View Details

On the twenty seventh of July, in a bank tower in Petaling Jaya, the Malaysian government announced more than five billion ringgit of financing for Malaysian startups.

It has been a week. I still cannot tell you who is giving it.

Not because it is a secret. Because nobody published the list. The minister said fifteen organisations. The fullest account any newspaper ran named twelve, and it introduced them with the word “among”. So somewhere out there are three institutions holding a share of five billion ringgit for Malaysian founders, and not one outlet in the country can tell you their names.

Now, I am not going to spend this piece telling you Malaysia has no money. That is the lazy version and it is not true.

Malaysia has enormous amounts of money. Thirty billion ringgit sits in committed venture and private equity funds, according to the Securities Commission. A hundred and sixty billion ringgit of data centres is going up in Johor. And two weeks before that press conference, Malaysian retail investors queued up with one point four billion ringgit in cash to buy shares in one small AI company on the ACE Market.

One point four billion. For a company raising about twenty million.

So the money is here. The appetite for risk is here. Malaysians will absolutely gamble. What almost nobody in this country will do is write a two million ringgit cheque into a company with no revenue and then wait eight years to find out if they were wrong.

That is not a funding gap. That is a temperament gap. And you cannot fix a temperament gap with a press release.

One. Fifteen organisations, twelve names

Start with what was actually announced, because the detail is better than the headline.

The event was called TechnoMART Malaysia: High Tech Financing 2026. It was run by MOSTI, the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, and launched by the minister, Datuk Chang Lih Kang, on the twenty seventh of July at Menara MBSB Bank in Petaling Jaya.

His words, and I want to be fair and quote him properly: “We have connected fifteen organisations, including funding agencies and financial institutions. Together, they provide funding worth about five billion ringgit to support our startups and innovators.”

Four things about that sentence.

First, the verb. He said connected. Not allocated. Not committed. Not budgeted. Connected. And he was straight about it when a reporter pushed him, because a reporter did ask whether the five billion was for this year alone. His answer was that it is an aggregated funding pool from the participating organisations, covering about a year and a half.

Aggregated is doing a lot of work there. It means nobody created a fund. Fifteen institutions added up the financing capacity they already had on their books, over eighteen months, and someone put the total on a banner. Not one ringgit changed hands on the twenty seventh of July.

Second, and to his credit, the minister said the quiet part himself. He said the financing is not distributed automatically, and that it is subject to each institution’s own eligibility requirements. That is an honest caveat and he did not have to offer it. Credit where it is due.

But sit with what it means. There is no single door. There are fifteen doors, and behind each one is a different credit committee with a different form, a different collateral test, and a different definition of the word startup.

Third, TechnoMART is not new. It has been running since 2018 and has delivered more than thirty programmes. It is a matchmaking platform. It puts technology companies in a room with financiers. That is a genuinely useful thing to do, and I want to say so plainly, because the commercialisation gap in Malaysia is real. The minister called it the valley of death, and he is right that it exists.

It is just not a new pot of money. It got reported like one.

Fourth, the list. This is where it stops being funny.

New Straits Times named three participants: MRANTI, MBSB Bank and EXIM Bank. Business Today added MIDF. Malaysia Tribune ran the longest list and named twelve: Cradle, SME Bank, Malaysia Debt Ventures, Permodalan Negeri Selangor, MRANTI, Bioeconomy Corporation, ADFIM, EXIM Bank, MTDC, Venture Tech, Kumpulan Modal Perdana and PMB Tijari.

Put every outlet together and you get fourteen distinct names, and not one of those reports claims to be the complete list.

Look at what is on it. SME Bank. EXIM Bank. Malaysia Debt Ventures. MBSB. MIDF. Those are lenders. Development banks. Institutions whose entire discipline is getting the principal back.

There is real equity in there too, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. Cradle, MTDC, Venture Tech and Kumpulan Modal Perdana are equity vehicles. The minister himself listed the instruments: grants, equity, debt, guarantees, blended finance and working capital. Equity is in the mix.

What nobody has published is how much of the five billion is equity. There is no split. Not by instrument, not by institution, not by stage. You are told the total and asked to be impressed.

And one of the fifteen is ADFIM, the Association of Development Finance Institutions of Malaysia. It is a trade body. It represents lenders. It does not lend.

So we are already at fourteen funders and a members’ club.

Two. The bank in the lobby

Here is the part that actually changed how I read this story.

Five days later, the same New Straits Times reporter filed a second piece on a different subject. MBSB Bank, the bank that hosted the event in its own tower, announced it is committing four billion ringgit to what it calls high growth, high value industries. One billion each for rail, aerospace, automotive and renewable energy.

And the chairman gave that quote, in the paper’s own words, “on the sidelines of the TechnoMART Malaysia: High Tech Financing 2026 event”.

Same room. Same day.

I want to be careful here, because this matters and I am not going to overstate it. Neither article says MBSB’s four billion is part of MOSTI’s five billion. No source links them. I chased this and could not close it, because MOSTI never published a breakdown.

So there are two possibilities, and you can pick either one.

Possibility one. The four billion is inside the five billion. In which case eighty percent of Malaysia’s headline startup financing pool is one bank’s sector lending strategy, and the startups in question are rail suppliers and solar farms.

Possibility two. It is separate. In which case MOSTI’s five billion is spread even thinner across the other fourteen institutions than it already looked.

There is no third possibility where this number means what the headline said it meant.

And one more detail, because it is the most telling sentence in the whole story. MBSB described this push as diversifying beyond its traditional strength in property financing.

A property lender is moving into industrial lending. That is a perfectly sensible corporate strategy and I have no quarrel with it. It is just not startup capital, and it got filed under startup capital.

Three. Thirty billion committed, 2.8 billion out the door

So much for the announcement. Now ask what happened last year, with the money that already exists.

The Securities Commission published its capital market masterplan in March. In it is a number that should be the headline of every Malaysian startup story for the next twelve months, and I have seen almost nobody use it.

At the end of 2025, Malaysian venture capital and private equity together held thirty point one billion ringgit in committed funds.

In that same year, venture and private equity together deployed two point eight billion ringgit, across a hundred and seventeen deals.

Thirty billion committed. Two point eight billion out the door. That is under ten percent.

And be careful with that two point eight, because I am going to be careful with it. That is venture and private equity combined. The venture slice on its own is smaller. Of the thirty billion committed, only about six billion is venture at all. The other twenty four is private equity, which buys profitable companies. Different animal, different risk, different sport.

So when a minister stands up and says Malaysia needs more financing for startups, the honest response is: does it? There is thirty billion ringgit sitting in committed funds in this country and it moved two point eight billion in a year. Adding a fifteen door lending pool to that does not solve the problem. It is the wrong end of the pipe.

If you want the sharpest version of this, look at Jelawang Capital.

Jelawang is Khazanah’s national fund of funds. It was set up specifically to fix this. One billion ringgit, mandated to back Malaysian venture managers so they can back Malaysian founders. Exactly the right instrument. Genuinely the right idea. I have no criticism of the design.

In February, Khazanah reported the results for the year to the end of December. Its first five fund managers had backed more than ten startups, and crowded in about thirty million ringgit.

Thirty million. Ten companies. From a one billion ringgit national fund of funds.

Fund of funds are slow by design. First five managers, early days, capital calls take years. That is all true and I will defend it. But hold that thirty million next to a five billion ringgit banner and tell me which number describes Malaysia today.

Four. Fifty billion of debt, under a billion of equity

You can see the same shape in the budget.

Budget 2026 raised the combined equity allocation across KWAP’s Dana Perintis and Khazanah’s Jelawang to seven hundred and fifty million ringgit. Cradle got fifty five million for equity programmes. The co-investment fund got two hundred million.

In that same budget: over fifty billion ringgit in loans and guarantees for entrepreneurs.

Fifty billion of debt. Under a billion of equity. That is the Malaysian capital stack in two numbers.

And I understand why. Debt is politically easy. A guarantee costs nothing until it is called. A loan comes back, in theory, and the minister who announced it is retired by the time it does not. Equity means a civil servant has to sign off on losing public money on purpose, seven times out of ten, and then explain that to the Public Accounts Committee.

Nobody in Putrajaya is getting promoted for a portfolio that is down seventy percent on the way to one winner. So nobody builds one.

That is not corruption. It is not even incompetence. It is an incentive structure working exactly as designed, and producing precisely the wrong thing.

Five. Three hundred and twelve times oversubscribed

Here is where I changed my own mind, and I want to walk you through it, because I came into this story ready to write the usual piece about Malaysians being risk averse.

That piece is wrong.

On the ninth of July, a company called SRKK AI listed on the ACE Market. Small company. Microsoft partner, digital transformation work, AI services. The kind of business that would struggle to raise a Series A from a regional venture fund.

The retail tranche of that IPO was oversubscribed three hundred and twelve point three times. Twenty nine thousand four hundred and twenty eight applications. One point four billion ringgit of retail money, chasing fourteen point two million shares.

It nearly doubled on its first day.

Read those numbers again, because they demolish the risk aversion story. Nearly thirty thousand ordinary Malaysians put one point four billion ringgit in a queue to buy a slice of an unproven AI company. Not a bank. Not a plantation. An AI company.

And it was not a one-off. Bursa had thirty three new listings by the middle of June, twenty two of them on the ACE Market. Pentech raised thirty four million. Sum Technology, thirty three. MM Computer, twenty six. In July alone, Stratus Global raised two hundred and eighty five million ringgit at a valuation near a billion.

Compare that to the venture side. Through April, Malaysian startups had raised about ninety four million US dollars across eleven equity rounds. Call it four hundred million ringgit, for the whole country, for the year to that point.

Malaysian retail investors put three and a half times that into the queue for one small-cap listing. In a fortnight.

So no, Malaysia does not lack risk appetite. Malaysia has ferocious risk appetite. It is just extremely specific about the terms. It wants a ticker. It wants a prospectus. It wants a regulated exchange, a listed price, and the ability to be out by Thursday.

What it will not do is lock money up for eight years in something illiquid, unpriced and probably worthless.

And honestly, that is a rational preference. If I could get exposure to a Malaysian AI company with daily liquidity and a regulator standing behind the disclosure, or the same exposure through a ten year fund with no distributions and a manager I have never met, I know which one my auntie is picking.

The same pattern shows up at the other end of the scale. Malaysia’s data centre market in Johor is now worth about a hundred and sixty billion ringgit. It has the largest incoming pipeline in the Asia Pacific, over eight and a half thousand megawatts. Colocation vacancy is zero point seven percent. In the first half of this year, a single Australian operator committed twelve point seven billion ringgit for two facilities.

Twelve point seven billion. From one company. For two buildings. That is more than double what fifteen institutions took a press conference to announce for every startup in the country over eighteen months.

When Malaysia is asked to fund a building, it finds a hundred and sixty billion. When it is asked to fund a listed share, it finds one point four billion in a fortnight for one company. When it is asked to fund a founder, it holds an event.

The constraint was never capital. It was never appetite. It is that this country has not built the one thing that converts appetite into a term sheet, which is a class of people whose actual job is to be early, be wrong most of the time, and get paid for the few times they are not.

Six. The leak, and the scoreboard

Three more things before I land this.

First, the leak. On the sixteenth of July, a study by Oxford Economics modelled what Malaysia’s digital regulation is doing to private investment. Under the restrictive path, it projects venture investment falling twenty six percent by 2035. That is roughly seven hundred and ninety two million ringgit a year, and about twenty two thousand fewer startup jobs.

The survey underneath it is worse than the model. Eighty one percent of startups report higher compliance costs. Thirty nine percent now spend more than fifteen percent of their operating costs on compliance. And sixty seven percent say money has come out of research and development to pay for it.

The rules in question are the amended data protection act, the Cyber Security Act, the Online Safety Act code that came into force on the first of June, and the AI Governance Bill that went to Cabinet in June.

Now the honest caveat, and I am giving it to you because I could not resolve it. I could not establish who commissioned that study. It has the shape of industry-funded research, and industry-funded research about the cost of regulating industry deserves a raised eyebrow. So weigh it accordingly. I am not asking you to take the number as gospel.

But even discounted heavily, the direction is the point. One ministry called a press conference to announce five billion ringgit over eighteen months. Another ministry is writing rules that could quietly remove seven hundred and ninety two million a year. One of those requires a stage and a photographer. The other happens in a gazette on a Tuesday.

Second, the scoreboard. In April 2024, Malaysia held the inaugural KL20 Summit. Twelve international venture firms, Sequoia and Accel among them, pledged to set up funds and offices in Kuala Lumpur. Three sovereign and semiconductor funds pledged three billion ringgit. It was a genuinely impressive day.

Two years on, the published scoreboard is five thousand and five startups registered on the MYStartup platform, and more than twenty four thousand people benefiting from KL20 programmes.

Those are attendance figures. Registration is not capital. A beneficiary is not a company.

The next summit was announced for June this year, with, in the government’s own framing, the greatest emphasis on venture capital. I went looking for a recap of what came out of it. I could not find one.

I want to be careful, because I cannot find it does not mean it did not happen, and I am not going to claim otherwise. But set against the volume of promises made in 2024, the silence is doing some work.

Seven. Where I actually land

Third, and this is the one that should sting. Look at who actually wrote the equity cheques into Malaysian companies this year.

Respond.io, out of Kuala Lumpur, raised sixty two and a half million US dollars in June. Thirty five million in annual recurring revenue, growing a hundred and sixty nine percent, at a thirty percent margin. A genuinely excellent Malaysian company. Led by Camber Partners. American.

PolicyStreet raised twenty one million in a Series C first close. Led by Cool Japan Fund. Japanese.

Decube raised three million. Anchored by Taiwania. Taiwanese.

American, Japanese, Taiwanese.

The good news is real, and I will take it. Malaysian companies are now good enough that foreign funds fly in for them. Respond.io at thirty five million in recurring revenue and profitable is a serious business by any standard on earth. And the larger a round gets, the more global its investor base becomes by nature. That is not a scandal.

The uncomfortable news is that when the upside on these companies gets distributed, it does not get distributed here. The domestic money stayed in the debt column, where it is safe, where nobody gets blamed, and where nobody gets rich.

So here is where I have ended up.

Malaysia announced five billion ringgit for startups, from a list of fifteen institutions it never fully published, in a tower belonging to a property lender that is moving into rail and solar, in the same week that thirty thousand of its own citizens queued up with one point four billion ringgit to buy a small AI company on the open market.

The money is here. The appetite is here. The talent is here, and the minister was right about that part.

What is missing is the person willing to be early and wrong in public. You do not get that person by announcing a number. You get them by building a place where losing money on purpose, most of the time, is a respectable job.

If you are a Malaysian founder who has actually been through one of these fifteen doors, I want to hear how it went. And if you know which three institutions never got named, my inbox is open.

Until then, Malaysia will keep holding events about the valley of death.

And the Americans, the Japanese and the Taiwanese will keep flying in to buy the survivors.

This piece accompanies this week’s episode of SEA of Startups. Real. Raw. Relatable. Listen on Spotify (

or YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/@SEAofStartups), and subscribe to the newsletter at seaofstartups.substack.com.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

For a decade, Indonesia was not a story about Southeast Asia. It was the story. Two hundred and eighty million people, most of them young, most of them coming online for the first time with a phone in their hand. Gojek, Tokopedia, a parade of unicorns. Every global fund with a Southeast Asia slide put Jakarta in the middle of it, and everybody wanted in.

In 2021, at the peak, Indonesian startups raised about $6.9 billion. Not the region. Indonesia by itself.

Last year, the whole country raised $355.7 million across 91 deals.

That is roughly five cents on the dollar. Indonesia, the giant, the centre of the entire regional pitch, now raises less venture money in a year than Vietnam does, and less in a year than Singapore raises in a month.

The music stopped and the bubble burst. That part is not the interesting part. Bubbles burst everywhere. What is interesting is what comes next, and in Indonesia three things arrived at once. The courts came for the founders. The regulator came for the funds. And the smart money quietly started packing its bags.

That is the reckoning. Let us walk through it.

One. How the balloon got that big

Before we bury this thing, we have to be honest about how it got so big in the first place, because a bubble this size is never one person’s fault. It is a whole system agreeing not to look too closely.

I am going to be honest about my own side of the table, because that is the only way this ends up being fair.

You back a startup. Six months later, twelve months later, eighteen months later, another fund puts money in, hopefully at a higher price. And just like that, on your books, your stake is worth more. You have made money on paper. You did not sell anything. You did not return a cent to anyone. But the number on your page went up.

That paper number is the single most valuable thing you own, because it is what you carry into the room when you go and raise your next fund. A bigger fund. And a bigger fund pays you a bigger management fee, in cash, this year, whether or not a single rupiah ever comes back to an investor.

So let me say the quiet part plainly. These funds spent years marking their own books up to prices that only ever lived on paper, because that paper is what raises a bigger fund and pays a bigger fee. Every asset class on earth plays some version of this game. Private equity plays it. Hedge funds play it. Real estate plays it. Indonesian venture’s bad luck was that here the bubble actually burst, so everyone found out at once.

And when everyone marks everything up, nobody wants to be the person who checks. When eFishery was carried on everyone’s books at unicorn prices, every investor holding it got to wave that markup around and raise more. The number made everyone richer on paper. So who exactly was going to drive out to the fish farms and count the feeders? Nobody did.

That is how a balloon gets this big. Real founders, real ambition, a genuinely enormous market: all of that was true. But wrapped around it was a thick layer of paper valuation that everyone had a reason to believe and nobody had a reason to test.

Then the cheap money went away. Global rates went up, the free-flowing capital dried up, and the next round at a higher price simply stopped coming. The moment the markup stopped going up, the whole thing had to be repriced down to whatever was actually there. Sometimes that is a smaller, real business. Sometimes it turns out there was nothing there at all.

As Buffett put it, when the tide goes out you find out who has been swimming naked. In Indonesia, when the tide went out, the state did not shrug. It reached for a hammer.

Two. The hammer lands on the frauds, and it should

Start with the clearest case.

eFishery, the internet-connected fish feeder company that sold itself as the future of aquaculture, turned out to be one of the largest frauds this region has ever produced. Two sets of books. The company claimed roughly $752 million in revenue when the real number was nowhere close, and claimed a profit while it was losing tens of millions. The founder was sentenced to nine years, reduced to six on appeal. Two of his executives are going to prison alongside him. The investors who got fooled were not amateurs.

Then there is Investree, a fintech lender and at the time one of the respected pioneers, run by a genuine star of Indonesian finance. The regulator says Adrian Gunadi collected around Rp2.7 trillion, about $164 million, from the public without the licence to do it, and routed money through shell companies. When the investigation closed in, he left for Qatar. Interpol red notice, extradition, and he landed back at Soekarno-Hatta in handcuffs in September last year. He faces up to ten years.

So far this is a clean story. Frauds exposed, frauds punished. Good. If that were the whole thing I would be telling you the cleanup is working.

But the hammer did not stop at the frauds.

Three. Four venture capitalists went to prison for a startup that failed

There was a startup called TaniHub, an agritech connecting farmers to buyers. It failed the way startups fail. Two investors had put about $25 million in between 2019 and 2023: MDI Ventures and BRI Ventures.

Here is the detail that changes everything. MDI is owned by Telkom Indonesia. BRI Ventures is owned by Bank BRI. Both parents are state-owned. So in the eyes of the law, the money that went up in smoke was state money. And in Indonesia, a loss of state money can be prosecuted as corruption.

The man who ran TaniHub, Ivan Arie Sustiawan, did divert funds for himself. That was a fraud. He got nine years, plus a fine and restitution, and according to the court record that is a thief getting what a thief gets. No argument from me.

Then the court turned to the investors and convicted them too.

Donald Wihardja, former chief executive of MDI Ventures: five years. Nicko Widjaja, former chief executive of BRI Ventures: three years. Two more investment executives, Aldi Adrian Hartanto and William Gozali: two years each.

Four venture capitalists in prison for backing a startup that failed.

I want to be precise here, because this is the part that made every investor I know, inside the region and outside it, sit up. The court record noted there was no personal gain. These men did not steal. What they were convicted of was approving an investment that lost money. Their own defence was the most basic rule in the whole business: a decision made in good faith that happens to lose money is not a crime, it is the risk you were hired to take. The court did not accept it.

I told you the funds were not saints and I meant it. The markup game, the fee game, all of it. I have called parts of my own industry a grift and I stand by that. We earned plenty of the anger coming our way.

But there is an enormous gap between you pumped your paper numbers to raise a bigger fund and you belong in a prison cell because a startup failed. The hammer stopped drawing that distinction. It came down on the thieves and on the losers with roughly the same force.

Four. And it reached the very top

Then there is Nadiem Makarim, co-founder of Gojek and former Minister of Education. At the time he built it, Gojek was the most successful startup this country had ever produced.

I am going to be exact, because it matters. He was not convicted of enriching himself, and the court specifically found that he did not. The conviction, on 30 June, was for abuse of authority in how his ministry procured school laptops, and for favouring Google, which had been an early Gojek investor. The court put state losses at Rp1.57 trillion, roughly $88 million, on the basis that the Chromebooks could not be used in regions without internet access. He got ten years, a fine, and an order to pay restitution. He says the deal saved money. He is appealing.

I am not going to opine on guilt. That is what the appeal is for, and I have no interest in convicting anyone from behind a microphone. The only thing I can talk about is the picture this makes from the outside.

The founder who built the country’s proudest tech company is in a cell. Two founders who faked the numbers and one who fled the country are in cells. And four investors who simply lost money are in cells too.

Whatever you think of any single case, the message that lands on every founder and every fund in the country is identical. When the boom turns to a bust here, the bust does not end in a spreadsheet and some red ink. It can end in a courtroom. Every founder and every fund manager in Jakarta is now doing that mental maths.

Five. Then the regulator arrived, as it always does

Once the courtroom is in play, the regulator is never far behind, because the other thing a burst bubble always triggers, everywhere, is new rules. The people who missed the fraud on the way up tend to be the most desperate to look tough on the way down.

The financial regulator, OJK, brought in a new regime for venture firms. You now need Rp50 billion, about $3 million, in paid-up capital just to operate a fund. Use your licence within six months or lose it. Full disclosure of who really owns and controls you.

Some of that is a reasonable reaction. After Investree ran money through shell companies, wanting to know who actually controls a fund is fair enough, and I understand the intent.

But be honest about the $3 million floor. It does not stop the next fraud. Fraud does not care what your paid-up capital is. What it does do is price out emerging fund managers, the exact people a recovering market needs most, the ones willing to back a founder before anyone else will. You do not catch the crook. You just clear the room of the honest small players.

And it is not only the private market. Up at the level of the public exchange, MSCI, the firm whose indices steer trillions of dollars of passive money around the world, has put Indonesia under review. It flagged the market for opacity, for murky shareholding structures, for suspected coordinated trading. It has pushed the review out to November and is holding open the option of downgrading Indonesia from emerging market to frontier market.

To be clear, Indonesia has not been downgraded. It is under review. But if that downgrade comes, estimates run as high as $13 billion flowing straight back out of the country almost mechanically, as passive funds rebalance away.

So stack it up. At the startup level, investors going to prison. At the fund level, small players regulated out of existence. At the public market level, the world’s biggest index provider standing at the exit with a hand on the switch.

Every rule, every review, every sentence points the same direction. And the people who move capital for a living can read a compass.

Six. The quietest part, and the one that tells you where this goes

A few days ago the news broke that Monk’s Hill Ventures, one of the better-known names in the region, has restructured. It shut its Indonesia office, pulled its team back to Singapore, and is moving up market toward later, safer, growth-stage deals.

No scandal. No sentence. No headline number. Just a flagship fund quietly closing its door in Jakarta and walking back across the causeway to home base.

Sitting next to everything else in this piece, that is not a coincidence. It is the logical last step. The bubble burst, the hammer came down, the rules tightened, and the smart early money did the only rational thing available to it. It stopped writing early cheques there.

It will not be the last fund to make that move. It is just the most recognisable name to do it so far.

Seven. Where I actually land

I do not want this to read as doom, and I do not want it to read as a defence of my own industry.

The frauds deserve everything they get. Ivan Arie Sustiawan, who looted TaniHub, gets no sympathy from me. Throw the book. Fraud is fraud and it should be punished. And my own industry earned a hard look for the years it spent inflating paper it knew was soft. A reckoning was coming, and a lot of what has landed is fair.

But there is a difference between a reckoning that cleans a market and a reckoning that empties it. Right now Indonesia is doing both at once, and it does not seem to know the difference. It is punishing the fraud, which is right. It is frightening off the risk, which is fatal. And it is doing them in the same breath.

Here is the part worth holding onto, though, because you should not walk away thinking the country is finished. It is not.

It is still the biggest market in this region. It still has the largest population, and it is still full of people who want to build and buy and grow. And remember that something like ninety percent of the peak money was foreign to begin with. A lot of what just fled was never really rooted here. It bought into a story and some honestly fake valuations, and much of it needed to go, or at least needed to recalibrate.

The people are still there. The demand is still there.

The question is whether, when the dust settles, anyone with capital is still willing to stand in a room and take a real risk on a Jakarta founder. Right now they are heading for the door.

The market that figures out how to call them back is the one that wins the next decade.

If you are a founder in Jakarta watching your funding options walk out one by one, or an investor deciding whether to stay, I want to hear from you. My inbox is open.

The tide went out on Indonesia. Now we find out who is still willing to swim.

This piece accompanies this week’s episode of SEA of Startups. Real. Raw. Relatable. Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube, and subscribe to the newsletter at seaofstartups.substack.com.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Over the past few weeks, three Malaysia stories hit the news that, on the surface, have nothing to do with each other. A government pension fund answered in Parliament for nearly RM200 million lost in a fish farming startup that turned out to be a fraud. A celebrity founder and her husband sat in a courtroom over money that came from two of the biggest state funds. And a quasi-crypto commune in Forest City had its license pulled by the local council and announced it was leaving.

A fraud, a trial, and a controversy. Three different casts, three different genres. And underneath all three sits one uncomfortable pattern about how Malaysia spends its public money and who actually ends up on the receiving end of it.

Here it is in one line, and the rest of this post is me proving it: when the Malaysian state goes looking for the future, it keeps handing its money and its land to people who are just passing through. And the ones who stayed, who put down roots and built something here, are the ones it keeps overlooking.

One. Four audit firms, and nobody counted the feeders

Start with the pension fund, because this is the one that should make you angriest, and not for the reason you think.

The fund is KWAP. It manages the retirement savings of Malaysian civil servants: teachers, nurses, clerks, the people who keep the country running. About RM195 billion under management, more than RM8 billion in investment income last year. A serious, professional institution.

In July 2023, KWAP put nearly RM200 million, call it US$47 million, into eFishery, the Indonesian startup that made internet-connected fish feeders and sold itself as the future of aquaculture in Southeast Asia. You already know how this ends. eFishery was one of the biggest startup frauds this region has ever produced. The company kept two sets of books. It claimed roughly 400,000 smart feeders deployed in the field. The real number was about 24,000. The fleet was inflated more than fifteen times over, and revenue was inflated to match. The founder was sentenced to nine years in an Indonesian prison, since trimmed to six on appeal.

The story is back in the news because the Prime Minister stood in the Dewan Negara this week to answer for it, and the anti-corruption commission has opened a probe. The easy story, the one a lot of people wanted, is that somebody was lazy or asleep at the wheel. I do not think that is what happened, and the truth is far more useful.

KWAP did not skip the diligence. It was part of a consortium that included SoftBank and Temasek, serious money with serious teams. Between them, the investors hired four separate audit and diligence firms: PwC, Grant Thornton, EY, and KPMG. They hired six more firms to survey the market and validate eFishery’s position in it. They hired Kroll, the corporate investigations outfit, to run background checks on the founders. That is millions of dollars of the most reputable professional diligence money can buy.

Every single one of them missed it. Because all of that diligence was done on paper. Financial statements verified, documents cross-checked, management interviewed, the numbers in one data room matched against the numbers in another. As far as I can tell, nobody got in a car and drove out to the fish farms to count the feeders. If a single one of those firms had spent one week doing what any private equity analyst is taught on day one, go to the site, walk the floor, talk to the actual customers, they would have found 24,000 machines where the company promised 400,000. The fraud was not hiding in the accounts. It was sitting in plain sight in the fields, where nobody bothered to look.

Every founder and fund manager reading this should burn that in: diligence on documents only tells you the documents are consistent. It does not tell you the documents are true. The cheapest, most boring check in the entire toolkit, physically going and looking at the thing, is the one nobody did.

Two fairness notes. RM200 million against a RM195 billion fund is a rounding error, one tenth of one percent. Nobody’s pension is at risk, and when you hear the political noise, keep it in proportion. This is embarrassing, not an emergency. But it is exactly because the money was small that the failure matters. This was not a bet that went wrong. It was a bet that was never really examined, waved through on the strength of who else was in the round. SoftBank is in, Temasek is in, the auditors signed off, so we are in. That may pass in public markets. In private investing it is not investing, it is following. And when a Malaysian pension fund follows a crowd of foreign funds into a foreign fraud, you have to ask the question this whole post is about: what did any of it have to do with building Malaysia?

Two. They bought the face, not the business

I am going to be careful here, because this is a live trial. The founders have pleaded not guilty, and I am not here to convict anyone from a microphone. Everything about the alleged conduct is exactly that, alleged, and the courts will decide in due process. But the investment itself, the money going in and the money coming out, is a matter of public record, and that part is fair game.

The company is FashionValet, the Malaysian fashion e-commerce startup founded by Vivy Yusof and her husband. Vivy was, and is, one of the most recognizable entrepreneurs in the country, a genuine influencer before that word got cheap, with a modest wear brand, dUCk, that people genuinely loved. She became the face of a certain kind of Malaysian success story. In 2018, two of the largest state funds invested: Khazanah put in RM27 million and PNB put in RM20 million. Call it RM47 million of public money into a homegrown fashion brand.

Here is the number that should stop you. When the two funds eventually sold their stakes, they got back a combined RM3.1 million. A loss of roughly RM44 million, confirmed by the Ministry of Finance.

Startups lose money, understood. But the losses were visible before anyone wrote a check. FashionValet lost money every single year it operated, and the losses grew from a few hundred thousand ringgit to more than RM10 million a year. Six straight years of red ink, and the funds looked at that and invested anyway.

So the obvious question is why. I was not in the room, and I arrived in Malaysia around that time without the context to judge it then. But I do not think the honest answer has much to do with the business. I think the honest answer is worse, because it is a pattern rather than a one-off. They did not buy a business. They bought a face. A narrative, a following, the magazine covers, the idea that if you back the most famous young founder in the country, some of that shine rubs off, and the national funds get to say they are backing national icons. It feels modern. It ticks the marketing boxes. It photographs well.

But an icon is not a business model, and a following is not a balance sheet. When the thing you actually bought is a personality, you bought a fragile asset, because the moment public sentiment turns, and in the influencer game it always eventually can, your investment turns with it.

And here is the detail that tells you this is a real lesson and not just hindsight dressed up as insight: Khazanah itself, after the whole thing blew up, publicly warned about the risk of what it called icon-driven businesses. The fund said the quiet part out loud. Betting on personality is a structural mistake.

Now put the two stories side by side, because they rhyme. In eFishery, the funds bought a foreign founder’s story and never checked the fields. In FashionValet, they bought a local founder’s story and never respected the profit and loss statement. One was a fraud, one was just a bad business, and those are very different things. But the investor mistake underneath both is the same: fund the narrative, skip the boring verification that would have told you the narrative was hollow. In both cases, public money went in on the strength of a name, not a capability.

Three. Three names, one machine

Two bad deals is just two bad deals. The reason this is a post and not a shrug is that these are not isolated checks. This is the machine working the way it has always worked.

For more than twenty years, the government has tried to build a venture capital scene by pouring public money into funds and programs. Walk the track record. MAVCAP, the state venture arm going back to the early 2000s: over half a billion ringgit committed over the years, and by last reporting somewhere around RM200 million and change had come back. Roughly 38 sen home for every ringgit out. Allow for liquidity and unrealized positions, it is still a very slow, very official way of setting money on fire, and the local venture scene did not become self-sustaining on the back of it.

Then came 2020 and Penjana Kapital, a fund of funds worth hundreds of millions, launched to kickstart the sector after the pandemic. Big launch, big numbers. Years later, remarkably little of the money had actually been deployed. The government, the local investors, and the foreign partners all wanted different things, and the apparatus seized up.

And after two stalls, it did not stop. It rebranded. The prior attempts were consolidated under the sovereign fund and relaunched in late 2024 under a new name, with a new commitment of capital, as part of an even bigger government mobilization effort. Fresh name, fresh logo, fresh press release, fresh faces.

MAVCAP, then Penjana, then the new entity. Three names, one machine, more than two decades. Fairness again, because it matters: real managers got their first checks from these vehicles, some very good local companies were backed, and many of the people involved are smart and sincere. The new iteration is too early to judge, and I genuinely hope it does better. But the machine, as a machine, has not built the thing it was built to build. There is still no self-sustaining venture scene. There is a state that keeps trying to start one.

Now connect the machine to the scandals, because some of this public money, including pension money, has flowed into foreign accelerator programs operating in Malaysia. One global program, backed in part by that same pension fund, deployed roughly US$2 million here across 19 tiny checks over about a year and a half, and once you net out the program fees the real number is around 40 percent less. Then the global head office reshuffled its strategy, folded countries together, and Malaysia no longer even has a standalone local program. To be clear, nobody did anything wrong there. A global program runs its playbook, deploys small, and optimizes for its own portfolio. Malaysia is one line in a very large spreadsheet.

That is the point. That is the whole point. The local public money keeps flowing to players for whom Malaysia is a line item. A foreign startup that sent the growth story to Indonesia. A foreign accelerator that answers to a global strategy. A fund of funds that returns pennies on the ringgit and gets a new name. In that entire chain, is there anyone whose actual job, whose actual mission, is to build something durable in Malaysia and stay to see it through? The money shows up, the photo gets taken, everyone moves on, and the country is left holding the losses and waiting for the next program launch.

Malaysia does not have a capital problem. It has thrown capital at this for two decades. It has an alignment problem. It keeps giving the money to people who are, in the most literal sense, just passing through.

Four. An island near Singapore

Which brings me to Forest City, because the Network School story is the cleanest version of the whole pattern, and it just ended in the most telling way possible.

Network School was founded by Balaji Srinivasan, the former Coinbase executive and the leading prophet of the network state, the idea that you can build a new society out of people who share beliefs online rather than a shared piece of land. He set up a real-world version in Forest City, Johor: around 400 residents from more than 70 countries, paying US$1,500 a month to live together, code together, and talk about digital sovereignty.

Start with the smallest detail, because it tells you almost everything. From the very beginning, they did not call it Malaysia. The announcement called it, and I am quoting, an island near Singapore. That is how it was sold, over and over. Not Johor. Not Malaysia. The country they were actually living in barely got a mention. They borrowed the neighbor’s reputation and left the landlord’s name off the door. Sit with that for a second. If you will not even say the name of the country you have chosen to live in, you have already told everyone exactly how deep your roots go. Malaysia was never the home. It was the address on the invoice.

Then came the controversy. Viral accusations started swirling, and when they did, immigration and the local council did exactly what they should do: they inspected. Whatever you make of the specific claims, every government on earth, when a public accusation lands on its doorstep, is obligated to look into it. That is not persecution. That is a government doing the one job it owes its own citizens.

And here is the part every foreigner here, myself included, needs to hear plainly. When you live in someone else’s country, you are a guest. You do not get to decide which of their rules are beneath you. The permits, the inspections, the paperwork: they are the price of being allowed to build there. I get the frustration, genuinely. I am a foreigner in this region myself, a founder and an investor, and I know exactly how it feels when the forms make no sense and something that should take five minutes takes five weeks. That friction is real and it can be maddening.

But the response here was an ultimatum, then a shutdown order from the council, and then, while the dust was still settling, a signed deal with another jurisdiction, expedited visas included. If your answer to one inspection is to threaten the country and have a replacement ready by dinner, you were never really here in the first place. You were parked. And the next destination is not a new home either. It is just the next island near somewhere.

I will say this too, as someone who has to make judgment calls like these myself: the ultimatum was a bad tactic even on its own terms. You do not win a dispute with a sovereign by publicly threatening to walk out. You win it by fixing the problem, by working with the country, by delivering value rather than just extracting it. Leading with the threat did not show strength. It showed that the exit was already the plan.

Was there some benefit to Malaysia while they were here? Maybe, at the margins. A lot of sharp, ambitious people in one place, some knowledge rubbing off on the small fraction who were local, a possible magnet effect for others to come and look around. I will not pretend those are worth nothing. But I do not believe for one second that any of that was the actual intention. Knowledge transfer to Malaysians does not seem to have been the mission. The mission, as far as I can tell, was a cheap base with a nice view of Singapore and rules light enough to ignore. Malaysia was the backdrop, not the product. And the instant the backdrop asked them to comply with the rules, they went and found a new backdrop.

Five. Back the ones who already decided to stay

So here is the through line I want to leave you with, because it is much bigger than one commune. Malaysia has a long, expensive habit of rolling out the carpet for the passerby: the person who comes to extract rather than to build something that stays, the fund that flies in, deploys, and flies out, the foreign accelerator lured in with public money that quietly folds its tent when the global theme changes, the brand name that gets the ministerial welcome and the photo op.

And meanwhile, the people who actually stayed get almost none of it. I say this as a foreigner who did stay. There are people in this country who were not born here, who came and put down real roots, who built companies here, hired locals, mentored founders, invested in founders, and made the boring, unglamorous ten-year bet on this place with no exit lined up in their back pocket. Those people do not get a memorandum signed within hours. They do not get the minister at the airport. They queue up, fill in the same forms as everyone else, and wait.

That is upside down. There is dramatically more machinery in this system for luring a brand name than for backing the ones who have been loyal and built roots. And you do not build anything durable by courting the people most ready to leave. You build it by backing the ones who already decided to stay.

Right now, as I write this, the public institutions are putting hundreds of millions more into the semiconductor push. That could be the best decision they make this decade, or it could be the same machine with a new logo. The difference will not be the size of the check. It will be whether, this time, the money flows to the people who are staying, and not to the ones already halfway to the next island.

This one annoyed some of you, I am sure, and it should have. If you run one of these funds, or if you quietly built something real here and watched the welcome party go to a brand name instead, my inbox is open. Come show me what you built.

This piece accompanies this week’s episode of SEA of Startups. Real. Raw. Relatable. Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or YouTube, and subscribe to the newsletter at seaofstartups.substack.com.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

You have seen the number this week, probably five or six times, from five or six people who all copied it from the same report. Southeast Asian tech funding hit 7.4 billion dollars in the first half of 2026. More than double last year. Recovery is here, the drought is over, break out the good coffee.

It is true. It is also one of the most misleading true things I have read all year. Because 4.5 billion of that 7.4 billion went to a single company. One. A data-centre operator. Take that one company out, and on the exact same set of numbers, the region did not double. It went sideways, and depending on how you count, slightly down.

And while we are here: when did we start counting data centres as startup funding at all? That is a genuine question, and it is going to matter more than it sounds.

One landlord, not a region

Here is the full picture, because the detail is where the headline falls apart. First half of 2026, 7.4 billion raised across Southeast Asia, against 3.2 billion in the same six months last year on the same source. On paper, up 130 percent.

Now pull the thread. Of that 7.4 billion, 4.5 went to DayOne, a Singapore-registered data-centre operator, across two Series C rounds to fund a build-out. That is more than 60 percent of everything that flowed into the entire region, in one company, for concrete and cooling and racks.

This is not a knock on DayOne. They did nothing wrong. Raising four and a half billion dollars is not a crime, it is a very good year. The problem is not the company. The problem is that we take their balance sheet and hand it to founders across five countries as if it were their momentum. Strip DayOne out and the region raised roughly 2.9 billion in six months, which is less than the 3.2 billion it raised the year before. The honest headline is not “funding doubled.” It is “one landlord had a great six months, and everything else went slightly backwards.”

It gets worse when you look at where the money sat. Singapore captured 6.9 of the 7.4, over 90 percent, and still climbing. So this is not a Southeast Asian story. It is a Singapore data-centre story. And even that is a little bit of a fiction, because much of the physical build is not in Singapore at all. It is in Johor, across the causeway in Malaysia. The concrete goes up in Johor, the capital gets booked in Singapore, and the statistics tell you Singapore is booming. The map and the money have stopped agreeing with each other.

One caveat to hold onto, because it trips people up. Around the same time, KKR and Singtel bought ST Telemedia’s data-centre business for about 5.2 billion. Huge, and real, but that is mergers and acquisitions. One company buying another. It is not venture funding and it is not in the 7.4 billion. If someone stacks the two and tells you data centres pulled in ten billion, they are double-counting.

The money went into concrete. Whether a founder in KL, Jakarta or Ho Chi Minh City ever sees a cent of it is a separate question, and so far the answer is no.

And here is the part that should sting. Fintech. Payments. The thing this region was supposed to be about, the super-apps and the wallets and the great Southeast Asian consumer story we told for a decade. Fintech raised 685 million dollars in the first half. Not a slow year. A sector that is basically over as the headline act, and nobody held the funeral.

So the founders leave, into a narrower door

Now widen the lens, because the timing matters. The same six months that Southeast Asia congratulated itself on 7.4 billion, global venture funding hit a record 510 billion, a record half driven almost entirely by the AI hype. Of that 510 billion, two companies, OpenAI and Anthropic, raised 217 billion between them. Two American AI labs pulled in 43 percent of all the startup funding on Earth in six months.

Put the numbers side by side. All of Southeast Asia raised 7.4 billion, and ex-landlord, call it 2.9. Two AI labs in San Francisco out-raised our entire region by something like 75 to one. We are a young market, I get that. But 75 to one, two companies against a region, is not a gap you shrug off.

So what does a smart, ambitious founder do with that information? Some of them are already answering it. They are leaving. Founders who launched in Singapore in 2025 packed up in April and May and moved to the Bay Area. This has always happened, but it is becoming a steady trickle, which is worse, because a trickle does not make the news. It just quietly drains the pool.

Here is where I want to be careful, because there is a lazy version of this story. The lazy version is: the money is in San Francisco, so move there and get funded. That is not true anymore. The money in the US has concentrated too, and not just by geography. It has concentrated by story. Look inside that record US number and 86 percent of it went to AI. The same brutal filter is running there, just on a different axis. In Southeast Asia the filter is one landlord. In the US it is one narrative, and if you are not telling it, the cheque book stays shut.

Think about what that does to the bar. There used to be a respectable way to raise. You grew triple, triple, double, double, double. You built a business that compounded, showed durable revenue, and that was a clean Series A. That founder today walks into a room in San Francisco and gets a polite no, because the person across the table is not looking for durable. They want a thousand-x. They want the AI story that eats a category in eighteen months, and a healthy business that doubles every year sounds boring next to it.

You did not escape the filter. You swapped a filter you understood for one that is even harder to clear.

And I want to be fair, because it would be easy to turn this into a loyalty test, and that is not honest. The founders who leave are not traitors. They are moving toward the center of gravity, and San Francisco genuinely is the center of gravity for building right now, especially in AI. But nobody should sell you the fairy tale that the flight to SFO ends with a term sheet. The center of gravity is also the most crowded, most selective room on the planet, and this year it is writing cheques for exactly one kind of story.

Whether the founder stays or goes, the answer is the same shape. Here, the money went to a building, not a founder. There, the money goes to one narrative, not a founder. Either way, the ordinary, good, growing company, the backbone of any real startup scene, is the thing nobody is funding. We built a region that funds the warehouse and exports the talent, and the place we export it to only wants that talent if it can promise a miracle.

Fewer deals, but not better ones

There is a comeback I always get here, and it is a fair one. Deal count is down, sure, but that is discipline. The market matured. Fewer, bigger, better deals. Quality over quantity. This is healthy.

I would love to believe that. In the first half of 2026 there were 127 funding rounds across the region, down from 153 a year earlier. Fewer deals, yes. But look at where the money inside them went. Six billion of the 7.4 went into just twelve rounds of a hundred million dollars or more. Twelve rounds took six billion. The other 115 rounds, every seed cheque, every Series A, every founder not raising nine figures, split roughly 1.4 billion between them.

That is not discipline. Discipline is looking at a hundred good companies and carefully backing the best thirty. This is a hundred companies looking up at twelve giants eating almost everything, and scrapping over the crumbs. When the top twelve deals take 80 percent of the capital, that is not a mature market. It is a bare cupboard with one very full shelf.

And before anyone tells me last year was some golden baseline we have fallen from, no. Last year was the same shape. In the first half of 2025, fintech was carried by three deals that made up more than half of all fintech funding, and Singapore took over 90 percent of the pie even then. The concentration is not new. It is not a one-off. It is the structure. Southeast Asian venture has run on “one or two deals carry the whole region” for at least two years straight. The only thing that changed in 2026 is that the one deal got bigger, so the number got louder, and the lie got easier to tell.

Read the middle of the list

Let me be clear about what this is and is not. This is not doom. I am not telling you the region is dead, or that nobody should build here, or that we should all give up and move to California. Plenty of good companies are being built here right now, quietly, with real revenue, and they deserve better than to be background noise behind a data-centre headline. Which, again, I still do not understand why we file under startup funding at all.

What I am asking for is honesty about the number. Stop reading 7.4 billion as a sign of health. It is not. It is the balance sheet of one landlord plus a rounding error for everyone else. If you want to know how Southeast Asia is actually doing, do not look at the top deal. Look at deal number three, and deal number fifty, and deal number 127. Look at whether a seed-stage founder in Kuala Lumpur can raise a real round without moving to Singapore first. Look at whether the best people are staying or leaving.

Right now, on the honest read, the top of the market is a landlord, the middle is thin, and the sharpest founders are heading to the airport. Until the number without the landlord starts going up, we are not narrating a recovery. We are narrating a story we would like to be true.

Real. Raw. Relatable. If this one annoyed you, good. That means you were paying attention. Tell me where I am wrong.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

This week the two biggest stories in Southeast Asian tech were not a funding round or somebody’s ninth super app pivot. They were a government chip program in Penang and 3,600 kilometres of fibre being dropped on the seabed between India and Singapore.

Two boring stories. Laid side by side, they are the most honest picture of this region you will get right now. Both are asking the same question, the one I ask in every partner meeting at Indelible, the one that decides who gets rich over the next ten years and who just gets used:

Who owns the thing that is actually scarce?

Malaysia tries to climb a rung

On 1 July, MTDC, the Malaysian Technology Development Corporation, launched the first cohort of Semicon Start Malaysia. Ten companies picked from 39 applicants. A pot of RM10 million for the first phase, up to RM1 million per company, call it US$250k apiece, with Khazanah money in the mix.

If you have been in this region as long as I have, your first reaction to “government launches program to build high-tech industry” is a small, tired sigh. We have seen this film. Malaysia has a graveyard of these: grand corridors, MOU signings, innovation valleys, state venture funds that wrote checks into slide decks and got slide decks back. Big announcement, ribbon, photo, handshake. Two years later you go looking for the companies and nobody is home.

I had that sigh ready. Then I stopped, because this one has the potential to be different, and the reason why is the whole point of this piece.

This time there is a real industry underneath the program. Penang is not a hopeful press release. Penang has been doing semiconductor assembly and testing for decades. A serious slice of the world’s chips passes through Malaysian hands on the way to being packaged and tested. That is not a pitch. That is payroll. Factories that have run for thirty years, and a workforce that already knows the difference between a good die and a bad one.

So the bet is not “let’s conjure a chip industry out of nothing.” The bet is much narrower, and potentially much smarter: we already own one rung of this ladder. Can we climb one step up into design, where the money actually sits?

The climb has already started without the program. SkyeChip, a homegrown Penang design house doing genuinely hard work (high bandwidth memory, chiplets), listed on Bursa’s Main Market. Before recording this week’s episode I saw a report suggesting Cerebras, the US chip company that also just went public, may be tapping SkyeChip for design work. I have not verified that, so hold it loosely. But the proof point stands either way: a local company has already climbed the exact rung the government now wants ten more companies to climb. Add the National Semiconductor Strategy from a couple of years back, Penang’s own chip design academy, and Selangor standing up a state fund, and you have something rarer than a press release. You have momentum with an industry underneath it.

The timing is as good as it has ever been, too. The world wants to diversify where its chips come from. Nobody wants every advanced part made in one strait that could close on a bad Tuesday. Malaysia is neutral, capable, and already in the supply chain. If there was ever a decade to attempt this climb, it is this one.

Now the hard part, out loud, because that is what this show is for. Money was never the thing missing here. What has been missing, every single time, is patience and expertise arriving in the same envelope as the cash. A million ringgit and a short program do not build a chip design house. Chip design is a long-term sport played by people who have failed at it a few times first. If Semicon Start is a check and a demo day, it joins the graveyard. If it comes with real design mentors, real customer introductions, and follow-on money that does not vanish when the photo op ends, it has a shot.

So the thing to watch is not the RM10 million. It is whether anyone attached to the program has real operating expertise. Money is easy. Knowing what to do with it is the scarce part. Hold that thought.

The cable, and what it actually is

Now to the seabed. This week it was reported that Microsoft, together with Singapore’s Lightstorm, is leading a consortium building a new subsea cable called I2C: roughly 3,600 kilometres of fibre linking India to Malaysia to Singapore, targeted to go live around 2029, built for AI and data centre demand.

Standard disclaimer, because I read these announcements the way I read a pitch deck: this is a 2029 project, consortium details on these things move around, and I have not seen final paperwork, just a news story. Treat the specifics as direction, not gospel.

But the direction is what matters. Every few weeks now there is a story like this. A new cable, a new hyperscaler campus, somewhere with cheap power and a friendly minister. And every one of them gets written up as billions pouring into Southeast Asian digital investment. Celebrations all round.

Here is what I actually see, and maybe I am a bit cynical: the region being wired up as a very good place to host other people’s compute. The fibre lands here. The data centres sit here. They use our power and our seabed. That is real economic activity and I am not pretending it is nothing. But ask the only question that matters. Who owns the compute? Who owns the demand sitting on top of that cable? Generally, not us. The demand is offshore, the models are somebody else’s, and the margin, the part where value actually compounds, is in Seattle and San Francisco, not Johor.

We are the landlord renting out the ground floor, being told to feel grateful for the rent.

I am a capitalist. Rent is not a dirty word. It is a perfectly good business, and Singapore has run that playbook for fifty years. But do not confuse being the landlord with owning the building. A region cannot tell itself it is climbing the value chain when what it is actually doing is leasing the basement to the people who own the value chain.

This is where the cable and the chips rhyme. Same story, pointed in opposite directions. Malaysia’s chip program is a country trying to own more of the building. The cable is the region agreeing to stay one rung down. One is a strategy. The other is a lease dressed up as a strategy.

What is actually scarce

Value flows to whoever controls the scarce thing. It always has, AI or no AI. Find what is scarce, own it, and the money flows to you. Own something abundant and you compete it down to nothing.

So: in Southeast Asia right now, what is actually scarce?

I will tell you what is not. The technology is not scarce. The model is not scarce. Models are commoditizing in front of us, between the big labs’ price war and open source, and they will get cheaper and better every quarter whether you do anything or not. Building your moat on the model is building your house on the tide.

Here is what is scarce. The customer who already trusts you. The physical network that took years and real pain to build. The license from a regulator who does not hand them out twice. Distribution into the towns and small shops that no hyperscaler in the world will ever bother to map. The workflow nuance that took ten years of unglamorous work and cannot be copied in a weekend of clever prompting.

That is the scarce layer. That is the thing worth owning.

Where the winners come from

Look back at the two stories through that lens and they light up. Malaysia is trying to move from an abundant thing (cheap, capable labour, which everyone has) to a scarce thing (design capability, which very few have). Right instinct. Own the scarce rung.

The founder version of the same move: the winner is not the one who owns the AI and goes hunting for a customer. The winner is the one who already owns the customer and quietly adds AI on top. The lending business that already has the borrowers and now underwrites them better. The logistics operator that already owns the trucks and the routes and now runs them tighter. The distributor who already reaches 10,000 shops and now forecasts demand for them.

Those companies will never put AI in the headline. They do not need to. They already own the scarce thing. The AI is just a sharper tool in a hand that already knows the work.

I know that is not a fashionable thing to say in 2026. Every second founder I meet opens with the model they are building on, the AI-native this, the agentic that. The funding tallies love it: somebody counts up the AI startups that raised this quarter, puts out a chart, and everyone nods. But that chart measures ambition, not durable revenue. Those are very different things, and the gap between them is where founders and their investors go to die.

And here is the uncomfortable part I want founders to sit with. Every wave of cheap capital, every shiny new tool, every drop in the price of intelligence does not close the gap between those two kinds of companies. It widens it. When the tool gets cheap and everyone has it, the tool stops being the difference. The only difference left is the position underneath: the distribution, the trust, the scarce layer. Cheap AI makes owning real distribution worth more, not less.

Be honest about what you own

This is where Indelible puts its money, and I will say it plainly so you can hold me to it. We back people who own the scarce layer, or are credibly climbing one rung towards owning it. Not people standing on top of somebody else’s scarce layer with a nicer logo. (None of this is investment advice. It is simply where my money already is.)

So the homework this week, if you are a founder: be honest about what you actually own. Not what is in your headline. What is in your foundations. If the answer is a really good wrapper around somebody else’s model, it is better to know that now. Using a commodity as an input is perfectly fine. Every company will. The question is what you own on top of it.

A chip program in Penang. A cable on the seabed. One country trying to climb a rung, one region agreeing to rent out the basement, and underneath both of them, the only question that has ever really mattered:

Who owns the thing that is scarce?

I write the checks, so I have to be right about this. Come argue with me if you think I am wrong.

Real. Raw. Relatable.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Since 2017, Southeast Asia has produced exactly one tech IPO that made public investors real money. One. And this week, the Philippines is getting ready to bet its entire year on the next one.

So this week I want to talk about who is buying, who is selling, and which side of that trade you actually want to be standing on.

Four stories, and they braid into one. We open with the good news, because there usually is some. Then we follow the money all the way to the part nobody puts on the deck.

The smart money showed up twice in one week

Start with the hopeful, because it is real and it is specific.

This week two of the most serious institutions on the planet made their first proper bet on Southeast Asia. Not a press tour. Not a memorandum of understanding. Actual money into actual companies.

The first: MIT, the university, joined the cap table of a Singapore company called PVX Partners. Not a flashy name, I had not heard of them before this. They do cohort-based financing for user acquisition. In plain terms, they fund the marketing spend for mobile games and consumer apps, and they get paid back out of the revenue those users generate. It came on the back of a ten-plus-million-dollar round with names like General Catalyst, and I think a DraftKings vehicle in there too. As far as I could find, this is MIT’s first major disclosed startup bet in the region.

The second, and this one landed the day before I recorded: Pfizer Ventures, the drug giant’s venture arm, made its first Southeast Asian startup investment into a Singapore biotech called Engine Biosciences. Engine does AI-driven precision oncology, hunting cancer drugs with machine learning. They just opened a Silicon Valley office to go with the Singapore base.

Here is why this is not just a funding roundup. When an elite American endowment and Big Pharma’s investment arm both pick Singapore companies for their opening move, in the same week, that is not a coincidence. That is a signal about where sophisticated capital now thinks the edge is.

These are not tourists chasing a hot round. PVX is unglamorous infrastructure. Engine is deep science. Both are the kind of bet you make after you have done the work.

Hold that thought, because the rest of this is about what happens to the money that was already here when it tries to leave.

The Philippines is betting its whole year on one listing

On the 27th, Mint, the company behind GCash, filed its registration with the Philippine SEC and its listing application with the stock exchange. The number: up to 92.3 billion pesos, roughly 1.5 billion US dollars at up to ten pesos a share, targeting a fourth-quarter debut. If it prices at the top, it is the largest IPO in Philippine history.

Sit with the context. The Philippines’ IPO count for 2026 before this filing was zero. Nothing. So the country’s first listing of the year is also the biggest it has ever had. And it is a fintech, which if you have listened before you know is my home-turf bias made concrete.

GCash put financial services into something like 90 million pockets. It is the rare regional company that is genuinely profitable. The pitch writes itself: the people who made GCash a habit can now own a piece of it. I want this to work. Let me say that plainly.

Now the part that worries me, out loud, because that is the point of these episodes.

The float is about 12%. Twelve percent of the shares go to the public market. The public is being sold a fairly thin slice while insiders keep the rest. And to fit GCash into its main index, the exchange is now considering cutting its own minimum public float rule from 20% down to as low as 12%.

Take that in. The benchmark is bending its own rules to accommodate one company. When a market reshapes itself around a single listing, and that listing is carrying the whole nation’s IPO year on its back, that is not a recovery. That is concentration risk wearing a party hat.

The real question: does GCash trade well enough to reopen the pipeline for everyone waiting behind it, or does one wobble set the Philippine market back another two years?

To answer that honestly, you cannot just look at GCash. You have to look at what happened to the last batch of regional champions that rang the bell.

Indonesia got a stay of execution, not a clean bill of health

While Manila is opening a door, Jakarta is trying to keep one from closing.

On the 24th and 25th of June, MSCI, the index provider whose decisions quietly move billions in passive money, deferred its decision on whether to downgrade Indonesia from emerging-market status to frontier. They kicked it to November. Indonesia keeps the badge, for now.

Why was it even on the table? MSCI said, in effect, that it cannot trust the market. Lack of transparency in who actually owns the shares. Suspected coordinated trading that makes it hard to know what a fair price even is, or how much stock is genuinely free to trade. And the market rallied on the news.

Here is where I get off the celebratory bus. That rally is celebrating a delay, not a fix. When the index provider tells you it cannot work out who owns the shares or what they are really worth, that is not a paperwork problem. That is a governance warning about the entire market.

And look at the response. Indonesia is leaning on Danantara, the sovereign fund, plus insurance and pension money, to add buying support and prop up the exchange. Think about what that means. To pass a test about transparency and genuine free float, the answer is to bring in state and pension money to hold the market up. That is close to the opposite of the thing they are being asked to prove.

A frontier downgrade is not abstract. It would force passive funds to sell Indonesian equities mechanically, which raises the cost of capital for every late-stage founder in the country dreaming about an IPO on that market, especially now without the hype cycle. November is closer than it sounds.

Manila might be opening up, maybe. Jakarta is one review away from being pushed out. Hope on one side, risk on the other. So let me put some numbers on which way this bet usually goes.

The receipts

I promised you a number at the top. Here it is with the receipts. Since 2017, this is how Southeast Asia’s big tech IPOs have actually treated the public investors who bought in.

SPAC valuations are listing marks, not day-one closes. Dollar figures are dragged by weak pesos and rupiah. Current values approximate.

One winner. Sea Limited went out at a $4.9 billion valuation and trades somewhere in the $56 billion range today. Everything else is a shipwreck. Grab is down around 60% from its listing cap. GoTo lost roughly nine-tenths of its value. Bukalapak is trading below the cash it raised. Converge, the one Philippine name I could pull, is the cautionary tale sitting right next door to GCash.

Now the caveats, out loud, because the show runs on honest data. The SPAC valuations were listing marks, not day-one closes, and several fell on the open. Currency matters too: weak pesos and rupiah drag the dollar figures down. On a per-share basis the returns are often worse than the market-cap numbers suggest, because of share issuances along the way.

But the base rate for this region is brutal. If you bought the Southeast Asia tech IPO story over the last eight years, with one exception, you lost money.

What actually breaks the curse

Here is the thing that matters. Almost every one of those shipwrecks went public unprofitable, floated at the very top of the cheap-money window on a growth-at-all-costs story.

GCash is not that. GCash actually makes money. That is the one real thing that could break the curse.

The curse was never the business. The risk is the entry price. GCash is reportedly chasing a valuation around eight to nine billion dollars, against roughly five billion in the private market just a couple of years ago. That is the exact same “premium to the last round” framing that came right before every name on the shipwreck list.

History says it is not company quality that determines whether public investors win. It is the price on the day they are let in. Buy low, sell high. If Mint prices for perfection at the top of the range, the regional base rate says the valuation compresses toward fundamentals first and compounds later, if you are patient. Converge, down 40%, is what impatience looks like.

Who holds the pen

Here is the thread that ties the week together.

This was the week Southeast Asia’s public markets stopped pretending to be a pure growth story and started behaving like state-managed plumbing. A fintech bends an exchange’s rules to get listed. A country leans on its sovereign fund to keep its emerging-market badge. And underneath all of it, the smartest new money in the world, MIT and Pfizer, is quietly buying into private companies at the early stage, where the value actually gets made, long before any of this public-market theater begins.

Notice where the sophisticated capital is putting its chips. Not into the IPO. Into the cap table, years earlier.

So my filter for all of it, and yours, should be the same question: who actually holds the pen here? Who decides what gets built, what gets listed, what gets propped up? More and more in this region, the answer is governments and sovereign funds, not founders and not public investors.

If you are a founder who is not a conglomerate heir or a sovereign-fund favourite, that should tell you exactly where to aim, and exactly who to raise from.

That is the week. If it was useful, the most useful thing you can do is send it to one founder who is about to get excited about an IPO.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Start with two numbers and a question.

In May, startups in this region raised $472 million. More than double what they raised in April. Read only that line and you would think the drought had broken.

Now the second number. That doubling was built almost entirely on two checks. Take those two out and May was thin, still down on the year before.

So here is the question I want to sit inside. When you are a founder in Kuala Lumpur, or Bangkok, or Manila, which numbers are actually telling you the truth?

Because two of the loudest numbers in this market, the funding headline when you raise and the IPO pipeline when you want out, are both unreliable. And they are unreliable in different ways. The money coming in is inflated. The money going out is uneven. In between sits a real company, your company, trying to make decisions on top of figures that flatter and figures that lie.

The mirage: headlines that flatter

The funding rebound is a perfect little lie. Not a dishonest one. A statistically true one, which is worse, because it is harder to argue with.

May 2026: $472 million across 31 deals, per DealStreetAsia. Up 104% on April. The kind of line that gets screenshotted into a pitch deck by Tuesday.

Look underneath it. The jump came from the return of mega deals, transactions worth $100 million or more. A data center. An AI hardware platform. April had none. May had two. Two checks did the heavy lifting for an entire region. And even with them, May still came in 18% below the same month a year earlier. Strip the two big ones out and what you have left is quiet.

This is not new, and that is the point. We saw the same shape in the first quarter: about $2.8 billion across 98 deals, the lowest deal count in at least eight years, with a single data center raise accounting for more than 70% of all that capital. Once you see the pattern you cannot unsee it. The total goes up. The number of companies actually getting funded does not. The aggregate is being inflated by hardware and data centers, while the count of real operating companies catching a check stays flat.

Here is why that matters to you, and it is not academic. If you are raising right now and you benchmark yourself against the headline, you will conclude that capital is flowing and you are simply being passed over. That is the wrong lesson, and it will make you do desperate things. The right lesson is that the deal count, not the dollar total, is the honest gauge. And the deal count says fewer companies, higher bar, slower checks.

The honest number is in the margin

So if the aggregate is a mirage, what is the real one? What is the number on a Southeast Asian cap table that does not lie?

It is the margin. Which brings me to one of the genuinely good stories in the region this month.

Respond.io, a Malaysia-based company, raised a $62.5 million Series B led by Camber Partners, with Endeavor Catalyst and existing backers coming back in, off the back of going through the Endeavor selection network. Big round. But the round is not the story. The story is what was true before the round.

$35 million in annual recurring revenue. Growing over 100% a year. At a decent profit margin. Read that again, because they were already profitable. They raised growth money from a position where they did not strictly need it. That is the exact opposite of the burn-first, find-the-model-later playbook the last cycle rewarded and then punished.

They run an AI-agent-powered customer messaging platform, the layer that lets a business actually hold a conversation and close a sale across the channels where commerce in this region happens. Billions of messages a quarter, more than 10,000 businesses, over 180 countries. The new money is going west, into North America and Europe, with the possibility of some acquisitions. A profitable company, quietly compounding, raising on its own terms and going on offense into the biggest markets in the world.

Take one thing from this. Stop reading the league tables. Read the profit and loss. In 2026, the only honest number on a Southeast Asian cap table is the margin, because it is the one figure nobody can dress up with a single big check.

The asterisk Malaysia should be honest about

Let me complicate my own happy story, because I am not here to wave the flag.

This one is close to home, and KL should be proud of it. The founder is not Malaysian. The company did not start here. It was brought here. That should be a feature, not a footnote. A founder who could base anywhere chose to base in KL, and that decision creates things you can touch: engineering jobs, payroll that gets taxed, corporate tax, office leases, local lawyers and accountants, the cafe downstairs, and a signal to the next founder weighing where to land that says people build serious companies here. Malaysia should bank that credit fully and without an asterisk.

But the timing is almost too on the nose, because there is an asterisk.

At the same moment, the rules on foreign talent are leaning the other way. The salary floor on the employment pass has jumped. Pass lifespans are changing. To me, though, the salary number is not the headline. The harder one is the requirement that you have a replacement plan in place for foreign talent, and some of those plans are short.

Detail has been scant, but one person closer to the interpretation told me the employment is treated as tied to the company, not to the title or the role. So if you bring in a foreign hire to fill, say, a junior developer seat, and that person does well and gets promoted, it does not matter that their title has grown. What matters is that they are still there, and the requirement is that you replace them so that they no longer are.

Sit with that from the talent’s side. What highly capable person takes a role knowing there is a clock on it? If they have a family, will they uproot to a market that is effectively saying we want you temporarily but not forever?

I understand the intent. We do need to build local capability, and you should not let companies park expats in seats indefinitely. Fair enough. But here is the tension I cannot get past as an investor. You cannot run a “come build your global company here” pitch and a “here is your countdown timer, please train your replacement” policy at the same time. The open-door version of this works. There are countries we can point to that prove it.

This is a competitive sport. The founder who chooses KL had other options, because Singapore wanted him, Hong Kong wanted him, Tokyo, Bangkok and Manila all wanted him. The risk is that Malaysia celebrates this win in the very quarter it makes the next one harder to land. If attracting mobile founders is how a small market punches above its weight, and it is, then the policy and the pitch have to point in the same direction. For this month at least, they did not.

The fork in the road

Now the way out. Every founder eventually asks the quiet question. If this works, how do I get out, and where? Every investor asks it less quietly. In Southeast Asia the answer used to be a shrug. This month, three companies gave three different answers, and together they tell you more about this region than any funding total.

Thailand sends its champion abroad. LINE MAN Wongnai, the app more than 10 million Thais use for food, rides and payments, is weighing an IPO, and the venues it is looking at are Hong Kong and New York, not Bangkok. The reporting cites weak domestic conditions and political volatility, with a decision expected as soon as the end of this month. Sit with that. The most-used app in the country looked at its home exchange and decided it could not get a fair hearing there, so it is shopping for a listing 8,000 kilometers away. A market that cannot list its own champions does not have a sentiment problem. It has a plumbing problem. The pipes that turn a great company into a liquid, locally owned public outcome simply have not been built.

The Philippines builds a house worth staying in. In the same window, the opposite answer. Mint, the parent of GCash, the finance super app tens of millions of Filipinos live inside, has authorized the filing to go public: a registration with the regulator, a listing application with the Philippine Stock Exchange, an offer of around 12% of the company, targeting the second half of this year and possibly the fourth quarter. It is shaping up to be the largest IPO in the history of that exchange. And it is listing at home. Not Hong Kong. Not New York. The biggest fintech outcome the country has produced is choosing to be a Philippine public company. It is not alone. Maya, the digital bank, is weighing its own listing on a dual track, the local exchange plus NASDAQ, after its first profitable year. One foot at home, one foot abroad, a hedge.

Look at the fork honestly. Thailand’s champion is leaving the list. The Philippines has one champion committing to the home exchange outright and another hedging across both. That is not the region as a single sound story. That is the region splitting in real time over the same question: is it worth building a venue people want to stay for? Right now, this quarter, the Philippines is making the bigger bet that the answer is yes.

The caveat, because I promised it. Do not let anyone sell you Mint and Maya as a scrappy-startup miracle. Mint sits behind Globe and the Ayala group, with AMP alongside. Maya sits behind PLDT. These are conglomerate and telco children going public, which rhymes with what I said recently about Vietnam, where the giants raise and the startups starve. Hold both thoughts. The optimism is earned: a deep local public market is the single thing this region has always lacked, and the Philippines is genuinely building toward it. But the homegrown-founder fairy tale is not the right frame. Incumbents are listing. That is still good. It is just not the legend.

And here is the constructive next move, the one I would want a Filipino policymaker or operator to actually hear. One record listing does not make a market. The test is the second one, and the third, and the fourth. Can the exchange turn Mint’s debut into a habit, so that the next great Filipino company does not even think about Hong Kong or the US? If it can, the Philippines stops being the market everyone underrates and becomes the market with the exit nobody else in the region has.

The through line

Two acts, the same lesson from opposite ends of a company’s life.

When you raise, the headline lies. It is inflated by a handful of checks you will never be part of, and the only number that tells you the truth is your own margin. So build like respond.io. Get to profit, and let profit, not a press release, be the thing that earns you a round.

When you leave, the region forks. One country will send you abroad to be valued. Another is trying, right now, to build a house worth staying in. Do not assume your exit. Choose it on purpose, the way you would choose a co-founder.

In between sits the thing I keep coming back to. The capital around a Southeast Asian founder, the private money coming in and the public money you eventually exit through, is unreliable and uneven. That is not a reason to be cynical. It is a reason to be precise. Read the honest number, pick the real venue, and do not build your company on top of someone else’s headline.

The markets that win the next decade out here will be the ones that do both: attract the people who create the margin, and build the place those people can cash out at home. This month, one company showed us the margin. One country showed us the door, opening it and starting to close it at the same time. And one country started building a room worth staying in.

Be the reason the money stops sitting still.

Real. Raw. Relatable.

... --- ...

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Start with a sliver of water between Iran and Oman. On a normal day, roughly a fifth of the world’s oil moves through the Strait of Hormuz. This year it stopped being normal. When the strait seized up, Brent jumped 10 to 13 percent in a single session into the low 80s and kept climbing to the highest level since 2022. The International Energy Agency, which does not deal in drama, called it the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.

I am not here to cover the politics. I am here to follow the power. Because that one shock shows up three times in the Southeast Asian startup story this quarter, wearing three different costumes. It sold electric cars. It raised the price of the electricity our data centre boom depends on. And it gave every cautious LP one more reason to keep the chequebook shut. Energy, iron, and idle capital. Follow the power and you follow the whole region.

One. The war that sold a million electric cars

The lazy version of this story is “war happened, everyone bought an EV.” That is not what happened. What happened is that a fuel shock landed on top of a shift that was already moving fast, and poured petrol, pun intended, on the fire.

The scale first. In 2025, EV sales in Southeast Asia more than doubled year on year to more than half a million vehicles, and more than 90 percent of those were full battery electric, not hybrids. The demand was already there. Then the petrol queues showed up. One Thai market report described long lines at filling stations on the same days that EV displays pulled the biggest crowds at the Bangkok motor show. That is the whole story in one image. One queue for the old thing, one crowd for the new one.

Go around the region and the averages hide the real story. Vietnam is the outlier nobody outside Asia talks about: EV share of new cars hit close to 40 percent in 2025, ahead of the UK and the EU, almost entirely on the back of one company, VinFast, which targets 300,000 deliveries this year after 175,000 last. Thailand is the cleanest fuel link, with EV sales tripling year on year to over 44,000 units in January 2026 alone, and logistics fleets switching specifically to cut their exposure to fuel cost swings. When the fleet operators move, it is about the spreadsheet, not the planet. Indonesia crossed 15 percent EV share and passed the United States, with Chinese brands taking more than 75 percent of the market. This is not a Western EV story. It is a Chinese supply story with a Southeast Asian buyer. And Malaysia, my home market, is earlier and more honest: adoption up 14-fold since 2022, but still only about 5.5 percent of cars sold, held back by roughly 5,000 public charge points. You cannot fuel-shock your way past missing infrastructure.

None of this is just consumers being noble. It is policy and cheap money. Thailand cut excise on passenger EVs from 8 percent to 2, and to zero on electric pickups. The Philippines went further, putting forward an incentive package worth around 60 billion pesos while ending subsidies for combustion engines, with the reporting tying the move directly to the oil shock. Read that again: a government using an oil crisis as cover to stop subsidising petrol and start subsidising electrons. Then the banks did the quiet part. In Singapore, UOB ran a green car loan at 1.5 percent, DBS at 2.48. When a bank prices your electric car loan below your petrol one, the moral argument is over. The maths makes the decision.

The part that matters for operators is the fleet. Grab signed with BYD to put up to 50,000 EVs into its fleets across the region, with an eco-friendly toggle in Singapore and Thailand. GoTo took the other lane, going after two wheelers with a pledge to electrify Gojek’s motorbike fleet by 2030. On autonomy, be honest: the robotaxi headlines are a US and China story. Out here the fundable shift is the powertrain under the existing driver, not removing the driver. If you are pitching autonomous ride-hailing for Southeast Asia this year, the oil shock did not help you. The EV swap did.

Here is where I land, and it is not the clean version. The war did not invent this boom. China did, with cheap good cars and a supply chain nobody here can match, and governments did, with subsidies written before anyone fired a missile. The shock just compressed years of slow behaviour change into a few quarters. And demand pulled forward by a price spike can snap back. If Hormuz reopens and Brent drifts back to the 60s, some of this 2026 surge was borrowed from 2027 and 2028. The companies that survive that are the ones building real local supply, financing, and charging, not the ones riding a fear premium.

Two. Twenty billion lands in Johor, and DayOne raises four and a half

We have covered the Malaysian data centre build before, so I will not reread the brochure. I want to follow the money one step further than the headlines do.

Announced data centre capex across the region now runs past 20 billion US dollars over the 2024 to 2028 window, and that is committed, not deployed. AWS around 9 billion into Singapore, Google 5 billion plus 2 for its first Malaysian site, Microsoft a couple of billion more into Malaysia and Indonesia. On top of that, private money: AirTrunk alone is putting 12 billion ringgit into two new Johor campuses, taking its Malaysian commitment to roughly 27 billion ringgit, call it 7 billion dollars. And just this month DayOne, the Singapore-domiciled operator that flipped out of China’s GDS, closed a 4.5 billion dollar Series C led by Coatue and Hillhouse with Indonesia’s sovereign fund alongside. Hold that name, because it comes back in the third act.

Now the question nobody asks: what is that money actually buying? Land, concrete, power, cooling, and imported chips. A hyperscale data centre is a real estate and energy project wearing an AI t-shirt. The single biggest cheque inside it goes to Nvidia. Very little of that 20 billion touches a local software founder. This is not venture capital landing in the region, it is construction capital.

So what is the secondary effect on the rest of us? Three things, and I want to be balanced. First, cost. These campuses pull on the same grid and water local businesses use, and Malaysia stopped approving non-AI data centre proposals back in 2024 to keep the power for AI builds. The state is rationing power and choosing hyperscalers. When your tariff drifts up in three years, this is part of why. Other parts of the world now require operators to reinvest into the local energy and water network to offset that pressure. I have not seen that proposed seriously in Malaysia yet, and I would like to. Second, jobs. A hyperscale campus employs a crowd for eighteen months of construction, then a skeleton crew. It is not a founder-jobs engine. Third, and this is the genuine prize: if the build is done right, founders get cheaper, closer compute and local data residency, the thing that lets a regulated fintech or health startup build on sovereign infrastructure without stitching together a compliance workaround.

The roads analogy is the honest one. Infrastructure is an enabler, not the destination. The data centre boom only pays off for the domestic economy if we generate the demand to use it: enterprises and government going properly digital, and a real layer of AI-native startups creating the load these campuses were built for. Lay the road, then you still need the trucks. Capital keeps flooding the iron. Whether it earns its return depends entirely on who drives on it.

Three. The lowest deal count in eight years, sitting on a mountain of cash

Two facts that should not be true at once. In the first quarter of 2026, Southeast Asian startups raised about 2.8 billion dollars across 98 equity deals, the lowest quarterly deal count in at least eight years, and even that is flattered by one or two giant infrastructure cheques of the DayOne variety. Meanwhile APAC investors sit on roughly 240 billion dollars of dry powder, down from a 2023 peak near 315 but hardly an empty tank.

So which is it, drought or hoard? Both, and the contradiction is the story. The money exists. It is just not moving into Southeast Asian early stage. The last clean read on region-specific dry powder was around 7 billion dollars, a couple of years old and probably overstated, but the direction is the point: funding here fell about 70 percent from the 2021 peak while the cash pile barely moved. That is not a region that ran out of money. That is a region whose investors went on strike.

Where did the new money go instead? Peak XV, the old Sequoia India and Southeast Asia team, closed 1.3 billion late last year, labelled India Seed, India Venture, and APAC. India now runs hundreds of active early-stage funds and has climbed from roughly 9 percent of APAC capital markets volume toward 20. The APAC money is concentrating into India for growth and Japan for buyouts, not Southeast Asian seed. So when a Singapore GP tells you the market is tough, hear it precisely. It is not that Asia has no money. It is that the money is choosing India’s depth and Japan’s stability over our fragmentation and our weak record in the asset class. Capital is being selective, and Southeast Asia is the one being un-selected.

Then layer the war back on. In March the reporting was blunt that the Iran conflict threatened to deepen Asia’s worst private equity fundraising slump in a decade. An oil shock spikes uncertainty, and uncertainty is the enemy of a new fund commitment. The same barrel of oil that sold an electric car in Bangkok made a pension fund in the West, and a high-net-worth backer here, think twice about a new Southeast Asian VC. Cash gets more cautious exactly when founders need it to get braver.

So do not buy the clean drought story, and do not buy the clean abundance story either. The honest version: the tank is full, the driver is scared, and the road out, meaning exits, still looks rough. 98 deals is not a money problem. It is a conviction problem and an exit problem wearing a money problem’s clothes. And even that 7 billion dollar regional figure is fuzzy, because so much of it sits in Singapore holding structures that can deploy anywhere from Jakarta to Bangalore. When the domicile lies, the dry powder number lies a little too.

The money is here. It is waiting for a reason. Your job, whether you are building or, like me, allocating, is to be the reason it stops sitting still.

Sources and further reading: IEA Global EV Outlook 2026 · RECCESSARY, Thailand EV 2026 · VinFast targets, Nikkei Asia · Philippines incentives, Gulf News · Grab and BYD · AirTrunk Johor, NST · DayOne closes $4.5B, Crowdfund Insider · DayOne, the Singapore flip, Asia Tech Review · SEA Q1 2026 deal review, DealStreetAsia · APAC PE Report 2026, Bain · Peak XV $1.3B, YourStory

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Singapore just released its report on venture funding for 2025, and almost every write-up reads the same way. Funding winter. Capital’s gone quiet. Hold the line, it’ll come back.

I think that’s the wrong story.

I’ve been sitting with these numbers for a few days, and the more I look at them, the more I’m convinced we’ve been telling ourselves the comfortable version. The comfortable version is that the money left and the money will return. The harder version, the one I actually believe, is that the region made a strategy bet a decade ago, the bet didn’t have an exit attached to it, and 2025 is just the year the math stopped hiding. We’ve had a few of these years where the math stops hiding. This is another one.

So let me do a bit more opining than usual. This one’s a little spicy.

The number everyone read

The headline is genuinely rough. In 2025, Singapore recorded 472 venture deals, down 35 percent from the year before. Total capital raised came in at 4.6 billion US dollars, down 34 percent year on year. And Singapore is the strong one. Across the ASEAN-6, both deal value and deal volume hit a four-year low.

Now hold that next to the United States in the same year. Silicon Valley deal value nearly doubled, to around 160 billion dollars. A lot of that was two rounds: OpenAI at 40 billion, Anthropic at 15 billion.

Two companies, in one country, raised more than ten times what the entire island of Singapore raised across 472 deals all year.

The easy conclusion is that capital is concentrating into American AI and starving everyone else. That’s true as far as it goes. There’s real gravity pulling allocators toward the bleeding edge, and that gravity sits in Silicon Valley.

But that’s a description of the weather. It doesn’t tell you why our house is the one with the leak.

For that, you have to go back further than last year, and look at what we actually spent the money on, and what we expected to get out the other side.

The bet we made

Here’s the part that doesn’t get said enough. For most of the last decade, Southeast Asia poured its venture money into consumer. Ride-hailing, e-commerce, food delivery, the super-app. The big, beautiful, blitzscaled consumer story where you capture a young, mobile-first population of 700 million and become the thing they open twenty times a day.

I’m not mocking it. I lived through the optimism. Grab, GoTo, Sea, Lazada, Shopee. These companies built the rails the whole region runs on now. Digital payments are everywhere because of them. That’s real, and it was needed. Consumer is the precedent layer. Most maturing markets start there, build the rails, then transition. That part is natural.

But look at the allocation. In 2023, more than a third of Southeast Asian venture deal value went into consumer. The honest caveat is that “consumer” is a fuzzy line, depending on whether you fold in consumer fintech, so treat the exact figure loosely. Even on the conservative read, you land somewhere north of thirty percent. Run the same count in the US that year and you’re in single digits. The number I keep landing on is around three and a half percent.

Read that again. We put an order of magnitude more of our capital into consumer than the most mature venture market on earth did.

And we weren’t growing out of it. We were accelerating into it. Consumer’s share of regional deal value kept climbing while software’s share fell. So while the US was doing the boring, durable thing, funding enterprise software and infrastructure, we were doubling down on the consumer copycat play right as the cheap money drained out.

Why does that matter? Because of what happens at the end.

The door that was never there

Every venture dollar is a bet on an exit. Money goes in, and somewhere down the line it has to come out bigger, through a sale or a listing. No exit, no returns. No returns, no next fund.

So how did the region do on exits? Here’s the number that should be tattooed on every term sheet. Since 2015, the entire Southeast Asian venture market generated roughly 70 billion dollars in exit value. Sounds fine until you look underneath. More than 55 billion of that came from three exits, all in 2021. Stretch it out and nearly 87 percent of all exit value since 2015 came from six companies. Take it to the top twenty and you’re at 96 percent.

Yes, there’s always a power law. Concentration is normal. But strip out a handful of unicorns and the regional market has returned almost nothing to almost everyone. The investment-to-exit ratio has run consistently above twenty to one. Twenty dollars in for every dollar that found its way out.

It’s been a trap. The Hotel California of venture. You can check in, but you can never leave.

And here’s the part that connects the dots. The few giant exits we did get didn’t happen here. Grab went out via a SPAC on the Nasdaq. Sea listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They had to leave to get out. The Singapore Exchange, the biggest in the region, ranks only ninth by market value in Asia-Pacific, and several regional exchanges still carry listing rules strict enough to keep a cash-burning consumer company out entirely. For a blitzscaled consumer business, the local IPO was a closed door.

So put it together. We funded consumer companies built on the growth-at-all-costs playbook, and that playbook only pays off through a big public listing. We never built the public markets to list them on. We built companies for a door that, at home, was never there.

That’s not a winter. Winter ends. This was a design flaw.

Consumer is the hardest thing to sell, everywhere

This is the part I want founders and investors to chew on, because it goes beyond us. Consumer is one of the hardest categories to exit anywhere in the world.

Think about who actually buys companies. In enterprise software there’s a deep, permanent bench of buyers who do this all day. 2025 was the most active year on record for software M&A, with strategic buyers alone accounting for around 42 percent of deals. The most active software acquirers in 2024 included IBM, Cisco, Autodesk, Nvidia. There were 22 firms that each made at least five acquisitions in a single year. That’s a machine. A standing market of people whose job is to buy companies. What are they buying for? Recurring revenue, mission-critical, sticky, hard to rip out.

Now ask who the standing buyer is for a regional food-delivery app, or who’s lining up to roll up consumer brands in a market where customers switch the second someone else runs a discount. There isn’t a bench. Consumer internet leans almost entirely on the IPO. And we just covered what happened to that door.

Let me be fair, because the honest version is more interesting than the cheap one. Enterprise exits aren’t easy either. Only about ten percent of companies tagged as software ever get acquired. IPOs are about six percent of software exits. The median software acquisition went for roughly three times revenue, not the eye-watering multiple people imagine. B2B is not a golden ticket.

What enterprise has is a functioning market of repeat buyers. Consumer mostly has the IPO. It’s a difference in optionality, in how many doors are actually open. We bet the region on the category with the thinnest exit options, and didn’t build the one exit that category depends on until recently. If you wanted to design a liquidity crunch on purpose, that’s how you’d do it.

The people who built it are now saying it

What makes this report worth reading past the headline is the back half, where they ran candid pieces from a row of the region’s investors. To their credit, the honesty is right there.

Vishal Harnal at 500 Global names liquidity as the clearest challenge facing the region, pointing straight at underdeveloped exit markets and the long holding periods that wear founders and investors down. Angela Toy at Golden Gate is just as direct, conceding the region still lacks depth in both M&A and secondaries to get people their money out.

The one that stuck with me is from Cyril at SOSV, who lays out the question every Singapore founder eventually asks out loud. If the place you ultimately have to go for capital, scale, and an exit is San Francisco, why not just start there on day one? Why build here at all? That’s a tough one to sit with. It’s not a critic on the sidelines. It’s a GP at an active global fund saying the quiet part into a government report.

Then there’s Antler. They’ve raised about 1.5 billion dollars globally, from dozens of institutions and sovereign funds. The amount that came from Singapore institutions was around 10 million. The US allocates roughly five percent of its capital to venture as an asset class. Singapore sits well below one. So even the domestic money, the money that’s right here, mostly doesn’t back the local market. The capital sits in the city. It just doesn’t believe in the thing the city keeps saying it wants to be.

When this many people who built the market all point at the same missing piece, it stops being a complaint and starts being a diagnosis.

So what do we actually do

To be clear, Singapore isn’t sitting still. The response is substantial: an extra billion dollars into Startup SG Equity for growth-stage companies, a new 1.5 billion dollar anchor fund aimed squarely at strengthening exits, and a Singapore Exchange and Nasdaq partnership we’ve talked about here before. Almost all of it is about building the exit door now, after a decade-plus of funding companies that needed it and didn’t have it.

I’m not saying that to dunk on the policy. The policy is correct. Real liquidity, a working M&A culture, a credible place to list, that is exactly the right thing to spend on. My point is that we’re building the staircase after everyone already jumped. The companies that needed this in 2018, 2021, 2023 are gone or got out somewhere else. The question is whether the next decade of founders builds for the door that’s finally going up.

So here’s where I land. Stop building for the exit that doesn’t exist, and start building for the one that does.

That’s been our thesis at Indelible Ventures: back the higher-probability path from where the region actually is, and keep tracking how that liquidity path shifts over time. If the dependable way out is acquisition rather than a hometown IPO, then build the kind of company that has buyers. Real revenue, defensible product, something a strategic acquirer or a private equity firm actually needs to own. Not a big user number you’re hoping a public market rewards someday. Reality over vanity metrics. Capital efficiency stops being a constraint you tolerate and becomes the strategy. The companies getting funded here, and more importantly the ones that can get out, are the ones with clean unit economics, not the steepest growth chart.

I want to say something specific about the Philippines, because I’m genuinely optimistic about it and the lesson lands well there. The consumption story is real. Household spending is something like three-quarters of GDP. The young population, the digital adoption, all of it is genuine. The trap would be to look at that and run the same blitzscaled copycat playbook that just left the rest of the region holding companies it can’t sell. The opportunity is to build for that consumption with discipline, with models that travel across similar markets, and with an exit in mind from the start.

Same demand, smarter strategy. The fundamentals are a gift. The old playbook was the problem.

What it actually says

Southeast Asia’s problem in 2025 was never that it ran out of money. The region is full of money. Family offices, sovereign funds, the whole lot. The problem is that we built a generation of companies with no clean way to turn into returns, in the category least likely to produce them, listing on markets that mostly weren’t here.

That’s fixable. But only if we’re honest that it was a choice, not the weather.

The money will come back. The question is whether we’ll have built something it can actually leave through.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

I hopped into a taxi in Bangkok last week and the driver, a man north of fifty, spent the ride telling me what he was building with AI.

Not complaining about the economy. Not asking where I was from. Telling me about his project.

I’ve been turning that over ever since, because it isn’t an isolated thing. For weeks now I’ve been scanning event listings in whatever city I land in, and the pattern is hard to miss. It isn’t pitch nights anymore. It isn’t another fireside with a fund manager. It’s vibe coding meetups, agentic AI sessions, AI trainings. Paid attendance, no walk-ins, speakers who’ve shipped real apps. KL has them. Singapore has them. Bangkok and Manila have them. Go on Lu.ma or Eventbrite right now and there’s probably one happening in your city this week, maybe two.

I know this firsthand because I run some of them. I host AI salon events in Bangkok, and I’ve watched the rooms change.

So while the rest of the startup world argues about whether funding is back, looking at numbers that are frankly pretty dismal, there’s this whole other thing happening in cafes and malls across Southeast Asia. Regular people are learning to build software by talking to a machine.

Why I trust this one

I dismiss most AI hype on reflex. My feed is littered with slop, articles that read like they were generated by the thing they’re describing, people calling everything the future. I scroll past it.

This is different, and the reason is simple. People are paying to show up.

And it’s a different crowd than I’m used to seeing at startup events. University students and fresh grads who can see the job market tightening and are choosing to get ahead of the curve instead of waiting it out. Founders who can’t afford a dev team. Marketers. People with an idea and no technical co-founder, who a year ago would have been stuck with that idea trapped in their head, never seeing daylight. This is the no-code, low-code movement, upgraded and supercharged into the current AI era.

The category has a name now: “vibe coding”. I’m not a fan of the term, all that talk of vibes and feel grates on me, but it’s the vernacular, so I’ll use it. You describe what you want in plain language and the AI writes the code. That’s the whole thing.

I do it myself. I’ve used AI coding to replace most of our software stack. Thinking back to the friction of a couple of years ago versus how good this is now, and then projecting forward to how good it’ll be as the models keep improving, is genuinely one of the more interesting arcs I’ve lived through as an operator.

From apps to agents, which is where it gets serious

Building an app is one thing. The next rung up the ladder is building an agent, and agents are a different animal.

Most people, once you get out of the tech bubble, still picture a chatbot. You type, it types back. You ask, it answers. A better Google. That’s generation. It makes text, images, words.

An agent acts. It doesn’t tell you how to clear your inbox, it clears your inbox. It books the meeting. It sends the email. It runs commands on your machine. It talks to other software and gets things done with barely any input from you.

That’s the entire ballgame for risk. A chatbot needs a human to type every prompt. Every harm one causes still started with a person asking for it. An agent can plan, decide, and act on its own initiative. It can cause harm nobody asked for.

I want to be clear that I’m bullish on this. Hugely. But being bullish and being measured aren’t opposites, and the risk side of this deserves honest airtime.

Two examples everyone in the open-source world is talking about. The first is the lobster: OpenClaw. It went viral the moment it dropped. It connects an AI model to your messaging apps and acts on your behalf, books things, browses, runs commands, manages your house. People pulled their old Mac minis out of drawers to run it. Apple caught the wave and nudged the price up. It is not a Southeast Asian product, and we should be honest about that. It went viral hardest in China, which has been well ahead on the open-source movement. Southeast Asia needs to kick into gear as a fast follower, even when we’re not the origin.

The second is Hermes, out of a US research lab a few months back. What makes it different is memory. It lives on your own server, runs all the time, and gets better the longer you use it. It remembers what you told it last Tuesday. It writes down how it solved a problem so it never starts from scratch again. By this month it was the most-used agent out there by some measures, hundreds of billions of requests a day, hundreds of thousands of developers piling in within three months.

Here’s the part that should make you pause. Three separate security audits this year found malicious code hiding in the add-on skills people share for these agents. Think about what that means. An autonomous thing, running constantly, on your own machine, with access to your messages and files and maybe your ability to spend money, pulling new abilities from a community marketplace that’s already been found to contain things designed to hurt you. That isn’t a future problem. It’s a this-year problem, and it’s happening on hardware people own, in their homes, outside any IT department or compliance check.

A friend who’s far sharper than me on this put it well. Permissioning an agent is like onboarding a new intern. You give them enough access to act, but not enough to break things. If humans are entities of action, we have to treat agents as entities of action too, with the same scoping and the same limits. The catch is that getting that right still takes real technical skill, and most of the people downloading the lobster don’t have it.

So who’s writing the rules

Surely someone’s regulating this. Here’s where it actually stands, and the answer is more interesting than “nobody is.”

Three big global players, three different postures. The US is actively deregulating to keep its lead, tearing up the old safety rules and trying to stop its own states from making their own. The posture is get out of the way, though there was an executive order floated recently that would have made new models notify the government before public release, something closer to how the FDA approves a drug. It got paused, not signed. We’ll see. Europe, true to reputation, has the most serious regime, and just this month agreed to delay the hardest parts, the high-risk rules, by over a year. Competitiveness pressure. So even the strictest regulator in the world is loosening its grip right as agents arrive. And China is the strictest in practice and the only one already acting on agents specifically, real enforcement, thousands of non-compliant services shut down. Telling, the country where everyone installed the lobster also told its own government agencies and state banks not to put it on work devices. The adoption champion got nervous about its own craze.

Even the deregulating US quietly started building standards for autonomous agents. So nobody actually thinks this is fine. Everyone sees the gap. They’re just moving at wildly different speeds.

Southeast Asia is that same story compressed into one region, running at three speeds. Vietnam, maybe not who you’d guess, has the only real binding AI law here, passed late last year, enforced since Q1, risk-based with actual prohibited uses. It tracks, given how much of the region’s developer talent sits there. Singapore did something very Singapore: the world’s first governance framework built specifically for agentic AI, detailed and thoughtful, and deliberately voluntary. No teeth. The bet is give industry sophisticated guidance, remind everyone they’re still liable when their agent screws up, and keep the innovation onshore. They’ve already refreshed it with case studies from the likes of OCBC, Tencent and Workday. A living document, which is the right call given the pace. And then Malaysia, where I’m based, sitting on one of the most aggressive agent rollouts in the region, with its actual rules still in draft. Not here yet.

Here’s the whole thing in one line. Everyone, globally and right here at home, is regulating the last war. The last war was chatbots generating bad content, the stuff you can ban after it spreads. We saw it when Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines banned Grok over deepfakes, including images of children. Three countries, fast, coordinated, and fully deserved. But that’s the model: react after the harm, fold quickly. And every one of those images still needed a human to type the prompt.

The next war is agents taking bad actions on their own, because the black box decided that was the thing to do. That war is already shipping. Through anonymous downloads, onto personal machines, learned at meetups across the region, in a place where exactly one country has even a voluntary framework and the country with the biggest rollout is still drafting.

We’re banning the thing that needs a human to ask. We haven’t started on the thing that doesn’t.

What I keep coming back to

I’ll be honest, I don’t have a clean answer. Part of why I raised this is that it was a quiet news week. But the bigger part is that I can’t stop noticing the trend, and I doubt I’m alone. If you’re a CISO or a CTO or sitting in a compliance function, you’re already living this, because the whole enterprise is integrating more automation and more agents by the month, and the risk side is going to drag a regulatory environment into the room whether we invite it or not. It always does, the moment a technology touches enough of society. So it’s worth thinking now about what that reaction is likely to look like, instead of being surprised by it.

But I keep coming back to those meetups. To the rooms full of people building. Because that’s the real story, and it isn’t happening in a lab or a boardroom. It’s happening on your street, in cafes, in small event rooms. People in this region are adopting this faster than the people meant to govern it can keep up, and honestly that’s fine, because that’s how technology has always moved. I’m genuinely excited to see Southeast Asia stop being just a fast follower and start leapfrogging, with the macro trends, shifting supply chains, and regional growth all pointing the same way. There’s an enormous opportunity here, and I think this is going to sit at the front of it.

So I’ll leave you with the question I can’t answer myself. If you’re building with these tools right now, who’s responsible when your agent does something you didn’t intend? You? The person who built the tool? The government that hasn’t written the rule yet?

Right now the honest answer is nobody knows. And everybody’s building anyway.

As we should. But take a beat on that one.

Tell me where I’m wrong.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Two stories from Southeast Asia this week, and almost nobody connected them.

The Philippines unveiled the marker for the Pax Silica industrial hub in New Clark City. Twenty plus companies expressed interest. A dozen are billion-dollar US firms. And on the same day, Manila publicly rejected the US request for diplomatic immunity and US legal jurisdiction over the zone. The hub will operate under Philippine law.

Malaysia rewrote the rules of how startups go public on Bursa. VC firms can act as listing agents. Retail investors can participate for the first time. A real funding escalator from regulated crowdfunding to LEAP Market to ACE Market.

But the Malaysia story is part of something bigger. Singapore signed an SGX-Nasdaq dual listing bridge last November. The ASEAN-6 signed a cross-border depository receipts MOU in December 2024. Indonesia is tightening listing rules to chase quality. The whole region is rebuilding its public markets for venture-backed companies at the same time, and almost no one is tracking it as one story.

This episode walks through the two races happening in Southeast Asia right now. The industrial race for the AI economy, and the capital markets race for venture-backed exits. Each country is making different bets. Each country is solving for a different segment. Where you build matters now in a way it didn't five years ago.

I'm bullish on the Philippines. But the country has a gap on the capital markets side, and closing that gap is the work of the next two years.

Real. Raw. Relatable.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

There’s a version of this week that looks like a good week for Southeast Asia’s startup ecosystem.

The Q1 2026 funding report shows the highest quarterly capital raised since late 2022. Malaysia’s hottest IPO in sixteen years prices and lists next week. OpenAI and Anthropic both announce major new enterprise offerings backed by some of the biggest names in global private capital.

Here’s the version where you actually read the numbers.

One data centre deal accounts for over 70% of the quarterly funding total. The chip company getting 95 times oversubscribed has three-quarters of its revenue coming from China and a tax exemption that expired eight months ago and hasn’t been renewed. And the AI labs building $4 billion services arms are, if you read what they’re actually saying, admitting that their models are not easy to deploy in the real world.

Three stories. Let’s take them properly.

The Real Q1 2026 Funding Number

DealStreetAsia dropped their Q1 2026 Southeast Asia funding report this week. It’s making the rounds. The headline: $2.81 billion raised, the highest quarterly total since Q4 2022.

One deal, DayOne, a Singapore-based data centre operator, raised $2 billion in a Series C. I’ll put a mild caveat on that: this is a data centre, not technically a startup, and it was spun off from an existing entity. It’s in the numbers because it carries a Series C label. That’s fine. But it’s worth knowing what you’re looking at.

Strip it out. You have just under 100 deals and under $800 million combined. The lowest quarterly deal count in at least eight years.

That’s the actual funding market founders in this region are navigating right now. Not the headline. The actual market.

On the Singapore Number

The report shows Singapore capturing 91.5% of total capital. I’m honestly always a little skeptical of that figure in isolation, and here’s why.

Singapore is the home of the holdco. If you’re a founder in Malaysia or Indonesia or Vietnam trying to raise international capital, you’re not going to stay registered in your home jurisdiction. You’re going to put a holding company in Singapore, because the legal and regulatory environment is cleaner, because international investors are more comfortable with it, because that’s just how it’s done. Your operating company may still be fully onshore in your home market.

So some portion of what gets reported as “Singapore funding” is actually capital going into companies operating across the region, just routed through a Singapore holdco. How much? Hard to know. But it’s worth holding that nuance when you see the 91.5% figure.

What it definitely does tell you is that the Singapore jurisdiction matters, for capital access, for legal infrastructure, for institutional credibility. That part is real regardless of the holdco effect.

Malaysia: Signal or Noise?

The report calls out Malaysia as a bright spot, ranking second in Southeast Asia by deal volume for the first time. Eighteen deals, the highest quarterly count since Q3 2024.

I’m active in the Malaysian ecosystem. My honest read: take this with some salt. When you dig into what drove the number, a meaningful portion came from small cheques through a single accelerator programme. That’s not nothing, but it’s not the same as organic deal activity across the ecosystem.

I don’t want to be the one pouring cold water on every green shoot, and I’m not saying the Malaysian ecosystem isn’t moving. But there’s a difference between an ecosystem inflection and a batch of accelerator cheques inflating a quarterly number. We’ll know more by Q3.

Where the Money Is Actually Going

If you’re a founder asking where capital is flowing: AI. Specifically agentic AI, automation of workflows, tasks that execute with limited human oversight. Not chatbots. Actual agents doing actual work.

AI and ML deals came in second by volume in Q1 with thirteen transactions. The biggest was Amity’s $100 million Series D. Worth noting: Amity has a long-standing relationship with CP Group, one of Thailand’s largest conglomerates, which is the lead investor. That context matters for how you read the round. It doesn’t diminish the achievement, it’s still a strong signal of appetite in the space, but it’s worth knowing.

The message for founders: if you’re building real enterprise automation, real measurable productivity gains, there is capital. Not a lot. But it exists and it’s consistent.

The Quiet Problem Nobody Names

There’s something that doesn’t get said clearly in this ecosystem, so let me say it.

There is a growing number of zombie companies across Southeast Asia. Not failed companies, companies that can’t raise new capital, can’t grow meaningfully, but won’t die. They exist in a kind of operational limbo. Technically alive. Burning slowly.

Part of what sustains this is that down-rounds almost never happen here. The funds across the region are still relatively young. The LP relationships are new. Nobody wants to be the one writing a markdown into their portfolio, having that conversation, taking that medicine. So instead, they hold the valuation flat, keep the paper TVPI looking reasonable, and wait.

You can talk about your book value multiple all you want. If the company can’t raise and can’t grow, the number isn’t real.

The downstream problem: there are cases where this dynamic is actually blocking deals. An investor who doesn’t want to see a down-round may resist a transaction that would otherwise be good for the company, because accepting it means acknowledging the valuation they’ve been carrying is wrong.

Sometimes you have to take one step back to take two steps forward. That’s not a comfortable thing to do. But it’s more honest than pretending nothing is wrong until there are no options left.

SkyeChip and Malaysia’s Chip Moment

I want to start this one with genuine enthusiasm, because it deserves it.

SkyeChip Bhd lists on Bursa Malaysia’s Main Market on May 20th. The public tranche closed 95 times oversubscribed. Total retail demand hit RM 3.04 billion. The largest retail subscription in Malaysia since Petronas Chemicals in 2010, sixteen years ago.

The whole AI and chip investment wave has been impossible to ignore. NVIDIA’s share price trajectory. The compute boom. The data centre buildout. And now, emerging from Penang, a Malaysian company that sits right in the middle of that stack. That’s a big deal for this ecosystem.

Upfront caveat: I’m not a semiconductor expert. What follows is based on my research into the prospectus and what’s been circulating in the analyst and retail investor community. Take it in that spirit.

What SkyeChip Actually Does

Malaysia’s semiconductor sector has historically been dominated by the back end: assembly, testing, packaging. Important work. But it’s the low-margin end of the chain. The government has pushed for years, through NIMP 2030, through IC design parks in Selangor and Penang, through various national initiatives, to move the industry up the value chain into front-end design.

SkyeChip is the poster child for that ambition. It’s a fabless IC design company, it doesn’t manufacture chips, it designs silicon intellectual property. Reusable building blocks that chip makers integrate into their own products.

Think of it this way: TSMC makes the chips, NVIDIA designs what goes on them. SkyeChip is not saying they service either of those companies, but the analogy holds, they sell the blueprints for specific components that go inside chips. Their flagship IP is HBM3E: high-bandwidth memory interface technology, the memory architecture inside the AI accelerators that run the large language models powering frontier AI.

That’s the tie-in to the chip craze. And it’s why the hype is real. This isn’t fabricated. The technology is real.

The National Story

The government is leaning in hard, and in this case the support is substantive not just rhetorical. SkyeChip gets access to Arm Holdings design tokens through Malaysia’s Silicon Vision initiative, a national licensing arrangement that gives Malaysian companies access to Arm’s IP architecture. That’s a genuine strategic asset, not a marketing line.

The Deputy Minister attended the prospectus launch and talked about SkyeChip potentially reaching the level of Broadcom. Broadcom is a $700 billion company. SkyeChip is listing at RM 1.6 billion. The ambition is clear. The road is long.

But what matters is that this company is creating a visible proof point, that a Malaysian IC design house can be built, can reach a meaningful scale, can list on the main market, and can attract global attention. The next founder who wants to build something like this now has an example. That matters for the ecosystem in ways that go beyond the specific valuation.

The Numbers Worth Noting

Revenue more than doubled over two years. Profit margins around 30%. Analysts projecting roughly 31% earnings CAGR over three years, with the most bullish target price close to double the IPO price of RM 0.88.

The business model, IP licensing, is a proven high-margin, scalable model. Arm, Cadence, Synopsys. These are multi-billion dollar businesses built exactly this way: create the IP once, license it repeatedly. SkyeChip isn’t reinventing the model. It’s executing on it with new IP in a hot category.

The Risks That Deserve Honest Attention

China Revenue and US Export Controls

For the seven months ending October 2025, China accounted for 73.3% of revenue. Almost three-quarters of the company’s most recent revenue came from Chinese fabless IC companies selling advanced HPC and AI chips.

The prospectus explicitly acknowledges that if any of their customers are added to the US Entity List, supply must be suspended. None are listed today, but today is a snapshot, not a guarantee. The company is also planning to open US offices, which creates a real balancing act between serving Chinese customers and operating in a US regulatory environment that is actively tightening controls on exactly this category of IP.

The Tax Exemption Expired

This is the one I keep coming back to.

SkyeChip has been operating under a Pioneer Status tax exemption, effectively a 2.7% tax rate. That exemption expired September 9, 2025. They applied for renewal. As of the last published date in the prospectus, the renewal is still under review.

The IPO is priced at 44x FY2025 earnings. Those earnings use a 2.7% tax rate that no longer exists. Normalise to a standard 25% rate and you’re paying closer to 57x.

Most analysts will have noted this. But it’s worth being explicit about: the multiple headline is priced on a tax rate that hasn’t been legally valid for eight months and may not be renewed. That’s a material question sitting unresolved at the point of listing.

Revenue Quality and Customer Concentration

Top three customers represent around 60% of FY2025 revenue. More importantly, the revenue model is largely non-recurring, lump-sum contracts, one-off sales, high upfront. You need to keep winning new work to replace completed contracts.

Retail investors who have done deep dives on the prospectus, the i3investor and KLSE Screener community has been thorough here, have flagged that several of the largest customers from earlier years no longer appear as active. Replaced by new Chinese customers with sub-one-year relationships. Customer names are undisclosed so independent verification isn’t possible, but the pattern is worth understanding before you subscribe.

Where I Land

Malaysia needs stories like this. We need proof points that deep tech can be built here, that front-end design is achievable, that a Malaysian company can capture global demand in a critical technology category. SkyeChip creates that proof point. Congratulations to the team and their investors, genuinely.

The technology is real. The Arm access is real. The revenue growth is real. There’s genuine substance here and, looking at comparable companies globally, there’s still room for upside even from the IPO price.

The risks are also real. China concentration, an expired tax exemption, non-recurring revenue, some customer churn buried in the prospectus. None of these are necessarily deal-breakers. All of them require the optimistic scenario to hold.

Watch the listing day on May 20th. The market will be more honest than any analyst note about how much of the 95x was conviction and how much was leverage-financed retail applications planning a day-one flip.

OpenAI and Anthropic Just Told You the Hard Part

This is the most globally significant story of the week. And I think it has the most direct implication for founders building in Southeast Asia right now.

Within the same week, Anthropic first, then OpenAI, both companies announced they are building enterprise AI services companies. Not products. Not model updates. Not API pricing changes. Services companies. Engineers going inside client organisations and building AI systems for them.

What They Announced

OpenAI announced on May 11th. They’re calling it the OpenAI Deployment Company. Launching with over $4 billion in initial investment from 19 founding partners, TPG leading, with Bain Capital, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs, SoftBank, McKinsey, and Capgemini in the group. OpenAI also acquired Tomoro, an applied AI consulting firm, and brought roughly 150 engineers into the venture from day one. OpenAI retains majority ownership.

The model: Forward Deployed Engineers (FDEs) embedded directly inside client organisations. They work with business leaders and frontline teams to identify where AI can have the biggest impact, redesign workflows around it, and build production systems connected to the company’s actual data and infrastructure.

Anthropic announced a week earlier, backed by Blackstone, Hellman and Friedman, Goldman Sachs, General Atlantic, Apollo, GIC, and Sequoia. Same fundamental concept. Their framing specifically targets mid-market: community banks, mid-size manufacturers, regional health systems. Companies that could benefit enormously from AI but don’t have the internal resources to build and run frontier deployments.

When you look at the roster of investors across both of these efforts, you’re seeing a significant portion of global private capital touching large segments of the broader economy. This is not a side bet.

The Palantir Model

To understand why this matters, you need to understand what Palantir built over the last two decades.

Palantir’s entire model was built on one idea: you can’t sell complex software to complex organisations and expect them to use it well. You have to embed engineers inside the organisation. Work through the legacy systems, the internal politics, the messy reality of how things actually get done inside a large enterprise. Build something that functions in that specific environment.

That made Palantir extraordinarily sticky. Once you’ve had a team embedded inside an organisation for months, rebuilding core operational workflows around your platform, good luck ripping that out. The model is controversial. Critics call it consulting dressed as software. Believers say it’s the only honest way to sell software to organisations that don’t know what they need.

OpenAI and Anthropic are applying that same logic to AI. At scale. With billions behind it.

If the models were easy to deploy, these services arms would not need to exist. Full stop.

The Deployment Gap Is the Real Problem

Enterprise AI has a gap that doesn’t get enough honest discussion. The models work. Claude works. GPT works. The demos are genuinely impressive. But when companies try to deploy these systems into actual operations, into fifty-year-old legacy software, complicated permission structures, compliance requirements, and workflows that have developed organically over decades, the complexity is enormous.

The gap between “this model is impressive” and “this model is running reliably inside our organisation and measurably improving how we operate” is not a small gap. It is enormous. And closing it requires human expertise, people who understand the technology and the specific operational context of the organisation.

The fact that both labs are committing at this scale to closing that gap is an admission. Model quality is not the bottleneck anymore. Deployment is the bottleneck. And that reframes where value sits in the AI stack.

The Inversion of SaaS

Here’s a framing I’ve been thinking about. The SaaS era was defined by software being light on the surface, an interface you accessed yourself. The software sat on top of your workflow but you still had to do the work. Self-service by design.

What these services arms represent is something different. The model is going deep into the workflow, understanding it, rebuilding it, and then leaving behind something that runs with minimal human intervention. You’re not delivering software. You’re delivering a running operation. Services as software.

If that model sticks, and the fact that it’s being backed this heavily suggests it will, the companies that win are not the ones with the best model. They’re the ones who can deploy the best model inside the most complex environments, with the most contextual understanding of how those environments actually work.

What This Means for Southeast Asia

OpenAI’s Deployment Company is starting in US enterprise. Anthropic is starting in US mid-market. Neither of them is starting in Southeast Asia.

That means the deployment gap in this region is not going to be closed by Silicon Valley in the near term. Someone local has to do it.

The bank in KL running a fifty-year-old core banking system. The Indonesian manufacturer with warehouses of paper records. The healthcare group operating across five countries with different languages and different regulatory frameworks in each market. These aren’t problems that a foreign firm can parachute in and solve. They require local knowledge, local language, local relationships, and long-term on-the-ground presence.

The two most credible AI labs in the world just confirmed there is a structural, multi-billion dollar opportunity for exactly this business. The window to build it before the global players get here is not unlimited.

If you are building an AI services or implementation company in Southeast Asia right now, this week’s announcements are a green light. Pick up the pace. The clients will move slowly, that’s fine, enterprise always moves slowly. You move fast. Get embedded. Build the local relationships. Develop the deployment expertise. Because once you’re in and the workflows are built around what you’ve built, it becomes very hard to replace.

And one more signal worth noting: when AI labs start building services arms, it tells you something about the model layer. If being the best model was a durable, defensible moat, you would not need a services company. You would just keep making the model better and let it sell itself. Both companies have genuinely good models. They’re still building this.

The future isn’t won at the model layer. It’s won at the integration layer, the workflow layer, the trust layer. For founders building AI companies in Southeast Asia, that’s the competition you’re actually in. And it’s a winnable one.

What These Three Stories Say Together

Put them next to each other and they’re telling one thing.

The funding market is leaner than the headlines suggest. Capital is concentrating, in Singapore, in AI, in infrastructure. The zombie problem is real and growing quietly. There are silver linings: Malaysia is moving, agentic AI has consistent demand, and the data centre boom is real even if it distorts the quarterly numbers.

SkyeChip is the most tangible proof point this ecosystem has produced in years that big, globally relevant deep tech can come out of Malaysia. Whether it becomes a durable business depends on questions the prospectus cannot yet answer. The execution has to turn the IPO moment into something lasting.

And the global AI labs just spent billions telling you that the hard part of AI isn’t the model. In Southeast Asia, the opportunity to do that hard part, the deployment, the integration, the on-the-ground expertise, is wide open and freshly validated.

The founders who understand that and move on it in the next twelve to eighteen months are the ones worth watching.

This post accompanies the SEA of Startups episode for the week of May 13, 2026. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

Real. Raw. Relatable.

SEA of Startups | Kevin Brockland

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

This week’s episode is a news episode. No guests. Just four stories that I think every founder, investor, and operator in Southeast Asia should be paying attention to right now.

Here’s what we cover, and why each one matters.

1. China forced Meta to unwind a completed acquisition. Mid-honeymoon.

In December, Meta acquired Manus — the AI agent startup that went viral in 2025 as China’s answer to deep research tools. The deal closed. Manus’s website was already saying it was part of Meta.

On April 28th, Beijing’s NDRC told both parties to reverse it.

The Singapore-washing playbook — where Chinese founders restructure as Singapore entities to access US capital — is now provably dead. Beijing just proved it can reach into a completed acquisition, across jurisdictions, and pull the plug.

But the surface story is not the interesting story. The interesting story is the mechanics of what an “unwind” actually looks like. Money has already flowed through to investors and their LPs. Engineers have been working inside Meta for weeks. Knowledge transfer has happened. How do you reverse that?

And then there’s the Meta question. Did they make a mistake — or did they knowingly race the regulator, betting that if they got the technology embedded before enforcement could land, a slow unwind would be better than no acquisition? Their public statement — “the transaction complied fully with applicable law, we anticipate an appropriate resolution” — says absolutely nothing. Which might be exactly the point.

Singapore has been conspicuously silent throughout all of this. What that silence costs them is a conversation the episode goes deeper on.

1. eFishery. Nine years. And it still doesn’t feel like enough.

Gibran Huzaifah was sentenced to nine years on April 29th. Two other former executives received nine and seven years respectively.

The numbers, if you haven’t heard them: the company told investors it generated $752 million in revenue from January to September 2024. Actual revenue was $157 million. They reported a $16 million profit. The actual result was a $35 million loss.

SoftBank. Temasek. KWAP — Malaysia’s civil servant pension fund. All recovering less than ten cents on the dollar.

But this episode is not a crime recap. The eFishery story is a prompt for a harder question about what kind of ecosystem we’re building here.

Fraud exists on a spectrum. At one end: criminal fabrication at scale. At the other: things that happen every week across the region that would never see a courtroom — vanity metrics dressed as traction, pilots treated as revenue, LOIs presented as signed contracts. None of that is eFishery. But it is on the same continuum.

And it is not only founders. Investors do it too.

The reason this matters beyond the immediate case is economic. In a high-uncertainty market like Southeast Asia, trust is the operating system. When it erodes — when every investor assumes every founder is telling the most optimistic version of the truth — the whole system gets more expensive. More friction. More time on verification. Fewer deals done.

A high-integrity environment is a high-output environment. The ecosystem gets the standards it is willing to enforce.

1. Indonesia capped ride-hailing commissions at 8%. GoTo just posted its first-ever profit. Congratulations.

On May 1st — International Workers’ Day, timing very much intentional — President Prabowo signed a regulation capping the maximum commission ride-hailing platforms can take from drivers at 8%. Down from 20%. Drivers now get a minimum of 92% of every fare.

GoTo shares dropped nearly 6% on the news. Analysts estimated the ride-hailing segment accounted for roughly 48% of GoTo’s EBITDA. Grab, which derives about 20% of its total EBITDA from Indonesia, is also in the firing line.

Both companies will either raise fares, eat the margin hit, or some combination of both. None of those options is clean.

Here is the part that might be unpopular in a room full of investors: Prabowo is not entirely wrong.

Indonesia has around four million ride-hailing drivers. The platform without the driver is just an app with nowhere to go. The economics for drivers have been genuinely rough. The system was designed to extract maximum value from a class of workers with very little negotiating power.

The underlying question — how do we ensure the people who actually do the work get a fair share of what they create — is legitimate. If platforms do not answer it voluntarily, governments will answer it for them.

The risk, of course, is that fares go up, volumes drop, and drivers end up worse off than before. That is the irony of heavy-handed regulation. But that is a problem for GoTo and Grab to solve. They had the data. They should have got ahead of this before a president had to sign a decree on Workers’ Day.

1. Malaysia is building gas plants to power AI data centres. The energy transition did not plan for this.

This week, a Melaka-based company called DPS Resources — until recently primarily a furniture and property developer — announced it signed an MOU with an Alibaba affiliate to explore building a $1.1 billion AGI data centre in Melaka. 150 to 180 megawatts. DPS provides the land, the power, the infrastructure. Alibaba’s entity handles operations and brings the computing demand.

This deal is not an anomaly. It is a perfect emblem of what is happening across Malaysia right now. Everyone wants a piece of the data centre gold rush. The question not being asked loudly enough is whether Malaysia actually has the power to sustain it.

TNB’s pipeline is 7,500MW across 56 data centre projects. Current actual load from those facilities: 850MW. The draw-down is coming as facilities rack up through 2026. At the same time, 6,400MW of coal-fired generation is scheduled for retirement between 2029 and 2031.

To cover those retirements and meet rising demand, Malaysia needs roughly 12,000MW of new generation by 2031.

Right now, the Energy Commission has an open tender — NewGen26 — for new gas-fired generation to plug that gap. Bids close July 1st. Eight weeks away. This is Malaysia racing to build baseload capacity before the demand wall hits. The fact that it is gas, not solar, tells you everything about the timeline pressure.

The Iran conflict makes this personal. TNB’s Automatic Fuel Adjustment mechanism means global oil and gas price spikes feed directly into Malaysian electricity bills within 30 days. Data centres in Johor were approved on the premise of cheap, stable Malaysian electricity. That premise is now under pressure from a war on the other side of the world.

The deeper question is who actually benefits from this boom. DPS provides the land and the power. Alibaba keeps the data, the models, and the IP. Research consistently shows data centres create the lowest number of jobs per square foot of any major facility type. Thousands of construction roles during the build, then roughly 200 operational staff when running.

Malaysia is providing the real estate, the utilities, and the environmental cost. The hyperscalers are keeping the value.

That is not a reason to stop. But it is a reason to be far more deliberate about what we are trading and what we are getting in return.

Watch the episode

Four stories. One theme running underneath all of them: the rules are being rewritten. Who controls AI. Who controls capital flows. Who gets a fair share of the value created. Who owns the infrastructure the future runs on.

These are not settled questions. They are live negotiations — between governments, between companies, between regions.

Southeast Asia is not a passive observer in any of this.

[Watch / listen to the full episode → link]

SEA of Startups is a podcast for founders, investors, and operators building in Southeast Asia. Real. Raw. Relatable.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Episode Title: The New Space Age Is Actually Here | Artemis II, SpaceX IPO & The Rise of Orbital Infrastructure

Episode Summary

Right now, four humans are flying around the moon. Not in a simulation. Not in a film. For real. Kevin uses the launch of Artemis II on April 1, 2026 as the jumping-off point for a deep dive into the most consequential shift in space exploration since the Apollo era — and why this time, it's not just governments leading the charge.

From SpaceX's against-all-odds origin story to the trillion-dollar IPO that just rocked public markets, this episode charts how the economics of space fundamentally changed, what that means for a new generation of startups, and whether the science fiction stories we grew up watching are finally, actually, coming true.

What We Cover

Artemis II — Who's on board, what they're testing, and why this 10-day lunar flyby matters beyond the symbolism

The cost collapse — How SpaceX drove launch costs from $10,000–$20,000/kg down to under $2,000/kg (and potentially below $100 with Starship)

The space economy by the numbers — $8B+ raised in 2025 alone, 154% YoY growth, 35,000+ companies globally, a projected $1T market by 2033

Startups reshaping the supply chain — Rocket Lab, Apex, Hadrian, The Exploration Company, and the infrastructure plays most people aren't watching

Earth observation goes commercial — How Planet Labs and others turned satellite data into a sovereign government revenue model

The SpaceX IPO — Filed confidentially the same day as Artemis II, targeting a June NASDAQ listing at a reported $1.5–2T+ valuation (potentially the largest IPO in history)

Starlink's numbers — 10M subscribers, $10B revenue in 2025, projected $24B by end of 2026, and what direct-to-cell really means

Orbital data centers — Star Cloud's H100 GPU satellite, Google's Project Suncatcher, Blue Origin's TeraWave, and why AI's energy problem might get solved in orbit

The moon as infrastructure — Lunar ice mining, the South Pole fuel depot play, and Lone Star Data Holdings building a data center on the lunar surface

The sci-fi question — Are the stories we grew up with finally coming true?

Key Numbers

StatFigureSpace tech funding raised in 2025$8B+YoY growth in space funding154%Projected space market by 2033~$1 trillionNew employees added in the past year~200,000Cost to orbit in the 1990s$10,000–$20,000/kgCost to orbit today (Falcon 9)Under $2,000/kgStarlink subscribers (end of 2025)10 millionStarlink revenue 2025$10BSpaceX IPO reported valuation$1.5–2T+Star Cloud Series A valuation$1.1B (18 months old)

Companies & Missions Mentioned

SpaceX · Artemis II / NASA · Rocket Lab · Planet Labs · Apex · Hadrian · The Exploration Company · Star Cloud · Lone Star Data Holdings · Blue Origin (TeraWave) · Google (Project Suncatcher) · xAI · Starlink

People Mentioned

Reed Wiseman — Artemis II Commander

Victor Glover — Artemis II Pilot; first Black person to travel to the moon

Christina Koch — First woman to travel to the moon

Jeremy Hansen — First Canadian to travel this far from Earth

Jared Isaacman — NASA Administrator

Elon Musk — SpaceX / xAI / X

Chad Anderson — Founder, Space Capital

Quotes Worth Sharing

"SpaceX didn't just build a business. It rewrote what was possible."

"The interplanetary story is no longer confined to Elon Musk's conference slide decks. It's in regulatory filings. It's in rocket test programs. It's in the hiring plans of hundreds of companies."

"The gap between what the stories promised and what actually happened at times felt like a wound. But now I look at what's actually happening and I find myself genuinely surprised."

Follow the Show

🎙️ SEA of Startups — Real. Raw. Relatable. YouTube | TikTok | Instagram

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Most AI content gives you a framework. Tiwa York gives you a verdict.

The founder who built Kaidee to 35 million users and guided it to a successful exit sat down with SEA of Startups and said what most operators are afraid to say out loud: your team is probably performing AI adoption, not doing it. And the longer you stay there, the harder it gets to move.

Here’s what he actually said — the numbers, the examples, the provocations.

The 5 Levels of AI Maturity (And Why 1.5 Is a Trap)

Tiwa’s framework runs from 0 to 4. Most conversations stop at listing the levels. The more important conversation is why so many companies get stuck halfway through Level 1.

Level 0 — Unaware: No AI tools in use. Working like it’s 2019.

Level 1 — Curious: ChatGPT is bookmarked. It gets used for emails and translation. Actual work output: unchanged.

Level 1.5 — The Trap: This is where Tiwa spends most of his time on stage. A few people are experimenting. Strategy decks mention AI. But workflows, decisions, and output haven’t moved. He calls this adoption theater — and it’s where the majority of SEA companies currently sit.

Level 2 — Active: AI is genuinely built into daily work. Measurable productivity gains of 25–50%.

Level 3 — Integrated: Multiple AI tools connected in smooth workflows. The data analyst goes from one report a week to one a day. The PM tests ideas overnight with simulated customers. 2–3x productivity — and completely redesigned ways of working.

Level 4 — Transformative: Creating value streams that simply didn’t exist before. Tiwa estimates this is roughly 2% of the global workforce today.

The goal isn’t to inch from 1.5 to 2. It’s to move from 1.5 to 3, and then to 4. Anything less is rearranging deck chairs.

The Mental Model That Changes Everything

Tiwa’s most useful reframe isn’t a framework — it’s a metaphor.

Think of AI as the most capable but most forgetful intern you’ve ever hired. It can do almost anything better than any employee on your team. But the moment it leaves a conversation, it remembers nothing. Zero context. Starting from scratch.

This metaphor matters because it tells you exactly what your job is: you’re not a user of AI. You’re a systems designer for AI. Your task is building the handoff infrastructure — the context-carrying mechanisms, the memory systems, the structured prompts — that prevent that amnesia from killing your output quality.

Tiwa draws a direct parallel to the Toyota Production System. You’re not optimising one conversation. You’re building a manufacturing process for intelligence, with daily standups, continuous improvement loops, and institutional memory that compounds over time.

Most companies treat AI like a vending machine. High performers treat it like a factory floor.

The Numbers That Should Stop You Mid-Sentence

If you think the efficiency gap between good and great AI usage is somewhere between 20–30%, Tiwa has a number for you.

The difference between a 30% productivity gain and a 300x productivity gain isn’t the model you’re using. It’s how you’re using it.

That’s not a typo. 300x. The delta between someone using AI as a faster search engine and someone who has built genuine fluency — with context management, iteration discipline, and system-level thinking — is not incremental. It’s categorical.

On token economics specifically, Kevin cited Jensen Huang’s framing directly: a developer earning $500K annually should be spending roughly $250K a year in AI tokens. That’s the ratio of a high-performance AI-native engineer. For context: serious power users are already spending $500+/month on tokens. Some AI-native startups are at $1,000 per person per day.

If your developers aren’t asking for AI budget, Tiwa’s take is unambiguous: that’s a performance issue.

The Hiring Freeze Argument (And Why It’s Not Crazy)

The most provocative position Tiwa took in the recording:

Freeze all hiring until your AI implementation is complete.

The reasoning is mathematical. Communication pathways explode non-linearly with headcount:

• 5 people → 10 pathways

• 10 people → 45 pathways

• 20 people → 190 pathways

Every person you add before you’ve stabilised your AI workflows creates coordination overhead that compounds. You’re layering human complexity on top of unresolved process complexity. The problems don’t add — they multiply.

The implication for most early-stage SEA founders: your instinct to hire for growth may be the thing slowing your growth. A team of 6 people who are genuinely at Level 3 will outrun a team of 15 people stuck at Level 1.5, every time.

The Middleware Trap: A Warning for Builders

Tiwa is an investor. He’s pattern-matching on where value will be captured — and where it will evaporate.

His verdict on horizontal and middleware AI companies: 18-month obsolescence risk. The major frontier models are absorbing middleware functionality as a matter of course. If your moat is sitting between the model and the enterprise, that’s a shrinking gap.

The defensible positions he sees in SEA:

• Vertical solutions with deep workflow integration and hard-to-replicate domain understanding

• Regulated, complex legacy environments where switching costs are real and proprietary data is locked in

• Physical AI — Tiwa cited MUI Robotics, which has deployed an AI tongue (taste and smell sensors) across dairy companies, water utilities, and hotel renovation monitoring, and is currently running a research project on early liver cancer detection through smell. 300+ clients. 50+ multinationals. That’s not a middleware play.

The common thread: proprietary data, physical integration, or regulatory complexity. If you can be replaced by a model update, you’re not building a business — you’re building a feature.

Two Real Examples, Not Hypothetical Ones

The Jira/Confluence Replacement: A software development house replaced its entire project management stack — Jira, Confluence, the lot — in four days using AI-assisted development. Annual savings: $24,000. More importantly, they own the system now. No vendor dependency. No per-seat pricing. No waiting for a roadmap that doesn’t match their workflow.

The HubSpot Replacement: A friend of Tiwa’s replaced their entire HubSpot instance with a custom-built CRM in eight hours of AI-assisted coding. Eight hours. The off-the-shelf tool cost thousands annually and didn’t fit the workflow. The custom solution does — and it cost a weekend.

The pattern here isn’t “build vs. buy.” It’s “stop buying things that make you dependent when you could own the thing in a day.”

What AI-First Actually Requires From Leadership

Tiwa’s framework for leaders isn’t about tool selection. It’s about accountability architecture.

The key shifts:

Every function owns its own transformation. This can’t live with the CTO alone. Engineering, product, marketing, finance, customer success — every team lead is responsible for their own AI integration roadmap.

Model the behaviour publicly. If leadership isn’t visibly using AI — and visibly failing with it, learning from it, sharing what they found — no one else will take the cultural signal seriously.

Measure outcomes, not activity. Logins aren’t fluency. Licenses aren’t execution. The metrics that matter: workflow velocity, decision speed, output quality. Not hours of AI training completed.

Daily continuous improvement. Not a quarterly AI review. A daily standup cadence for what’s working, what broke, what gets refined tomorrow. Toyota didn’t build the production system in a sprint. Neither will you.

The Real Question

Tiwa closed with the line that stayed with everyone in the room.

“The question isn’t how do we find extraordinary people. It’s whether extraordinary people get unleashed inside this org — or leave to do it on their own.”

For founders in SEA: you probably already have the talent. The judgment is in the building. The only variable is whether you build the systems that let it operate at full power — or whether you stay at Level 1.5 long enough that the people who figured it out first come back to compete with you.

Watch the full conversation with Tiwa York on SEA of Startups

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

In the ever-changing landscape of technology and business, the term “SaaSpocalypse” has emerged to describe the recent downturn in public software stocks. But what does this mean for the future of SaaS companies, especially in Southeast Asia? In this blog post, we’ll explore the nuances of the SaaSpocalypse, the potential for growth amidst disruption, and what established and emerging companies can do to adapt.

Understanding the SaaSpocalypse

The term SaaSpocalypse refers to the recent significant decline in the valuations of publicly traded SaaS companies. This decline has raised concerns about the future viability of these companies. But is the doom and gloom justified?

The Current Landscape

• Valuation Adjustments: Many SaaS companies have seen their valuations drop sharply, leading to discussions about overvaluation in the sector. As Chris Birrell notes, some of these companies were indeed due for a correction.

• Growth Continues: Despite the downturn, many SaaS companies are still experiencing growth rates of 15-20% year-over-year, which, although lower than previous highs, indicates resilience in the market.

Key Insight: The SaaS market is not dying; it’s evolving. Companies that can adapt to new technologies, especially AI, may find new opportunities for growth.

The Role of AI in SaaS

AI is a game-changer for many industries, and SaaS is no exception. As the demand for AI integration grows, traditional SaaS companies must adapt.

Embracing AI Technologies

• Increased Demand for AI Solutions: Companies are under pressure to integrate AI into their workflows. This presents both a challenge and an opportunity for incumbents who can leverage their existing customer relationships to offer new, AI-driven solutions.

• The Risk of Disruption: While established companies may have a strong foothold, they are not immune to disruption. New entrants who can offer innovative solutions may quickly gain traction.

Example: Companies like Salesforce are well-positioned to sell AI-driven solutions, thanks to their existing customer base and established workflows.

Navigating Change: Strategies for SaaS Companies

As the industry evolves, SaaS companies in Southeast Asia must consider their strategies carefully. Here are a few key areas to focus on:

Focus on Core Competencies

• *Defensible Moats*: Companies with deep integrations into their clients’ workflows are better positioned to weather market fluctuations. Understanding what makes your service indispensable can help you maintain customer loyalty.

• *Avoiding the Surface-Level Solutions*: Companies that offer point solutions without deep integration risk losing market share to more comprehensive platforms.

Capitalizing on Regional Nuances

Southeast Asia is a unique market, and understanding local dynamics can provide a competitive edge.

• Local Expertise: Companies with founders who understand regional challenges are likely to succeed where larger, global firms may falter. This localized approach can help companies tailor their solutions to meet specific market needs.

The Future of SaaS in Southeast Asia

Looking ahead, what does the future hold for SaaS companies in Southeast Asia?

Opportunities Amidst Challenges

• Emerging Startups: As Chris mentions, startups that can build reusable software components tailored for AI-driven environments may find success. There’s a growing need for specialized solutions that can integrate seamlessly with existing workflows.

• BPO Evolution: Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) companies are also on the brink of transformation. By leveraging AI, they can enhance their service offerings and improve efficiency, setting the stage for a new era in service delivery.

Conclusion: Adapting for Success

In conclusion, while the SaaSpocalypse presents challenges, it also opens up avenues for growth and innovation. Companies that can adapt to the changing landscape—embracing AI, focusing on core competencies, and understanding regional market nuances—will be well-positioned to thrive in the future.

Key Takeaways:

• The SaaSpocalypse is not the end, but a transition.

• Embrace AI and focus on integration to maintain your market position.

• Understand regional dynamics to tailor your solutions for success.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the SaaSpocalypse?

The SaaSpocalypse refers to the significant decline in valuations of publicly traded SaaS companies, raising concerns about the future of the industry.

How can SaaS companies adapt to the changing landscape?

By integrating AI solutions, focusing on their core competencies, and understanding regional market dynamics, SaaS companies can navigate the challenges ahead.

Is the SaaS industry dying?

No, the SaaS industry is evolving. Companies that can innovate and adapt will continue to thrive.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Keywords

Meta, Manus, acquisition, Singapore, AI, geopolitics, startups, tech industry, business growth, investment

Summary

In this conversation, Kevin and Kim discuss Meta's recent acquisition of Manus, a Singapore-based startup, exploring its implications for founders in the region, the geopolitical landscape, and the evolving nature of AI in business. They analyze the rapid growth of Manus, the significance of Singapore as a tech hub, and the challenges posed by regulatory scrutiny. The discussion highlights the potential for Southeast Asia to emerge as a key player in the global tech ecosystem, while also addressing the complexities of company nationality and the future of AI amidst geopolitical tensions.

Takeaways

Meta's acquisition of Manus raises questions about the future of startups in Southeast Asia.

The deal signifies a shift in how tech companies navigate geopolitical landscapes.

Manus's rapid growth showcases the potential for startups in the region.

Acquisitions are not just about money; they often buy time and talent.

AI is changing the valuation landscape for tech companies.

Singapore is becoming a strategic hub for tech companies looking to scale globally.

The concept of 'Singapore washing' raises important questions about company nationality.

Geopolitical tensions could impact future tech acquisitions.

The success of Manus could inspire more founders in Southeast Asia.

Southeast Asia has the potential to be a significant player in the global tech ecosystem.

Titles

Meta's Bold Move: What It Means for Founders

Navigating Geopolitics in Tech Acquisitions

Sound bites

"They just bought time."

"Does it really matter? Not really."

"Singapore is the neutral zone."

Chapters

00:00 The AI Landscape and Major Players

02:45 Geopolitical Implications of AI Investments

05:53 The Role of Singapore in the Global Tech Ecosystem

08:54 The Evolution of AI and Market Dynamics

11:54 Regulatory Challenges and Market Valuations

14:17 The Future of AI and Founders' Perspectives

18:01 Navigating Nationality and Compliance in Tech

20:45 The Balance of Speed and Long-term Value Creation

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Summary

In this conversation, Kevin and Kim discuss the recent merger of Elon Musk's companies, particularly focusing on the implications of combining AI and space technologies. They explore the potential of data centers in space, the evolving role of Tesla, and the regulatory challenges that come with these advancements. The discussion also touches on the future of sovereignty in space and the messy landscape of regulations that may arise as private companies take a more significant role in space exploration.

Takeaways

Elon Musk is merging his companies to simplify operations.

The merger signifies a shift towards a unified intelligence layer.

Data centers in space could revolutionize computing.

Tesla's role is evolving beyond just electric vehicles.

Regulatory challenges will complicate space exploration.

Sovereignty in space is a complex issue.

The landscape of space regulations is becoming messy.

Private companies will play a crucial role in space.

Non-terrestrial data centers are on the horizon.

The future of AI is tied to its infrastructure location.

Titles

The End of the Discrete Company Era

Merging AI and Space: A New Frontier

Sound bites

"AI just got X'd."

"Tesla isn't an EV company anymore."

"It's going to be messy."

Chapters

00:00 The End of the Discrete Company Era

02:07 The Merging of Tech Giants

05:48 Data Centers in Space: A New Frontier

09:53 The Unified Intelligence Layer

14:56 The Future of AI and Space Exploration

20:05 Regulatory Challenges in Space

24:54 The Wild West of Space Law

29:55 The Dawn of a New Era

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Heyyyy guys,

🧠 TL;DR — What Actually Changed

• SGX × NASDAQ dual listing is a real regulatory breakthrough — but U.S. liquidity remains unproven

• The fintech “funding collapse” was actually capital consolidation into Singapore

• Southeast Asia is shifting from emerging → maturing, with real scaffolding for a capital stack

• Founders + investors have a 24-month window before this becomes table stakes

The Setup: Why This Moment Matters

SGX and NASDAQ just launched a dual-listing bridge — something Southeast Asia’s growth-stage founders have wanted for a decade.

But here’s the twist:

This isn’t about IPO convenience.It’s about Singapore silently building its own version of Silicon Valley’s capital stack — adapted for Southeast Asia’s geopolitical reality.

And it’s happening while the rest of the ecosystem is still parsing the headline.

We are at an inflection point,but not for the reasons most people think.

1. SGX × NASDAQ Dual Listing

Real Liquidity or Ego Liquidity?**

What It Is

A streamlined structure allowing ~$2.5B+ companies to list simultaneously on SGX and NASDAQ without:

• duplicate filings

• conflicting disclosures

• multi-jurisdictional legal chaos

A real regulatory achievement.

What Everyone Assumes

“Finally! A viable U.S. exit path for Southeast Asia tech.”

What It Actually Is

A partial solution — with one massive unanswered question:

Does this create real U.S. liquidity, or just better press releases?

Regulatory friction? Solved.Liquidity, analyst coverage, and market-making? Not solved.

Let’s be blunt:

• Who in New York is covering a $3B ASEAN B2B SaaS they’ve never used?

• Who is trading your stock at 2 a.m. EST?

• How do you compete for attention against trillion-dollar tickers?

In Singapore, you matter.In the U.S., you are… a symbol on a screen.

Who Wins (Right Now)?

• SGX — they can pitch “NASDAQ access” to the entire region

• Founders — they gain optionality and cleaner paperwork

Will U.S. liquidity appear?

TBD.

Yes, AvePoint dual-listed in 2025 — but one data point does not equal a trend.

2. The Fintech Funding ‘Collapse’ That Wasn’t

If you only saw the headline:“SEA fintech funding down 39% YoY.”

You missed the real story:

Singapore captured 84–88% of all fintech dollars.Capital didn’t disappear — it moved to safety.

The Numbers

• $829M raised (SEA fintech, first 9 months of 2025)

• Singapore → 84% (with multiple quarters at 88%)

• Mega rounds continued quietly:

• Thunes — $150M Series D

• Airwallex — $150M Series F

This isn’t contraction. It’s radical selectivity.

When markets tighten, capital flies to clarity.In Southeast Asia, clarity has a postal code — Singapore.

The Nuance No One Mentions

Many “Singapore rounds” are Singapore TopCos with operations elsewhere.But even adjusting for that, the trend is undeniable:

Singapore is becoming the gravitational center of SEAs capital stack.

If You’re Building Outside Singapore…

You need a Singapore strategy now, not “when we hit Series B.”

• Entity structure

• Regulatory setup

• Investor relationships

• Capital access

You cannot retrofit a cap table at scale.

If You’re a Seed Investor…

Your job just became extremely difficult.

You must identify the 10–15% of founders who:

• can reach late stage

• understand jurisdiction strategy

• can navigate regulatory complexity

• know how to design an intelligent capital stack

Most seed funds will not do this.The ones who do will win disproportionately.

1. From Emerging → Mature

Is Southeast Asia Finally Growing Up?**

Silicon Valley is built on a simple assumption:

Build → Scale → Exit on NASDAQ.Because the infrastructure exists.

Southeast Asia has never had that luxury.

Grab went to NASDAQ.Sea went to NYSE.No major regional champion listed on SGX — because the liquidity + coverage didn’t justify it.

What’s Shifting Now?

Singapore is positioning itself as the region’s public-market on-ramp:

• SGX × NASDAQ dual listing

• Extreme fintech capital concentration

• Temasek + GIC reallocating toward deep tech and infrastructure

• Robust IP protection

• $28B RIE2025 deep-tech plan

To become a mature ecosystem, you need:

• A complete capital stackSeed → A → Growth → Pre-IPO → Public markets

• Exit pathways that convertNot theory — execution.

• Signaling mechanismsReal wins → real returns → capital recycling.

We’re not fully there.But for the first time, the scaffolding is real.

4. The Implicit Geopolitical Subtext

U.S.–China decoupling has reshaped global capital flows.

China still owns ~75% of Asia biotech funding…but diversification is accelerating fast.

And Singapore is playing its hand masterfully- clever and very typical.

Singapore is now:

• Neutral

• Globally aligned

• Legally predictable

• Highly trusted

Signals:

• Biotech capital shifting to Singapore & South Korea

• Flagship Partnering × A*STAR: $100M deep-tech commitment

• Talent and IP migrating to strong-jurisdiction hubs

This isn’t incremental.It’s a generational repositioning. (See it now?)

1. What Founders Should Actually Do

(Immediately)**

1. Five-Decision Audit

Label your last 5 decisions: Offense or Defense.If you’re 4–1 defensive, you’re playing not to lose.

2. Entity Structure Review

Make your TopCo dual-listing ready:clean cap table → clean governance → clean audit trail.

3. Live Capability Target List

Every month, update your list of 10 companies/tech you may:Acquire → Partner → Replicate.

4. Board Transformation Agenda

Shift board meetings from quarterly KPIs → 3–5 year capability maps.

This is how category-defining companies build.

6. What Investors Should Do

Late-Stage Investors

Dual listing optionality changes your entire underwriting model:

• valuation ceilings shift

• secondary liquidity widens

• crossover investor interest increases

• exit horizons change

Audit portfolio readiness now.This advantage won’t last long.

Seed Investors

Your edge becomes:jurisdiction strategy + regulatory guidance + capital stack architecture.

This is no longer “nice-to-have.”It’s competitive advantage.

7. The 24-Month Window

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

The founders and investors who move now will define the next decade.

Infrastructure windows don’t stay open:

• SGX is motivated today

• NASDAQ is paying attention today

• Capital is concentrating today

• Regulations are flexible today

In 3–5 years?

This either becomes table stakes —or a missed opportunity we’ll reference for a generation.

8. The Question Southeast Asia Has Been Asking Wrong

For years the ecosystem asked:

“Can Southeast Asia produce the next Google?”

Wrong question.

The real one is:

“Can Southeast Asia build systems that consistently produce category-defining companies?”

For the first time, the answer is trending toward yes — cautiously, but convincingly.

Not because of one unicorn.But because the infrastructure is finally being built.

• dual listing bridge

• capital consolidation

• sovereign repositioning

• regulatory maturity

• talent density

• deep-tech investment

Together, they form the early blueprint of a Southeast Asian capital stack.

Purpose-built for this region.Not imported.

Before You Go

This year stretched us — in the best way.

We decoded:

• orbital compute

• fintech infrastructure

• regional capital flows

• AI rails

• cross-border regulation

A pattern emerged:

Southeast Asia isn’t catching up.It’s reshaping itself.

We’re taking a short break — a reset, a recalibration (maybe even one day off our phones… maybe).

But 2026?We’re coming back with the founders building the next layer of infrastructure — the kind that defines decades.

Stay curious.Stay ambitious.Keep building.

The ecosystem is leveling up.All we need now is you.

— Kim & KevinSEA of Startups

SGX NASDAQ dual listing, Singapore capital markets, Singapore fintech funding 2025, Southeast Asia IPO pathways, SEA startup ecosystem, Singapore dual listing strategy, capital stack Southeast Asia, NASDAQ Asian companies, Singapore startup hub, venture capital SEA, fintech Singapore trends, deep tech Singapore RIE2025, Singapore TopCo structure, regional tech IPO strategy, Southeast Asia exits, liquidity Singapore market, Singapore economic strategy

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

THIS WEEK'S REALITY CHECK

Google just published research that makes every data center in Southeast Asia look obsolete.

Project Suncatcher: Space-based AI data centers hitting cost parity with terrestrial operations by 2035. Launch costs dropped from $10,000 to $1,500 per kilogram. SpaceX is targeting $200/kg.

This isn't science fiction. It's a $100 billion economic shift happening right now—and Southeast Asia has exactly 24-36 months to position itself as the ground station hub or watch the value flow elsewhere.

This episode breaks down why orbital compute is inevitable, what it means for AI and agriculture in the region, and the moves founders need to make before the infrastructure moats lock in.

WHAT WE COVER

🚀 The Economics That Just Flipped

Launch costs: $10K → $1.5K per kg (and falling to $200/kg by 2035)

Why Google's betting on orbital over terrestrial

8x more solar efficiency + free cooling in vacuum of space

How SpaceX made the impossible economically viable

☀️ Project Suncatcher Breakdown

What Google's actually building (and why now)

Technical challenges: maintenance, thermal radiation, data latency

Why StarCloud just launched NVIDIA-powered mini data center into orbit

The radiation hardening problem (and how it's getting solved)

🌾 The $400B Agriculture Angle Nobody's Connecting

How satellite-based Earth observation transforms Southeast Asian farming

Thailand could gain $8-12B annually from precision agriculture

Real-time insights: soil health, planting windows, pest prediction

Why AcerX raised $30M+ to build this infrastructure now

🏗️ Infrastructure Gets Its God's-Eye View

Mining companies using orbital imaging for mineral exploration

Utilities gaining real-time grid monitoring capabilities

Why Southeast Asia's equatorial position = massive strategic advantage

Ground station networks as the next critical infrastructure moat

💰 Who's Building What (And Who's Getting Funded)

AcerX (Singapore): $30M+ for satellite data platforms

One Orbit: $12M for environmental monitoring

LunaSat (Malaysia): Affordable small satellite manufacturing

Planet Labs: $500M raised, largest Earth observation constellation

⏰ The 24-36 Month Window

Why regional coordination matters right now

What happens when infrastructure moats lock in

Five tactical moves for AI, agriculture, and infrastructure founders

Policy frameworks that need to exist yesterday

KEY QUOTES

"While Malaysia debates water usage for data centers and Singapore worries about electricity grids, Google's preparing to bypass all of it with orbital compute." - Kim

"Southeast Asia is either positioning itself as the ground station hub for the orbital economy, or it's watching $100 billion in economic value flow elsewhere." - Kevin

"Agriculture in this region is a $400 billion industry that's been fundamentally inefficient for centuries. Space-based analytics running in orbit and beaming down real-time insights changes everything." - Kim

"The window for Southeast Asia to position itself in this ecosystem is 24-36 months. After that, the players are locked in and we're customers, not builders." - Kevin

"I have to give credit where it's due: Elon Musk basically came in and inspired everyone to look at space as economically viable. Nobody was thinking about private sector space before SpaceX." - Kevin

FEATURED DATA POINTS

🚀 Launch cost trajectory: $10,000/kg (2005) → $1,500/kg (2025) → $200/kg target (2035)

☀️ Solar collection efficiency: 8x more productive in space than terrestrial panels

💰 Economic opportunity: $100B+ potential GDP contribution to Southeast Asia

🌾 SEA agriculture market: $400B annually

📊 Thailand agriculture gains: $8-12B potential annual productivity increase

⚡ Power advantage: Constant solar (if positioned in dawn-dusk synchronous orbit)

❄️ Cooling advantage: Thermal radiation in vacuum = no water consumption

💸 Funding activity:

AcerX: $30M+ raised (Singapore satellite data platforms)

One Orbit: $12M raised (environmental monitoring)

Planet Labs: $500M raised (largest Earth observation constellation)

⏱️ Latency advantage: 1-7ms orbital (vs 150ms trans-Pacific)

🛰️ StarCloud: NVIDIA-powered orbital data center launched November 2025

TACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR FOUNDERS

If you're building AI:

Map which workloads could migrate to orbital compute (training jobs especially)

30-40% cost reduction potential on frontier model training

Build relationships with space tech companies now (AcerX, One Orbit)

Factor orbital into your Series B infrastructure assumptions

If you're in agriculture:

Pilot satellite data integration immediately (don't wait for perfect tech)

Partner with companies deploying Earth observation analytics

Operational knowledge compounds—5-year head start matters

Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia = massive precision agriculture TAM

If you're infrastructure/utilities:

Real-time satellite analytics for grid monitoring, pipeline integrity

Ground station partnerships should be strategic priority

Asset tracking, disaster resilience, environmental compliance

Government engagement needed now for spectrum/site allocation

For all founders:

Don't assume compute stays terrestrial forever

Engage policy conversations on orbital infrastructure early

Build optionality: not all-in on space, but not ignoring it

The companies learning to operationalize space-based insights now win in 2030

For VCs:

Space tech is no longer government-only domain

Launch costs dropped to venture-backable levels

Regional companies competing against Silicon Valley with 1/10th the capital

Ground station infrastructure = strategic moat worth backing

RESOURCES MENTIONED

📄 Google X: Project Suncatcher Research Paper

📄 SpaceX Launch Cost Analysis 2025

📄 Southeast Asia Agriculture Market Report

📄 Singapore Space Agency: Industry Updates

📄 StarCloud: NVIDIA Orbital Data Center Launch Announcement

📄 Planet Labs: Southeast Asia Partnership Programs

📄 AcerX: Satellite Data Platform for SEA Supply Chains

📄 One Orbit: Environmental Monitoring Constellation

📄 Malaysia LunaSat: Small Satellite Manufacturing

COMPANIES TO WATCH

Building in Southeast Asia:

AcerX (Singapore): $30M+ raised, satellite data platforms for supply chains & agriculture

One Orbit: $12M raised, AI-powered environmental monitoring constellation

LunaSat (Malaysia): Affordable small satellite manufacturing for regional deployment

Global Players Seeking SEA Partnerships:

Planet Labs: $500M raised, largest Earth observation network, actively seeking SEA partnerships

StarCloud: Just launched NVIDIA-powered orbital data center (Nov 2025)

SpaceX: Targeting $200/kg launch costs by 2030

Blue Origin: Ramping up commercial launch operations

🔗 CONNECT WITH US

📧 Newsletter: https://seaofstartups.substack.com

💼 LinkedIn:

Kim (WeiiSyuen) Yeoh: https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/

Kevin Brockland: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

🎧 Listen:

Spotify: [Link]

Apple Podcasts: [Link]

YouTube: [Link]

💬 Comment below: Is your five-year plan accounting for orbital compute? Or are you assuming infrastructure stays terrestrial forever?

TAGS

space tech, orbital computing, Google Project Suncatcher, AI data centers, SpaceX, satellite technology, Southeast Asia startups, agriculture technology, precision farming, infrastructure innovation, venture capital, deep tech, AcerX Singapore, space industry, renewable energy, AI infrastructure, LEO satellites, Earth observation, ground station networks, digital infrastructure, ELon Musk, Steve Jobs

WHAT'S NEXT

Next episode: Interviewing the CEO of a solar company that just IPO'd—directly relevant to space-based power infrastructure discussion.

Upcoming: More deep dives on infrastructure shifts reshaping Southeast Asia's tech ecosystem.

📌 PIN THIS: If you're building in AI, agriculture, logistics, or infrastructure in Southeast Asia, this episode is required listening. The decisions made in the next 24-36 months determine who participates vs. spectates in the $100B orbital economy.

Share this with:

Founders building deep tech or AI infrastructure

VCs evaluating space tech investment opportunities

Government officials planning digital infrastructure policy

Anyone who thinks data centers will stay on Earth forever

⚡ VIRAL SHARE QUOTE:

"Southeast Asia has 24-36 months to position itself as the ground station hub for orbital compute—or watch $100 billion in economic value get built elsewhere while we're still debating cooling systems."

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Episode Title: 400% Returns vs S&P: The 6 M&A Habits Turning Acquisitions Into Capability Machines

THIS WEEK'S REALITY CHECK

Companies that transform while they transact are delivering 400%+ returns vs the S&P 500 over the last decade.

That's not incremental. That's a different category of value creation entirely.

Deloitte just mapped how they do it: Six habits that separate transformational acquirers from traditional ones. Grab mastered 5 out of 6. Most Southeast Asian corporates? Still haven't shown up to the fight.

This episode breaks down the playbook—and why Southeast Asia keeps getting M&A backwards.

WHAT WE COVER

📊 The Numbers That Matter

Why 400% outperformance isn't a fluke—it's a pattern

How transformational M&A differs from traditional sequential approaches

Why most Southeast Asian corporates are still using outdated playbooks

🎯 The Six Habits of Transformational Acquirers

Leadership Mandate: C-suite strategy, not finance function

Always-On Portfolio: Capability P&Ls, not just revenue P&Ls

Transform As You Transact: Concurrent, not sequential

AI at the Core: Business model shift, not cost optimization

Power in Collaboration: Ecosystem plays, not solo execution

Workforce for Tomorrow: People as bedrock, not afterthought

🏢 Southeast Asia Case Studies

Grab: Programmatic capability stacking (but still not profitable)

PropertyGuru: Pre-SPAC ecosystem building that attracted $1.1B private take-out

DBS Bank: The 27,000-person tech company that happens to do banking

🤖 The AI M&A Future

How AI changes targeting, diligence, integration, and synergy capture

Why build vs buy calculus is shifting (and M&A volume will increase)

The vibe coding question and what it means for Southeast Asia

⏰ The 24-Month Window

Why the next 2 years determine the next decade

What founders should do this quarter

Why most local corporates will still get it wrong

KEY QUOTES

"If your M&A strategy is still 'integrate first, transform later,' you're bringing a butter knife to a lightsaber fight." - Kevin

"Dead weight kills optionality. And Southeast Asian corporates are carrying a LOT of dead weight." - Kimberley

"You're not buying revenue. You're buying capabilities. You're not integrating headcount. You're integrating ecosystems." - Kevin

"Grab didn't succeed because they had the best technology. They succeeded because they built teams that understood Jakarta differently than Singapore." - Kimberley

"The companies that move in the next 24 months will define the next decade. The ones that wait will watch the window close." - Kevin

FEATURED DATA POINTS

📈 Transformational M&A returns: 400%+ vs S&P 500 (over 10 years)

📊 Deloitte report: Six habits of transformational acquirers

🏢 Grab acquisitions: Kudo, Bento, GrabInvest, Jaya Grocer, digital bank license

💰 PropertyGuru exit: $1.1B private take-out by EQT (2024)

🏦 DBS workforce: 27,000 people (tech company that does banking)

⏱️ Traditional integration timeline: 18+ months

⚡ AI-enabled integration: Near real-time synergy capture

📉 SEA M&A volume: Historically low, ticking up slowly

🎯 Timeline prediction: 3-5 years for local corporates to adopt programmatic M&A

TACTICAL TAKEAWAYS

For Founders:

Five Decision Audit: Label last 5 strategic calls as defense vs offense. Rebalance if skewed.

Live Capability Target List: 10 companies/partners/tech you could buy/partner/replicate. Refresh monthly.

Board Agenda: Put transformation on board agenda with 3-5 year capability map.

For Corporates:

Treat M&A as C-suite strategy, not finance function

Build capability P&Ls, not just revenue P&Ls

Start transformation pre-deal, not post-integration

Embed AI at the core of M&A process

Build corp dev function if you don't have one

For Investors:

Track which companies are stacking capabilities vs chasing revenue

Prioritize teams that understand ecosystem plays

Watch for AI-enabled M&A processes as competitive advantage

RESOURCES MENTIONED

📄 Deloitte Transformational M&A Report

SHOW NOTES (DETAILED TIMESTAMPS)

[00:00] Cold open: The gut check every SEA founder needs

[01:01] The 400% number: Why transformational M&A outperforms

[01:30] Six practices from Deloitte's new playbook

[02:32] Old M&A vs transformational M&A: What actually changed

[04:38] Southeast Asia receipts: Grab, PropertyGuru, DBS

[08:21] PropertyGuru's capability thesis pre-SPAC

[09:48] DBS masterclass: 27,000-person tech company

[11:39] The build vs buy calculus is shifting

[13:57] Vibe coding and what it means for M&A in SEA

[17:12] Deloitte's six habits breakdown begins

[18:30] Always-on portfolio: Capability P&Ls vs revenue P&Ls [

21:20] Will startups still want to be acquired?

[24:09] AI at the core: Not cost-out, business model shift

[25:17] Power in collaboration: Why SEA is designed for this

[27:34] The next 3-5 years: M&A volume predictions

[28:52] AI-enabled M&A: Targeting, diligence, integration

[31:05] Programmatic M&A: Will SEA corporates adopt it?

[33:31] Catalyst analysis: What drives M&A volume increase

[34:44] Family businesses and relationship-based economies

[36:01] Why corporates keep losing: Bad tech experiences

[37:12] Three reps to build your transformation muscle

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

THIS WEEK'S REALITY CHECK

The 47th ASEAN Summit just wrapped in Kuala Lumpur. Trump was there. China's Premier showed up. Everyone talked about integration.

Meanwhile, the smartest founders in Southeast Asia are betting on something completely different: That the chaos isn't a bug—it's the entire competitive moat.

This episode unpacks why ASEAN's fragmentation might be its biggest strategic advantage, and what founders need to do in the next 24 months before the window closes.

WHAT WE COVER

🌏 The ASEAN Integration Paradox

Why 58 years of "working toward unity" might be missing the point

The middle child syndrome: Too big to ignore, too fragmented to dominate

Why EU-style integration would probably destroy what makes SEA interesting

💰 Why Silicon Valley Keeps Failing Here

Google, Uber, Amazon—the graveyard of Western tech in Southeast Asia

How Grab succeeded where Uber failed (hint: it's not just execution)

The competitive moat that only local players understand

🎯 The Strategic Non-Alignment Playbook

Malaysia's simultaneous partnerships with China, UK, and U.S.

Singapore's multi-ecosystem strategy

How to become the Switzerland of the tech cold war

🏙️ The Tier One City Thesis

Why KL has more in common with Bangkok than with Alor Setar

How to think about regional expansion without waiting for perfect alignment

The borderless team concept that actually works

⏰ The 24-Month Window

Why the next 2 years determine the next 2 decades

What happens when ecosystems lock in

Five tactical moves that separate exits from shutdowns

KEY QUOTES

"What looks like chaos is just Southeast Asia building its own operating system." - Kevin

"Grab took 12 years to navigate 11 different regulatory systems. That's not a bug. That's the training ground that creates anti-fragile companies." - Kimberly

"The tier one cities have more in common with each other than they do with tier two cities in their own countries." - Kevin

"Strategic non-alignment isn't fence-sitting. It's positioning yourself as the translator when two superpowers don't speak the same language." - Kimberly

FEATURED DATA POINTS

🌏 ASEAN population: 680 million people (3rd largest market globally) 💰 Combined GDP: $4+ trillion 📊 ASEAN age: 58 years old (middle-aged in geopolitical terms) 🚀 Grab market presence: 12 years across 8 countries 🏢 SEA Group: 10+ years building in fragmented markets 🏛️ Number of ASEAN regulatory systems: 11 different frameworks 💳 Payment structures: 10+ different systems across region

TACTICAL TAKEAWAYS FOR FOUNDERS

If you're fundraising:

Default to regional thinking from day one

Plan for 24-30 month runways (not 18)

Map policy advantages across markets systematically

If you're scaling:

Build borderless teams with deep local knowledge

Study government priorities in each market

Engage regulators as partners, not obstacles

If you're entering SEA:

Don't wait for perfect alignment—it's never coming

Focus on tier one cities first

Build for fragmentation, not uniformity

RESOURCES MENTIONED

📄 47th ASEAN Summit Outcomes (May 2025) 📄 Malaysia-US Trade Agreement Details 📄 ASEAN Digital Economy Framework 📄 Startup ASEAN Summit Agenda

🔗 CONNECT WITH US:

💼 LinkedIn: Kim Yeoh and Kevin Brockland

📧 Newsletter:https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

ALSO ON: Apple Podcast and Youtube

TAGS:

ASEAN, Southeast Asia, startups, venture capital, regional expansion, fragmentation, competitive strategy, market entry, emerging markets, Grab, SEA Group, government relations, cross-border business, tech ecosystem, strategic partnerships

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Your grandmother probably thinks AI is just fancy autocomplete. Your investors think it’s the next industrial revolution. Both might be right. And that’s exactly the problem.

Welcome to the most expensive game of musical chairs in human history.

In October 2025, OpenAI—the company that made you question whether your job is safe—signed roughly $1 trillion worth of deals. Not over decades. Not in theoretical future value. One trillion dollars in commitments that locked together the biggest names in tech like a high-stakes game of Twister.

Nvidia committed up to $100 billion to OpenAI’s data centers. AMD followed with tens of billions more. Oracle inked a $300 billion cloud contract. Each company took equity stakes in OpenAI while simultaneously becoming its customer and supplier.

It’s beautiful. It’s terrifying. And if you’re building anything in Southeast Asia, it’s about to force your hand.

The Flywheel That Might Break the World

Here’s what’s actually happening beneath the surface of those press releases.

OpenAI needs computing power—not just a lot, but an almost incomprehensible amount. We’re talking 20 gigawatts worth of data centers. That’s the output of 20 nuclear reactors, running continuously, just to train the next generation of AI models.

They can’t pay for this upfront. So they’ve structured deals where chipmakers like Nvidia essentially finance OpenAI’s infrastructure in exchange for guaranteed orders. Nvidia’s money buys data centers filled with... Nvidia chips. Which OpenAI uses to train AI models. Which drives demand for more Nvidia chips. Which justifies Nvidia’s stock price. Which gives Nvidia more currency (in the form of valuable equity) to invest in... OpenAI.

See the loop?

Now multiply this across AMD, Oracle, Microsoft, and a web of cloud providers and startups. Everyone is simultaneously the investor, the customer, and the supplier. Capital flows in a perfect circle, each deal reinforcing the next, each rising stock price validating the previous bet.

This is either the most sophisticated value-creation flywheel ever constructed, or it’s vendor financing on steroids.

The Cisco Parallel Nobody Wants to Talk About

If you’re over 35, you remember what happened to Cisco Systems.

Late 1990s. Internet boom. Cisco was the arms dealer of the dot-com gold rush—selling routers and networking equipment to every startup that raised venture capital. Their stock went parabolic. They briefly became the most valuable company on Earth.

Then came the vendor financing strategy. Cisco would invest in or loan money to internet companies... so those companies could turn around and buy Cisco equipment. Revenue exploded. Wall Street cheered. Cisco executives became billionaires.

Until the music stopped.

When the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, Cisco discovered that a huge chunk of their “revenue” was actually just their own money cycling through customer companies. Those customers went bankrupt. Cisco’s stock dropped 90%. The playbook that seemed genius became the textbook example of bubble economics.

Nvidia’s $100 billion stake in OpenAI looks uncomfortably similar.

Is this time different? Maybe. AI is real in a way many dot-com businesses weren’t. ChatGPT has 200 million users. Companies are deploying AI in actual workflows, not just buying vaporware.

But here’s the uncomfortable question: How much of AI’s current growth is real demand versus artificially inflated demand created by these circular financing arrangements?

Why This Matters for Southeast Asia (And Why You Have Less Time Than You Think)

While this trillion-dollar poker game plays out in Silicon Valley and Shenzhen, Southeast Asia is being forced to make a choice it didn’t ask for.

Do we join this ecosystem on whatever terms we can get? Or do we try to build our own capabilities knowing we’re years behind?

The honest answer: We need to do both. And we have maybe 24 months before the window closes.

Here’s why the timeline is so tight.

Right now, these mega-deals are still being structured. Standards are still fluid. The technology stack is still evolving. There’s room for regional players to position themselves as integration layers, deployment partners, or specialized service providers.

But once these circular deals lock in—once Nvidia’s chips only work seamlessly with Microsoft’s cloud which only optimizes for OpenAI’s models—the interoperability window slams shut. You’re either inside the ecosystem or permanently outside it.

And if you’re outside? Good luck competing when your opponent has access to computing power you can’t afford, AI models you can’t replicate, and partnership networks you can’t penetrate.

This is the new digital divide, and it’s being drawn right now.

The Robot Revolution Nobody’s Pricing In

If the AI investment loop was just about software and cloud services, we could debate whether it’s sustainable. But there’s a second wave coming that changes everything: embodied AI.

Translation: Robots with AI brains, walking around in the physical world.

July 2025. Shanghai. World Artificial Intelligence Conference. Over 150 humanoid robots on display. Chinese companies selling working humanoids for $16,000. Some models as low as $5,900.

Morgan Stanley just published research projecting the humanoid robotics market could hit $5 trillion in annual revenue by 2050. That’s twice the size of the global automotive industry.

Let that sink in. We’re not talking about science fiction or distant futures. We’re talking about a trillion-dollar manufacturing ecosystem that needs to get built in the next 10-15 years.

And Southeast Asia has a real shot at being a major player—but only if we move now.

Why China Is Winning the Robot Race (And What We Can Learn)

Here’s the uncomfortable geopolitical truth: China is currently best-positioned to dominate “embodied AI.”

Not because they have the best AI research (though they’re closing the gap fast). But because they’ve cracked three things that matter more than pure technology:

1. Manufacturing ecosystem at scale. China can produce robots cheaper and faster than anyone else. Their supply chains for motors, sensors, batteries, and materials are unmatched.

2. Guaranteed internal demand. Chinese state-owned enterprises will buy domestic robots as a matter of policy. That gives Chinese robotics companies a market to refine their products before going global.

3. Strategic patience combined with tactical speed. Beijing identified robotics as a national priority years ago. They’re playing a 20-year game with 6-month sprints.

Meanwhile, American robotics CEOs went to Congress in 2025 literally begging for a national strategy, warning that without coordinated policy and investment, the U.S. will lose both the robotics race and, by extension, the AI race.

The robots are where AI’s economic value gets captured. If you lose robots, you lose AI.

Where does that leave Southeast Asia?

The Strategic Non-Alignment Playbook

Here’s the move: Southeast Asia should become the Switzerland of the AI-robotics cold war.

Not in the sense of being neutral and boring. In the sense of being the place where East meets West, where interoperability gets figured out, where multiple tech ecosystems coexist and connect.

Malaysia is already doing this. They signed AI cooperation agreements with China while simultaneously licensing chip design technology from UK-based Arm and partnering with U.S. firms on industrial automation. They’re building relationships on all sides while developing domestic capability so they’re not completely dependent on anyone.

Singapore is even more sophisticated. They use Chinese robotics for some infrastructure, Western AI for financial services, and invest heavily in their own research. They’re building genuine optionality.

This isn’t fence-sitting. It’s strategic positioning.

Because here’s what most people miss: The company or country that can integrate Chinese hardware with Western software with local applications becomes incredibly valuable. You’re the translator in a world where two superpowers speak different languages.

But this only works if you have actual capability, not just diplomatic skill. You need engineers who understand both ecosystems. You need companies that can deploy and maintain robots regardless of where they’re manufactured. You need software that works across platforms.

Building that takes time. Hence: 24 months.

What Founders Should Actually Do This Quarter

Enough strategy. Let’s get tactical.

If you’re a founder or operator in Southeast Asia right now, here are five moves that matter:

1. Pilot robots now, even if they’re imperfect.

Don’t wait for mature technology. If you’re in manufacturing, logistics, or warehousing, start testing robot deployment today. The companies that learn how to integrate robots with human workflows now will have compounding advantages by 2030.

The cost of being five years behind in operational knowledge will vastly exceed the cost of adopting imperfect technology today.

2. Build the integration layer, not the hardware.

Unless you’re exceptionally well-funded, don’t try to compete with Chinese firms on robot hardware or Western firms on foundational AI. Instead, build the software and services that make those technologies useful in Southeast Asian contexts.

A robot designed for a Japanese factory doesn’t automatically work in an Indonesian palm oil plantation. Someone needs to adapt it. That someone could be you.

3. Make your pitch anti-fragile.

If you’re fundraising, assume it will take twice as long as you think and that 80% of pitches will fail. That’s not pessimism—that’s the new baseline.

Series A deal volume is down 18%, dollars deployed down 23%, and median fundraising timeline has stretched to 20+ months. Build your financial model assuming you need 24-30 months of runway, not 18.

4. Get specific about your AI story—or drop it entirely.

VCs are getting sophisticated about AI-washing. If you claim to be an AI company, you’ll get grilled on model architecture, training data, and inference costs. If you can’t defend those claims technically, don’t make them.

Better to be a great logistics company that happens to use AI than a mediocre AI company trying to find a use case.

5. Map your stakeholder ecosystem before scaling.

For every market you want to enter, identify the regulators, incumbent players, and local partners who will determine whether you can actually deploy. Then engage them early.

In Southeast Asia, your ability to navigate complex stakeholder dynamics is often more important than pure technological superiority.

The Bet You’re Making Whether You Realize It or Not

Every founder right now is making an implicit bet about the future—even if you’re trying to avoid making a bet.

If you’re building in AI or robotics, you’re betting that this wave is real, that the investment will eventually find profitable returns, and that there’s room for new players despite the trillion-dollar incumbents.

If you’re staying away from AI entirely, you’re betting that the hype will deflate, that most AI companies will fail, and that there will be opportunities in the aftermath for more traditional businesses.

Both bets carry risk. But only one bet has upside if you’re wrong.

If you bet on AI and it turns out to be overhyped, you’ve still built capabilities in cutting-edge technology. You can pivot. You’ve learned. You have optionality.

If you bet against AI and it turns out to be transformative, you’ve built capabilities in a world that no longer exists. You’re starting from zero.

This is why the smartest founders I know aren’t asking “Is this a bubble?” They’re asking: “How do I build something that has value regardless of whether this is a bubble?”

The answer? Focus ruthlessly on unit economics, real customer problems, and sustainable business models. Use AI as a tool, not a story. Build partnerships that give you leverage, not vendor relationships that make you disposable.

And move fast—because in 24 months, the rules of this game will be set in stone.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Timing

We’re at an inflection point that happens maybe twice in a generation.

The last comparable moment was probably the late 1990s with the internet, or the late 2000s with mobile. Decisions made in the next 2-3 years will shape the next 2-3 decades.

The leverage available to individual founders, operators, and investors right now is enormous. But you have to be willing to grab it.

That means accepting uncertainty as the baseline condition. That means making decisions with incomplete information. That means being wrong sometimes and adjusting fast.

The biggest mistake isn’t picking the wrong technology or the wrong market. The biggest mistake is paralysis—waiting for perfect information that will never come, watching the window close while you’re still analyzing.

Southeast Asia has a genuine shot at being a major player in the AI-robotics revolution. But only if we’re willing to act while the rules are still being written.

The trillion-dollar flywheel is spinning. The robot factories are being built. The investment decisions are being made.

You can shape this, or you can watch it happen to you. But you can’t do both.

What’s it going to be?

Kim Yeoh is co-host of Sea of Startups and writes about technology, strategy, and building in Southeast Asia. Kevin Brockland is her co-host and occasional voice of reason. They’re both trying to figure this out in real-time, just like you.

Subscribe to Sea of Startups for weekly insights that won’t make you dumber:

🎧 Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube

💬 What’s your take? Are we in a bubble, a revolution, or both? Comments are open.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are personal opinions and do not represent any organizations mentioned. Content is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be considered professional, investment, or legal advice.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

When Regulators Win: What Singapore's Robotaxi Rollout Reveals About the Future of Deep Tech

While Silicon Valley's AV companies fought regulators and burned billions, Singapore just orchestrated the future of transportation. WeRide partnered with Grab. Pony.ai partnered with ComfortDelGro. Both launching in 2025.

This isn't just about self-driving cars. It's about how deep tech scales when you work WITH regulators instead of against them.

Meanwhile, Series A funding collapsed 23% year-over-year. Fundraising timelines stretched to 3.5 years for many companies. The easy money era is over.

This episode connects autonomous vehicles, strategic partnerships, and the brutal fundraising reality of 2025. If you're building deep tech or raising in Southeast Asia, this is required listening.

WHAT WE COVER

🚗 The Singapore AV Strategy

Why WeRide + Grab partnership changes everything

What Pony.ai brings to ComfortDelGro

How Singapore's Land Transport Authority orchestrates (not just approves) innovation

💸 The Series A Apocalypse

Funding down 23%, deal volume down 18%

Median time Seed→Series A: 20 months (but 3.5 years for many)

Hot sectors vs cold sectors: Where money is actually flowing

🎯 Strategic Partnerships vs Solo Execution

The question every deep tech founder must ask

Why being a vendor means you have no leverage

How to become a strategic partner instead

🔥 The AI Hype Reality Check

What investors actually ask about AI startups

How to tell if you're AI-washing your pitch

When to force the AI angle (hint: never)

📊 What's Actually Working in 2025

The death of triple-triple-double-double-double

5 things Southeast Asia founders must internalize

Why government backing is your fastest path to scale

In This Episode:

[00:00] Intro: Continuing from climate tech and policy dynamics [02:01] WeRide + Grab and Pony.ai + ComfortDelGro partnerships in Singapore

[05:22] US vs Singapore AV playbook: Chaos vs orchestration [10:13] Why Punggol is the perfect testbed for autonomous vehicles [15:16] Building trust through strategic partnerships and familiar brands

[18:24] The fundraising apocalypse: Series A down 23%

[22:06] Hot vs cold sectors: What's actually getting funded in 2025 [25:12] The death of triple-triple-double-double growth expectations [27:24] Why Southeast Asia needed this correction

[31:52] Practical advice: Extended runway planning for founders

💡 KEY TAKEAWAYS:

✅ Strategic partnerships > solo execution in deep tech

✅ Series A funding is down 23% YoY—plan for 2x longer fundraising timelines

✅ If you're a vendor, you have no leverage. Be a strategic partner.

✅ Singapore's government-orchestrated approach scales faster than Silicon Valley's chaos

✅ Extended runway (24-30 months) isn't optional—it's survival

📊 FEATURED DATA POINTS & SOURCES :

📉 Series A dollars deployed: Down 23% YoY

📉 Series A deal volume: Down 18% YoY

⏱️ Median Seed→Series A time: 20 months (up to 3.5 years for many) 🚗 WeRide autonomous driving: 50M+ kilometres

🚗 Waymo 2024 rides: 4M+ rides, 96M projected miles by mid-2025

🇸🇬 Pony.ai-ComfortDelGro MoU: July 2024

🇸🇬 Grab Ai.R launch: September 2025

SOURCES:

Grab Singapore press release (Sept 2025)

Pony.ai investor relations announcements (Sept 2025)

Land Transport Authority AV trial data

Carta Series A market report

Waymo operational metrics

FOR FOUNDERS LISTENING

If you're fundraising right now:

Plan for timelines 2x longer than you think

Raise 24-30 months runway, not 18

Have burn reduction plan BEFORE you need it

If you're building deep tech:

Identify established players who need you

Position as strategic partner, not vendor

Work WITH regulators, not around them

If you're in Southeast Asia:

Stop copying Silicon Valley playbooks

Government isn't your enemy—it's your accelerant

Build for the market you're actually in

🎙️ ABOUT SEA OF STARTUPS:

Sea of Startups is your weekly reality check for building in Southeast Asia. Hosted by Kimberly Yeoh and Kevin Brockland, we cover what's actually happening in the ecosystem—no fluff, no hype, just the truth about fundraising, regulation, and what it takes to build here.

🔗 CONNECT WITH US:

💼 LinkedIn: Kimberly Yeohhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/ |

Kevin Brockland:https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

📧 Newsletter: https://seaofstartups.substack.com

📌 MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:

WeRide (autonomous vehicle technology)

Grab (Southeast Asia ride-hailing)

Pony.ai (Chinese AV company)

ComfortDelGro (Singapore transportation)

Waymo (Google's AV division)

Cruise (GM's AV company - shut down SF operations)

Land Transport Authority Singapore

Carta (startup cap table platform)

🏷️ TAGS:

AutonomousVehicles #Singapore #StartupFunding #SeriesA #SoutheastAsia #VentureCapital #Waymo #Grab #WeRide #PonyAI #DeepTech #AIStartups #FundraisingTips #StartupStrategy #TechInvestment #SmartCities #Robotaxi #ComfortDelGro #LandTransportAuthority #SEAStartups

💬 JOIN THE CONVERSATION:

What are you seeing in your market? Are strategic partnerships the new playbook, or are you still going solo? Drop a comment below.

Subscribe for weekly insights on building in Southeast Asia 👇

⚠️ DISCLAIMER:

All views expressed are personal opinions and do not represent any organizations mentioned. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered investment advice.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Your battery just died. Not your phone—your entire business model. This week on Sea of Startups, we're diving into why most climate tech fails within months in Southeast Asia, how tropical conditions are a torture chamber for hardware, and why the smartest founders are turning brutal constraints into billion-dollar competitive advantages. Plus: Why Chinese AV companies are playing a completely different game in Singapore, and fresh Series A data that might make you cry into your pitch deck (but also why this might be the best time to build).

What You'll Learn:

Why 90% of battery technologies fail in tropical conditions and what to do about it

The four frameworks climate tech founders need to survive Southeast Asia's regulatory maze

How software-defined adaptation is beating hardware brute force

Why Singapore's autonomous vehicle strategy looks nothing like Silicon Valley's approach

The brutal truth about Series A fundraising in 2025

Featured Topics:

Tropical Batteries Report 2025 from Malaysia's SEDA and Cicero

Climate tech hardware survival strategies

Energy policy challenges across Southeast Asia markets

Autonomous vehicle partnerships in Singapore (Pony.ai, WeRide)

Series A fundraising reality check with Carta data

Timestamps:

00:00 - Introduction: Heat, Hype, and Hard Truths

01:15 - The Adapter That Couldn't Adapt

05:30 - Tropical Batteries Report 2025: Why Hardware Dies in SEA 09:45 - Three Engineering Strategies (And Why Software Wins)

15:20 - The Policy Problem: When Regulators Block Innovation

22:40 - Four Frameworks for Climate Tech Survival

28:48 - Segment Transition: From Climate Heat to AV Hype

Key Quotes:

"Southeast Asia isn't just a market. It's a torture chamber for hardware."

"If your adapter can't survive Southeast Asia, neither can your startup."

"Don't think of tropical conditions as a constraint. Think of them as a feature."

"The real competitive advantage isn't having the best technology. It's having technology that regulators understand, incumbents can partner with, and customers can actually deploy."

Resources Mentioned:

Tropical Batteries Report 2025 (SEDA Malaysia & Cicero)

Malaysia's Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA)

PTT, EGAT, Petronas, Pertamina energy programs

Shell LiveWire program

Hosts:

Kimberley (Kim) Yeoh - @WeiiSyuenYeoh

Kevin Brockland - @KevinBrockland

SEGMENT 1: TROPICAL CLIMATE TECH - THE TORTURE CHAMBER (00:00 - 28:48)

The Core Problem: Most battery storage technologies were designed for temperate climates (Silicon Valley garages, German engineering labs), not Southeast Asia's brutal conditions:

Daily temperatures: 35°C+ (surface temps hit 60°C on rooftops)

Humidity: 90% for months at a time

Salt spray near coasts

Biblical rain patterns

Thermal cycling causing mechanical stress

Real-World Impact:

Lithium-ion cells that should last 10 years only reach 60% of expected lifespan

Electronic components corrode rapidly

Housing cracks from thermal cycling

Warranty claims sink company valuations

The Report: Tropical Batteries Report 2025 from Malaysia's SEDA (Sustainable Energy Development Authority) and CSIRO provides the first comprehensive playbook for hardware founders building in tropical markets.

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Electricity-transition/Southeast-Asia/tropical-batteries-Malaysia

Malaysia's Context:

Target: 70% renewable energy by 2050

Battery storage is critical for grid stability

But current technologies aren't built for these conditions

Three Engineering Strategies:

Engineer the Environment (Reactive)

Active cooling systems

Heat-dissipating materials

Smarter packaging

Problem: Adds cost and complexity without solving root cause

Different Chemistry (Better, but limited)

Sodium-ion batteries: Better heat tolerance, less energy dense

Iron-air batteries: Incredibly robust, slower charge/discharge

Sand batteries: Trap and hold heat (Vietnam example)

Problem: Still competing on manufacturing scale with Chinese giants

Software-Defined Adaptation (The Winner)

Predictive thermal management

Dynamic load balancing

Weather-aware charge/discharge algorithms

Advantage: Compete on intelligence, not manufacturing scale

Startup-friendly and defensible

The Policy Elephant: Technology is only half the battle. Energy policy often works against startups:

Thailand Example:

Ambitious renewable goals on paper

Reality: Energy sector dominated by massive incumbents

Peer-to-peer energy trading technically feasible but legally gray

Result: "Behind-the-meter" projects only (on-site consumption, can't scale to grid)

The Structural Challenge:

What works in Singapore doesn't work in Indonesia

What's legal in Malaysia might be restricted in Vietnam

Different regulatory approaches across 11 Southeast Asian markets

Different incumbent interests and political sensitivities

Four Survival Frameworks:

Framework 1: Environmental Design Thinking

Don't just stress test in labs

Get into real tropical conditions ASAP

Partner with universities in Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines

Set up test installations in actual field conditions

Fail fast and cheap in R&D, not after scaling manufacturing

Framework 2: Regulatory Arbitrage Strategy

Find pockets where policy already supports your model

Malaysia: Feed-in tariffs and net metering policies support distributed solar + storage

Singapore: Regulatory sandboxes for energy innovation

Start there, prove model works, then expand to trickier markets

Framework 3: Stakeholder Ecosystem Mapping

Map key players for every target market: regulators, incumbent utilities, local partners

Thailand: Partner with PTT or EGAT instead of disrupting them

Malaysia: Work with Petronas

Indonesia: Engage with Pertamina

All have CVC arms and innovation programs looking for partnerships

Shell's LiveWire program operates across the region

Framework 4: Climate Adaptation as Competitive Advantage

Don't view tropical conditions as constraint—it's a feature

If hardware survives 35°C heat + 90% humidity, it works anywhere

Tropical market = Southeast Asia + huge chunks of Africa, Latin America, India, Middle East

Torture chamber produces the strongest survivors

The Meta Lesson: Climate tech is a systems challenge, not just engineering:

Building better batteries that work within political, regulatory, climate realities

Building systems that intelligently adapt vs. brute-forcing solutions

Building partnerships with incumbents vs. declaring war

Building for business model sustainability from day one

Smart Founder Strategy: Spend as much time in government ministries as in labs. Don't just build tech—help shape regulations that determine whether tech can scale. Become part of the policy conversation, not an obstacle to it.

SEGMENT 2: AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES IN SINGAPORE (Teased at 28:48)

The Setup: Chinese companies Pony.ai and WeRide launching autonomous shuttles in Punggol, Singapore. But their strategy looks nothing like Silicon Valley's "move fast and break things" approach.

Key Insight Preview: They're playing a completely different game—and it might be genius. (Full segment to be covered in next episode)

SEGMENT 3: SERIES A FUNDRAISING REALITY CHECK (Teased)

What's Coming:

Fresh data from Carta

Insider commentary from VC circles

Numbers that might make you cry into your pitch deck

Why this might actually be the best time to build if you're smart about it

(Full segment to be covered in next episode)

ACTIONABLE TAKEAWAYS

For Climate Tech Founders: ✅ Test in real tropical conditions early—don't wait until post-manufacturing ✅ Consider software-defined adaptation over hardware brute force ✅ Map regulatory landscape before scaling—find friendly markets first ✅ Partner with incumbents rather than fighting them ✅ Position tropical durability as global competitive advantage

For Investors: ✅ Due diligence must include field testing in deployment environments ✅ Account for regulatory risk, not just technology risk ✅ Demand unit economics from day one, not just deployment numbers ✅ Evaluate founder's understanding of policy landscape

For Corporate Executives: ✅ Partner with startups solving real problems, not pitching moonshots ✅ Ensure digital transformation infrastructure works in actual operating conditions ✅ Make strategic investments that support ecosystem resilience

CONNECT WITH US

Subscribe to Sea of Startups:

🎧 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0k6pc3PvXDeSltPINsBkJy?si=abfb938374b64ca7

Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sea-of-startups/id1641090926

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SEAofStartups

Follow the Hosts: 💼 Kim (WeiiSyuen Yeoh) on LinkedIn 💼 Kevin Brockland on LinkedIn

Join the Conversation: Is your hardware actually tropical-ready, or did you just check a box on a spec sheet? Share your experiences in the comments.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE

Organizations:

Malaysia's Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA)

CSIRO

PTT (Thailand)

EGAT (Thailand)

Petronas (Malaysia)

Pertamina (Indonesia)

Shell LiveWire program

Topics:

Tropical Batteries Report 2025

Lithium-ion vs sodium-ion vs iron-air batteries

Sand battery technology (Vietnam)

Feed-in tariffs and net metering

Behind-the-meter projects

Regulatory sandboxes

Peer-to-peer energy trading

Upcoming:

Pony.ai and WeRide autonomous vehicle partnerships

Series A fundraising with Carta data

Special guest on distributed energy (launching end of year)

TAGS & KEYWORDS

ClimateTeч #TropicalBatteries #HardwareStartups #SoutheastAsiaStartups #RenewableEnergy #EnergyStorage #MalaysiaTech #BatteryTechnology #CleanEnergy #StartupStrategy #RegulatoryStrategy #EnergyPolicy #SEDA #TropicalConditions #SustainableTech #SEAofStartups

Next Episode Preview: We'll dive into why Chinese AV companies are taking a radically different approach in Singapore, plus the Series A data that's separating winners from cautionary tales. Stay tuned.

Disclaimer: All views and opinions expressed are those of the hosts and do not represent any organizations mentioned. Content is for informational and entertainment purposes only and should not be considered professional, investment, or legal advice.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

This conversation explores the messy middle of entrepreneurship through Ryan Ng’s unique journey of building YouDigital while leading APAC expansion at $12B unicorn Deel. We dive into cultural barriers holding back Southeast Asian professionals, the myth of work-life balance, and what it really takes to build something meaningful while maintaining financial stability.

⏱️ Key Topics Discussed

The Deel Experience (05:00–10:30)

Inside the world’s largest remote company

Scaling across ASEAN’s complex regulatory landscape

From LinkedIn’s “bullet train” to Deel’s “rocket ship”

Managing 24/7 Slack notifications across time zones

The Paiseh Problem (17:00–22:30)

Southeast Asia’s cultural humility vs. global visibility requirements

Why opportunities go to the most visible, not the best person

The cost of staying silent in today’s professional landscape

Breaking free from “let your work speak for itself” mentality

The YouDigital Origin Story (20:00–27:00)

The moment Ryan couldn’t not build something

From LinkedIn DMs to TikTok content in Bahasa Malaysia

The nine-month transformation of a bypassed professional

Expanding from Malaysia to inquiries from Botswana and Spain

Building While Employed (27:00–35:00)

Why Ryan didn’t quit his day job (and why that’s strategic)

The unfair advantage of financial stability while building

Transparency with managers and avoiding conflicts of interest

Choosing harmony over balance: “Balance is a trap”

Family Dynamics (35:00–47:00)

Honest conversations with his wife about opportunity costs

The end of weekly “Fridates” and adjusted holiday schedules

Raising a three-year-old while juggling two demanding roles

When your toddler crashes Zoom calls with enterprise clients

The Visibility Challenge (47:00–52:00)

“You don’t have to be loud to be powerful”

Leadership without a leadership title

The infrastructure of professional development in Southeast Asia

Cultural authenticity as competitive advantage

💬 Memorable Quotes

“The opportunities always go to not the best person but the person that’s most visible.”

“You shouldn’t try to aim for balance, right? Try to aim for harmony instead, because balance is a trap.”

“Hit that post button. Post something honest. Just post that being genuine and hit that button.”

⚡ Rapid Fire Insights

Biggest fear holding back SEA professionals: Fear of being visible before feeling 100% ready

Monthly question every professional should ask: “What do they want to be known for? And how are they showing up?”

Key mindset shift for side project builders: Don’t be a perfectionist – be comfortable with uncertainties and different seasons

One action to improve visibility this week: Hit publish on something honest and genuine

🔗 Resources Mentioned

YouDigital → youdigital.asia

Deel → Global HR tech unicorn valued at $12B

TikTok Content → Career advice in Bahasa Malaysia

Slush’D Penang → Where Kim and Ryan first connected

👤 Connect with Ryan Ng

YouDigital → youdigital.asia

LinkedIn → Ryan Ng LinkedIn Profile

📝 About Ryan Ng

Ryan Ng is a Southeast Asian thought leader in career and personal branding, with over 18 years of experience spanning Canon, LinkedIn, Deel, and now YouDigital. Followed by more than 35,000 on TikTok and widely recognised for his thought leadership on LinkedIn, Ryan makes career insights relatable, practical, and actionable for today’s talent.

Currently Founder & CEO of YouDigital, Ryan partners with universities, corporates, and government agencies to help students, founders, mid-careerists, and professionals build visibility and opportunity readiness. He also serves as an Adjunct Mentor at INTI, guiding design-thinking projects and mentoring the next generation of leaders.

Previously at LinkedIn, Ryan led public sector workforce programmes across Malaysia, working alongside government agencies to shape employability and economic growth strategies. At Deel, the world’s fastest-growing HR tech startup, he drove regional expansion across ASEAN, advising multinationals on global hiring and compliance.

Ryan has been a speaker at Slush’d Penang, AmCham, Taylor’s University, UiTM, MDEC, and TalentCorp events, and served as a panel judge for TalentCorp’s Life at Work Awards, underlining his commitment to strengthening Malaysia’s and ASEAN’s talent ecosystem.

Through his work, Ryan believes in a simple truth: the best opportunities don’t always go to the most qualified — they go to the most visible. His mission is to ensure Southeast Asians are not just ready for opportunities, but noticed and chosen. In a world where AI can replicate skills, the one thing it can’t replace is your brand.

🌊 SEA of Startups — Support & Stay Connected

🙌 Support the ShowIf this episode made you rethink what “ecosystem building” really means:👉 Tap Follow on Spotify🔔 Turn on notifications so you never miss a new drop⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating & review📤 Share this episode with a founder or operator navigating cross-border challenges

💬 Let’s Connect

Kim Yeoh → LinkedIn

Kevin Brockland → LinkedIn

Newsletter → Subscribe on Substack

🌐 Follow us for more stories:

Spotify → Follow SEA of Startups

LinkedIn → SEA of Startups LinkedIn Page

Substack → seaofstartups.substack.com

🌊 SEA of Startups is where the region’s real startup stories live. No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what’s actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

"We went from the whole growth at all costs mentality to, can you actually make money? All within the span of about 18 months."

Hey everyone,

News flash- That's not some venture capitalist pontificating from a Palo Alto coffee shop. That's Kevin Brockland describing the most dramatic pendulum swing in tech history—happening right now, in Southeast Asia, while everyone else is still arguing about AI regulations.

Here's the uncomfortable truth Silicon Valley doesn't want to admit: While they've been obsessing over who gets to build the next ChatGPT, SEA quietly solved the profitability problem. Not through another productivity hack or growth framework, but through something much more radical: growing the hell up.

Forward this to anyone ready for the adult conversation about tech growth.

The 18-Month Reckoning Nobody Saw Coming

Picture this: You're hosting the ultimate tech house party. Microsoft, Amazon, Google all show up. But so do Tencent, Huawei, Alibaba. Everyone wants cheap land, low electricity, and proximity to Singapore's financial hub.

Sounds perfect, right?

Then reality crashes the party.

Malaysia—capturing 60% of Southeast Asia's new data center capacity—suddenly realizes something Silicon Valley forgot decades ago: infinite growth meets finite resources. Water that keeps data centers cool is the same water Singapore needs to drink. Energy that powers AI training is the same energy families need for air conditioning.

The result? Malaysia did something unthinkable in today's tech landscape: they pumped the brakes voluntarily.

Not because they lacked demand. Not because they couldn't raise capital. But because sustainable growth beats breakneck expansion every single time.

The $30 Million Reality Check

While Silicon Valley founders pitch "AI for everything" with hockey stick projections, Vietnam's FPT Corporation just signed a $30 million, multi-year AI transformation deal with one of Southeast Asia's largest industrial conglomerates.

Not $30 million in potential future revenue. Not $30 million in theoretical market size. $30 million in actual, committed, pay-the-bills revenue.

This isn't venture theater. This is what happens when you skip the "fake it till you make it" phase and jump straight to "build something people will actually pay for."

The difference? FPT didn't try to revolutionize everything overnight. They proved value at each step, built capabilities layer by layer, and focused on problems that keep CFOs awake at night.

The Death of Growth-at-All-Costs (And Why That's Actually Good News)

Here's the data that should terrify every burn-rate optimized startup:

• First half of 2024: Only 229 equity deals in SEA, totaling $1.85 billion

• That's the weakest deal-making pace in over six years

• Yet late-stage companies with strong fundamentals are still raising at good valuations

Translation: The tourist capital left. The hot money chasing momentum disappeared. What remains is capital that actually understands the region and believes in building durable businesses.

This isn't a bug. It's a feature.

Remember the e-fisheries scandal that rocked the ecosystem? The alleged fraud at companies everyone thought were poster children for Southeast Asian innovation? That wasn't a market failure. That was the market working exactly as designed—punishing unsustainable models and rewarding authentic value creation.

The B2B Revolution Nobody Predicted

While consumer super apps burned billions chasing the next billion users, something interesting happened in the shadows: B2B services became profitable.

Enterprise SaaS. AI transformation consulting. Cloud migration services. Digital infrastructure for traditional industries.

All the "boring" stuff Silicon Valley VCs wouldn't touch because it didn't have hockey stick user growth? That's where the actual money was hiding.

Vietnam's largest energy corporation didn't want a consumer app with millions of downloads. They wanted their factories to run more efficiently. FPT delivered that. For $256 million over five years.

The Geopolitical Chess Game (Or: How to Win When Superpowers Fight)

Here's where it gets interesting. While the US and China wage their trade war through semiconductor export bans and data center restrictions, Southeast Asia is playing a different game entirely.

Chinese data center giant GDS Holdings spun off their overseas operations into "Day One"—literally starting fresh to avoid geopolitical pressure. Meanwhile, Thailand built their own Large Language Model called Typhoon, backed by one of the country's largest banks.

Not copying OpenAI. Not licensing from Google. Building their own.

This isn't East versus West. This is Southeast Asia writing its own playbook while everyone else fights over yesterday's rules.

What This Means for Your Career (Whether You Realize It or Not)

If you're entering the workforce without AI skills, you're already behind. Not because AI will replace you, but because someone who understands AI integration will replace you.

If you're a startup founder still chasing vanity metrics instead of unit economics, you're playing a game that ended 18 months ago.

If you're a corporate executive who thinks digital transformation is optional, your competitors are already signing $30 million deals with companies that figured it out.

The fundamentals aren't changing. They're becoming the only thing that matters.

The Millennial Startup Ecosystem

Twenty-something founders break things fast and iterate quickly. Thirty-something founders build things that last and scale sustainably.

Southeast Asia just hit thirty.

The region still wants to build great companies, attract investment, and drive innovation. But strategies have gotten smarter. More intentional. More resilient.

This isn't about lowered ambitions. It's about grown-up ambitions that create solutions lasting longer than the next funding round.

The Real Opportunity (That Everyone's Missing)

While Silicon Valley debates AI safety regulations and China implements social credit systems, Southeast Asia is quietly building the infrastructure for sustainable tech growth.

Climate tech. Energy tech. B2B services for traditional industries. AI transformation that actually transforms something.

The companies winning aren't chasing Silicon Valley metrics. They're solving problems specific to their markets with technologies that work for their users.

Malaysia's vetting committee for data centers isn't red tape. It's strategic thinking.

Vietnam's methodical approach to AI isn't lack of ambition. It's sustainable execution.

Thailand's Typhoon LLM isn't copying ChatGPT. It's competitive differentiation.

Back to the Trust Equation … again

Innovation isn't just about speed anymore. It's about trust—the invisible kind you feel before a term sheet gets signed.

Easy money is gone. Hot takes won't save you. Growth hacking is dead.

What remains is the hard work of building things people need, want, and will pay for. Repeatedly. Profitably. Sustainably.

Southeast Asia learned this lesson in 18 brutal months. The rest of the world is about to follow.

The future belongs to builders who embrace complexity rather than fight it. Whether you're ready or not.

🎯 THE BOTTOM LINE

Southeast Asia didn't slow down. It grew up. While others chase unicorn valuations, the region is building sustainable, profitable businesses that solve real problems for real money.

The pendulum has swung from burn rates to profit rates. The tourist capital left. The hot money disappeared. What remains are companies that understand unit economics aren't optional—they're the entire game.

This isn't a market correction. It's market maturation.

See you in the next one!

-Kim and Kevin

🔥 SUBSCRIBE & ENGAGE

Found this valuable? Share it with that founder still explaining away negative unit economics.

Want more insights like this? Subscribe to SEA of Startups on your preferred platform:

🎧 Spotify | Apple Podcasts | YouTube

💼 LinkedIn: Follow (Kim) WeiiSyuen Yeoh & Kevin Brockland

Join the conversation: What are you seeing in your market—sustainable growth or hockey stick theater?

📊 SEO KEYWORDS

Southeast Asia startups, AI transformation consulting, Malaysia data centers, Vietnam FPT Corporation, B2B services boom, startup profitability, venture capital SEA, sustainable growth, unit economics, digital transformation

Disclaimer: All views shared are personal opinions and don't represent any organizations mentioned.

What's your take? Are you seeing this shift toward sustainable growth in your market, or is everyone still chasing unicorn valuations? The comments section might be more honest than the quarterly reports.

Share this if you know someone still burning cash and calling it growth strategy.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

The Trust Equation: Why Corporate VCs Aren't the Villain in Your Startup Story

"One yes can open doors you didn't know existed. One no from the wrong person can kill dreams before they start." — Pavel Veselovsky, Corporate Venture Strategist

Hey everyone,

Let's address the elephant in every founder's pitch deck.

You know that moment when a corporate VC shows interest in your startup? That split second where you feel simultaneously validated and terrified? Like getting asked to prom by the most popular kid in school who also happens to be your biggest competition.

Yeah, that feeling. We need to talk about it.

🚀 Thanks for diving into SEA of Startups. If you're into raw convos, sharp takes, and real stories from Southeast Asia's startup trenches—Subscribe for free to get new drops straight to your inbox. No fluff. No FOMO. Just the good stuff.

The Great Corporate VC Mythology

Here's what every founder whispers at startup events:

"Corporate money comes with strings attached." "They'll steal your idea and build it themselves." "It takes six months to get a decision, then they want to control everything."

Sound familiar? I thought so.

But here's the plot twist: Pavel Veselovsky, who's navigated both sides of this equation—from running PWC's venture programs to now advising startups across Southeast Asia—just shattered every assumption I had about this space.

The numbers tell a different story than the horror stories:

28% of all venture-backed companies globally now have at least one corporate investor

Southeast Asia is seeing explosive CVC activity, especially in Thailand

Yet 95% of founders are still operating on outdated Silicon Valley mythology

The Real Game: One Yes vs One No

Here's the insight that stopped me cold during our Bangkok recording:

Traditional VCs: You need ONE yes. One believer who writes the check. That's your path to success.

Corporate VCs: You can have every executive saying yes, but ONE no from legal, cybersecurity, or procurement can kill everything.

It's not about speed versus slowness. It's about offensive disruption versus defensive innovation. Two completely different games with completely different rules.

Pavel put it perfectly: "Corporates can spend one year discussing which color the button should be."

The irony? This "weakness" might actually be your startup's protection, not your threat.

The Corporate Zombie Phenomenon

We discovered something I've never heard anyone discuss: corporate zombies.

These aren't the walking dead. They're innovation projects that become impossible to kill even when they've clearly failed. Pavel explained it like this:

"Sometimes it's easy to start funding an initiative, but it's harder to stop funding. We spent so much money on this for five years—it can't be easy to say it's not viable anymore."

Think about that. While founders fear corporates will steal their ideas and execute them faster, the reality is most corporates struggle to execute anything quickly. They're often drowning in their own bureaucratic complexity.

Your real competitive advantage isn't just your speed—it's your ability to pivot, kill projects that don't work, and start over. Corporates often can't.

Why Southeast Asia Is Playing Chess While Silicon Valley Plays Checkers

While everyone assumes Singapore is the only game in town, Thailand is quietly becoming a CVC powerhouse. And it's not copying anyone.

The data Pavel shared from TechSauce Summit:

K-Bank, SCBX, Krungsifineret: dozens of internal innovations in just one year

Retail giants like CP Group and Lotus: building their own innovation engines

Energy companies like Big Rim and Banpoo: leading corporate innovation

But here's the kicker: Thailand built its own Large Language Model called Typhoon (backed by one of the country's largest banks). Not copying OpenAI. Not licensing from Google. Building their own.

This isn't about East versus West. It's about integrated global innovation networks where the best ideas win, regardless of geography.

The Five-Element Framework That Actually Works

When traditional VCs and corporate VCs co-invest (which happens more than you think), Pavel breaks down what makes it work into five elements:

Strategy: Clear mission, vision, and alignment with leadership

People: Right hires with the right mindset and background

Organization: Formal structure connecting to VC networks

Operations: Processes, tools, decision-making mechanics

Metrics: Performance measurement and reporting

It's like competitive ballroom dancing. Both partners need the same vision, complementary skills, structured choreography, flawless execution, and a way to measure performance.

When it works, it's electric. When it doesn't, everyone steps on each other's toes.

The Authenticity Advantage

Here's what caught me off guard: the best corporate VCs aren't playing defense anymore. They're actively seeking disruption.

Pavel's insight: "Most of the time, corporates are not capable to do the same because they can spend one year discussing which color the button should be. From my side, it's really a myth that corporates will easily hijack an idea."

The real dynamic? If that corporate is investing, it's because they need what you have. You're not the weaker party—you're the solution to their innovation problem.

The future belongs to founders who understand this shift and corporates who can move beyond zombie projects toward authentic partnerships.

What Keeps You Up at Night?

Here's my rapid-fire reality check for founders:

Most underrated opportunity: Climate tech and energy tech in Southeast Asia

Best advice for corporate money: Find the right stakeholder (not the biggest checkbook)

Hard truth: Good numbers aren't enough anymore. Good storytelling often beats good metrics.

Five-year prediction: More major acquisitions where corporate investors played crucial early-stage roles. More Southeast Asian founders succeeding globally, not just regionally.

The Real Revolution

The AI startups are capturing 37% of all CVC-backed funding globally. Southeast Asia is following similar patterns, but with local twists—like Thailand's Typhoon LLM.

The companies winning aren't chasing Silicon Valley metrics. They're solving problems specific to their markets with technologies that actually work for their users.

🎧 Full deep dive conversation with Pavel Veselovsky drops today on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and Substack Audio.

The Trust Equation

Innovation isn't just about speed or strategy. It's about trust—the invisible kind you feel in a room before a term sheet gets signed.

One yes can open doors you didn't know existed. One no from the wrong person can kill dreams before they start. That's the dance between corporates and startups.

It's not always elegant, but when it works, it's electrifying.

For founders: Your employees are already using AI tools in secret. Instead of fighting it, give them sanctioned tools that learn and improve.

For corporates: Stop funding zombie projects. Start funding solutions to problems that keep you awake at night.

For everyone else: Southeast Asia isn't copying anyone's playbook anymore. We're writing our own.

The future belongs to builders who embrace complexity rather than fight it. Whether you're a founder considering corporate money or a corporate executive thinking venture strategy, the opportunity is massive—but only if you understand the actual game being played.

What's your take? Are you seeing real collaboration between corporates and startups, or just expensive theater? The comments might be more honest than the quarterly reports.

Next week: We're exploring how Southeast Asian fintech is quietly revolutionizing financial inclusion while everyone debates crypto regulations. Spoiler: the real innovation isn't happening where you think.

Until then, maybe focus on building trust that lasts longer than the demo.

— Kim

Disclaimer: All views shared are personal opinions and don't represent any organizations mentioned.

If this hit different, share it with that one founder who's scared of corporate money or that exec who swears they understand startups.

Share

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

🎙 EP 10: The $40 Billion AI Reality Check | MIT's Brutal Wake-Up Call on Enterprise AI's 95% Failure Rate

🛰 Everyone's chasing AI transformation. 95% are just burning money.

This week, Kevin Brockland and Kim Yeoh tear apart MIT's Project NANDA report — the most brutal reality check the AI industry has seen. Despite $30-40 billion in enterprise AI spending, 95% of companies have exactly zero ROI to show for it.

No buzzwords, no consulting deck theater, just the uncomfortable truth about why most AI initiatives die in "pilot purgatory" while a shadow economy of employees quietly uses free tools anyway.

Kevin is a tech investor and startup advisor focused on Southeast Asia's emerging markets. Kim is an ACMA, CGMA qualified finance professional turned startup ecosystem builder. Together, they've watched the AI hype cycle from the inside — and they're not buying the LinkedIn transformation posts.

This episode is raw honesty about: How the "GenAI Divide" became wider than the Grand Canyon Why your expensive AI tools can't remember yesterday's feedback The beautiful rebellion of employees using ChatGPT in secret And what the 5% getting AI right actually do differently

💡 What You'll Learn

Why 95% of AI projects are expensive screensavers that never leave pilot phase What MIT calls "the learning gap" — and why your AI has goldfish memory How 68% of workplace ChatGPT users are flying under corporate radar Why Southeast Asia's experimental culture beats Western AI ethics committees The difference between AI that demos well vs AI that delivers ROI Why augmentation > replacement for sustainable AI adoption

🔎 Key Takeaways

Third-party AI tools have significantly higher success rates than in-house builds Back-office automation drives more ROI than sexy front-end applications Smaller companies dominate AI success because they lack bureaucratic friction The real opportunity lies in AI agents that learn your business context Southeast Asia's speed advantage could leapfrog Western AI adoption

🧠 Sound Bites

"It's like the Emperor's new AI clothes — all slides, no substance" "95% of AI projects are expensive screensavers tucked into the 'didn't work' folder" "Your 10X dev is now 100X, but the bottom tier hasn't changed at all" "People are reverting to ChatGPT because the enterprise tools don't fit their workflow" "We're performing AI transformation rather than actually doing it" "Easy money is gone, but the real money is just getting started"

⏱ Chapters

00:00 – Kevin's Radical Honesty: The AI Theater Performance 01:28 – MIT Drops the 95% Zero ROI Bombshell04:35 – Why Most Companies Are Just Pretending to Transform 06:59 – The Learning Gap: Why AI Has Amnesia 12:24 – Pilot Purgatory vs The 5% Success Club 18:51 – Third-Party vs In-House: The Failure Rate Divide 25:43 – Back-Office Gold Mine: Where Real ROI Lives 29:25 – The Shadow AI Economy: 68% Flying Under Radar 36:28 – Southeast Asia's Speed Advantage 43:00 – Tough Love for AI Startup Founders 46:32 – The GenAI Divide: Temporary or Permanent? 49:03 – What to Remember: Revolution is Real, Just Messier

🙌 Support the Show

If this reality check saved you from becoming part of the 95%: 👉 Tap "Follow" 🔔 Turn on notifications ⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating📤 Share this with someone stuck in pilot purgatory

💬 Let's Connect

🎙 Kim Yeoh → https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/ 🎙 Kevin Brockland → https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/ 📬 Join 500+ founders & VCs reading our newsletter → Subscribe on Substack - https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

🌊 SEA of Startups is where the region's real startup stories live. No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what's actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

🎙 EP 9a: You Can’t Copy-Paste Trust | Chi Chi Wong on Cross-Border VC, Founder Support, and Building the Human Infrastructure Behind Southeast Asia’s Startup Ecosystem

🛰 Everyone’s chasing unicorns. Chi Chi Wong is building something rarer: real cross-border trust.

This week, Kim Yeoh sits down with Chi Chi Wong — the one-man APAC ecosystem team at Huawei Cloud — to unpack what ecosystem building actually means in Southeast Asia. No buzzwords, no frameworks, just the human infrastructure that keeps startup bridges standing when MOUs fade and headlines shift.

Chi Chi is the Ecosystem Lead for Huawei Cloud’s Startup and Developer Programs, driving initiatives across Asia-Pacific and beyond. With experience spanning New York University, Singapore military service, and a Master’s from Tsinghua University, he now works across governments, startups, VCs, incubators, and media to build a more resilient, inclusive tech ecosystem.

This episode is a rare inside look into:

How cultural fluency, emotional infrastructure, and patience matter more than pitch decks

What Hong Kong founders keep missing about Southeast Asia

Why 2AM founder calls beat demo-day soundbites

And what most “regional strategies” get dangerously wrong

💡 What You’ll Learn

Why “Singapore ≠ Southeast Asia” — and what Hong Kong startups often get wrong

What a 240:1 competition ratio in China teaches you about resilience and restraint

How Chi Chi reverse-engineered a Huawei job offer from a Tsinghua thesis interview

Why trust travels slower than capital — but compounds harder

The difference between ecosystem optics and actual founder support

Why showing up in hard times > big headlines

🔎 Key Takeaways

“Regional-first” strategies often fail without local presence and emotional bandwidth

Southeast Asia is not a monolith — scaling across cultures requires more than translation

The best ecosystem builders aren’t chasing visibility — they’re chasing reliability

Trust is your true moat in Asia-Pacific’s fragmented, high-context markets

🧠 Sound Bites

“I wasn’t there to compete. I was there to connect.”

“Most people try to stand out. I tried to disappear — and learn from the room.”

“Southeast Asia isn’t one market. It’s hundreds. With real people, real pain points, and real pace.”

“Ecosystem building is 2AM calls, not conference panels.”

“The job came not because I pitched well, but because I listened better.”

⏱ Chapters

00:00 – Kevin’s Intro: Why Chi Chi Isn’t Your Typical Ecosystem Builder01:20 – Kim’s Welcome: From NYU to Tsinghua to Huawei04:45 – How a Thesis Turned into a Huawei Job Offer10:15 – What Most Founders Get Wrong About Scaling Regionally14:30 – Emotional Infrastructure > Regional Strategy PDFs19:10 – Founder Support at 2AM vs Demo Day Theater24:00 – Hong Kong’s Blind Spots in Southeast Asia29:30 – Why Local Trust Takes Time — But Outlasts Capital35:00 – Building Human Systems for the Long Game

🙌 Support the Show

If this episode made you rethink what “ecosystem building” really means:👉 Tap “Follow”🔔 Turn on notifications⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating📤 Share this with a founder struggling to scale cross-border

💬 Let’s Connect

🎙 Kim Yeoh → https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/🎙 Kevin Brockland → https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/📬 Join 500+ founders & VCs reading our newsletter → Subscribe on Substack-https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

🌊 SEA of Startups is where the region’s real startup stories live.No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what’s actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

Read up on our newsletter!

🎙 Most VCs think ESG stories are too noble to fact-check. That's how you lose $600 million. — Kim Yeoh

🛰 Southeast Asia's startup ecosystem just got a reality check that makes WeWork look like a rounding error. E-Fishery — Indonesia's sustainable aquaculture darling backed by SoftBank and Temasek — somehow turned $150 million in real revenue into $750 million on paper.

This week, Kim and Kevin dissect how an entire investment ecosystem got so drunk on ESG narratives that apparently nobody thought to count the actual fish feeders.

The truth? When trust breaks in relationship-driven markets, the damage spreads faster than a TikTok trend.

💡 What You'll Learn

Why ESG halos can blind even sophisticated investors — and how noble missions became get-out-of-jail-free cards for basic due diligence.

How fabricated revenue scales exponentially — from 2x inflation to 5x fantasy, with receipts to match.

Why Southeast Asia's trust networks amplify fraud damage — and how one scandal sets back an entire regional ecosystem.

How institutional investors missed obvious red flags — when SoftBank and Temasek-level due diligence still isn't enough.

🔎 Key Takeaways

ESG stories aren't immune to fraud — sustainability missions require the same verification as any other business model.

Regional trust damage compounds — unlike Silicon Valley's forgive-and-forget culture, broken trust in SEA stays broken.

Due diligence can't be outsourced to lead investors — even big names get it spectacularly wrong.

Authenticity is now a competitive advantage — in a world of fabricated metrics, radical transparency wins long-term.

🧠 Sound Bites

"Math that would make Elizabeth Holmes blush."

"Apparently fraud has a universal playbook."

"In Silicon Valley, Adam Neumann crashes WeWork and still raises another fund. In Southeast Asia? Once trust breaks, it's gone."

"The most important business advice is also the most uncomfortable: verify, don't just trust."

"While we're explaining why counting fish feeders should be standard due diligence, Silicon Valley is buying AI researchers for $1.5 billion."

⏱ Chapters

00:00 – The $600M Fish Farm Scandal Explained

08:15 – How ESG Stories Became Too Good to Question

15:30 – When SoftBank and Temasek Miss the Red Flags

22:45 – Regional Trust Networks and Fraud Amplification

29:20 – The Silicon Valley vs SEA Redemption Gap

35:10 – Why Authenticity is the New Competitive Advantage

41:30 – Next Week Preview: Chi Chi Wong on Substance Over Spectacle

🙌 Support the Show

If this episode made you rethink your due diligence process:

👉 Tap "Follow" 🔔 Turn on notifications

⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating

📤 Share this episode with that investor friend who thinks big-name lead investors mean automatic credibility

💬 Let's Connect 🎙 Kim Yeoh → https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/

🎙 Kevin Brockland → https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

📬 Join 500+ founders & VCs reading our newsletter → https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

SEA of Startups is where the region's real startup stories live. No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what's actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

EP 7: The Enterprise Sales Reality Check You’ve Been Avoiding | The Enterprise Sales Playbook No One Talks About: Why Your Perfect Product Still Can't Close Corporate Deals in SEA

Read up on our newsletter!

🎙 Most founders think enterprise sales is about having the best product. That’s adorable. — Axel Winter, former CTO Cisco APAC

🛰 Enterprise sales in Southeast Asia isn’t a meritocracy.It’s a game of timing, politics, and trust — and if you don’t understand how the buying side really works, you’re setting yourself up for slow, expensive heartbreak.

This week, Kevin sits down with Axel Winter — ex-CTO at Cisco, global IT strategy lead at Standard Chartered, and the man who built a 450-person startup inside Central Group — to unpack how big corporates actually choose their vendors.

The truth? It’s not pretty. But it’s necessary.

💡 What You’ll Learn

Why 63% of RFPs already have a winner before they even start — and how to make sure you’re not just filling up the compliance quota.

How budget cycles can outweigh product features — and why December can be your best sales month of the year.

Why your elevator pitch is make-or-break — and how to nail it in 30 seconds or less.

How trust compounds differently in Southeast Asia’s relationship-driven markets — and why breaking it can cost you years.

🔎 Key Takeaways

Not every RFP is worth chasing — qualify your effort based on your odds.

Budget beats brilliance — know your buyer’s fiscal calendar better than your own.

Trust > Tech — in Asia, your WhatsApp access might be worth more than your product roadmap.

The default decision in enterprise is often no decision — learn to spot it early.

🧠 Sound Bites

“I haven’t been in any RFP where the outcome was totally open.”

“December can save you 50% — if you know who’s desperate to spend.”

“If you can’t explain your value between floors 1 and 3, you’re not ready for enterprise.”

“In Asia, once trust breaks, it stays broken.”

“Don’t just build features. Build relationships that outlast features.”

⏱ Chapters

00:00 – Why Most Founders Get Enterprise Sales Wrong07:45 – Axel’s Background: From Netscape to Cisco to Central Group12:20 – Defining “Legacy” from the Business Side16:50 – RFP Theatre and How to Play It Smart23:30 – Innovators vs Safe Choices in Corporate Buying28:40 – The Budget Cycle Advantage31:45 – The Make-or-Break Elevator Pitch35:00 – Relationship-Driven Markets in Southeast Asia

🙌 Support the Show

If this episode made you rethink your sales playbook:👉 Tap “Follow”🔔 Turn on notifications⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating📤 Share this episode with a founder stuck in RFP purgatory

💬 Let’s Connect

🎙 Kim Yeoh → https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/🎙 Kevin Brockland → https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/📬 Join 500+ founders & VCs reading our newsletter →https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

SEA of Startups is where the region’s real startup stories live.No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what’s actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

From Apps to Infrastructure: 3 Startup Shifts Rewiring Southeast Asia

Read up on our newsletter! https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

🎙️ EP 6: The Invisible Unicorns: Why Southeast Asia's Biggest Startup Stories Are Happening Behind Your Phone Screen

🛰 The next big story in Southeast Asia’s startup scene isn’t an app.It’s the infrastructure humming underneath.

In this jam-packed episode, Kim Yeoh and Kevin Brockland unpack the quiet pivot happening across the region — from flashy B2C apps to the invisible rails powering how we travel, invest, and build.

This isn’t a trend. It’s a tectonic shift.

💡 What You’ll Learn:

How Airalo became the world’s first eSIM unicorn—and why it’s not just a travel app, it’s global telco infrastructure.

Why Arta Finance is building the AWS of private wealth—and how Singapore fits into their playbook.

What Lovable’s “vibe coding” model tells us about the future of dev infra—and what it means for SEA founders.

🔎 Key Takeaways:

Infrastructure is the new battleground—and Southeast Asia is exporting it.

The best startups don’t just build apps. They build rails.

“Freemium” tools today could become tomorrow’s lock-in traps.

Smart founders build optionality into their stack: rent wisely, own strategically.

🧠 Sound Bites

“From SIM cards to APIs—Southeast Asia isn’t just using infrastructure. It’s building it.”

“If one platform powers every MVP, who’s really innovating?”

“Selective independence is the name of the game. Build what you must, rent what you can.”

“Infrastructure isn’t sexy—until it breaks. Then it’s everything.”

“The next breakout isn’t another super app. It’s the rails they all run on.”

“Don’t just scale fast. Scale smart. Own your margins.”

⏱️ Chapters

00:00 – Southeast Asia's Infrastructure Revolution

12:29 – AI and Wealth Management Innovations

23:13 – The Future of No-Code Development

27:01 – The Rise of Vibe Coding

29:23 – Democratizing Access to Technology

32:20 – The Future of AI and Market Dynamics

35:55 – Empowering the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs

40:23 – Building for the Future: Infrastructure and Innovation

42:16 – Exploring Infrastructure Plays

Subscribe to our newsletter: https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

Partner with us → weiisyueny@gmail.com

🙌 Support the Show

If this episode gave you something to think about:👉 Tap “Follow”🔔 Turn on notifications⭐ Leave us a 5-star rating📤 Share this episode with a founder or operator rethinking their stack

💬 Let’s Connect

🎙 Kim Yeoh →https://www.linkedin.com/in/weiisyuenyeohacmacgma/🎙 Kevin Brockland → https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/ 📬 Join 500+ founders & VCs reading our newsletter → https://seaofstartups.substack.com/

SEA of Startups is where the region’s real startup stories live.No puff pieces. No fluff. Just what’s actually happening under the surface.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

🎙️ Episode Title

Philippines Startup Shift with Joseph De Leon

📌 Episode Summary (100–150 words)

In this episode, Joseph De Leon (JDL) shares strategic insights into the evolution of the Philippine startup ecosystem: why $5K angel checks still teach more than $5M rounds, how conservative capital is learning to take risks, and what separates founders who pitch beautifully from those who can actually execute. We unpack how the Manila Angel Investor Network was built from the ground up, common red flags in founder profiles, and what’s next in climate tech and AI. If you're building in Southeast Asia—or exploring where to place your next bet—this conversation blends grit, strategy, and real-world lessons from the trenches.

🔑 Key Takeaways

Why small bets matter: A $5,000 angel check often teaches more than flashy multi-million‑dollar rounds—in part because it surfaces execution risk early.

Capital learning curve: Conservative investors in the Philippines are cautiously shifting toward higher-risk startup bets by getting closer to founders with measurable traction.

Execution over charisma: Plenty of founders pitch beautifully, but real dollars flow to those who can ship and scale.

Red flags that kill deals: “Airport‑test” personalities, grant-chasing founders, and ideas without real customer insight quickly turn seasoned investors away.

Ambition is rising: Startups are transitioning from local lifestyle plays to globally-oriented scale businesses focused on climate-tech, AI, and human-centric platforms.

Ecosystem leverage: Over half a billion dollars in institutional capital stands ready—if founders can meet the institutional investor readiness bar.

🚀 Why You Should Listen

Get candid insights from someone who’s built the largest active angel network in the Philippines.

Understand how the region’s investment thesis is evolving, amid risk-averse capital, system friction, and emerging ambition drivers.

Discover what early-stage founders often overlook—and what seasoned investors demand.

👤 Guest & Host Info

Guest: Joseph De Leon (JDL) — Partner at Gravitas Prime, Director of Founder Institute Philippines, and founder of consulting practice Bullet Day. Built MAN, syndicated angel capital, and currently prepping Filipino startups for institutional scaling.

Host: Kevin Brockland, CFA — Co‑host of SEA of Startups, focused on SEA capital flows and founder narratives.

Co‑Host: Kimberley (Kim) Yeoh — Producer & Editor, known for sharp framing and narrative tone.

🔑 SEO Keywords

Philippine startup ecosystem

Angel investing Philippines

Startup execution vs pitching

Climate tech Southeast Asia

ASEAN early‑stage founders

Joseph De Leon Philippines

Manila Angel Investor Network (MAN)

Southeast Asia venture insights

📎 Resources & Links

Manila Angel Investor Network

Founder Institute Philippines & Google Cloud partnership

Bullet Day consulting

Kumu (startup referenced in episode)

Related episode: SEA of Startups #4A – Infrastructure shift in Jakarta & Malaysia

✅ Call to Action

If you found the episode useful, rate and subscribe, and drop a review to help others discover it.Interested founders: email your 5-minute pitch deck to pitch@main.ph.Investors wanting exposure to Philippine capital flows: book a chat at cal.com/bulletday.🎧 Link to full episode is at the top of this page—or check it in your favorite podcast app.

📜 Transcript & Quotes

For accessibility and SEO, the full transcript is embedded below in an expandable section.Highlight quotes:

“Sometimes a $5,000 check teaches you more than a $5 million one.”“Ambition without discipline isn’t brave. It’s just recklessness.”

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

“You can’t build AI without compute. And you can’t build trust with slogans.”— Kevin Brockland

“Singapore can’t handle everything. It really can’t.”— Kimberley Yeoh

Hey everyone,

Last week we talked cold hard cash, where it's flowing and why seed founders are getting squeezed while unicorns feast. This week? We're going deeper. Past the money, into the guts of what's actually getting built.

Episode 4B is about the unsexy stuff that'll make or break SEA's next act: compute power, policy theater, and who gets to control the digital future.

Let's start in Jakarta. There's a $2.3B hyperscale AI datacenter going up at breakneck speed. 144 megawatts of raw compute. Kevin calls it "a hyperscaler on steroids" — and honestly, that's not hyperbole. This thing is massive.

But here's the thing about infrastructure — it doesn't exist in isolation. Which brings us to Malaysia's latest reinvention attempt. Fund-of-funds? Yep. VC tax breaks? Sure. ASEAN chair flex with a cross-border startup platform? Obviously.

The playbook feels familiar. Kevin's not wrong when he says: "Same playbook, new name, new slogan... Let's just do more of the same."

Look, I get the skepticism. Malaysia's had a few false starts. But I actually think there's something here worth watching. They're not trying to out-Singapore Singapore ,they're carving out their own lane. Intent matters. Execution matters more.

The reality is this: if SEA wants to ride the next wave — AI, IoT, green data, whatever comes after ; We need more than VC dollars. We need the boring stuff. The cables. The cooling systems. The regulatory frameworks. The sovereign compute strategies that let countries control their own digital destiny.

This episode digs into those foundations. The less flashy bets that determine what becomes possible.

🧠 What You’ll Learn in This Episode:

• Why Jakarta's AI beast could flip the regional power dynamic

• What Malaysia's policy refresh actually means (and where it'll probably stumble)

• How "sovereign compute" became the new national bragging rights

• Why Singapore might be hitting scale limits despite its strengths

• What this all means for founders trying to build on top

🧩 Key Founder Insights:

📌 Infrastructure isn't backend anymore- it's competitive advantage

📌 Policy theatre only works if you can actually execute

📌 Pay attention to infra shifts - they determine your costs, speed, and scale potential

📌 Singapore still leads but alternatives are getting real

📌 Sovereign cloud, tax structures, data laws — this stuff will matter way more going forward

🎧 Listen Now: "Infra Bets & Policy Plays: What's Next for SEA's Startup Ecosystem" on [Spotify] • • [Substack Audio]

🔮 Up Next:

Episode 5: From Infra Bets to Founder Grit — Why the Philippines Might Be SEA’s Next BreakoutPhilippines deep dive with Joseph De Leon-angel investor, strategist, and ecosystem whisperer. Everyone sleeps on this market — but something’s stirring. We’re going to find out what.

🔁 Missed Episode 4A?

Episode 4A was all about SEA's capital flows and why the funding game is so lopsided right now.

🎧 Listen to Episode 4A on Spotify

📺 Watch it on YouTube

📩 Subscribe. Share. You know a founder who needs this — go ahead and hit send.

This is SEA of Startups — where we skip the fluff and get real about what's happening.

Build smart. Build deep.

— Kim and Kevin

Usual disclaimer: This isn't investment advice. Just real talk from people who live this stuff.

🌐 Supporting Sources & Citations

• Jakarta’s $2.3 B AI Megacenter

• Edgnex (Damac Group) is investing US $2.3 billion in a 144 MW AI-focused data center in Jakarta, with phase one expected to launch in late 2026 BERNAMA+15DataCenterDynamics+15Capacity Media+15.

• Confirmed by the Indonesian government’s Ministry of Communications and Digital, calling it a key investment that will bridge digital infrastructure gaps Antara News.

• Malaysia’s VC Reboot via Jelawang Capital & Tax Incentives

• Khazanah’s Jelawang Capital has selected five VC firms under the Emerging Fund Managers Programme (EMP) and Regional Fund Managers Initiative, including Vynn Capital, Kairous Capital, AppWorks, and Granite Asia Capacity Media+13Jelawang Capital+13Jelawang Capital+13.

• The Malaysian government has approved concessionary VC tax incentives: a 5 % tax rate (for 10 years) for funds investing at least 20 % locally, plus a 10 % rate for fund management companies bloomberg.com+3thestar.com.my+3BERNAMA+3.

🚀 Thanks for diving into SEA of Startups. If you're into raw convos, sharp takes, and real stories from Southeast Asia’s startup trenches Subscribe for free to get new drops-straight to your inbox. No fluff. No FOMO. Just the good stuff.

Heard something that hit? This post is public — pass it on.

Thoughts? Let us know what’s brewing? Lets go

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

🎧 Episode 4A: Funding’s Up, Startups Down? Southeast Asia’s Barbell Economy in 2025

Welcome to Part 1 of our two-part deep dive on the state of startup funding in Southeast Asia.One month into the SEA of Startups podcast, we’re marking the milestone with a special two-parter that cuts through the noise — and goes straight to where the money’s moving (or not moving).

In this episode, we unpack the hard numbers behind Southeast Asia’s $2B funding snapshot for H1 2025 — and what it reveals about the barbell effect:→ Fat late-stage rounds.→ Starved early-stage pipeline.→ Not much in between.

Spoiler: If you’re raising a seed round, this might explain a few things.

🧠 What We Cover:

The 80% drop in seed deals since 2022

Why Singapore accounted for 92% of all VC funding

Flight-to-quality behavior: big checks only for proven bets

Why the unicorn drought may signal a longer-term innovation gap

What this barbell dynamic means for the future of the SEA ecosystem

🔍 Key Stats:

$2B total raised in H1 2025

56 seed-stage deals (vs. 200 in H1 2024, 245 in H2 2022)

Only 1 unicorn minted:Sygnum Bank (Singapore)

10 late-stage deals accounted for $1.4B — avg. $140M per deal

92% of all funding routed through Singapore entities

🎧 Listen now on your favorite platform:Spotify | YouTube | Substack | Apple Podcasts

🛎️ Stay tuned for Part 2 — where we dig into Jakarta’s $2.3B AI data center, Malaysia’s startup policy reboot, and the infrastructure tailwinds shaping what comes next.

📌 Disclaimer: Everything discussed reflects personal perspectives only. This is not financial advice, and we’re not speaking on behalf of any organization.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

“These APIs are pretty cool… they allow people to sell quickly without having to go through bureaucratic buying processes.”— Chris Birrell

🧠 Episode 3: Deep, Narrow & Agentic — with Chris Birrell (FUNC Ventures)

In this episode of SEA of Startups, we dig into the quiet revolution happening inside the software stack — where smart APIs, agentic AI, and vertical SaaS are giving focused founders an edge over generic platforms.

Our guest this week: Chris Birrell, Managing Partner at FUNC Ventures — a multi-exit founder and deep-tech operator who’s seen this shift from both the enterprise buyer’s seat and the founder’s side of the table.

This isn’t about building big.It’s about building specific.Precision, embedded value, and leverage — not noise.

💡 What You'll Learn

✅ What agentic AI actually is — and how it goes beyond automation to full-stack decision-making✅ How APIs act as distribution tools, not just plumbing✅ Why deep-and-narrow beats “all-in-one” in vertical SaaS✅ How to stay defensible as OpenAI and the majors keep moving fast✅ What founders in Southeast Asia need to do differently — mindset, model, and moats

🧩 Real-World Examples We Cover

• Using APIs to bypass enterprise red tape• Agentic flows for KYC, gym memberships, and onboarding• How Stripe and Twilio scaled by staying narrow, then expanding• What an “AI-native” stack might look like in healthtech, fintech, and transport• Why founders with specialist insight are best positioned to win the agentic future

🎧 Listen or Watch

📺 Watch on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@SEAofStartups

🎧 Listen on Spotify: https://lnkd.in/gmMi2NyR

📨 Subscribe on Substack:https://lnkd.in/gVfiXaPz

If Episode 2 explored the funding terrain,Episode 3 dives into the stack itself —where the real leverage is quietly being built.

And if this feels like a calm before the storm… you’re not wrong. 💥

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

🎙️ EPISODE 2: The Road Less Funded – Seed-Strapping with Strategy

Welcome back to SEA of Startups — where Southeast Asia’s startup game gets real. No hype. No fluff. Just raw conversations with the people building and backing what’s next.

If Episode 1 was our reset, Episode 2 is the reframe — and we’re calling it: Seed-Strapping. That gritty middle ground between bootstrapping till burnout and fundraising your way into a diluted cap table (or a derailed vision).

This week, Kevin takes the hot seat as we unpack:

💡 What is Seed-Strapping?Not bootstrapping, not blitzscaling — it’s raising just enough to move fast without losing your soul (or equity).

🌏 Why it matters more in Southeast AsiaLess capital, more constraint = sharper strategy. Tools like AI are leveling the playing field.

📉 The risk of raising too much too soonIndigestion kills more startups than starvation. Go big only if the market demands it.

You’ll also hear Kevin’s story — from Wall Street to launching Indelible Ventures in Malaysia — and his deeper take on capital efficiency in hisTech in Asia article: “How seed-strapping is killing endless funding rounds" a must-read companion to this episode.

Cheat Sheet for Seed-Strappers:

Be ruthless with capital.

Hire with intent, not ego.

Just say no — especially to dumb money.

Default alive > Growth theater.

Build fast. Don’t fall down the mountain.

👀 Next up: What happens when your co-founder isn’t even human? We deep dive into Agentic AI with Chris Birrell. Think founder energy… made of code.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

This isn’t a fluffy reset. It’s a recalibration.

SEA of Startups is back — sharper, bolder, and more real than ever.

In this special kickoff, co-hosts Kevin Brockland (Indelible Ventures) and Kimberley Yeoh (Producer & Co-host) share what inspired this new chapter, and what listeners can expect from the episodes ahead.

This isn’t just a podcast — it’s a space for authentic conversations, layered perspectives, and the untold stories shaping Southeast Asia’s startup ecosystem.

🎯 In this episode:

Why we’re relaunching with fresh energy and deeper intent

What kind of founder and funder stories we’re spotlighting

How ambition, vulnerability, and iteration define this region

Our vision for building a more connected, honest startup conversation

🎙 If you're a founder building in the thick of it, or a funder tired of surface-level noise — this one's for you. Tune in and be part of the conversation.

Follow, share, tag us — or just send it to someone who needs to hear this.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit seaofstartups.substack.com

View Details

This time around, we are sharing a recent presentation that our host gave at a recent event in which he discussed the different players in a startup ecosystem and how the current environment in Malaysia shapes up.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Jeremy Au. You may know him from the BRAVE Southeast Asia Tech Podcast or from Monk’s Hill Ventures. We cover a lot of ground chatting about the VC ecosystem.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Jeremy Au. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: 

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Hanif Wahid the Founder of Delyva, which is is a multi-courier delivery platform recommends the best-performing courier service for every delivery.

This was a great conversation with Hanif as we talked about the founding story and how they have grown. We talk about the importance of customer feedback in building the product and scaling the business.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Hanif Wahid. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Hanif Wahid:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/hanifwahid/

• Delyva: https://delyva.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Ganesh Bangah, a serial entrepreneur with a resume longer than this podcast. He built MOL Global which listed on NASDAQ and later sold to Razer and is currently focused on Commerce.Asia as well as ASX-listed Netccentric.

This was a great conversation with Ganesh where navigate the evolution from cyber cafes to selling points to gaming. We talked about acquiring Friendster, one of the earliest social media players and then listing on NASDAQ. We wrap up by focusing on his current endeavors with Commerce.Asia and what drove him to acquire control in Netccentric, an ASX-listed company.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Ganesh Bangah. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Ganesh Bangah:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ganeshbangah/

• Commerce.Asia:

https://www.commerce.asia/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:38] Building MOL Global from cyber cafes to NASDAQ listing.

[9:40] The acquisition of Friendster and leveraging the community.

[17:44] Transitioning towards strategic investments.

[25:33] Investing in an influencer marketing company and other initiatives.

[33:53] The new technologies that will shape the future.

[41:53] Closing questions.

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Ben Bagg the Founder of Nectar Group, which is focused on enabling companies looking to expand across the APAC through as a Sales & marketing driven revenue generator.

This was a great conversation with Ben where we talked about the early days of bootstrapping a lead generation business. We talk about merging his business with a co-founder and building off of the business synergies between the two. A lot of takeaways from this conversation on sales and marketing.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Ben Bagg. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Ben Bagg:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ben-bagg/

• Nectar Group: https://nectargroup.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:38] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Nectar Group

[9:25] The challenges of scaling up lead generation and sales qualification across various industries.

[18:00] Merging companies and combining strengths in B2B marketing and lead generation.

[26:40] Helping clients with lead generation and expanding their businesses across the APAC region

[36:00] Vision for the company and becoming known as a "unicorn maker" by helping startups grow and scale.

[38:55] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Jonathan Weins the Founder of Pop Meals, which is an F&B company leveraging tech and data to enable tailored experience with better quality and lower prices.

This was a great conversation with Jonathan as we navigate the business model pivot towards physical locations. We talk about how they are applying tech and data and bring the iteration from their software experience to the F&B operations. A lot of great insights in how they are serving innovation on the menu.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Jonathan Weins. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Jonathan Weins:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonathanweins/

• Pop Meals: https://www.popmeals.com.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:38] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Pop Meals.

[8:30] How they pivoted their food delivery business to include physical locations, and how they used technology and data to continuously improve their recipes and customer experience.

[17:03] The importance of consistency and reliability in the food industry, while also finding a balance with offering new products and catering to local tastes.

[25:31] Optimizing food preparation costs and consistency through advanced systems and technology in their rapidly expanding chain of over 40 locations.

[33:28] The development of their company's internal systems, including the use of off-the-shelf tools and in-house built systems.

[40:45] Closing questions.

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by TM Lee the Founder of CoinGecko, which is the world’s largest independent cryptocurrency data aggregator and has made a name as key provider of fundamental analysis on the crypto market.

This was a great conversation with TM as we talked about how he came to be interested in the crypto industry and why they decided to build CoinGecko. We talk about building a subscription model off the back of an ad-driven model. We couldn’t avoid talking about the general impact of recent events on the crypto industry as a whole. A great conversation packed with highlights.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with TM Lee. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find TM Lee:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/leetm/

• CoinGecko: https://www.coingecko.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:40] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward CoinGecko

[5:55] Early days of building CoinGecko.

[11:30] Establishing product-market fit and identifying the audience.

[15:32] Building the first revenue model as ad-supported.

[20:45] Creating a monetization model for subscription to its API.

[25:12] Looking at the future of crypto and where CoinGecko will be.

[36:20] Defining success as an organization.

[37:44] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Gil Carmo the Founder of iMotorbike, which is the leading online platform to buy or sell pre-owned Motorcycles with operations in Vietnam and Malaysia.

This was a great conversation with Gil where we start with recognizing that there is no right time to start a startup, but you just must go. We navigate through them making a business model pivot in 2021 and how they have grown to where they are today. We close out with thoughts on what the future holds for them.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Gil Carmo. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Gil Carmo:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gilcarmo/

• iMotorbike: https://imotorbike.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:35] The origin story of becoming an entrepreneur and launching iMotorbike

[6:49] The starting point of a blog that evolved to classifieds.

[12:57] Coming to the realization that a pivot of business model was required.

[20:55] Reconfiguring the business towards a transactional business model.

[24:57] The process flow from the viewpoint of a Seller and a Buyer.

[39:33] The future for iMotorbike.

[42:45] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Ami Sugiyama the Founder of Secai Marche, which is a B2B farm-to-table fulfilment platform that streamlines the supply chain through its in-house software which involves warehouse management and demand forecast systems.

This was a great conversation where we talked about her past experience as an entrepreneur in the tea trading business and restaurant business led to the idea for Secai Marche. We explore the details of how the company built it supply network of farmers and connected them to restaurants and retail.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Ami Sugiyama. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Ami Sugiyama:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ami-sugiyama-96984715b/

• Secai Marche: https://secai-marche.co.jp/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter:

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:24] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Secai Marche.

[7:48] The early product and the first days in building the company.

[12:20] Early adopter customers for farm direct supply network

[20:20] Expanding into retail from the beginning.

[25:44] Looking to expand to Singapore.

[33:04] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Benjamin Croc the Founder of BrioHR, which is an HR Tech platform that automates repetitive tasks and engages employees for maximum productivity. They currently serve over 1,000 businesses across Southeast Asia.

This was a great conversation with Benjamin as we talked about his experience as a consultant leading him to recognize the pain point and ultimately decide to launch BrioHR. We cover a lot of ground starting with deciding what the MVP should be to acquiring the initial customers on through to being in 10 countries. There are some great insights in scaling a business.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Benjamin Croc. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Benjamin Croc:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-croc-93669426/

• BrioHR: https://briohr.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:20] The experience as a consultant identified the problem and started the path toward launching BrioHR.

[9:16] After realizing the problem, they begin the journey to building and launching a product.

[16:00] The onboarding process as a hook to a broader platform.

[23:46] The initial go-to-market stages.

[30:31] The logic of building a product roadmap and prioritizing.

[40:40] How to define success as an organization.

[43:27] Closing questions.

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Tunku Danny Mudzaffar the Founder of microLEAP, which is a P2P (Peer-to-Peer) Financing platform that offers both Shariah-Compliant and Conventional lending.

This was a great conversation with Tunku Danny where we cover the motivation behind launching microLEAP. We talk about balancing the supply and demand sides of P2P financing and how listening to what those sides want has driven their product offerings. An impactful business that continues to scale up and an insightful conversation.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Tunku Danny Mudzaffar. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Tunku Danny Mudzaffar:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/tunkudannymudzaffar/

• microLEAP: https://www.microleapasia.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:14] The origins from banking to becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward microLEAP.

[7:03] Fintech first approach to bringing financing to micro and small enterprises.

[13:06] Credit scores without a thick credit file.

[17:51] From launching Shariah-compliant financing to launching Invoice Financing.

[24:22] A teaser on upcoming microLEAP Social Financing.

[32:21] Looking at the global Shariah-compliant market opportunity.

[39:47] How they define success for microLEAP.

[41:11] Closing questions.

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Sharma Lachu the Founder of Accendo, which is a Talent Intelligence Platform company that helps organizations revolutionize how to attract, assess, align, develop, and retain top talent, both inside and outside the company.

This was a great conversation with Sharma where we talked about how his childhood led to his entrepreneurial journey. We also discuss the pivot from a consulting business model versus a scalable SaaS model. We talk about scaling the business model and the geographic differences as they impact his product. This was a great conversation with a lot of insights.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Sharma Lachu. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Sharma Lachu:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharma-lachu-04976125/

• Accendo: https://accendotechnologies.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https:insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:37] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Accendo

[8:44] Going from a consulting model to a software model and remembering their Why.

[21:16] Addressing nuance and differences across borders while relying on psychometrics and behavioral psychology.

[25:52] From bundling services to productizing automations to create self-serve bundles.

[33:15] Impact of the “jaguh kampung” reputation in Malaysia on fundraising

[36:30] Taking the playbook used to build Malaysia and applying, with tweaks, to new markets.

[43:25] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Shayna Teh the Founder of Food Market Hub, which helps restaurants & suppliers to increase efficiency by centralizing all F&B backend processes in one app.

This was a great conversation with Shayna where we cover the journey to launching Food Market Hub from entrepreneurial family to a fashion startup to restaurateur to present. We talked about building the MVP, scaling customers, raising capital and expanding internationally. So much useful insights uncovered in this journey.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Shayna Teh. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Shayna Teh:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shayna-teh/

• Food Market Hub: https://www.foodmarkethub.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:22] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Food Market Hub

[11:46] From MVP to traction.

[21:51] Looking back at the moment they had Product Market Fit (PMF).

[27:41] Figuring out what price to charge.

[33:21] Knowing when the right time to expand internationally and how.

[41:09] Building teams to address new country markets.

[46:49] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Dr Darren Gouk the Founder of AOne. For those of you who don’t know, AOne eases digitalization of education centers with a learning center management system.

This was a great conversation with Darren as we talk about going from a marketplace to a SaaS business. Through the conversation we navigate from MVP through the various product launches and international expansion.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Dr Darren Gouk. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Dr Darren Gouk:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-darren-gouk/

• My AOne: https://aoneschools.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:28] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and deciding to build AOne

[4:17] Understanding the key pain point for the market and preselling the solution prior to building.

[16:08] The go to market strategy and customer acquisition.

[25:45] Expanding international and building local teams.

[36:20] Looking towards the future for AOne.

[39:55] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Jason Low the Founder of Virtualtech Frontier, which is a virtualization and Metaverse enablement company that is developing engagement-driven virtual events, with virtual fairs, exhibitions, livestream events and hybrid events.

This was a great conversation with Jason as we talk about the pathway he took, from becoming an entrepreneur, merging with a marketing firm, then back to entrepreneur. We talk about what he is building in the metaverse and their most recent product launch.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Jason Low. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Jason Low:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-low-vtf/

• Virtualtech Frontier: https://virtualtechfrontier.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:28] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and leading toward Virtualtech Frontier

[10:26] The pandemic causes one chapter to close, but opportunity opens.

[19:20] Raising funds and the difference in the questions posed by 500 Global

[26:01] Post-pandemic transition from virtual events to low-code Metaverse solution

[35:31] The Wix for Metaverse

[41:11] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Martin Perez the Founder of PetChef, which is D2C company offering a subscription service of healthy foods for your furry friend.

This was a great conversation with Martin where we talk about his background in entrepreneurship and traveling the world. We talk about the passion for healthy foods for pets and scaling his business. We close off talking about what comes next for the business.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Martin Perez. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Martin Perez:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/zorvak/

• PetChef: https://www.petchef.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:27] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur at an early age from necessity.

[5:40] Getting started despite constrained resources.

[9:07] The launching of PetChef from personal use to friends to customers

[14:56] Marketing healthy foods advantages for pets versus processed foods.

[19:10] Varying the recipe offerings of healthy foods plus supplements and treats.

[24:24] From home kitchen to dedicated facilities and continuing to outgrow spaces.

[28:32] Using metrics and feedback to drive decisions.

[30:56] Product positioning and price.

[33:43] The next steps for PetChef’s growth

[40:22] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Fabio Miceli the Founder of Sonno, which started as a bed in a box D2C company but has now evolved into a full sleep brand with both online and offline channels.

This was a great conversation where we learn the origins of launching a sleep brand and how entrepreneurship was always part of him. We talk about the challenges in launching a physical product and utilizing a D2C approach in a traditional brick and mortar business. We close with the evolution towards a full sleep brand of products that is now grown beyond D2C to be omnichannel.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Fabio Miceli. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Fabio Miceli:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/fabiomiceli/

• Sonno: https://www.sleepsonno.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:27] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur and landing on sleep products.

[5:32] Getting the first physical product ready.

[12:35] Creating a D2C approach in a typical brick and mortar industry.

[22:37] Expanding beyond the bed-in-a-box start towards a full sleep brand.

[26:45] Systems for getting customer feedback.

[29:52] From D2C to omnichannel with opening physical stores.

[39:57] Closing questions.

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Suthan Mookaiah the Founder of Edar.com, which is an online to offline retail grocery chain across Malaysia, and soon to be Indonesia, that allows payment by recycling household waste.

This was a great conversation with Suthan was fantastic as we go from corporate retrenchment to covid entrepreneur to business model pivot. A recurring them to this conversation is partnerships and leveraging those to get scale faster. This is a social enterprise that is focused on recycling and bring tangible value as credit to the grocery bill.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Suthan Mookaiah. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Suthan Mookaiah:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/suthan-mookaiah-a931242a/

• Edar.com: https://edar.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:28] The origins of becoming an entrepreneur after a corporate job retrenched.

[8:53] A pivot after post-covid reopening changed the business and B2C to B2B2C model.

[14:20] The thought process on establishing partnerships and expanding a new model.

[16:25] Positioning on the value-chain when partnering with existing grocery outlets.

[19:27] Managing minimum volume requirements in collecting recyclables/

[23:58] Managing the logistics is where the secret sauce lies.

[31:43] Understanding the breakeven point of a new expansion market.

[38:45] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we had a special collaboration with Founder Institute Malaysia as part of their relaunch and announcing they are open for applications. In this session, we were joined by Eric Cheng the Founder of Carsome, which is Malaysia’s first and only unicorn.

This was a great conversation with Eric as he walks us through the early days of launching Carsome and the pathway they have taken in scaling it to where it is today. We discuss scaling internationally and the pathway of being a venture-backed company. An inspiring journey with a lot of lessons for aspiring founders.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Eric Cheng. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Eric Cheng:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericcheng85/

• Carsome: https://www.carsome.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[2:25] The origins of entrepreneurship and the pathway to launching Carsome.

[7:07] Lessons learned from past entrepreneurship.

[9:46] Validating the market and getting feedback.

[17:57] From launching to adding features and services.

[29:41] Looking to become international early in the business.

[34:28] Becoming a Venture-backed company and how it evolves from early stage to later rounds

[47:35] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Top Lim of FinHero, which is a FinTech solutions provider operating a Finance as a Service platform ranging from credit scoring, KYC, collections and even supply chain financing.

This was a great conversation to discuss how he transitioned from a corporate career at equipment financing entities to launching his own firm. We talk about the particulars in leveraging technology towards a traditional lending business to bring efficiency and more risk mitigation. We close out with addressing the need to build trust in entering new markets.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Top Lim. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Top Lim:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/top-lim-3a38842b/

• FinHero: https://finhero.asia/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:25] Worked in equipment financing overseeing a large portfolio but decided to strike off on his own.

[5:48] The starting point for FinHero product

[9:37] Using technology to bring efficiency to traditional lending

[14:07] The typical financing case for FinHero

[20:35] Building the pool of capital to facilitate the lending activity

[27:22] Leveraging technology for credit scoring in B2B

[33:35] Navigating regulation

[39:35] The biggest hurdle towards expansion

[42:26] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Goh Ai Ching of Piktochart, which is an all-in-one tool to easily create infographics, presentations, reports, posters, and videos online either from scratch or by editing a broad range of templates.

This was a great conversation to discuss the pathway of a bootstrapped founder. We talk about what led to the founding of the company, building in the early days, and how the go to market has evolved over time. We touch on competition with Canva and what the differentiating factor is.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Goh Ai Ching. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Goh Ai Ching:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gohaiching/

• Piktochart: https://piktochart.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:25] From corporate burnout to entrepreneur

[4:37] Going from an idea to building a product

[10:27] First steps towards a go to market

[16:25] Evolution of the product over time and competition

[27:57] Establishing a pricing model and price point

[30:52] Managing with metrics as an organization

[40:01] The future of Piktochart

[42:52] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Henry Tye of Big Domain, which is a domain registrar that also provides web hosting, web design, SEO services, and several other related services to launch and run a website.

This was a great conversation to discuss where we go through the process that led him to launch his business and the experience of a second time founder. We talk about the rigors of making it through a cohort of Founder Institute. We wrap up by digging into the evolution of the business and the view toward the future.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Henry Tye. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Henry Tye:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/henrytye/

• Big Domain: https://bigdomain.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:35] The origins of building a business, selling that business, and starting a new one.

[13:00] Focusing on making the tech side of online as easy as possible

[16:25] Taking time to research the market

[21:10] The value of joining Founder Institute after prior exit and still climbing the learning curve

[31:35] Changes in the market landscape and view forward

[42:34] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by serial entrepreneur Charles Tang of Instant eStore, which is an All-In-One Ecommerce Solution serving thousands of clients.

This was a great conversation with serial entrepreneur and early pioneer of ecommerce in Malaysia, Charles Tang. We discussed how he started the business and scaled in the early days. We touch on the evolution of ecommerce and the need to be omni-channel. We wrap up with some forward looking thoughts on the future on online commerce and where the metaverse fits it.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Charles Tang. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Charles Tang:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlestang77/

• Instant eStore: https://instantestore.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:28] The origins of entrepreneurship from accidental to online stores

[8:17] Acquiring the first customers

[12:56] Early days of e-commerce with global reach

[15:50] Product evolution as e-commerce has exploded

[22:41] Marketplace platforms vs independent websites

[28:40] Key features of an all-in-one solution

[31:36] Is metaverse the next move for ecommerce?

[44:10] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Kelvyn Chuah of SINEGY, which is a digital asset exchange based in Malaysia, one of only 4 registered with the Securities Commission.

This was a great conversation to discuss how Kelvyn launched a crypto exchange in Malaysia and navigated the regulatory process. We touch on the market perceptions and getting broader adoption. Inevitably, we make mentions of FTX, but circle back to what it means for SINEGY. A great conversation in a growing market.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Kelvyn Chuah. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Kelvyn Chuah:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelvynchuah/

• SINEGY: https://sinegy.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:25] The origins of launching a digital asset exchange after a background working finance in NYC

[7:11] Navigating regulations in the early days of crypto

[16:35] Trustee requirement and custody

[18:57] Acquiring users towards the exchange platform

[21:20] Changing negative perceptions and getting broader adoption

[33:06] Unavoidable conversation on FTX

[35:52] The future of SINEGY

[41:24] Defining the success factors for the organization

[42:53] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Howie Chang of Forward School, which is equipping aspiring students and tech professionals with industry-ready skills required for the fast-moving tech sector.

This was a great conversation to discuss how Howie came to launch an education focused startup. We talk about building a curriculum and getting accreditation. We then move onto scaling the business.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Howie Chang. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Howie Chang:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/howiechang/

• Forward School: https://www.forwardschool.co/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:47] Catching the entrepreneur bug from working in startups like Viki.com

[8:15] Starting an education program

[11:02] Going through the accreditation process

[15:07] Building a curriculum and syllabus

[21:13] Financing options and corporate scholarships

[31:15] Replicating the model in additional markets

[34:52] Success metrics on outcomes

[37:10] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

We launched SEA of Startups with the intent of highlighting great entrepreneurs and their stories. In the short few months, I think we have accomplished that goal.

In this episode, we highlight excerpts of lessons extracted from three episodes that give a taste of the operational insight that comes from these stories.

Please take the time and go back through the prior interviews we have done over the course of this year. Without a doubt, we have had some incredible guests and look forward to bringing you more in 2023.

As always, if you have an idea for a guest or a show you can contact me directly.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Azran Osman-Rani of Naluri, which provides an integrated digital care solution that combines support for physical and mental health.

This was a great conversation with serial entrepreneur Azran. We talk about the localization experience at iFlix and how this combined with his own family experience with health to create the idea for Naluri. He discusses the process of validating the product, utilizing feedback, and replicating the model internationally. There are tons of practical lessons to take away from a serial entrepreneur.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Azran Osman-Rani. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Azran Osman-Rani:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/azranosmanrani/

• Naluri: https://www.naluri.life/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:24] A third time building a venture from an airline to iFlix to Naluri.

[3:40] The fundraising experience with 12 total funding rounds across all prior experience.

[4:56] Validating the idea and building an MVP

[10:59] Testing the go-to-market strategy by learning from customers

[13:57] Product development keeping pace with GTM learnings

[18:21] Using technology to increase the productivity of live help on demand

[20:40] Replicating the model into international markets

[29:36] Defining success as an organization

[36:09] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Pennie Homa of Homa2U, which is an online to offline (O2O) building materials and interior finishes marketplace supplied from brand new items through to unused construction materials, discarded, and overstock markets.

This was a great conversation where we talk about the industry background Pennie had before launching Homa2U. We discuss the wastage problem that exists in construction because of the standard practice of having safety stock. We close the conversation discussing the types of customers and how technology can reduce the wastage and give these products second life.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Pennie Homa. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Pennie Homa:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pennie-homa/

• Homa2U: https://www.homa2u.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[0:36] From a family business background to launching a startup

[4:30] Overstock in construction is a serious waste problem

[9:56] Managing the resale process

[14:10] The typical customer profile

[20:40] Planning required for an expansion to Singapore

[28:36] Defining success as an organization

[31:23] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Alvin Yuan of Health Metrics, which has designed a unified health benefits platform to manage, measure, and improve the employee benefits strategy.

This was a great conversation where discuss the initial MVP and go to market strategy and how they navigated regulations. We discuss how some network effects in the market aided their growth. We wrap things up with some forward looking thoughts on the organization.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Alvin Yuan. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Alvin Yuan:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alvin--yuan/

• Health Metrics: https://healthmetrics.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:15] A background in healthcare meets chance

[3:32] Building an MVP, going out to market, and navigating regulation

[8:42] First steps towards service providers, corporates and insurers

[12:18] From sales led to network effects in the growth motion

[17:20] Importance of the breadth in scope of service providers

[20:52] Trigger point for replicating to a new market

[25:20] Building a team to manage a scaling business

[31:51] Defining success as an organization

[36:12] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Arif Tukiman of RunCloud, which is a leading cloud control panel that is simplifying cloud, doing away with the difficulties of cloud management, and bringing simplicity, to return focus on business performance.

This was a great conversation as we go from the early days of experiencing the problem firsthand when he ran a web development agency. Then building that product and finding a market fit that quickly went global through community engagement and a customer centric focus. We touch on team building and what the future holds for them.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Arif Tukiman. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Arif Tukiman:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ariftukiman/

• RunCloud: https://runcloud.io/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[1:20] Origin with experiencing the problem at their own web development agency

[7:12] Customer focus and product led growth built from active community engagement

[13:10] Recognizing the target audience and doubling down with more community engagement

[18:47] Customer-centric focus driving product development

[24:47] Key differentiator of Runcloud

[31:12] Building an engineer heavy team while fending off poaching

[37:20] Defining success as an organization

[42:05] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Derek Toh of Hiredly, which is a a leading online to offline recruitment platform for junior to mid-management talent, including both a job portal and headhunter recruiter solution.

This was a great conversation where we go from Derek’s time as a headhunter to his realization of the importance of information beyond the job description and beyond the CV. We talk about scaling the two sides of the marketplace and what the typical job postings are. We wrap things up by talking about their future plans and a bit about the outlook for remote vs hybrid vs in-office.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Derek Toh. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Derek Toh:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/derektoh/

• Hiredly: https://my.hiredly.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:20] Working as a headhunter leads to a “how to do it better” moment

[6:30] Going beyond the Job Description by showcasing company culture, including a video content layer

[13:40] Going beyond the applicant’s CV

[15:38] From online recruiting moving to offline headhunting

[18:40] The supply of applicants and demand of job postings, who are they and where do they come from

[27:02] What comes next for Hiredly?

[28:42] Post-pandemic impact on remote, hybrid, or in-office on hiring

[34:25] Defining success as an organization

[37:17] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Chris Fong of FeFiFo, which is a technology-first co-farming company that focuses on empowering the new generation of progressive farmers in ASEAN.

This was a great conversation where we learn the origins and ambition to tackle a key issue for smallholder farmers. We discuss extensively different areas of standardization and taking a process-oriented view. We even discuss different markets and the approaches towards looking at expansion.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Chris Fong. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Chris Fong:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisfongkh/

• FeFiFo: https://www.fefifo.co/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:15] From no agriculture background to launching an AgTech startup

[7:20] Shared services and standardization to address process pain points

[11:45] Ensuring compliance of SOPs in standardization

[17:39] Process required to introduce new products with SOPs

[20:02] Role of other technologies in the farming process

[25:46] Enabling the go to market of the end product

[28:02] Defining success as an organization

[33:15] Utilizing metrics in management

[36:17] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Wai Hong Fong of StoreHub, which started as an POS system but has evolved into an all-in-one platform for retailers and restaurants to automate and grow their businesses. They currently have over 15,000 businesses across Southeast Asia.

This was a great conversation that trace the hustle of building a product and scaling internationally. We touch on aspects of fundraising, ad driven inbound sales funnel, and managing through the pandemic. We wrap up the conversation with some great insights into people and leadership.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Wai Hong Fong. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Wai Hong Fong:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/waihongfong/

• StoreHub: https://www.storehub.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:49] How a pathway from e-commerce to helping brick and mortar led to launching StoreHub

[8:59] Meeting a co-founder and making the decision to join forces

[13:30] Building while you sell to get the business off the ground

[15:30] When to go international and how

[17:20] Fundraising and getting investors onboard

[20:00] Building teams for international expansion

[23:29] Managing an F&B focused business through the pandemic

[27:15] Defining success as an organization and their role as an enabler

[30:20] Tracing success back to people and leadership

[36:42] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Jes Min Lua of Recommend Group, which is southeast Asia's #1 Home and Local Services platform, operating under Sejasa.com in Indonesia and Recommend.my in Malaysia.

This was a great conversation about building a marketplace model and the hurdles they have overcome. We cover the aspects of building trust through to tactics to drive recurrence and keep transactions on the site. We close with advice for Founders to be cautious in whose advice to take.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Jes Min Lua. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Jes Min Lua:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jes-min-lua-540993a/

• Malaysia: https://recommend.my/

• Indonesia: https://sejasa.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:25] Origins coming out of major consulting firms

[4:45] Establishing trust in a home services marketplace

[9:51] First steps towards building the supply of home services providers

[14:09] Top categories of services

[16:40] Confronting leakage that occurs in marketplace models

[21:40] The story of Impact

[27:02] Looking at the next steps in the growth path

[32:22] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Mark Koh of Supa, which provides a self-service data annotation platform to enable machine learning models.

This was a great conversation as we go straight into the last mile problem of data analysis in AI/ML models, data annotation. We hear how he has built a customer base and uses thought leadership as lead generation. We wrap up on how a data company incorporates data into their own operations.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Mark Koh. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Mark Koh:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markkoh1/

• Supa: https://supa.so

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:19] Origins of a Malaysia-born, Australia-raised serial entrepreneur moving through iterations towards a data focus

[5:15] Onboarding the first set of customers and reaching out the data scientists and data engineers

[9:00] Going from hands-on enterprise approach to a self-serve model

[14:50] The shift in go-to-market strategy when moving towards self-service

[20:14] Sharing learnings and know-how with the market as a lead gen

[24:57] Defining what success means for the organization

[26:45] Data runs the organization

[29:23] North star metric

[33:32] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Brian Tan of FutureLab, which is a mentorship platform connecting Mentors to Mentees to guide career paths, gain skills, and develop professionally from university through to Enterprise.

This was a great conversation about an impactful business aiming to enable access to mentorship for university students and recent graduates to guide them along their career paths. Incredible the story of the coffee shop days spent validating the product directly with meetups. A number of other great insights emerged, such as the need to humanize the product and localizing to language. A great example of social impact in a scalable business.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Brian Tan. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

If you like what you’ve heard, considering sharing it with friends.

—

Where to find Brian Tan:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-tan-boon-yong-0b277554/

• FutureLab: https://futurelab.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:18] Origins in his own journey seeking direction after graduation while looking for his own career path and transitioning into the professional world.

[7:25] Getting out into the world and testing the idea directly with the target market even if it is a meet-up in a coffee shop.

[11:22] Iterating the product over time using design thinking principles, from MVP to grown product.

[17:45] Balancing the growth of available mentors along with mentees and how focus enabled them to scale

[21:45] Managing talent through the growth of the team size and the company

[25:17] Defining success for the organization

[29:16] Tracking the impact of mentorship on the mentees using the platform

[33:10] The need for focus and the Founder’s role changes over time

[38:23] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Wong Whei Meng of Speedhome, which is tackling the home rental market with zero deposit for tenants by combining insurance protection and tech innovation.

This was a great conversation about the challenges and paint points in the home rental market. Leveraging an insurance product to eliminate the need for high upfront deposits which can be restrictive for segments of the rental market.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Wong Whei Meng. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Wong Whei Meng:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/wheimeng/

• Speedhome: https://speedhome.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:49] Origins from his own rental experiences as a landlord renting out a property.

[3:20] From connect to transact, the product starts to evolve.

[8:20] How to make a zero-deposit rental while still protecting the landlord.

[14:39] The early build up of the two sides of the marketplace and winning over landlords.

[22:01] Selecting the segment of the market to target.

[24:40] Attracting a team of talent from across the globe and working remote.

[28:35] Looking at the next steps in the growth path

[32:05] What are the metrics that guide if they are on track

[33:29] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Sina Meraji of Learning Loop, which is a data company specializing in learning distribution and discovery.

This was a great conversation as we discussed Sina’s own personal life experiences that developed the motivation and passion to launch Learning Loop. We uncover a number of insights in the learning experiences, the filters of knowledge and understanding users. There is so much to unpack and learn from.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Sina Meraji. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Sina Meraji:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sinameraji/

• Learning Loop: https://learningloop.org/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:48] Life experiences drove a desire and motivation to solve the learning journey problem

[7:40] Filtering the internet’s knowledge. We have curation in food delivery and ecommerce, but not the knowledge set.

[14:23] Taking models, stitching them together in the right order

[21:19] Recognizing what creates trust with a user and in what way to people want to filter knowledge

[23:35] Laying out the gameplan for the organization

[28:59] Hiring and evolving the team structure

[33:16] Defining success for the organization

[36:17] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Yien Yee Soh of Avana, which is a social commerce enabler platform, providing an integrated D2C & reseller selling solution for social media channels.

This was a great conversation as we went from the days of creating an aggregator for a community of blogs operating as shops through to launching an enabler platform that has since scaled. We discuss the direction of social media and social commerce. A lot of great pieces of information throughout this interview.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Yien Yee Soh. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Yien Yee Soh:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yienyee88/

• Avana: https://www.avana.asia/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:52] Origins in aggregating a community of blogs that were operating as shops prior to large scale ecommerce

[5:40] Natural progression from aggregator to a tech solution and drawing on the community as the initial customers.

[6:45] Being an enabler solution across any social channel

[11:22] Social media influencers and brand owners

[16:22] Factors that affect a brand’s retention for selling online

[17:40] What does the future hold for social commerce?

[19:15] Building out an initial team in an industry that is not well known or understood.

[23:25] Defining success for the organization

[25:47] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Ramachandran Muniandy of Asia Mobiliti, a mobility as a service company (MaaS).

Through this conversation we navigate the origins and the motivation to building something to better the nation. We discuss the evolution of public transportation and demand responsive transit (DRT) that scraps the timetables. A number of great points made that are highly applicable to every Founder out there.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Ramachandran Muniandy. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Ramachandran Muniandy:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ramachandran-muniandy-am/

• Asia Mobiliti: https://asiamobiliti.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:38] Origins of the entrepreneurial journey among friends and neighbors centered around the desire for building something to better their nation.

[5:49] What is Mobility as a Service?

[8:03] Utilizing technology to improve public transportation services

[10:02] Utilizing Demand Responsive Transit (DRT), which is utilized in ride hailing, in bus services.

[12:05] Overcoming data limitations by building a platform, not just an app, and focusing on the key anchors required.

[24:15] Educating the market on the new era of public transport

[26:39] Scaling up a team with the skills required

[33:38] A Founder needs to get a lot of things right

[35:58] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Effon Khoo of Kakitangan.com, which is an online HR Software for Malaysian businesses that helps handle payroll, claims, benefits, leave and more.

During the conversation we move from the 10 years’ experience in Microsoft through to raising multiple rounds of capital (crowdfunding, CVC, and VC). We discuss details around scaling a highly localized product and how they are defining and measuring success. A key standout is his mention that it is their social responsibility to be sustainable and reliable for their clients.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Effon Khoo. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

—

Where to find Effon Khoo and Kakitangan.com:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/effonkhoo/

• Kakitangan.com: https://www.kakitangan.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:52] From 10 years in Microsoft working in China, they brought an enterprise engineering pedigree to an HR startup

[6:55] The differences between rounds of investors from crowdfunding to CVC to VC

[8:26] Being sustainable and reliable is their social responsibility

[12:36] Managing a business model focused on SMEs, which are a difficult segment to target

[18:06] The unit economics evolve over time, including the customer acquisition cost (CAC)

[20:29] A competitive industry and managing the war for talent, specifically in an industry that is less “sexy”

[24:36] Positioning the company in a product that requires high levels of localization

[30:06] It is easy to copy a product, but it is difficult to copy an organization

[32:03] Defining success for the organization

[34:19] What are the metrics that guide if they are on track

[36:40] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Julie Ng of Vase.ai, which is a consumer insights company breaking the long-cycle times of market research to deliver agile research in 24 hours.

This was a great conversation as went from the origins of the co-founders meeting at a hackathon through to a critical pivot which meant turning away from 70% of revenue at the time. It is an insightful conversation about the journey in the early days and the thoughtful processes that have enabled them to scale successfully.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Julie Ng. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Julie Ng and Vase.ai:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/julieasia/

• Vase.ai: https://vase.ai/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:22] Originating in a hackathon seeking a solution, they experienced the problem for which they ultimately created a solution.

[6:25] Going out to market for initial validation and feedback

[9:50] Cracking open the enterprise segment

[13:03] Looking at the levers they can activate to build marketing around

[16:44] Typical SaaS origins involving a pivot from agency model to a scalable tech product. This means saying goodbye to 70% of revenue.

[21:56] The impact of Covid on the trend line when looking at their own data

[23:08] Fit within the existing consumer research market

[25:48] Defining success as an impact basis rather than on a revenue basis

[32:01] Being intentional in hiring when scaling an organization

[34:01] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Joe Khoo of iStore iSend, which is a holistic end-to-end e-fulfilment company providing Warehousing-as-a-Service (WaaS) solutions, serving more than 1,000 businesses across 6 different countries, as of this recording.

This was a great conversation as we touched on some great milestones in the Founder journey, including a pivot which meant turning away 90% of revenue. The Company has evolved and grown across the region with a constant focus on optimizing processes and driving efficiencies for themselves and their clients. A truly impressive story of a Malaysian company going global.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Joe Khoo. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Joe Khoo:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-khoo-49a41293/

• iStore iSend: https://www.istoreisend.com/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:38] Origins of the entrepreneurial journey among childhood friends. Recognizing the boom in e-commerce was coming to Southeast Asia which led to targeting logistics.

[3:40] Breaking the taboo of logistics among family who had an outdated view of the industry.

[5:03] Shifting the business from what it became towards what they originally intended. They dropped 90% of their revenue to make this shift.

[10:42] Technology focus in building the business and to optimize the human labor component and the space component.

[13:35] Expanding their business model to Warehousing as a Service, leading them towards an expansion to 29 warehouses across 6 countries.

[18:11] Two founders, without background in logistics, focused on optimizing the process by dissecting each part into components and modules. This enabled them to design a process that optimized efficiency of labor and space.

[22:47] Overcoming the hurdles of commercializing internally developed software.

[30:54] Growth of an organization’s headcount, the “Founder’s Playground”, and from multiple hats to specialized

[38:14] Defining success for the organization

[41:52] What are the metrics that guide if they are on track

[44:47] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

This week we are joined by Francesca Chia of GoGet, which is a technology platform connecting businesses to on demand workforce of verified workers, called GoGetters.

This was a great conversation as we navigated the origin story which involved a couple of pivots. Through the conversation there are great pieces of advice on building a business, including the bottom-up/top-down way to prioritize goals and create OKRs. We close with a great piece of advice on the importance of passion as the motivator for coping with the toughness of entrepreneurship.

I’d love to know what you took away from this conversation with Francesca Chia. If you’d like to be considered as a guest or have someone that you’d like to hear me speak to, drop me a message.

Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Google, Overcast, Pocket Casts, and YouTube.

—

Where to find Francesca Chia:

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/francescachia/

• GoGet: https://goget.my/

—

Where to hear more from The Indelible VC:

• Newsletter: https://insights.indelible.vc

• Twitter: https://twitter.com/IndelibleVc

• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kbrockland/

—

In this episode, we cover:

[01:22] Origin story from Food to Consumer-Centric on to a B2B model

[04:40] Analyzing power users’ behavior to drive the product roadmap

[09:00] Scaling the community of GoGetters in the early days

[12:07] Pioneering in the early days of “gig work” and building trust

[16:45] Expanding to other cities while balancing job urgency and localized networks

[19:43] Scaling the two sides of a marketplace model

[22:22] Process to translate business priorities to a focused roadmap

[24:54] Regular reviews to track OKRs

[27:30] Evolving how to hire and retain talent

[31:22] Closing questions

—

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc

View Details

As the initial launch of the SEA of Startups podcast, we are highlighting clips from the upcoming episodes that we are bringing to you.

In this episode you will hear from

• Effon Khoo from Kakitangan.com

• Yienyee Soh from Avana

• Francesca Chia from GoGet

• Joe Khoo from iStore iSend

• Julie Ng from Vase.ai

• Ramachandran Muniandy from Asia Mobiliti

• Whei Meng Wong from Speedhome

You will find these and more in the coming weeks of the show. Be sure to click subscribe.

Indelible Ventures: https://indelible.vc/

The Indelible VC (newsletter): https://theindeliblevc.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insights.indelible.vc