PolicyStreet has pulled in US$21 million in the first close of its Series C round, with Japan’s Cool Japan Fund leading the cheque and existing backers Altara Ventures and Gobi Partners returning for more.

On the surface, it is a straightforward funding story. Look closer, and it reads more like a market signal: investors are no longer paying up for insurtech swagger alone. They want profit, discipline, and a credible role in Southeast Asia’s digital infrastructure.

The Malaysian-born company, now operating across Asia and Australia, says it posted more than US$1 million in profit after tax for the financial year ended December 2025. It also reported 2.5x year-on-year net revenue growth, doubled the number of customers served from five million to more than 10 million since 2023, and lifted total sum insured from US$6 billion to more than US$10 billion.

Also Read: ‘Profitability is an inflexion point, not the finish line’: PolicyStreet CEO

For a sector that spent years promising scale before economics, that matters.

PolicyStreet is not a consumer insurance brand in the old sense. It is trying to become plumbing: the layer that enables digital platforms, telcos, travel players, logistics firms, and gig-economy companies to embed insurance into everyday transactions. That position, straddling distribution and infrastructure, is what has now attracted a second sovereign wealth fund after Khazanah Nasional backed its US$15.3 million Series B two years ago.

Profitability, but not the full picture

The headline number, more than US$1 million in profit, is enough to stand out in Southeast Asia’s insurtech market. It is not, by itself, enough to settle every question.

In a recent interview with e27, co-founder and Group CEO Yen Ming Lee described FY2025 as “a significant milestone for a venture-backed insurtech”, arguing that the company had focused on “building a disciplined, scalable model, not short-term margin maximisation”. That is a fair defence, but it also comes with limits. PolicyStreet has not disclosed group revenue, margin breakdowns, cash burn in 2024, or how much of the Series B capital remains on the balance sheet. It has also declined to provide a detailed geographic revenue split, beyond saying Malaysia remains the core market and regional businesses are contributing progressively.

Still, the available data points suggest a company that has moved beyond the frothy growth logic that once defined the category. In a tighter funding market, profit after tax, revenue growth, and an expanding insured base make a stronger case than customer acquisition rhetoric ever did.

Even the 10 million customer figure, while impressive, needs context. Lee noted that the number reflects cumulative policies issued across PolicyStreet’s embedded ecosystem, adjusted for overlap across products and partners. That means the figure should not be read as 10 million deeply engaged insurance customers marching in neat formation. Many will be users of micro-insurance or transaction-linked cover. But that does not automatically make the number inflated. It reflects the reality of embedded insurance, where relevance comes from frequency and context, not from a one-size-fits-all premium.

The company says coverage varies widely across products. While some are short-duration, low-ticket policies, others are materially larger. Gig workers on partner platforms such as foodpanda or ShopeeFood, for instance, can be insured for around US$25,000 per policy.

Why Cool Japan Fund sees more than an insurtech bet

Cool Japan Fund’s entry is not just another foreign investor taking a punt on Southeast Asia. It is a strategic fit.

The Japanese fund was set up to expand overseas demand for Japanese products and services. PolicyStreet’s embedded insurance model directly supports that ambition by reducing one of the biggest bottlenecks in cross-border digital commerce: trust. If consumers feel protected when buying, travelling, shipping goods, or working through online platforms, they are more likely to transact. That makes it easier for Japanese brands and services to travel across the region.

Cool Japan Fund President, CEO, and COO Kenichi Kawasaki put it bluntly, saying PolicyStreet is “building a sense of security and assurance through its embedded insurance model”, which could become “a foundation for the safe and confident expansion of online commerce and digital services”.

That is the real synergy. PolicyStreet gets capital, institutional backing, and a potentially valuable bridge into Japanese commercial networks. Cool Japan Fund gets exposure to a company sitting inside the rails of Southeast Asia’s digital economy. One side brings infrastructure for insurance distribution and risk management. The other brings a mandate tied to overseas market creation. This is not a vanity investment; it is a bet that protection products can help commerce travel further.

Also Read: “SEA + Japan is a long game”: MUIP’s Gerrard Lai on cross-border startup collaboration

It also helps explain why Japanese investors have become more active in Southeast Asian startups. Japan offers stability and capital, but domestic growth is slower and digital adoption curves are less dramatic than in emerging markets. Southeast Asia offers younger consumers, rising internet penetration, growing spending power, and whole sectors still being formalised through software, fintech, logistics, and embedded services.

Japanese investors are also no longer treating the region simply as an export destination. Increasingly, they see it as a strategic operating environment. Startups give them an earlier foothold in shifts that matter, whether in payments, commerce, climate, health, or insurance.

The sectors driving PolicyStreet’s expansion

PolicyStreet’s recent push into gig work, mobility, travel, logistics, and telecommunications is not a grab bag of buzzworthy verticals. These are sectors where insurance can be attached to a clear moment of risk, and where distribution works best when the product is built into the user journey.

In gig work, platforms need coverage for riders, drivers, and freelancers who often fall outside traditional employment protections. In mobility, insurance can be tied to vehicle usage, rides, or accidents. In travel, embedded cover can be sold with less friction at the point of booking. In logistics, it can protect shipments, cargo, delays, or other operational risks. In telecommunications, insurance can be bundled into device protection and digital service offerings at scale.

This matters because PolicyStreet’s model relies on context. It is easier to sell protection when the customer already understands what can go wrong. Embedded distribution lowers customer acquisition costs, allows platforms to monetise or strengthen retention, and makes insurance less of a cold sell and more of a service layer.

Lee argued that affordability and profitability are not incompatible if distribution is efficient. Embedded insurance, he said, cuts acquisition costs compared with traditional channels, while modular products let customers choose narrower, cheaper cover instead of buying oversized bundles. In some cases, he added, platform partners may partially or fully fund the protection as part of their broader user proposition.

That sector mix has likely done more than lift volumes. It has reinforced the platform. More partners mean more data, more use cases, more touchpoints, and stronger distribution logic across the business.

The risk beneath the momentum

None of this makes PolicyStreet bulletproof.

A business built around digital platforms and telcos must answer a familiar question: what happens if a major partner decides to bring insurance in-house? Lee’s answer is that insurance remains a regulated, specialist activity involving underwriting, reinsurance, compliance, risk assessment, and capital management — capabilities that most consumer platforms do not want to build themselves. He also pointed to a diversified partner base across sectors and markets as protection against concentration risk.

That argument is credible, though not absolute. Large platforms have a habit of internalising valuable layers once they become strategically important. PolicyStreet’s defence will depend on whether it remains more useful as an expert infrastructure partner than it would as a replaceable integration vendor.

Also Read: Japan’s innovation dilemma—and why SEA startups could be the answer

That is why this fundraise matters beyond the amount. The US$21 million first close suggests investors think PolicyStreet has a shot at becoming essential infrastructure rather than an optional add-on. Profitability gives the story weight. The Cool Japan Fund tie-up gives it strategic shape. And the company’s presence across high-frequency sectors gives it room to deepen rather than merely widen.

The harder part starts now. Southeast Asia’s insurtech market has little patience left for businesses that confuse distribution with defensibility. PolicyStreet has shown that embedded insurance can scale and, at least for now, make money. The next test is whether it can turn that momentum into something more durable: a position in the region’s digital economy that platforms, insurers, and investors cannot easily route around.

The post PolicyStreet’s US$21M raise signals a shift from insurtech hype to infrastructure reality appeared first on e27.

The crypto market advanced 1.86 per cent to US$2.34T over 24 hours, driven primarily by a major institutional catalyst. This rally shows a strong 93 per cent correlation with the S&P 500, indicating a shared macro-driven move rather than isolated crypto speculation. The primary reason for this surge is a US Department of Labour proposal to allow retirement plans to invest in crypto, potentially unlocking trillions in institutional capital. Secondary factors include sustained positive sentiment from recent regulatory clarity from the SEC and CFTC, and technical breakouts in specific altcoin sectors like Layer 1s. The near-term market outlook suggests momentum could extend toward the US$2.38T to US$2.41T resistance zone if the March Jobs Report on April 3 supports a dovish Fed narrative, while a weak report could trigger a pullback toward US$2.27T support.

The key driver behind this institutional capital catalyst is a proposed rule from the US Department of Labour that would permit 401(k) retirement plans to include cryptocurrencies. This news circulated widely on social media and signals a potential flood of long-term institutional capital, which could directly boost market sentiment. This represents a structural bullish development because it reduces a major barrier for institutional adoption and provides a new source of predictable demand. When retirement accounts gain the ability to allocate even small percentages to digital assets, the cumulative effect could reshape market dynamics. The proposal indicates a shift in how regulators view crypto, moving from skepticism toward cautious integration within established financial frameworks. This change matters because it validates crypto as an asset class worthy of long-term savings, not just speculative trading.

Regulatory clarity continues to support market strength as participants digest the recent SEC and CFTC joint guidance classifying major assets as commodities. This guidance reduces regulatory overhang and provides a cleaner operating environment for projects and investors. Concurrently, the Layer 1 sector outperformed, posting a 2.25 per cent gain, fuelled by events such as Algorand’s recognition in a Google quantum security report. Regulatory tailwinds provide a foundation for growth while capital rotates into fundamental narratives, indicating a maturing rally beyond pure speculation. When investors see projects advancing on technical merits like quantum resistance, they allocate capital based on long-term utility rather than short-term hype. This shift toward fundamentals suggests the market is developing deeper roots and attracting more sophisticated participants.

Also Read: The return of crypto—or just a technical bounce?

The immediate trajectory hinges on the March US Jobs Report released on April 3. A weak number could reinforce rate-cut hopes, supporting a test of the US$2.38T level, which represents the 38.2 per cent Fibonacci retracement, to the US$2.41T level at the 50 per cent Fibonacci retracement. Conversely, strong data may pressure risk assets, with the US$2.27T swing low acting as critical support. Traders should watch whether volume sustains above the 7-day moving average at US$2.33T. This technical perspective matters because it frames the market’s next move in terms of observable levels, allowing participants to manage risk while staying aligned with the broader bullish narrative. The interplay between macro data and technical structure will likely dictate whether the rally extends or consolidates.

Global markets experienced a euphoric rally on April 1, 2026, primarily driven by optimism regarding a potential de-escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. US indices surged on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, following unconfirmed reports that Iran’s president expressed willingness to end hostilities on certain conditions. The S&P 500 jumped 2.9 per cent to close at 6,528.52, marking its best daily performance since May 2024. The Nasdaq Composite advanced 3.8 per cent to 21,590.63, led by a recovery in mega-cap technology shares. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained over 1,100 points, a 2.4 per cent increase, to end at 46,341.51. This broad-based strength in traditional markets provided a supportive backdrop for crypto’s advance, reinforcing the high correlation between risk assets.

International markets reflected this optimism, with Asia-Pacific markets in Sydney, Tokyo, and Hong Kong poised to open at least one per cent higher following the Wall Street rally. ASX 200 futures rose 1.5 per cent while the Straits Times Index recently crossed the 5,000 mark for the first time. European equity futures indicated a positive start, with the euro rising 0.2 per cent to US$1.1572. In commodities, West Texas Intermediate steadied around US$102 per barrel after prices fell 1.5 per cent on Tuesday when President Trump suggested the US might leave Iran within 2 to 3 weeks. Gold surged 2.8 per cent to US$4,654 per ounce as investors balanced safe-haven demand with high volatility. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index fell 0.1 per cent, losing safe-haven appeal amid hopes of de-escalation. Within this complex tapestry, Bitcoin remained stable at US$68,137 while Ether saw a marginal decline to US$2,103, showing relative resilience amid broader risk-on sentiment.

Also Read: Oil surges 59% in March while S&P 500 drops 6%: What this means for your crypto portfolio

The economic outlook presents both opportunities and risks as the IMF projects 3.3 per cent global growth for 2026, though persistent US inflation and geopolitical tensions remain key downside risks. J.P. Morgan forecasts a 35 per cent probability of a US recession in 2026, citing sticky inflation as a prevailing theme. This macro uncertainty underscores why the crypto market’s correlation with traditional indices matters. When institutional capital enters through retirement channels, it may dampen volatility over time, but near-term price action will still respond to inflation data, employment reports, and central bank signals. The market’s ability to hold gains above the US$2.33T 7-day moving average will signal whether bullish conviction outweighs macro caution.

As the crypto market integrates more deeply with traditional finance, its movements will increasingly reflect a blend of crypto-native catalysts and broader economic forces. This convergence demands that investors maintain a dual focus, tracking both on-chain developments and macro indicators. The path forward likely involves volatility, but the direction appears upward as institutional gates slowly open and regulatory frameworks solidify. Either outcome would represent a normal phase within a larger bullish trend, one powered by genuine adoption rather than speculation alone.

—

The post Breaking: US Labour Department opens door to crypto in 401(k) plans, market jumps 1.86% appeared first on e27.

In this fireside chat from Echelon Philippines 2025, moderator Artie Lopez, Co-Founder and Startup Coach at Brainsparks, sits down with Saul Molla, Founder and CEO of FlowerStore and Potico, to discuss his bold leap from corporate stability to entrepreneurship.

Molla recounts leaving his role as CFO of Lazada to enter the gifting industry — a uniquely demanding niche within e-commerce that requires exceptional precision and a strong sense of aesthetic. He also opens up about the complexities of scaling across Southeast Asia, sharing candid insights into the distinct cultural nuances and market challenges he encountered while expanding his business regionally.

The post Echelon Philippines 2025 – Risk, roses, and ROI: The founder + team blueprint to go regional appeared first on e27.

Singapore’s updated advertising guidelines, which took effect on March 25, are forcing banks and financial firms to rethink how they monitor advisers and influencers online — or risk reputational and regulatory consequences.

The new MAS regulation governing digital financial communications has arrived, and for institutions still relying on periodic spot audits to oversee their advisers’ online activity, the window to act has effectively closed.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s updated guidelines establish a clear expectation: financial institutions are now accountable for the content their financial advisers and affiliated influencers (“finfluencers”) publish across digital platforms. Reactive oversight, regulators have signalled, is no longer sufficient.

“The urgency is immediate,” said Ram Bojeesh, Country Manager for Southeast Asia and India at Meltwater. “Those relying on manual spot audits will fall short, as they cannot meet the expectation of continuous oversight or demonstrate it in practice,” he stressed in an email interview with e27.

The shift demanded by the new MAS regulation is fundamental. Traditional compliance structures built around selected case reviews, legal escalation, and periodic sampling were designed for a slower media environment. Digital channels operate differently. Content can spread within hours, reach audiences well beyond its original context, and potentially surface in AI-generated search results. In a market where more than half of Singaporeans reportedly turn to social media for financial guidance, the stakes are considerable.

Also Read: PolicyStreet’s US$21M raise signals a shift from insurtech hype to infrastructure reality

Bojeesh argues that existing compliance teams and legal functions, while still essential, are structurally insufficient on their own. “Manual processes rely on sampling and escalation, so there will inevitably be gaps,” he said. “It becomes difficult to practise full oversight in a way that complies with the new regulatory standards.”

What the guidelines effectively demand is a shift toward technology-enabled monitoring: systems capable of tracking adviser activity across digital channels in real time, flagging unapproved keywords, missing disclaimers, misleading claims or improper use of branding, and generating audit trails that can be presented to regulators on request.

Beyond regulatory risk, Bojeesh frames the new MAS regulation as an opportunity for institutions to exercise greater control over how they are represented online. A single non-compliant post, he notes, carries outsized consequences.

“If an adviser publishes something misleading or non-compliant, it can be amplified across digital platforms within hours,” he said. “As financial advisers are seen as representatives of their institutions, such content is rarely viewed in isolation.”

Over time, individual lapses can compound into a broader public narrative that reshapes an institution’s credibility across online discussions, social media, and increasingly, generative AI search outputs.

The concern is not purely theoretical. In a digitally fluent financial market like Singapore, the connection between compliance and brand reputation is direct and fast-moving.

Also Read: Building equity into Asia’s AI future: From principles on paper to power in practice

A regional regulatory trend

Singapore’s move reflects a wider pattern across Southeast Asia and India. Bojeesh points to regulators in Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Indonesia as having already introduced or strengthened guidelines on financial advertising, adviser responsibility, and online promotion. In India, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has intensified scrutiny of unregistered financial influencers and inadequate disclosures.

The trajectory across the region, he argues, points toward convergence. “Gaps in compliance across the region are unlikely to persist in the long term,” Bojeesh said. “Given how deeply embedded digital channels are, expectations around regulating digital financial communication will increasingly converge.”

One concern raised by industry practitioners is that intensive monitoring risks creating a surveillance culture that damages adviser morale. Bojeesh pushes back on this framing, arguing that effective oversight, when implemented with clarity, functions as a support system rather than a penalty mechanism. When advisers understand the boundaries and receive real-time guidance, he contends, they are better positioned to engage confidently — not less.

For institutions that have yet to act on the new MAS regulation, the calculus is straightforward: scalable, technology-enabled oversight is no longer a competitive advantage. It is the baseline.

—

Image Credit: Meltwater

The post Why the new MAS regulation makes continuous digital monitoring a business imperative appeared first on e27.

MSIG Asia has taken a strategic equity stake in Singapore-founded travel insurtech Ancileo and entered into a regional partnership aimed at expanding its travel insurance business across Asia Pacific.

While the deal size remains undisclosed, this is less about headline funding and more about control of distribution in one of Asia’s most competitive digital battlegrounds: travel.

Also Read: PolicyStreet’s US$21M raise signals a shift from insurtech hype to infrastructure reality

For years, travel insurance has largely been treated as an afterthought at checkout, the tiny box many travellers ignore while rushing to book a flight. That model is now under strain. Airlines, online travel agencies, and digital platforms increasingly want insurance products that are easier to embed, simpler to understand, and faster to claim.

Insurers, meanwhile, want a larger slice of travel demand returning across Asia, but without relying on the same clunky legacy systems that slowed expansion in the past.

That is where the MSIG-Ancileo tie-up fits.

MSIG gets a technology and distribution partner with deep airline and OTA integration experience across more than 25 markets. Ancileo gets capital, a major insurer with balance-sheet strength, underwriting muscle, and a footprint stretching across Southeast Asia, India, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, China, Korea, and Taiwan. In plain English: one side brings the pipes, the other brings the water.

As MSIG Asia CEO Clemens Philippi put it, the partnership combines Ancileo’s “technology and distribution expertise” with MSIG’s regional footprint to deliver faster and more relevant travel experiences. Strip away the corporate polish, and the point still lands. This is a distribution deal disguised as a partnership announcement, and distribution is where travel insurance is increasingly won or lost.

Why this deal matters to both sides

For MSIG Asia, the investment is a shortcut to speed. Large insurers are good at underwriting, capital management, and regulation. They are usually less nimble when it comes to product personalisation, user journeys, and integration with digital travel sellers.

Also Read: Poni’s Cassandra Wee on why the most meaningful insurtech innovation will not come from operating in silo

Ancileo helps close that gap. Its platform is built around B2B2C travel insurance, enabling insurers to distribute policies through airlines, OTAs, and travel partners rather than relying solely on direct channels or old-school brokers.

That is crucial because travel insurance is increasingly sold at the moment of purchase. If MSIG wants to grow across Asia’s travel boom, it needs to sit where travellers book, not where they file paperwork.

For Ancileo, the benefit is equally obvious. Strategic capital from a heavyweight insurer is more valuable than a passive financial cheque if it comes with underwriting access, distribution scale, and regional credibility. Ancileo has spent years building the technology layer for travel protection. MSIG gives it a far larger field on which to deploy that technology.

Ancileo founder and CEO Olivier Michel said the goal is to “reimagine what B2B2C travel insurance looks like in Asia”. That ambition sounds lofty, but the business logic is grounded. Ancileo’s products can become harder to ignore if they are backed by a recognisable insurer and deployed across more markets at scale.

Ultimately, the deal benefits three groups beyond the companies themselves. Travellers get more relevant and better-integrated protection. Airlines and OTAs can offer an insurance product that increases ancillary revenue while improving customer trust. And both firms improve their competitive position in a region where digital travel recovery has been outpacing many earlier forecasts.

Where the capital is likely to go

Neither MSIG nor Ancileo disclosed a detailed use-of-funds plan, so there is no official line-item breakdown of how the money will be spent. But the commercial intent is clear enough from the structure of the partnership.
The capital is likely to support four areas.

First, product personalisation. Travel insurance is moving away from generic annual policies and towards modular cover tied to trip type, route, traveller profile, and disruption risk. That means more dynamic pricing and more tailored policies rather than blunt, one-size-fits-all products.

Second, deeper integrations with airlines and OTAs. Ancileo’s value lies in helping partners embed insurance inside booking flows without turning checkout into a conversion-killing maze. More capital and insurer backing should help it expand these integrations faster across Asia Pacific.

Third, claims automation and customer experience. One of the industry’s biggest headaches is not just selling policies but handling claims without driving customers to despair. Faster claims, automated triggers, and cleaner digital journeys are likely to be a major investment focus.

Also Read: What Southeast Asia can learn from Europe’s insurtech revolution

Fourth, regional expansion. MSIG’s footprint gives Ancileo a ready-made path into more markets. That does not mean instant rollout everywhere, but it does create a credible route to scale that many insurtechs spend years trying to build from scratch.

Asia’s travel rebound is rewriting the insurance playbook

The timing is hardly accidental. Travel across Asia has been recovering on several fronts at once: rising intra-Asia tourism, expanded airline capacity, visa waivers in key corridors, and a continued shift to mobile-first booking behaviour. Southeast Asia, in particular, has benefited from strong regional demand as travellers opt for shorter-haul, more frequent trips.

This is important because travel insurance adoption tends to rise with booking frequency and digital convenience. The more often people travel and the more they book through apps and online platforms, the easier it becomes to present insurance as part of the booking journey rather than as a separate financial product.

Several forces are accelerating that shift.

The first is higher disruption awareness. Travellers have become more conscious of delays, cancellations, baggage issues, medical emergencies, and weather-related disruptions. The pandemic changed traveller psychology, and climate volatility has kept that anxiety alive.

The second is embedded distribution. Airlines and OTAs no longer want insurance to be a clumsy upsell bolted awkwardly onto a transaction. They want integrated products that are easier to explain and easier to claim. That increases take-up rates.

The third is a better digital claims infrastructure. Consumers are more willing to buy insurance when they believe they will not need to wrestle a call centre for weeks to get paid.

As for market size, exact estimates vary by research firm, but most industry trackers place the global travel insurance market in the low tens of billions of US dollars in the mid-2020s, with Asia Pacific among the fastest-growing regions. Broadly, the market is expected to expand strongly over the next decade as more travel sales move online and embedded insurance becomes standard at checkout. Asia’s share of that growth is likely to be disproportionately high, thanks to rising middle-class travel demand, stronger regional air connectivity, and the sheer scale of outbound and intra-regional traffic.

That is the larger backdrop to this deal. MSIG and Ancileo are not inventing a market. They are trying to get ahead of one that is already changing shape.

The Iran factor and the limits of travel cover

One complication hangs over the broader travel insurance sector: geopolitics.  Wars and tensions between countries (for example, the ongoing war in the Middle East) would ripple through the travel insurance market quickly. Airspace restrictions, flight rerouting, cancellations, fuel-cost pressure, and destination risk repricing all feed into the economics of travel cover.

This is where the industry gets messy. Most travel insurance policies contain war exclusions, meaning losses caused directly by war are often not covered. But indirect consequences (delays, missed connections, or trip disruption linked to changing airline operations, etc.) may be covered depending on the policy wording and trigger. That creates exactly the kind of ambiguity travellers hate, and insurers must price carefully.

For firms such as MSIG Asia, this means tougher underwriting, sharper policy wording, and potentially higher claims volatility around disruption products. For insurtech players such as Ancileo, it raises the bar on product clarity and real-time distribution. Travellers want to know what is covered before they buy, not after they are stuck in an airport staring at a departures board that resembles performance art.

Also Read: Meet Forgettable, the startup transforming the world’s most forgettable product: insurance

In that sense, geopolitical volatility strengthens the case for smarter travel insurance technology. Products need to be clearer, more modular, and easier to distribute dynamically as risk conditions change.

That is the real story behind this investment. MSIG Asia is not merely buying into an insurtech. It is buying into a mechanism for selling, adapting, and servicing travel protection in a region where the travel rebound is real, the competition is intensifying, and the risks are becoming more complex. Ancileo, meanwhile, gets a powerful ally in its effort to turn travel insurance from a neglected add-on into a core part of the booking experience.

The post MSIG takes stake in Ancileo to win Asia’s travel insurance battle appeared first on e27.

When we think of healthtech in South and Southeast Asia, certain themes often spring to mind: SARS, COVID-19, and an ageing population driving a demand for effective eldercare. For those of us living here, these issues feel obvious and urgent. But what’s obvious to us in the region is not always obvious to decision-makers sitting in other parts of the world.

It’s a reminder that when it comes to innovation in healthcare, perspective matters.

A missed opportunity in telehealth

In a previous role at a late-stage video conferencing company, I saw firsthand how a lack of local context can mean missing the moment. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, a colleague from Hong Kong and I proposed that we should give away video conferencing licenses to healthcare institutions.

At the time, governments across South and Southeast Asia were already mobilising to prepare their healthcare systems. We believed that this was the perfect opportunity to not only seize market share but also build a reputation as a company that understood the urgency and wanted to help.

The idea was met with scepticism at our London sales headquarters and was ultimately rejected. We were a small team of four in Asia trying to signal the importance of moving quickly, but our urgency didn’t translate back to the company’s US headquarters.

Three months later, the world was in lockdown. The company eventually doubled down on telehealth, but the approach (to me at least) felt outdated. The market had already moved, and many of the most interesting innovations we were seeing were coming from startups within the region, not from Europe or the US.

Also Read: Decoding digital preferences: A glimpse into the future of health tech ecosystem in SEA

Learning from Sehat Kehani

Around that time, I met the founder of Sehat Kehani, a Pakistani healthtech company with a clear mission and a deep understanding of its local context. The company was addressing three critical issues:

• Increasing female doctors’ participation in Pakistan’s workforce
• Extending healthcare outreach to rural villages in Pakistan and Afghanistan
• Training local nurses to deliver telehealth services, connecting patients to remote female doctors

This approach was remarkable because it was designed from the ground up to work within the constraints and opportunities of the local healthcare ecosystem. It wasn’t about parachuting in technology or people from elsewhere; it was about building something that made sense for the realities on the ground.

If our HQ had been willing to listen and pivot, we could have adapted our platform to serve this massive, underserved market. Instead, after being acquired by a US telco, we exited customers from this region entirely.

Why local founders matter

Experiences like this have shaped the way I evaluate healthtech startups. I look at how “close” the founders are to the market they are serving. If they are too far removed from the region, they are often too far removed from the problem, and that distance makes it difficult to design truly effective solutions.

The strongest healthtech innovations in Asia often come from founders who have lived the problem, understand its nuances, and can navigate local systems to get solutions into the hands of those who need them most.

Standout examples in the region

Here are just a few companies that stand out for their impact and market insight:

• Sehat Kehani (Pakistan) – Rural telemedicine and enabling greater participation of female doctors in the workforce.
• SixtyPlus (India) – At-home eldercare for a rapidly aging population.
• HealthPro (Indonesia) – Home healthcare services tailored to urban and semi-urban populations.
• MedEasy (Bangladesh) – Combining B2C and B2B pharmaceutical services with telehealth delivery.
• PulseTech (Bangladesh) – B2B pharmaceutical distribution designed for emerging market supply chains.
• Relaxy (Bangladesh) – Mental health services in a context where mental wellbeing is often overlooked or stigmatised.
• Sova Health (India) – Supplements tailored for the Indian gut biome, recognising the need for locally relevant nutrition science.
• TB-AI (Pakistan) – Rapid diagnostics using mobile phone technology, scalable across rural Africa and Asia.
• Amar Lab (Bangladesh) – Bringing lab diagnostics directly to patients’ doors.

These aren’t just product stories; they are founder stories. Each one reflects a combination of lived experience, deep market understanding, and creative problem-solving.

Also Read: Empowering women in healthtech: The role of technology in driving inclusive workplaces

Healthtech’s frontline role in Asia

Healthtech is no longer a “nice to have” in South and Southeast Asia: it is an essential part of building resilient healthcare systems. The region faces a unique mix of challenges:

• Large rural populations with limited access to formal healthcare
• Uneven distribution of medical professionals, especially in specialised fields
• Rising demand for eldercare as life expectancy increases
• A growing awareness of mental health and preventive care needs

At the same time, there are powerful enablers:

• High mobile penetration, even in rural areas
• Increasing acceptance of telemedicine post-COVID-19
• A growing pool of local founders building solutions for local problems

The best solutions emerging here are not imported wholesale from Silicon Valley. They are tailored to local realities: from bandwidth limitations to cultural sensitivities, and are designed to be affordable and accessible.

The global relevance of local solutions

One of the most exciting aspects of Asia’s healthtech innovations is their potential for global application. Technologies built to work in low-resource settings such as mobile-based diagnostics, community health worker training platforms, and AI-powered remote consultations, are not just relevant for emerging markets. They can also address healthcare access issues in underserved communities worldwide.

This is why listening to and supporting local founders is so important. The problems they are solving are urgent today in Asia, but they may be the same problems others will face tomorrow elsewhere.

Looking ahead

The future of healthtech in South and Southeast Asia will be shaped by the intersection of technology, cultural understanding, and policy support. Startups that can blend these elements will not only transform healthcare access in their home markets but could also influence how care is delivered globally.

For investors, this is a space where impact and returns are not mutually exclusive. For policymakers, it’s a chance to integrate nimble, tech-enabled solutions into broader public health strategies.

As I’ve learned, being close to the problem is the only way to design the right solution. And in healthtech, the right solution can mean the difference between life and death.

—

The post Healthtech in South and Southeast Asia – Seeing beyond the “obvious” appeared first on e27.

In Southeast Asia’s vibrant startup ecosystem, strategic investors from technology giants like Alibaba, Tencent, and Google offer more than just capital. Unlike traditional VC funds, they can provide access to technology, networks, and markets, aligning investments with their business goals.

For the 700 million consumer market in our region, these partnerships can catapult startups to regional dominance. However, founders face significant risks, including loss of control and misalignment of incentives, which can jeopardise autonomy and long-term success. This week’s post addresses the opportunities and challenges of taking on strategic corporate investors and highlights the safeguards founders should consider to stay aligned and in control.

What is a strategic investment?

A strategic investment is when an established company invests in a young startup with the aim that the investment can bring something of value to the investor itself. The aim may be for the investor to gain access to a particular product or technology that the startup company is developing, or to support young startups that could become customers for the investor’s own existing products.

A well known example is Microsoft’s investment into OpenAI, where the partnership went beyond capital into deep product and market collaboration to spur AI technologies.

What are the benefits of a strategic investment?

Strategic investments usually bring huge advantages other than the usual cash investment including even willingness to  accept a higher valuation to make a deal work. Additionally, a strategic investor can offer other support including operational expertise,  such as integration into a corporate ecosystem like expertise in existing verticals such as logistics or cloud which can provide instant market access and credibility. 

Also Read: Unlocking startup investment: The vital role of virtual data rooms

Patient capital is another benefit, as corporates may likely be able to tolerate longer return timelines for strategic value. The “halo effect” of partnering with a global giant boosts valuations and attracts talent, while mentorship from industry leaders accelerates growth in our region’s competitive digital landscape.

Risks and challenges in a strategic investment

Despite these benefits, strategic investments can also carry substantial risks. 

Founders may lose control when investors demand board seats or veto powers, as seen in the usual hierarchical business cultures prevalent in our culture such as in Indonesia or Thailand, where pressure to concede may be intense. 

Misalignment is a key risk, as corporates may prioritise their own agendas such as redirecting product development or valuable intellectual property to serve their ecosystem which potentially stifles your ability to innovate. 

In our past experience at Izwan & Partners, I have seen situations where a corporate investor comes into a startup, but the business leader involved in the deal who backed you initially later moves on or decides to pivot in a new direction. In such a scenario, without clear alignment or written safeguards, you may be left stuck if priorities shift after a leadership change.

Over-reliance on a single investor may also expose your startup to corporate shifts, such as economic downturns or geopolitical tensions (e.g. the US and Chinese firms vying for regional dominance). 

The “halo effect”, while beneficial, can deter potential acquirers wary of competing with a strategic investor, limiting exit options for existing investors and founders.

Alibaba’s US$1 billion controlling stake in Lazada in 2016 may be a good case study that allowed the e-commerce platform to benefit via logistics integration but eroded founders’ autonomy as Alibaba reshaped its own operations. Tencent’s US$1.5 billion investment in Sea Group in 2018 may have helped to supercharge Shopee’s growth, but it may also likely come with  additional pressure to follow Tencent’s playbook considering its challenges against the backdrop of having to deal with the US-China geopolitical tensions.

Making strategic investment work and mitigating risks

To navigate these challenges, founders must engage a startup lawyer to help them structure deals carefully. and include milestones tied to strategic support, not just funds.

Also Read: McKinsey: Strategic investment fuels Asia Pacific quantum computing expansion

Other considerations include:

• Minority stake: Where possible, negotiate for the strategic investors to take up minority stakes so that you can retain control.
• Board and voting rights: Negotiate veto rights or reserved matters to protect against unwanted pivots.
• Milestone-based commitments: Tie part of the deal to strategic support (e.g. distribution, partnerships, market access), not just cash.
• IP protection: Restrict how your technology, know-how, or data can be used within the corporate investor’s ecosystem.
• Exit flexibility: Ensure you’re not locked into the corporate investor if future fundraising or an acquisition opportunity arises (e.g. shares swap or put option agreement). This can help preserve autonomy in the unfortunate event that things don’t work out post-investment
• Funding alignment: Clarify expectations on follow-on funding and whether they’ll support future rounds. Diversifying funding sources may help reduce reliance on one investor, mitigating risks from the investor’s corporate or geopolitical shifts.
• Non-compete/exclusivity: Limit how far the corporate investor can restrict you from working with others in the same industry.
• Leadership change clauses: Address what happens if the corporate champion backing you leaves or priorities shift.

In any funding deal, it is crucial for you to conduct your own due diligence including vetting the corporate investor’s past track record with their past portfolio investments. 

Final thoughts

As a founder, getting a strategic investor in a company can offer unparalleled benefits including new sources of capital, networks, and expertise that can propel your business to greater success, as seen in Lazada and Shopee. Yet, the risks of control loss and misalignment need to be managed properly to avoid misalignment of interests down the line.

By learning from these case studies, I hope you can consider how a strategic investment can let your startup harness corporate strengths while safeguarding your startup’s agility to innovate and grow.

—

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 Pro

The post Strategic investment 101: A founder’s playbook for winning without losing control appeared first on e27.

The post Climate tech’s shift from doing good to doing well appeared first on e27.

Every weekend across Bangkok, the same friction plays out in slow motion. A group of friends wants to book a table at a rooftop bar they heard about on Instagram. They find a venue page with no online booking, fire off a WhatsApp message that goes unread until midnight, and end up somewhere else by default.

For the venue, it is a lost reservation. For the customer, it is a forgettable non-experience. For Nightify, it is the exact problem worth building a company around.

Also Read: A2D Ventures backs LineWise to put a 24/7 AI engineer on every factory floor

Thailand-based Nightify has closed a US$500,000 seed round led by A2D Ventures, with participation from angel investors spanning hospitality, retail, and consumer sectors. The capital will go toward expanding its venue network across Thailand, deepening its product capabilities, and laying the groundwork for regional expansion across Southeast Asia.

A fragmented market hiding in plain sight

The nightlife and entertainment industry in Southeast Asia is a serious economic force that is rarely treated as such. The region’s broader food and beverage and nightlife sector — spanning bars, clubs, live music venues, and hospitality entertainment — is estimated to represent a multi-billion-dollar opportunity. Thailand alone, one of the world’s top tourism destinations, drew over 35 million international arrivals in 2023 and has a nightlife economy that punches well above its weight.

Across Southeast Asia, the hospitality and entertainment market is projected to surpass US$90 billion by 2030, driven by a young, urbanising population with rising disposable incomes and a deeply social consumer culture.

Yet the infrastructure powering this industry looks nothing like its scale. Most venues still rely on a patchwork of WhatsApp threads, manual spreadsheets, and disconnected reservation tools that were not built for the pace of nightlife operations. Discovery is fragmented across Instagram pages, Google Maps listings, and word of mouth. There is no single layer that ties bookings, events, customer data, and brand partnerships together. That gap is where Nightify is planting its flag.

The operating system for nights out

Nightify positions itself as a two-sided platform serving both consumers and venues simultaneously. On the user side, it offers discovery based on music genre, venue vibe, and location, alongside seamless table bookings and event access. On the venue side, it provides a booking engine, event management and promotion tools, upselling and add-on package capabilities, and CRM tools that help operators understand and retain their customers.

The company is already live with a credible list of Bangkok venues, including Bar Us, The NORM Bangkok, Vesper, Dry Wave Cocktail Studio, and F*nkytown, names that carry genuine weight in the city’s nightlife scene.

As the platform matures, Nightify is deepening its integration into venue operations, targeting POS integrations, payment processing, and full-stack operational tooling that would make switching away genuinely costly for operators.

Also Read: Thailand’s cybersecurity boom has a weak core

“People don’t go out just to transact,” said Wuthi Bunyapamai, co-founder and CEO of Nightify. “They go out to feel something, to connect, discover, and be part of something bigger. Our goal is to become the default layer for nightlife, where every night out begins.”

Western parallels and what Southeast Asia needs differently

Nightify is not inventing a category from scratch. In the US and Europe, platforms like Resy, OpenTable, and SevenRooms have carved out significant positions in the hospitality tech stack, though their focus skews heavily toward fine dining and restaurant reservations rather than nightlife specifically. Discotech, an American app targeting nightclub table bookings in Las Vegas and Miami, is perhaps the closest conceptual parallel, while SpotOn and Tock have also built venue management tooling with a tighter entertainment focus.

What distinguishes the Southeast Asian context is the sheer informality and fragmentation of the market. Western hospitality tech grew up alongside restaurant groups and hotel chains that already had formalised operations.

In Bangkok, Jakarta, or Kuala Lumpur, the average nightlife operator is far less structured, making the education and onboarding challenge steeper, but the value proposition considerably higher once adoption takes hold.

The markets beyond Bangkok

While Thailand is the natural starting point, bolstered by its global tourism brand and a genuinely world-class nightlife culture, the regional opportunity is substantial. Indonesia, home to over 270 million people and a rapidly expanding urban middle class, has a Jakarta nightlife scene that rivals Bangkok in energy and complexity. Vietnam, particularly Ho Chi Minh City, has seen an explosion of rooftop bars, craft cocktail venues, and live music spaces over the past five years.

The Philippines, especially Manila and Cebu, runs a deeply embedded nightlife economy that has historically been one of Southeast Asia’s most vibrant. Singapore, while more regulated, has a premium hospitality market with operators hungry for better tooling.

Each of these markets has a different regulatory landscape and consumer behaviour profile, but all share the same structural problem Nightify is trying to solve: discovery is broken, operations are manual, and customer relationships are underbuilt.

Multiple paths to revenue

Nightify’s business model has several logical levers. The most immediate is a commission or booking fee on reservations processed through the platform, a standard approach that scales directly with transaction volume. Beyond that, subscription or SaaS fees charged to venues for access to CRM, event management, and analytics tools generate recurring revenue that is not dependent on individual booking flows.

Brand partnership and activation revenue (already demonstrated through collaborations with Grab, White Claw, and Coffee Meets Bagel) adds a media and sponsorship dimension that is particularly attractive in nightlife, where brand association carries genuine cultural currency. As Nightify pushes into payments and POS, a take-rate on in-venue transactions becomes a longer-term possibility. The combination of transaction fees, SaaS subscriptions, and brand revenue gives the business multiple margin layers rather than a single fragile monetisation path.

Why this model scales

The scalability question is the right one to ask. Two-sided marketplace businesses in fragmented, local industries are notoriously hard to build, but they also tend to produce durable competitive moats once network effects take hold.

In Nightify’s case, each new venue added increases the platform’s value to users, and each new user increases the commercial incentive for venues to onboard. The CRM and operational tooling create switching costs that go beyond discovery, and the brand partnership business benefits from scale in a way that a single-venue operator could never access independently.

Also Read: ‘Thai startups face challenges in funding, corporate engagement, global expansion’: A2D Ventures

A2D Ventures’ Ankit Upadhyay pointed directly to team pedigree as the investment’s primary driver. “Nightify is powered by a formidable Thai team with an elite pedigree. The founders bring experience from firms like Agoda, Accenture, Bitazza, Minor International, and Oppo. This mix of consumer tech, scale-up, and hospitality expertise is exactly what’s needed to solve real industry challenges with regional potential.”

The US$500,000 seed round is a modest opening bet on a market that has been chronically underserved by technology. Whether Nightify can translate Bangkok traction into a regional footprint will depend on its ability to standardise onboarding across wildly different market conditions. But the infrastructure gap it is targeting is real, the team has the operational range to pursue it, and Southeast Asia’s nightlife economy is far too large to remain this poorly served for much longer.

The post Nightify bags US$500K to fix Southeast Asia’s nightlife chaos appeared first on e27.

I was midway through an assessment test for a company when I started noticing a pattern. Several questions revolved around the same theme: should you show emotions at work, or is it better to keep them hidden? The questions were never framed directly. Instead, they appeared as situational judgment scenarios-how you would respond to conflict, pressure, or disagreement. But beneath the surface, they were testing the same thing: emotional expression versus control. I found myself pausing longer than expected, not because I lacked experience, but because I wasn’t convinced there was a single “correct” answer.

In many professional environments, especially in Asia, we are conditioned to believe that being composed equals being competent. Emotions are often treated as distractions, something to manage privately so they don’t interfere with performance. But that assumption has never fully matched my experience.

As a corporate trainer, I quite often run improv workshops for corporate teams, and one of the core principles I always introduce is simple: bring emotions into the room. Not in a disruptive way, but in an intentional one. Tension, frustration, excitement-these were not things to suppress, but tools to build more authentic interactions. Every time we did this, the energy shifted. People who were initially guarded became more engaged. Conversations became less rehearsed and more real. Ideas flowed more freely, not because participants were trying harder, but because they were less filtered.

Also Read: Why inclusive hiring matters for a startup ecosystem

What struck me most was not that emotions made the room chaotic, but that they made it alive. That realisation stayed with me as I moved into startup environments, where the stakes are higher and the structures less defined. Ironically, these are the environments where emotions are both more present and less discussed. Looking back, the moments when my own emotions surfaced most strongly at work were rarely during creative highs. They usually appeared when I was under sustained pressure, often teetering on the edge of burnout. And when they surfaced, they didn’t come out in ways I was proud of. I became reactive. My comments carried frustration that had little to do with the immediate situation, and I often turned critical-not of others, but of myself. What felt like expression in the moment was, in reality, a loss of control.

Over time, I noticed a pattern that was hard to ignore. Whenever I reached that stage, it was usually followed by my exit from the company not long after. That correlation forced me to rethink something fundamental. It wasn’t that emotions were inappropriate at work; it was that I had never been taught how to process them within a professional context. They built up quietly until they had no choice but to surface, often in ways that were misaligned with the situation.

This is where I think many of us get it wrong. We frame the conversation as a binary: be emotional or be professional. In reality, the issue is whether emotions are processed or suppressed. In startup environments, this distinction becomes even more critical. The pace is faster, ambiguity is higher, and feedback loops are shorter. You are constantly navigating incomplete information, shifting priorities, and diverse personalities. All of these factors are emotional triggers. Ignoring them doesn’t make them disappear-it simply delays their impact.

Also Read: Transition climate risk: Navigating the future of sustainable real estate

What I’ve come to realise is that emotional discipline is not about shutting feelings down. It’s about recognising them early enough that they don’t take over your decisions. That awareness, however, doesn’t come naturally. For a long time, I didn’t have a structured way to build it. Only recently have I started experimenting with something simple but surprisingly effective: creating just enough distance between what I feel and how I respond. Not by removing emotions, but by learning how to sit with them a little longer.

Because in the end, the goal isn’t to hide emotions at work. It’s to make sure they don’t speak louder than our judgment. When handled thoughtfully, emotions can guide decisions, enhance creativity, and even strengthen relationships. Suppressed or unmanaged, they become obstacles.

Recognising that distinction has been one of the most important lessons of my professional journey, particularly in the unpredictable world of startups.

—

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 Emotions at work aren’t the problem—avoiding them is appeared first on e27.