In the startup tech world, inclusivity is a complex, often moving target. 

On paper, progress is remarkable: women-owned businesses are growing. In Singapore, for instance, the number of female-founded businesses has more than doubled over the past 15 years. Inside our office, I’m proud to lead an all-female startups and partnerships team dedicated to fuelling the next generation of innovators. We are proof of what happens when women are given the reins to build.

Yet, step outside our doors into the broader ecosystem, and the reality remains stubbornly stodgy. 

The “90 per cent problem”

We attend and run hundreds of events a year to connect founders with capital and resources. Despite our best efforts at outreach, general event attendance consistently skews 90 per cent male. Even within Aspire’s own thriving FoundersXchange community, participation remains disproportionately male.

The problem isn’t an appetite for innovation, because we’ve seen firsthand that when the environment changes, the faces change too. At a recently hosted Women in AI event, we welcomed more than 80 women—and the energy was absolutely electric. Seeing that many women in one room, dissecting the future of LLMs and neural networks, was deeply inspiring.

It proved that the talent is there, it’s just often sidelined by the default startup culture. It also led me to wonder why we don’t see this reflected in broader tech spaces? Why does a “Women in AI” tag draw a female crowd, while a general “AI Summit” doesn’t? The answer isn’t that women aren’t interested. It’s that the general tech ecosystem has become coded with a specific brand of bravado—and when we host a women-focused event, the “imposter syndrome” that many feel in a room that is 90 per cent male disappears.

Also Read: Bridging the gender gap in GenAI learning: Strategies to get more women involved

Tackling the gap

More broadly, the lack of women in the room translates directly to a lack of capital in the bank. Early-stage funding for female entrepreneurs is in free fall. 

According to the latest Tracxn data, the drop-off is staggering. Singapore’s early-stage funding for female entrepreneurs fell by 39 per cent. Across Southeast Asia, total funding for women-led startups plunged from US$871.8 million in 2022 to just US$198 million in 2024 — a far steeper decline than that seen among male-founded businesses. Perhaps most alarming: in 2024, no late-stage deals were recorded for women-led startups in Singapore.

The irony here is proving costly. Women are objectively more capital-efficient than their male peers. Boston Consulting Group research shows that for every dollar of funding, women-founded startups generate 78 cents in revenue – more than double the 31 cents generated by male-founded firms. 

Beyond making the funding environment more equitable, we are learning a few things ourselves in our quest to create a more diverse community:

• Women often feel they have to over-index on expertise just to speak up in male-dominated rooms. Specialised events, like the Women in AI session, provide a psychological safety that general events seem to lack. 
• Networking has an inherent algorithmic bias. If the majority of startup and tech communities are male, their referrals will likely be male. We have to be hyper-intentional about breaking these closed loops.
• Finally, diversity in visibility, attendance and panels shouldn’t be a “nice to have” check box – it should be a key metric. It is a lead indicator for capital. When women aren’t seen at important summits, they aren’t seen by investors. 

We cannot afford to treat female participation as a once-a-year celebration in March. To the men who make up the 90 per cent in our rooms: It is time to question the absence. Don’t just “support” inclusivity; demand it. If you’re invited to a panel that is entirely male, ask who is missing. If your network is a closed loop of the same voices, break it. 

—

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

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

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

The post The 90% blind spot: Bridging the tech ecosystem gap appeared first on e27.

Think about your neighbourhood convenience store. Its secret sauce is simple: it’s everywhere. By saturating every street corner and office cluster, these stores become a natural part of our daily rhythm, optimising logistics while staying top-of-mind for consumers.

But petrol station convenience stores (C-stores) have always played by a different set of rules. They didn’t pick their spots because of retail foot traffic; they are there because, well, that’s where the fuel tanks are. For decades, we only stepped inside because we had to fill up. It was convenient by necessity, not by choice.

But the winds are shifting. And they’re blowing far beyond the smell of petrol.

The great pivot: From “pump and go” to “stay and consume”

As the global energy transition picks up pace, the traditional “big oil” retail model is facing a structural shake-up.

McKinsey expects the global fossil-fuel retail value pool to shrink from US$88 billion in 2019 to US$79 billion by 2030. Meanwhile, Non-Fuel Retail (NFR) is the new frontier, with Asia expected to be one of the fast growing regions.

What’s driving this is straightforward:

• EV adoption is extending dwell time. The customer journey is shifting from a 3–5 minute “pump-and-go” stop to a 20-minute-plus “plug-in-and-wait” visit.
• Fuel margins are under pressure. Price transparency and intense competition keep spreads thin, leaving little room for profit growth at the pump.

Together, these changes flip the logic of the site. When customers stay longer, the shop stops being a “nice add-on” and becomes central to protecting site-level profitability.

Global benchmarks: The “retail-first” future

In mature markets, the transition is already well underway. Across Europe and North Asia (Japan/South Korea), over 80 per cent of stations are integrated retail hubs, with non-fuel sales contributing roughly 40 per cent of total profits.

The US model is perhaps the most evolved. With over 90 per cent of stations operating C-stores, the “Forecourt + QSR (Quick Service Restaurant) + Coffee” combo is the real breadwinner. The pumps outside are essentially a loss-leader to drive traffic to the high-margin fresh food and coffee inside.

Also Read: Singapore’s green future – Are homes and condominiums ready for EVs?

The China context: Scale meets opportunity

China presents a different picture: very large networks, but non-fuel productivity is still catching up.

By footprint, Sinopec’s Easy Joy is reported at around 28,000 stores, and PetroChina’s uSmile at over 20,000. But scale alone does not guarantee retail strength.

Take Sinopec as an example. The company rolled out its non-fuel strategy in 2006, partnered with McDonald’s on drive-thru concepts that same year, established its Easy Joy convenience chain in 2008, and entered the freshly brewed coffee segment in 2019. In its 2023 annual report, Sinopec disclosed that non-fuel revenue reached tens of billions of RMB, just 2.3 per cent of the marketing and distribution segment’s total revenue, yet contributed roughly 18 per cent of the segment’s profit (more than RMB 4.5 billion (US$625 million)).

This proves that the future isn’t in the tank. It’s on the shelves.

The way forward: Evolving into lifestyle “super-nodes”

The EV revolution is doing more than just changing engines; it is creating a brand-new “Dwell Economy.” When a 3-minute fuel stop turns into a 20-to-40-minute charge, the “ceiling” for what you can sell a customer rises exponentially.

To capture this, the forecourt must evolve. Here are the four shifts that matter most:

From “one store” to “multiple missions”

Forecourts are adding missions quickly: coffee and hot food, car wash and basic automotive services, parcel drop-off and pick-up, and even small community services. Operating models are evolving too, with more shop-in-shop, leasing, and partnerships.

A simple way to frame it: forecourts are learning to monetise time, not just transactions. Every extra minute a customer spends on-site is a fresh opportunity for margin.

A natural fit for instant retail

Petrol stations have built-in advantages for on-demand fulfilment: high visibility, easy roadside access, ample parking, and existing retail space. For any brand building a last-mile network, the forecourt is the ultimate distribution node.

This is why we’re seeing major delivery platforms partner with fuel retailers like Easy Joy. By turning the forecourt into a local fulfilment point, the station becomes a vital part of the city’s logistics layer, serving customers who might not even be on the premises.

Also Read: Is India on the verge of shifting gears to EVs?

Digital is no longer optional

In forecourt retail, digital used to mean faster checkout and more accurate inventory. That is now table stakes. The bigger value is improving decision-making at scale.

To navigate this, Sinopec’s Easy Joy partnered with Dmall, a global provider of AI-driven retail digitalisation solutions, to move beyond basic automation to true data-driven execution.

This isn’t just about “smart shelves”. It’s about building a “People-Vehicle-Life” ecosystem. By unifying data across fuelling, charging, and dining, the station stops waiting for random purchases and starts predicting them.

Think of it as a dynamic intervention: the moment a driver initiates a charge, the system calculates their 30-minute dwell time and pushes a tailored offer, perhaps a fresh meal combo or a car grooming service, at exactly the right moment. This digital infrastructure transforms a passive wait into a high-margin, highly operational consumption window.

Conclusion

Forecourt retail is increasingly a combined play across energy, convenience retail, and last-mile fulfilment.

In the future, the best sites won’t be defined only by how much fuel they sell. They’ll be defined by how well they convert traffic into baskets, how many missions they can serve, and how effectively they use the customer’s time on site.

Fuel will still matter, but it won’t be the whole story.

—

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

The post Beyond the pump: Why the future of fuel retail isn’t about fuel appeared first on e27.

We are used to identity being a human problem. A person signs in, gets assigned roles, and systems enforce access based on policy. Even when we talk about “non-human identities,” the mental model still tends to be infrastructure: service accounts, API keys, workload identities.

Agent-to-agent interaction breaks that model.

In the emerging architecture of AI-integrated platforms, agents will not only assist with one product. They will interact with external agents, negotiate APIs, coordinate tasks across tools, and execute actions that span organisations. 

This is barely discussed today, which is exactly why it deserves attention.

Why is this different from traditional integration

Cross-platform integrations are not new. What changes is the nature of decision-making.

Classic integrations are deterministic. A webhook fires. An API is called. A workflow runs. The system does what it was programmed to do.

Agents introduce delegation and interpretation. They decide what to call, when to call it, and how to combine outcomes. They reason over ambiguous inputs and incomplete context. They also learn patterns from interactions over time. That means “correct behaviour” is not just a matter of validating a token. It becomes a matter of validating intent, scope, and safety in motion.

When an external agent calls your agent, you are not just receiving a request. You are accepting an upstream decision.

The core identity question: Who is the actor?

With humans, the actor is clear. With service accounts, the actor is a system you control. With agents, the actor becomes layered.

Is the actor the user who initiated the request? The agent who interpreted the request? The platform that hosts the agent? The organisation that deployed it? Or the chain of agents that influenced the final action?

In real systems, it will often be all of the above. Without a shared way to represent that chain, we will end up with brittle trust based on convenience: “This request came from a reputable provider, so it must be fine.”

That is not a security model. It is a hope model.

Also Read: Embracing AI evolution: The crucial role of data management and cybersecurity in AI success

We need delegation integrity

Authentication tells you who is calling. It does not tell you whether the caller has the right to ask for what they are asking.

Agent-to-agent systems will need to prove not just identity, but delegation. The receiving system should be able to answer:

• Who delegated this action?
• What was the approved scope?
• What constraints were in place?
• What context was used to make the decision?
• How recent is the authorisation, and can it be revoked?

Today, most inter-org trust collapses into static secrets, broad OAuth scopes, and contractual assumptions. Those mechanisms were designed for services, not for autonomous decision engines.

Authorisation becomes dynamic and contextual

In a multi-agent world, authorisation cannot be a single static gate. It has to be context-sensitive and risk-aware.

If an external agent is asking to pull a file, the risk depends on the file type, its sensitivity, the destination, the current anomaly signals, and the actor chain. If an external agent is asking to trigger a workflow, the risk depends on blast radius, downstream integrations, and reversibility.

This forces a new discipline: designing “agent actions” as a controlled interface, rather than letting agents operate through broad administrative permissions. If your agent can do anything your user can do, you have effectively created a second user with fewer human constraints.

The trust boundary will shift from “app” to “action”

The safest mental model is that identity moves from being account-centric to action-centric.

Instead of granting an agent broad access to a system, you grant it the ability to perform specific actions under specific constraints. Each action has a policy. Each action is logged with intent and provenance. Each action can be throttled, sandboxed, or reversed.

This is already how high-trust systems are built. The difference is that it will need to become mainstream, because agents will otherwise accumulate privilege faster than governance can keep up.

Decision cascades in multi-agent systems

Agent-to-agent trust is only half the challenge. The other half is what happens when agents form chains.

Future systems will call other agents and trigger downstream automations. 

The failure mode here is not “one wrong answer.” It is “one wrong answer that becomes an input signal for ten other systems.”

Also Read: The new cybersecurity battlefield: Protecting trust in the age of AI agents

Cascades are not hypothetical

Organisations already have cascading automation. A monitoring alert triggers a ticket, which triggers an on-call action, which triggers a deployment rollback. The difference is that these chains are built from deterministic rules.

Agents make the chain probabilistic.

If an agent misclassifies an event, it may call the wrong downstream tool. If it overconfidently infers intent, it may trigger a workflow that was never meant to run. If it misreads context, it can propagate that error through multiple dependent actions.

The scary part is that each step in the chain can look locally reasonable. The system “followed the process.” The process was simply driven by a flawed inference.

Why we lack containment models

Traditional containment models assume discrete incidents: isolate the host, rotate credentials, block the IP, patch the vulnerability.

Cascades do not behave like that. They are distributed and asynchronous. They cross product boundaries. They may involve third-party agents. By the time you notice something is wrong, the downstream effects have already occurred in multiple systems.

This is why we need cascade containment models. Not as an abstract research area, but as an engineering requirement for systems that allow agents to trigger actions.

Principles for cascade containment

A mature cascade model starts with acknowledging that not every agent output should be executable.

Some practical principles are worth adopting early.

• Bounded autonomy: Agents should have clear limits on what they can execute without confirmation. Those limits should tighten as the blast radius grows.
• Progressive trust: An agent earns autonomy through reliable behaviour and predictable outcomes over time, not through initial configuration. New agents, new integrations, and new workflows should start constrained.
• Circuit breakers: If an agent triggers unusual rates of actions, unusual cross-system combinations, or repeated failures, automation should pause. This is deliberate friction that appears when the system deviates from normal.
• Risk scoring at the edge: Each action request should be evaluated not only by identity, but by context and potential impact. High-impact actions should require stronger proof and stricter gating.
• Explicit rollback paths: Actions that are hard to reverse should require higher certainty. If rollback is easy, you can allow more autonomy.
• Provenance and traceability: Every agent decision that leads to an action should carry a trace of what triggered it, what context was used, what downstream calls were made, and what constraints were applied. Without traceability, containment becomes impossible.

Users will demand autonomy, then blame it

As agents become more capable, the pressure to let them act will grow. Users will want “just handle it” experiences. And when something goes wrong, the same users will be surprised that the system acted without permission in a nuanced case.

This is why guardrails cannot be an afterthought. They have to be part of the product contract. The system should clearly communicate what it can do autonomously, what it will ask before doing, and how it will behave under uncertainty.

The goal is not to reduce automation. The goal is to make autonomy safe.

—

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

The post Agent-to-agent trust: The next identity challenge appeared first on e27.

In startups, promotions rarely begin during the review cycle.

They begin much earlier, in the moment a manager decides who gets the hard project, who joins the important meeting, and who is trusted to represent the team when the stakes are high.

Most companies do not describe it that way.

They say they promote on merit. They say performance speaks for itself. They say the best people rise. But in many startups, what gets called merit is often built through access first.

Culture decides who gets seen

Workplace culture is often treated like a soft issue.

It sits next to values decks, off-sites, and internal messaging. It is discussed as something important, but not always as something operational.

That is a mistake.

In startups, culture acts more like infrastructure. It shapes who gets visibility, whose judgment gets tested, and who becomes familiar to leadership before promotion discussions even begin.

This matters because formal review processes usually come late. By the time someone is being discussed for a bigger role, the room is often not deciding from scratch. It is confirming a view that has been forming for months.

By then, the bet has usually already been made.

The hidden feeder system into leadership

Most startups have a hidden feeder system into leadership.

It is not written down. It does not show up in the org chart. But it is there.

It looks like stretch assignments. It looks like cross-functional launches. It looks like being invited into difficult conversations. It looks like being trusted with work that carries risk and visibility.

The people who get these opportunities build a record that later looks like leadership readiness.

The people who do not get them may still perform well. In many cases, they are the ones keeping the team stable. But they are often seen as reliable executors rather than future leaders.

That is where culture starts shaping outcomes.

The real question is not only who performs well. It is who gets the kind of work that later gets rewarded.

Also Read: From lead generation to pipeline hygiene: What startups often miss

How this plays out inside startups

This pattern does not always look dramatic.

That is part of the problem.

Picture a lean startup preparing for an important product launch. It needs someone to coordinate across product, marketing, operations, and leadership. The project is messy. It is visible. It comes with pressure.

A manager picks someone they already feel comfortable with. Maybe that person is available late into the night. Maybe they are already part of informal leadership circles. Maybe they simply communicate in a style that feels familiar in the room.

Another team member, equally capable, stays on steady execution work. They keep things moving. They deliver. They are dependable.

A few months later, one person is described as showing leadership potential.

The other is described as strong, but not quite ready.

Nothing openly unfair may have happened in that moment. No policy had to be broken. No one had to say anything discriminatory.

But the outcome is still not neutral.

The people who get the biggest opportunities early are usually the ones the company later calls naturally ready.

Who benefits, and who gets left behind

This system tends to reward people who are already closer to power.

That can mean people with easier access to senior leaders. It can mean people who are more comfortable speaking in high-status settings. It can mean those who can mirror the pace, style, or availability patterns of the people already in charge.

It can also quietly disadvantage people with caregiving responsibilities, people who are newer to influential networks, and people whose strengths show up more in depth than self-promotion.

Women and other overlooked talent often feel this gap without always being able to name it.

They are told to speak up more, be more visible, or act more strategically. But what they often need is not better advice. They need fairer access to the work that creates visibility in the first place.

That is why culture cannot be reduced to tone or sentiment.

Culture decides who gets the proving ground.

Why this becomes a growth problem

Some leaders still treat this as a fairness issue alone.

It is a fairness issue. But it is also a growth issue.

When people see that advancement depends more on informal access than clear opportunity, they stop trusting the system. Some disengage. Others leave. The strongest often leave quietly, after they realise the ceiling is lower than the company admits.

That weakens retention.

It also narrows the leadership pipeline. Companies keep selecting from the same profiles, then wonder why their bench feels thin.

The cost shows up elsewhere, too. Teams lose morale when effort and opportunity drift apart. Hiring gets harder when internal stories about advancement start circulating outside the company. Product and growth decisions become narrower when the same lived experiences keep getting rewarded and elevated.

Once the same people keep getting the proving ground, the company starts calling the result merit.

That is when a cultural problem becomes self-defending.

Also Read: Data-driven or gut-led? Why the best startups do both

One structural shift that matters

Startups do not need perfect systems to improve this.

But they do need to stop treating opportunity as invisible.

One useful shift is to make stretch assignments visible and review who gets them.

That does not mean removing manager judgment from every decision. It means paying attention to patterns that are usually left unexamined.

• Who is getting cross-functional projects?
• Who is getting exposure to senior leadership?
• Who is repeatedly trusted with strategic work?
• Who is staying essential but unseen?

When leaders track opportunity flow, they can spot whether growth is being distributed fairly or simply recycled through familiarity.

That is a better place to start than waiting for performance review season and trying to correct an outcome that was shaped months earlier.

If a company wants fairer promotion outcomes, it has to look at the path to readiness, not just the final score.

What founders should sit with

Most startups do not set out to build uneven leadership pipelines.

They do it more quietly. They confuse familiarity with readiness. They confuse availability with commitment. They confuse informal trust with objective judgment.

Then, over time, careers, pay, and authority begin stacking on top of those early choices. At that point, the system feels harder to question because so much already depends on defending it.

That is why workplace culture matters more than companies often admit.

It does not just shape how people feel at work. It shapes who gets built into the future of the business.

—

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

The post Why merit in startups is often decided before performance reviews begin appeared first on e27.

The image of a street food seller in Bangkok or a vegetable vendor in Mumbai with a worn-out QR code on a cart is what people think of when they talk about “New Asia”. For the people who created the economy, this is a big deal. It shows that the future is here.

However, when we look closer, we must pose a question: Does the vendor’s experience on the issue of digital payments relate to the experience of a large retailer? When the countries of India and Southeast Asia transition to a cashless future, people tend to confuse access and fairness. It is not enough to provide a merchant with a wallet or a QR code.

A good system ensures that the technology behind the wallet is not only operational for a small business owner but also functional for a large company. The digital economy is no longer fair. They are the ones who have the lowest margins, who put their money into having the greatest risks.

The “silent failure” problem

Speed is the most important thing in a world where payment is made on time. It is unbelievable that India contributes to 46 per cent of the total real-time transactions in the world. However, to a trader, payment speed is not the greatest issue.

Also Read: Value creation: The US$3T private equity blind spot

It is because they are not sure. This uncertainty occurs when the account of a customer is debited. The merchant does not receive notification. According to a recent study conducted by a fintech company, the percentage of this issue is approximately 1.8 per cent of digital transactions. And worst of all, when a few transactions are in process at a time.

A failure rate of 1.8  per cent is a pain for the accounting department of a company. To a small business owner who has missed a payment, it does not mean that they cannot afford to buy food or to stock up on the day. These vendors cannot wait 48 hours before the money is refunded. Failure by the system comes at a cost to the merchant. They are forced to inform the customer that his or her money is lost. They are also unable to deliver goods to them.

Constructing the safety net

Addressing this imbalance requires looking beyond user adoption and examining the architecture that powers digital payments. A transaction is rarely a direct exchange between two individuals. It typically moves through a network of banks, gateways, switches, and settlement systems before it is completed.

When disruptions occur within this chain, large enterprises often have dedicated teams, technical redundancies, and financial buffers to manage the impact. Smaller merchants usually operate without these safeguards. For them, even brief uncertainty around payment confirmation or settlement can affect working capital, inventory decisions, and customer trust.

Also Read: How product design is democratising access to growth‑stage equity

This has led to growing interest in infrastructure-level approaches that improve transaction reliability and transparency. One such approach is payment orchestration, which focuses on coordinating multiple payment pathways and service providers within a unified operational framework. Rather than relying on a single processing route, orchestration layers can help detect network issues, reroute transactions when needed, and provide clearer visibility into transaction status.

The significance of such systems lies less in technological sophistication and more in their potential to reduce operational friction for merchants. When payment flows become more predictable, businesses can spend less time resolving failed transactions and more time focusing on growth and service delivery.

Improved resilience also helps protect margins. The costs associated with lost sales, delayed refunds, and manual reconciliation can be disproportionately high for small enterprises. Strengthening the reliability of payment infrastructure, therefore, becomes not just a technical priority but an economic one.

As digital adoption deepens across emerging markets, equity will depend not only on expanding access to wallets and QR codes but also on ensuring that the systems behind them function consistently for participants of all sizes. A cashless ecosystem becomes more inclusive when confidence in transaction completion is shared by both informal vendors and large retailers.

—

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

The post Beyond the QR code: Why infrastructure is the real key to digital equity appeared first on e27.

The digital economy is defined by a fundamental paradox: technology has democratised the creation and distribution of information, yet economic value and decision-making power remain highly concentrated. This concentration is controlled by a Super Oligarchy, i.e., a small group of platform owners and foundational model developers who capture the vast majority of the Sovereign Yield generated by global digital interactions.

Traditional frameworks for addressing this disparity, primarily rooted in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, have largely failed. They treat equity as a demographic optimisation problem rather than a structural requirement. Achieving genuine structural equity requires shifting the digital economy from an extractive model to one of true ownership. This transition must be engineered at the foundational level through agentic sovereignty, fractionalised intellectual property, and a democratised digital commons.

The limits of representation

For decades, the technology sector has relied on demographic representation to address inequity. This pipeline fallacy posits that a lack of equity is a supply-side issue, treating diversity as an algorithmically optimised hiring quota. This transactional approach ignores the systemic frictions that create a leaky pipeline, where marginalised talent is routinely pushed out of the sector by documented biases.

Furthermore, representation does not equate to ownership. Even highly diverse organisations encounter an invisible ceiling that structurally excludes contributors from the capital appreciation of digital platforms. Dominant business models appropriate communal information to build impenetrable data moats, operating as enclosures of the commons.

In this extractive system, software engineers and users act as highly paid tenants of the infrastructure they maintain. Meanwhile, platform founders and venture capitalists extract the Sovereign Yield. Demographic shifts in the workforce cannot dismantle an architecture fundamentally designed to extract value without distributing ownership.

Reclaiming economic agency

To dismantle the extractive model, economic agency must be returned to the individual. The evolution toward Agentic AI offers a pivotal opportunity to shift from passive participation to Agentic Sovereignty. Individuals must own personal AI agents that act as their legal proxies, representing their interests and operating portably across platforms.

This transition relies on policy as code. Frameworks like ArGen (Auto-Regulation of Generative AI) allow individuals to utilise an Open Policy Agent (OPA) layer to formally define and control how their personal data is accessed and monetised. Through this governance layer, a personal AI agent can negotiate micro-contracts, manage tasks, and license anonymised data for a fee via smart contracts. This transforms dynamic context from an extracted commodity into a licensed asset, capturing the Sovereign Yield and redistributing economic value directly to the user.

Also Read: Value creation: The US$3T private equity blind spot

Fractional ownership and the massive meritocracy

The digital economy currently operates on a binary ownership model: individuals either hold significant founder or venture capital equity, or they hold none at all. Architecting structural equity requires transitioning from this binary to a massive meritocracy built on fractional ownership.

This is achieved by tokenising Intellectual Property (IP). Utilising blockchain infrastructure and smart contracts, intangible assets like software code, training datasets, and AI model weights are converted into divisible, programmable digital tokens. Tokenisation automates real-time royalty distributions based on verifiable usage, removing administrative bottlenecks and bypassing expensive legal intermediaries.

Fractional ownership introduces liquid equity to the sector, replacing the traditional ten-year venture capital exit timeline with immediate, residual value capture. Protocols like tea.xyz demonstrate the viability of this model in open-source software, using a proof of contribution algorithm (teaRank) to automatically reward project maintainers with tokens. This mechanism allows developers to immediately capture the financial value they create as a platform scales, linking compensation directly to verifiable utility rather than corporate hierarchy.

Democratising the digital commons

Access to high-performance computing (HPC) and massive GPU clusters is a prerequisite for economic participation, yet this infrastructure is profoundly monopolised. Compute North countries host the vast majority of hardware; the United States alone controls 50 per cent of global secure internet servers, while high-income nations collectively account for 91 per cent. This concentration creates total compute deserts in low-income nations and ensures only the Super Oligarchy can afford the entry costs for foundational AI training.

To correct this divide, compute power and foundational digital assets must be treated as public utilities. Expanding digital commons initiatives ensures that essential computing infrastructure and open-source models are publicly accessible, effectively lowering the barrier to entry.

Furthermore, structural equity requires strict interoperability. Tech monopolies sustain their dominance through high switching costs and walled gardens. Economic precedents, such as Mobile Number Portability, demonstrate that mandated open APIs and frictionless data portability reduce switching costs to zero. This strips the Super-Oligarchy of its structural advantages and forces platforms to compete strictly on merit and service quality.

Also Read: It’s time to reshore: Why AI-augmented development changes the equation

Conclusion: Designing for resilience and ownership

The goal of designing structural equity is to build a system where economic marginalisation is technically impossible. This requires a definitive shift from inclusive hiring to inclusive business modelling.
Venture capitalists and policymakers must implement actionable reforms:

• Fund contributions, not just pedigrees: Capital must pivot to funding verifiable, on-chain contribution metrics (like teaRank) over institutional demographics. This establishes a massive meritocracy where value is recognised universally.
• Mandate public utility status for compute: Governments must treat major GPU clusters as essential facilities, ensuring mandatory access for researchers and startups at non-discriminatory rates.
• Embed governance in code: Frameworks must be utilised to ensure AI agents operate under the sovereign control of the individual, transforming compliance and equity into automated, auditable features.
  By hardcoding ownership, fractional equity, and agentic sovereignty directly into the architecture of the digital economy, the current landscape of enclosures will dissolve. The sovereignty of the code will replace extractive monopolies with a resilient economic system designed for genuine human flourishing.

—

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

The post Designing structural equity: How to hardwire fairness into the digital economy’s DNA appeared first on e27.

Semiconductors remain a cornerstone of the Philippines’s manufacturing export economy, generating approximately US$39 billion in export value in 2024 (roughly 60 per cent of the country’s merchandise exports), shows the Philippine Private Capital Report 2026 by Foxmont Capital Partners. This places the nation among the world’s top chip exporters with about a 3 per cent share of global shipments.

That scale is impressive: decades of specialisation in assembly, testing, and packaging (ATP) have turned the Philippines into a reliable manufacturing node for leading electronics and technology firms.

Also Read: The hidden tax on Philippine SMEs: Unreliable infrastructure

Yet, while the country is indispensable for volume-driven, labour-intensive segments of the global value chain, much of the higher-value design, wafer fabrication, and advanced packaging activity still occurs abroad. Closing that gap is both a major challenge and a major opportunity.

Foundations and current strengths

• Decades of ATP expertise: Philippine firms and the local workforce have deep institutional knowledge of final-stage semiconductor processes — soldering, die-attach, wire bonding, encapsulation, burn-in testing, and quality assurance. These competencies underpin the country’s export clout and make it an essential partner for multinational electronics manufacturers.
• Strategic clusters: Manufacturing hubs in Central Luzon, Calabarzon (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas), and select areas in Metro Manila provide proximity to ports, industrial parks, and a pool of technical labour. Recent investments in Calamba City and Cavite underscore the continued attractiveness of these regions.
• Emerging higher-value activity: The announced Samsung US$1 billion plant in Calamba to produce automotive multilayer capacitors, Analog Devices’s US$200 million R&D campus in Cavite for prototyping industrial power device wafers, and a US$1.6 billion investment in automotive power IC manufacturing (targeting production by 2026) signal nascent movement up the value chain.

Key constraints limiting upgrade

Despite these strengths, several constraints keep the Philippines concentrated in lower-value parts of the chain:

• Regulatory complexity and permitting delays: Lengthy approvals for land, environmental compliance, and foreign investment can slow plant construction and discourage faster-maturing investments that require predictable timelines.
• Infrastructure gaps: Reliable, high-capacity power, wastewater treatment suitable for chemical processes, advanced logistics, and specialised testing facilities are uneven across industrial zones. Advanced semiconductor fabs and testing labs demand steady, high-quality utilities and environmental controls.
• Limited domestic supplier ecosystem: Domestic suppliers currently provide less than 10 per cent of components and equipment for semiconductor production, with most inputs imported from China, Japan, and South Korea. This dependence increases cost, lengthens lead times, and reduces local value capture.
• Talent and retention: While the Philippines graduates many engineers and technical personnel, retaining mid- to senior-level IC design engineers, process engineers, and R&D scientists is difficult due to international competition and higher wages abroad.
• Regional competition: China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and Malaysia have aggressively expanded their semiconductor capabilities across ATP, with increasing focus on advanced packaging and design. Their larger domestic markets, stronger upstream supply chains, and targeted incentives increase competitive pressure.

Concrete opportunities to increase domestic value capture

Build local input capacity for downstream components:

Also Read: Philippines’s quiet AI revolution is about work, not tech

• Focus on simpler downstream parts — moulds, housings, socket assemblies, and test fixtures — which can be produced domestically with relatively modest capital and would immediately increase local content.
• Promote supplier development programmes linking multinational manufacturers with local SMEs, combining technical assistance, quality certification, and co-investment.

Encourage specialisation in advanced packaging and testing:

• Advanced packaging (fan-out, 2.5D/3D interposers) is a logical step up from ATP. Incentives, matched R&D grants, and pilot lines could help local firms move into higher-value packaging niches that support AI, automotive, and power IC markets.

Strengthen talent pipelines and retention:

• Expand scholarships, apprenticeships, and industry-academia programmes focused on IC design, process engineering, and test engineering.
• Create “returnee” and senior-scientist programs that attract Filipino engineers working overseas through competitive compensation packages, tax incentives, and leadership roles in new local R&D centres.

Fix infrastructure bottlenecks with targeted investments: 

• Prioritise stable power grids and dedicated industrial water/wastewater treatment for semiconductor clusters.
• Establish shared cleanroom facilities, metrology labs, and failure-analysis centres accessible to startups and SMEs to lower entry costs for advanced production and R&D.

Improve the regulatory and investment climate:

• Streamline permitting with one-stop industrial facilitation centers and guaranteed decision timelines for high-impact semiconductor projects.
• Offer performance-linked incentives for investments that demonstrably move up the value chain (e.g., local R&D, local supplier sourcing, workforce training targets).

Leverage venture capital and startups for design and process innovation:

• Globally, VC is driving breakthroughs in IC design (energy-efficient AI inference chips, silicon photonics, optical I/O). The Philippines can foster VC-backed startups focused on design services, IP cores, verification tools, and advanced packaging services.
• Establish seed funds or public-private funds to de-risk early-stage semiconductor design ventures and startup pilots that can be piloted with local EMS and CEM partners.

Policy and ecosystem recommendations

Create a national semiconductor strategy that maps short-term wins (supplier development, workforce training) to long-term goals (advanced packaging, design hubs, partial wafer fabrication).

• Deploy “anchor investor” policies: use large investments (like Samsung and Analogue Devices) to catalyse supplier clusters by tying incentives to local procurement and joint training programmes.
• Promote cluster-based development: designate semiconductor corridors with prioritised utilities, logistics, and shared services to reduce costs and encourage knowledge spillovers.
• Encourage technology-transfer partnerships between universities and multinational firms, with IP-sharing frameworks that enable startups to commercialise joint research.

Why this matters for the Philippines

If effectively executed, moving up the semiconductor value chain could transform the Philippine manufacturing landscape beyond exports.

It would:

• Increase domestic value capture by shifting revenue and profits from foreign firms into local suppliers, designers, and higher-paid technical roles.
• Create high-quality, resilient jobs across engineering, manufacturing, and services, reducing reliance on lower-wage ATP roles alone.
• Strengthen industrial complexity and productivity, making the economy more robust to external shocks and more attractive to complementary industries (automotive electronics, renewable energy systems, medical devices).

Also Read: Philippines’s productivity problem starts in the classroom

The Philippines already plays a powerful role in global semiconductor production; the challenge is to convert that role into a ladder for sustained economic upgrading. With coordinated policy, investment in infrastructure and skills, and smart use of public and private capital, besides the momentum from recent investments, the country is well-placed to capture more of the semiconductor value chain and turn chips into a longer-term engine of growth and technological capability. A future where more Filipino-made components, designs, and packaging solutions travel on those same export routes is not just desirable; it’s within reach.

The post From assembly line to innovation engine: Can Philippines climb the chip value chain? appeared first on e27.

The total crypto market capitalisation dropped 3.19 per cent to US$2.36T within a single 24-hour period. This decline reflects something deeper than typical volatility. We are witnessing a fundamental reassessment of how digital assets behave within the broader financial ecosystem. The data tells a compelling story that every serious investor needs to understand before making their next move.

The correlation coefficient with the S&P 500 reached 82 per cent over the last day, while the relationship with Gold hit an extraordinary 92 per cent. These numbers shatter the narrative that cryptocurrency operates as an independent asset class. Instead, we see digital assets trading as macro-sensitive instruments, fully exposed to interest-rate expectations and geopolitical risk. The Federal Reserve holds the keys to near-term direction, and its recent communications have done little to calm nervous investors.

Federal Reserve officials, including Vice Chair Michael Barr, issued stark warnings about the inflation fight facing new threats from instability in the Middle East. The prospect of an oil shock stemming from tensions in Iran could force policymakers to delay anticipated rate cuts throughout 2026. This rhetoric sparked a broad selloff across risk assets, with crypto bearing the brunt of the outflow. Market participants had priced in a more accommodative stance from the central bank, but the reality of persistent energy inflation has forced a painful recalibration. The May 6- 7 FOMC meeting now looms as the next critical event where we might gain clarity on the actual rate path forward.

The Ethereum ecosystem experienced particular pain during this downturn, falling 16.77 per cent as large holders chose to distribute their positions. One early supporter unstaked 7,302 ETH after 4 years of locking their tokens, converting approximately US$15.14M worth into liquid assets. This type of concentrated selling from long-term holders creates outsized moves when combined with sector-wide risk aversion. The market absorbed this supply poorly, suggesting that bid depth remains thin across major trading venues. I view this as a warning sign that we should closely monitor ETH exchange reserves and staking outflow trends. A continued rise in these metrics could signal further distribution from other long-term holders who see better opportunities elsewhere.

Also Read: Bitcoin holds US$71K as Ethereum surges 15%: What’s driving the US$2.44T crypto rally

Altcoin performance painted an even grimmer picture, with high-beta tokens underperforming as capital rotated into safety. Several AI tokens dropped over 14 per cent on heavy volume. This pattern indicates that investors are not merely taking profits but actively reducing exposure to speculative positions. The risk-off sentiment extends beyond crypto into global equity markets, where the Nasdaq Composite confirmed a correction by dropping more than 10 per cent from its recent all-time high. The S&P 500 fell 1.74 per cent to 6,477.16, closing below its 200-day moving average for the first time in nearly a year. The Dow Jones slid 469.38 points to settle at 45,960.11. These moves confirm that we face a synchronised global downturn rather than an isolated crypto event.

Energy markets remain the primary driver of this macro uncertainty. Brent crude trades around US$107 per barrel, up over 70 per cent year-to-date as markets price in the risk of oil reaching US$200 if the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz escalates. S&P Global lowered its 2026 growth forecasts while raising its inflation outlook due to prolonged energy disruptions. This stagflation scenario represents the worst possible environment for risk assets, combining weak economic growth with persistent price pressures. Hopes for a Fed rate cut in 2026 have largely evaporated as the energy shock heightens inflation risks. The US Dollar rose 0.4 per cent as traders sought safety amid the Middle East crisis, while Gold fell 3.4 per cent as investors adjusted to a new rate reality where inflation concerns outweigh fear-driven buying. Gold prices have retraced about 20 per cent from January peaks, showing that even traditional safe havens struggle when rate expectations shift dramatically.

Also Read: Crypto falls 1.29% to US$2.34T as geopolitical fear triggers risk-asset selloff

Bitcoin liquidations surged 103 per cent to US$97.43M over 24 hours, indicating that leveraged long positions are being liquidated. This deleveraging event amplifies downward pressure, creating a feedback loop through forced selling. The total market cap now tests the 50 per cent Fibonacci retracement level at US$2.41T, with major support at the yearly low of US$2.17T. A hold above US$2.27T, which represents the recent swing low, could set up a consolidation phase where the market digests these macro shocks. A break below that level may trigger a deeper correction toward the yearly lows. Bitcoin must defend the US$64K to US$65K zone to prevent further technical damage. I watch the US spot Bitcoin ETF flow data closely for signs of institutional demand returning, as these products now represent a critical source of marginal buying pressure.

The near-term market outlook hinges on two factors that remain outside crypto’s control. First, geopolitical tensions must cool to reduce the oil shock premium currently embedded in inflation expectations. Second, Federal Reserve rhetoric needs to soften to restore confidence in the timeline for rate cuts. Without improvement on these fronts, we face continued pressure across all risk assets. The question every investor must answer involves whether Bitcoin support at US$64K will hold as the macro storm passes, or if a retest of lower levels becomes inevitable. 

This downturn represents a macro-driven deleveraging event amplified by large Ethereum selling and altcoin weakness. The path forward likely depends on whether geopolitical tensions cool and the Fed rhetoric softens. I have seen multiple cycles where the market found bottoms only after macro uncertainty resolved. The current environment demands patience and disciplined risk management rather than attempts to catch falling knives. Investors should prepare for continued volatility while monitoring the key levels and catalysts outlined above. 

—

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

The post Stagflation fears mount as brent crude hits US$107 and crypto market tests yearly lows appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia’s digital economy has grown at breakneck speed, but its cybersecurity posture is struggling to keep pace. The rise of supply chain cyberattacks is not surprising; it is the natural consequence of a region that has prioritised rapid digital integration over systemic resilience.

What stands out is not just the scale of the threat, but how structurally embedded the vulnerabilities are. Businesses are no longer isolated entities; they are deeply interconnected ecosystems of vendors, cloud providers, contractors, and platforms. Each new integration expands capability—and risk. Yet governance has not evolved accordingly. Too many organisations still treat cybersecurity as a technical issue, rather than a cross-functional responsibility spanning procurement, legal, and operations.

The talent shortage only compounds the problem. Even in more mature markets like Singapore, security teams are overwhelmed, forced to prioritise immediate threats over long-term vendor risk management. In less mature ecosystems, the gap is even more pronounced, leaving entire supply chains exposed.

Perhaps most concerning is the inconsistency in basic safeguards. Weak adoption of foundational measures like two-factor authentication signals a deeper issue: cybersecurity discipline remains uneven across the region.

Ultimately, Southeast Asia faces a critical inflection point. Digital growth without trust is fragile. If the region is to sustain its momentum, it must shift from reactive fixes to proactive, ecosystem-wide security thinking—before the next breach forces the lesson.

Regional

Startale raises US$63M to rebuild Asian finance on blockchain: The Singapore-based blockchain startup secured US$50M from SBI Group and US$13M from Sony Innovation Fund, targeting tokenised securities trading and stablecoin infrastructure via its Strium Layer 1 platform and yen-pegged JPYSC stablecoin.

Tazapay raises US$36M to scale cross-border payment rails: Circle Ventures led the Series B extension for the Singapore-based firm, with CMT Digital and Coinbase Ventures joining as new backers. The funds will support regulatory approvals across the UAE, EU, and Hong Kong, alongside automated payment product development.

APAC mobile gaming shifts to retention as sessions climb: Adjust’s Gaming App Insights Report 2026 shows APAC’s paid-to-organic ratio rose 45%, while strategy game sessions surged 57% globally. Singapore, Thailand, Japan, Indonesia, and Vietnam all posted session growth as studios pivot from install volumes to long-term player value.

SEA finance app installs fall 17% as marketers chase retention: AppsFlyer’s 2025 APAC finance report shows user acquisition spend dropped 27% region-wide, while remarketing spend in Southeast Asia surged 193%. Indonesia led Android in-app revenue at 39% of the APAC total; fraud rates fell to 22% from 41%.

Singapore’s JTC expands LaunchPad to 19 cities worldwide: The government agency opened a new co-working space at One-North and signed MOUs with NUS Enterprise and INSEAD, extending its startup network to Paris, San Francisco, Shenzhen, and Jakarta while adding CapitaLand, CDL, and SoftBank Robotics as partners.

X enforces Indonesia’s 16-year age rule for social media: Elon Musk’s platform has begun complying with Indonesia’s PP No. 17/2025 child protection law, which restricts social media access to users aged 16 and above. Non-compliant accounts face staged deactivation, while the government urges other platforms to follow suit.

---

Interviews & Features

Amity’s US$100M raise signals SEA’s AI coming of age: Thailand’s Amity closed Southeast Asia’s largest generative AI funding round, led by EDBI and Asia Partners, bringing total funding to ~US$160M. The firm targets a 2027 IPO, with revenue exceeding US$100M and 75% of EBITDA from European operations.

Philippines’s hidden SME tax: Unreliable infrastructure: Power outages, water pressure gaps, and patchy internet force Philippine SMEs into costly self-insurance strategies — backup generators, multiple ISPs, water storage — draining cash that could otherwise fund productivity investments, with implications for the entire ASEAN region.

From layoff to fractional CMO: Reinventing work in Singapore’s tech scene: A former SVP at a Singapore bank who was retrenched after 20 years founded Mad About Marketing Consulting, a fractional marketing firm, arguing that Gen Z and millennials are rejecting linear careers in favour of flexibility, purpose, and multi-employer models that keep them from the chopping block.

SEA data centre boom risks a PR crisis without public trust: With US$6.3B invested in the sector in 2024, industry leaders at the SIJORI dialogue acknowledged that energy, land, and water strains are fuelling public scepticism — turning community engagement from an afterthought into a business-critical strategy for operators and governments alike.

Beyond the booth: Integrated event marketing for tech brands: A Singapore PR consultancy details how it helped a global data centre firm turn a two-day Asia exhibition into a multi-market campaign— combining pre-event narrative building, tier-1 media briefings, LinkedIn content series, and post-event amplification to reach over 10 million across Singapore, India, Malaysia, and Australia.

---

International

US court blocks Trump administration’s Anthropic ban: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting the Pentagon’s designation of Anthropic as a supply chain threat, after the AI company sought assurances its technology would not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons — a dispute the judge said could constitute First Amendment retaliation.

Anthropic eyes IPO as early as October at US$60B+ valuation: The Claude maker is in early talks with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley about lead roles for a potential listing. The firm was valued at US$38B in February after closing a US$30B funding round; plans remain subject to change.

Chinese EV brands double European market share in a year: BYD, Leapmotor, and peers lifted their combined EU and UK passenger car share to 8% in February, up from 4.2% a year earlier, taking 16% of hybrid registrations and 14% of fully electric registrations as Chery assembles in Spain and BYD ramps up its Hungary plant.

Zeekr enters South Korea with its 7X mid-size SUV: The Geely-owned EV brand is in the final stage of local certification for its facelifted 7X, which will offer CATL-supplied LFP and NCM battery options. The car will skip LiDAR due to regulatory limits but include Level 2 autonomous features; sales will run through a dealer network.

India’s AI spend in financial services set to double in 2026: A QED Investors report finds banks, insurers, and fintechs accelerating AI deployment for fraud detection, verification, and customer service. The VC firm plans to invest US$250M–US$300M in India across its next two fund cycles, targeting startups in fraud risk, compliance, and voice AI.

Naver and Spotify deepen partnership in South Korea: The two firms met at CEO level to review and expand collaboration, including bundling Spotify into Naver Plus Membership and enabling in-car audio via Naver’s navigation service. Gen Z membership signups rose 17% after the partnership launched; joint exploration of search, marketing, and content is planned.

UK sanctions Cambodia’s largest scam compound and crypto marketplace: Britain froze assets linked to Legend Innovation and Xinbi, including a £9M London penthouse, after labelling the former the operator of the “#8 Park” compound — estimated to hold up to 20,000 trafficked workers — and the latter a Chinese-language crypto platform used by fraud networks.

---

Cybersecurity

Supply chain cyberattacks are becoming SEA’s new normal: A Kaspersky survey of 1,714 IT decision-makers found one in three organisations was hit by a supply chain attack in the past year. In SEA, talent shortages range from 34% in Singapore to 57% in Vietnam, while two-factor authentication adoption in Singapore sits at just 28%.

Philippines’s cybersecurity gap widens as digital economy grows: With only 28 active cybersecurity startups and thin funding activity, the Philippines faces a structural mismatch — rapid digitisation across fintech, e-commerce, and government services is expanding attack surfaces faster than organisations can build defences, driving demand for managed security services and AI-led detection.

Agent-to-agent trust is the next unsolved identity challenge: As AI agents begin interacting autonomously across organisational boundaries, authentication alone is no longer sufficient — systems must verify delegation chains, approved scopes, and action provenance. Without cascade containment models and bounded autonomy, multi-agent systems risk propagating flawed inferences across interconnected platforms.

---

Semiconductor

Can the Philippines climb the semiconductor value chain?: Generating ~US$39B in chip exports — 60% of merchandise exports — the Philippines dominates ATP manufacturing, but higher-value design, wafer fabrication, and advanced packaging remain largely foreign-held, with investments from Samsung (US$1B), Analog Devices (US$200M), and a US$1.6B automotive IC project signalling nascent movement up the value chain.

SMIC accused of supplying chipmaking tools to Iran’s military: Two senior Trump administration officials told Reuters that China’s largest chipmaker has been sending equipment to Iran for about a year, potentially including technical training. Whether the tools are of US origin — which could breach existing sanctions — remains unconfirmed; SMIC did not respond to comment requests.

Middle East conflict triggers helium shortage in tech supply chains: Chipmakers reliant on Qatar — which supplies roughly a third of global helium output — are facing rising prices and transport delaysas the regional conflict tightens supply. Semiconductor firms have few short-term options beyond slowing output or pivoting to US sources, according to supply chain consultants.

---

AI

Philippines’s quiet AI revolution is about work, not tech: According to Foxmont Capital Partners, nearly 70% of AI-enabled productivity gains in the Philippines’s service sector come from people and process redesign rather than technology alone — with the IT-BPM sector highlighted as a case study in the gap between AI experimentation and genuine operational transformation.

AI-driven enterprise deals gain momentum amid trade uncertainty: Despite geopolitical headwinds, 85% of Asia-Pacific CEOs surveyed by EY-Parthenon predict AI will be decisive for industry leadership in 2025, while 61% view M&A as a transformation accelerant — with Southeast Asia flagged as a pocket of resilience for joint ventures and minority stake investments.

Why the AI revolution depends on reinventing energy infrastructure: The Radical Fund argues that data centre power demand — projected to more than double by 2030 — is becoming AI’s binding constraint. Malaysia alone has committed US$23B in data centre investments, yet the regional grid remains fossil-heavy, making liquid cooling, on-site renewables, and SMRs strategic rather than optional.

Deep learning’s enterprise promise is harder to deliver than it looks: Despite hype, deploying deep learning at enterprise scale demands clean data, interpretable models, legacy system integration, and cross-team governance — challenges compounded by model drift and talent gaps. Without robust MLOps pipelines and explainability frameworks, even well-designed models deteriorate quickly.

Governing generative AI: Why risk management can’t be an afterthought: With 35% of Singapore organisations turning to intelligent automation and 90% of global firms having adopted AI to some degree, businesses must build governance frameworks covering IP, privacy, bias, and data security before deploying Gen AI — or risk reputational, legal, and operational exposure.

Singapore bets on AI chatbots to create jobs, not destroy them: Contrary to displacement fears, AI adoption across Singapore businesses is creating new roles — AI specialists, prompt engineers, and automation managers — while chatbots free workers from routine tasks. Schools and universities are embedding AI literacy into curricula, positioning the city-state to remain competitive.

AI influencers are quietly reshaping the marketing industry: From Meta’s 15 AI persona roster to FAME’s multilingual virtual talents, AI influencers are commanding brand partnerships and outperforming human counterparts on 24/7 availability and real-time trend adaptation. With the global AI market projected to reach US$309.6B by 2028, talent agencies are accelerating the pivot.

---

Thought Leadership

Designing structural equity in the digital economy: DEI initiatives have failed to dismantle the extractive model underpinning Big Tech’s value capture, argues this piece. Genuine structural equity requires agentic sovereignty — personal AI agents operating as legal proxies, tokenised IP for fractional ownership, and mandated open APIs to break platform monopolies and redistribute economic value to contributors.

The alliance economy: What founders must know to survive fragmentation: The global shift from open markets to issue-based strategic alliances means market access is now conditional on regulatory alignment, capital origin, and infrastructure control. Southeast Asia, India, and parts of the Middle East are positioning as cross-system connectors — the most valuable geography for companies that can navigate multiple regulatory environments simultaneously.

Philippines’s productivity problem starts in the classroom: Foxmont Capital Partners’ Philippine Private Capital Report 2026 frames the country’s education challenge as a three-part “skills trifecta” — foundational learning, mid-level workforce expansion, and rapid reskilling. Failing on any leg risks turning demographic advantage into an economic liability amid intensifying regional competition.

Blockchain gaming in SEA: Not hype, not dead — just growing up: After the Axie Infinity crash wiped out play-to-earn guilds across the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, SEA’s Web3 gaming ecosystem has quietly recalibrated — shifting from extractive token mechanics to hybrid play-and-own models, skill-based mobile PvP, and community-first localisation strategies that prioritise retention over rapid acquisition.

Cognitive bias in AI hiring: The explainability gap no one is closing: Algorithmic hiring tools inherit historical biases from training data, and because many decision-making models remain black boxes, marginalised applicants face compounded disadvantage. The EU AI Act classifies recruitment AI as high-risk, but employer awareness of explainability requirements remains dangerously low across most markets.

Forecourt retail’s future lies beyond the fuel pump: As EV adoption extends customer dwell time from 3 minutes to 20-plus, petrol station operators like Sinopec’s Easy Joy are partnering with AI-driven retail platforms to build “People-Vehicle-Life” ecosystems — monetising wait time through predictive offers, last-mile fulfilment, and multi-mission convenience formats.

Wet waste’s profit potential: The hydrothermal technology case: With over 80% of the world’s wet waste incinerated or landfilled, Singapore-based Altent Renewables is developing a hydrothermal process that converts food waste, bio-sludge, and oil sludge into syngas and minerals — with the potential to cut wet waste disposal costs by more than 70%.

Binance’s market maker crackdown: What traders need to watch: Binance’s new rules mandate disclosure of market maker identities, ban profit-sharing arrangements, and prohibit opaque token lending — a structural shift toward transparency that may widen spreads for tokens reliant on artificial liquidity, while enforcement credibility hinges on whether blacklisted firms are publicly named.

The 90% blind spot: Why tech events exclude women founders: Despite female-founded businesses more than doubling in Singapore over 15 years, early-stage funding for women-led SEA startups collapsed from US$871.8M in 2022 to US$198M in 2024 — with no late-stage deals recorded in Singapore in 2024 — as general tech events remain 90% male and networking loops perpetuate closed referral circles.

The post Ecosystem Roundup: Supply chain cyberattacks surge in SEA; Amity’s US$100M signals AI rise; US blocks Anthropic ban; Philippines cyber gap widens appeared first on e27.

Singapore-based Tazapay has pulled in a US$36 million Series B round, with Circle Ventures leading the extension and Coinbase Ventures and CMT Digital joining the cap table.

The investor line-up matters: it signals that investors are no longer just funding fintechs that move money faster, but those building the regulated plumbing for a world where stablecoins, local bank rails, and AI-driven workflows increasingly collide.

Also Read: Tazapay bags US$16.9M for Middle East, Europe expansion

Tazapay is, in simple English, a company that helps businesses send, receive and settle money across borders without having to piece together a messy web of banks, local payment providers, and compliance checks country by country. Its pitch is straightforward: if a marketplace, SaaS company, or fintech wants to collect payments in one market and pay out in another, Tazapay wants to be the infrastructure layer handling that behind the scenes.

That may sound dry. It is not. Cross-border payments in emerging Asia remain painfully fragmented, expensive, and slow, especially beyond major corridors. The promise from players like Tazapay is that they can replace chunks of the old correspondent banking stack with faster rails, tighter integrations and better local coverage.

The company said the new funding will be used to expand licensing, accelerate go-to-market efforts across Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and the Americas, and build what it calls “agentic payment infrastructure”. Strip away the buzzword, and the idea is more interesting than it first appears.

Agentic AI in payments means software agents that do more than just chat. They can, in theory, verify an invoice, choose the cheapest compliant payment route, handle foreign exchange, trigger a payout, reconcile the transaction in the back office and flag anomalies — all with minimal human intervention. For that to work at scale, payment infrastructure cannot just process transactions; it needs rules engines, audit trails, identity checks, sanctions screening and fail-safe controls.

In other words, AI does not remove the need for payment infrastructure; it makes the infrastructure far more important.

That is where Tazapay is trying to position itself: not merely as a cross-border payments API, but as the regulated layer on which autonomous payment flows can safely run.

Circle Ventures’s Vice President Brian Schultz put the thesis plainly: “Stablecoin adoption in cross-border commerce depends on regulated, operationally reliable infrastructure.” He added that Tazapay’s licensing footprint and local market integrations address a core enterprise requirement: stablecoin-to-fiat settlement.

That last point is doing a lot of work. Plenty of startups can move digital assets. Far fewer can convert them into usable local currency, in a regulated fashion, at the last mile. In Southeast Asia and other emerging markets, that gap remains one of the hardest parts of the stack.

Tazapay said it has doubled revenue for three consecutive years and now serves more than 1,000 enterprises and fintechs across 30 countries, with licences and registrations in Singapore, Canada, Australia and the US. Applications are underway in the UAE, the EU and Hong Kong.

The wider ASEAN opportunity is large, even if the “payment infrastructure market” is not neatly broken out in most analyst reports. The best proxy is digital payments more broadly, which already runs into the hundreds of billions of US dollars annually across Southeast Asia. Industry forecasts have consistently pointed to the region moving towards more than US$1 trillion in digital payment value by the end of the decade, driven by e-commerce, B2B trade, wallet adoption and real-time domestic payment schemes now being linked across borders.

That opportunity has attracted serious competition. Among the more prominent players in and around ASEAN are Nium, Thunes, Xendit, 2C2P, Airwallex, and dLocal, alongside card networks such as Visa and Mastercard and regional giants like Ant Group through Alipay+. Each attacks a slightly different layer — collections, payouts, merchant acquiring, treasury, remittance or wallet interoperability — but the direction of travel is the same: own more of the infrastructure, not just the app on top.

Also Read: Tazapay snags US$3.2M to expand cross-border SMB commerce platform in Southeast Asia

For Tazapay, the challenge now is execution. Funding rounds are easier to announce than licences are to secure, and cross-border payments is littered with companies that discovered too late that local market complexity does not disappear just because the API documentation looks clean.

Still, the timing is notable. As ASEAN pushes for deeper payment connectivity and enterprises look for alternatives to legacy banking rails, the winners are likely to be the companies that can combine compliance, local reach and automation. Tazapay is betting that the next leap in payments will not come from prettier checkout buttons, but from intelligent systems moving money in the background — quickly, cheaply and without breaking the rules.

The post Tazapay’s US$36M raise signals a new phase for fintech: Infrastructure over apps appeared first on e27.