In enterprise cybersecurity, the most dangerous moment rarely looks dramatic. It looks routine: a “normal” login at an unusual hour, a legitimate tool used in an unusual sequence, a small configuration drift that quietly widens access, a patch delayed because production can’t pause. Instead of announcing themselves out loud, breaches often blend in.

That reality is precisely why AI-powered cybersecurity solutions are becoming central to next-generation enterprise resilience, & are helping security teams respond with greater precision, recognise suspicious patterns faster, and reduce risk across sprawling cloud and hybrid environments.   

Today, organisations are facing an uneven battlefield where attackers automate reconnaissance & exploitation at scale, while defenders contend with alert overload, fragmented toolsets, and an expanding attack surface across endpoints, identities, applications, APIs, & third-party connections.

Traditional controls remain essential, but speed and correlation now determine outcomes. Modern enterprise cybersecurity programs increasingly rely on AI to connect signals across logs, network traffic, identity events, endpoint telemetry, & application behaviour to turn raw data into prioritised actions.   

“Enterprises aren’t short on security data; they’re short on time. The goal of AI in security isn’t to replace proven controls. It’s to make them smarter and faster so that teams can focus on what matters, reduce noise, and strengthen response readiness across the organisation.”

Why AI is shaping cybersecurity for enterprises 

As digital operations scale, security complexity grows nonlinearly. Multi-cloud adoption, SaaS sprawl, remote work, and increasingly modular application architectures create more identities, more configurations, and more potential missteps. For many businesses, the challenge isn’t visibility but interpretation and speed. AI helps address that gap through: 

• Smarter detection: identifying anomalous behaviour that traditional rule-based alerts miss 
• Contextual correlation: linking scattered signals across systems into a single incident narrative 
• Prioritised triage: ranking threats by potential impact and likelihood 
• Faster response: triggering automated workflows for containment, remediation, and escalation 
• Continuous learning: adapting to evolving attack patterns and shifting baselines 

These capabilities are increasingly critical for cybersecurity for enterprises, where the cost of false positives is high , and the cost of missed signals is higher. 

Also Read: From grid to code: Why good cybersecurity will help deliver net zero

What next-gen enterprise security solutions look like 

Modern AI-led security programs typically bring together multiple layers of protection & orchestration: 

• Threat detection across the attack surface 

AI-Powered cybersecurity solutions strengthen detection across identities, endpoints, cloud infrastructure, networks, & application layers. They can surface subtle threats such as lateral movement, suspicious privilege escalation patterns, and anomalous data access behaviour in environments where attackers aim to “live off the land.” 

• Automated incident response and containment 

Enterprise resilience depends on reducing response time. AI-assisted playbooks can support actions such as isolating endpoints, rotating credentials, blocking risky sessions, and enforcing policy controls while keeping humans in the loop for high-impact decisions. 

• Security posture management for cloud and hybrid 

Misconfigurations remain a leading cause of exposure. AI can help prioritise misconfiguration risk based on context, enabling smarter remediation sequencing within broader enterprise security solutions. 

• Governance, auditability, and compliance readiness 

For regulated industries, security is inseparable from evidence. AI-enabled workflows can support audit trails, policy verification, and continuous monitoring, helping security programs demonstrate control maturity without slowing operational teams. 

—

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

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

The post AI-powered cybersecurity solutions driving next-gen enterprise resilience appeared first on e27.

The Southeast Asian region has developed one of the most vibrant digital payment systems in the world. Real-time payments have become a daily routine in most markets due to mobile-first adoption, high wallet penetration, and fast innovation. However, payments continue to be made in a fragmented system throughout the region, with wallets, QR standards, regulators, and closed systems. And this fragmentation may be a logical consequence of developing financial infrastructure in different markets, policy regimes and financial maturity levels.

The real-time payments process in India started at a highly different point. It did not start with any tremendous amount of digital abundance, but was influenced by institutional constraints: unequal connectivity, distrust in formal finance, and the necessity to serve users at a population scale in the first place. Real-time payments were meant to be public infrastructure, and not a premium layer, starting to be reliable across banks, geographies, and use cases on day one.

With Southeast Asia on the path of increasing interoperability and cross-border real-time payment, the experience of India can be learned not only in the field of technical architecture. The principle of scale fundamentally alters the nature of risk, governance and
trust. Failure becomes systemic and not single. Conflicts, cheating and turnover have to be resolved in the present rather than in the past. The challenges can be seen only after the real-time payments have become a daily infrastructure.

The two territories started at disparate limitations, though they are drawing near to similar questions. It is more important to know what to embrace, as well as what not to copy.

Dissimilar origins, common goals

The real-time payments environment of Southeast Asia has been developing in a diverse environment. The presence of several sovereign markets, different regulators and different degrees of banking maturity has stimulated wallet-based innovation and blistering experimentation. In this regard, fragmentation has been a virtue, not a vice — enabling local ecosystems to optimise speed, incentives and user experience.

India, in its turn, treated real-time payments as one population-level infrastructure problem when it launched the real-time payment mechanism, Unified Payments Interface (UPI). Having little space to run parallel systems, and a lack of standardisation, interoperability was a governance option and not a market event. It was not so much about competition among networks but rather ensuring that any participant who met the requirements could access any user.

Also Read: Digital payments: Adapting to a changing world

Take the case of a local neighbourhood store that takes in QR payments. That QR can take a path through a particular wallet or closed-loop system (often tied to platforms such as GrabPay, ShopeePay, or similar super-app environments) and is optimised to be faster, more loyal and user experience in that ecosystem, which is the case in much of Southeast Asia.

If you look at the Indian situation, the QR has been tested to work across banks and apps, irrespective of the origin of the customer. Both are solutions to inclusion, albeit in different aspects, one adopting competition as the means of quick adoption, the other imposing interoperability to make it universally applicable to begin with.

Scale deranges everything, and what fractures

Once the real-time payments leave the niche use and scale to the population, the weakest assumptions of the system become apparent soon. The operation of processes which worked satisfactorily at smaller volumes starts to fail with velocity, resulting in delayed reconciliations, manual inspection, or post-factum dispute processing. The scale level transforms error cases into edge cases, but they are actual recurring experiences of regular users.

Take an example of a failed transaction at peak time. A payment is recorded in real-time, but credit confirmation is delayed or not done. In low-volume systems, these cases can be fixed by batch reconciliation or customer support processes in days. When scaled, that latency is a trust problem in minutes. Users demand immediate transparency: the payment is made or not. Confidence is lost much quicker than failure.

Scale also reshapes fraud. With rising volumes of transactions, trends change to organised, high-velocity exploitation. Limits, blacklists or rule-based flags are examples of static controls that can not keep up with the transaction settlement of transactions that settle immediately. Risk, refunds and remediation should thus work as fast as the payments themselves. These dynamics are already visible in markets across Southeast Asia and in India, as real-time payments become default rather than optional.

Speed without trust is incomplete infra

Since real-time payments are no longer an exception but a default, speed is no longer a differentiator. More important is how the systems respond to situations of uncertainty, failed transactions, delays in credits, debits in question, or even suspected fraud.

Under these circumstances, user trust is not determined by whether a system is perfect or not, but by whether results are transparent, prompt and responsible. In the UPI platform in India, where there are more than 700 million transactions daily, only 0.7 per cent get declined for all these reasons these days, which used to be more than 10 per cent in 2016, in their early days, which is an indicator of the maturity of digital infra over time.

Also Read: Optimising cross-border payments for seamless APAC expansion

Dispute resolution in high-velocity settings can not be managed as a back-office activity any more. In the case of instantaneous money transfer, resolution times have to shrink. Ambiguity, even for a few hours, can destroy trust more quickly than an outright failure, especially to users who depend on digital payments as part of their everyday business.

Being able to see the status of transactions, the ability to reverse them predictably, and the ability to point to a clearly defined responsibility among the participants are as important as throughput and uptime. In their absence, quick payments will pose a danger of increasing frustration instead of convenience. Infrastructure, which is not able to resolve failures in real-time, is not complete.

What SEA can learn to borrow, but not copy

The experience of real-time payments in India does not provide a template to be emulated, but it does uncover principles to travel across markets. The most prominent of them is the fact that the moment the payments turn into important public infrastructure, the governance decisions become as significant as innovation. Interoperability, dispute resolution and accountability are not optimisations that can be added in later stages; they determine user trust initially.

In the case of Southeast Asia, it is not the gains of experimentation through the market that should be reversed, but rather to understand when coordination should be prioritised over differentiation. With increased volume and complexity of use, the same fragmentation that had facilitated speed can start to limit reliability. To design to scale, we need to have clarity of responsibility, predictable redress, and system-wide awareness of failure even in multi-market environments.

—

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

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

The post Fragmentation to scale: What the payment journey of India portends to Southeast Asia appeared first on e27.

DevOps gave us speed without chaos. SecOps gave us visibility and response. MLOps gave us repeatability for models. We’ve learned to operationalise entire disciplines once they become core to how products scale.

Yet one of the most damaging categories of risk on modern platforms still has no consistent operating model: abuse.

Not “cyberattacks” in the traditional sense. Abuse is what happens when systems are used exactly as designed, just not by the kind of actors the designer imagined. Its referral loops turned into cash machines, reputation systems turned into influence markets, recommender algorithms turned into distribution hacks, and onboarding flows turned into factories for fake identity.

We have names for almost every operational maturity curve. But we still don’t have a widely formalised equivalent for adversarial misuse. If we did, we might call it AbuseOps. Or more precisely: abuse engineering.

Why abuse doesn’t fit traditional cybersecurity

Cybersecurity has historically focused on preventing unauthorised access and protecting confidentiality, integrity, and availability. That worldview assumes clear lines: an attacker is “outside” trying to get “in.”

Abuse blurs those lines. Often the actor is technically a user. Often the activity is technically permitted. And the “exploit” isn’t a software vulnerability, it’s a business rule, incentive, or algorithm that can be manipulated at scale.

That’s why many organisations struggle to place abuse. Customer support sees it as an operational nuisance. The product team sees it as edge cases. Security sees it as adjacent but not quite security. Fraud teams handle parts of it, but usually in narrow domains like payments or chargebacks.

Meanwhile, adversaries treat abuse like a profession.

Abuse is an economic game, not just a technical one

The most important shift is this: abuse is driven by ROI.

Attackers don’t just break systems. They farm them. They test small variations, share playbooks, outsource pieces of the workflow, and iterate until they find a repeatable profit engine. Entire ecosystems now exist to supply the building blocks: account creation, SIM farms, bot tooling, CAPTCHA solving, reputation boosting, mule networks, document forgeries, and even deepfake services. What used to require expertise is now packaged like infrastructure.

Also Read: The banking revolution: Balancing convenience and security in the digital era

This is not a “patch it and move on” environment. It’s an adversarial market.

And that is why abuse is best understood as adversarial economics: actors respond to incentives, constraints, and friction the way businesses respond to price signals.

Where abuse shows up first

If you run a platform with distribution, reputation, or rewards, abuse will show up, usually long before a breach does.

It appears in incentive systems: referrals, credits, cashbacks, promotions, loyalty points, and free trials. These mechanisms are designed to accelerate growth, but they can also manufacture value out of thin air when adversaries loop them.

It appears in algorithms: search ranking, recommendations, review systems, “verified” badges, trust scores, and content feeds. The goal isn’t access; it’s advantage. Distribution is currency.

And it appears at the system level: the quiet assumptions embedded into onboarding, rate limits, verification, payout rules, and enforcement logic. Attackers aren’t only probing your code. They’re probing what your product believes about users.

The real problem: Abuse is everyone’s responsibility, so it becomes no one’s

Many companies only take abuse seriously after it distorts metrics or triggers a visible incident. Until then, it gets handled through scattered mitigations: a rule here, a manual review there, an emergency blocklist, a “temporary” policy exception that becomes permanent.

This creates the same pattern: whack-a-mole responses, inconsistent decisions across teams, and rising operational load. Detection grows noisier, enforcement becomes more brittle, and the user experience suffers because friction is added broadly instead of precisely.

AbuseOps isn’t about creating a new label. It’s about admitting that abuse has a lifecycle and needs ownership, tooling, measurement, and governance just like delivery, incident response, or ML deployment.

What abuse engineering actually does

Abuse engineering starts by treating misuse as a design input, not an afterthought.

It asks a different kind of threat-model question: not “how do we prevent intrusion?” but “how do we prevent profitable exploitation?” That changes the work from chasing individual bad actors to redesigning the conditions that make abuse viable.

It then builds the foundation most abuse programs lack: observability. You can’t control what you can’t see. Abuse detection depends on understanding entities and relationships across accounts, devices, payment instruments, content, networks, and behaviour over time. Without that, enforcement becomes guesswork, and guesswork creates either high false positives or low deterrence.

Also Read: From back office to frontline: How fraud teams became revenue drivers

Finally, abuse engineering becomes the discipline of targeted friction by adding resistance where risk concentrates, not where everyone pays the cost. The objective isn’t to make the platform “more secure” in the abstract. It’s to make abuse expensive, unreliable, and difficult to scale while keeping legitimate users moving smoothly.

The north star: Make abuse unprofitable

A useful mental model is simple: adversaries optimise for ROI, so defence should attack ROI.

That usually means doing some combination of:

• Raising the cost of exploitation (verification, throttling, adaptive challenges)
• Lowering the payoff (caps, delayed payouts, clawbacks, reputation decay)
• Increasing uncertainty (controls that adapt, not static rules)
• Increasing consequence (consistent enforcement that’s hard to evade)

Most teams default to blocking. Abuse engineering focuses on economics: cost, payoff, and repeatability.

Why product leaders should treat this as a core strategy

Abuse isn’t only a security problem. It’s a product integrity problem.

Unchecked abuse degrades trust, pollutes datasets, distorts growth metrics, and creates a hidden tax in operational workload. In some businesses, it becomes existential because once users stop trusting the platform, your strongest moat turns into your biggest liability.

That’s why AbuseOps belongs upstream, close to product and engineering, not as a downstream cleanup crew.

A realistic starting point

The first step is not building a massive team. It’s choosing ownership and defining the system.

Create a shared abuse taxonomy that your org can use consistently. Agree on metrics beyond “how many did we block,” including loss, user friction, false positives, and time-to-mitigate. Introduce an abuse review loop for new features with incentives or distribution effects. And invest early in identity, telemetry, and entity resolution because every mature abuse program eventually realises those are the real primitives.

The shift

We’ve matured in how we build, ship, and operate software. But modern platforms aren’t only attacked, they’re manipulated.

That manipulation is not traditional cybersecurity. It is adversarial economics implemented through product mechanics.

If DevOps made delivery a discipline, and SecOps made defence operational, then the next discipline to formalise is abuse engineering because, at scale, the most damaging threats often come from people playing your system better than you expected.

—

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

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

The post Abuse engineering: The discipline security teams still don’t formalise appeared first on e27.

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

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

Cybersecurity: From “annoying IT thing” to trust superhero  

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

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

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

APAC: So much growth, so many ways to panic  

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

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

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

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

Trust is a feeling, not a patch level  

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

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

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

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

Behavioural nudges: Jedi mind tricks for good  

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

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

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

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

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

The awkward dance between humans and machines  

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why most AI automation never makes it to production

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

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

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

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

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

What makes this model different

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

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

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

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

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

Why builders should care about solving real SME problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What this means for the future of SME automation

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

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

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

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

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

The builders we need

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

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

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

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

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

Register now and prove you’re one of them.

About the AI Workflow Competition

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is where cybersecurity and communications meet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

When trust meets technology

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

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

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

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

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

Digital access to safety tools

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

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

Grassroots trust networks

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons for the future

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global playbook: investment, partnerships, and security

Most national strategies combine three pillars:

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

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

Asia beyond the big three: a growing quantum interest

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

Southeast Asia’s emerging quantum landscape

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

Singapore: Acting as the regional hub

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

Malaysia and Thailand: building on electronics and manufacturing

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

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

Indonesia and Vietnam: scale, talent, and localised applications

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

The Philippines: research-to-industry pathways

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

ASEAN-level opportunities and challenges

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

Sectors to watch in Southeast Asia

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

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

Strategic autonomy, partnerships, and geopolitics

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

Policy recommendations for Southeast Asia

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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