Month: October 2026

Bitcoin shifts from a speculative retail asset to an institutional cornerstone of global finance. Recent developments in sovereign wealth fund allocations, the creation of institutional financial products, and massive ETF inflows demonstrate a profound structural shift. The data reveals a market maturing rapidly, even as it grapples with inherent tensions between traditional financial co-option and cryptographic sovereignty.

Recognising the deep correlation between traditional financial markets and cryptocurrency markets allows us to see these institutional moves not as isolated events, but as a synchronised realignment of global capital. I consistently challenge mainstream narratives that dismiss this asset class, relying instead on independent analysis of on-chain data, derivatives volume, and macroeconomic indicators to form a clear picture of the future trajectory.

The inaugural Institutional Crypto Adoption Report by Bitwise Asset Management provides compelling evidence of this macroeconomic shift. At least one major sovereign wealth fund recently liquidated portions of its gold and foreign exchange reserves specifically to purchase Bitcoin. This action treats the asset as a direct substitute for traditional reserve holdings, validating the digital gold thesis at the highest levels of state finance.

Gold has served as the premier safe haven for centuries, making this direct substitution a monumental validation of cryptographic money as a legitimate store of value alongside traditional fiat reserves. The report also highlights remarkable conviction among large-scale holders. None of the 15 large institutions surveyed liquidated their positions during the severe 50 per cent price drawdown that occurred between late 2025 and mid 2026. This behaviour indicates the emergence of a structural, non-speculative source of demand.

Such conservative state-level validation suggests that the asset will experience reduced volatility over the long term, anchoring its value proposition firmly within global macroeconomic strategy rather than fleeting retail sentiment cycles. Traditional financial frameworks often attempt to apply outdated regulatory tests to decentralised systems, a practice I have long argued remains fundamentally unsuitable for cryptographic networks that operate outside conventional corporate hierarchies.

Also Read: Can Bitcoin hold US$82,000? Inside the security fear and macro storm

Beyond simple accumulation, institutions now actively build sophisticated capital markets around this digital asset. Research from TD Cowen following the Bitcoin Treasuries Conference outlines a clear evolution in corporate strategy. Firms now develop bitcoin-backed bonds, preferred shares, and advanced custody solutions.

Companies like Strategy continue to actively acquire the asset for their corporate treasuries, signaling a permanent allocation shift that moves Bitcoin from a speculative holding to a foundational balance-sheet asset. This financial engineering expands the network’s utility far beyond that of a simple spot asset. It creates new yield and financing mechanisms that appeal to a much broader spectrum of institutional portfolios. We must critically assess this integration.

Traditional finance often attempts to fit decentralised technology into familiar, centralised boxes to extract rent and exert control. The challenge lies in harnessing this institutional capital without sacrificing the decentralised architecture that gives the network its unique value and censorship resistance. True decentralisation requires us to remain vigilant against the centralising forces of traditional finance seeking to dominate the infrastructure and impose legacy compliance burdens that contradict the core ethos of peer-to-peer electronic cash.

Market liquidity and ETF flows currently serve as the most accurate indicators of investor sentiment, and recent data presents a striking picture of renewed institutional demand. United States spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded approximately US$2.4 billion in net inflows during the week ending around September 25. This represents the largest weekly influx since roughly US$2.7 billion in early October 2025, according to SoSoValue data. This single week successfully reversed a year-to-date deficit of approximately US$5.8 billion recorded in mid-July, pushing the 2026 net inflows to roughly US$0.9 billion.

Cumulative inflows since launch now hover near US$57.5 billion. BlackRock IBIT, Fidelity FBTC, and ARK 21Shares ARKB products dominated this activity, collectively accounting for over 90 per cent of weekly flows in some specific tallies. Consequently, spot funds now hold between US$108 billion and US$111 billion in assets. This constitutes roughly 6 per cent to 6.5 per cent of total market value.

This concentrated buying power successfully supported prices in the low to mid 80,000s, even as total cryptocurrency market capitalisation experienced slight dips near US$2.8 trillion and dominance held steady at approximately 58.7 per cent. Regulated funds have become a major structural buyer, cushioning drawdowns effectively and providing a reliable bid during periods of macroeconomic uncertainty, thereby decoupling the asset from pure retail sentiment cycles.

Also Read: Bitcoin dominance at 58.5% and the 55% line that still blocks altseason

Despite these strong aggregate numbers, the internal composition of this demand warrants careful scrutiny. The weekly inflow data reveals a heavily front-loaded pattern. Investors injected roughly US$999 million on Monday, but daily inflows shrank to approximately US$135 million by Friday. This represents an 80-90 per cent drop in daily momentum. Sustained positive flows will dictate the next market leg higher, not isolated blockbuster weeks.

Macroeconomic liquidity conditions heavily influence this dynamic. The recent surge coincided with United States Treasury plans to increase long-dated bond buybacks, which typically inject liquidity, while high yields and persistent geopolitical risks continue to pressure broader risk assets. Simultaneously, Ethereum, Solana, and XRP ETFs attracted hundreds of millions of dollars, indicating a gradual rotation of capital within the regulated crypto universe as investors diversify their exposure across multiple digital asset classes. Operational risks also remain ever-present.

The recent United States Attorney civil forfeiture case regarding a 2023 scam highlights this reality. Scammers used fraudulent text messages impersonating Coinbase to steal 33.7 BTC, valued at roughly US$900,000 at the time, from a family trust. The Federal Bureau of Investigation successfully traced these funds to a Binance account and converted the seized assets to Tether for recovery. While this demonstrates regulatory capability and the authorities’ ability to trace illicit flows, it also underscores the persistent social engineering vulnerabilities that plague the ecosystem and require ongoing user education.

The convergence of sovereign adoption, institutional financial engineering, and massive ETF inflows confirms that the asset has firmly entered a new phase of market maturity. Regulated institutional demand now forms a core component of the demand stack, effectively cushioning drawdowns and altering historical price cycles.

Viewing these speculative financial activities through a realistic lens reminds us that they remain a form of gambling with better odds than traditional markets. The sharp day-by-day slowdown during this record-inflow week proves that sustained capital commitment, rather than transient headline numbers, will determine the longevity of this bull phase.

As we move forward, market participants must closely monitor daily fund flows, total assets under management, and the ongoing tension between institutional co-option and decentralised integrity. The future of this asset class depends on maintaining its foundational cryptographic principles while successfully navigating the complex realities of global financial integration.

We must champion independent analysis and reject mainstream narratives that seek to dilute the revolutionary potential of decentralised money, ensuring that the original vision of financial sovereignty remains intact and accessible to all.

—

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 sovereign shift: Why nation states are trading gold for Bitcoin appeared first on e27.

The post Japan’s Kawaijuku backs Do Ventures to enter Vietnam’s education market appeared first on e27.

Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC) CEO Anuar Fariz Fadzil will leave the national digital-economy agency when his current contract ends on 2 October 2026, closing a two-year tenure marked by a sharper focus on artificial intelligence, high-value investment and measurable economic outcomes.

MDEC said in a statement that Anuar had informed its board he would not seek a contract renewal and intends to pursue opportunities outside the organisation.

The announcement gives the agency a long runway to manage leadership transition at a time when Malaysia is trying to position itself as one of Southeast Asia’s more credible hubs for AI, digital services, data infrastructure and technology talent.

Also Read: Malaysia’s digital economy’s second wave looks nothing like the first

The departure is significant because MDEC sits at the centre of Malaysia’s digital-economy agenda. Its work touches foreign investment, local tech company growth, digital exports, talent development and the Malaysia Digital status programme, which supports companies operating in the country’s digital economy. In a region where governments are competing to attract cloud providers, semiconductor investments, AI labs and regional headquarters, continuity at such agencies matters.

A transition at a sensitive moment

MDEC chairman Ganesh Kumar Bangah thanked Anuar for his service, saying he had “led MDEC with both head and heart”. Ganesh said Anuar brought “judgement, candour” and commitment to the agency, while pushing it to measure its work by tangible outcomes.

That emphasis on outcomes became a central part of Anuar’s tenure. From 2025 to August 2026, MDEC secured close to US$44 billion in digital investments from more than 1,000 Malaysia Digital status companies, according to the agency. These investments are expected to generate more than 42,000 high-value jobs for Malaysians.

Those figures are large, but the more important question for Malaysia is how much of the investment converts into durable local capability. Across Southeast Asia, governments have become increasingly successful at announcing digital investments. The harder task is ensuring that capital produces skilled jobs, strengthens domestic firms, creates exportable technology and avoids becoming merely real estate for data centres or outsourced service operations.

Also Read: From paddy fields to small shops, Malaysia maps an inclusive AI future

Anuar’s stated focus was to move MDEC in that direction. The agency said he anchored its performance on jobs, exports, revenue and investments, while repositioning MDEC as Malaysia’s specialist digital implementation agency.

The AI Nation 2030 push

One of Anuar’s most visible priorities was MDEC’s drive towards AI Nation 2030, Malaysia’s ambition to become an inclusive, trusted and globally competitive AI-driven economy by the end of the decade.

That goal reflects a broader regional race. Singapore has long had a head start in AI policy, cloud infrastructure and enterprise adoption. Indonesia is using its large domestic market to attract digital investment. Vietnam has built momentum around engineering talent and software exports. Thailand and the Philippines are also trying to move beyond traditional outsourcing into higher-value digital services.

Malaysia’s pitch sits somewhere in the middle: strong connectivity, a multilingual workforce, a sizeable base of shared-services operations, competitive costs compared with Singapore, and growing investor interest in data centres and advanced manufacturing. But to stand out, it needs more than infrastructure. It needs local companies capable of building and deploying technology, talent that can work with AI systems, and regulatory trust around data and digital services.

This is where MDEC’s role becomes more than promotional. Agencies such as MDEC are expected to translate national plans into programmes companies can actually use. Under Anuar, MDEC prepared for responsibilities under the Malaysia Digital 2030 action plan, which focuses on AI adoption, high-value digital investments, industry transformation, talent development and the growth of “Made by Malaysia” technologies.

The phrase “Made by Malaysia” is important. Like many Southeast Asian economies, Malaysia wants to be more than a destination for foreign technology. It wants local firms to create intellectual property, serve regional markets and become part of global digital supply chains.

From activity to accountability

In his statement, Anuar said leading MDEC had been “one of the greatest privileges” of his professional life. He framed his tenure around a shift from activity to impact.

“I wanted us to be judged not simply by the number of activities we announced but by the results we delivered for the country, for industry and for the rakyat,” he said, using the Malay term for citizens. “Everything we have achieved belongs to the extraordinary people of MDEC and to our partners across the technology ecosystem who believed in our mission.”

Also Read: Malaysia fines, Singapore funds: How two governments are forcing SEA’s second digital wave

The remark points to a persistent challenge in public-sector digital programmes. Startup events, memoranda of understanding, accelerator launches and investment announcements are common across the region. What founders and investors often want, however, is less ceremony and more execution: faster approvals, better talent pipelines, clearer incentives, access to customers and consistent policy direction.

Malaysia has several strengths on which to build. Its digital economy already includes fintech, e-commerce, cybersecurity, animation, gaming, software services and electronics-related technology. The country is also benefiting from renewed interest in Johor and the Klang Valley as data-centre and cloud-infrastructure locations, partly because of proximity to Singapore and access to land and power.

But the country faces constraints too. Competition for AI and engineering talent is intense. Local startups still struggle with later-stage funding compared with peers in Singapore and Indonesia. And as more global technology companies enter Malaysia, policymakers will need to ensure that local small and medium-sized enterprises can adopt new tools rather than be left behind by them.

What comes next for MDEC

Anuar said that after “considerable reflection”, he decided the completion of his contract was the right time to pursue new opportunities outside MDEC.

“This has not been an easy decision precisely because MDEC, our people and our mission have come to mean so much to me,” he said. “I leave with immense pride in what we have accomplished together and with complete confidence in MDEC’s future.”

For MDEC, the next phase will be about sustaining momentum while avoiding drift during the leadership transition. The agency will need to continue courting digital investments, but also prove that those commitments translate into high-value work for Malaysians. It will also have to keep industry confidence as AI regulation, data governance and digital trade become more central to economic policy.

Also Read: Malaysia’s OSKVI and Affin Hwang move into venture debt with Pothos Fund I

The timing gives MDEC’s board and the government room to plan succession carefully. The choice of the next CEO will signal whether Malaysia intends to deepen Anuar’s execution-led approach or recalibrate the agency’s priorities.

Either way, Anuar’s exit will come at a moment when Malaysia’s digital ambitions are becoming more concrete. The challenge for MDEC is to ensure that the foundations laid during his tenure continue to produce outcomes after he leaves the building.

The post MDEC chief Anuar Fariz Fadzil to exit after US$44B investment push appeared first on e27.

MoneyHero Limited is facing a public push from its largest unaffiliated shareholder to consider a sale, as the Singapore-based personal finance platform contends with leadership uncertainty, stalled revenue growth and a sharp fall in its Nasdaq-listed shares.

Jonathan Honig, who says he beneficially owns about 9 per cent of MoneyHero’s outstanding Class A ordinary shares, issued an open letter to the company’s board on 29 September 2026 calling for an immediate strategic review. He urged the board to retain an independent financial adviser and explore strategic alternatives, including a potential sale of the company.

Also Read: MoneyHero’s winning quarter has a US$6.7M problem

The letter marks a more confrontational turn for MoneyHero, which operates digital financial comparison and marketplace platforms across parts of Asia. The company helps consumers compare products such as credit cards, personal loans and insurance, a model that can be lucrative when banks and insurers are spending heavily on customer acquisition but vulnerable when growth slows or marketing budgets tighten.

Honig said he originally invested in MoneyHero because he believed in the platform’s potential and was encouraged by its high-profile backers, including Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir Technologies, and Richard Li, founder and chairman of Pacific Century Group. But he argued that the company has not delivered the discipline or urgency shareholders expected.

“Unfortunately, that has not been the case,” Honig wrote.

Pressure builds after CEO exit

A central issue in Honig’s letter is MoneyHero’s leadership transition. On 2 April 2026, the company announced that Rohith Murthy’s tenure as CEO had ended and that CFO Danny Leung would serve as interim CEO. Nearly six months later, Honig said, the company had yet to appoint a permanent chief executive.

Murthy later resigned from the board, effective 26 May 2026. Honig said the circumstances around the departure remain unexplained to shareholders.

“The company cannot afford to operate indefinitely under interim leadership, particularly given the competitive dynamics of the markets in which it operates,” he wrote. “A business of this nature requires a permanent CEO with a clear mandate and the confidence of shareholders.”

Also Read: Ecosystem Roundup: GoTo turns profitable, but the story has changed

For a listed technology company still trying to prove its public-market story, the absence of a permanent CEO can become more than an internal matter. It affects investor confidence, strategic clarity and the ability to strike partnerships with banks, insurers and fintech firms. In Southeast Asia’s financial services market, where distribution partnerships and regulatory credibility are critical, leadership uncertainty can quickly become a commercial problem.

Revenue miss and market frustration

Honig also pointed to MoneyHero’s financial performance. According to the letter, annual revenue fell from US$80.7 million in FY2023 to US$73.4 million in FY2025, despite management having stated in April 2025 that the company expected to reach US$100 million in revenue.

He acknowledged that MoneyHero reported its first profitable quarter in Q4 2025, but noted that the company still posted a net loss for the full year. In his view, the gap between management’s targets and actual results has become too large to ignore.

The share price has deepened that frustration. Honig said MoneyHero’s most recent closing price was US$0.675, down more than 88 per cent from when it began trading publicly in October 2023.

“This is not a case of modest underperformance, it represents a near-total destruction of shareholder value,” he wrote.

MoneyHero went public during a difficult period for technology listings. Many companies that reached public markets through the 2020-2021 special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) wave struggled after listing, as interest rates rose, investor appetite cooled and public markets began demanding a clearer path to profitability. Southeast Asian tech firms, in particular, have had to adjust from a growth-at-all-costs era to one focused on margins, cash discipline and durable revenue.

That shift has been especially challenging for consumer-finance marketplaces. These platforms depend on a balance between consumer demand and financial institutions’ willingness to pay for leads or approved customers. When banks change credit appetite, tighten underwriting or reduce marketing spend, marketplace revenue can take a quick hit.

Why a sale is now on the table

Honig is not merely asking for better communication. He is asking MoneyHero’s board to explore a sale.

In the letter, he argued that a sale offers the best risk-adjusted path for shareholders to halt further losses and preserve value. He said he believes there are “numerous parties” that would be interested in acquiring the company if the board launches a credible review process, and that MoneyHero is worth at least US$1.50 per share in a transaction.

Also Read: Circle to acquire Tazapay for US$400M as USDC push moves into cross-border payments

That proposed value is more than double the US$0.675 closing price cited in the letter. Whether a buyer would pay such a premium depends on several factors: the quality of MoneyHero’s customer acquisition channels, the strength of its banking and insurance relationships, the sustainability of its revenue, and whether its regional footprint offers strategic value to a financial services group, media company, fintech platform or private equity buyer.

Honig also criticised what he described as a lack of insider confidence. Based on his review of public filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, he said no director or executive officer appeared to have bought MoneyHero shares on the open market. Investors often read insider buying as a signal that management and directors believe a company is undervalued. Its absence does not prove the opposite, but with the share price this depressed, it can add to concerns.

Rivals across a crowded comparison market

MoneyHero operates in a competitive category with both regional and global pressure. In Singapore, MoneySmart is a long-running rival in financial product comparison, while Seedly has built a personal finance community that overlaps with consumer decision-making around money products. In Malaysia, Jirnexu’s RinggitPlus has played a similar role in credit-card and loan discovery. Indonesia has Cermati, while broader global comparables include NerdWallet in the US and Moneysupermarket in the UK.

The company also competes indirectly with banks, insurers and digital lenders that increasingly prefer to acquire customers through their own apps, content channels and partner ecosystems rather than pay third-party marketplaces.

This backdrop makes scale and trust important. Consumers need transparent comparisons, while financial institutions need quality leads that convert into profitable customers. If revenue growth stalls, marketplaces can find themselves squeezed between high acquisition costs and partners demanding better economics.

The next test for MoneyHero’s board

Honig has asked the board to respond by the close of business on 5 October 2026 on whether it is willing to engage in discussions. He also called for greater transparency on the CEO search, including the expected timeline for appointing a permanent leader.

MoneyHero had not responded publicly to the letter at the time of writing.

For the board, the immediate challenge is to show that it has a credible plan. That could mean appointing a permanent CEO, explaining how the company intends to restart growth, or formally reviewing strategic options. Ignoring the letter may not be easy, given Honig’s stated 9.0 per cent stake and the severity of the share-price decline.

Also Read: Fintech funding in Singapore drops to US$499M as dealmaking becomes more selective

For Southeast Asia’s startup ecosystem, the dispute is another reminder that public markets are unforgiving. Backing from prominent investors can help a company reach the market, but once listed, shareholders judge management by execution, growth and capital returns.

MoneyHero’s board now faces a clear choice: defend the standalone strategy with more detail and urgency, or test whether the company is worth more in someone else’s hands.

The post MoneyHero shareholder urges board to explore sale after stock slump appeared first on e27.

In July 2011, a 27-year-old Stanford dropout secured a 10-minute slot with George Shultz at the Hoover Institution. The meeting ran two and a half hours. Before the month was out, the former secretary of state had joined the Theranos board, won over, he told Fortune, by her “purity of motivation.” Nothing said in that room could be tested.

Across the country, Katalin Karikó had the opposite problem. She had spent years at the University of Pennsylvania producing evidence that messenger RNA could be modified to slip past the body’s immune alarm. Penn demoted her in 1995 after her grant applications kept failing. The 2005 paper that would later win her a Nobel Prize drew, in her words, no interest.

One had a story and no proof. The other had proof and could not get the room.

I have spent decades on the investor side of that table: in banking, inside a global corporation and later running an asset manager in Hong Kong. Founders arrived with more evidence than any committee could digest: patents, market studies, customer logos, 30-page decks. The uncomfortable pattern was that the weight of the evidence rarely decided whom I wanted to see a second time.

The research suggests I was typical. When Paul Gompers and three co-authors surveyed 885 venture capitalists for the Journal of Financial Economics, 47 per cent called the management team the most important factor in a deal; only 37 per cent put business model, product or market first. DocSend’s data shows investors spend under four minutes on a deck. And decades of deception studies, as Timothy Levine has documented, put human accuracy at telling truth from lies at about 54 per cent, a shade better than a coin toss.

The con man grasped this long before venture capital existed. In 1849 the New York Herald reported the arrest of William Thompson, a genteel stranger who struck up conversations on Manhattan streets, then asked whether the gentleman had confidence enough to lend him his watch until tomorrow. Many did, assuming he was an old acquaintance they had forgotten. The paper called him the “Confidence Man.” Thompson carried no evidence at all. He supplied familiarity and let his victims supply the rest.

Also Read: Asian investors aren’t choosing between crypto and TradFi anymore

A century and a half later Rudy Kurniawan, a young Indonesian in Los Angeles, added the missing piece. He poured rare Burgundy for America’s most seasoned collectors, who nicknamed him “Dr. Conti,” and in 2006 an auction of his cellar fetched a record US$24.7 million. Many bottles had been refilled with cheaper wine at his home. The evidence sat in the glass, and the experts drank it.

That is the sequence investors actually run: attention, then recognition, then trust, then a hypothesis, and only then evidence. Within minutes, it takes shape: this founder may be exceptional. What follows is often read as confirmation. Evidence does not create attention. It validates a belief already forming.

Founders, especially technical ones, get this backwards. They treat the first meeting as compressed due diligence, and it is not. The investor is deciding whether there is a hypothesis worth diligencing at all, and a patent cannot do that job. Neither can a TAM slide or a customer list. They answer questions the investor has not yet decided to ask. The failure is sharpest in Asia, where many of the strongest companies build things that take a paragraph to explain: surgical robots, diagnostics, industrial software. By slide 14, a verdict has formed, and the remaining slides rarely overturn it.

The first meeting and diligence do different jobs. The meeting answers why should I care? Diligence answers why should I believe you? Founders who spend the first meeting on the second question seldom reach the second meeting.

Also Read: Why Singapore investors hold more Apple than Singtel, and why it should worry you

The con artist exploits the same gap from the other side, corrupting evidence after belief has formed. Charlie Javice told JPMorgan her student-aid startup, Frank, had 4.25 million users; it had about 300,000, and prosecutors said she paid a college friend US$18,000 to fabricate the rest. The bank paid US$175 million anyway; the judge who later sentenced her said JPMorgan had “a lot to blame themselves” for.

I met Gibran Huzaifah in Jakarta in eFishery’s earliest days, and have written about him before. His story was among the best in Southeast Asian venture: a small-scale fish farmer whose smart feeders would modernise Indonesia’s ponds. It carried SoftBank, Temasek and Malaysia’s public pension fund KWAP to a US$1.4 billion valuation. A forensic audit later traced two sets of books back to 2018; for the first nine months of 2024, eFishery reported US$752 million in revenue against roughly US$157 million in reality. Neither Frank nor eFishery lacked sophisticated investors or due diligence. Fabricated numbers survived both.

Even inside Theranos, evidence lost to belief. When Tyler Shultz told his grandfather the lab’s technology did not work, the statesman sided with Holmes. “He didn’t believe me,” Tyler later told NPR.

The same psychology demands opposite discipline from each side of the table. Founders must earn attention before they offer proof. Investors must doubt hardest at the moment attention turns into belief. The better the story, the more dangerous ordinary diligence becomes. Levine’s own work points to the fix. In one 2014 experiment, five experienced US federal agents allowed to question subjects freely identified deception correctly in 87 of 89 interviews. Don’t read the founder better. Change how you test the claim.

The lesson is not to imitate the con. It is to understand the sequence it exploits. A con artist asks you to believe before you verify. A weak founder asks you to verify before giving you any reason to care.

Karikó’s evidence found its audience. It took a pandemic.

Look at your deck. How many of its slides answer a question no investor has yet decided to ask?

—

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 Why con artists get the meeting that honest founders can’t appeared first on e27.