Southeast Asia’s gaming ecosystem is staring at a US$14 billion projection by 2030, and the danger is not that the number is wrong. The danger is that the industry treats it as inevitable.

The Ampverse report deserves credit for surfacing the structural fault lines beneath the headline figure: cultural fragmentation across six operationally distinct markets, measurement frameworks still unfit for brand investment at scale, e-sports economics that remain commercially unproven, and localisation demands that currently favour only the largest global players. These are not temporary frictions. They are the architecture of the problem.

The most telling detail in the report is the gap between US$7.1 billion in direct gaming revenue and US$14 billion in full ecosystem value. Bridging that gap requires creator monetisation, brand advertising, and e-sports to mature simultaneously, across six countries, on an aggressive timeline. Each condition is achievable. None is guaranteed.

What the projection actually maps is not a destination but a construction brief. The infrastructure companies — measurement platforms, localisation tooling, sustainable live-event formats — are not supporting actors in this story. They are the precondition for it. Investors who understand that distinction will be better positioned than those chasing the headline number alone.

The post Ecosystem Roundup: The US$14B bet SEA gaming can’t afford to sleepwalk into appeared first on e27.

The financial markets presented a striking dichotomy as June began, with traditional equities soaring to unprecedented heights while Bitcoin stumbled under the weight of institutional exodus. This divergence tells a compelling story about where smart money flows when uncertainty meets opportunity and reveals much about the current state of investor confidence across asset classes.

Wall Street celebrated its fourth consecutive day of record closes, with all three major indices finishing higher. The S&P 500 reached 7,599.96, gaining 19.90 points or 0.26 per cent. The Nasdaq Composite proved particularly strong, climbing 114.19 points to settle at 27,086.81, representing a 0.42 per cent increase. Even the more conservative Dow Jones Industrial Average managed to eke out gains, rising 46.42 points to 51,078.88, though its 0.09 per cent advance showed more modest enthusiasm. This sustained rally reflects growing confidence in technology sector momentum and easing geopolitical tensions.

The catalyst behind this equity euphoria stems largely from developments in artificial intelligence. NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang unveiled the RTX Spark Superchip at the Computex conference, sending shockwaves through the technology sector. NVIDIA itself surged 6.26 per cent on the announcement, while partners and beneficiaries rode the wave higher. Dell Technologies jumped 11 per cent, Oracle gained 9.9 per cent, and Micron Technology climbed 6.6 per cent to cross the psychologically important US$1,000 per share threshold. Arm Holdings skyrocketed 16 per cent on news of its partnership with Nvidia. This massive AI product release triggered widespread demand for hardware and software, drawing capital into related names with remarkable velocity.

Certain technology companies did not share in this celebration. Qualcomm dropped 8.8 per cent, and Intel lost 4.7 per cent, indicating that investors distinguish between AI leaders and laggards with increasing precision. Salesforce led traditional blue-chip performance with a 9.57 per cent gain, showing that strength extended beyond pure technology plays. The broader market advance occurred despite initial volatility in energy markets, where crude oil futures spiked 8 per cent on Middle East supply concerns. Initial reports that Iran would halt communications caused this volatile oil surge. Sentiment recovered rapidly after President Trump intervened to clarify that diplomatic peace talks with Iran continue, allowing WTI crude to settle near US$92 per barrel, trimming the initial panic spike.

Also Read: Why US$73,000 is the most important Bitcoin level right now

Macroeconomic indicators further supported this bullish equity environment. US factory activity expanded in May for a fifth consecutive month, providing fundamental support for equity valuations. Investors are keeping a close eye on upcoming labour data, starting with the JOLTS job openings report, to gauge the underlying strength of the domestic economy. In the Asia-Pacific region, share markets eased slightly from record highs as regional factors came into play. The Australian S&P/ASX 200 closed virtually flat at -0.03 per cent amid a 4.75 per cent national minimum award wage increase. This global perspective highlights the broad-based nature of the current economic expansion and demonstrates how varied local economic policies influence regional market performance.

Against this backdrop of equity market euphoria, the 3.32 per cent decline of Bitcoin to US$71,168.70 over 24 hours appears particularly stark. The cryptocurrency underperformed not just stocks but also its own recent trajectory, falling to its lowest level since mid-April. This weakness stems from sustained institutional selling pressure that has turned the narrative around digital assets decidedly negative.

The primary culprit behind Bitcoin’s struggles is persistent outflows from US spot Bitcoin ETFs, which have seen nearly US$3 billion in net redemptions over a 10-day streak. This marks the first time in 2026 that year-to-date flows have turned negative, signalling a meaningful shift in institutional appetite. The outflow streak indicates that the same institutional capital that propelled Bitcoin to new heights earlier in the year now rotates toward traditional assets offering clearer fundamental support. This persistent selling pressure removes a key source of buy-side support that had previously stabilised the digital asset during minor market corrections.

Adding symbolic weight to the selling pressure, Strategy executed its first Bitcoin sale since 2022. The firm disposed of 32 BTC for approximately US$2.5 million at an average price of US$77,135 between May 26 and May 31. The company explicitly stated that this transaction aimed to fund distributions on its preferred stock. While the transaction size proves immaterial relative to the massive crypto market, the psychological impact resonated loudly. Michael Saylor’s company had built its reputation on an unwavering accumulation strategy, making any sale a potential signal that even the most committed holders reassess their positions. The company still holds over 840,000 Bitcoin, maintaining its position as a major holder, but the policy shift damaged market sentiment disproportionately to the actual volume sold.

Also Read: ETF outflows and macro fear put Bitcoin and Ethereum under pressure

The price decline triggered a cascade of forced selling via leveraged long liquidations, exceeding US$283 million within 24 hours and representing a staggering 1,520 per cent spike. This liquidation wave amplified the downward move, transforming what might have been an orderly correction into a more violent repricing. The sudden dip triggered over US$90 million in Bitcoin-linked futures liquidations as leveraged long positions were liquidated. High leverage left the market fragile, and when prices broke below the US$72,000 support level and the 50-day moving average, the technical structure shifted to a bearish bias. The liquidation cascade acted as a downward amplifier rather than a root cause, but its impact on market psychology proved significant.

Strategy’s own stock suffered more than Bitcoin itself, sliding between 4.5 per cent and 6.5 per cent as investors recalibrated the premium on the corporate treasury model. This suggests that markets question whether holding Bitcoin on corporate balance sheets remains an unalloyed good when the asset shows weakness. The divergence between Bitcoin’s struggles and traditional markets’ strength highlights a critical reality. Institutional capital currently favours assets with clear earnings growth and fundamental value creation over speculative stores of value.

The near-term outlook for Bitcoin remains bearish as long as it stays below US$73,000. If the cryptocurrency holds above US$71,000, consolidation becomes possible, but a break below this support level risks a drop toward US$68,000. The key metric to watch involves ETF flow trends. A return to net inflows would signal returning demand and could stabilise prices, but continued outflows suggest further downside risk.

Also Read: Southeast Asia should take note: Bitcoin mining is no longer an industrial game

This market divergence reflects broader macroeconomic currents. US factory activity expanded for a fifth consecutive month in May, providing fundamental support for equity valuations. Meanwhile, Bitcoin struggles without similar fundamental anchors, relying instead on sentiment and flow dynamics that have turned negative. The contrast between the superchip-driven rally of Nvidia and the liquidation spiral of Bitcoin encapsulates the current market preference for tangible innovation over monetary speculation.

Investors face a critical choice between participating in the AI-driven equity boom or betting on a crypto recovery that shows few immediate catalysts. The data suggests smart money currently favours the former, rotating capital toward assets demonstrating clear growth trajectories while reducing exposure to more speculative positions. Until Bitcoin can reclaim the US$73,000 level with conviction and ETF flows stabilise, the path of least resistance points lower, even as traditional markets continue their march to record highs.

The post Bitcoin down 3.32% as US$283M in liquidations wipe out leveraged traders: Saylor’s power? appeared first on e27.

The entire tech universe seems to be talking about OpenClaw right now. I am part of that conversation too, though perhaps from a slightly different angle. I am not talking about it because I am actively using it, but because I am acutely aware that I am not.

From AI models and chatbots to AI browsers, autonomous agents, and now the promise of 24/7 virtual assistants like OpenClaw, the pace of technological evolution feels relentless. If I am being honest, there are moments when I simply want to stop chasing. A recurring thought crosses my mind: perhaps it is wiser to wait until things stabilise, until there is a mature version ready for plug-and-play adoption rather than trying to learn while standing inside a technological tornado.

The fear of missing out still exists, of course. But over time, I have learned to pause and replace urgency with a quieter question: why?

So I did what any curious person does at 2 pm on a Thursday. I fell into a YouTube rabbit hole, searching for terms like “Claude Cowork,” “absolute beginner’s guide to Operator,” and “the only Agents 101 you need.” What struck me most was how measured the creators were in their language. No one was shouting from the rooftops, urging immediate adoption. Instead, they framed the value pragmatically: automation replaces repetitive work, and startups often need something like a tireless intern to handle operational tasks that consume time but create little strategic value.

One example stood out. A founder demonstrated an agent he built to monitor his financial dashboard daily. Rather than hiring a full-time CFO, the agent tracked expenses, organised cash-flow visibility, and alerted him when spending exceeded predefined thresholds. It was impressive, efficient, and undeniably useful.

Also Read: SEA founders are asking the wrong fundraising question

Watching that, I turned the lens back on myself. Do I actually perform repetitive work every day? Is there a part of my workflow that genuinely needs automation? If I had a reasonable budget, would I hire an intern to handle the tasks filling my hours? And if I am honest about where I want to grow, does that growth even require expanding a team?

Surprisingly, my answers were mostly no.

My work revolves around people. When I facilitate workshops or coaching sessions, I want to understand participants personally, to sense shifts in energy that cannot be captured in summaries or transcripts. When I write, the starting point is often a lived experience or an emotion that no agent can originate. When I explore partnerships, trust is built through warmth, nuance, and conversation long before efficiency becomes relevant.

This does not mean I reject technology. I already rely on tools for transcription, research, and editing support. These technologies enhance my work, but they do not replace a process that feels fundamentally human. I have yet to encounter a workflow so repetitive that I genuinely want to delegate it entirely to an autonomous agent.

One particularly popular OpenClaw demo showed a founder generating an entire website while relaxing at a beach club, presenting a vision of ultimate productivity freedom: work continues while life happens elsewhere. Yet that example left me wondering whether the goal should always be to let technology expand work into every corner of our lives.

Also Read: Hospitality needs to treat AI agents like a new channel, not a new feature

After the video ended, I found myself staring at the full moon outside my window. For a few minutes, there was no dashboard to optimise, no productivity system to refine, and no urgency demanding attention. Just quiet.

Perhaps the real risk today is not missing out on the latest tool. The greater risk is allowing every technological breakthrough to convince us that we must move faster, do more, and automate everything before we fully understand why we are doing it at all.

OpenClaw will continue evolving. Organisations will integrate agents to accelerate execution, reduce operational load, and unlock new forms of scale. That future feels inevitable. But adoption should not be driven purely by hype or fear.

Because what I hope most of us are not missing is something far less discussable than technology: the unremarkable, irreplaceable moments that never appear on any dashboard. The dinner with someone who matters. The unexpected view that catches you mid-scroll. The bowl of noodles that somehow tastes like a memory rather than a task between meetings.

The operator will still be here tomorrow. It will evolve, merge into larger systems, and find its place in workflows that truly need it. The more powerful question, however, is not can I use this? But what do I actually want more of in my life – and does this technology help me get there?

That, perhaps, is the real shift happening beneath all the noise. Technology is no longer only about capability. It is becoming a mirror, forcing us to decide not just how efficiently we work, but how intentionally we live.

—

The post When everyone is talking about OpenClaw, and you’re not using it appeared first on e27.

Back in 2020, BRI Ventures CEO Nicko Widjaja approved a US$5 million investment in Indonesian agritech startup TaniHub Group, following a multi-stage due diligence process that received written sign-off from BRI’s board-level director and BRI Ventures’ board of commissioners.

Fast forward to the present day, after the collapse of TaniHub, Widjaja is being prosecuted for causing state financial loss. With a verdict scheduled for June 10, the prosecutors are seeking 11 years in prison for the investor.

Ahead of his defence hearing (pledoi) at the Anti-Corruption Court in Jakarta on June 3, e27 spoke to Ditho H. F. Sitompoel, Managing Partner at Hotma Sitompoel Law Firm — the legal defence team representing Widjaja. In this interview, the lawyer shares more details about the case, including the strategy the team plans to use.

The following is an edited excerpt of the conversation.

In your recent contributed post, you mentioned this inverted framework that the prosecutors are using in this case. Can we get a better understanding of why this approach is being used in this case?

The prosecutor’s approach to indicting Nicko is based on the idea that BRI Ventures is part of a state-owned enterprise (SOE), namely BRI. As part of BRI, when something happens to BRI Ventures — like a failed investment — it can be categorised as a state loss.

However, we need to understand that, as a subsidiary of an SOE such as BRI, BRI Ventures is considered a separate company. It cannot be classified as an SOE because corporate law applies to them, not SOE law.

If something happens, such as the director making a failed investment, it does not make sense to classify it as a state loss, as the law itself treats BRI Ventures as a separate entity.

Also Read: Ecosystem Roundup: Consumers want humans in CX | TaniHub ex-CEO hit in US$25M fraud | Salesforce: 4% CFOs still cautious on AI

Why do the prosecutors see 11 years as appropriate for this case, especially given that Nicko receives zero personal benefit from the transaction?

Because, according to our law, corruption is not only about who receives the money. It is also about the transfer of the money itself. Nicko, as part of BRI Ventures, transferred the money to TaniHub Group … that is why they classified this as a wrongdoing. Because it is not only to enrich oneself according to the law, but also to enrich other persons or companies.

During the due diligence process for the Tani Hub investment, BRI’s board-level director and BRI Ventures’ board of commissioners were involved. Does the fact that this institutional oversight exists effectively negate any claim of individual criminal liability?

Exactly. All due diligence processes were already conducted in accordance with the company’s standard operating procedures. However, the prosecutors still think that, when we were doing due diligence, we were not doing so with a fiduciary duty. According to them, we did not confirm whether the information in the company’s documents is correct.

If the documents they provided are fraudulent, we can treat it as a breach of the agreement and handle it in a civil case. It cannot be treated as a criminal case unless we can prove fraud.

What is the outcome that you expect to achieve on June 10?

We want to get Nicko free of the charges against him. Our legal arguments will first address the question of unlawful conduct … As we know, under Indonesian law, following the Constitutional Court’s 2006 ruling, an unlawful act in the corruption case must constitute a violation of a concrete right.

It is not enough to say that a decision was unwise in hindsight, and there is no rule that was actually broken here. Even the investment itself was made under the Financial Services Authority’s own regulations regarding the governing of venture capitals.

The regulation is far from prohibiting investment in loss-making startups. It actively encourages venture capital firms to fund growing companies. [This is important as] the prosecutor asked why BRI Ventures invests in a loss-making company. But of course, it is because it is a startup.

Also Read: Raising new funding round, TaniHub Group claims 600+ per cent gross revenue growth in 2020

It is confirmed by the law itself and by the Financial Services Authority. Every step followed the BRI Ventures internal investments [guide], and the decision was made collectively through an investment committee with involvement from the Board of Commissioners. So, our clients never made this decision unilaterally.

Second, on the question of enrichment. Nicko did not receive a single Rupiah. No shares, no kickback, no hidden benefit at all.

BRI Ventures itself recorded the investment, even though it was a loss. They have not sold any shares; they have not exited the company. That is why it cannot be categorised as a real loss. It is still an unrealised loss.

The third is quite critical because the prosecutor has always raised the argument of state loss. As we know, the prosecutor is working with BPKP, the government’s internal audit body. However, under our constitution and law, the authority to formally determine the state’s financial loss lies with the BPK. So it is not BPKP that has the right to make an audit.

As I mentioned earlier, the constitutional court has held that the state’s loss in this case must be certain. Not a projection, not unrealised. However, what we have here is portfolio valuations, a paper figure on investment that simply underperformed.

Our financial and criminal law experts have already testified to these exact points in court, including the business judgment rule.

The company law explicitly protects a director who acts in good faith, and I think everything Nicko does is already aligned with the business judgment rule. He acted professionally; he had no conflict of interest when he sensed trouble at TaniHub.

He did not even make another investment in the company’s Series B … even though the committee had already approved it. At the last minute, he noticed something fishy in the company.

Nicko is certainly not the first person in Indonesia to be criminalised for making a business decision that does not involve illicit enrichment. So, why does this pattern keep on showing up, and do you plan to tie this case up to similar cases in your defence?

We had experience as the defence team at the Pertamina case in 2019, and the decisions have already become jurisprudence. At that time, we defended Pertamina CFO Frederick Siahaan. The CEO back then was Karen Agustiawan, who was also on trial that time.

We also presented the argument about the business judgment rule. The District Court insisted on it being a corruption case. However, when we went to the Supreme Court, they agreed with our positions in our argument. It actually became a landmark decision on the business judgment rule.

I hope that when people read about this case, they can look past the word ‘corruption’ and ask the simpler question: Did Nicko steal from the state, or did he simply make an investment that did not work out?

The evidence already points clearly to the second. We are confident enough for this case.

—

Image Credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

The post Nicko Widjaja’s legal defence team on the prospect of winning: “We are confident enough” appeared first on e27.

We were told technology would save time.

For decades, every major productivity breakthrough came with the same promise: automation would reduce manual work, improve efficiency, and free people up to focus on higher-value tasks. In many ways, AI is finally delivering on that promise. Tasks that once took hours can now be completed in minutes. Research is faster. Drafting is faster. Editing is faster. Workflows are smoother than they were even two years ago.

And yet, many workers today feel more stretched than ever.

After spending the past 18 months job hunting while continuing to run lean operations across media, marketing and content, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in the market: companies are increasingly looking for one person who can do the work of two or three.

AI did not create this expectation entirely. Startups and modern businesses have been leaning toward smaller teams and “multi-hyphenate” employees for years. But AI has accelerated it dramatically.

Because if technology now allows people to execute tasks faster, the assumption from many organisations is simple: surely one person should now be able to handle more.

The result is that AI is not simply replacing certain jobs. It is quietly redefining what employers expect from one person within the same amount of time.

The rise of the multi-function employee

In marketing alone, the shift has become obvious.

A role that once focused primarily on communications or content may now also involve video editing, analytics reporting, SEO strategy, social media management, AI prompting, newsletter creation, community management and even light design work.

In startups, especially, the logic often sounds reasonable. Teams are lean. Budgets are tight. Founders are under pressure from investors to grow efficiently. AI tools genuinely help accelerate execution. Why hire three people if one highly capable person, supported by AI, can theoretically produce the same output?

The problem is that “same output” rarely stays the same for long.

Once workflows become faster, expectations increase alongside them. More campaigns. Faster turnaround times. More platforms. More reporting. More visibility. More responsiveness. More content.

Technology improves efficiency, but instead of translating into more breathing room, those gains are often absorbed back into the system as increased productivity demands.

Also Read: SEA’s AI infrastructure sector draws US$1.2B as deal activity reaches record high

This is not unique to AI. Historically, many technological advances have followed the same pattern. Email sped up communication, but also normalised constant availability. Smartphones improved flexibility, but blurred work-life boundaries. Collaboration tools made remote work possible, but also created endless notifications and fragmented attention.

AI is simply accelerating the cycle at a much larger scale.

Faster execution does not always mean sustainable work

One of the biggest misconceptions in the current AI conversation is that productivity gains automatically create healthier ways of working.

In reality, they often create pressure to produce more within the same working hours.

A marketer who once needed three days to develop a campaign concept may now produce a first draft in a day with AI assistance. But instead of reclaiming the extra time, they are often expected to fill it with additional campaigns, faster iterations or expanded responsibilities.

The benchmark quietly shifts.

This becomes especially challenging because AI still requires human oversight in areas that matter most: judgment, context, strategy, emotional nuance and decision-making. AI can accelerate execution, but it does not eliminate the mental load of prioritising, evaluating and refining work.

In some cases, it may even increase it.

People are now expected to:

• Evaluate AI-generated outputs
• Fact-check information
• Refine tone and positioning
• Adapt content for multiple platforms
• Keep up with rapidly evolving tools
• Continuously learn new systems while maintaining existing workloads

The labour has not disappeared. Much of it has simply changed form.

The entrepreneurial escape is not necessarily easier

At the same time, more people are leaving traditional employment to pursue freelancing, consulting or entrepreneurship — either voluntarily or because the job market has become increasingly difficult to navigate.

Also Read: AI shopping companions and the talent reset in retail

There is a growing perception that owning a business offers more freedom and autonomy. In some ways, it does. AI has also made it significantly easier for small founders to launch projects, automate workflows and scale personal brands without large teams.

But entrepreneurship often comes with its own version of workload expansion.

Founders today are not only expected to build products or services. They are also expected to become content creators, community builders, marketers, operators and personal brands simultaneously. AI helps reduce friction, but it also raises the baseline expectation for how quickly a business should move.

My friend, who is an entrepreneur, has been discussing how she created a digital twin of herself to automate tasks and reclaim time. It was an impressive example of how technology can create leverage for entrepreneurs operating at scale.

But it also raised a bigger question: how accessible is that level of automation really?

Not everyone has the resources, audience, infrastructure or operational maturity to build AI-powered systems around themselves while still ensuring a healthy bank account. Many workers and small founders are still simply trying to keep up with increasingly compressed expectations while learning these tools in real time.

The real question companies should be asking

None of this means AI is inherently bad for work. On the contrary, AI is already proving incredibly useful across industries. It has lowered barriers to entry, improved operational efficiency and created opportunities that would have been impossible for many smaller businesses just a few years ago.

But there is a difference between using AI to create sustainable leverage and using it to justify permanently overstretched teams.

That distinction matters.

Because eventually, companies will need to ask themselves whether they are genuinely building healthier and more effective ways of working or simply compressing more labour into fewer people under the guise of efficiency.

The organisations that adapt best to the AI era may not necessarily be the ones extracting the maximum possible output from the leanest teams. They may be the ones who understand human capacity still matters, even in highly automated environments.

AI is undeniably changing how we work.

But perhaps the bigger shift happening quietly alongside it is this: it is redefining what organisations believe one person should reasonably be able to handle.

—

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

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

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

The post AI is not replacing jobs, it is quietly redefining how much one person is expected to do appeared first on e27.

A newly minted collaboration between the Viet Nam International Financial Center in Ho Chi Minh City (VIFC-HCMC), Touchstone Partners, and Temasek Foundation seeks to convert Vietnam’s climate innovation promise into funded, scalable businesses and to make Ho Chi Minh City a regional conduit for sustainable finance.

Signed on 29 May at the Vietnam-Singapore Tech Connect Forum in the city-state, the trilateral agreement commits the three parties to mobilise international capital, expertise, and networks to accelerate Vietnam’s green transition.

Also Read: Vietnam wants more than factories; it wants the future of tech

The pact names Net Zero Challenge 2026 as its first flagship initiative, elevating the annual climate technology competition into a broader platform for investment and market creation.

A pragmatic aim: turn pilots into payoffs

Vietnam has become a high-priority market for climate technology in Southeast Asia. The country has strong comparative advantages: a sizeable manufacturing base, significant agricultural activity, and an increasingly skilled technology workforce. It makes it attractive for both homegrown and imported climate solutions. But moving from pilot projects to commercial outcomes remains a perennial challenge for startups and investors alike.

The new agreement targets four practical levers: support for innovation and the green economy; capital mobilisation and strategic partnerships; ecosystem and market development; and international collaboration. That mix is intentionally pragmatic, focusing on the gaps that typically stall commercialisation, from investment readiness and regulatory sandboxes to market entry and scale.

“Mobilising international capital, accessing advanced technologies and connecting global expertise will be critical,” said Dr Truong Minh Huy Vu, chairman of the VIFC-HCMC executive agency. He framed the financial centre as a regulatory and infrastructure gateway designed to attract “global financial institutions and channel international capital” to Vietnam’s long-term growth priorities.

Touchstone: an investor’s view

Touchstone Partners, a Vietnam-focused investment fund, has been involved with the Net Zero Challenge since its inception and views the new collaboration as a way to leverage existing dealflow and deepen commercial outcomes. The fund has been building an ecosystem around climate tech investments, including a climate fund and vertical programmes such as an energy-efficiency accelerator.

Also Read: The Vietnam startup visa gap: Why founders are renting, not residing

“This collaboration builds on Touchstone’s successful journey alongside Temasek Foundation and agencies of the Government of Viet Nam to mobilise catalytic capital in support of the country’s green transition,” said Tran Nhat Khanh, managing partner at Touchstone. “Climate solutions made in Vietnam can generate sustainable commercial returns alongside meaningful emissions reduction outcomes.”

Net Zero Challenge: from competition to platform

The Net Zero Challenge began in 2023. Across the first three editions, it attracted some 1,500 climate innovation submissions, mobilised millions of Singapore dollars and supported “tens of” startups and organisations deploying climate solutions in Vietnam. Under the new arrangement, the challenge will be repurposed as an integrated pipeline: source promising technologies, de-risk pilots through partnerships and channel investment and market access via VIFC-HCMC’s financial and regulatory frameworks.

Temasek Foundation’s involvement provides philanthropic and regional convening assets that help bridge public and private sector interests.

“This shared commitment is more than a partnership; it is a catalyst for action,” said Jennie Chua, chairman of Temasek Foundation, signalling an intent to push beyond grantmaking into blended mechanisms that spur commercial adoption.

Regional implications for Southeast Asia

The trilateral pact is notable for more than domestic policy signalling. It represents a Singapore-Vietnam axis that could shape flows of capital and innovation across Southeast Asia. Singapore has been positioning itself as a hub for sustainable finance and a gateway for deploying capital into ASEAN. VIFC-HCMC’s promise of an internationally aligned regulatory platform is attractive to investors seeking clearer frameworks for cross-border transactions and risk management.

For regional startups and corporates, an outcome to watch will be whether the partnership creates repeatable pathways for foreign investors to fund and scale solutions inside Vietnam and then export them across ASEAN markets. If successful, the model could be replicated in neighbouring countries that share similar deployment bottlenecks: insufficient consumer demand signals, regulatory uncertainty and the need for integration with existing industrial systems.

What’s missing from the release

The announcement emphasises strategy and intent but is light on specifics that investors typically seek: the scale of committed capital, timelines for regulatory sandbox rollouts, and precise governance structures for how projects will be selected and financed. The release notes “millions of Singapore dollars” were mobilised by earlier Net Zero Challenge editions (equivalent to several million US dollars), but refrained from firm commitments for the new collaboration.

That opacity is understandable during launch events, yet the hard work will be measured in dollars deployed, pilots commercialised and, crucially, emissions reductions achieved. Observers and market participants will want to see clear metrics and transparent selection processes once Net Zero Challenge 2026 is detailed in July.

Where this could lead

If VIFC-HCMC succeeds in attracting global financial institutions through a credible legal and market framework, Vietnam could access a broader palette of instruments: green bonds, blended concessional capital, and institutional allocations from asset managers seeking climate exposure in emerging Asian markets. For startups, the most immediate gains would be increased access to pilot partners (utilities, agricultural firms, manufacturers), regulatory guidance via sandboxes, and clearer exit pathways for investors.

Also Read: Vietnam and Hong Kong join Singapore in global crypto top ten

For Southeast Asia more broadly, a working model that links philanthropic platforms, domestic financial centres and local venture funds into coordinated pipelines could accelerate the region’s ability to deploy climate technologies at scale. The proof will be in the follow-through: actual capital flows, regulatory reforms enacted and technologies adopted at commercial scale.

Net Zero Challenge 2026 will be the first test of that pipeline. The initiative’s ability to attract higher-quality submissions, de-risk pilots and secure follow-on investment will determine whether the trilateral collaboration remains a strategic statement or becomes a practical engine for Vietnam’s green transition.

The post Singapore-Vietnam collaboration targets climate-tech scale-up as VIFC-HCMC opens doors to global capital appeared first on e27.

The crypto market entered June with a measured pullback, declining 0.71 per cent to a total capitalisation of US$2.49 trillion over the past 24 hours. This movement reflects Bitcoin-led weakness rather than a sector-wide crisis, and it arrives as global financial markets digest a powerful May rally that pushed Wall Street to historic highs.

Bitcoin’s dominance sits at 59.22 per cent, underscoring its role as the primary driver of sentiment across digital assets. When Bitcoin sneezes, the rest of the market catches a cold, and today’s action reinforces that dynamic. Institutional caution remains palpable, with US spot Bitcoin ETFs recording their ninth consecutive day of net outflows totalling US$2.84 billion.

A single US$1.26 billion block sale of BlackRock’s IBIT shares highlights how large investors are rapidly adjusting their exposure. This persistent selling pressure creates a headwind that spot buyers have struggled to absorb, and it signals a cooling of institutional demand that warrants close attention.

What strikes me as particularly noteworthy is the 81 per cent correlation between Bitcoin and gold during this period. This strong relationship suggests that both assets are being positioned as inflation hedges amid macro uncertainty, rather than moving on crypto-specific fundamentals. Investors appear to be treating Bitcoin as a risk bellwether within a broader macro-driven beta play. The Fear and Greed Index reading of 35, firmly in fear territory, amplifies this cautious posture.

Market participants are not panicking, but they are not chasing risk either. This measured sentiment creates a fragile equilibrium in which technical levels and macro catalysts exert outsized influence over near-term direction. This is a rational response to an uncertain macro backdrop, not a signal of fundamental weakness in digital assets.

Bitcoin’s ability to hold above US$73,000 represents a critical weekly close level that analysts are watching closely. The price recently broke below the US$75,000 to US$76,000 support zone, confirming a bearish continuation pattern and inviting further selling pressure.

Over the past day, the market saw US$10.04 million in BTC liquidations, with longs outnumbering shorts, indicating that some leveraged positions were forced to close on the dip. While this liquidation figure remains modest relative to the market’s size, it demonstrates how sensitivity to leverage persists even in mature market conditions. The immediate support confluence now sits between US$70,000 and US$72,000.

Also Read: ETF outflows and macro fear put Bitcoin and Ethereum under pressure

A hold above US$72,000, combined with a decline in ETF outflows, could spark a corrective bounce toward the US$75,000 resistance area. A decisive break below US$70,000 risks accelerating declines toward the US$65,000 to US$66,000 zone, which would mark a more significant technical deterioration.

The ETH-to-BTC ratio remains a key metric to monitor for signs of rotation back into alternative assets, while derivatives funding rates – which turned positive at 0.007 per cent – remain volatile and reflect the market’s uncertain posture. When project-specific issues compound macro-driven caution, the result is a market that lacks clear directional conviction and remains vulnerable to sudden shifts in sentiment. This environment rewards selectivity and patience over broad exposure.

Global context matters as well. The US Dollar Index gained minor ground but remains near recent multi-week lows around the 99.00 threshold, which typically provides a modest tailwind for risk assets. Energy markets experienced volatility, with Brent Crude climbing roughly two per cent to US$92.94 per barrel and WTI rising to just under US$89 per barrel.

This rebound follows a massive 17 per cent drop in WTI in May and reflects ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding an elusive US-Iran deal. President Donald Trump scheduled a Situation Room meeting to assess next steps regarding the Iranian nuclear profile, keeping a proposed 60-day ceasefire and the total reopening of the Strait of Hormuz in limbo. These geopolitical dynamics influence inflation expectations and central bank policy, creating second-order effects for crypto markets.

Also Read: Southeast Asia should take note: Bitcoin mining is no longer an industrial game

This pullback represents cautious consolidation rather than a structural breakdown. The crypto market has matured to the point where it responds to macro signals with increasing sophistication, and the strong correlation with gold reflects this evolution. Investors are not abandoning digital assets, but they are recalibrating exposure in light of persistent ETF outflows and uncertain macro data.

This is a healthy digestion phase after a powerful May rally that saw the Nasdaq surge over 8 per cent and the S&P 500 book a roughly 5 per cent gain. Markets do not move in straight lines, and periods of consolidation often set the stage for the next leg higher. The long-term trajectory of digital assets remains compelling, but the market’s short-term uncertainty warrants respect.

What to watch for next is straightforward. A daily close below US$2.47 trillion in total market cap would target the next support near US$2.3 trillion and warrant a more defensive posture. Conversely, a reversal in spot ETF flow trends back toward net inflows would signal renewed institutional interest and could ignite a relief rally.

Bitcoin’s reaction to the US$72,000 level remains the most immediate technical cue, while any signals from the Bank of Japan’s policy speech on 3 June could impact global liquidity conditions. Manufacturing data from the ISM and China, Eurozone inflation readings, and the US payrolls report will collectively shape the macro backdrop.

In this environment, independent analysis matters more than ever. Mainstream narratives often oversimplify complex market dynamics, and each catalyst deserves evaluation on its own merits rather than following the crowd.

The coming weeks will test conviction, but they will also reveal opportunities for those prepared to act when clarity emerges.

—

The post Why US$73,000 is the most important Bitcoin level right now appeared first on e27.

I.W.G Inc., a Tokyo-based healthtech startup, has raised US$1.8 million in a pre-Series A round led by Golden Gate Ventures, with participation from Antler and individual backers, including radiologist-entrepreneur Dr Toshihiko Sato.

The funding will be used to scale an AI-driven interoperability platform that maps and routes clinical data across incompatible hospital systems and languages, a problem that is particularly acute across Southeast Asia and Greater China.

Also Read: The most-funded healthtech startups in Southeast Asia: A decade in review

The round is notable for being the first Japanese investment from Golden Gate Ventures Fund IV, underscoring investor interest in infrastructure plays that tackle cross-border healthcare frictions in the region.

Why interoperability matters in Asia

Hospitals and clinics across Asia operate on a patchwork of legacy systems, bespoke hospital information systems, and different data standards. That fragmentation translates into stalled referrals, delayed overseas checkups, and administrative bottlenecks for providers, insurers and patients, especially when care crosses national borders.

“In many cases the records exist, but formats, systems and languages do not match,” said Xiaoyan (Fiona) Zhou, CEO of I.W.G. “Our goal is to make medical information flow as easily and securely as communication on the internet.”

The company cites market research that values global healthcare interoperability solutions at US$3.9 billion in 2024. It projects to reach US$14.7 billion by 2034, with Asia Pacific expected to be the fastest-growing region. That growth is driven by rising cross-border care — medical tourism, overseas checkups and multinational insurers — and uneven digital maturity among providers, which makes plug-and-play solutions rare.

How the product works

I.W.G’s platform does not require hospitals to rip out existing IT. Instead, it ingests documents in multiple formats (PDF, XML, HL7, DICOM, etc.) and uses an AI referral agent to understand clinical context. The agent extracts and maps relevant data into the format required by a receiving institution, reducing the need for bespoke integrations or hardware installs.

Critically for Southeast Asia, the platform handles both language and structural mismatches. The AI can translate and reformat referral documents so that a specialist in Singapore, for instance, can receive and process records from a hospital in Indonesia or Japan with minimal friction.

Also Read: Why Antler is going all-in on Japan’s earliest-stage founders

Beyond format conversion, I.W.G is developing features to check referral content against clinical guidelines and institution-specific protocols automatically. That assists clinicians by reducing manual cross-referencing and the risk of relying on outdated references, a small but meaningful efficiency gain in busy referral pathways.

From radiology roots to cross-border ambition

Founders Zhou and Xiaoxi (Bruce) Guo bring a decade of medical AI experience in Asia. Zhou previously led overseas operations for a China-based AI medical imaging company, navigating hospital deployments and regulatory approvals across multiple markets. The team’s prior work included securing one of the earliest Japanese regulatory clearances for a foreign AI diagnostic solution, an experience that the new investors see as relevant for regional expansion.

“What initially drew us to I.W.G was simple: Fiona and Bruce have already done this once,” said Justin Hall, partner at Golden Gate Ventures. “Their operational depth and early customer retention told us something fundamental about the product and team.”

Antler’s co-founder Jussi Salovaara highlighted the importance of the infrastructure layer: “That infrastructure layer is especially important across Asia, where compatibility, language and workflow differences create enormous friction. It’s exciting to see the team validate their approach through real customer adoption beyond Japan.”

Early traction across Asia

I.W.G says it already has deployments across Japan, China, Singapore and Indonesia. Customers include regional hospitals, community clinics, teleradiology centres, medical tourism firms, and health checkup centres. The company has also seen interest from premium insurers and credit card programs that support overseas medical checkups, services where language barriers and incompatible systems frequently create operational delays.

These early adopters point to a practical, demand-led path for the company. Where many digital-health startups chase flashy diagnostic applications, I.W.G is building the plumbing that lets those applications work across institutions and jurisdictions — a slower, less glamorous but arguably more foundational problem.

Why investors are paying attention

Investors are betting on the network effects of interoperability. If hospitals, insurers, and medical facilitators adopt a common AI-mediated exchange layer, the value of participating increases with each new node on the network. For Southeast Asia, a region defined by diverse languages, differing regulatory regimes, and high cross-border patient flows, such a shared layer could reduce time-to-care and administrative overhead for both private and public providers.

The involvement of Dr Toshihiko Sato, a well-known radiologist and healthtech entrepreneur, gives the startup clinical credibility in Japan and signals clinicians’ willingness to experiment with AI-mediated workflows.

Next steps and challenges

I.W.G plans to use the fresh capital to expand engineering and business development teams, deepen integrations with healthcare providers and enhance multilingual and workflow automation features. The company also points to its participation in the Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate programme as part of its attempt to align with global clinical standards.

But challenges remain. Interoperability is not just a technical problem; it involves regulatory, contractual and cultural obstacles. Hospitals can be slow to adopt third-party middleware, and data governance regimes vary widely across Asian markets. Success will depend on the startup’s ability to demonstrate measurable time and cost savings, and to navigate local regulations on patient data sharing.

A pragmatic approach

I.W.G’s approach is deliberately incremental: rather than replacing systems, it augments them. That pragmatic posture should make sales conversations easier in markets where hospital IT budgets and regulatory risk-aversion make wholesale change difficult.

Also Read: AI is detecting cancer earlier in Southeast Asia but our policies and capital have not caught up

For Southeast Asian stakeholders, from insurers in Singapore to teleradiology hubs in Indonesia, an AI layer that eases data exchange could be an operationally attractive proposition. If I.W.G can convert pilot projects into long-term contracts, it could carve out a rare regional interoperability footprint that bridges Greater China, Japan and Southeast Asia.

Whether that vision scales will depend on execution: securing larger institutional customers, proving cross-border workflows at scale, and winning over conservative clinical and IT buyers. For now, US$1.8 million gives the Tokyo startup room to iterate and push into markets where the friction of incompatible records is felt most sharply.

The post Japan’s I.W.G raises US$1.8M to stitch Asia’s fractured medical records appeared first on e27.

In the relentless pursuit of profit and productivity, gratitude is often dismissed as a soft skill, a pleasant but ultimately non-essential workplace courtesy. This view is fundamentally flawed and financially shortsighted.

The truth is that gratitude is the unbeatable multiplier in any organisation. Intentional acts of appreciation, such as a genuine thank-you, a specific recognition, or the shared celebration of a win, do not end with the recipient. They spark a profound Ripple Effect of Gratitude that cascades into heightened morale, accelerated innovation, and fierce customer loyalty. Leaders who treat gratitude as a strategic discipline, not just a feeling, multiply their growth by cultivating a high-trust, high-engagement culture.

The chain reaction of success

The power of gratitude is in its chemical and social domino effect. When appreciation is genuine and specific, it immediately changes the internal state of the recipient, moving them from a transactional mindset to a trust-based mindset.

• From transaction to trust: A genuine thank-you validates a person’s value, not just their labour. This increases organisational trust capital, which is the foundational currency of resilience. High-trust teams make decisions faster, share information more openly, and are far less risk-averse.
• From compliance to innovation: People who feel genuinely seen and appreciated are more likely to offer their best, often riskier, ideas. They move from merely complying with their job description to actively contributing their unique genius. Gratitude acts as the fertiliser for innovation.
• From retention to loyalty: The Ripple Effect extends externally. Employees who feel appreciated are vastly more likely to pass that positive energy to customers. They become passionate advocates, leading to higher customer satisfaction, retention, and word-of-mouth growth.

Also Read: Lifted by women, leading with gratitude

Multiplying growth through cultivated gratitude

Warm, heartwarming accounts of leaders who multiplied their growth reveal that their greatest investment was in the culture of appreciation, not technology or marketing.

• The specificity anchor: One CEO mandated a simple practice: any recognition must be anchored to a specific behaviour and its positive impact on the customer or the business. Instead of “Good job,” the standard became: “Your decision to spend the extra hour helping Client X last night directly saved the deal and proved our core value of commitment.” This intentional specificity made the gratitude feel earned and provided a clear behavioural blueprint for others to follow.
• The shared win ritual: Another company created a weekly five-minute “Win Share” ritual, where team members acknowledged each other’s efforts, not just their manager’s. This decentralised the source of appreciation, transforming it from a top-down mandate into a peer-to-peer norm, making the culture self-sustaining.

Also Read: The tiny habits that secretly built giant companies

Transformative practices to start ripples today

Cultivating a culture of gratitude requires simple, daily practices that anyone can integrate immediately:

• The 5:1 appreciation ratio: Aim to give five pieces of specific, positive recognition for every one piece of critical feedback you must deliver. This ensures that the overall emotional balance of the relationship remains positive and supportive, making the tough conversations easier when they happen.
• The gratitude pause: Start your one-on-one meetings not with the agenda, but with a question: “What is the one thing you are genuinely thankful for this week, at work or outside of it?” This simple pause grounds the conversation in positivity and validates the human dimension of the employee.
• The customer echo: When a customer sends a thank-you note or compliment, ensure the person who caused the compliment (the engineer, the salesperson, the admin) hears it directly, immediately, and publicly. This links their daily effort directly to the external success, amplifying the pride and connection to the mission.

The Ripple Effect of gratitude is the most reliable, long-term strategic investment a leader can make. It is the fuel that transforms a group of talented individuals into an inspired, high-performing team capable of achieving exponential business triumphs.

What is the one specific, intentional act of appreciation you can make today to start a powerful ripple within your organisation?

—

The post The unbeatable multiplier: How gratitude fuels exponential business growth appeared first on e27.

In 2026, angel investing looks deceptively similar on the surface: pitch decks, warm intros, 30-minute calls. Underneath, however, the filtration of founders has undergone a structural shift.

The best angels are no longer betting on whether a startup can be built. They are underwriting whether it can win.

This subtle shift has changed everything.

The founder still dominates, but in a new way

Founder quality remains the single largest variable in early-stage decisions, accounting for roughly 30 to 40 per cent of investment decisions. But what constitutes quality has evolved.

In the past, charisma and storytelling could open doors. In 2026, angels are running a deeper diagnostic: decision-making under uncertainty, speed of learning, and founder-market fit.

Silicon Valley’s top angel investors are leading the charge. Chris Sacca, once drawn to founders chasing massive markets with flashy pitches, now bets on teams with deep technical expertise and a knack for solving complex problems. Aileen Lee, the investor who popularised the unicorn concept, has shifted her focus from chasing high growth metrics to backing founders who demonstrate resilience, adaptability, and the ability to pivot under uncertainty.

In 2026, the spotlight has moved from superficial charm and immediate traction to grit, skill, and the long game – the traits that separate founders who endure from those who fade.

A 2025 meta-analysis of startup success predictors shows that team structure, adaptability, traction signals, and investor quality consistently outperform credentials like elite education or prior big-tech experience. Founder pedigree explains surprisingly little variance in funding outcomes. What matters instead is execution density: how much progress a founder can generate per unit of time.

From “can you build?” to “can you defend?”

The most important shift in 2026 is what angels are actually evaluating.

With AI dramatically reducing the cost of building products, technical risk has collapsed. As a result, angels have moved upstream in their thinking. They now prioritise proprietary data advantages, distribution moats, and early enterprise or customer validation.

AI startups alone accounted for roughly 25 per cent of angel deals in 2025, intensifying competition and compressing time-to-market. When everyone can ship fast, defensibility – not speed – becomes the filter.

This is why angels increasingly ask: why can’t this be copied in six months, and what unfair advantage compounds over time?

Also Read: Forget the cloud: Why AI is becoming the new heavy industry (and what investors must know)

Due diligence is no longer lightweight

The romantic notion of angels writing quick checks on instinct is fading.

By 2026, the rise of solo GPs and micro-funds – who now lead up to 60 per cent of sub-US$5 million funds – has institutionalised early-stage investing. These investors operate with LP capital and carry incentives, which means customer reference checks are standard, technical architecture is reviewed, and financial models are stress-tested.

In other words, pre-seed now looks like seed did five years ago.

This has created a mismatch: many founders still show up expecting a conversational pitch, while angels are running structured diligence pipelines.

The experience premium is back

Another quiet but important shift: experience is being revalued.

Data shows that founders of billion-dollar startups now average 13.8 years of experience, up sharply from a decade ago. This reflects the rise of deep-tech, AI, and enterprise startups, where domain expertise compounds advantage. But this is not about age – it is about earned insight.

The best angels are asking: has this founder lived the problem, and do they have insider context that others do not? Tourist founders are increasingly filtered out early.

A real example: Extreme selectivity at scale

Consider Antler, one of the most active early-stage investors globally. In 2025, it reviewed thousands of founders and invested in just 2.7 out of every 1,000 applicants, a 0.27 per cent acceptance rate, more selective than most Ivy League universities.

What is notable is not just the selectivity, but what they screen for: founder velocity during short residency programmes, ability to form strong co-founder relationships, and rapid iteration based on feedback. Antler’s model reflects a broader truth: angels are increasingly filtering on observed behaviour, not projected potential.

The new signals angels trust

In this environment, traditional signals – polished decks, big visions – carry less weight. Instead, angels look for behavioural evidence, micro-traction, founder-market fit, and learning velocity.

Also Read: Why investors are betting big on Asia’s social impact startups

• Behavioural evidence means how a founder responds to pushback in real time and whether they update their thinking
• Micro-traction means that even at pre-seed, there must be some signal: waitlists, pilot users, or early revenue experiments
• Founder-market fit means insider knowledge is now a stronger predictor than general intelligence or ambition
• Learning velocity means the best founders compress feedback loops – angels test this aggressively during conversations

Even small signals, like how a founder tracks time or manages priorities, are used as proxies for discipline and execution rigour.

The SAFE trap and financial literacy filter

Another emerging filter is financial sophistication.

With 90 per cent of pre-seed rounds now using post-money SAFEs, many founders are unknowingly over-diluting themselves. Surveys show that 61 per cent of first-time founders do not understand their dilution until later rounds. Experienced angels now treat this as a red flag. A founder who cannot model their cap table is seen as someone who may struggle with future fundraising strategy.

The bottom line

The best angels in 2026 are not just picking ideas – they are running compressed, high-signal experiments on founders themselves. They are asking: Can this person learn faster than the market changes? Can they build something defensible in a world where building is cheap? Can they navigate dilution, hiring, and distribution before it is obvious?

In a market where capital still exists but patience does not, the filtration bar has risen quietly but dramatically.

For founders, the implication is stark. You are no longer pitching a vision. You are being tested as a system.

—

The post How the best angel investors are filtering founders in 2026 appeared first on e27.