South Korea and Southeast Asia are becoming more relevant to discussion around the next phase of AI and blockchain adoption. South Korea offers established technology companies, advanced hardware capabilities, an active venture ecosystem and a market with strong consumer adoption of digital services. Southeast Asia has a large and diverse digital economy, mobile-first users and opportunities to create products that fit the needs of the region. The opportunity is not only for Korean investors to invest in Southeast Asian startups or for Southeast Asian founders to go to Korea. It’s about connecting complementary market strengths: technology development, capital, distribution and real-world use cases.

Two ecosystems, different strengths

South Korea’s venture market has regained momentum. According to the country’s Ministry of SMEs and Startups, venture investment reached KRW 13.6 trillion (approximately US$9.3 billion) in 2025, a 14 per cent increase from the previous year and the second-highest annual total on record. The ministry also reported that 12 designated emerging-industry sectors attracted KRW 5.2 trillion in 2025, with AI, semiconductors, mobility and other technology-intensive industries among the areas tracked.

The e-Conomy SEA 2025 report by Google, Temasek and Bain & Company projected the region’s digital economy to reach US$305 billion in gross merchandise value in 2025, with revenue reaching US$135 billion.

AI is entering the investment narrative. The report estimated that in the past 12 months, more than 680 Southeast Asian AI-related startups had received over US$2.3 billion investments, representing more than 30 per cent of the private funding value in the first six months of 2025.

The two markets thus provide potentially complementary assets. South Korea boasts strengths in fields like semiconductors, electronics, industrial technology, and the development of advanced products. Southeast Asia provides a wide range of markets for companies to test their products against different languages, payment habits, regulatory environments and business needs.

But complementarity is not the same as compatibility. A technology that succeeds in Korea may need substantial adaptation to work in Vietnam, Indonesia or the Philippines. Likewise, a Southeast Asian startup’s local traction does not automatically establish that it can sell to Korean enterprises or meet their technical and compliance requirements.

Also Read: The fan vote is broken: Here is what it takes to make people trust it again

The corridor is already more than a theory

Cross-border investment infrastructure has been developing for several years.

In October 2023, Indonesian East Ventures and South Korea’s SV Investment announced a dedicated fund for the Southeast Asia, South Korea investment corridor, with a target of US$100 million. The initiative was launched to promote investment, knowledge sharing and network sharing between the two ecosystems. East Ventures later announced the fund’s first close, with support from Korea Development Bank. The key difference is that this isn’t a new 2026 announcement. It is an early instance of institutional efforts to connect the markets and a useful starting point in asking what the corridor can deliver over time.

The investment thesis is also broadening beyond a narrow definition of Web3. Seoul-based Hashed, formerly known for its blockchain investment activity, now says it focuses on AI, crypto and frontier technology. It is increasingly researching and publicly commenting on such intersections as AI agents, on-chain transactions and digital-asset infrastructure. That is not to say that AI is replacing blockchain. Instead, it suggests that some investors are looking for areas where the technologies could amplify each other, and where they could become a foundation for new business models.

Three areas where collaboration could create value

• Real-world asset tokenisation and financial infrastructure

Real-world asset (RWA) tokenisation brings representations of assets such as funds, commodities or property onto digital networks. South Korea’s financial and technology sectors, together with Southeast Asia’s varied financial markets, create room to explore new infrastructure for issuance, settlement and access. However, tokenisation is not simply a technical challenge. Asset rights, investor protection, custody, licensing and cross-border transfer rules all matter. A product that works in one jurisdiction may not be legally or commercially portable to another.

• Cross-border payments and privacy-preserving settlement

Cross-border payments remain costly and slow: the average cost of sending remittances to East Asia and the Pacific was 5.8 per cent in Q1 2025, while only around 40 per cent of cross-border payments in the region were credited within one business day in 2024, according to the IMF. South Korea is already exploring alternatives: in December 2025, NH NongHyup Bank piloted Partior’s blockchain payment network for cross-border settlement and foreign-currency liquidity.

Privacy is another challenge. Zero-knowledge proofs (ZKPs) could let payment providers verify selected compliance conditions without exposing all transaction data. Some startups, such as Trustless, are building ZK-based infrastructure that lets a receiving network verify cross-chain transactions directly, rather than relying on intermediaries that add cost and risk. For Korean providers expanding into Southeast Asia, the opportunity is to test whether blockchain settlement can reduce transfer costs and delays across specific payment corridors, while preserving privacy and meeting local regulations.

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

• Data, AI infrastructure, and intellectual property

AI is another potential point of contact. Korean technology capabilities could meet Southeast Asian demand for localised AI products, enterprise automation and tools tailored to regional languages and workflows.

Blockchain could have a role in specific areas such as provenance records, digital ownership or transaction infrastructure for AI agents. But these applications should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Placing data or intellectual property on-chain doesn’t necessarily mean you have legal ownership, copyright compliance, or a more accurate AI model.

In the Philippines, where one AIBC report estimates the tokenised asset market could reach US$60 billion, early-stage startups such as One Poesis are exploring how AI and blockchain can help creators document and protect their intellectual property. The technical challenge is making AI, IP tools and blockchain work together, while hiding that complexity behind an experience ordinary users can understand.

Across the three areas above, the key question is not whether AI and blockchain can be combined. It is whether the combination produces a clear advantage for a specific customer.

What stops a corridor from becoming a market?

Investment announcements and ecosystem programmes can create introductions, but introductions are only the beginning.

First, founders need market-specific validation. A Korean investor’s interest is not proof of demand from Korean customers. Southeast Asian founders need to understand procurement processes, enterprise sales cycles, partnership expectations and the requirements of their target market before committing substantial resources to expansion.

Second, cross-border support needs to continue after the first meeting. Founders may need help with local distribution, hiring, legal advice, technical integration and follow-on financing. A short programme can create useful connections, but it cannot substitute for those capabilities.

Third, capital should be matched to the company’s stage and business model. A startup seeking early product validation needs different support from a revenue-generating company preparing for regional expansion. The East Ventures, SV Investment initiative’s stated focus on revenue-generating startups and larger growth rounds illustrates one approach to defining an investment mandate, rather than treating every startup as equally ready for cross-border investment.

Finally, the corridor needs evidence of outcomes. Useful indicators include follow-on investment, paying customers, revenue generated in the partner market, repeat commercial partnerships and products deployed across jurisdictions. Attendance, introductions and the number of startups selected are activity metrics, not proof of durable economic impact.

From ecosystem access to commercial outcomes

South Korea and Southeast Asia do not need to become identical ecosystems to work together. Their differences may be precisely what makes collaboration worthwhile. But a durable corridor will require more than a shared interest in emerging technology: it needs investors who understand both markets, founders with a credible expansion plan and partners able to help products survive the transition from one jurisdiction to another.

For AI and blockchain founders, the practical question is therefore not simply whether Korea is interested in Southeast Asia, or whether Southeast Asian startups can access Korean networks. It is which specific capability, customer or source of capital becomes available through that relationship, and whether it produces a result that would have been difficult to achieve independently.

That is the standard by which this potential corridor should ultimately be judged: not by the number of cross-border initiatives announced, but by the businesses and technologies they help build.

—

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 South Korea and Southeast Asia could be the next cross-border AI and blockchain corridor appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia has roughly 350 million women, and they make most of the household’s health decisions. That alone makes women’s health a large consumer market rather than a vertical. But market size tells you little about behaviour, and behaviour is where the interesting signal is. FemTech Association Asia’s 2026 research across six markets, run with Milieu Insight, is the clearest read we have on how women in this region actually approach their health. A few patterns are worth pulling out.

Usage runs well ahead of awareness

Most women in these markets don’t recognise the word “femtech,” but a clear majority already use women’s health products and services, and a majority of current non-users say they intend to start within months.

The numbers bear this out. In the Philippines, only 31 per cent of women recognise the term “femtech”, yet 65 per cent already use these tools, and 57 per cent of non-users plan to try them within six months. Indonesia shows the same gap: 29 per cent recognise the term, 55 per cent are already users, and 69 per cent of non-users intend to start within six months. In both markets, adoption is running well ahead of awareness, according to the FemTech Association Asia and Milieu Insight consumer survey.

The practical implication: the constraint on this market is not demand or education. Campaigns built around “introducing women to femtech” are solving a problem that the data says is already solved. The open question is supply: whether what’s on offer is good enough to convert intent that already exists.

Also Read: How Singapore became a leading femtech startup hub in SEA

Adoption concentrates at the consumer layer, not the clinical one

Familiarity and usage both cluster in the same place: menstrual products and cycle-tracking apps. These share a trait; a woman can research, buy, or download them without involving a clinician. Categories that require a clinical interaction (screening, diagnostics, specialist consults) show far thinner adoption.

This isn’t random. It maps onto how women select among options in the first place. The dominant decision drivers are ease of use, convenience, and cost. These are criteria you apply to a consumer product, not the criteria you apply to a course of treatment. Read that way, women aren’t under-prioritising their health; they’re optimising for access against health systems that are expensive and inconvenient, where out-of-pocket spending runs around 40 per cent of total health expenditure in markets like the Philippines. The phone wins because it clears those hurdles. A clinic usually doesn’t.

The information layer has moved; the care layer hasn’t

A related pattern: women increasingly source health information from screens rather than clinicians. In several markets, social media is a leading channel even for something as consequential as menopause. With daily time online among the highest in the world here, that migration is unsurprising.

So the typical path now looks like: notice something, research it privately online, track it in an app, and then stall. The information and tracking layers have fully digitised. The step that turns a signal into care has not. A tracker can tell a woman her cycle has been irregular for months; it generally can’t put her in front of the OB-GYN or into the PCOS screening that irregularity might warrant. The product delivers the insight and leaves her at the threshold of the clinical system.

The useful way to frame the next phase of femtech is not better measurement. It’s conversion: the rate at which an in-app signal becomes an actual consultation or screening.

Also Read: Overcoming advertising woes and other challenges for the femtech industry

Discretion is a design constraint, not a preference

One more data point explains why that conversion is hard to engineer. Across the six markets, roughly half of women report worrying about judgement or shame when discussing their health openly. That’s a large and measurable friction, and it’s a plausible reason women start privately on a device rather than in a clinic.

The implication for anyone building the bridge to care: discretion can’t be dropped at the handoff. A flow that moves a woman from a private concern to a visible, exposed clinical interaction will lose her at the seam. The products most likely to convert are the ones that preserve privacy end to end, from the moment of concern to the point of screening or consult.

What the pattern implies for builders and investors

Put the findings together and a fairly specific picture emerges. Demand exists and is growing. It concentrates where friction is lowest, consumer products and tracking, and thins out wherever a clinical step is required. Women choose on convenience and cost, inform themselves online, and prize discretion throughout.

The commercial reading is that the value isn’t in adding another measurement tool to a layer women already use. It’s in building the connective tissue the current products lack: the part that takes an engaged user from tracking to screening to treatment, at consumer-grade convenience and cost, without sacrificing privacy. That’s harder to build than a tracker, which is precisely why it’s where the defensibility, and the unmet demand, sits. For investors, the mispricing is the same point from the other side: a market that serves half the population through the channel that half already uses has been treated as niche largely because it was labelled that way.

The behaviour is already clear. The product question is whether anyone will build for how women actually use femtech, rather than for how the health system wishes they would.

Consumer findings referenced here are from FemTech Association Asia’s 2026 Southeast Asia research series, produced with Milieu Insight. Hati Health is a member of FemTech Association Asia.

—

The post Why femtech adoption in Southeast Asia stops at the clinic door appeared first on e27.

Picture a claims officer in Makati pasting a customer’s medical file into a free chatbot to draft a rejection letter before lunch. Upstairs, her CEO signs off on a market-entry plan stitched together by the same kind of tool. Nobody has told either of them what is allowed, because in most Philippine companies, nobody has decided.

That, in short, is the paradox laid bare in Gobi Partners’ Solo Horizons: Redefining Scale for the Philippine AI Economy Report 2026, the same study behind the country’s one-founder, many-agents startup thesis. The Philippines leads the ASEAN-6 in knowledge-worker AI adoption. It also runs one of the region’s thinnest governance regimes, both inside companies and in law.

Also Read: The Philippines uses AI as a burnout shield; Singapore uses it for deep work

Enthusiasm is not the problem. The problem is that usage has sprinted ahead of the rules meant to make it safe, and the gap is now wide enough to swallow customer data, source code and, sooner or later, somebody’s legal liability.

Everyone is using AI. Almost nobody wrote the rules

Microsoft and LinkedIn survey data cited in the report puts AI use among Philippine knowledge workers at 86 per cent, against a global average of 75 per cent, from a workforce that already uses AI very differently from Singapore’s. At the top, 80 per cent of chief executives say they are comfortable making major strategic calls on AI-generated insight. The global figure is 64 per cent.

Now look at the other column. The report finds 72 per cent of Philippine enterprises have no formal AI ethics framework or usage policy, and 38 per cent give AI ethics no consideration at all. More than half of leaders (55 per cent) concede they have no documented implementation roadmap.

Employees, predictably, have filled the vacuum themselves. Some 83 per cent of Filipino AI users say they bring consumer tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini to work, often feeding in customer records, financial projections and source code with no guarantee of where that data ends up.

Banning the tools rarely helps; shadow AI tends to burrow deeper when companies try. The stakes are also higher here than in most markets. The country’s 1.89 million BPO workers handle other people’s data for a living, and the industry is already struggling to reskill them fast enough. One leaked offshore client file, pasted into a personal chatbot account, is the kind of incident that sends contracts elsewhere.

A 2012 privacy law is doing a 2026 job

At the national level, there is no AI statute. Regulators lean on a patchwork of laws written long before large language models existed, according to legal analysis by Gorriceta Africa Cauton & Saavedra in the report.

The Data Privacy Act of 2012 does the heavy lifting. National Privacy Commission rules require registration of systems that run automated profiling, and a 2024 advisory demands transparency and meaningful human intervention in automated decisions. The Cybercrime Prevention Act, the Civil Code, the Consumer Act and the Intellectual Property Code apply only awkwardly. AI has no legal personality, so pinning fault for a model’s error remains unresolved, and the IP code offers no safe harbour for text and data mining, a real headache for startups training on local data.

Also Read: Why Southeast Asian enterprises need AI governance before scaling generative AI

Policy has not been idle so much as scattered. The Department of Trade and Industry’s National AI Strategy Roadmap 2.0, launched in July 2024, sets out four pillars and 30 tasks, yet the AI and Data Ethics Oversight Committee it envisaged has still not been formed. In Congress, 26 separate House bills propose versions of an AI development and regulation act, from a lightweight advisory council to a standalone AI Commission.

Sector regulators have patched the holes on their own. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas has issued voluntary AI risk guidance for financial institutions, and the Commission on Elections has moved to penalise malicious deepfakes during campaigns. Useful, but piecemeal, and part of a regulatory patchwork that founders across the region already know too well.

Singapore tests, Vietnam legislates, Manila deliberates

The neighbours have picked their lanes. Singapore pairs public investment with practical tools such as AI Verify, an open-source framework for testing model transparency and fairness, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore has added safeguards for AI agents in finance. Vietnam went the other way, with a binding, risk-tiered AI law modelled on the EU’s that took effect in March 2026.

Further north, South Korea’s AI Basic Act came into force in January 2026 with mandatory safety audits for high-risk systems, while Japan’s 2025 AI Promotion Act relies on non-binding guidance. AI governance across the region is moving from promises to proof, but there is a cautionary footnote. The report notes that the EU itself has pushed its high-risk obligations back to December 2027. Hard law written too early can age badly.

For the Philippines, the question is less which model to copy than whether to choose one at all. Twenty-six bills is not a debate; it is a backlog.

The fix starts in the office, not in Congress

The report’s prescriptions are sensible, if hardly surprising. Companies should stop pretending bans work and give staff enterprise-grade tools with zero-data-retention terms and clear rules on which data can go where. High-stakes calls in hiring, credit and customer-facing decisions should require a human sign-off.

For founders selling B2B software, there is an opening. Audit logs, bias-testing reports and data-lineage tracking built into the product can turn a buyer’s compliance anxiety into a sales pitch. The country’s fintech players learnt this early; compliance is what let them scale.

Also Read: Without governance, AI agents risk becoming enterprise chaos engines

For lawmakers, the report proposes consolidating the bills under the Department of Information and Communications Technology rather than building a costly new commission, a joint sandbox run by the SEC, BSP, NPC and DICT, and a risk-based law that reserves heavy compliance for genuinely high-risk uses such as biometric surveillance and medical triage.

None of this is radical, and that is the indictment. The Philippines does not lack ideas for governing AI; it lacks the urgency to adopt any of them, while 86 per cent of its knowledge workers get on with using the technology regardless. High trust is an asset. Without guardrails, it is also an exposure waiting for its first headline.

The post The Philippines trusts AI more than anyone in ASEAN. Its rulebook hasn’t caught up appeared first on e27.

What happens when your team needs a designer, a salesperson and a researcher, but you don’t have the resources to hire all three? For many small businesses, this is a familiar challenge.

I lead Stories of Asia (SOA), where our work spans several areas, including leadership development through SEED Academy, personal and leadership branding through Personal Brand Lab, and professional community building. Yet, like many growing businesses, we don’t have a dedicated specialist for every function. We don’t have a full-time in-house designer. We don’t have a dedicated sales team beyond myself. And sometimes, we need industry knowledge that nobody on the team has developed expertise in yet.

But as we’ve integrated AI into our daily operations, something interesting has happened. AI hasn’t simply helped our team work faster. It has allowed people to do things they previously couldn’t. And I believe that’s an opportunity more business leaders should pay attention to.

When job descriptions become less restrictive

One of the most noticeable changes has been how our team approaches work outside their original responsibilities.

Our operations team, for example, isn’t made up of trained salespeople. Yet with AI, team members can now help develop pitch decks, structure proposals and research potential business opportunities. Similarly, colleagues without formal design backgrounds can create marketing collaterals, presentation visuals and banners for client projects.

We also develop leadership and organisational development programmes for clients across different industries. Sometimes, we’re exploring an industry or organisational challenge that our team isn’t deeply familiar with. AI helps us understand the context, explore possible approaches and develop an initial programme proposal.

Of course, understanding the client’s actual needs, designing meaningful learning experiences and making the final recommendations still require human judgement. But the difference is that our team can now contribute meaningfully to work that might previously have been beyond their experience. It’s not about replacing specialists. It’s about expanding what people are capable of contributing.

Also Read: Hackers drain US$4M using fake Wi-Fi at major crypto conferences

The hardest part has moved somewhere else

That doesn’t mean working with AI is always straightforward.

We learnt this when researching corporate training costs across several Southeast Asian markets. AI generated what looked like a comprehensive comparison, complete with pricing figures and supporting references. However, when we started checking the information, we discovered that some figures couldn’t be reliably substantiated. The problem wasn’t an obviously incorrect answer. It was an answer that looked ready to use.

We’ve encountered similar challenges in creative work. When we support professionals and leaders with their personal branding and LinkedIn content, AI helps our team research topics, organise ideas and develop initial drafts.

But producing content isn’t the same as capturing someone’s perspective. AI might generate a polished leadership post, but it doesn’t necessarily understand a person’s experiences, communication style or what makes their point of view distinctive. Our team still needs to listen to clients, understand their stories and refine the content so it reflects who they are.

The same applies to design. Sometimes, asking AI to change one element leads to several unintended changes elsewhere.

These experiences have taught us something important: The ability to generate work is becoming easier. The ability to exercise good judgement is becoming more important.

AI adoption also means rethinking people’s roles

Another interesting change has been how AI is influencing the way we organise our team.

Recently, we reviewed our digital marketing activities and identified areas that weren’t delivering the results we wanted. Rather than simply continuing with the same approach, we began exploring how AI could support different ways of working.

One team member who had been working on digital performance and website optimisation started developing AI-supported workflows for content production and short-form video editing. The goal is to make content creation more scalable, allowing us to experiment with organic channels such as YouTube and TikTok.

This isn’t just about introducing another AI tool. It’s about someone learning new capabilities and gradually expanding their role as the needs of the business evolve. Of course, technology alone doesn’t make this possible. It also requires people who are willing to learn, experiment and step outside their comfort zones.

As a leader, I’ve found this particularly encouraging. Instead of looking at AI purely as a way to automate existing tasks, we’re beginning to see how it can help our people develop capabilities that keep them relevant as work changes.

Also Read: AI became my extra team member. I still have to manage it

What do we do with the time AI gives us?

There’s another change that I find equally meaningful.

A significant part of our work involves bringing people together through professional communities, leadership conversations and networking events. Previously, much of our team’s attention went towards coordinating activities, preparing materials, drafting communications and handling repetitive operational tasks. AI now helps with portions of that work.

This creates an opportunity to redirect more attention towards engaging community members, understanding client needs and building relationships. For instance, rather than spending most of their time preparing event communications, our team can devote more attention to conversations with participants and identifying opportunities to connect people. That’s a much more valuable use of their time.

According to Microsoft’s 2025 Work Trend Index, 53 per cent of leaders say productivity must increase, while 80 per cent of workers report insufficient time or energy to complete their work. But perhaps the more interesting question isn’t simply how many hours AI can save us. It’s what we choose to do with those hours.

The real opportunity lies in developing people

Looking back at our experience, I don’t think the greatest benefit of AI has been producing more content, generating proposals faster or automating repetitive tasks. It’s seeing our people become more capable.

Someone without a sales background can contribute to business development. Someone without design training can create useful visual materials. Someone working in digital marketing can explore new technical capabilities and workflows. And our team can spend more time on the human connections that matter to our clients and communities.

For business leaders, I believe this calls for a different conversation about AI adoption. Instead of asking only which jobs or tasks AI can replace, perhaps we should also ask: What new capabilities can AI help our people develop?

Because ultimately, technology will continue to evolve. The bigger question is whether we’re helping our people evolve alongside it. And from what we’ve experienced, that’s where the real opportunity lies.

—

The post AI didn’t eliminate our work. It changed what our team could do appeared first on e27.

Macao has a replica of Venice built inside a casino resort, complete with gondolas and a painted sky. Kerala has Alappuzha, which tourism brochures have called the Venice of the East for longer than anyone can remember.

Two small places, two Venices, and one shared headache: both are tired of being known for one thing.

Macao’s one thing is gambling. Gaming still made up 56.4 per cent of its GDP in 2024, and the government wants non-gaming industries to account for about 60 per cent of GDP by 2030. Kerala’s one thing, apart from the backwaters, is the Gulf. Remittances hit INR 2.17 lakh crore (about US$26 billion) in 2023, or 23.2 per cent of the state’s net domestic product, according to the Kerala Migration Survey. The state exports talent and imports money, and it knows that bargain will not last forever.

Also Read: Kerala’s moment: Five lessons from IvyCap’s Vikram Gupta on turning talent into scale

In May, I spent a few days at BEYOND Expo 2026 in Macao, among humanoid robots, AI glasses and a Rubik’s Cube that doubles as a games console. I came away convinced of Asia’s hardware edge.

This week I was back home for Huddle Global 2026 at Kovalam, listening to the Chief Minister talk about startup debt, the silver economy and the port at Vizhinjam. Somewhere between the two, a thought refused to leave me: Macao is running the same experiment as Kerala, only with more neon. Here are five things Kerala can borrow, and one it should leave behind.

Bring the robot, not the render

The first thing that struck me at BEYOND was how little of it lived on a slide. Matrix Robotics’s humanoids walked the floor. A Hong Kong startup had wired sensors into a football shin guard. Another had built an instrument that reads a player’s mood. You could touch, wear or argue with almost everything.

Indian startup events, Kerala’s included, still lean on the stage: pitch decks, panels, ministers and memoranda. Huddle Global’s inaugural session alone produced a string of MoUs, yet the only hard money on display was a US$2 million round for climate-intelligence startup mistEO. Paper is cheap. Prototypes are not.

Kerala is not starting from zero. Kerala Startup Mission’s Maker Village in Kochi has incubated hardware startups since 2016. The next Huddle should give their products the best spot on the beach and let investors trip over them. Even Hong Kong, which talks a big game on robotics, has learnt that demos must survive real life; it is building a test track for robots that keep failing outside the lab.

Say the scary number out loud

The most useful thing I heard in Macao was a prediction of mass extinction. Allen Zhang, CEO of Matrix Robotics, told me 50 to 60 per cent of China’s humanoid robotics companies would not survive the next two to three years. He said it calmly, the way a cardiologist reads out your cholesterol.

Also Read: Taiwan bets on Gen Z founders to move beyond its chip-supplier image

He was just as frank about his own maths. A humanoid that costs about US$80,000 today could drop to roughly US$27,000 within two years if his vertical-integration bet pays off. And, he argued, data, not hardware, is the real bottleneck: there is no internet-sized archive of physical behaviour to train robots on.

Compare that with how targets are announced at home. Kerala wants 100 deeptech companies worth Rs 100 crore (about US$11 million) or more. Fine. But a target without a mortality rate is a horoscope. Which of today’s deeptech startups have paying customers? How many will die, and what will the state learn when they do? As founders keep discovering, deeptech’s real bottleneck is customers, not ambition.

Candour is not pessimism. It is how serious investors know you have done the sums.

Trust is the product, and Kerala has 2.2 million potential backers

Cheryl Tang, Indiegogo’s Head of APAC, did not pretend crowdfunding’s reputation was intact after years of scams and vanished campaigns. The fix she described was not marketing. It was paperwork: factory photos, production videos, legal registrations and a second review by payment partner Adyen before a campaign goes live.

She was also blunt about why Southeast Asia is crowdfunding’s toughest market. E-commerce is so good that nobody wants to wait a year for a gadget.

Kerala sits on the opposite opportunity. Some 2.2 million Malayalis live abroad, most in the Gulf, and they are famously loyal to anything that smells of home. That is a ready-made backer base for Kerala-built products, from health devices to Malayalam-first apps.

But diaspora money flows only where trust exists. If the state wants that capital in startups, it should borrow Indiegogo’s playbook: verify before you promote, publish what you checked, and show where the money went.

Malayalis know better than most how quickly a cooperative bank scandal can drain trust that took decades to build. Startups will not get a second chance either.

Build for appooppan and ammoomma

The warmest story at BEYOND came from Jiang Tao of Initiai.on, who started out simply trying to write a song for his wife. Today its app Yinchao lets millions of people compose music with AI. Many users, Tao told me, make songs for parents and grandparents. A custom composition that once cost upwards of US$2,000 is now within reach of anyone with a phone.

Read that again with Kerala in mind. It is one of India’s fastest-ageing states, and the government has set up a dedicated department for the elderly. I argued this week that Kerala’s grandparents may be its smartest startup bet as mentors. Yinchao suggests they are customers too, and not just for pill reminders. Kerala’s silver economy should include joy: music, memories and video calls with grandchildren in Toronto and Doha.

A startup that builds for appooppan and ammoomma (grandpa and grandma, in Malayalam), with the bill paid by children abroad, has a business model hiding in plain sight in millions of family WhatsApp groups.

Lean on the neighbours, and do the compliance before the scolding

Macao is tiny, and it does not pretend otherwise. Its new five-year plan leans hard on Hengqin, the neighbouring island zone across the water, and on the wider Greater Bay Area for land, factories and customers.

Kerala has neighbours worth leaning on too. Vizhinjam port, a short drive from Kovalam, is now a deep-water transshipment hub that needs logistics software, maritime tech and trade finance. Bengaluru and Chennai have the capital and the corporate buyers. Brussels, through the state’s startup centre there, offers a door into Europe.

Matrix Robotics taught me the second half of this lesson. Zhang said the company would store data locally in every Western market it enters, before anyone asks, having watched the scrutiny that dogged Huawei and DJI. Kerala founders eyeing Europe should treat GDPR and EU product rules the same way: build for the regulator before the regulator comes knocking.

The one thing Kerala should leave in Macao

Not everything travels well. Macao’s diversification is directed from the top, bankrolled largely by casino concessionaires obliged to invest in non-gaming projects, and shaped by Beijing’s plans for the Greater Bay Area. Kerala is a loud democracy where every policy is argued over in the Assembly, in union halls and on prime-time television.

Also Read: Doozy’s humanoid fleet goes global; US and GCC in sights

That makes Kerala slower. It also gives it something a casino economy struggles to build: a literate, healthy workforce and a society that keeps asking who benefits. Kerala should keep that instinct. A startup boom that leaves out women founders, or treats gig workers as collateral, is not a model worth importing from anywhere.

Still, Macao has one habit Kerala should envy. It is honest about its dependency. It puts a number on gaming’s share of the economy and sets a date to shrink it. Kerala should do the same with remittances: name the number, set the date, and make startups the yardstick of progress.

Two Venices, both trying to prove they are more than a postcard. Macao has the head start and the neon. Kerala has the people. The only question is which one learns faster.

—

Image Credit: Sayyid Ahmed Murfique

The post Two Venices, one problem: What Kerala can learn from Macao’s tech makeover appeared first on e27.