SBOM has become one of those ideas that sounds obvious in a board presentation and messy the moment it reaches a real plant. In theory, it is simple. Ask every supplier what sits inside the software you run. In practice, OT estates are made up of PLCs with opaque firmware, SCADA stacks that have grown over the years, historians with connectors and plug-ins from different eras, and vendor appliances that were bought for uptime rather than transparency. The modern OT now looks much closer to IT than it once did, yet it still carries unique performance, reliability, safety, and change control constraints. That is why SBOM in OT is possible, but it has to be framed as an operational risk tool, not as a purity exercise.

The stronger question for the energy sector is not whether every OT product can produce a perfect SBOM tomorrow morning. The stronger question is whether operators can get enough component visibility to make faster decisions on patching, isolation, procurement, and incident response before they are forced into blind trust. That is also where policy is heading.

It is becoming common for manufacturers of products with digital elements to identify and document components, including by drawing up an SBOM in a commonly used, machine-readable format covering at least the top-level dependencies, and to provide it to market surveillance authorities where needed for compliance checks. At the same time, explicit focus is put on refining data fields, automation support, and operational practices so that SBOMs are scalable and interoperable rather than theoretical.

Why OT makes SBOM harder

The software world often assumes continuous deployment, short release cycles, and an environment where change is routine. OT does not work like that. Change management is paramount in OT, that software changes must be thoroughly tested and rolled out carefully, that outages may need to be scheduled days or weeks in advance, and that many OT environments still rely on older operating systems and firmware that may no longer be supported by the vendor. That changes the value of SBOM. In enterprise IT, it can be a speed tool. In OT, it is first a decision confidence tool.

Also Read: How to navigate the investment opportunity in climate tech sector

This is why many operators still hesitate. They hear SBOM and imagine a flood of component data that creates work without reducing plant risk. That fear is reasonable if the programme is designed badly. A raw component list that is disconnected from asset criticality, patch windows, vendor support, and engineering ownership is not a control. It is an admin. The answer is not to reject SBOM. The answer is to define what useful visibility looks like in an industrial setting.

What SBOM should really mean

For PLCs, the industry needs to be honest. Most operators are not going to get perfect software transparency for every controller any time soon. But that does not mean nothing can be done. A practical PLC SBOM starts with the firmware image, the communications stack, the engineering workstation software used to configure the controller, and any embedded third-party components that materially affect exposure or patching decisions. In OT terms, that is already meaningful progress because it ties software transparency to the assets that can change physical behaviour. The software and firmware inventory, version numbers, vendor details, and SBOM information belong inside an accurate asset inventory and risk management practice.

Historians and SCADA systems are where SBOM adoption should move faster. These platforms are usually closer to standard operating systems, databases, application servers, remote access layers, and commercial software components. In other words, they are part of OT where component transparency is more achievable and more immediately useful. If operators are serious, this is where they should begin, because the effort is lower and the payoff in vulnerability management is more visible. SBOM data improves the speed and efficiency of vulnerability response, helps identify end-of-support components earlier, and becomes far more powerful when integrated into vulnerability management and asset management tools already in use.

Vendor appliances are the real test. These are the black boxes that every site depends on, and very few teams can fully inspect. They are also where operator frustration is highest. It is suggested that buyers seek manufacturers who include hardware and software bills of materials with product delivery and who commit to timely remediation. That matters because procurement is often the only moment when the operator has real leverage. If an appliance supplier still treats component transparency as optional, that is no longer a technical footnote. It is a signal about how seriously they take lifecycle accountability.

Also Read: What big tech won’t show you about the future of AI

The mistake is treating SBOM as a file rather than a workflow

The market still talks about SBOM as though the job ends once a JSON or XML file has been generated. That is far too narrow, especially in OT. SBOM includes workflows for acquisition, management, and use, while its sharing work distinguishes between authors, consumers, and distributors across the lifecycle. SBOM is only data until it is consumed and converted into insight that can drive action. That is the right way to think about OT. A plant does not need more documents. It needs better decisions.

This is also why SBOM without VEX will disappoint many operators. A component list tells you what is inside. It does not tell you whether a newly disclosed vulnerability is actually exploitable in your deployed configuration, or whether the vendor has already assessed the exposure differently. VEX can be used alongside SBOM to improve prioritisation and effectiveness. In OT, that matters enormously because patching is costly and often disruptive. The real value is not finding every theoretical issue. It is knowing which issues deserve scarce outage time.

Can we actually do SBOM in OT

Yes, but it needs a sequence that respects operational reality.

First, use procurement to shape the future estate. Regulations are moving in that direction, and buyers should use that momentum. New PLC platforms, historians, SCADA systems, remote access products, and industrial appliances should be bought with explicit expectations around SBOM, update support, vulnerability disclosure, and version control. This is the easiest part of the OT estate to improve because it relies more on commercial discipline than plant retrofit heroics.

Also Read: How to unlock possibilities through data privacy enhancing technologies

Second, treat legacy products differently from new builds. Binary decomposition of software installation packages is recommended to generate SBOMs where no vendor-supplied SBOM is available, including for legacy software, where technically and legally feasible. When software already exists, binary analysis tools can use increasingly accurate heuristics and datasets to infer underlying components. That does not solve every appliance or controller, but it creates a realistic middle path for brownfield environments.

Third, connect SBOM to asset inventory and criticality from the start. The accurate inventory of vendor, model, firmware, operating system, and software versions is central to identifying and remediating vulnerabilities. SBOM disclosures should be aligned with asset inventories for risk exposure and criticality calculations. That is the step that turns software transparency into plant relevance. Without it, SBOM remains a software artefact. With it, it becomes part of operational risk management.

—

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 SBOM for OT: Can we actually do it? appeared first on e27.

Consumers across Southeast Asia still experience e-commerce as a bargain-hunting paradise: flash sales, free shipping, vouchers, cashback, livestream discounts, and endless price competition. But behind that cheerful promotional theatre lies a harsher truth. The economics are getting tougher for merchants, and the ecosystem is increasingly built on a tension that may not be sustainable in the long term.

According to Ecommerce in Southeast Asia 2026 by MomentumWorks, platform take rates continue to rise across the region, with Shopee reaching a GAAP take rate of 13.5 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025.

Yet sellers interviewed by MomentumWorks said their real all-in costs (including commissions, advertising, logistics, payment charges, affiliate fees, and platform services) often exceed 30 per cent of GMV.

Also Read: Shopee, TikTok, Lazada: Three ways to win and no easy way in

That gap between official take rate and lived merchant experience tells the real story of Southeast Asian e-commerce in 2026.

The published number is not the merchant’s number

A 13.5 per cent take rate sounds manageable, especially in a region where e-commerce platforms are still in growth mode. But sellers do not pay only the published commission. They pay for traffic. They pay for conversion. They pay to join campaigns. They subsidise consumers. They pay logistics and fulfilment fees. They pay affiliates. They often absorb operational leakage and returns as well.

MomentumWorks cites seller feedback suggesting that platform fees alone can approach 25 per cent even before a merchant includes its own shipping costs and affiliate spend. In some cases, the total drain on revenue approaches half the sale value before product cost is even counted.

This explains one of the report’s most striking observations: sellers are squeezed, but they cannot leave.

Platform dependence is the real moat

Why do merchants stay when margins are deteriorating? Because in Southeast Asia, platform demand is still overwhelmingly dominant.
MomentumWorks estimates that non-platform ecommerce GMV in the region totalled US$27.8 billion in 2025, against platform GMV of US$157.6 billion. That means roughly 85 per cent of e-commerce in Southeast Asia still flows through the major platforms. Social commerce, brand-owned websites, multi-brand retail sites, and chat-based transactions are growing, but they remain secondary.

For merchants, this creates a painful asymmetry. They dislike rising costs, yet they remain dependent on the platforms’ traffic and conversion machinery. Exiting a platform is not just a channel decision. It can feel like voluntary invisibility.

That dependence gives leading platforms enormous room to keep shifting economics in their favour, at least until behaviour changes at scale.

The paradox of cheap e-commerce

Perhaps the most provocative argument in the report is that Southeast Asia’s e-commerce has not yet reached its “true price floor”. That sounds counterintuitive in a market obsessed with discounts. But the report’s point is sharp: today’s affordability is often artificial. It is driven by subsidies funded by platforms, brands, and sellers—not by structurally lower supply-chain costs.

In plain English, prices look low to shoppers because someone else is carrying the burden.

If merchant economics are deteriorating while platforms still need vouchers and incentives to drive price competitiveness, then Southeast Asia has not yet produced a fully efficient discount retail model. It has only produced a heavily subsidised one.

That matters because the region still contains a large, highly price-sensitive consumer base that remains underpenetrated in e-commerce. If a platform can eventually redesign the supply chain rather than merely subsidise the transaction, the market could open much further.

The Temu question hangs over the region

This is where the report raises a question that should make every incumbent uncomfortable: Can a Pinduoduo or Temu-like model really emerge in Southeast Asia?

Also Read: Why quick commerce is really about frequency, not speed

The answer is not obvious. The region is more fragmented than China, with different languages, customs regimes, payment behaviours, logistics costs, and regulatory environments. But the demand side is compelling. Large parts of Southeast Asia remain highly price-sensitive. If a structural cost advantage can be unlocked through sourcing, inventory, logistics, and product design, the addressable market may be larger than current platform models suggest.

Cross-border flows offer a clue. In the Philippines, cross-border e-commerce GMV surpassed US$0.1 billion, with SHEIN and Temu driving significant parcel volume and freight tonnage. Thailand has tightened import oversight, and Vietnam continues to increase scrutiny. But demand has not disappeared. It is adapting.

The danger for incumbents is that they may be fighting over subsidised middle-income consumers while a deeper value segment remains only partially served.

Sellers are becoming multi-platform by necessity, not ambition

MomentumWorks notes that multi-platform operations are no longer optional for sellers. That is a critical shift. Merchants are not diversifying because it is an elegant strategy. They are doing it because platform dependence is risky, algorithmic visibility is unstable, and any one channel can suddenly become too costly.

This could reshape the e-commerce service landscape. Merchant software, cross-platform inventory tools, ad optimisation platforms, social commerce enablement, and direct customer retention solutions all become more relevant when sellers need to spread risk across channels.

The rise of affiliate-driven commerce compounds this. As platforms push more content-led discovery, brands and sellers have to spend more not just on logistics and platform fees, but on attention itself. Discovery is becoming both more expensive and more fragmented.

Regulators are entering the picture, but not to save sellers

Several Southeast Asian governments are tightening e-commerce rules, especially around imports, competition, and platform accountability. Thailand has abolished its de minimis exemption on imported goods. Vietnam has passed a new e-commerce law that places more responsibility on platforms to regulate sellers. Indonesia remains politically sensitive to the dominance of foreign-linked platforms and Chinese product inflows.

Also Read: SEA’s e-commerce giants hit profitability: What it means for region’s digital future

But regulation may not directly improve merchant margins. In fact, it could further entrench the biggest players by increasing compliance costs and favouring platforms with the scale to manage them.

That means sellers should not expect public policy to restore balance quickly. The structural tension will likely persist.

The next wave of opportunity may sit outside the transaction

For founders and investors, the lesson is clear. The biggest opportunities may no longer be in competing for the transaction itself, but in reducing friction for sellers trapped inside high-cost ecosystems. That includes better analytics, AI-enabled content production, customer retention, financing, embedded software, and tools that help merchants understand true profitability by channel.

Southeast Asia e-commerce still looks like a consumer success story. But underneath, it is becoming a merchant stress test. And when the people funding the discount machine start to crack, the whole system can change very quickly.

Cheap e-commerce, in this region, is getting expensive.

The post Why sellers can’t escape the e-commerce platforms that squeeze them appeared first on e27.

Global financial markets present a fascinating picture of resilience and shifting capital flows as we navigate April 2026. Investors find themselves at a crossroads of geopolitical relief and strong domestic economic indicators. The major United States indices reflect optimism among market participants today. The S&P 500 gained 18.33 points, a 0.26 per cent increase, closing at a record 7,041.28. The Nasdaq Composite rose 86.69 points, or 0.36 per cent, reaching 24,102.70 and hitting a historic all-time high.

This movement marks the 12th consecutive positive session for the Nasdaq. Analysts note this represents the longest winning streak for the technology index since 2009. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 115.00 points, equivalent to a 0.24 per cent rise, finishing the trading session at 48,578.72.

A significant driver behind this market rally involves impactful developments on the geopolitical front. President Trump announced a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. This agreement became effective at 5 pm Eastern Time on April 16. This diplomatic breakthrough provided relief to investors who spent weeks watching regional instability threaten global trade routes.

Market sentiment improved drastically after new reports indicated that discussions between the United States and Iran were ramping up. These diplomatic conversations bring strong prospects of extending a separate two-week ceasefire. This potential de-escalation allows market participants to actively price a lower risk premium for equities across the board.

The energy sector tells a conflicting story right now. Brent crude climbed 4.7 per cent to US$99.39 a barrel as ongoing disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz push oil prices higher.

The domestic economy shrugs off these severe commodity shocks. Recent economic data signals robust resilience across multiple vital sectors. The Philadelphia Fed business index shattered expectations. It surged to a remarkable 26.7, easily beating the consensus expectation of 10.0. Initial jobless claims fell to a low of 207,000. These figures paint a definitive picture of a hot labour market. This economic heat provides the foundational support for the record stock indices we observe closing today.

The corporate earnings landscape offers a nuanced view of this economic resilience. Technology companies continue leading the charge. TSMC reported a 58 per cent jump in quarterly profit. The semiconductor giant confidently raised its 2026 revenue growth forecast to above 30 per cent. This upward revision validates the capital investments flowing rapidly into artificial intelligence infrastructure.

Not all corporate giants share in this euphoric market rally. Netflix shares plummeted nearly 10 per cent in after-hours trading. Management issued a soft Q2 revenue outlook, disappointing Wall Street. Netflix also announced that co-founder Reed Hastings will step down from the board in June. The financial and consumer staples sectors highlight a complex macroeconomic environment that requires careful navigation.

Also Read: The double-edged sword of AI in crypto trading

Charles Schwab shares fell seven per cent after the firm narrowly missed revenue expectations. The financial firm simultaneously announced plans to launch cryptocurrency trading for its client base. Consumer staples giants face their own unique challenges. PepsiCo successfully beat analyst expectations with an adjusted earnings per share of US$1.61. Management warned investors about a volatile macroeconomic environment lying ahead despite the positive earnings beat.

European markets reacted with enthusiasm to the diplomatic news earlier in the week. Indices like the DAX and the CAC 40 surged 5.1 per cent and 5.0 per cent, respectively, as traders anticipated lower energy costs. Asian markets opened notably lower on April 17. Regional traders weighed warnings that the United States-Iran conflict could persist for months, despite temporary ceasefire agreements dominating Western headlines.

The global financial ecosystem increasingly bridges the gap between traditional equities and digital assets. The cryptocurrency market currently sits at US$2.55T, representing a 1.02 per cent gain over the past 24 hours. This upward trajectory shows a strong 75 per cent correlation with the S&P 500. The global liquidity forces lifting traditional stocks actively drive this shared macroeconomic move. An institutional endorsement serves as the primary catalyst for this crypto market strength.

Citigroup published a landmark study on April 16 endorsing Bitcoin and gold as essential portfolio diversifies. The study definitively shows that adding both Bitcoin and gold to a traditional bond-and-equity portfolio increased returns without increasing risk over the past 10 years. This vital data provides a powerful narrative for institutional capital allocators managing trillions of dollars. Industry experts expect this research report to trigger fresh capital inflows into core digital assets.

Market participants must watch for sustained net inflows into United States spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds. These investment vehicles recently saw their total assets under management rise to US$97.24B. This capital absorption proves that traditional finance treats digital assets as a permanent fixture.

The underlying technical indicators for the cryptocurrency market scream bullish momentum. The 7-day relative strength index currently sits at 74.76. This metric confirms the aggressive buying pressure dominating the order books. Speculative capital actively chases outsized returns in smaller capitalisation tokens.

Investors rotate capital into high-beta sectors in search of massive gains. Top gainers like SIREN skyrocketed by 125.84 per cent over a short period. ORDI posted an astonishing 133.51 per cent gain during the same timeframe. Investors rotate their profits from Bitcoin into riskier assets. They search for asymmetric upside in digital narratives such as the Binance Ecosystem.

Also Read: The alarming reason crypto now moves like gold but falls like stocks

The broader digital asset market has not yet entered a full-on altcoin frenzy despite these explosive moves. The Altcoin Season Index currently sits at a neutral 37. A sustained rise above 50 would confirm a comprehensive alternative coin rally. The immediate path for the cryptocurrency market hinges on ongoing institutional behaviour and upcoming regulatory catalysts.

Technical analysts identify key overhead resistance at the 127.2 per cent Fibonacci extension level. This technical level aligns with the US$2.63T total market capitalisation mark. Breaking above this ceiling requires sustained buying pressure from major financial institutions.

The overall market must securely hold the 23.6 per cent Fibonacci support level residing at US$2.49T. Losing this support level could trigger a cascade of profit-taking across all digital assets. Fundamental catalysts will determine which direction the market breaks next. The Securities and Exchange Commission scheduled a vital roundtable discussion covering the CLARITY Act for April 16. This regulatory event could provide the directional cue the market needs right now.

My perspective as an active investor suggests that the current market dynamics represent a fundamental shift. We witness traditional finance capitulating to the mathematical reality of digital assets. The Citigroup study and fund inflows clearly evidence this institutional shift.

Traditional equities simultaneously exhibit remarkable resilience to geopolitical shocks and soaring crude oil prices. The strong correlation between cryptocurrency and major stock indices proves modern investors treat all global assets as interconnected vessels of systemic liquidity.

The current bullish case rests heavily on continued economic resilience among American consumers. Market participants must remain vigilant. Prudent investors must carefully balance the excitement of record index highs against the lurking risks of sudden geopolitical deterioration or unexpected regulatory headwinds.

—

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 Crypto at US$2.55T: Bull market confirmation or trap for retail investors? appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia’s e-commerce story has long been framed as a consumer triumph: cheap prices, endless deals, and frictionless convenience. But this model is beginning to show strain where it matters most: at the merchant level.

What makes the current moment interesting is not just rising platform costs, but the growing disconnect between headline metrics and lived reality. A 13.5 per cent take rate sounds manageable until sellers account for advertising, logistics, and incentives that can push total costs beyond 30 per cent. At that point, scale becomes less about growth and more about survival.

Yet merchants remain locked in. Platforms still control demand, and leaving them often means losing visibility altogether. That dependence is the real moat, and the real risk.

The bigger question is what breaks first: seller margins or the subsidy-driven pricing model. If the ecosystem cannot transition from incentives to structural efficiency, the current equilibrium may not hold.

For founders and investors, the opportunity is shifting. The next wave may not be about owning transactions, but about helping merchants survive them.

Regional

SEA merchants trapped in a high-cost e-commerce squeeze: While Shopee’s GAAP take rate hit 13.5%, sellers report all-in costs exceeding 30% of GMV; yet platform dependence, with 85% of regional commerce flowing through major players, makes exit feel like voluntary invisibility.

Shopee, TikTok Shop, and Lazada now control SEA e-commerce: Platform GMV in Southeast Asia reached US$157.6B in 2025, up 22.8%, but Shopee, TikTok Shop, and Lazada now command 98.8%of regional platform commerce, leaving no room for another large horizontal marketplace.

Quick commerce is a fight for frequency, not just speed: MomentumWorks argues that platforms like Shopee, Grab, and Lazada are using instant delivery not to win a logistics race, but to build habitual urban demand; the platform that wins habit wins far more than any single basket.

Vietnam’s Farmnet secures US$11.75M institutional loan: TechCoop’s trading arm raised a senior secured loan from impact investor Symbiotics, the first offshore institutional borrowing by a Vietnam-incorporated TechCoop entity, to scale agricultural commodity trading across 641 co-operatives nationwide.

Indonesia’s Baskit raises US$9.9M to take supply chain model regional: The profitable AI-enabled distribution startup, backed by Cento Ventures and HSBC Innovation Banking, is expanding into the Philippines after three years mastering Indonesia’s fragmented offline trade channels.

Choco Up launches US$30M private credit facility for APAC SMEs: Partnering with tech-driven credit specialist CHUAN, Singapore’s Choco Up is targeting Asia’s US$2.5T SME funding gap with AI-powered underwriting that promises approvals in hours, not months.

Animoca Brands secures Hong Kong stablecoin licence: Through its joint venture Anchorpoint, with Standard Chartered and HKT, Animoca is one of only two entities out of 36 applicants to receive an HKMA stablecoin issuer licence, gaining a regulated settlement rail for digital assets.

eFishery founder faces 10-year jail term in Indonesia: Prosecutors asked the Bandung District Court to sentence Gibran Huzaifah after he admitted to inflating the aquaculture startup’s revenue, with alleged losses exceeding 69B rupiah and investor confidence severely damaged.

TikTok disables 780,000 underage accounts in Indonesia: TikTok became the first platform to report compliance action under Government Regulation No. 17/2025, disabling accounts held by users under 16, while Roblox failed to fully comply due to lingering stranger-chat features.

Indonesia’s e-commerce child safety rules spark industry confusion: Ministerial Regulation 9 of 2026 requires platform self-assessments to set child access limits, but industry players are questioning whether high-risk classifications were assigned to major marketplaces before those assessments were even completed.

Nadiem questions Chromebook corruption loss calculation: A LinkedIn post by Gojek co-founder Nadiem Makarim argued that trial testimony, including from resellers and procurement officials, challenges the 1.5T rupiah state-loss figure cited by prosecutors, noting two independent audits found no markup.

Singapore businesses hit an AI automation wall: A HubSpot survey of 700+ local business leaders found that while nearly two-thirds use AI daily, only 18% have deployed fully autonomous agents, with data quality and legacy integration gaps becoming more acute, not less, as organisations scale up.

---

Interviews & Features

From chatbots to creators: Indonesia’s AI startups to watch: A new wave of Indonesian startups is applying AI across finance, healthcare, content, and commerce, highlighting how local innovation is shaping practical, scalable solutions in Southeast Asia’s evolving digital economy.

Share2Inspire founder: your CV isn’t failing, it’s being misread: Samuel Rolo, a veteran of Deloitte and AstraZeneca, built a career intelligence platform that scores CVs against applicant tracking systems — arguing most rejections stem from formatting and presentation failures rather than lack of capability.

A founder built an AI agent for himself, then turned it into a micro-SaaS: What started as a personal productivity tool called Seraphina, handling content, replies, and community management, grew to 2,000 users and became a layered business model spanning SaaS, education, and consulting.

Southeast Asia’s GameFi markets each play different roles in Web3: A Vietnamese expat living in Manila argues that the Philippines is a consumer-amplifier, Indonesia a scale-user market, and Vietnam a builder hub, with the 2026 gaming market projected at US$14.86B and maturing toward fun-first, stablecoin-integrated models.

Singapore’s AI adoption gap: from tools to real-world impact: Experts from AI Singapore, JJ Innovation, and Knovel Engineering say adoption lags not from reluctance but from poor data readiness, cultural resistance, and a critical need for “plus-skilling” — upskilling existing roles rather than wholesale retraining.

---

International

OpenAI to spend over US$20B on Cerebras chips over three years: The deal, which could give OpenAI warrants for up to a 10% stake if spending hits US$30B, reflects surging demand for AI inference computing and a US$1B commitment toward funding new data centres.

Some OpenAI investors question its US$852B valuation: After two product roadmap shifts in six months and a recent US$122B raise, backers worry the enterprise and coding pivot could weaken ChatGPT’s position against Anthropic and a resurgent Google ahead of a potential IPO.

Perplexity’s revenue jumps 5x to US$500M: CEO Aravind Srinivas announced the revenue leap, from US$100M, alongside 34% headcount growth, with the AI search startup targeting a further 2x revenue increase in 2026 using the same lean team and its Computer product.

SoftBank raises US$3.6B in high-yield bonds amid AI debt surge: The sale, comprising US$1.5B in dollar notes and €1.8B in euro bonds, came as its AI investment push drove borrowing costs higher, with its 10-year dollar coupon at a record 8.5% and shares down 35% since November.

Snap cuts 1,000 jobs as AI takes over code generation: With AI now producing over 65% of new code, Snap is laying off 16% of its workforce and closing 300 open roles, expecting annualised savings of more than US$500M by the second half of the year.

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings to exit in June: Following a failed Warner Bros Discovery merger and a stock drop of about 9%, Hastings will not stand for re-election as Netflix posts Q1 revenue of US$12.25B, up 16%, while forecasting its slowest growth in a year.

Saudi PIF raises Lucid investment with US$550M in convertible stock: The funding accompanies Uber’s additional US$200M commitment and a purchase commitment of at least 35,000 Lucid vehicles, as the EV maker expands its robotaxi fleet ambitions.

Nas Daily creator raises US$27M for AI business builder: Nuseir Yassin’s Nas.com secured the Series A round led by Khosla Ventures, with 500 Global, V Ventures, and Factorial Capital also participating, though valuation and use of funds were not disclosed.

Naver plans IPO for Naver Financial after Dunamu share swap: The deal would give Naver Financial full ownership of Upbit operator Dunamu, targeting a listing within five years, though Korea’s proposed Digital Asset Basic Act and an ongoing antitrust review could affect structure and timing.

Robotaxi market projected to reach US$168B by 2035: Counterpoint Research links the forecast to AI advances, larger fleets, and wider commercial rollouts, with the US and China accounting for most deployments, led by Waymo, Tesla, Baidu’s Apollo Go, WeRide, and Pony.ai.

India’s AI firms pursue acquisitions to build full-stack capabilities: As enterprise clients consolidate vendors and shift from trials to larger deployments, Tracxn recorded five deals in four months, including C5i’s US$45M-US$50M acquisition of UK-based Datavid.

---

Cybersecurity

DeFi faces twin blows from falling yields and a US$285M hack: Lending rates on Aave have dropped below the US Federal Reserve’s benchmark, while a North Korean-linked group’s theft from Drift has shaken confidence in the US$97B sector as firms pivot toward tokenised traditional assets.

AML compliance is becoming PropTech’s biggest opportunity: With Australia’s Tranche 2 reforms bringing 80,000 real estate professionals under AML obligations from July 2026, and Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan tightening rules, founders who build identity verification and beneficial ownership tools are entering a mandated, rapidly growing market.

---

Semiconductor

TSMC expands 3nm production across Taiwan, Arizona, and Japan: The chipmaker is building new 3nm lines in Taiwan for H1 2027 mass production, with its second Arizona fab set for H2 2027 and a second Japan plant using the 3nm process targeting 2028 — all driven by AI, automotive, and IoT demand.

Nvidia CEO warns US AI export limits are backfiring: Jensen Huang argues that restricting advanced hardware forces rivals to build independent systems, framing the real technology race as a contest over energy grids and software ecosystems rather than chip speed alone.

China’s semiconductor and robotics sectors lead AI-driven hiring: Data from 51job and Zhaopin shows electronics and semiconductors drew 1.5x more applications than other sectors, robotics recruitment rose 36.6% year-on-year, and demand for AI engineers is running three times supply, pushing salaries to US$95,000 for generative AI roles.

---

AI

The next AI race is being fought in the physical world: As AI expands into connected devices, wearables, and industrial systems, trust — not model quality — becomes the decisive factor for enterprise adoption, with reliability, latency, privacy, and resilience under imperfect conditions determining which companies scale.

Why founders cannot afford to outsource judgment to AI: Drawing on Gojek’s and Grab’s founding stories, this essay argues that Southeast Asia’s regulatory fragmentation and cultural complexitymean contextual judgment, which AI cannot replicate, remains a founder’s deepest moat and most durable competitive advantage.

The agentic economy needs a new management discipline: As AI agents take over entry-level tasks and hybrid workforces emerge, the author coins “H-AgR”, Human and Agent Resources, arguing that Singapore’s January 2026 AI Governance Framework sets a regulatory floor, but enterprises must build governance structures well above it.

AI adoption in APAC is a customer acquisition problem, not just an ethics one: Western-trained AI marketing tools systematically deprioritise underserved segments, which are often less saturated and more loyal once reached, making bias correction a growth strategy, not a compliance exercise, for APAC startups.

Inclusive AI isn’t optional; it’s Asia’s competitive edge: With Asia holding 60% of the world’s population across linguistically diverse and economically varied communities, AI built without inclusion baked in will not just replicate bias — it will scale it — making DEI-AI literacy a leadership imperative, not an HR function.

NTU researchers build AI-powered biochip for 20-minute disease detection: The Singapore team’s platform combines nanophotonic structures with AI image analysis to simultaneously detect three disease-linked microRNAs, achieving over 99% accuracy in lab tests without requiring PCR amplification.

---

Thought Leadership

Why Southeast Asian startup founders should flow, not force: Drawing on psychology, Daoism, and physics, this column argues that the most durable startups align with structural macro trends rather than force outcomes, and that founder mindset coherence is not soft advice, but operational infrastructure.

Narrative clarity is a strategic advantage in SEA’s tough market: As investors tighten scrutiny and customers compare across borders, the companies that scale in Southeast Asia will be those that articulate a clear, consistent story, not just those with the strongest technology.

The advice trap: true stories missing their conditions: Most business advice shared on conference stages is accurate, but stripped of the market timing, team dynamics, and sequencing that made it work, meaning founders who follow maps drawn for different terrain often fail not from bad judgment, but from misapplied wisdom.

Digital growth in Asia: how startups can avoid costly pitfalls: From overlooking mobile-first design to ignoring local payment methods, neglecting data analytics, and treating PR as an afterthought, nine common digital marketing mistakes are quietly killing startups across Asia’s fast-growing but fragmented digital economies.

AI is redefining software development and CEOs must lead: Generative AI tools are accelerating development cycles and creating new roles like prompt engineers and AI workflow architects, but organisations clinging to outdated delivery models risk being outpaced by leaner competitors who have aligned leadership, talent, and process around AI.

The missing rung: how automation is quietly breaking the career pipeline: AI has not just replaced repetitive jobs; it has eliminated the entry-level roles that once served as informal training grounds, creating a generation of workers entering management without the foundational decision-making experience grunt work once provided.

Asia’s logistics startups are turning to AI to solve the last-mile puzzle: With 253M online shoppers projected by 2030 and a 15% failed delivery rate in COD markets, AI-powered route planning, demand forecasting, and dispatch automation are cutting fuel costs by 20% and improving delivery times by 30% across the region.

In the age of AI, people matter more than ever: Vietnam, Singapore, and Thailand are all investing heavily in AI literacy programmes, but the real edge for organisations lies in creating psychological safety, rewarding results over hours, and actively funding employee upskilling — not just deploying better tools.

Why founders should stop hustling and start automating: Manual workflows are a growth ceiling, not a badge of honour, and using tools already at hand like Excel, Google Sheets, and Airtable to build systems that run without the founder is what separates sustainable scaling from perpetual firefighting.

APAC’s esports broadcast innovation is rewriting the global playbook: Driven by mobile-first audiences in Indonesia and the Philippines, data-hungry viewers in Korea, and creator-led communities in India, Southeast Asia’s demand for multi-angle streams, real-time analytics overlays, and localised production is redefining what fans expect from live competition globally.

Asia’s water crisis needs blockchain, IoT, and AI, not desalination alone: With 12 of the world’s 17 most water-stressed nations in Asia and a US$800B infrastructure gap, smart water grids powered by IoT sensors and AI forecasting, combined with blockchain-enabled transparency, offer a more sustainable path than ecologically damaging desalination.

AI doesn’t talk nonsense; you just need to learn how to talk to it: Many first-time users give up on AI after receiving poor responses, but the problem is rarely the model, it is the question. Treating prompts as directions, not commands, and asking AI to critique its own output transforms the experience dramatically.

The post Ecosystem Roundup: The illusion of cheap e-commerce appeared first on e27.

Over the past two years, a flood of startups and incumbents have raced to build “AI copilots” for finance. Almost every demo shows a chatbot answering analyst questions or summarising a report. Yet despite billions in investment, adoption across financial institutions remains slow, and productivity gains are modest.

The reason is not a lack of ambition or data. It’s that most companies, founders, and technologists fundamentally misunderstand what it takes to turn AI into business value, particularly in a domain that prizes trust, precision, and accountability above all else.

The missing equation: Value and feasibility

Successful technology adoption depends on finding where business value meets real-world feasibility. Feasibility does not stop at algorithms; it lives in people, processes, and governance.

In banking and asset management, that balance is especially delicate. According to the Evident AI Index 2025, banks with the highest AI maturity, such as JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, and RBC, share one key trait. They invest as much in organisational enablement as they do in model development. These leaders report more use cases because employees trust and use their systems.

Contrast that with the many failed pilots elsewhere, where a 2025 MIT study found that over 95 per cent of generative AI pilots fail to scale because teams “avoid friction.” They chase flashy prototypes that collapse in production. Much of this friction comes from the lack of user trust and limited control over outputs.

Why finance resists the hype

Finance’s slower adoption of AI stems not from conservatism but from accountability. Every output, whether a risk score or a research summary, must be explainable, auditable, and defensible. That accountability clashes with the automation-first mindset many startups adopt. Replacing an analyst or risk officer with an opaque model erodes trust and invites regulatory risk.

As Evident Insights notes, only a few major banks, such as BNP Paribas, DBS, and JPMorgan, report both realised and projected ROI from AI projects. They succeed because they have governance and transparency frameworks that others lack. Oversight is not a bottleneck but the foundation of adoption, where the goal is not to replace human decision-making but to reinforce it through systems that enhance judgment and accountability.

Also Read: The psychology of AI adoption: How familiarity bias is quietly slowing finance down

Automation is easy, augmentation is hard

The default format of GenAI applications, the chatbot, reflects this misunderstanding. It promises frictionless automation but often creates new friction because users do not trust the answers, cannot audit the reasoning, and find the interface detached from their actual workflow.

Real progress lies in workflow-aware systems that amplify human expertise rather than replicate it — JPMorgan’s internal LLM Suite illustrates this well. It did not begin as a single grand platform but as a collection of focused, high-value tools for developers, researchers, and compliance officers. Each tool demonstrated its worth before being integrated into a secure workbench that now serves more than 200,000 employees and saves analysts and developers several hours each week.

The lesson is simple: the future belongs to systems that scale human insight, not those that try to substitute it.

The false promise of platforms

When startups pitch “AI platforms” for finance, they often repeat the same mistake that weakened earlier enterprise software. Platforms may look scalable and visionary, but they often turn into complex, cumbersome systems that users tolerate rather than appreciate.

History makes this clear. In the 2010s, tools such as Salesforce and Workday succeeded by solving one pressing problem deeply before expanding outward. Yet as they evolved into sprawling platforms, usability declined. Layers of plugins and integrations turned once-simple workflows into endless clicking and reconciliation, making them less effective the more they tried to do.

The same fatigue is now emerging in financial AI. Many products start and remain generic, from document summarisers to universal copilots and so-called AI operating systems that claim to serve every department but serve none well. The next generation of leaders will move in the opposite direction, building deep, vertical, and trust-focused systems that create real value in areas such as investment research, credit adjudication, and financial crime detection.

Why startups keep missing the mark

Many so-called finance AI startups are led by former bankers, but most come from back-office or auxiliary roles rather than the front lines of research, trading, or client-facing decision-making. That gap in operational empathy shows, as they build tools that over-automate processes, undermine trust, and overlook the reasoning that drives real decision conviction.

Each time an AI system produces an unexplainable result, it erodes credibility. In finance, credibility is currency; once it is lost, adoption disappears. Human-in-the-loop design is not philosophical but commercial. Systems that allow users to trace reasoning, correct mistakes, and feed improvements back into models create feedback loops that build trust and long-term data advantages grounded in real use, not scraped content.

Also Read: The psychology of AI adoption: How familiarity bias is quietly slowing finance down

Augmenting judgement: The middle ground

Between full automation and manual work lies a wide, unexplored space where AI can enhance human judgement and creativity. In investment research, this means helping analysts link cause and effect, such as how a policy change in Washington might influence earnings in Shenzhen, rather than merely summarising data. In portfolio construction, it means simulating alternative narratives, while in risk management, it means contextualising anomalies instead of simply flagging them.

These are challenges of reasoning and workflow, not of chatbots. Solving them requires systems that understand how analysts think and how hypotheses, evidence, and implications interrelate. That is the true frontier of progress: AI as collaborator rather than correspondent.

The way forward

The next wave of financial AI will not emerge from chatbots or generic copilots. It will come from innovators who build workflow-specific products that respect trust, auditability, and regulation. These systems will turn analysts into super-analysts, not by automating their judgment but by strengthening it.

For innovators, the challenge is to design for credibility rather than convenience. For established institutions, it is to invest in what is feasible today rather than chase distant visions. Finance will be reshaped not by replacing people but by changing how good decisions are made and scaled. Those who recognise this will define the next decade of innovation. Those who do not will continue building tools for problems that never mattered.

—

Are you ready to join a vibrant community of entrepreneurs and industry experts? Do you have insights, experiences, and knowledge to share?

Join the e27 Contributor Programme and become a valuable voice in our ecosystem.

Image credit: Canva

The post In finance, intelligence is human before it is artificial appeared first on e27.

At Echelon Philippines 2025, Isabel Calvo, Co-Founder of Bravo!, spoke with e27‘s Mohan Belani about building a fast, affordable, and efficient food platform in the Philippines—a concept inspired by their sister company, Pickup Coffee.

Bravo! was born from the idea of disrupting the local pizza market, where, despite pizza’s wide popularity, quality options remain scarce. Initially targeting upper-class tastes with European-style pizza, the team quickly realised that segment was too niche.

Their launch revealed a key consumer insight: Filipinos order food around the clock, not just at mealtimes. Calvo also emphasised the critical mindset shift required when transitioning from the tech industry into the F&B space.

The post Echelon Philippines 2025 – What does Bravo! and the iPad have in common? appeared first on e27.

Artificial Intelligence is rapidly reshaping how we work and live. As NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang said, “AI will be the most transformative technology of the 21st century.” This shift is already underway, especially in Singapore’s dynamic AI landscape.

To better understand this transformation, we spoke with three key players:

• AI Singapore
• JJ Innovation
• Knovel Engineering

AI landscape and outlook

Over the past two to three years, AI has undergone a transformative shift, with generative AI and large language models (LLMs) emerging as the most significant developments noted by all interviewees. These technologies have expanded AI’s capabilities, reshaping how people and businesses work, create, and interact with technology.

A major highlight, shared by Hee Chuan, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Knovel Engineering and Laurence Liew, Director of AI Innovation at AI Singapore, shared that tools like ChatGPT and Claude have made AI user-friendly, encouraging wider adoption. However, Chuan noted that adoption still lags in some sectors due to unclear ROI.

Liew also pointed out a global shift towards building local AI talent and readiness, inspired by Singapore’s AI Apprenticeship Programme (AIAP) and AI Readiness Index (AIRI). Daniel Yip, Technology Project Consultant at JJ Innovation highlighted rapid advancements in AI applications across media—text, video, and audio. Tools like Google’s Veo 3 showcase remarkable improvements in realism and capability.

AI adoption in Singapore

The projects shared by the interviewees demonstrate AI’s application across sectors to streamline both operational and strategic business functions.

Carol Wong, Regional Head of Technology Services at JJ Innovation, led a project using Natural Language Processing (NLP) to analyse employee feedback at a global tech firm, significantly accelerating HR insights and responsiveness.

Yip shared how integrating a Generative AI assistant into a logistics company’s systems simplified complex processes, enabling non-technical staff to manage inventory and documentation through a prompt-based interface.

Liew illustrated the breadth of AI’s impact—from real-time multilingual emergency call transcription for SCDF to AI-enhanced dental diagnostics with Q&M Dental Group, and even route optimisation for a local SME, uParcel. Collectively, these examples underscore AI’s versatility in transforming both routine and critical business functions.

Also Read: Levelling the playing field: How AI can transform SME hiring

Chuan shared that one of their customised workflow productivity tools, powered by AI, has helped a local heritage brand—HarriAnns Nonya Table—transform its manual backend ordering process from hotels and its own cafes to a centralised kitchen, streamlining operations and reducing human errors.

Challenges and solutions

A key barrier identified by all three companies is data readiness—many organisations lack sufficient data, have fragmented or poor-quality datasets, or lack the infrastructure to prepare data effectively for AI.

Mindset and cultural resistance also pose major obstacles. Chuan noted that unrealistic expectations—such as seeking one-size-fits-all “silver bullet” solutions—and common misconceptions, like fears of job loss or over expectations of AI’s current capabilities, continue to hinder progress.

Liew highlighted the lack of internal expertise, especially among SMEs, where teams may not have the technical skills to deploy or maintain AI systems. He also pointed out that many companies wrongly assume their existing IT setups are AI-ready.

JJ Innovation further noted difficulties in identifying practical use cases and adapting AI models trained on Western data, which may not reflect Singapore’s unique cultural context.

To overcome common AI adoption challenges, interviewees advocated for companies to start small—by piloting a focused project or proof of concept to test value and feasibility before scaling.

Interviewees emphasised the need to foster AI literacy to dispel fears and align expectations. Wong highlighted the importance of training and up-skilling to build the capabilities needed.

Companies were encouraged to begin organising their data early to ensure it’s clean, accessible, and secure.

Also Read: AI bubble fears trigger market rotation: What it means for crypto and tech stocks

Finally, Yip stressed the importance of linking AI efforts to clear business problems, ensuring AI is adopted with purpose—not just for novelty.

To ensure post-project continuity, interviewees stressed the need for structured knowledge transfer and internal capability building.

Liew from AI Singapore shared that their 100E programme involves internal engineers from the start, with sprints, testing, documentation, and formal handovers. Companies are also encouraged to train staff in foundational AI.

Wong highlighted the role of “change champions,” while Yip recommended appointing “AI custodians.” The consensus: sustained success requires ongoing training, collaboration, and ownership.

At the current state of AI, complete displacement of jobs and human intervention is still not possible.

As Yip explained, “AI is not out to replace your job just yet. In the present, AI should be thought of as an assistant to boost your effectiveness in your current job.”

Liew supported by sharing that AI adoption is less about wholesale reskilling and more about what one expert called “plus-skilling.” He elaborated, “For example, an accountant doesn’t need to become a data scientist; rather, they should remain an accountant who is now empowered to use AI tools effectively in their daily work.”

Moving forward

AI success should go beyond technical metrics like accuracy or speed. Liew emphasised that true indicators lie in business outcomes—such as deployment rates, time or cost savings, efficiency gains, revenue impact, and employee adoption.

He shared that tracking organisational maturity through frameworks like the AI Readiness Index (AIRI) and monitoring AI literacy efforts are also important. Chuan added that success can be seen in the number of jobs redesigned or up-skilled, and that AI should be viewed as a long-term investment, not just a cost-saving measure.

Also Read: AI in action: How governments are using technology to predict, prevent, and personalise

Equally critical is embedding responsible design principles from the outset. Interviewees consistently stressed that ethical standards and compliance should be treated as key measures of AI success, not afterthoughts. Ensuring AI solutions are trustworthy, explainable, and human-centric requires maintaining governance frameworks and establishing human oversight in the workflow to validate safety and reliability throughout development.

To prepare for the future of work driven by AI, organisations should start early by building a strong foundation—this includes digitalising processes, preparing clean and structured data, and developing AI literacy across all levels of the workforce. Success comes from starting small, experimenting quickly, and learning by doing, rather than waiting for perfect conditions.

Equally important is shaping employee mindsets and fostering a culture of curiosity and adaptability. Organisations should also prioritise human oversight by forming diverse, multidisciplinary teams—not just to drive innovation, but to ensure AI systems remain understandable and trustworthy. After all, trustworthy AI is not just about meeting compliance standards; it’s about building systems people can understand and rely on.

Ultimately, AI should be viewed as a tool to augment human capabilities, not replace them. Long-term transformation is best supported through collaborative partnerships with startups, universities, and national programmes.

As AI reshapes the future of work and business, organisations yet to begin their transformation journey should start now. Starting small by addressing existing pain points can drive productivity and efficiency. AI transformation is an ongoing process of growth and adaptation.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva

The post AI in Singapore: From generative tools to real-world impact appeared first on e27.

If the first era of esports was about proving its legitimacy through packed arenas and global numbers, the next is about something more complex: how technology is reshaping the way fans in the Asia Pacific actually experience competition.

APAC already accounts for more than half of the global esports audience. Southeast Asia alone generated over USD 71 million in esports revenue in 2024, with projections pointing to steady growth through the next decade 

But beyond revenue and viewership, what is really changing is how audiences consume esports and what they now expect from a broadcast.

Across the region, fans are no longer satisfied with simply watching a match unfold. They are demanding perspective, data, interaction and control. This behaviour is driving a wave of broadcast innovation that is likely to shape the global esports experience.

From linear viewing to multi-layered experiences

In many Western markets, esports broadcasting initially mirrored traditional sports. A single curated feed, a production team deciding the angles, and fans following along passively. In the Asia Pacific, that model is becoming outdated.

In Indonesia and the Philippines, mobile-first audiences want quick access, multi-device viewing and interactive layers that allow them to engage while watching. In India, where esports exposure has grown rapidly via mobile titles and streamers, fans are used to switching perspectives and platforms mid-match. In Korea, where esports culture is more established, viewers increasingly expect data-rich viewing similar to professional sports analytics.

This has encouraged a shift away from one fixed broadcast stream towards multi-layered experiences where viewers can personalise how they follow a match. Multi-angle viewing, player-focused perspectives and customisable overlays are no longer niche experiments but part of a broader structural change in how esports is consumed.

When fans are given the choice to follow a carry player’s perspective, or instead analyse how a support player controls space and tempo, the match stops being a single narrative. It becomes a set of parallel stories, all built on the same live event.

Why data has become part of the entertainment

Another clear shift in APAC esports broadcasting is the integration of real-time data into the viewing experience.

Heat maps, economy trackers, player performance graphs and match momentum indicators are now expected features for serious viewers rather than optional extras. In Korea, this trend mirrors how traditional sports like baseball and football integrated analytics years ago. In Southeast Asia, it reflects the region’s comfort with data layered over entertainment, seen in everything from gaming to fintech apps.

What makes esports different is that this data is not designed only for post-match analysis. It is built into the live experience. Fans are consuming statistics as the game unfolds, using them to make predictions, debate strategies, and build narratives around what they are watching.

This is changing the role of the broadcast itself. It is no longer just a transmission channel. It is a live information system that merges spectacle and analysis.

Also read: The future of fan engagement and how sports tech is turning spectators into stakeholders

The infrastructure challenge in a fragmented region

Asia Pacific presents a unique challenge for esports broadcasters. The region is geographically vast and digitally fragmented. Delivering a smooth, low-latency viewing experience across markets like Singapore, Jakarta, Manila, Mumbai, and Seoul requires more than just good production values. It demands serious infrastructure.

Distributed servers, cloud-based production pipelines and low-latency streaming technologies are no longer optional. They are foundational. Without them, synchronised experiences across markets collapse and engagement drops.

These systems also support localised layers on top of global feeds. For example, the same match can be broadcast with local language commentary, region-specific graphics and culturally relevant references without needing to rebuild the entire production for each country.

This hybrid model of centralised backbone and localised experience is becoming a defining feature of esports broadcasting in APAC.

Interactivity as an extension, not a distraction

As broadcasts evolve, so does the role of interactivity. But the key lesson emerging from Asia Pacific is that engagement tools must enhance rather than disrupt the experience.

Fans are responding well to features like live polls, prediction overlays and dynamic stats dashboards that are integrated into the stream itself. When designed carefully, these elements add layers to the experience rather than pulling attention away from the match.

In this context, platforms like 1XBet illustrate how prediction and interaction can exist as optional extensions within the esports ecosystem when they are embedded responsibly and without overwhelming the core broadcast.

The most successful integrations in APAC are not the loudest or most aggressive. They are the ones that feel native to the viewing environment and allow fans to engage on their terms.

Also Read: From niche hobby to billion-dollar industry: The meteoric rise of esports

What this means for the next phase of esports innovation

The evolution of broadcast technologies in the Asia Pacific points to three broader shifts in how esports will develop globally.

• First, personalisation will become non-negotiable: Fans increasingly expect to control what they see, how they see it and which data layers they follow. One-size-fits-all broadcasts will struggle to hold attention in a hyper-customised digital culture.
• Second, infrastructure will differentiate serious players from superficial ones: Behind every smooth multi-angle stream and real-time data overlay sits deep technical investment. As fan expectations rise, infrastructure quality will directly impact trust, loyalty and long-term relevance.
• Third, cultural context will matter more than raw technology: APAC is not a single audience. Korea’s data-driven fans, Indonesia’s mobile-first viewers and India’s creator-led communities have different expectations. Technologies that adapt to these differences will scale. Those who treat APAC as a monolith will not.

A region shaping the global blueprint

It would be easy to frame Asia Pacific as simply the fastest-growing esports market by numbers. But that misses the point.

APAC is shaping how esports is moving from a broadcast sport to an interactive media format where fans do not just watch but experience, analyse and participate. The region is pushing esports beyond a screen and into a multi-layered digital environment.

From multi-perspective viewing to data-driven storytelling to responsible interactivity, the innovations emerging from the Asia Pacific are not just responding to demand. They are actively redefining global expectations.

The future of esports broadcasting will not be built only in production studios or technology labs. It will be shaped by how fans across Asia Pacific choose to engage, personalise and make the experience their own.

And in many ways, that future is already unfolding.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva

The post How broadcast innovation in APAC is redefining the e-sports viewing experience appeared first on e27.

A few years ago, I sat across from a founder who was trying to save his company.

He had done everything right, at least on paper. Top university. Ex–big tech operator. Raised a respectable seed round. Built a disciplined team. Shipped on time.

But growth had stalled. Users weren’t sticking. The market wasn’t responding. He had started waking up at 4 a.m., obsessively checking dashboards. He rewrote the homepage three times in a week. He micromanaged product decisions. He doubled the sales targets.

Nothing moved.

At some point in the conversation, he said quietly, “I just need to push harder.”

I’ve heard that sentence many times.

And every time, I think about something that psychology, physics, Buddhism, Daoism, and even classical Confucian thought all strangely agree on: when you push too hard against the current of reality, reality pushes back.

This is not mysticism. It is not “founder wellness fluff.” It is a pattern that shows up across disciplines, across centuries, and across markets.

If you are building a startup, especially in today’s volatile climate, this might be the most important lesson you internalise:

Success rarely comes from force. It comes from alignment with flow and trend.

Let me explain.

The way you see the market shapes the market you see

In psychology, there is a concept called projection. Your internal state shapes how you interpret external events. If you are anxious, you see risk everywhere. If you feel scarce, every competitor looks like a threat. If you feel confident, obstacles look like puzzles.

In physics, we encounter the observer effect: observing can influence the state of what is observed.

In Buddhism, there is a phrase: “The world arises from the mind 境由心生.”

In Daoism: “All things are shaped by the heart 一切皆由心造.”

Different language. Same idea.

For founders, this plays out daily.

If you believe the market is hostile, you will read every piece of feedback as rejection. If you believe users are fickle, you will overbuild features to “lock them in.” If you believe investors are predatory, you will negotiate defensively and damage relationships before they begin.

Your inner posture shapes your strategic posture.

I’ve seen founders in a downturn who interpret slower sales cycles as proof that “no one wants innovation anymore.” They shrink. They cut ambition. They retreat to incrementalism.

I’ve also seen founders in the same market environment interpret the slowdown as “a filtering moment.” They refine positioning. They deepen product-market fit. They quietly gain share while others panic.

Also Read: Balancing ambition and well-being: A founder’s take on sustainable company building

The macro was identical. The interpretation wasn’t.

When your mind is rigid, the market appears rigid. When your mind is adaptive, the market appears full of possibilities.

This doesn’t mean reality is imaginary. It means your response to reality determines your trajectory within it.

If you want to change your startup’s future, sometimes the first pivot is internal.

The harder you cling, the more you repel

Let’s talk about something uncomfortable: desperation.

You can feel it in a pitch. In a sales call. In a product roadmap.

It’s subtle, but it’s there.

In psychology, when attachment becomes obsession, behavior is distorted. You try too hard. You overcompensate. You signal neediness. Ironically, that very energy repels what you seek.

In Buddhism, this is the core teaching: attachment creates suffering.

In Daoism, the principle of wu wei (无为)—often mistranslated as “doing nothing”—actually means “not forcing.” Acting without strain. Moving with the natural flow of things.

Founders struggle with this deeply.

You want that enterprise contract so badly that you overpromise features. You want that Series A so badly that you inflate metrics. You want growth so badly that you pour money into unsustainable acquisitions.

You grip the outcome.

And in gripping it, you distort the process.

The sales cycle is longer because the client feels pressured. The team burns out because your urgency becomes anxiety. The product bloats because you chase every revenue opportunity instead of focusing.

Here’s the paradox: the less attached you are to a specific outcome, the more clearly you can see the path toward it.

This does not mean you stop caring. It means you detach from ego-driven urgency. You still show up. You still build. You still pitch. But you are not emotionally hostage to the result.

When you’re not desperate for a deal, you negotiate better. When you’re not desperate for funding, you choose better investors. When you’re not desperate for vanity growth, you build a healthier company.

Founders often tell me, “If I don’t push relentlessly, nothing will happen.” I disagree.

Relentlessness is not the same as force. Relentlessness is sustained clarity of direction.

Force is anxiety disguised as drive. One builds momentum. The other creates friction.

Trend is stronger than willpower

Here’s a hard truth: willpower is weak compared to trend.

You can will a product into existence. You cannot will a market into readiness.

The graveyard of startups is filled with brilliant founders who tried to force timing.

In physics, when two frequencies align, they resonate and amplify. When they are out of sync, they cancel each other out. In business, this is the difference between swimming upstream and surfing a wave.

When you align with a macro trend—AI infrastructure, climate adaptation, fintech inclusion, creator monetisation—you harness external momentum.

When you fight trend—trying to revive declining consumer behaviour, betting against technological inevitability—you rely purely on internal energy.

Also Read: Founder etiquette: Questions best left unasked

Internal energy is finite. Trend energy is compounding.

The founders who look like geniuses in hindsight are often those who positioned themselves at the intersection of readiness and inevitability.

They didn’t invent the wave. They recognised it early.

Going with the flow does not mean passivity. It means pattern recognition.

It means asking:

• Is this problem growing or shrinking?
• Is regulation moving in my favour or against me?
• Are user behaviours accelerating in this direction?
• Is technology making this cheaper and easier over time?

If you constantly need to convince the world that it should want what you are building, you are probably fighting the tide. If the world is already moving in that direction and you are simply building the best vessel for it, you are surfing.

Founders love the romantic idea of being contrarian visionaries.

But the most successful ones are rarely contrarian against reality. They are contrarian against complacency. They go with deep structural forces, not against them.

Alignment: The hidden multiplier

There is another idea that cuts across disciplines: coherence.

In psychology, it’s self-congruence. When your beliefs, values, and actions align, you experience less internal friction. In mindfulness practice, it’s presence—your attention unified with your action. In classical Chinese philosophy, Wang Yangming 王阳明called it “the unity of knowledge and action 知行合一.”

For founders, alignment is a hidden multiplier.

Misalignment looks like this:

• You say you value long-term culture, but you reward short-term revenue at any cost.
• You say you care about product excellence, yet you constantly pivot under investor pressure.
• You say you want balance, but you secretly glorify burnout.

Every misalignment drains energy. Your team feels it. Your customers sense it. You feel it in your gut.

An aligned founder is powerful not because they are superhuman, but because their energy is concentrated.

Their vision, words, and actions point in the same direction. They don’t chase every opportunity. They choose the ones that match their thesis. They don’t say yes to every investor. They partner with those who share their time horizon. They don’t build features that contradict their core identity.

Also Read: Strategic investment 101: A founder’s playbook for winning without losing control

Alignment reduces noise.  When your company’s narrative, product, market, and team incentives are coherent, execution becomes smoother. Decisions become faster. Trust increases. Momentum compounds.

It looks like luck from the outside. It is coherent on the inside.

Flow is not laziness

At this point, some founders get nervous. “Are you telling me to just relax and hope things work out?” No.

Flow is not laziness. Flow is disciplined responsiveness.

A surfer doesn’t control the ocean. But she studies tides, watches wind, positions herself, and paddles with precision. She doesn’t fight the wave head-on. She rides it at the right angle.

Founders who succeed in turbulent markets often exhibit this same quality.

They are alert but not frantic. They adjust pricing when conditions change. They pivot segments when signals accumulate. They cut and burn early instead of waiting for a crisis. They are in constant dialogue with reality.

Flow is a relationship with feedback. Force ignores feedback.

When metrics dip, force says, “Push harder.” Flow says, “What is the system telling us?”

When users churn, force says, “Increase marketing.” Flow says, “Is the core value misaligned?”

When fundraising stalls, force says, “Pitch more aggressively.” Flow says, “Is the narrative resonant with current capital cycles?”

This difference in posture can determine whether a startup survives or implodes.

The founder as instrument

There’s one more uncomfortable truth. Your company can only be as coherent as you are.

If you are internally chaotic—oscillating between grandiosity and fear—your strategy will oscillate too. If you are chronically insecure, you will overhire to signal strength. If you are obsessed with validation, you will prioritise headlines over fundamentals.

The market amplifies who you already are. That is why so many ancient traditions emphasise self-cultivation before leadership.

It is not moral preaching. It is structural logic.

When your internal state stabilises, your decision-making improves. When you release attachment to ego outcomes, you negotiate better. When you align your actions with your long-term thesis, you conserve energy.

In a startup, energy management is survival. Burn rate applies to founders, too.

Also Read: The alliance economy: How founders and investors should position in a fragmented world

Going with the flow in 2026

We are in a world where technology cycles are compressing. AI capabilities shift quarterly. Capital markets tighten and loosen in rapid succession. Regulation lags innovation.

In such an environment, brute force is even less effective.

Trend awareness is a strategic advantage.

Ask yourself:

• Are you building for where the world was, or where it is going?
• Are you forcing user behaviour, or enabling emerging behaviour?
• Are you clinging to your original pitch deck identity, or evolving with data?

Sometimes going with the flow means killing a feature you love. Sometimes it means pivoting segments even when your ego resists. Sometimes it means walking away from a flashy partnership that distracts from core alignment. Sometimes it means doubling down when everyone else retreats—because the long-term trend is still intact.

Flow is not about comfort. It is about synchronising with reality.

Also Read: How founders should build for a Meta-national suture

The three commitments

If I had to distil all of this for startup founders, it would be three commitments:

• Look inward before blaming outward: Your interpretation of the market shapes your response. Upgrade your mindset before rewriting your strategy.
• Release desperate attachment to outcomes: Care deeply about the work. Care less about immediate validation. Process excellence compounds more reliably than forced results.
• Align with the trend and align with yourself: Build at the intersection of structural momentum and personal coherence. When your thesis, market, and behaviour resonate, growth accelerates.

When psychology, physics, and centuries of philosophy converge on the same principles, it is worth paying attention.

The founders who endure are rarely the most forceful. They are the most attuned. They sense when to paddle and when to wait. They sense when to pivot and when to persist. They sense when the wave is forming—and they position early.

And when the wave comes, it looks effortless. It never was. It was aligned with the flow all along.

So if you are exhausted from pushing, from forcing, from gripping every metric and milestone with white knuckles—pause.

Step back. Study the tide. Adjust your stance. Then move with the current, not against it. In the long run, the trend is stronger than willpower.

Flow is stronger than force. And alignment is stronger than raw effort. Build accordingly.

—

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 The flow principle: Why the best startups move with the market, not against it appeared first on e27.

Southeast Asia’s AI wave is gaining momentum, and Indonesia is fast emerging as a hotspot for innovation. From fintech and healthtech to creative platforms and conversational commerce, a new generation of startups is reimagining how artificial intelligence can solve everyday problems at scale. These companies are not just building tools; they are shaping behaviours, unlocking efficiencies, and creating entirely new digital experiences.

In this listicle, we spotlight some of the most promising Indonesian AI startups to watch, each bringing a unique approach to harnessing AI in one of the region’s most dynamic and rapidly evolving tech ecosystems.

Also Read: From energy to ergonomics: 20 AI startups to watch in Southeast Asia

SPUN Global

YukYuk!

bythen

Equitiv

Bulu

Mimin

Ledgerowl

ChatApp

bubbME.AI

Rapty.app

JUTIVE International

BJTech

Sonar Platform

Cekmata.com

AdSpace

The post From chatbots to creators: Indonesia’s AI startups to watch appeared first on e27.