The digital economy in the Asia Pacific is like a fast-growing teenager: growing taller every month, moving into everything, and constantly being told, “Be careful on the internet.” Everyone wants more AI, more automation, more apps that magically know what we want before we do—but no one wants their data ending up in a breach, a scam, or a very awkward headline.  

So here we are, trying to build a future where we trust systems we don’t understand, run by algorithms we’ve never met, guarded by cybersecurity policies we definitely didn’t read, in a scam-increasing online environment with all sorts of tried and tested scams.

Cybersecurity: From “annoying IT thing” to trust superhero  

Not too long ago, cybersecurity was that department you only met when something went wrong—like the fire brigade, but with more acronyms and less water. Now, boards treat it as a strategic issue, and CISOs get invited to important meetings instead of being called only when someone clicks “Enable Macros” on a mysterious attachment.  

Think of cybersecurity as the “trust layer” of the digital economy: the invisible flooring that keeps everyone from falling straight into the basement of ransomware, fraud, and reputational disaster. Encryption, identity systems, zero‑trust architectures—they’re the unglamorous steel beams holding up your favourite fintech app, your government portal, and the AI chatbot you yell at when it hallucinates.  

When this trust layer works, no one notices. When it doesn’t, everyone suddenly becomes a security expert on social media.

APAC: So much growth, so many ways to panic  

In Southeast Asia and the broader APAC region, governments and businesses are in a hurry to digitise everything—payments, healthcare, transport, public services, you name it. That’s great for efficiency, inclusion, and impressive keynote slides. It’s also fantastic news for cybercriminals, who treat this region like a rapidly expanding buffet of poorly defended systems and distracted users.  

Cyber incidents and fraud losses have been surging, with some markets reporting eye‑watering growth in cyber-enabled scams and identity theft. People love the convenience of one‑tap everything, but they’re increasingly anxious about whether their data is safe, who can see it, and which OTP they just accidentally shared with a “bank officer” on WhatsApp.  

So yes, technical security matters—but here’s the twist: feeling safe is just as important as being safe.

Also Read: The trust layer: How cybersecurity became hospitality’s most valuable asset

Trust is a feeling, not a patch level  

Humans don’t walk around thinking, “I trust this platform because of its robust zero‑trust architecture and end‑to‑end encryption.” We think, “Does this thing look sketchy?” and “Will I regret clicking this later?”  

Psychology tells us that trust rides on a few simple things:

• Consistency: Does this service behave predictably, or does it randomly log me out and ask for 47 forms of ID?
• Transparency: Are you telling me what’s happening with my data, or hoping I never ask?
• Control: Do I feel I have choices, or am I being dragged through your consent funnel like luggage at an airport?
• Social proof: Who else trusts you—and did they survive?  

You can have world‑class security, but if your login page looks like it was designed in a hurry by a caffeinated intern, people will hesitate. Conversely, plenty of scams work precisely because they imitate the calm, polished look of something trustworthy. Our brains are wired to rely on signals and shortcuts, not security certification numbers.

Behavioural nudges: Jedi mind tricks for good  

Enter behavioural science and nudges—the gentle psychological steering that tech platforms already use to make you watch one more episode, add one more item to your cart, or accept one more cookie. The same techniques can make people more secure without turning them into full‑time security analysts.  

Some of the smartest “nudges” in cybersecurity look delightfully simple:

• Just‑in‑time warnings: A tiny banner that appears right when you’re about to click that suspicious email link, basically whispering, “Are you sure about this life choice?”  
• Secure‑by‑default settings: Multi‑factor authentication quietly switched on by default, so you’re safer before you’ve even finished complaining about the extra step.  
• Positive reinforcement: A small “Nice catch!” message when you report a phishing email, turning security from chore into a minor personal victory.  
• Human‑readable explanations: Instead of “Session terminated due to anomalous authentication behaviour,” try “We logged you out because something didn’t look right with your sign‑in—here’s what we did and what you can do.”  

Also Read: The unseen link: How cybersecurity and sustainability converge on Earth Day

These tiny tweaks don’t require users to become experts; they just make the safe path the easy, obvious one. Clever experiments in organisations show that such nudges can meaningfully reduce risky clicks and increase reporting of suspicious activity—without the usual cocktail of shame, blame, and twelve-page policy PDFs.

The awkward dance between humans and machines  

There’s an uncomfortable truth at the heart of the digital economy: we’re asking people to put enormous trust in systems they can’t see, run by companies they vaguely recognise, governed by policies they never read, secured by teams they’ll never meet.  

So if you’re designing that digital future in APAC—or anywhere—here’s the cheat code:

• Treat cybersecurity not as a cost centre, but as your reputation firewall and growth engine.  
• Pair strong technical controls with strong human signals: clear language, honest incident response, understandable controls.  
• Use behavioural nudges to make the secure behaviour feel natural, not heroic. Nobody should need willpower just to avoid being scammed.  

In the end, cybersecurity as a trust layer is less about scaring people into compliance and more about designing systems that quietly say: “We’ve got you. And we’ll prove it, not just in our architecture diagrams, but in every interaction you have with us.”  

If we get that right, people won’t just use the digital economy because they have to. They’ll use it because, somehow, in a world of bots and breaches and endless notifications, it actually feels like something rare: trustworthy.

—

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.

The post Trust me, I’m (not) a robot: Cybersecurity, psychology, and our awkward digital relationship appeared first on e27.

There’s a widening gap in the AI automation space, and it’s not the one most people talk about.

It’s not the gap between those who have AI and those who don’t. It’s not about access to technology or understanding of capabilities. The real gap—the one that actually matters for business outcomes—is the execution gap.

On one side, you have SMEs with genuine operational problems. Real bottlenecks. Workflows that consume disproportionate resources, create delays, and limit growth. These aren’t hypothetical challenges invented for a case study—they’re the daily friction that prevents good businesses from becoming great ones.

On the other side, you have builders with technical capability. Developers, automation engineers, AI consultants who understand LLMs, RAG systems, API integrations, and workflow orchestration. People who can architect solutions, write code, and deploy systems.

The gap isn’t technical knowledge. The gap is execution in production environments against real business constraints.

Why most AI automation never makes it to production

The AI automation space is filled with proof-of-concepts that never ship, demos that never scale, and innovations that never deliver ROI. The pattern is familiar: a builder creates an impressive prototype, demonstrates capability in controlled conditions, and then… nothing. The solution never makes it into actual business operations.

This happens because building for real business environments requires more than technical skill. It requires understanding operational context, handling edge cases that emerge only in production, designing for maintainability by non-technical teams, and delivering measurable outcomes that justify the disruption of changing workflows.

Most builders optimize for impressive demos. The market needs builders who optimize for deployable solutions.

The AI Workflow Competition at Echelon Singapore 2026 exists to surface and celebrate the builders who understand this distinction—and to prove that a different model of collaboration between SMEs and technical talent can close the execution gap.

Also read: Is your business stuck in manual mode? It’s time to automate with AI

What makes this model different

Traditional approaches to SME automation follow predictable patterns. SMEs hire consultants who conduct discovery, propose solutions, and deliver implementations that may or may not align with actual operational needs. Or they adopt off-the-shelf tools that promise automation but require businesses to conform to rigid templates that don’t match how they actually work.

Both approaches treat automation as a product transaction rather than a problem-solving collaboration.

The AI Workflow Competition operates differently. It starts with real SME challenges—not consultant-interpreted problems, but actual operational bottlenecks described by the people who experience them daily. These challenges fall into three categories that represent genuine business priorities:

• Save-a-Hire challenges focus on reducing manual labor to free team members for higher-value work. The metric is hours saved per week. These are problems where automation doesn’t just improve efficiency—it fundamentally changes what a small team can accomplish.
• Revenue Rocket challenges enable new revenue streams or increase capacity to process more orders. The metric is additional revenue or order volume. These are problems where operational constraints are directly limiting business growth.
• Cash Flow Guardian challenges reduce operational costs, minimize waste, and optimize spending. The metric is cost savings per month. These are problems where inefficiency has a direct line item on the P&L.

Builders don’t pitch solutions to hypothetical problems. They build working automations for specific, measurable business challenges. The entire programme—from qualification through live demonstration—is designed to filter for execution capability, not presentation skills.

Why builders should care about solving real SME problems

For builders early in their careers or transitioning into AI automation, the challenge is often proving capability beyond GitHub repositories and side projects. Employers and clients want evidence of production experience—solutions that worked in real business environments, handled actual edge cases, and delivered measurable outcomes.

Working on genuine SME challenges provides exactly this proof. You’re not building a demo for a hackathon that gets archived after judging. You’re creating automation that an actual business might implement, solving problems that have real costs and real impact.

The programme structure reinforces this. Before you even work on an SME challenge, you complete a qualification task proving you can execute within constraints. During the 5-day build sprint, you develop working workflows with real logic, error handling, and functional outputs—not wireframes or mockups. At Echelon Singapore, you demonstrate your solution running live, showing how it handles standard cases, edge cases, and recovers from errors.

This isn’t about adding another line to your resume. It’s about building a portfolio that proves you can deliver in production environments.

For experienced builders—AI consultants, automation engineers, startup founders—the value proposition is different but equally compelling. The competition provides structured access to real SME challenges that represent common patterns across industries. Solve one well, and you have a repeatable solution applicable to dozens of similar businesses. The live showcase at Echelon Singapore puts your work in front of 10,000 tech professionals, investors, and business decision-makers. The ecosystem connections create direct pipelines to clients, partnerships, and commercial opportunities.

Most importantly, it positions you as a builder who ships, not just someone who talks about what’s possible.

Also read: Join 150+ builders creating AI workflows that solve real SME problems

What this means for the future of SME automation

Southeast Asia has thousands of SMEs facing operational challenges that AI workflow automation could solve. What’s missing isn’t technology—the tools exist, the platforms are accessible, the models are available. What’s missing is the execution layer: builders who can translate business problems into working solutions that non-technical teams can operate.

The current model doesn’t scale. SMEs can’t afford enterprise consulting rates. Builders can’t access real business problems to prove their capability. The gap persists.

The AI Workflow Competition tests a different model: direct collaboration between SMEs with real challenges and builders with execution capability, supported by infrastructure partners, technical mentorship, and a structured programme that filters for quality.

If this works—if the competition produces deployable solutions that SMEs actually implement—it proves something important about the future of automation. It proves that the barrier isn’t technology or cost. The barrier is collaboration structure and execution focus.

The builders who succeed in this environment will define the next wave of SME automation. Not because they know the latest frameworks or can implement the most sophisticated architectures. Because they can ship solutions that work in messy real-world environments, deliver measurable business value, and operate reliably in the hands of non-technical teams.

The builders we need

Right now, AI consultants, automation engineers, experienced developers, startup founders, and early-career builders are entering the AI Workflow Competition. The technical backgrounds vary—AI engineers with LLM experience, full-stack developers building integrations, no-code experts mastering automation platforms, student innovators ready for real-world challenges.

What unites them isn’t a specific technology stack or years of experience. It’s the willingness to be measured by execution, not ideas. The commitment to build solutions that actually work, not just impressive demos. The understanding that business impact matters more than technical sophistication.

Only 150 builder spots are available. Registration closes 17 April 2026.

If you’re a builder who understands that shipping matters more than showcasing, that production reliability beats demo impressiveness, that business outcomes are the measure of success—this is the arena that proves it.

The execution gap won’t close through better tools or more accessible AI. It will close through builders who can deliver working solutions to real business problems.

Register now and prove you’re one of them.

About the AI Workflow Competition

The AI Workflow Competition is an e27-led programme showcased at Echelon Singapore 2026, designed to explore how AI workflow automation can solve real operational challenges faced by small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Unlike traditional hackathons or idea-based challenges, this programme focuses on execution—bringing together SMEs, builders, mentors, and ecosystem partners to create practical, deployable automation solutions. For more information, visit the website.

 

The post Why the future of AI automation belongs to builders who ship appeared first on e27.

If you build in Southeast Asia long enough, you learn something slightly uncomfortable. Trust isn’t something you earn later, after product-market fit or scale. It’s part of the product from day one. And one of the fastest ways to lose it is through a security incident.

That is why cybersecurity has become the trust layer across the digital economy. Because the moment trust breaks, growth breaks with it. Users do not separate “a technical incident” from “a company I can rely on”. Partners do not separate “a vendor problem” from “a risky platform”. Investors do not separate “a one-off breach” from a leadership team that did not think ahead.

From a PR and strategic communications perspective, this is the part many founders underestimate. In an environment where fake news spreads quickly, screenshots travel faster than context, and deepfakes can mimic a face and voice convincingly, cybersecurity is no longer just an IT concern. It’s reputation management in its most unforgiving form.

I have worked with more than 200 founders and CEOs over the past few years across growth stages, sectors, and markets. And I can tell you what trust loss looks like in real life. It’s not always dramatic. It’s the customer who quietly churns. The enterprise prospect who suddenly “pauses the conversation” and never comes back. It’s the investor who asks one extra diligence question, then ten, then decides to back a competitor. Trust usually leaks before it breaks.

Here is the hard part. We’re not only fighting criminals. We are fighting confusion. The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 once again ranks misinformation and disinformation as a top short-term risk, because it erodes shared reality and confidence in institutions, businesses, and information itself. In that environment, every security incident becomes a story problem as much as a technical problem. People ask, “Can I believe you?” long before they ask, “What happened?”

This is where cybersecurity and communications meet.

Also Read: Cybersecurity is not an IT problem: It is a trust architecture crisis

Most founders think crisis communications begins when something goes wrong. In reality, it begins much earlier, when you decide what not to prioritise. Security gaps often show up later as reputation problems. It compounds quietly, then collects interest at the worst possible moment.

The World Economic Forum’s Global Cybersecurity Outlook 2026 found that 77 per cent of respondents reported an increase in cyber-enabled fraud and phishing, and 73 per cent said they or someone in their network had been personally affected by cyber-enabled fraud. These cybercrime numbers aren’t distant concepts. Many have experienced it themselves or know people who have. So when a company downplays an incident, it lands poorly. People are already on edge, and their default setting is caution or suspicion.

Then there’s cost. IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 estimates the global average cost of a data breach at US$4.4 million. For startups, the bigger damage often isn’t just limited to financial. It’s distraction, lost momentum, morale hit and the reputational drag that follows you into every sales, investor or hiring conversation.

I remember working with a founder who had just secured a major partnership. The deal took months. Then a phishing incident hit a senior team member’s inbox. No customer funds were stolen, and the team contained it quickly. Technically, it was “handled”. Commercially, it hurt. The partner’s legal team requested additional assurance, the launch timeline slipped twice, and the founder spent weeks explaining and rebuilding confidence. The incident didn’t “break the company”, but it did disrupt the momentum.

Another founder I worked with faced a different kind of threat: a wave of fake social posts and forwarded messages claiming the company was insolvent and “being investigated.” It was untrue, but it was believable enough to spread. Initially, the team saw it as a PR annoyance until they realised it was really a trust and security problem. They tightened account access, verified official channels, and built a simple public “source of truth” page that stakeholders could refer to when rumours resurfaced. The communication worked because it was backed by operational discipline. If you don’t control your channels, you don’t control the story.

If you take one idea from this piece, it’s this: cybersecurity is credibility. It’s proof that you can be trusted with other people’s money, data and decisions.

So what does a communications-led approach to cybersecurity look like in practice?

• First, treat trust as a design requirement, not a marketing promise. If onboarding requires sensitive data, your language must match the responsibility you are taking on. “We take your privacy seriously” isn’t a strategy. Instead, explain what you store, why you store it, and how users can protect themselves. Provide as much clarity as possible.
• Second, communicate early when something happens. I have seen leadership teams freeze because they want certainty before they speak. Meanwhile, rumours fill the gap. A simple early update acknowledging what you know, what you don’t know yet, and what you’re doing next often builds more confidence than a polished statement released days later.
• Third, rehearse the whole scenario. Who decides what is disclosed? Who speaks to customers? Who handles investors? Who monitors social channels? Who documents the timeline? Founders are often surprised that a “security incident” becomes a leadership endurance test. You are making decisions under pressure, with incomplete information, while your team looks to you for calm and direction. That is not a day to discover you don’t have a patted-down plan or an updated crisis playbook.

This matters even more now because scams are increasingly sophisticated. Across Asia in 2025, authorities reported large-scale operations involving deepfake technology used to impersonate trusted individuals and trick victims into transferring funds. Whether you’re running a fintech platform, e-commerce business, SaaS product, or marketplace, you’re operating in a region where fraud is organised and run at scale. Trust is about whether people feel safe using your products and services.

Also Read: How cybersecurity is becoming the trust layer that underpins Southeast Asia’s digital economy in 2026

Having been a startup co-founder myself, I’ve learnt that “winging it” when things go wrong often doesn’t work. Teams that invest in crisis preparedness and have more disciplined habits like clearer processes, faster internal escalation and better communication spend far less time later trying to explain themselves. Issues still happen. The difference is they’re able to handle them with confidence, not panic, while in damage control mode.

From a communications perspective, security is not just prevention and protection. It is leadership in action. It shows talent, customers, partners, and investors that you’re thinking ahead, building with care and taking responsibility seriously, even while the business is moving quickly.

If you’re thinking this sounds expensive, here’s the reality: you’re already paying, just in quieter ways. It shows up when customers hesitate to renew because something feels off, even if they can’t explain why. It shows up in small internal shortcuts taken because it’s faster. None of this is purely technical. It’s what leadership looks like in practice: what you prioritise, what you postpone, and what standards you set while you’re moving fast.

Founders often worry that talking about security will make users nervous. In my experience, silence or lack of information makes people far more uneasy. Clear, regular and consistent communication shows you’ve done the work, set boundaries, and respect what people have trusted you with.

This is why cybersecurity as a trust layer isn’t a tagline. It’s the discipline of protecting your reputation before you’re forced into defence mode. Because the real question isn’t whether something will go wrong. It’s whether people will still believe you when it does.

—

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.

The post Security is the new brand promise: Why trust is your startup’s only moat appeared first on e27.

The sun beats down intensely on green millet fields in Kadiri taluka, Andhra Pradesh, the ‘Sunrise State’. Lakshmi (name changed for privacy), a member of a village SHG (Self-Help Group), sits on a brightly coloured woven floor mat in the white-washed community kitchen where her group makes healthy millet snacks and packages them to be shipped to urban consumers in Bangalore, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad and beyond. In her lap rests a mobile phone, its screen glowing faintly.

She tells me about the first time she used digital payments through India’s UPI network. “My fingers were shaking,” she recalls. “What if someone stole my money? I didn’t understand the messages that came to my phone.” Around her, her fellow SHG members laugh and agree, as they continue to shape millet flour, ghee, jaggery and nuts into evenly sized laddoos. Even as the hum of daily life continues, for Lakshmi and others like her, that small screen represents both opportunity and risk.

Across India’s villages, women are stepping into the digital world: selling their products and produce through WhatsApp groups, accessing government schemes online, and making and receiving payments through mobile wallets. Yet, their trust in technology is fragile, often shaken by fraud calls, phishing messages, or identity theft. Stories of PAN (Income Tax ID) numbers being misused and bank accounts being emptied are warning whispers circulating among the women gathered in the community kitchen and the Panchayat (village council) centre.

When trust meets technology

In Nalanda, Bihar, the rhythmic click-clack of a handloom resonates through the family home of Amrit and Geeta Devi (names changed for privacy). The husband and wife take turns weaving Bawan Buti saris, a traditional handloom cotton saree characterised by 52 (bawan) woven motifs (buti). Geeta’s shy smile radiates warmth even through the camera lens of the smartphone she is holding up to join a video conference call along with a group of village women entrepreneurs from across Bihar.

“A man messaged me, saying I could get a subsidy if I shared my Aadhaar (India’s National ID) details. I almost believed him. But I remembered what we learned in our training session before. ‘Never share personal information and ID details with strangers!’ I deleted the message and blocked the number.”

That action may have saved her livelihood. Geeta had attended sessions on using digital tools like WhatsApp for Business, UPI, and more along with the other women entrepreneurs in the cohort. With the support of their local Panchayat Mukhiyas (leaders), women were trained to use the mobiles safely, recognise fraud, and secure their finances. “I protected my family and my business”, she says, with deserved pride.

Her SHG coordinator, Rekha Devi (name changed), also an entrepreneur, adds: “We learned that our phone is like our home. We wouldn’t leave our door unlocked at night. In the same way, we shouldn’t leave our phone open to anyone.”

Also Read: Cybersecurity is not an IT problem: It is a trust architecture crisis

Digital access to safety tools

Back in Andhra Pradesh, women like Lakshmi increasingly face cyber harassment and threatening messages from unknown numbers. In the past, most stayed silent, too afraid to approach the police. But now, many in her village know about the mobile citizen services and the Suraksha app, launched by the state government.

Cyber awareness campaigns are conducted in the district by the police, local authorities, volunteers and NGOs. Chandra (name changed), a volunteer with a local NGO, says, “We go to villages and tell women: if you face fraud, don’t be silent. Report it. The system is here to protect you.”

Grassroots trust networks

In Bihar, local government facilities often double as classrooms. At a Didi Adhikaar Kendra (a one-stop support centre for women) in Muzzafarpur district, women gather with notebooks and phones, listening intently as one of their own, trained in cyber safety, explains how to spot suspicious links.

In Andhra Pradesh, SHG women act as intermediaries, translating technical advice into simple, local language instructions. “We don’t say ‘phishing’ or ‘malware,’” says Seeta, a high school graduate and active SHG member in Telugu, the local language. “We say, ‘Don’t click on strange messages.’ That is easier for people to understand.”

Lakshmi adds, “When women teach each other, it’s very helpful. We believe advice more when it comes from someone we know.”

Trust grows when women see familiar faces like neighbours, local officials, and fellow SHG members leading the way. It transforms cybersecurity from a distant concept into a living reality.

Also Read: Cybersecurity: The evolution from digital safeguard to economic governance

Lessons for the future

• Cybersecurity is empowerment: For women like Geeta and Lakshmi, digital safety is not just about avoiding fraud; it is about protecting livelihoods and personal dignity.
• Trust is community-led: Programs succeed when they embed cybersecurity into community structures, not just individual training.
• Policy meets practice: Andhra Pradesh’s institutional support and Bihar’s grassroots training together show emerging holistic models, where top-down infrastructure is paired with bottom-up empowerment.

Cybersecurity and digital trust are not only technical issues, but they are also deeply human. For women at the bottom of the economic pyramid, trust in digital tools can unlock new opportunities, strengthen livelihoods, and foster confidence in the digital future.

Protecting them from cyber risks ensures that digital inclusion becomes a pathway to empowerment, not vulnerability. We must all recognise that Cybersecurity may start with protecting data, but it ends up protecting dreams. For millions of women in India’s villages, those dreams deserve to be safe.

—

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.

The post Cybersecurity and trust: A digital dawn for women in rural India  appeared first on e27.

Quantum computing has shifted from laboratory curiosity to a national strategic imperative. The “Quantum Computing Report 2026” by Tracxn documents multi-year, multi‑billion-dollar government commitments worldwide designed to accelerate research, build industrial capabilities, and mitigate security risks.

From the US’s National Quantum Initiative to China’s sweeping funding programmes and Europe’s Quantum Flagship, public missions are catalysing private-sector activity and shaping international collaborations.

Also Read: The Quantum gold rush is becoming an infrastructure race

In Asia, India, Japan, and South Korea have already announced major plans. Southeast Asia, meanwhile, is carving a distinct, if heterogeneous, path into the quantum landscape.

Global playbook: investment, partnerships, and security

Most national strategies combine three pillars:

• Large-scale funding for hardware and software research.
• Public‑private partnerships to translate laboratory advances into deployable systems and applications.
• Workforce programmes and standards development, particularly for post‑quantum cryptography and secure communications.

These pillars reflect shared priorities: technological sovereignty, industrial competitiveness, and national security. Governments are not merely funding research; they’re building ecosystems (testbeds, standards bodies, talent pipelines, and procurement pathways) to ensure domestic industries capture value and critical infrastructure remains resilient.

Asia beyond the big three: a growing quantum interest

India, Japan, and South Korea have outlined ambitious trajectories: India’s National Quantum Mission, Japan’s multi‑billion yen commitment linking semiconductors with quantum R&D, and South Korea’s sizeable investment plan through 2035. These efforts create regional demand for partnerships, skilled workers, and specialised infrastructure — all opportunities for Southeast Asian nations to participate and specialise.

Southeast Asia’s emerging quantum landscape

Southeast Asia is not monolithic. Countries vary in research capacity, industrial bases, and national priorities. Yet several patterns are emerging:

Singapore: Acting as the regional hub

Singapore stands out as a clear regional quantum hub. Its strengths — stable funding mechanisms, world-class universities (e.g., NUS, NTU), advanced data‑centre infrastructure, and an active ecosystem of startups and multinational R&D labs — make it attractive for quantum testbeds and regional headquarters. Government agencies (A*STAR, NRF) and industry players are investing in quantum research, quantum-safe cryptography trials, and talent programmes. Singapore’s regulatory clarity and connectivity position it as a base for cross-border partnerships and pilot deployments in finance and telecommunications.

Malaysia and Thailand: building on electronics and manufacturing

Malaysia and Thailand, with their strong electronics and semiconductor ecosystems, are well placed to contribute to quantum hardware supply chains, cryogenics components, and packaging technologies. National research institutes and universities are increasingly integrating quantum modules into engineering curricula, and both countries are exploring cluster development to attract quantum-startup investments and OEM partnerships.

Also Read: Quantum computing market surges as companies shift focus to revenue

Indonesia and Vietnam: scale, talent, and localised applications

Indonesia and Vietnam possess large, youthful populations and rapidly expanding tech sectors. Their comparative advantage may lie in talent development, software-focused quantum applications (optimisation, logistics, finance), and cloud‑based access models that lower barriers to entry for local companies. National labs and universities are beginning to offer quantum programming courses and hackathons to seed developer communities.

The Philippines: research-to-industry pathways

The Philippines has strengths in IT services and a growing academic research base. Government initiatives and partnerships with foreign research centres could accelerate applied quantum research aimed at the services sector — for example, quantum‑inspired algorithms for supply‑chain optimisation or fintech applications.

ASEAN-level opportunities and challenges

• Collaboration over competition: ASEAN can amplify individual member strengths through shared infrastructure (regional quantum testbeds), common certification standards for quantum-safe cryptography, and joint talent programmes. A coordinated approach would reduce duplication and attract global partners seeking regional scale.
• Connectivity and data sovereignty: Southeast Asia’s role as a digital hub depends on secure communications. Quantum key distribution (QKD) pilots and post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) adoption must account for cross‑border data flows, undersea cable architectures, and national regulations on encryption. Governments will need to harmonise policy to avoid fragmentation that hinders regional trade in data‑dependent services.
• Financing and talent gaps: While top-tier nations can deploy large budgets, many Southeast Asian states face budgetary constraints. Creative financing — blended public‑private funds, regional bonds, and international partnerships — can help. Equally important is scaling education: short targeted Masters programmes, industry‑led apprenticeships, and regional fellowships can supply the engineers, physicists, and software developers required.

Sectors to watch in Southeast Asia

• Finance and insurance: Quantum‑safe cryptography, portfolio optimisation, and risk modelling are near-term priorities for regional banks and reinsurers eager to future‑proof data.
• Logistics and manufacturing: Quantum‑inspired heuristics can improve routing and scheduling in congested supply chains; quantum hardware could later accelerate materials discovery relevant to regional industries.
• Telecommunications: National carriers and regional exchanges may pilot QKD for backbone links or critical government communications.
• Energy and materials: Universities and startups can partner with local industry to use quantum simulations for battery, catalyst, and semiconductor materials research.

Also Read: Quantum computing’s double-edged sword could threaten cybersecurity

Strategic autonomy, partnerships, and geopolitics

Southeast Asian governments will balance strategic autonomy with international collaboration. Partnering with the US, EU, Japan, China, or India offers access to capital, equipment, and talent, but also introduces geopolitical considerations. Careful procurement policies, transparency in partnerships, and multi‑partner strategies can help nations reap benefits while managing risks.

Policy recommendations for Southeast Asia

• Prioritise capacity building: Invest in education, regional fellowships, and exchange programmes to grow a quantum-ready workforce.
• Create regional public goods: Shared testbeds, standards harmonisation for PQC, and a regional quantum data governance framework would lower entry barriers.
• Target sectoral pilots: Focus public funding on high-impact pilots (finance, energy, logistics) to demonstrate near-term value and attract private capital.
• Encourage industry clusters: Incentivise manufacturing and supply‑chain capabilities tied to quantum hardware through tax incentives and grants.
• Promote open collaboration: Facilitate academic and industry partnerships across ASEAN, and maintain transparent, multi-lateral foreign partnerships.

Conclusion

National quantum missions are reshaping the global technology landscape; Southeast Asia will not be a passive audience. By combining targeted public investment, regional cooperation, and pragmatic partnerships, countries in the region can capture value from quantum technologies — first through software and cloud access models, then by deepening hardware and manufacturing capabilities. The race is global, but the route to relevance for Southeast Asia is clear: specialise where comparative advantages exist, pool resources regionally, and build the human capital that will turn government missions into local economic opportunity.

Also Read: How quantum computing moved from components to applications in 2024

Quantum advantage, after all, depends as much on people and policy as on qubits.

The post Quantum ambitions go global, and Southeast Asia wants in appeared first on e27.

Echelon Philippines 2025 featured a fireside chat between Puiyan Leung, Partner at Vertex Ventures SEA & India, and Thaddeus Koh, Co-Founder and Programs Director of e27, exploring the mindset founders need to navigate entrepreneurship.

Leung highlighted that successful founders balance optimism about what is possible with a practical understanding of how to achieve it, grounded in a clear personal reason for choosing the entrepreneurial path. She also stressed the importance of openness—being willing to connect with investors and peers to learn continuously.

Building relationships during good times, not only in moments of difficulty, helps founders identify the right investors partners.

The post Echelon Philippines 2025 – Partnering for Growth: How great founders and VCs build together appeared first on e27.

At Echelon Philippines 2025, a fireside chat featuring Patrick Gentry, Co-Founder and CEO of Sprout Solutions, and moderated by Artie Lopez, Co-Founder and Startup Coach at Brainsparks, explored the evolving future of SaaS in Southeast Asia.

Gentry described “SaaS 2.0” as a shift from traditional subscription models toward outcome-driven software, where companies charge based on features and results rather than fixed subscriptions. While businesses will always rely on software, the delivery model is rapidly changing with cloud infrastructure and AI shaping the next generation of products.

He also noted that SaaS in the Philippines remains nascent, with limited exposure to global best practices for building and scaling software businesses.

The post Echelon Philippines 2025 – SaaS 2.0 in SEA: Vision and reality with Sprout’s Patrick Gentry appeared first on e27.

The “Asia‑Pacific Cyber Safety Landscape 2026” by bolttech highlights unique vulnerabilities faced by seniors and teenagers: two groups that often sit at opposite ends of the digital experience spectrum but share similar risks. The report’s findings, including that more than half of respondents doubt seniors (55+) can detect scams and that many worry teens “click too fast”, drive urgent calls for tailored education, community support, and policy action across Southeast Asia and the broader Asia‑Pacific region.

Why seniors are at greater risk — Southeast Asian context

Across Southeast Asia, seniors face particular challenges that magnify the general trends described in the bolttech report:

Also Read: APAC’s cyber safety crisis: Why overconfidence is putting millions at risk

• Digital literacy gaps: In countries with uneven broadband rollout and high rural populations (for example, Indonesia and the Philippines), older adults often adopted internet use later in life and may lack formal digital training. An older person in a provincial town might rely on a younger relative to set up online banking and then be more trusting of messages that appear to come from that helper.
• Trust and social norms: Many seniors in countries such as Vietnam, Thailand, and Malaysia are raised in cultures where courtesy and respect make them less likely to challenge seemingly authoritative requests—such as a call from a “bank official” asking for OTPs (one‑time passwords).
• Financial targeting: Scams exploiting government relief or pension schemes have been reported across the region. In Indonesia, for instance, fake texts claiming to be from local social‑assistance programmes have tricked older recipients into revealing banking details. The financial impact is severe — respondents to the bolttech study voiced fears that “hard‑earned money can be lost just like that.”
• Language and UX barriers: Many seniors prefer local languages or dialects, but some mainstream apps or official guidance are only in national languages or English. This mismatch increases reliance on informal advice channels and heightens vulnerability to misinformation.

Real‑world example: In the Philippines, a wave of so‑called “vishing” (voice phishing) scams exploited older citizens by simulating government helplines. Victims would willingly share sensitive numbers, believing they were securing benefits, illustrating how social engineering preys on trust and perceived authority.

Why teenagers are particularly exposed in Southeast Asia

Teenagers are frequently online, socially connected, and eager to engage — traits that make them attractive targets:

• Platform‑specific risks: Teens in Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines engage heavily on short‑form video apps and messaging platforms. Fake promotions, impersonation accounts, and deepfake content can spread quickly. A viral “discount code” may ask for a phone number, leading to SIM swap fraud or premium‑rate subscriptions.
• Peer pressure and reputation: In collectivist societies across the region, the fear of losing social standing can discourage teens from reporting online harassment or scams. Respondents noted teens’ reluctance to disclose scams for fear of embarrassment or punishment — a concern amplified where family honour is central.
• Economic desperation: In some cities across Southeast Asia, teenagers pursue quick online earnings through freelancing or crypto schemes. Predatory “work‑from‑home” job offers or multi‑level marketing scams exploit this economic drive.
• Mental health and cyberbullying: Cyberbullying incidents in countries such as Thailand and Indonesia have led to profound harm. The bolttech study’s concern that teens “click too fast” intersects with impulsive emotional responses to online provocation, increasing both victimisation and risky retaliatory actions.

Also Read: Why do people fall for online scams in this digital age?

Real‑world example: A viral scam in Indonesia targeted high‑school students, promising fast cash through a “study‑reward” crypto app; many signed up and lost savings, while some suffered reputational damage after personal data was leaked.

Household cyber safety: the weakest link in Southeast Asian homes

A key insight from bolttech is starkly visible in multi-generational Southeast Asian households: one vulnerable member can expose an entire household. Typical scenarios include:

• Shared devices: Families often share phones or computers. If a teen downloads a malicious app, it may access their parents’ or grandparents’ accounts.
• Intergenerational trust: Seniors may forward messages from their social circle that contain malicious links, putting younger family members who use the same Wi‑Fi or accounts at risk.
• Digital help dependencies: Younger adults frequently “manage” older relatives’ online accounts, creating single points of failure if credentials are compromised.

This dynamic calls for multi‑generational education and protections that recognise household patterns common across the region: from kampongs (villages) in Malaysia to barangays in the Philippines.

What education and support should look like — practical Southeast Asian approaches

To move from concern to action, coordinated efforts across governments, civil society, telcos, platforms, and families are needed. Effective examples and possibilities:

1. Localised, language‑appropriate curricula: Ministries of Education and NGOs can adapt cyber‑safety modules into community centers and senior clubs. For example, Singapore’s Cyber Security Agency already runs community outreach; similar models can be scaled in Bahasa, Tagalog, Thai, Vietnamese and minority languages.
2. Trusted helplines and “no‑shame” reporting: Create toll‑free numbers and WhatsApp/SMS channels where seniors and teens can report scams anonymously. Partnerships between banks, telcos, and consumer protection agencies in Malaysia and the Philippines could provide immediate fraud‑mitigation steps (freeze account, block SIM) to reduce losses.
3. Embedding safety into daily platforms: Messaging apps, e‑commerce marketplaces, and social platforms popular in Southeast Asia should integrate simplified reporting flows and one‑tap help links. For seniors, UX designs with larger fonts, clear local language prompts, and built‑in scam warnings when clicking external links would reduce risk.
4. School and family programmes: Teach teens not only prevention but also incident response — how to document scams, whom to tell at home, and how to preserve evidence. Encourage family “cyber discussions” where tech‑savvy members guide older relatives without judgement.
   Community champions: Train community volunteers — librarians, religious leaders, barangay health workers — as cyber safety ambassadors who can translate technical steps into culturally appropriate guidance.
5. Industry and regulatory measures: Stronger KYC (know‑your‑customer) safeguards, anti‑SIM‑swap protocols, and mandatory fraud reporting by platforms can reduce attack vectors. Regulators in the region can encourage reporting transparency to identify patterns early.

Looking forward: building resilience in a diverse region

With cybercrime expected to increase and 64 per cent of households anticipating a victim within the next year, protecting vulnerable groups across Southeast Asia and the wider Asia‑Pacific is urgent. Key priorities:

Also Read: Cybersecurity: The evolution from digital safeguard to economic governance

• Prioritise multi‑language, life‑stage appropriate education.
• Make reporting easy, anonymous, and stigma‑free.
• Design platform features that reduce impulsive risk for teens and offer clear safeguards for seniors.
• Foster cross‑sector collaboration: governments, private sector, civil society, and families.

The bolttech findings are a clear call to action: cyber safety in Asia‑Pacific is not only about technology — it’s about people, cultures, and social structures. By embedding culturally sensitive education, accessible support, and household‑level strategies, Southeast Asian countries can protect both the wisdom of older generations and the promise of the young. The goal is a shared cyber safety culture that leaves no one behind.

The post The household cyber risk no one talks about appeared first on e27.

The cryptocurrency market just witnessed a powerful reminder of how leverage and sentiment can collide to create violent price moves. A sharp Bitcoin-led rally forced over-leveraged short sellers to cover, triggering around US$471 million in crypto derivatives liquidations across major exchanges within 24 hours. About US$471 million of futures positions were wiped out, with roughly US$348 million from shorts and US$123 million from longs as BTC pushed toward US$74,000.

This was not random noise. It was a classic short squeeze, fuelled by crowded bearish positioning, negative funding, rising open interest, and strong ETF inflows into BTC and ETH. I have seen this pattern repeat across cycles, and each iteration teaches the same lesson. When leverage builds on one side of the market, the reversal does not just correct the price; it resets positioning with force.

The scale of the flush matters because it reveals where the real risk lives. Data from derivatives trackers shows roughly US$471 million in crypto futures liquidations over 24 hours, with shorts taking the majority of the hit at about US$348 million versus US$123 million in longs, as Bitcoin and Ethereum ripped higher toward key resistance near US$74,000. This pattern matches reporting that a BTC surge to the mid-70,000s erased over US$500 million in leveraged positions, with the largest daily wipeout of shorts since late February in some samples.

The pain concentrated in major coins such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other large caps, where leverage runs deepest. That tells us the move was big enough to reset a lot of leveraged positioning, not just a minor intraday shakeout. When the largest shorts get squeezed in the most liquid names, the signal travels fast through the entire derivatives complex.

Behind the numbers sat a textbook setup. After recent macro and geopolitical volatility, many traders rebuilt short exposure, with funding rates turning negative and open interest climbing as BTC dipped into the mid-60,000s. When spot prices reversed higher amid renewed ETF inflows and easing macro fears, exchanges’ risk engines began liquidating underwater shorts into a rising market, forcing additional buy orders and accelerating the upside.

Similar dynamics played out on ETH, where more than US$100 million in shorts were liquidated in a day, compared with a much smaller amount of long liquidations. Bears leaning too hard into downside with high leverage can turn into forced buyers, amplifying rallies beyond what spot demand alone would justify. I view this as a structural feature of modern crypto markets, not a bug. Derivatives and ETF flows now act as powerful amplifiers, and anyone trading without watching funding rates and open interest is flying blind.

Also Read: Quantum ambitions go global, and Southeast Asia wants in

This squeeze did not happen in isolation. Global markets on 6 March 2026 were dominated by risk-off sentiment as the conflict among the US, Israel, and Iran drove a broad retreat in risk assets. While US stock futures showed some stability early in the day, Asian and European equities fell sharply, heading toward their steepest weekly losses in years. US major indices closed lower on Thursday due to soaring oil prices and geopolitical fears. The Dow Jones dropped 784.67 points to close at 47,954.74. The S&P 500 declined 0.56 per cent to 6,830.71. The Nasdaq Composite slipped 0.26 per cent to 22,748.99.

Overseas, the MSCI Asia Pacific Index fell 1.1 per cent on Friday, marking its worst week in six years. Japan’s Nikkei 225 fell 0.66 per cent to 54,915 points. In Europe, major indices such as the FTSE 100, DAX, and CAC 40 declined by 1.5 per cent to 1.6 per cent amid ongoing energy disruption fears. Oil prices anchored the move, with WTI crude surging above US$80 per barrel following reports of an Iranian strike on an oil tanker and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Rising energy and labour costs fuelled fears that the Federal Reserve would maintain high interest rates to combat sticky inflation.

The US Dollar gained as a safe-haven, heading for its best week since 2024. Gold prices remained volatile, briefly hitting US$5,400 earlier in the week before settling near US$5,100 by Thursday. Investors awaited the US Non-Farm Payrolls and Retail Sales reports for February to gauge the health of the labour market. In that backdrop, Bitcoin’s initial surge toward US$74,000 stood out as a sharp counter-trend move before macro gravity reasserted itself.

Also Read: Gold surges past US$5,340 and Bitcoin breaks US$70,000 as Middle East crisis sends markets into chaos

Post-event, derivatives metrics suggest that some excess leverage on the short side has been cleared, with funding rates normalising and open interest stabilising slightly lower. Order book data still shows dense liquidity zones both above and below the current price, and prior episodes suggest that traders are quick to re-leverage once volatility cools.

For risk monitoring, the key signals are funding rates, especially if they flip extreme again, sharp jumps in open interest, and any renewed surge in ETF flows that could interact with crowded futures positioning. The immediate squeeze may be over, but this remains a high-leverage environment where sudden price moves and positioning shifts can still trigger large, fast liquidation cascades. I watch these signals closely because they often telegraph the next inflection before price confirms it.

Bitcoin now trades down 1.72 per cent to US$71,244.79 over the past 24 hours, underperforming a slightly weaker broader market, primarily driven by a risk-off shift amid escalating Middle East tensions. It shows a strong correlation of 0.86 with Gold, indicating a shared macro-driven move. The primary reason remains geopolitical risk from the US-Iran conflict, which spiked oil prices and triggered a flight from risk assets.

A secondary factor was technical rejection at the key US$74,000 resistance level, where selling pressure overwhelmed buyers. Near-term, if BTC holds above the US$70,000 to US$71,000 whale bid zone, it could retest US$74,000. A break below risks a move toward US$67,500. I see this range as the battlefield where macro narrative and derivatives positioning will duel for control.

What should readers take from this sequence?

• First, the reported US$471 million liquidation wave resulted from an aggressive short buildup caught offside by a strong Bitcoin-led rebound, not from a structural failure in the market. It has cleared some speculative froth, and derivatives activity and ETF flows remain powerful amplifiers, so future positioning extremes could again translate into abrupt squeezes rather than smooth trend moves.
• Second, in a world where oil can jump above US$80 on geopolitical headlines, and equities can post their worst week in years, crypto will continue to mirror macro risk while retaining its own leverage-driven volatility.
• Third, independent analysis matters more than ever. Crowded narratives can flip fast when funding rates turn, open interest spikes, or ETF flows accelerate. I prefer to track the plumbing, not just the price.

With all that said, I expect volatility to remain elevated as markets digest geopolitical shocks, inflation data, and the ongoing tug-of-war between risk-on and risk-off flows. Bitcoin’s correlation with Gold at 0.86 reminds us that macro drivers can dominate in the short term, even for an asset built on decentralisation. The derivatives layer adds a crypto-native amplifier that can exaggerate moves in either direction. If funding rates flip extreme again or open interest jumps while price consolidates, prepare for another squeeze. 

—

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

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

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

The post What Bitcoin’s US$70,000 support zone means for traders after this week’s volatility appeared first on e27.

AI is rapidly transforming industries worldwide, bringing both opportunity and disruption to women in the workplace. While AI promises productivity gains and new career paths, it also risks widening existing gender gaps if organisations fail to act deliberately.

Automation is already reshaping how work is structured across sectors. Many roles involving routine or repetitive tasks are increasingly being augmented—or replaced—by AI systems. Because women are often overrepresented in administrative, clerical, and customer service positions, these shifts could disproportionately affect female workers.

As businesses accelerate digital transformation, leaders must consider how technological change impacts gender equity. Without thoughtful workforce planning, AI adoption could unintentionally exacerbate existing disparities in skills development, leadership representation, and career progression.

According to Yvonne Teo, Vice President of Human Resources, APAC at ADP, organisations have a critical responsibility to ensure that technological progress benefits everyone.

“The transition to an AI-driven workplace will reshape roles across every function,” Teo says. “Leaders must ensure this shift expands opportunities rather than deepens existing gaps.”

Her comments reflect growing global conversations about the future of women in the workplace, particularly as companies integrate AI into daily operations.

Also Read: Cybersecurity and trust: A digital dawn for women in rural India 

Upskilling as a strategic priority

Despite widespread discussion about AI, many workers remain uncertain about what the technology means for their careers.

In Singapore, ADP research shows that nearly one in five workers (19 per cent) are unsure how AI will change their job responsibilities. This uncertainty highlights the challenge organisations face in communicating how roles may evolve in an increasingly automated environment.

At the same time, confidence in career readiness appears uneven. Only about one in four female workers (24 per cent) say they believe they have the skills needed to advance their careers over the next three years.

These findings suggest that the conversation about women in the workplace must increasingly include access to future-focused skills. As AI reshapes job requirements, the ability to adapt will become essential.

Workforce transformation cannot rely solely on new technology. It must also include meaningful investment in people.

Teo notes that leaders should approach upskilling strategically and ensure development opportunities are accessible to all employees.

This involves rethinking how jobs are structured. Rather than viewing roles as fixed positions, organisations can break down job scopes into individual tasks and redesign them to integrate both human and AI capabilities.

By doing so, companies can identify where human strengths remain essential. Skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, and communication remain areas where people outperform machines.

Equipping employees with these capabilities—alongside digital literacy and data analysis skills—will be critical to ensuring that women in the workplace remain competitive in an AI-driven economy.

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

Designing roles for human-AI collaboration

As AI becomes more embedded in everyday workflows, the most successful organisations will focus on collaboration between humans and machines rather than simple automation.

This means recognising the value of human judgement, relationship-building, and contextual decision-making—areas where technology alone cannot deliver optimal outcomes.

Redesigning roles with these strengths in mind can create new opportunities for employees whose traditional responsibilities may evolve due to automation.

For women whose roles may be more exposed to AI-driven changes, these redesign efforts can be particularly important. Structured career pathways, mentoring programmes, and transparent training opportunities can help ensure that talent pipelines remain diverse and resilient.

The theme of this year’s International Women’s Day, “Give To Gain,” underscores the importance of deliberate action when it comes to workplace equity.

Progress for women in the workplace does not happen automatically through technological advancement. Instead, it requires organisations to intentionally provide equal access to training, mentoring, and career development opportunities.

When companies invest in inclusive skills development, they benefit in multiple ways. A workforce that feels supported and prepared for change is more likely to remain engaged, innovative, and committed.

Equitable access to development also strengthens leadership pipelines, ensuring that women continue to play a vital role in shaping the future of work.

As AI adoption accelerates, the choices organisations make today will determine whether technology becomes a force for greater inclusion—or a catalyst for widening gaps. For leaders navigating this transformation, the goal should be clear: ensure that innovation strengthens, rather than sidelines, women in the workplace.

The post AI could redefine women in the workplace—and companies must act now appeared first on e27.