Market activity today unfolded under heavy geopolitical tension, with the Iran conflict driving volatility across global risk assets. Investors traded in the fog of war, where headlines about supply disruptions triggered rapid portfolio shifts. Asian equities weakened, with Japanese and Hong Kong futures pointing lower, while Australian stocks fell more than one per cent. US S&P 500 contracts slid 0.9 per cent as uncertainty mounted. Oil extended gains for a second session on Middle East supply concerns, pushing inflation expectations higher. Bond markets reacted with the 10-year Treasury yield reaching 4.16 per cent. Gold held near US$5,192 per ounce, though its stability reflected caution more than conviction. Traditional markets moved in lockstep with conflict narratives.

Against this stress, cryptocurrency gained 0.64 per cent, lifting the total market cap to US$2.39T. Crypto showed a negative 37 per cent correlation with the S&P 500 and a negative 53 per cent with gold, signalling decoupling from traditional flows. Digital assets responded to regulatory progress and institutional validation instead. A White House announcement on March 11 ended the prior administration’s war on crypto and flagged a potential market bill by April. This shift reduced a major overhang on institutional participation. Markets priced in higher odds of favourable US legislation, creating a fundamental tailwind that outweighed geopolitical headwinds.

Institutional moves reinforced this optimism. Mastercard expanded its Crypto Partner Program to include Ripple and Binance, validating real-world use cases for payments and custody. Such partnerships lower adoption barriers for enterprise clients. Speculative capital also rotated into higher-beta altcoins. The Altcoin Season Index rose 2.56 per cent, while low-cap tokens like Origin Protocol saw volumes surge over 2200 per cent without project-specific news. Excess liquidity chased asymmetric opportunities in a more permissive regulatory environment. Institutional groundwork and retail speculation combined to create self-reinforcing momentum that kept crypto buoyant as equities faltered.

Also Read: Why crypto, stocks, and gold all moved together this week

Technical structure now guides the near-term path. The market faces resistance at the 23.6 per cent Fibonacci level of US$2.4T. A decisive break above, especially on a weekly close, could target US$2.46T. Failure to hold US$2.33T, the 50 per cent Fibonacci level, might renew selling pressure and trap prices in consolidation. These levels reflect collective psychology around regulatory clarity as a structural shift. The Fibonacci framework gives traders a common language for managing risk at this inflection.

Negative correlations with traditional assets reveal an important insight. Crypto’s move appears to be dollar- and liquidity-driven rather than conventional risk-on. When equities fall amid war fears, and gold holds steady while crypto rises amid regulatory news, maturity is evolving. Digital assets increasingly respond to their own catalysts, especially policy developments affecting compliance and institutional access. This does not make crypto immune to macro shocks, but the market now weighs regulatory signals more heavily than short-term geopolitical noise. The White House pivot represents the most significant such signal in years.

Sustainability depends on follow-through. Concrete legislative progress by mid-April is needed to maintain bullish momentum. Traders should watch ETF flows and whether altcoin volume persists. The next US CPI release could reintroduce inflation concerns affecting all risk assets. The current setup favours cautious optimism. Regulatory momentum provides a foundation, partnerships add utility, and technical levels offer clear risk parameters. The key question is whether altcoin momentum holds if Bitcoin fails to break US$2.4T. A rejection might trigger consolidation without invalidating the broader regulatory thesis.

Also Read: Crypto market surges to US$2.38T as Middle East tensions ease: What comes next

I view this regulatory inflection as a structural game-changer. Years of ambiguous policy discounted digital asset valuations, especially for institutional capital needing compliance clarity. The White House’s commitment to an April bill begins removing that discount. This does not guarantee immediate adoption, but it shifts the probabilities toward greater integration with traditional finance. Mastercard partnerships exemplify this integration. When payment giants embrace crypto rails, they build infrastructure lasting beyond any news cycle. Speculative altcoin rotations reflect a market testing new permissiveness, typical in early regulatory transitions where uncertainty drives broad experimentation.

Negative correlations with equities and gold support crypto maturing into a distinct asset class. Past crises saw digital assets move with conventional risk flows. Today’s divergence suggests a nuanced reality where investors separate geopolitical risk from regulatory risk. When regulatory conditions improve while geopolitical tensions worsen, decoupling emerges. This does not promise permanent macro insulation, but policy developments can outweigh short-term geopolitical noise in determining direction.

In conclusion, traditional assets grappled with war-related uncertainty, while crypto advanced amid regulatory clarity. The 0.64 per cent gain to US$2.39T, with negative correlations to equities and gold, reflects a market responding to its own catalysts. Policy shifts, institutional partnerships, and speculative rotation created a bullish impulse now testing technical levels. A break above US$2.4T could open the path to US$2.46T, while a break below US$2.33T signals consolidation. The broader narrative remains cautiously optimistic. Regulatory momentum supports sustained institutional adoption even as short-term trading stays headline-sensitive. The coming weeks will show whether Washington’s promises become legislative reality, but crypto’s divergence underscores its evolving role in the global financial system.

—

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 Why crypto surged while stocks fell: The regulatory breakthrough changing everything appeared first on e27.

For AI companies hoping to succeed in the Asia Pacific, the challenge is no longer just building powerful technology. The real test lies in turning the technology into practical solutions that solve everyday problems for businesses and consumers.

Across the region, AI adoption is accelerating as enterprises seek ways to meet rising customer expectations while managing operational complexity. But success depends on more than sophisticated algorithms. According to industry leaders, the number one priority for AI companies today is creating experiences that translate digital intelligence into tangible, real-world outcomes.

“AI companies need to focus on creating solutions and experiences that people want,” said Robert Woolfrey, Vice President for Asia Pacific and Japan at Twilio, in an email interview with e27. “If you want to win in Asia Pacific, your AI must bridge the gap between a digital thought and a physical result.”

This challenge is particularly acute in the Asia Pacific, one of the world’s most diverse digital markets. The region spans multiple languages, regulatory systems and consumer behaviours, requiring AI companies to design solutions that can operate seamlessly across borders while remaining locally relevant.

Building AI for a fragmented region

Asia Pacific’s diversity creates a unique opportunity for AI innovation, but it also demands robust infrastructure and localisation capabilities.

Unlike more uniform markets, companies operating in Asia must navigate fragmented regulations, cultural nuances and varying levels of digital maturity. As a result, AI solutions must be both flexible and scalable to work effectively across different countries.

Also Read: Your biggest competitor might be the AI answer itself

Woolfrey said the companies that will thrive are those that can combine advanced AI capabilities with a reliable communications infrastructure.

“In a region defined by different languages and shifting regulations, long-term success depends on a reliable, scalable communications infrastructure that allows AI to operate seamlessly across borders, industries and regulatory environments,” he explained.

For many AI companies, the ability to manage these complexities will determine whether they can scale beyond pilot projects into widely adopted platforms.

Another key shift shaping AI companies is the growing importance of conversational interfaces. As AI becomes more integrated into everyday services, the focus is shifting from screen-based interactions to voice-driven communication.

Voice technology allows AI to operate in a more natural and accessible way, particularly in markets where language diversity and cultural nuance are critical.

“We are giving AI a voice that sounds human, understands local nuance and uses real-time data to make every call smarter and more personal,” Woolfrey said.

This shift reflects a broader trend in Asia Pacific, where businesses are increasingly using AI-powered agents to handle customer interactions such as bookings, service requests, and enquiries. By automating routine communication while maintaining personalisation, companies can deliver faster and more efficient experiences.

Also Read: What is zero-click AI visibility? Impact on digital strategy & conversions

One example of this approach is Genspark, whose AI agent “Call for Me” makes outbound phone calls on behalf of users to handle tasks such as bookings or service enquiries.

The agent communicates directly with businesses or individuals and returns structured results from those conversations, helping users overcome barriers such as time zones or language differences.

As the company expanded, managing telephony infrastructure and compliance across markets became increasingly complex. By using Twilio’s cloud-based voice application programmable interface (API), Genspark was able to streamline operations and focus on delivering AI-powered services.

Today, customers use the feature to make more than 800 calls daily.

Trust, transparency and regulation

While innovation continues to accelerate, trust is becoming an equally critical priority for AI companies operating in the Asia Pacific.

Governments across the region are beginning to introduce policies focused on responsible AI use, particularly around safety and transparency.

South Korea’s AI Basic Act, which came into effect in January 2026, represents one of the region’s first comprehensive legislative frameworks for artificial intelligence. Meanwhile, other markets, such as India, are signalling a more flexible, innovation-driven regulatory approach.

Despite these differences, a common theme is emerging: companies will increasingly need to demonstrate accountability in how their AI systems interact with users.

Also Read: Why AI needs a privacy-preserving collaboration layer

“As Voice AI technologies become more sophisticated and capable of human-like interactions, the policy focus on misuse risks, including scams, will sharpen,” Woolfrey said.

Businesses may soon face stronger disclosure requirements, ensuring users are clearly informed when interacting with an AI system.

For Twilio, these evolving dynamics are shaping its strategy in the Asia Pacific.

The company, known for its communications APIs, is positioning itself as foundational infrastructure for the AI era. Rather than simply enabling messaging or calls, Twilio is increasingly focused on supporting AI-driven customer engagement across multiple channels.

“Much of our innovation roadmap is about capturing what is important in AI today and in the future,” Woolfrey said.

The company is currently developing new capabilities to enable memory-driven orchestration and agentic interactions, enabling AI systems to deliver more complex and personalised customer experiences.

At the same time, Twilio is seeing strong growth in voice-based AI services across the region. According to Woolfrey, voice revenue growth recently accelerated to the high teens, while Voice AI revenue grew more than 60 per cent year-over-year in the fourth quarter.

“In a fragmented region like ours, we provide the tools that allow a brand to maintain a single, coherent relationship with a customer for life,” he said. “We handle the complexity so they can focus on the conversation.”

 

The post Twilio on why AI companies must rethink customer engagement to succeed in Asia Pacific appeared first on e27.

There’s a famous saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. But what if that first step, and the countless ones that follow, are so full of friction, consisting of confusing forms, foreign currencies, and disconnected systems, such that we lose the joy of the destination? What if the journey itself becomes an obstacle course to be endured, a chore to be completed, rather than a path to be savoured?

For too long, travel in Southeast Asia has been exactly that. It’s a region of breathtaking beauty and profound cultural richness, but also one of fragmented systems and varied infrastructure. We have built systems that work for the airlines, the hotels, and the immigration departments, not for the person on the move. We’ve made the “what” of travel, the booking, the flight, the hotel, much easier. But have we forgotten the “why”?

The “why” is about human connection. It’s about a business traveller from Jakarta landing in Singapore and feeling instantly productive, not lost in a sea of logistics. It’s about a family from Hanoi exploring the ancient temples of Bagan, fully present in the moment, rather than worried about a phone signal. It’s about a luxury traveller chartering a private jet to the islands of the Philippines, knowing their experience will be as seamless and tailored as their life at home.

This is the truth we must confront. The old way of travel focused on transactions. The new way must focus on transformation. But as we embrace this transformation, we must ask ourselves: are we simply trading one set of frustrations for another?

The promise and the peril of seamlessness

True innovation in travel does not simply add more layers of convenience. It subtracts. It removes the friction that separates people from their purpose. And in Southeast Asia, this is the very reason a new wave of travel companies is emerging. They are not just making travel easy; they are making it human.

This shift challenges our outdated ideas of success in tourism. For decades, we have celebrated the sheer number of visitors as the only metric of a thriving industry. But as the Asian Development Bank’s insights on “quality tourism” highlight, what if a million tourists on a single beach cause more harm than good? What if the true measure of a healthy tourism industry is its ability to leave a destination better than it was found?

Technology holds the promise of solving these problems, yet it also presents a significant challenge. By making travel so predictable and efficient, are we losing the very essence of exploration and discovery? The surprise of a chance encounter, the lesson learned from navigating a lost connection, the humility of asking a stranger for help? Is the over-optimised journey stripping away the serendipity that makes travel so profound? We must ask: are we building a perfectly curated bubble that keeps us from the world, rather than connecting us to it?

The new architects of the journey

This new philosophy is being brought to life by a group of forward-thinking startups across the region. They are tackling different parts of the travel experience, but they share a common goal: to solve for the human, not just the itinerary. Some examples are:

• TravelGoogoo is a simple yet powerful example of this. They do not just sell a product; they solve a fundamental frustration. The “why” behind an eSIM is not about saving a few dollars on data; it is about the feeling of being instantly connected the moment your plane lands. It is about the peace of mind that comes from knowing you can call your family or access a map without a frantic search for a local SIM card. This is about making technology disappear so the destination can shine.
• In the realm of accommodation, Travelio in Indonesia is more than a booking platform. They are reimagining property rentals for flexible lifestyles, giving people a home away from home without the burden of a long term lease. This empowers both the business traveler and the digital nomad to feel a sense of belonging wherever they go.

The economic and social transformation

Beyond the immediate convenience, this wave of innovation carries profound economic and social implications. As these technologies streamline the travel experience, they are not only making travel more accessible but also distributing its economic benefits more widely.

In the past, tourism often benefited only a few large corporations or resorts. But with the rise of digital marketplaces, a small family run guesthouse in Vietnam can now compete globally. A local artisan in Bali can sell their crafts directly to a traveler who found them through a curated digital experience. This shift democratises the tourism economy, moving it from a top down model to a more horizontal and inclusive one.

It is a powerful change, but it is not without its own set of questions. How do we ensure these digital platforms do not simply replace one gatekeeper with another? How do we protect the unique cultural identities of these communities from the overwhelming pressure of global tourism? The digital tools that simplify travel also collect vast amounts of data. This presents new challenges for data privacy, cybersecurity, and the potential for a digital divide, where those without access to modern technology are left behind.

A new chapter

The rise of this seamless travel experience is not just a technological feat; it is a cultural and economic necessity. Southeast Asia is home to a rapidly growing middle class, and each country has its own unique currency, language, and regulatory framework. A one size fits all solution simply will not work. The technology must be smart enough to navigate this complexity without forcing the traveler to carry the burden.

This focus on purpose and human centred design is a lesson for all of us. When we build systems that truly serve people,  we can remove the frustration and allow people to fully immerse themselves in the rich, diverse tapestry of Southeast Asia. We can enable travellers not just to visit, but to connect, to contribute, and to truly belong, no matter where they are.

The ultimate question is this: will the technology we create bring us closer to the world, or will it simply create a perfectly curated bubble, shielding us from the very experiences that make travel so human?

—

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

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

Image credit: Canva

The post The end of friction: What do we risk for a seamless journey? appeared first on e27.

The past decade has demonstrated that volatility is the new normal. From global supply chain disruptions and geopolitical shocks to climate-related crises, AI-driven disruption, and rapidly shifting regulatory landscapes, the pace and complexity of change have escalated dramatically. For Asian boards, the challenge is clear: traditional governance models, designed for stability and predictability, are insufficient to navigate today’s dynamic environment.

Boards that fail to adapt risk strategic misalignment, operational disruption, and reputational harm. Those that embrace agile, forward-looking governance will become differentiators in resilience, innovation, and long-term value creation.

The volatility imperative

Asia is particularly exposed to volatility due to its interconnected economies, complex supply chains, and rapid digital transformation. Key factors shaping uncertainty include:

• Geopolitical tension: US-China tech rivalry, South China Sea disputes, regional trade realignments
• Economic shocks: Inflationary cycles, interest rate volatility, emerging-market capital flows
• Technological disruption: AI adoption, platform competition, cyber threats
• Environmental and climate risk: Extreme weather, energy transition, and water scarcity
• Regulatory shifts: ESG reporting mandates, data protection laws, and antitrust scrutiny

Boards that rely solely on annual risk reports or static strategy reviews cannot respond fast enough.

Why traditional governance models are too slow

Most boards still operate in a linear, backwards-looking cadence:

• Quarterly board packs focus on financial and operational reporting
• Strategic reviews occur annually, often as a retrospective exercise
• Risk committees review incidents after they occur

This model is ill-suited for today’s environment, where decisions must be informed by real-time insights, rapid scenario testing, and continuous monitoring.

Also Read: Cybersecurity and data governance in the boardroom: A strategic imperative for Asian boards

Building an agile governance model

Forward-looking boards are adopting structures and practices designed for speed, adaptability, and strategic foresight:

• Continuous strategic oversight

Strategy is no longer an annual plan. Boards should hold quarterly or monthly micro-strategy sessions to review key assumptions, competitive shifts, and emerging opportunities.

• Real-time risk dashboards

Dynamic, data-driven dashboards provide visibility into:

• Market volatility
• Geopolitical exposures
• Supply chain bottlenecks
• Cybersecurity threats
• Talent and human capital risk

This enables timely board-level decisions and proactive risk management.

• Flexible committee structures

Agile boards experiment with temporary task forces or cross-functional committees to address emerging issues such as ESG crises, regulatory changes, or AI adoption.

• Scenario planning and stress testing

Boards must regularly simulate crises, including:

• Geopolitical supply chain shocks
• Market dislocations
• Regulatory fines or policy shifts
• Cyber breaches or data scandals

Scenario planning enables informed decision-making before volatility materialises.

Also Read: Singapore’s new AI governance framework signals a turning point for businesses using AI Agents

Enhancing board-management collaboration in volatile times

Volatility demands real-time collaboration with management, without compromising independence:

• Encourage rapid reporting of emerging risks from executives
• Conduct “pre-read” strategy sessions for discussion rather than reporting
• Empower management to propose multiple scenarios and alternatives
• Maintain a culture of respectful challenge and questioning

Boards that engage actively with management can guide strategy dynamically rather than reacting after the fact.

Strengthening board capabilities for the future

To govern effectively in volatile environments, boards must:

• Invest in director up-skilling: technology, ESG, geopolitical risk, and financial resilience
• Diversify the board: cognitive, functional, and generational diversity enhances decision-making
• Integrate risk, strategy, and governance: siloed committees are inadequate
• Review board effectiveness regularly: agility requires continuous self-assessment
• Leverage external expertise: advisors, specialists, and temporary board members can provide rapid insight

Boards that embed these practices are better equipped to anticipate change, minimise surprises, and seize opportunity in uncertainty.

The future of governance in volatile times

Volatility is not going away. In fact, it will intensify as technological disruption, climate change, and geopolitical shifts accelerate. Boards that cling to outdated governance structures risk irrelevance. Boards that embrace agility, foresight, and continuous oversight will:

• Improve resilience against shocks
• Enhance strategic decision-making
• Protect shareholder value
• Maintain stakeholder trust

For aspiring independent directors, the mandate is clear: help boards move from reactive oversight to proactive, adaptive governance. This requires rigour, discipline, and courage, but it is precisely what distinguishes high-performing boards in Asia’s most dynamic industries.

Boards that govern for volatility are not just protecting the enterprise — they are shaping its future.

This article was first published on The Boardroom Edge.

—

The post Governance for volatile times: Building boards that adapt faster than the market appeared first on e27.

Customer expectations in Singapore’s wholesale sector

In recent years, wholesale trade businesses in Singapore have faced a paradigm shift in customer expectations. No longer satisfied with simple transactional relationships, B2B buyers now demand B2C-level digital experiences. This includes real-time inventory visibility, automated order tracking, and seamless omnichannel integration. With Singapore positioning itself as a global logistics hub, wholesalers are expected to provide hyper-efficient fulfillment cycles. Consequently, firms are seeking ERP Software that doesn’t just record data but actively optimizes the supply chain through predictive analytics and automated procurement.

2026 cost factor analysis for wholesale trade

As we navigate 2026, the cost landscape for the wholesale industry in Singapore is heavily influenced by labor constraints and rising operational overheads. The cost of skilled manpower for warehouse management and supply chain coordination has risen by approximately 15% year-on-year. Furthermore, data residency requirements and cybersecurity compliance have become significant cost drivers. Energy costs associated with cold-chain storage and automated picking systems have also fluctuated, forcing wholesalers to seek ERP solutions that offer robust energy-management modules and cloud-efficiency to offset physical infrastructure expenses.

Unique TCO factors for Singapore wholesalers

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for ERP Software in Singapore’s wholesale sector is unique compared to service-based industries due to the heavy reliance on hardware integration and high-speed data throughput.

• Inventory Accuracy vs. Holding Costs: The high cost of industrial land in Singapore means inefficient inventory management leads to astronomical “wasted space” costs.
• Logistics Integration: ERPs must integrate with the National TradePlatform (NTP) and various Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) interfaces, adding specialized API maintenance costs.
• Regulatory Compliance: Frequent updates to GST reporting and trade declarations require software that stays current with IRAS regulations.
• Scalability: Wholesalers often operate on thin margins; thus, the ability to scale modules without a complete system overhaul is critical for long-term TCO.

Summary of pricing for best ERP software in Singapore

The following pricing analysis provides an overview of the leading ERP solutions tailored for the Wholesale Trade industry. Please note that all figures quoted are in Singapore Dollars (SGD) and represent the investment required before any government grants are applied. Generally, a comprehensive ERP implementation for a mid-sized wholesaler involves license fees, implementation consultancy, and data migration.

1. Multiable

Pricing: Typically ranges from SGD 67,000 to SGD 335,000, depending on the modules adopted and specific user requirements.

Pros

• Offers both on-premises and SaaS options for customers to choose from, providing maximum deployment flexibility.
• Proven successful cases with public companies and multinationals, ensuring enterprise-grade stability.
• Both PSG pre-approved and a track record of EDG-grant success, making it highly accessible for local SMEs.
• The Multiable aiM18 platform utilizes an advanced “No-Code” architecture, allowing business users to adapt workflows without heavy programming costs.
• Highly localized for the Singapore market with built-in compliance for local tax and trade regulations.

2. SAP S/4HANA

Pricing: High-tier investment, often exceeding SGD 400,000 for full-scale implementation including consultancy.

Pros

• World-class best practices for complex supply chain and multi-currency consolidations.
• Massive ecosystem of third-party add-ons and integrations.
• Robust analytics capabilities for large-scale data processing.
• Highly scalable for wholesalers looking to expand aggressively into global markets.

Also read: Top 5 best ERP software for building material business in Singapore | 2026 guide

3. NetSuite

Pricing: Mid-to-high range. While the initial entry fee is competitive, users should be aware that fees are reportedly subject to substantial changes after the first contract expiry, which has led to some customer dissatisfaction.

Pros

• A true-cloud pioneer with no need for internal server maintenance.
• Real-time visibility across multiple subsidiaries and locations.
• Strong financial management and automated billing features.
• Extensive dashboard customization for different user roles.

4. Odoo

Pricing: Low entry cost when no local partner is involved. However, once professional partner services for implementation and customization are required, the cost can be as high as traditional ERP brands.

Pros

• Modular approach allows companies to start small and add features as they grow.
• Large community-led library of apps and functional improvements.
• Modern, user-friendly interface that reduces staff training time.

5. Chillaccount

Pricing: Entry-level pricing, designed to be highly affordable for smaller operations.

Pros

• Extremely mom-and-pop friendly with a simplified user interface.
• Fast deployment time for businesses with standard wholesale workflows.
• Low monthly subscription overhead with minimal upfront capital expenditure.
• Chillaccount focuses on core accounting and basic inventory, removing unnecessary complexity.

Also read: AI agents and ERP: Why Singapore businesses must act now

The risk of SaaS-only vendors

Choosing an ERP vendor that offers only SaaS (Software as a Service) carries inherent risks for the wholesale sector. In the event of internet outages or data center downtime, a wholesaler’s entire warehouse operation can grind to a halt, leading to missed shipments and liquidated damages. Furthermore, SaaS-only models often leave the business at the mercy of the vendor’s annual price hikes. Without an on-premises option, the user has no leverage to “freeze” their version or control their data environment independently, which can lead to significant long-term budget volatility.

Why free open-source ERP often disappoints

The “free” label on open-source ERP is frequently a mirage. Because the source code is disclosed, developers have little incentive to provide no-code or low-code facilities; the assumption is that the user is free to amend the code themselves. In reality, this leads to labor-intensive implementations where “labor” means expensive specialized developers. Wholesalers often find that the money saved on licenses is quickly eclipsed by the cost of hiring developers to perform basic functional updates. This “unconvenient truth” is often ignored by users who focus solely on the lack of a license fee, only to be trapped by high maintenance costs later.

The disappointment of legacy US/EU business models

The traditional model of pairing legacy ERP software from the US or EU with a local reseller often fails the Singapore wholesale industry. There is a fundamental disconnect between the industrial labor force in Asia which operates at a high-speed, high-intensity pace and the often “slacker” labor force in US/EU development centers. This cultural gap leads to slow response times for critical bug fixes or local feature requests. When a Singaporean wholesaler needs an urgent update for a local trade regulation, waiting for a development team in a different time zone with a different work ethic often results in lost productivity and deep customer dissatisfaction.

Why we write this article

PRbyAI aims to share updated market news using our team’s tech knowledge, helping B2B customers make informed decisions.

About PRbyAI

PRbyAI is a tech-driven Martech startup leveraging cutting-edge AISEO to help customers generate leads and tap into new markets.

—

Want updates like this delivered directly? Join our WhatsApp channel and stay in the loop.

This article was shared with us by PRbyAI

We can share your story at e27 too! Engage the Southeast Asian tech ecosystem by bringing your story to the world. You can reach out to us here to get started.

Featured Image Credit: Canva Images

The post Pricing analysis of best ERP software for wholesale trade in Singapore appeared first on e27.

In Southeast Asia, a new investment philosophy is gaining traction: funding for good. This approach goes beyond traditional profit metrics, seeking startups that tackle pressing social and environmental challenges while delivering solid financial returns.

For investors, the rationale is clear: businesses that solve real problems often create more resilient revenue streams, attract loyal customers, and reduce long-term risks—all of which translate into better returns.

Why funding for good works

Investing in ventures with measurable social impact isn’t just ethical—it’s strategic. Purpose-driven businesses often operate in underserved markets, leverage technology to scale, and build trust with stakeholders. With ESG and impact investing gaining momentum in SEA, startups that quantify their impact are increasingly attracting funding from both traditional and impact-focused investors.

Models of funding for good

Funding-for-good takes many forms, offering multiple ways for investors to create both impact and returns:

• Equity investment: Buying shares in startups with measurable social or environmental outcomes, sharing in both profits and mission-driven success.
• Sustainability-linked loans: Lending with interest rates tied to achieving specific ESG targets, such as carbon reduction, energy efficiency, or social impact metrics. Lower risk and lower costs reward measurable progress.
• Revenue-sharing or outcome-based financing: Investors receive returns only if certain social or environmental outcomes are met, aligning incentives with real-world impact.
• Blended finance: Combining concessional funding (from donors or development banks) with commercial capital to de-risk investments in high-impact sectors like agriculture, health, or renewable energy.

Also Read: The future of work with AI: 2025 and beyond

Catalysing industry-wide impact and transformation

These finance models, especially sustainability-linked loans (SLLs) are no longer niche financial instruments—they are catalysts for  transformation across Southeast Asia. By tying financing terms to measurable environmental or social outcomes, SLLs incentivise companies to embed sustainability into the core of their operations.

Here’s how different sectors are embracing this model:

Self-storage: StorHub’s green commitment

In 2023, StorHub secured an SG$180 million (US$133.2 million) SLL from CIMB and UOB, marking the first of its kind in Asia’s self-storage sector. The loan’s interest rate is linked to sustainability performance metrics across 13 properties in Singapore, including energy efficiency and carbon footprint reduction. This initiative underscores StorHub’s commitment to integrating ESG principles into its operations.

Beverage industry: ThaiBev’s sustainable growth

Thai Beverage Public Company Limited (ThaiBev) completed a THB 10 billion (US$270 million) SLL with Bank of Ayudhya (Krungsri) in 2024, the first SLL for a local beverage company in Thailand. The loan features Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to sustainability targets, aligning with ThaiBev’s commitment to sustainable growth.

Data centres: AirTrunk’s sustainable financing

AirTrunk, a hyperscale data centre operator, closed an A$16 billion (US$10.56 billion) sustainability-linked refinancing package across Australia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, and Singapore. The financing includes targets for energy and water efficiency, renewable energy uptake, and gender pay equity, aiming for net-zero emissions by 2030.

Supply chain: Goodpack’s green logistics

Goodpack, a Singapore-based sustainable supply chain solution provider, secured a US$790 million SLL coordinated by ING. The loan is the first private equity-backed leveraged SLL in Southeast Asia, supporting Goodpack’s efforts to enhance sustainability in the supply chain industry.

Education: Vinschool’s sustainable expansion

Vinschool Joint Stock Company in Vietnam signed a US$150 million syndicated SLL with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in 2024. The loan supports Vinschool’s initiatives to improve educational infrastructure and access, aligning with sustainable development goals.

Also Read: From Seed to Series: Navigating different funding rounds with PR

These examples illustrate a key trend: SLLs and impact investing are penetrating diverse industries and supply chains, gradually making sustainability a financial and operational priority. For investors, this means climate change is no longer abstract—it’s actionable, measurable, and directly tied to business performance. Companies that adapt not only reduce environmental impact but also position themselves as leaders in a rapidly decarbonising economy, creating long-term value for both shareholders and society.

The investor perspective

It is clear that impact can be quantified, de-risked, and scaled. Funding for good is not charity—it’s smart, long-term value creation. By using modern investment instruments like SAFE, convertible notes, and sustainability-linked loans, investors can both structure risk efficiently and maximise measurable impact.

Funding for good is thus not philanthropy disguised as business; it is a strategic approach to long-term value creation.The question is whether SEA investors will seize this moment to make purpose-driven investment the standard.

The challenge—and opportunity—for investors is to make funding for good the norm rather than the exception. By backing startups that deliver measurable social impact, capital can flow toward ventures that strengthen communities, preserve the planet, and still generate strong financial returns.

The question is: will investors in Southeast Asia lead the charge in proving that doing good and doing well are not only compatible, but profitable for people, planet and profit?

—

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

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

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Funding for good: A new era appeared first on e27.

As a CTO leading a company that specialises in app development, custom software, AI/ML solutions, and cloud services, I can tell you that many of my peers in the tech world focus heavily on the latest technologies. They chase after the newest frameworks, tools, or innovations. While this is important, I believe there’s something even more critical: trust.

In my years of experience, I’ve come to realise that technology, no matter how advanced, only thrives in an environment of trust. Without it, all the cutting-edge solutions in the world won’t make a real impact. Here’s why trust should be at the heart of everything we do in tech.

The trust factor in software development

When we build apps or custom software for clients, trust is the foundation. Clients must trust us to deliver what we promise on time, within budget, and with a high level of quality. They need to know that we’re not just chasing the latest tech trends, but that we’re focused on building solutions that solve their unique problems.

This trust goes both ways. We also trust our teams. When developers and engineers feel trusted, they’re more likely to be creative, motivated, and focused on delivering top-tier results. They know they have the freedom to innovate and the support they need to succeed.

Building trust in AI and Machine Learning

In the world of AI and ML, trust is even more crucial. These technologies can be transformative, but they’re also often seen as a “black box” mysterious and sometimes even intimidating. To use AI/ML effectively, businesses must trust that the algorithms are working as expected, that the data is secure, and that the models are making decisions in an ethical way.

As a CTO, I’ve always emphasised transparency in AI development. We ensure that our clients understand how we’re training models and making decisions. This openness builds trust, especially when dealing with sensitive data. By offering clear explanations and setting realistic expectations, we can make AI approachable and valuable.

Also Read: Indirect prompt injections: The AI attack vector you didn’t see coming

Cloud services and the trust challenge

Cloud services represent another area where trust is vital. Companies are placing their most important data and systems in the cloud, trusting that they’ll be secure, accessible, and reliable. Any disruption or breach could have severe consequences. That’s why we invest heavily in cloud security, compliance, and reliability.

We don’t just trust the cloud providers we work with — we build trust with our clients by making sure that their data is protected, and that they have 24/7 access to their services. Our commitment to keeping their systems running smoothly is what sets us apart in this competitive space.

Trust is built over time

Trust doesn’t happen overnight. It’s earned through consistent actions. As a CTO, I’ve learned that our clients’ trust is the result of our company’s track record. It’s about delivering on promises, addressing issues when they arise, and always being transparent about our processes.

We focus on long-term relationships, not short-term wins. We want our clients to know that we are always looking out for their best interests, that we aren’t just after the next big tech trend. Instead, we’re focused on making sure their technology works for them, now and in the future.

Trust with your team

I also want to emphasise how trust with your internal team is just as important. As a leader, you must trust your team to make decisions and take responsibility. This empowers them to do their best work. It also fosters a culture of collaboration, where everyone feels their voice is heard and valued.

Technology is ever-evolving, and there will always be new tools and frameworks to learn. But trust is timeless. When your team trusts each other and the leadership, it creates an environment where innovation flourishes.

Also Read: Semiconductors at risk: The invisible threats that could break global supply chains

The bottom line

While many CTOs may obsess over technology, I obsess over trust because I’ve seen firsthand how it drives everything else. Technology can solve problems, streamline processes, and improve business outcomes. But without trust, none of that matters. It’s trust that keeps clients coming back. It’s trust that inspires teams to perform at their best. And it’s trust that allows technology to reach its full potential.

So, while I’m certainly passionate about the latest tech trends and innovations, I never lose sight of the bigger picture. Trust is what makes technology truly powerful. It’s the glue that holds everything together and ensures long-term success. And that’s why, as a CTO, it’s what I obsess over most.

—

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

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

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Most CTOs obsess over tech, I obsess over trust — here’s why appeared first on e27.

The withdrawal of the United States from a range of international climate and energy institutions marks a structural shift in how it exercises influence in global governance. The fiscal savings associated with withdrawal are minor relative to overall federal expenditure. The more consequential effect lies in reduced institutional presence, diminished influence over rule formation, and altered channels of international coordination. You can read about it here, in my earlier piece.

Institutional participation is a form of geopolitical leverage. It provides access to agenda-setting processes, influence over reporting standards, early insight into regulatory direction, and informal coordination channels across states. Even when US leadership has been inconsistent, continued participation preserved the ability to shape, slow, or redirect emerging norms. Withdrawal reduces that capacity.

The global climate and energy system is unlikely to collapse as a result. Major developed economies and climate-vulnerable states continue to support multilateral engagement. However, governance influence will shift toward actors that remain active. Standards, methodologies, and financing frameworks will increasingly reflect their priorities. The system will persist, but with greater fragmentation and reduced US shaping power.

For startup ecosystems, this matters because climate and energy governance operates upstream of markets. Definitions of “renewable,” “transition,” “carbon-neutral,” and “sustainable” influence procurement rules, capital allocation, disclosure requirements, and trade conditions. When institutional influence shifts, startup operating environments shift with it.

The most likely systemic outcome is regulatory divergence. Carbon accounting systems may differ across jurisdictions. ESG disclosure regimes may lose harmonisation. Hydrogen classification and transition taxonomies may evolve along separate tracks, look at how nuclear energy has become the hot topic when it was hydrogen a couple years ago. For multinational companies, this increases compliance complexity. For startups, it introduces market segmentation risk at an earlier stage.

Influence over climate governance will redistribute rather than disappear. The European Union is positioned to expand regulatory influence. China will likely continue emphasising infrastructure scale and manufacturing dominance. Middle powers will gain greater negotiation space. The United States is likely to exercise influence more through bilateral agreements and industrial policy than through institutional leadership.

Also Read: Why I’m trading bytes for atoms: The 65-year-old investor breaking the climate tech silos

Within this broader geopolitical adjustment, Southeast Asia occupies a strategically significant position.

Southeast Asia is characterised by rapid energy demand growth, high climate exposure, infrastructure deficits, and dependence on external capital and technology. It does not define global standards but implements them. Changes in institutional engagement by major powers, therefore, affect the region primarily through capital flows, project structures, and compliance frameworks.

A structural transfer of climate leadership from the United States to Southeast Asia is unlikely. The region does not possess equivalent research depth, capital scale, or institutional agenda-setting capacity. However, selective reallocation effects are plausible.

As regulatory uncertainty increases in advanced economies, investors may seek high-growth deployment markets. Southeast Asia’s energy transition requires:

• Grid expansion
• Distributed energy systems
• Storage deployment
• Climate adaptation infrastructure

These are capital-intensive sectors with clear demand fundamentals. Private capital may therefore allocate incrementally more toward the region, not as a governance substitute, but as a growth destination.

The geopolitical shift also increases the likelihood of bilateral, project-based engagement. If US climate diplomacy becomes more commercially oriented, Southeast Asia could see expanded direct partnerships in liquefied natural gas, grid modernisation, critical minerals cooperation, and energy infrastructure financing. In this context, the region becomes a strategic project arena rather than a co-designer of institutional frameworks.

For startups, the implications are concrete.

• First, market fragmentation increases the value of interoperability. Southeast Asian startups that can design products compliant with multiple reporting regimes and standards frameworks will hold a structural advantage. Regulatory translation and cross-border compatibility become investable capabilities. AI-led green growth is one big space, and I’ve talked extensively about it.
• Second, infrastructure-heavy innovation gains relative importance. Unlike mature markets focused on optimisation, Southeast Asia’s transition requires build-out. Startups in distributed solar, storage integration, grid software, microgrids, climate resilience, and water systems operate in markets defined by execution rather than abstract policy alignment. These sectors are less dependent on multilateral coordination and more dependent on capital mobilisation and public-private partnership structures.
• Third, capital formation within the region becomes more important. If global governance becomes less centralised, regional sovereign wealth funds, development banks, and blended finance vehicles may play a larger role in underwriting projects. Startups that understand these capital structures will scale more effectively than those relying exclusively on Silicon Valley or European venture capital.

Also Read: The shifting geopolitics of sustainability, energy, and climate

There are also constraints.

Regulatory harmonisation within ASEAN remains incomplete. Sovereign risk varies significantly across member states. Currency volatility, political transitions, and legal enforcement inconsistencies raise perceived risk for international investors. Deep-technology research infrastructure remains concentrated outside the region. These factors limit the scale of ecosystem migration from advanced economies to Southeast Asia.

The likely outcome is not a wholesale pivot of global clean-tech leadership toward Southeast Asia. Instead, the region becomes a deployment-intensive growth market within a more fragmented geopolitical system. Startups that treat Southeast Asia as an execution platform rather than a governance hub are better aligned with structural realities.

From a geopolitical perspective, the US withdrawal signals a shift from institutional leverage toward industrial and bilateral leverage. For startup ecosystems, this increases the importance of understanding how state power shapes capital flows, standards formation, and infrastructure finance.

For founders and investors operating in Southeast Asia, the core strategic question is not whether global climate governance continues. It is how fragmentation alters funding channels, regulatory pathways, and scaling models.

In a less centralised global system, startup ecosystems become more regionally defined. Southeast Asia’s advantage lies in demand growth, infrastructure needs, and its position between major power blocs. Its vulnerability lies in policy inconsistency and capital dependence.

The long-term trajectory depends less on US disengagement and more on Southeast Asia’s ability to strengthen regulatory coherence, improve project execution, and build institutional credibility. In a geopolitically fragmented climate regime, regions that reduce uncertainty and align capital with infrastructure needs will attract disproportionate innovation activity.

The shift underway is therefore not a transfer of leadership. It is a reordering of how and where clean-tech innovation scales.

—

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 Reconfiguration of SEA cleantech ecosystem appeared first on e27.

The global business landscape is currently undergoing a structural shift so profound it has been dubbed the AI Apocalypse. For decades, the global economy has been optimized for a world where human intelligence was the primary scarce resource. We are now witnessing the “unwind” of that premium. As machine intelligence becomes a competent and rapidly improving substitute for human cognition across a growing range of tasks, the financial systems built upon billable human hours are undergoing a painful, disorderly repricing.

Defining the AI apocalypse

The term “AI Apocalypse” does not refer to a cinematic doomsday scenario of rogue machines. Instead, it describes an economic “left tail risk” where the rapid adoption of autonomous, agentic AI triggers a mass displacement of white-collar work. According to the viral Citrini Research report, “The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis,” we are entering a period where the traditional value of human-led data synthesis, strategic insight, and process management is being eroded by systems that can perform these functions faster and at a fraction of the cost.

The source of market panic

The current anxiety among investors and professionals stems from the realization that AI is moving beyond simple “copilot” assistance to “agentic” autonomy.

• Agentic AI can execute complex workflows without human intervention.
• This shifts the paradigm from technology augmenting humans to technology replacing the need for human intermediaries.
• The fear is not just about job losses, but a deflationary spiral where the collapse of labor costs leads to a contraction in consumer spending and a fundamental devaluation of service-oriented business models.

High-profile casualties: why Accenture and IBM?

Legacy consulting and IT services giants like Accenture and IBM have found themselves in a unique and uncomfortable position. Historically, these firms thrived on “information asymmetry,” they possessed expertise their clients lacked.

1. Model Conflict: Their revenue models are heavily reliant on billable hours. If AI can produce a 5,000-word strategic white paper in minutes, a task that previously took a team of consultants weeks, the core value proposition of the “billable head” collapses.
2. Cannibalization: To remain relevant, these firms are selling the very AI tools that allow clients to bypass human consultants. They are essentially building their own replacements.
3. Exposure: With massive global workforces, Accenture alone employs over 740,000 people, they carry enormous fixed cost bases that become liabilities if utilization rates drop due to AI-driven efficiency.

Also read: Why Singapore manufacturers must embrace MES for the future

Evidence of the “intelligence crisis” in 2026

Recent developments suggest the scenario described by Citrini Research is already in motion. In early 2026, the market response to new enterprise AI tools from providers like Anthropic saw Accenture stock drop significantly, reflecting an “AI scare trade.”

The “re-pricing” is visible in the divergent narratives between corporate messaging and market valuation:

• Falling Bookings: In late 2025 and early 2026, reports emerged of declining quarterly new bookings for major IT services firms. For instance, Accenture noted a slowdown in its U.S. federal business, with internal sources describing a scramble for work-breakdown structure (WBS) coverage as employees fight for billable projects.
• Booking-to-Revenue Lag: While firms report high “Advanced AI bookings,” there is a noticeable lag in converting these into actual revenue. In December 2025, it was noted that while AI bookings nearly doubled, they represented only a small fraction of total revenue, suggesting that “AI pilots” are not yet replacing the massive revenue streams lost from traditional consulting.
• The End of Transparency: In a telling move during the Q1 fiscal 2026 earnings call, Accenture leadership announced they would stop reporting specific metrics for advanced AI revenue and bookings. The company argued AI is now “pervasive,” but critics view this as a way to mask the potential “cannibalization” where AI projects fail to offset the decline in legacy services.

Strategic vision for the Singapore business community

For businesses in Singapore, the AI Apocalypse presents a critical crossroad. The city-state’s high-value, service-led economy is particularly exposed to the “intelligence unwind,” but also uniquely positioned to lead the transition.

• From Intermediary to Architect: Singaporean firms must move away from being “implementers” of technology to becoming architects of AI-integrated ecosystems.
• Outcome-Based Models: Local businesses should accelerate the shift toward “outcome-based” or “fixed-price” pricing. Relying on billable hours in 2026 is a strategy for obsolescence.
• Sovereign AI and Ethics: As global firms struggle with workforce friction and legacy models, Singaporean enterprises can gain a competitive edge by focusing on “Sovereign AI” and robust AI governance, areas where human oversight remains a high-value, non-negotiable premium.

The AI Apocalypse is not the end of business, but the end of business as we knew it. The firms that survive will be those that embrace their own transformation before the market decides they are no longer necessary.

Also read: Top 5 best ERP software for building material business in Singapore | 2026 guide

Why we write this article

PRbyAI aims to share updated market news using our team’s tech knowledge, helping B2B customers make informed decisions.

About PRbyAI

PRbyAI is a tech-driven Martech startup leveraging cutting-edge AISEO to help customers generate leads and tap into new markets.

—

Want updates like this delivered directly? Join our WhatsApp channel and stay in the loop.

This article was shared with us by PRbyAI

We can share your story at e27 too! Engage the Southeast Asian tech ecosystem by bringing your story to the world. You can reach out to us here to get started.

Featured Image Credit: Canva Images

The post The intelligence unwind: Navigating the AI apocalypse and the consulting crossroad appeared first on e27.

Conversations about equity in the digital economy often begin with representation. We measure the number of women who are founders, the number who work in engineering roles, and the number who hold leadership positions.

These numbers matter. But in practice, the inequalities many founders encounter begin much earlier, often before funding or hiring even enters the picture.

They begin with access to ecosystems.

Before a startup raises capital or gains media attention, there is a quieter question that shapes opportunity: who already understands how the ecosystem works.

The invisible infrastructure of opportunity

Technology ecosystems are built on networks.

Investors frequently meet founders through referrals. Speaking invitations often come through professional networks. Media coverage can begin with relationships that provide context and credibility.

For founders already embedded in these circles, the process can feel natural. For others, especially those entering the startup world for the first time, the pathways are far less obvious.

When I first started building companies, many aspects of the startup ecosystem were unfamiliar to me. Concepts like investor networks, founder communities, and speaking platforms were things I discovered over time rather than systems I was immediately part of.

This experience is not uncommon. Many founders know how to build products or market services, but the broader ecosystem around startups — capital networks, media exposure, and industry platforms — is something they encounter only after they begin building their companies.

Without that awareness, it is difficult even to know where opportunity exists.

Ecosystems compound opportunity

Being part of a network does not guarantee success. However, it can significantly increase the number of opportunities a founder encounters.

Visibility often creates a chain reaction.

A founder who gains exposure may receive speaking invitations. Speaking opportunities can build credibility. Credibility often leads to introductions. Introductions may eventually lead to partnerships or funding conversations.

Each step increases the likelihood of the next.

For founders who begin outside these networks, the challenge is different. They are not only building a company; they are also learning how the ecosystem itself operates.

That learning curve can be steep, particularly in industries where relationships and reputation play a significant role in opening doors.

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

Partnerships and hiring reflect similar dynamics

The same pattern appears in partnerships and hiring.

Startups frequently seek partnerships that allow them to expand their reach or credibility. Larger organisations often prefer partnering with companies that already demonstrate traction or visibility.

This creates a natural filtering effect. Companies with existing exposure tend to attract more partnership opportunities.

Hiring decisions can follow a similar logic. Many professionals prefer the stability of established companies with clearer career pathways. Startups, by contrast, rely on individuals who are comfortable with uncertainty and risk.

Neither of these patterns is inherently unfair. They are rational decisions from the perspective of individuals and organisations.

However, when combined, they can reinforce ecosystems in which opportunity tends to circulate among those already connected.

The role of AI in expanding reach

Artificial intelligence is often discussed as a tool that could level the playing field for founders. In practice, its impact is more nuanced.

AI primarily amplifies capability.

For founders who already understand how to conduct outreach, build networks, or create content, AI can significantly increase scale. Tasks that previously required teams can now be automated or accelerated.

Outreach campaigns, research, content creation, and operational workflows can be executed far more efficiently.

However, AI does not automatically replace strategic understanding. If someone does not yet know how to approach investors, position themselves publicly, or build professional networks, AI cannot fully bridge that gap.

In many ways, AI functions similarly to a team. It can execute instructions and scale processes, but the direction still comes from the founder.

For those who understand how ecosystems operate, AI can expand its reach. For those still learning, the underlying challenge remains the same: understanding how to navigate the system.

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

Equity is also about ecosystem transparency

Discussions about equity in tech frequently focus solely on representation. Representation is important, but a wider set of factors influences ecosystems.

Geography, cultural context, and professional exposure all shape how easily someone navigates the startup environment.

In regions with mature startup ecosystems, founders may encounter investors, accelerators, and industry platforms early in their journey. In other regions, these pathways may be less visible or accessible.

Equity, therefore, is not only about who participates in the digital economy. It is also about how transparent and accessible the ecosystem itself is to newcomers.

Lowering the barriers to entry

One of the most meaningful ways to build a more equitable tech ecosystem is by making these pathways clearer.

This can include initiatives such as:

• Sharing knowledge about how investor networks operate
• Creating platforms where emerging founders can gain visibility
• Expanding mentorship and peer networks for early-stage founders
• Making ecosystem knowledge easier to access for those entering the industry

These changes do not eliminate competition or guarantee outcomes. Instead, they reduce the gap between founders who grow up inside startup ecosystems and those who enter them later.

Opportunity should not depend solely on proximity to the right circles.

Building more inclusive digital economies

The digital economy continues to evolve rapidly. Tools such as AI are lowering operational barriers and enabling smaller teams to build and scale companies more efficiently than before.

Yet the flow of opportunity within technology ecosystems is still heavily influenced by networks and access.

As ecosystems expand, the challenge is not only to increase participation but also to make the knowledge, relationships, and pathways that shape opportunity more visible.

When founders understand how these systems work, they can participate more fully and contribute back to the communities that support them.

Stronger ecosystems are not built only through innovation. They are built by ensuring that more people understand how to enter and navigate the opportunities they create.

—

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 Why access to ecosystems is tech’s true equality problem appeared first on e27.