Navigating Startup Ecosystems

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱, 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝗰𝘆𝗰𝗹𝗲. 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗷𝗼 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸. Tracxn data paints a stark reality: 729 startups shut down in 2025 - down from 978 in 2024; what’s more alarming is the collapse in new startups. From ~𝟭𝟵,𝟬𝟬𝟬 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗽𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬, just ~𝟵𝟳𝟴 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 as founders and investors pulled back. This is not a normalisation, it's a resetting. As an investor, the pattern is clear. The sectors now bleeding - enterprise apps, retail, edtech, consumer internet - are exactly the ones capital once chased scale without scrutiny. Nearly 14,000 B2C startups shutting down since 2020 point to an uncomfortable reality: 𝗖𝗔𝗖-𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝘆, 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆-𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁, 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴-𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗯𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀. The failures of 2025 weren’t bad luck. Governance gaps (BluSmart), scale-up hubris (The Good Glamm Group), regulatory naïveté (Hike, CrickPe) & capital-intensive fantasies in EVs & commerce logistics (Altigreen Propulsion Labs; Log9 Materials Ohm Mobility (Ohm Daily) were all foreseeable. Many of these died not because markets turned but because fundamentals never existed. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿? This isn’t just a funding winter. It’s a long overdue market correction. • 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿. Valuations can’t substitute for revenue models, product-market fit and operational discipline. • 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀 𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗱. Investors aren’t chasing shiny sectors anymore - they’re backing business outcomes. • 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲, 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸𝗯𝗼𝘅𝗲𝘀. The startups that survive will be the ones that embed discipline into DNA, not just pitch decks. If India’s startup ecosystem wants its mojo back by 2027, three things must change, urgently: 1. 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵: Boards, controls and compliance can’t arrive after Series C. 2. 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀: Profit pathways matter more than pitch decks. 3. 𝗙𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗺: India doesn’t need more startups; it needs better ones solving harder problems sustainably. If India’s ecosystem expects to regain its mojo by 2027, the narrative must shift from velocity to value -and that shift starts with founders, investors & policy makers aligning around 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀. #startupindia | Indian Venture and Alternate Capital Association (IVCA) #Startups

Economics of a second act: In 2026, founders aren’t raising capital. They’re pricing their past. On April 7, 2026, India’s startup ecosystem saw something unusual. A seed-stage company, no full product, no scale, raised ₹100 Crore at a ₹450 Crore valuation. This wasn’t early-stage risk. This was reputation-backed capital deployment. Because the founder wasn’t new. It was Aman Gupta. And the company? OFF/BEAT Studios, a second act, not a first attempt. ✅ THE NUMBERS - Seed funding raised: ₹100 Crore - Valuation: ₹450 Crore (pre-launch) - Stage: Idea → Early build - Lead investor: Bessemer Venture Partners ✅ The Business Model: Content × AI × Culture While the product isn’t fully public, the direction is clear: 1. AI-powered content ecosystems 2. Creator-led distribution 3. Aspirational, digitally native audience This is a pivot away from hardware. Into something far more scalable: Attention + Algorithms. Because in 2026, content isn’t marketing. Content is the product. ✅ The Founder Premium Let’s be clear. ₹450 Crore isn’t for an idea. It’s for execution history. Built a ₹3,000+ Crore brand with boAt. Mastered mass-premium positioning. Proven distribution + consumer insight. Investors aren’t underwriting the startup. They’re underwriting the founder. This is Founder-Market Fit at scale. ✅ The Serial Entrepreneur Shift This signals a bigger transition in India’s startup ecosystem: 1. First-generation founders → building profitable brands. 2. Second-generation ventures → global-first from Day 1. 3. Capital → moving faster for proven operators. The playbook has evolved. The first company builds credibility. The second company monetises it instantly. ✅ The Hidden Layer: Information Arbitrage The biggest value in this deal isn’t capital. It’s what others don’t have access to: Global benchmarks before India catches up, AI deployment frameworks from mature markets, and pattern recognition across billion-dollar companies, this is how speed compounds. Because in startups, the fastest learner wins. ✅ Let me share the #Rajspectives India’s startup ecosystem is entering a new phase where ideas don’t get funded. Execution history does where capital isn’t scarce, trust is. And once you’ve built trust at scale, you don’t raise money. You command it. #india #startups #venturecapital #ai #funding #Economy #strategy

Which country has the best government–startup relationship in the world? It’s a surprisingly rich question. And one with no single answer. Last month, the UK government appointed Alexandra Depledge, MBE as its first Entrepreneurship Adviser. Her task: tackling the key barriers faced by startups scaling in the UK - no small feat. Other countries have taken different directions. 🇮🇱 Israel: The Yozma model was decades ahead of its time, producing the world’s highest startup density per capita. It combined government risk-sharing with private VC through programs like Yozma, which offered matching funds and favourable buyouts. It helped create Waze, Mobileye and many NASDAQ-listed firms. Much of this was backed by Israel’s Office of the Chief Scientist (now the Israel Innovation Authority), a central force in early-stage tech funding and public-private innovation bridges. 🇪🇪 Estonia: e-Residency turned a small country into a digital powerhouse. Entrepreneurs can set up EU businesses remotely — attracting 120,000+ founders and €67m+ in tax revenue. 🇸🇬 Singapore: The most systematic approach. StartupSG grants and equity (with public/private funds), tax support, and structured business services. It’s the full package. 🇨🇱 Chile: Pioneered the government accelerator model, offering equity-free funding. It’s helped launch 1,800 international startups and build a talent pipeline into South America. 🇨🇦 Canada: Immigration, immigration, immigration. Entrepreneurs securing backing from designated investors can qualify for permanent residency. 🇦🇪 Dubai: Appointed the world’s first Minister of AI and launched innovation-friendly zones like DIFC and Dubai Future Foundation. Policies focus on frontier tech, digital commerce, and global talent. 🇺🇸 USA: Still the gold standard for scale and ambition. While lacking a central startup policy, R&D funding, DARPA, SBIR, and visas like the O-1 create a strong base. Crucially, its risk culture and VC depth do much of the heavy lifting. And then there are the UK and France... one with a new Treasury adviser, the other with unofficial founder back-channels (Xavier Niel and others DMing President Macron). So what works best? Successful models typically: ✔ Share risk (rather than grant cash) ✔ Provide regulatory clarity ✔ Build ecosystems, not just startups ✔ Attract international talent (and support local champions) ✔ Leverage national strengths (digital ID, military tech, tax regimes…) What doesn’t work? Overfunded but underambitious granterpreneurs relying on government rather than markets. Bureaucracy. Pilot programs that never scale. Would love your views. Which countries do this best? And what can the UK learn from them?

What if the best networking strategy had nothing to do with “networking” at all? Back in 2014, I started a group called “Delhi Internet Mafia”. To learn from and share insights with founders based out of Delhi. I would cold email founders to show up for the catchup. Vijay Shekhar Sharma of Paytm showed up for one of them. I remember being blown away by his energy, his ambition and his clarity. We stayed in touch. A few years later, Paytm invested in my startup nearbuy. If it weren’t for that group, we may have never raised money from Paytm. 3 ways to build genuine relationships: 1/ Do not try to impress. Be impressed. People can see through your attempts to impress them. But what people can truly be attracted to is your interest in them. Genuine interest. 2/ Engage meaningfully. If engaging offline, ask questions out of pure curiosity. To truly understand. If engaging online, don’t just comment “Great post!” - add insight or ask smart questions. 3/ Give before you ask. That could be sharing feedback on their work, amplifying their content, or connecting them to someone useful. You can never fail with authenticity and trust.

After a year of working in Vietnam I have consulted with so many regional Tech startups based here. I always ask them why they choose to be based in Vietnam. Here’s the key reasons why: 1️⃣ Growing Tech Ecosystem: Vietnam's tech scene is booming with a vibrant community of startups, accelerators, and investors. Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi are hotspots buzzing with innovation. 2️⃣ Young and Tech-Savvy Population: With a median age of under 30, Vietnam boasts a young workforce hungry for technological advancements. This demographic is driving digital adoption at an impressive rate. 3️⃣ Cost-Effective Operations: Compared to other Southeast Asian countries, Vietnam offers competitive operational costs, including lower wages for skilled tech talent, making it easier to stretch your startup budget. 4️⃣ Government Support: The Vietnamese government actively promotes entrepreneurship and offers various incentives for startups, including tax breaks and streamlined business registration processes. 5️⃣ Strategic Location: Situated in Southeast Asia, Vietnam serves as a gateway to a rapidly growing regional market. It provides easy access to neighboring countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines. 6️⃣ Infrastructure Development: Continuous investments in infrastructure, including improved internet connectivity and modern business parks, support the growth of tech startups. 7️⃣ Cultural Richness: Beyond business, Vietnam offers a rich tapestry of culture and history, creating an inspiring environment for creativity and innovation. Ready to explore the vibrant tech ecosystem in Vietnam? Let’s connect and discuss how you can leverage this dynamic market for your startup's success 🚀 #TechStartup #VietnamTech #Entrepreneurship #Innovation #StartupLife #VietnamBusiness #DigitalTransformation Michael Page PageGroup

My previous startup was acquired for millions of dollars by a company valued over $300 million. Ever wondered how exactly do startups get acquired for millions? Here is how: I had been in touch with investors of the acquiring company well before the acquisition. One of their Managing Directors was a college alum I met at an event. That connection later led to conversations with the Partner who had led the acquirer’s Series A and eventually helped drive and mediate the acquisition. There was trust and context long before there was a term sheet. Second, our books were extremely clean. Every single bank entry had a corresponding invoice. My CA was meticulous about this. During due diligence, Deloitte went through everything in depth and did not find much to flag. Clean fundamentals remove enormous friction in M&A. Third, while we were small, we were disproportionately strong in the Financial Services market. Multiple large BFSI companies were actively using our product. That made us strategically valuable, not just financially interesting. Fourth, we were at around $1 million in annual revenue. Large enough to clearly prove product market fit. Small enough to be affordable and attractive to acquire. This "in between" stage is a powerful but often misunderstood position. Fifth, we were bootstrapped. Harshita and I held the majority of the equity and did not have any institutional investor on the cap table. That meant when the decision to sell came, it was just the two of us deciding. No board approvals, no misaligned incentives, no forced outcomes. Speed and clarity matter a lot in acquisitions. Finally, optionality changes everything. The acquirer was not the only company interested in buying us. Multiple companies were in active conversations for the same reasons above. That leverage allowed us to dictate terms instead of reacting to them. The biggest myth founders believe is that acquisitions are planned exits. In reality, they are outcomes earned by building something valuable, trusted, and hard to replace, while keeping relationships and fundamentals strong. Ironically, the less focused you are on "selling", the more likely someone wants to buy. Now that I have sold my first venture and am financially independent, my motivation has changed. I am building GreyLabs AI to be a long-lasting institution, not something optimised for a quick exit. Ironically, that mindset often creates the most durable outcomes. #startups #business #entrepreneurship

The UK has no shortage of startup support programmes. But how well do they work? In our new paper, Full Speed Ahead: Accelerating Britain’s network of startup support programmes, we ask whether the startup support ecosystem is delivering on its promise to founders, funders and the wider economy. We spoke to programme operators, founders, and policy experts to understand the challenges and opportunities, and we propose four areas of reform to help startup support programmes deliver lasting, measurable outcomes. As our Patron, Steve Rigby, writes in the foreword: “We are world-class at launching startups – but not yet at helping them scale. If we want the UK to remain globally competitive, we need to raise the bar on the programmes we fund, back, and promote.” Our report unpacks why issues persist. The common problems we found include: – Misaligned expectations: Many accelerators focus heavily on mentoring and workshops, whereas founders need investor and customer connections. – Duration mismatches: Most programmes last under six months, but founders in deep tech, health and regulated sectors need much longer runway to become investment-ready. – Short-term funding cycles: Stop-start grants disrupt mentorship, break community continuity and undermine the long-term trust essential for founder development. – Flawed impact measurement: Startup survival and funding secured are important, but this doesn’t capture long-term founder development or second-time success. A "failed" startup can produce a much stronger entrepreneur. Our recommendations include: – Establish standards and shared definitions for different programme types to bring clarity, comparability, and baseline quality to the sector. – Reform impact measurement to track long-term founder development, not just short-term startup outcomes or programme activities. – Move to longer-term, outcome-linked support, replacing stop-start grants with adaptable contracts that support iteration, trust, and planning. – Pilot demand-led funding vouchers to let public funding follow founder needs and reward high-performing programmes. We believe these reforms matter because founders need clarity, funders need accountability, and programmes need time and tools to improve. Done right, these changes could help ensure that public investment flows to the programmes that deliver the most value for founders and the UK economy.

For years, the accepted wisdom was that entrepreneurship ecosystems take 20 years or more to build. I've said this many times myself, grounded in my experience in Waterloo. Talent must accumulate. Founders must fail, learn and try again. Capital must recycle. Universities must educate people who later return as entrepreneurs, investors and mentors. Culture changes slowly. But - this analysis from Startup Genome suggests that AI may be compressing parts of that cycle into five to seven years. This is going to be very challenging for universities, which are already accused of being out of phase with industry timelines and adding friction to the startup process. The venture creation cycle moves much faster than the institutional decision cycle. A founder can test an idea, build a product, reach customers and attract investment in the time it takes a university to negotiate intellectual property, approve a partnership, recruit specialist capability, or even decide who has authority to act. We often describe university entrepreneurship ecosystems by counting what they contain: incubators, accelerators, entrepreneurship centres, courses, funds, mentors and commercialisation offices. But increasingly, the more revealing measure is latency, rather than how many pieces of the support puzzle a university has. How long does it take to move: • from research insight to serious commercial exploration? • from student interest to real experimentation? • from an external opportunity to an institutional response? • from a promising founder to the right expertise, capital and customer? • from uncertainty to a decision? Focusing on latency shifts how we think about ecosystem building. An ecosystem is not primarily a collection of programmes. It is a system of connections, permissions and decisions that either accelerates or delays entrepreneurial action. The aim should not be maximum speed everywhere. Some decisions require care, evidence and ethical scrutiny. Increasing institutional velocity means removing avoidable delays at critical handovers, where opportunities are most likely to stall. The strategic question is therefore no longer only: “How strong is our entrepreneurship ecosystem?” Rather, it is “How much time does our ecosystem add to, or remove from, the journey between an idea and meaningful action?” In a world of compressed entrepreneurial timelines, institutional latency may become the decisive source of competitive disadvantage. 👉 https://lnkd.in/ewG3-uuu

After mapping over 850 members of Climate Crew's Sydney network (CC.SYD), I've confirmed a key pattern: The success of our climate transition will not be defined by a single 'hero' technology. It will be defined by the speed and quality of our connections. A brilliant solution in a silo is a failed solution. A fund with no one to deploy to is just a number. The real 'work' is done by the connectors – the people who build the 'soft infrastructure' that allows capital, ideas and talent to flow. This is why I'm launching the 'Climate Catalysts' series: to spotlight the movers and shakers who are doing this critical, connective work. For this first post, I'm sharing my 'A-Team' of leaders doing the 5 essential roles required to turn an idea into real-world impact. 1. The Strategist: This is our 'why'. We need leaders like Linda Romanovska, who operate at the highest level to write the rulebook for sustainable finance (for the EU and EFRAG) that guides the entire market. (Also learn about Victoria Whitaker and Thierry Lotrian in the carousel.) 2. The Architect: This is our 'where'. We need community builders like Mark Rowland, who design the 'soft infrastructure' (like Climate Action Week Sydney) for all the other roles to connect and collide. (Also learn about Tony Gourlay and Anita Kolni in the carousel.) 3. The Funder: This is our 'how'. We need 'smart capital' from people like Priyanka K., a 'new guard' climate tech investor who finds, funds and provides commercial advice to early-stage startups. (Also learn about Geoff Sinclair and Mac Christopherson in the carousel). 4. The Ecosystem Builder: This is our 'engine'. We need program leaders like Mick Liubinskas (Climate Salad, Startmate), the 'godfather' of the startup ecosystem who builds the entire network for climate tech. (Also learn about Elisa-Marie Dumas and Dane Murray 👨🏼🚀 in the carousel.) 5. The Corporate Champion: This is our 'gateway'. We need in-house champions like Abigail Thomas, the Head of Sustainability at SBS, who leads real-world implementation and unlocks corporate scale to 'pull' innovation into the mainstream. (Also learn about Giselle N. and Nathan Robertson-Ball in the carousel). The pattern is clear: when these 5 roles are present and connected, solutions get built. When one is missing, good ideas get stuck. Who is a key 'connector' in your network? Tag a leader who you see bridging these roles. #ClimateAction #ClimateCommunity #ClimateLeadership #ClimateCrew #ClimateTech

The recent news that both OpenAI and Anthropic are opening offices in Zurich reminded me of Michael Porter's seminal 1998 Harvard Business Review article "Clusters and the New Economics of Competition". In it, Porter explored clusters — geographic areas that become unusually successful in specific industries. Porter observed that despite expectations that globalization and faster communication would reduce the importance of location, the opposite occurred. The global economy continues to be dominated by clusters - geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions in particular fields. Zurich exemplifies this perfectly. ETH Zurich, consistently ranked among the world's top technical universities, has been a cornerstone of technical innovation for decades. Google's Zurich office, recently celebrating over 20 years and home to ~6,000 employees, has grown into their largest engineering hub in Europe. This has helped catalyze a broader tech ecosystem, with Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Nvidia, and numerous startups establishing significant engineering presence in the region. Why do such clusters thrive? Porter's framework explains how they create a multiplier effect where companies can gain the benefits of scale without sacrificing flexibility: Talent Pools: ETH Zurich provides a constant stream of top-tier technical talent, while the presence of major tech companies attracts experienced professionals globally. This creates a deep, self-reinforcing talent pool that benefits companies of all sizes. Knowledge Networks: The proximity of academic research at ETH, Big Tech R&D, and startup innovation creates dense networks of technical knowledge and market intelligence. This environment is particularly crucial for AI development, where advances often emerge from the intersection of academic research and industrial applications. Ecosystem Benefits: Companies operate more efficiently through better access to specialized suppliers, institutions, and coordinated activities with related firms. The mature ecosystem built around Google's two-decade presence has created infrastructure and support services that new entrants like OpenAI and Anthropic can instantly leverage. Most intriguingly, once a cluster forms, it often enters a self-reinforcing growth cycle, especially when supported by local institutions and healthy competition. As the cluster expands, so does its influence on policy and institutions. Zurich's evolution from academic excellence to established tech hub and now emerging AI cluster showcases Porter's framework in action. The arrival of OpenAI and Anthropic suggests this cycle is entering an exciting new phase. Links in the comments