US$969,000.

This mix is important. Credit cards have often been among the most lucrative products for financial comparison sites because banks are willing to pay for qualified leads and approved customers. But the category is sensitive to bank appetite, consumer credit conditions and competition from direct bank channels, digital banks and superapps.

Traffic decline comes with a methodology change

MoneyHero highlighted an improvement in application approval rates, which rose by nine percentage points to 48 per cent. That suggests the company is sending higher-quality users to financial partners, a useful metric in a market where banks do not want low-intent traffic clogging their funnels.

But the top of the funnel shrank sharply. Monthly unique users fell 30 per cent year on year to 3.7 million. Total traffic dropped 29 per cent to 11.8 million sessions. Platform clicks fell 35 per cent to 1.31 million, while total applications declined 30 per cent to 310,000.

Also Read: Decoding MoneyHero’s Q1: The profit push amid shrinking revenues

Management framed the decline as part of a deliberate shift away from low-intent paid traffic towards users more likely to convert. That strategy is plausible: in a tighter funding environment, many Southeast Asian fintechs have shifted from growth-at-all-costs to profitability and better unit economics.

However, a footnote complicates the comparison. Effective April 1, 2026, MoneyHero updated its analytics filters to exclude non-human automated bot traffic. The company did not recast prior periods. That means previous traffic figures may have included automated activity that is now filtered out, making year-on-year traffic comparisons less clean.

For investors and partners, the distinction matters. If traffic is down because MoneyHero cut wasteful acquisition spend, that may be a healthy reset. If prior traffic included bot activity, earlier scale claims were less meaningful than they appeared. If both are true, the company is now being measured against a clearer but smaller audience base.

A large member base, but uneven monetisation

MoneyHero said it reached 10.1 million registered members, up 17 per cent year on year. On paper, that gives the company one of the larger consumer finance audiences in the region.

The distribution, however, is uneven. Around 7.1 million members, or roughly 70 per cent of the total, are in the Philippines. Yet the market generated less than 6.2 per cent of total revenue in the quarter. Hong Kong, by contrast, contributed about half of platform revenue while accounting for only 1.1 million members, or 10.6 per cent of the member base.

This is a familiar Southeast Asian internet problem. User numbers in emerging markets can look impressive, but monetisation varies sharply by income levels, financial product penetration, bank commission structures and consumer purchasing power. The Philippines offers long-term promise, given its young population and rising digital finance adoption, but turning registered users into high-value financial product customers is a different challenge.

Rivals are fighting for the same high-intent users

MoneyHero is not alone in chasing this opportunity. In Singapore, it competes with MoneySmart and other financial comparison platforms for credit card, insurance and loan customers. Across the wider region, players such as RinggitPlus in Malaysia and global comparison brands including Finder operate in overlapping segments, while banks, digital banks and brokerages increasingly acquire customers directly through their own apps.

The competitive pressure is not just about web traffic. It is about who owns high-intent financial decisions at the moment a consumer is ready to apply. That is why cash rewards have become common in markets such as Singapore, where affluent consumers compare sign-up gifts as closely as interest rates or card benefits. The risk is that incentives become an arms race, squeezing margins for platforms that lack differentiated products or proprietary distribution.

Also Read: Nasdaq-listed MoneyHero slashes 80 jobs to ‘streamline operations’

MoneyHero is betting that automation can help offset those pressures. The company pointed to AI-driven engineering savings, including a voucher management system built by a single engineer in under three months. Such gains may help lower internal costs and speed up product delivery.

But software efficiency alone does not solve the central question raised by the quarter: can MoneyHero grow revenue sustainably without paying ever-larger rewards to bring users through the door? Its approval-rate improvement suggests the company may be attracting better users. Its falling traffic, shrinking credit card revenue and wider losses show the transition is far from complete.

For Southeast Asia’s fintech ecosystem, the results are a reminder that aggregators remain useful but difficult businesses. They can simplify financial choice for consumers and provide banks with digital distribution. Yet when acquisition costs rise and users chase the best giveaway, the economics can turn quickly. MoneyHero’s second quarter shows that in this market, scale is only valuable if it can be converted profitably.

The post MoneyHero’s Q2 exposes the rising cost of fintech growth in Southeast Asia appeared first on e27.

For many Southeast Asian merchants, selling overseas has never been a question of demand alone. A small brand in Vietnam, Indonesia or Thailand may find buyers on Amazon, eBay, Shopify or social platforms, but the harder problem begins after checkout: paperwork, duties, customs clearance, tracking gaps and freight rates designed for companies shipping far larger volumes.

Amilo is trying to turn that messy middle into a single operating layer. The Singapore-based third-party logistics provider has completed and integrated its fourth acquisition in four years, folding cross-border specialist SG Link into its regional network. SG Link now operates as ShipX and connects merchants in Southeast Asia to more than 220 destinations globally.

Also Read: J&T Express leans on Southeast Asia as China parcel growth cools

The financial terms of the deal were not disclosed. But the acquisition is less notable as a standalone transaction than as another marker of how Amilo is building: buying operators with specific capabilities, then moving them onto its own logistics and technology stack rather than running them as separate businesses.

A cross-border layer for regional sellers

Founded to serve Southeast Asian commerce, Amilo provides warehousing, fulfilment and delivery services through a proprietary platform covering marketplaces, order management, warehouse operations, transport, customs and delivery management. The company says it integrates with major marketplaces including Amazon, eBay and Shopify.

SG Link, now ShipX, adds a piece that many domestic fulfilment providers struggle to offer at depth: end-to-end international shipping for smaller exporters. The business has operated in Vietnam since 2020 and focuses on merchants that lack the shipment volumes needed to negotiate strong freight terms on their own.

By pooling demand, ShipX can help smaller sellers access better shipping economics, while handling customs documentation, duties and tracking through a more unified process. That matters in a region where many small and mid-sized businesses can find overseas customers online but still face old-fashioned logistics bottlenecks once goods leave the warehouse.

Cross-border commerce is also becoming more important as Southeast Asian sellers look beyond crowded domestic marketplaces. Platforms such as Shopee, Lazada and TikTok Shop have widened access to consumers, but exporting remains uneven. A merchant may be able to list products globally in minutes, yet still spend days dealing with tax codes, tariff changes, broker hand-offs and customer complaints when parcels disappear from view.

Amilo’s bet is that solving those problems requires more than a booking portal. It requires control over the operational rails behind it.

The acquisition playbook

The company describes its approach as a repeatable acquisition and integration model. Rather than buying logistics firms and leaving their systems intact, Amilo looks for businesses with something difficult to build from scratch: a customer base, a licence, a trade lane, a local network or a specialist capability. It then migrates them onto a single technology stack.

Also Read: Thai logistics unicorn Flash Express launches full services in the Philippines

Some acquired businesses needed a turnaround, while others needed a broader network to scale. The common thread, according to Amilo, is that they eventually operate on the same infrastructure instead of sitting beside one another on a group organisation chart.

“We have now proven our acquisition, integration and turnaround story four times in four years,” said Chris Revord, Head of Finance at Amilo. “With heavy AI usage across all functions, the platform keeps getting more robust — and we are extending it across the commerce and distribution space.”

That model reflects a wider shift in Southeast Asian logistics. The sector remains highly fragmented, with thousands of local providers strong in individual cities, corridors or services but weak across borders. For startups and mid-sized logistics players, building everything organically can be slow and capital-intensive. Buying capability is faster, but only if integration does not create more complexity.

This is where many logistics roll-ups stumble. Warehouses may run on different systems, fleets may follow different routing logic, and customs processes may depend on local expertise that is hard to standardise. Amilo is arguing that repeated integration makes each acquisition cheaper and faster because the target operating system does not change.

Whether that continues to hold as the company expands will be the test. Cross-border logistics is a low-error, low-margin business, and mistakes are visible quickly: delayed parcels, inaccurate duty estimates and poor customer updates can damage both merchant trust and marketplace ratings.

Why ShipX matters

For Amilo, ShipX brings expertise in one of the harder segments of logistics. Domestic fulfilment is challenging, but cross-border shipping adds more variables: changing tariff regimes, fuel-price pressure, destination-specific documentation and fragmented last-mile partners in receiving markets.

“SG Link, now ShipX, is an amazing team,” said Arun Mambully, founder and CEO of Amilo. “Their knowledge of complex cross-border processes is a core pillar of our strategy of helping millions of ASEAN SMEs expand globally. Despite fuel-price and tariff-war pressure, our teams have come together very well and delivered positive growth in the first half of this year.”

The reference to tariffs and fuel costs is important. Cross-border shipping has become more volatile in recent years, affected by geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions and fluctuating air and sea freight prices. For smaller merchants, those changes can wipe out margins quickly if delivery costs or landed duties are misquoted.

A more integrated cross-border service could help sellers show clearer shipping costs to consumers, reduce failed deliveries and avoid surprise charges. It could also make it easier for merchants to test new markets without setting up overseas warehousing from day one.

Rivals in a crowded logistics field

Amilo is not alone in trying to own more of the commerce logistics chain. In Southeast Asia, Ninja Van has built one of the region’s largest delivery networks, alongside J&T Express and Flash Express, while Janio has long focused on cross-border logistics for e-commerce merchants. Global incumbents such as DHL eCommerce, FedEx, UPS and Aramex also serve exporters with international shipping, customs and fulfilment products. The difference Amilo is trying to claim lies in combining acquisitions, warehousing, marketplace integrations and cross-border shipping on one proprietary platform. That integrated pitch may appeal to growing sellers, though larger rivals still have advantages in scale, brand trust and global infrastructure.

AI on top of physical infrastructure

Amilo is also positioning the deal as a foundation for heavier use of artificial intelligence across logistics decisions. The company says the hard infrastructure — warehouses, delivery capacity, licences and border processes — has already been built or acquired, and that AI can now sit on top of those rails.

In practical terms, that could mean smarter routing, automated customs checks, better demand forecasting, exception handling and customer support agents that help merchants resolve delivery issues faster. But logistics is a sector where AI claims can easily run ahead of reality. Automation is useful only when the underlying process is stable; otherwise, it can simply accelerate errors.

Also Read: The great divide: How Southeast Asian SMEs are bridging the AI gap between survival and success

Amilo appears aware of that risk. Its argument is that it has first standardised the operating base, and only then layered intelligence onto it. Future acquisitions, it says, should integrate more quickly as more migration work becomes automated.

For Southeast Asian SMEs, the promise is straightforward: fewer systems, fewer intermediaries and fewer blind spots between a warehouse shelf at home and a customer abroad. For Amilo, the ShipX deal is another step towards becoming not just a logistics provider, but the connective tissue for regional merchants trying to sell to the world.

The post Amilo acquires SG Link to widen cross-border shipping for SEA sellers appeared first on e27.

AI is automating tasks that used to take hours for humans to do. It’s pushing some costs down and it’s making some teams more productive.

Don’t make the mistake, however, of thinking that using AI to do things more productively is enough to ensure your business has a competitive edge and succeeds.

If you strip away all the hype, you can look at AI as just the latest in a long line of technologies that help companies do things faster. What’s unique, though, is how quickly it has been adopted. It only took two years for about 40 per cent of US adults to begin using AI, which is twice as fast as the Internet, according to Harvard.

Rapid adoption is good news for the AI companies, but for you it means that your competitors are also benefitting from any productivity boosts you can obtain by using off-the-shelf AI to improve basic business tasks.

When all competitors improve their productivity in much the same way and at the same rate, productivity alone doesn’t give anyone a great advantage. Yes, AI is very good at helping you operate more efficiently. You can improve your logistics. You can create content. You can turn your data into insights.

The limitation is that your competitors can access the same AI tools and make the same improvements. Everyone gets more productive, but no one gets ahead. Business consultants call this the ‘Red Queen Effect’. Just like the Red Queen in the book, Through the Looking-Glass, you have to run as fast as you can just to stay in place.

To add further pressure, your customers may demand more results or lower costs because they also know that AI is making it cheaper for you to deliver your products and services. And because you’re using AI in the same ways as your competitors, you’re starting to look more and more like them. You stand apart even less.

Also Read: I built an AI that keeps receipts. The mistakes became the useful part

Thus, the picture is of a company that is working more productively. Yet, it is failing in its most important job, which is beating the competition.

How do we, then, use AI to help us achieve a real advantage over our competitors? If the answer is not in the realm of productivity, where is it?

Use AI to extend your strategic advantage

As valuable as efficiency is, it takes strategy to win. By strategy, I mean the way you differentiate yourself. It determines where you focus your energy and make your investments.

Also Read: The end of the universal a-player: Dynamic talent matching in the AI-driven supply chain

Let’s look at how this plays out in practice with some well-known companies. For example, Apple’s strategy is to make premium products combining both hardware and software. That provides a seamless user experience and keeps customers coming back.

Apple’s AI strategy thus should involve integrating the new technology directly into its hardware and software products. The result is to give consumers new tools within the Apple ecosystem, like writing tools and a better Siri, that reinforce Apple’s premium reputation and customer loyalty.

Here’s another example. Netflix competes on the depth of its library of bingeable content and its ability to suggest something you actually want to watch whenever you log in. Reinforcing those strategic advantages could mean using AI to improve the content suggestion engine and make it possible to create new hits more cheaply and quickly. That builds on Netflix’s two existing competitive advantages.

Competing companies that also produce phones and computers, or stream content, were already falling behind Apple and Netflix in these areas. By making their AI investments here, the two companies make it even harder for competitors to catch up.

Apple and Netflix reveal that the strategy for making effective use of artificial intelligence is to combine it with your business’s existing unique assets. These can include your domain expertise, proprietary data, and customer relationships. Off-the-shelf AI is available to everyone, but your unique assets constitute your moat. By using AI to extend them, you widen and deepen your moat.

One simple way to test your AI strategy is to ask yourself, if my competitors bought the same AI tools now, would I still have an advantage? If not, you probably don’t have a competitive AI strategy.

Strategy really isn’t that difficult to understand, but few companies so far have figured out how AI can help them implement their strategy and win in their markets. But this is exactly how you must invest in AI, to augment your business’s strategic advantages.

Don’t use AI just to run faster in place. Use it to extend the moat around your business by improving on the things your business already does better than anyone else.

—

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 WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

The post How to use AI to win (Hint: It has nothing to do with being more productive) appeared first on e27.