Monthly Archives: January 2021

News: Bitcoin advocates revolt against the Trump administration’s frantic crypto regulations

Leigh Cuen Contributor Share on Twitter Bitcoin fans across the country are rallying against a common enemy, the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, one of President Donald Trump’s closest associates, has been working overtime since Thanksgiving to push several crypto regulations through before the Biden administration takes over on

Leigh Cuen
Contributor

Bitcoin fans across the country are rallying against a common enemy, the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, one of President Donald Trump’s closest associates, has been working overtime since Thanksgiving to push several crypto regulations through before the Biden administration takes over on January 20, 2021.

FinCEN statements list the usual reasons for financial regulations, an effort to curtail terror financing, sanctions evasion and black market activity related to drugs and weapons, without any mention of new evidence justifying the unusual urgency.

These include a FinCEN proposal that would require exchanges to store records involving transactions over $3,000 sent to any personal wallets, plus report users to FinCEN for cumulative transactions worth more than $10,000 in a single day. For comparison, banks are required to flag cash withdrawals over $10,000, not transactions within the banking system itself, and banks are not required to keep tabs on where the customer spends the cash taken out of the system.

Plus, a complementary FinCEN statement proposed requiring Americans to report crypto holdings worth more than $10,000 at any foreign service provider. Although the details of this second initiative are still vague, it’s clear the Treasury wants to make special note of the know-your-customer information for anyone dealing with thousands of dollars worth of bitcoin.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called this a “push for more financial surveillance” without any need for warrants or suspicion. (Bitcoin users already need to report their holdings in their taxes, just like any other asset.) As such, over 65,615 crypto advocates submitted critical statements to FinCEN, including companies like Fidelity and Square. Square’s statement said the company “would be required to collect unreliable data about people [recipients] who have not opted into our service or signed up as our customers.”

The Washington D.C. nonprofit Coin Center issued a statement saying this proposal would also limit American access to decentralized services, where users may not know their counterparty or network operators. Peter Van Valkenburgh, Coin Center’s research director, told TechCrunch the proposal is highly unusual because it only allowed for 15 days of comments, instead of the standard 60-day period, for a rule that would impose more data collection requirements on crypto companies than other financial institutions.

“It requires the exchange to collect, retain and report extra information that they don’t have to for a cash transaction, like the name and physical address of a counterparty,” he said. “It’s on a timeline to complete this process, as far as we know right now, before the new administration. That means the rule would be final. The new administration could issue a new rule, and overturn that past rule, but that’s a much more difficult process.”

Incoming Senator Cynthia Lummis, sworn in the first week of January, tweeted it was “ridiculous” for the Treasury to have this unusually short comment period. Likewise, nine members of Congress issued a letter warning this hasty rulemaking over the winter holidays undermined the legitimacy of the process.

These proposals aren’t just sudden, they’re also so vague that they appear poorly researched. Both Square Crypto developer Matt Corallo and MIT Media Lab director Neha Narula issued public statements saying the FinCEN proposals confused basic technical concepts about how bitcoin addresses work. This would make such regulations difficult to implement, burdening American companies with prohibitively high compliance precautions.

“Political motivations are always hard to discern, but public rumors have consistently indicated this is a personal push by Mnuchin, not further up or down,” Corallo said. “We’ll learn a lot about what the next few years look like based on what [incoming Secretary Janet] Yellen says and what new leadership at FinCEN looks like. There are a lot of things Yellen could decide, but it would be hard for her to do a worse job of building useful and practical regulations than Mnuchin’s last-minute attempts here.”

Van Valkenburgh said his nonprofit, and other crypto industry organizations like it, are prepared to challenge the ruling in court if the Trump administration fails to follow the legislative process. Namely, the Treasury is required to read and consider all of the public comments submitted by January 7, 2021, the arbitrary date set by the rulemakers themselves.

“They technically then have the power to issue the final rule, saying they considered all the comments,” he said. “But if it’s obvious that they didn’t consider all the comments, which I feel like it would be if the final rule came out any time before the new administration comes in, it would be very easy to argue in court that the requirement to read and consider all the comments has not been met.”

As it stands, Van Valkenburgh said it appears the outgoing administration intends to “saddle” the incoming administration with “chaos.”

News: The Roblox Gambit

The Roblox direct listing wwill lay down some groundwork for new conventional wisdom when it comes to pricing public listings and which methods are good to use.

So it turns out that Roblox is worth $29.5 billion.

That’s the lesson the market learned this week when the gaming platform company announced that it had raised $520 million in an epic Series H.

For a company valued at just $4 billion last February when it raised $150 million in a round led by Andreessen Horowitz, that new valuation could be considered a victory. But is it?


The Exchange explores startups, markets and money. Read it every morning on Extra Crunch, or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.


For all the griping amongst private-market capitalists that public-market capitalists are ripping off their investments as they look to cross the private-public divide through an IPO, it’s hard to square a company’s valuation going from $4 billion to nearly $30 billion in just 11 months.

Sure, you could argue that Roblox enjoyed an epic 2020, thanks in part to COVID-19. That helped its valuation. But there’s a lot of space between $4 billion and $29.5 billion, and recall that its February Series B valued Roblox at around 7.3x its Q4 2019 revenue run rate.

The same company at its new $29.5 billion valuation is now priced at just over 30x its Q3 2020 run rate (the most recent quarter for which we have data today).

Perhaps Roblox was right to hold off on its IPO, raise a huge block of cash at a new valuation and pursue a direct listing. But it’s hard to fret heavily about private-market complaints concerning startup value when the IPO facilitators are hardly the only folks making trips to the bank with a wheelbarrow.

All that is preamble. This morning, let’s talk about Roblox’s flotation strategy. Why is the company raising private market money and then floating instead of raising public market money on its path to trading as a public company? And does its strategy solve the major flaws that the IPO process appears to have? Let’s get into it.

The ol’ raise-and-float

One way to go public is to file an S-1, prepare a presentation, go on a roadshow, drive interest in your shares and work with bankers to price the shares you want to sell at a dollar amount all parties can agree to. The next morning, your shares begin to trade, and you count the money you raised.

That is a traditional IPO, admittedly simplified.

There are issues in there, namely that the price discovery mechanism has proved to be uncertain, especially when it comes to the public offerings of companies considered attractive investments by the active retail trading market. Why? The hotter the company, the fewer shares that are available for trade at the start of its life as a public firm — the very opposite of that which is happening on the demand side.

Lots of demand, few shares, and up goes the price. And then up go the complaints that Wall Street is a bunch of thieves. Hearing this from other capital players is always whimsical to some degree, but let’s stick to our theme.

News: 5 reforms necessary to create a truly cashless society

Innovation is necessary in the digital wallet space to pioneer the movement to change the outdated fee models for the simple act of money exchange.

Wisam Dakka
Contributor

Wisam Dakka is the co-founder of Meemo, a social financial application that offers users automatic AI-powered search, personalized insights, modern peer-to-peer sharing and rewards based on their transaction and purchasing history.

The coronavirus pandemic challenged the status quo and completely changed normal life as we knew it. However, with these challenges have come new opportunities to adapt and participate differently in the world. One of the first trends was that cash is no longer accepted.

The transition to cashless transactions, which at first seemed minor, made my customer experience seamless. Going wallet-free made me wonder why I ever carried cash at all!

Cashless life has been widely adopted in Asian countries for quite some time, but it wasn’t universally adopted across the United States until the coronavirus pandemic. The convenience of cashless transactions just makes sense, but my hope is that this convenience doesn’t come at the cost of other aspects of commerce.

The transition to cashless transactions made my customer experience seamless.

Inaccessibility, fees and thoughtless spending are some of the potential problems that come to mind with cashless spending. For a truly cashless society, here are five key points for consideration:

1. Payment processors currently have the upper hand, forcing fees onto customers

For the sake of a cashless transaction, we have given up our last direct authentic connection with our favorite baristas, small businesses and independent brands. When I take out my credit card or phone to pay, I am not thinking about the fees that both myself and the merchant are paying to facilitate what was once a fee-less transaction. Losing this direct connection with my merchant has given payment processors the upper hand, allowing them to demand an unjustifiable fee of up to 3%.

With virtual payments, my cash is essentially in my phone and the barista is directly in front of me, but the transaction does not work like cash. The merchant will need to pay the fee on my transaction. If the cash revenue for that coffee shop used to be 20% of their revenue pre-COVID, they will now need to pay the fees on 20% of their revenue. Sadly, the merchant response over time is to raise prices. Historically, the adoption of a cashless exchange results in fees being passed through to the customer.

Through price increases across the board, the customer is always bailing the merchant out for the cost of the electronic, seamless, safer-than-ever money exchange. Furthermore, the customers are even “forced” to tip digitally from predefined settings, removing all meaning of tips as an emotional social contract. This new normal means that customers will end up paying $4 in a digital transaction for a coffee that used to cost $3 in cash.

2. Platforms must adapt new models to forgo transaction fees

Given that software and intelligent platforms have always lowered the cost of services when they are used at scale, why has this reduction of cost not yet applied to digital financial transactions? Customers need to demand that cashless transactions operate in the same way as cash transactions.

Even if we continue with a fee model, why would regular, loyal and verified customers always pay (directly or indirectly) the hefty cost of the exchange on top of the cost of credit? There should be a differentiation between these different types of transactions, regular or new, and appropriate fees that make sense.

3. Product experiences must promote conscious spending

Paying with digital or credit cards almost feels like paying with someone else’s money, which can be a dangerous feeling when considering that the user does not see this money spent instantly. Say your regular coffee costs $3. Paying for that coffee with cash is a very different experience than paying with a card or a digital wallet.

When you have a finite amount of cash in your pocket, the physical act (and sometimes mental pain) of spending makes the money feel different and more valuable than the invisible money that you spend via your credit or debit card. In many ways, the silent pain we endure while paying in cash has been subconsciously raising our awareness about our spending.

4. Accessibility and use must extend to all

The idea of a cashless society has thus far not been very inclusive to the unbanked and underbanked population. To support a new model, this underserviced sector needs to be able to utilize this software. A user needs to be able to walk into a grocery store and give the cashier $100 for them to upload the money to their virtual wallet.

Alternatively, a friend needs to be able to send $100 to their virtual wallet. For a cashless society to work, virtual payments need to work with ease and certainty that they will be accepted at any and all locations, just like cash.

5. The path to an open wallet

Have you ever ordered a $15 meal on a food delivery app, only for the total to end up over $25? Beyond the delivery fee, tips and taxes, delivery apps are pricing in extra fees to offset the fees charged by credit card and payment companies. In an effort to avoid these extra fees, apps like Lyft and Uber have begun deploying their own digital wallets supported by ACH transfers.

Sadly, consumers are unlikely to see the benefit until these wallets reach wide adoption, which is clearly not happening because no one wants yet another app-specific wallet.

The way forward

To truly empower the consumer, both Google and Apple should keep developing their digital wallets with an open API payment system to allow all apps to securely interact with it for free. This will transform the Google and Apple wallet and will better service the unbanked and underbanked populations instead of just being a gateway for credit cards.

This would further support the unbanked or underbanked population as they too would be able to utilize an open wallet that can be refilled with cash in person. I should be able to use the cash I have in my virtual wallet with any app, website or physical merchant without paying a fee. I should also be able refill the wallet from my bank account or directly deposit some of my paycheck into my phone wallet. Merchants would also benefit from wallet-to-pay by paying no fees to Google and Apple.

Instead, the mobile wallet creator could introduce a new business model focused on discovery and connecting users and merchants, charging merchants for the connections that they facilitate.

In a not-so-distant future, when I get my new Apple or Google phone, it will have a wallet that can be used without fees for payment across all apps, in physical retail locations, and for peer-to-peer money transfers. The credit cards, or rather lines of credit, on my digital wallet will use an Affirm-like loan service that allows me to buy anything from a pack of gum to a luxury watch or even a car, just using my phone’s wallet.

Goldman Sachs and Mastercard should not be the only players in the credit space. Innovation is necessary in the digital wallet space to pioneer the movement to change the outdated fee models for the simple act of money exchange.

News: Roku acquires Quibi’s content

Quibi is dead, but its shows will live on. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Roku was in talks to acquire the short-form video service’s content. And this morning, Roku announced that it has indeed reached a deal for the exclusive distribution rights to all of Quibi’s programs. Financial terms of the acquisition

Quibi is dead, but its shows will live on.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Roku was in talks to acquire the short-form video service’s content. And this morning, Roku announced that it has indeed reached a deal for the exclusive distribution rights to all of Quibi’s programs.

Financial terms of the acquisition were not disclosed.

Roku said it will make this content available for free with ads on The Roku Channel. That doesn’t just include the shows that were previously available on Quibi, but also “more than a dozen” programs making “their exclusive debut on The Roku Channel” — in other words, they were created for the service but unreleased due to the app’s shutdown.

“Today’s announcement marks a rare opportunity to acquire compelling original content that features some of the biggest names in entertainment,” said Roku’s vice president of programming Rob Holmes in a statement. “We’re excited to make this content available to our users in The Roku Channel through an ad-supported model. We are also thrilled to welcome the incredible studios and talented individuals who brought these stories to life and showcase them to our tens of millions of users.”

While Roku is best known for its streaming TV devices and software, advertising is a growing part of its business. And it says The Roku Channel (which offers both free content and subscription channels) reached 61.8 million U.S. viewers in the fourth quarter of last year.

Quibi, meanwhile, announced its shutdown in October, just six months after its splashy launch. The service was focused on creating video episodes that lasted 10 minutes or less and were designed for viewing on-the-go — a poor fit for a period of pandemic and lockdowns.

In their farewell note, executives Jeffrey Katzenberg and Meg Whitman suggested that the service failed due to a combination of bad timing and the fact that “the idea itself wasn’t strong enough to justify a standalone streaming service.”

“The most creative and imaginative minds in Hollywood created groundbreaking content for Quibi that exceeded our expectations,” Katzenberg said in today’s announcement. “We are thrilled that these stories, from the surreal to the sublime, have found a new home on The Roku Channel.”

It’s also worth noting that the service was initially focused entirely on mobile viewing, with no way to watch the shows on smart TVs. That eventually changed, starting with the addition AirPlay support. Now, with the Roku acquisition, it seems that shows designed to be watched on your smartphone will instead be viewed primarily on your TV.

News: SilviaTerra wants to bring the benefits of carbon offsets to every landowner everywhere

Zack Parisa and Max Nova, the co-founders of the carbon offset company SilviaTerra, have spent the last decade working on a way to democratize access to revenue generating carbon offsets. As forestry credits become a big, booming business on the back of multi-billion dollar commitments from some of the world’s biggest companies to decarbonize their

Zack Parisa and Max Nova, the co-founders of the carbon offset company SilviaTerra, have spent the last decade working on a way to democratize access to revenue generating carbon offsets.

As forestry credits become a big, booming business on the back of multi-billion dollar commitments from some of the world’s biggest companies to decarbonize their businesses, the kinds of technologies that the two founders have dedicated ten years of their lives to building are only going to become more valuable.

That’s why their company, already a profitable business, has raised $4.4 million in outside funding led by Union Square Ventures and Version One Ventures, along with Salesforce founder and the driving force between the 1 trillion trees initiative, Marc Benioff .

“Key to addressing the climate crisis is changing the balance in the so-called carbon cycle. At present, every year we are adding roughly 5 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere. Since atmospheric carbon acts as a greenhouse gas this increases the energy that’s retained rather than radiated back into space which causes the earth to heat up,” writes Union Square Ventures managing partner Albert Wenger in a blog post. “There will be many ways such drawdown occurs and we will write about different approaches in the coming weeks (such as direct air capture and growing kelp in the oceans). One way that we understand well today and can act upon immediately are forests. The world’s forests today absorb a bit more than one gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere and turn it into biomass. We need to stop cutting and burning down existing forests (including preventing large scale forest fires) and we have to start planting more new trees. If we do that, the total potential for forests is around 4 to 5 gigatons per year (with some estimates as high as 9 gigatons).”

For the two founders, the new funding is the latest step in a long journey that began in the woods of Northern Alabama, where Parisa grew up.

After attending Mississippi State for forestry, Parisa went to graduate school at Yale, where he met Louisville, Kentucky native Max Nova, a computer science student who joined with Parisa to set up the company that would become SiliviaTerra.

SilviaTerra co-founders Max Nova and Zack Parisa. Image Credit: SilviaTerra

The two men developed a way to combine satellite imagery with field measurements to determine the size and species of trees in every acre of forest.

While the first step was to create a map of every forest in the U.S. the ultimate goal for both men was to find a way to put a carbon market on equal footing with the timber industry. Instead of cutting trees for cash, potentially landowners could find out how much it would be worth to maintain their forestland. As the company notes, forest management had previously been driven by the economics of timber harvesting, with over $10 billion spent in the US each year.

The founders at SilviaTerra thought that the carbon market could be equally as large, but it’s hard for moset landowners to access. Carbon offset projects can cost as much as $200,000 to put together, which is more than the value of the smaller offset projects for landowners like Parisa’s own family and the 40 acres they own in the Alabama forests.

There had to be a better way for smaller landowners to benefit from carbon markets too, Parisa and Nova thought.

To create this carbon economy, there needed to be a single source of record for every tree in the U.S. and while SilviaTerra had the technology to make that map, they lacked the compute power, machine learning capabilities and resources to build the map.

That’s where Microsoft’s AI for Earth program came in.

Working with AI for Earth, SilviaTierra created their first product, Basemap, to process terabytes ofsatellite imagery to determine the sizes and species of trees on every acre of America’s forestland. The company also worked with the US Forestry Service to access their data, which was used in creating this holistic view of the forest assets in the U.S.

With the data from Basemap in hand, the company has created what it calls the Natural Capital Exchange. This program uses SilviaTerra’s unparalleled access to information about local forests, and the knowledge of how those forests are currently used to supply projects that actually represent land that would have been forested were it not for the offset money coming in.

Currently, many forestry projects are being passed off to offset buyers as legitimate offsets on land that would never have been forested in the first place — rendering the project meaningless and useless in any real way as an offset for carbon dioxide emissions. 

“It’s a bloodbath out there,” said Nova of the scale of the problem with fraudulent offsets in the industry. “We’re not repackaging existing forest carbon projects and try to connect the demand side with projects that already exist. Use technology to unlock a new supply of forest carbon offset.”

The first Natural Capital Exchange project was actually launched and funded by Microsoft back in 2019. In it, 20 Western Pennsylvania land owners originated forest carbon credits through the program, showing that the offsets could work for landowners with 40 acres, or, as the company said, 40,000.

Landowners involved in SilviaTerra’s pilot carbon offset program paid for by Microsoft. Image Credit: SilviaTerra

“We’re just trying to get inside every landowners annual economic planning cycle,” said Nova. “There’s a whole field of timber economics… and we’re helping answer the question of given the price of timber, given the price of carbon does it make sense to reduce your planned timber harvests?”

Ultimately, the two founders believe that they’ve found a way to pay for the total land value through the creation of data around the potential carbon offset value of these forests.

It’s more than just carbon markets, as well. The tools that SilviaTerra have created can be used for wildfire mitigation as well. “We’re at the right place at the right time with the right data and the right tools,” said Nova. “It’s about connecting that data to the decision and the economics of all this.”

The launch of the SilviaTerra exchange gives large buyers a vetted source to offset carbon. In some ways its an enterprise corollary to the work being done by startups like Wren, another Union Square Ventures investment, that focuses on offsetting the carbon footprint of everyday consumers. It’s also a competitor to companies like Pachama, which are trying to provide similar forest offsets at scale, or 3Degrees Inc. or South Pole.

Under a Biden administration there’s even more of an opportunity for these offset companies, the founders said, given discussions underway to establish a Carbon Bank. Established through the existing Commodity Credit Corp. run by the Department of Agriculture, the Carbon Bank would pay farmers and landowners across the U.S. for forestry and agricultural carbon offset projects.

“Everybody knows that there’s more value in these systems than just the product that we harvest off of it,” said Parisa. “Until we put those benefits in the same footing as the things we cut off and send to market…. As the value of these things goes up… absolutely it is going to influence these decisions and it is a cash crop… It’s a money pump from coastal America into middle America to create these things that they need.” 

News: Google’s plan to replace tracking cookies goes under UK antitrust probe

Google’s plan to end support for third party cookies in the Chrome browser and its Chromium engine is under investigation by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The antitrust regulator said today that it’s launched a probe under Chapter II of the UK’s Competition Act 1998 into “suspected breaches of competition law by Google”. The

Google’s plan to end support for third party cookies in the Chrome browser and its Chromium engine is under investigation by the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).

The antitrust regulator said today that it’s launched a probe under Chapter II of the UK’s Competition Act 1998 into “suspected breaches of competition law by Google”.

The move follows a complaint lodged in November by a coalition of digital marketing companies which urged the CMA to block Google’s implementation of the self-styled ‘Privacy Sandbox’.

The CMA also received complaints from newspapers and technology companies alleging the tech giant is abusing a dominance position, it added.

A Google spokesperson sent this statement in response to a request for comment on the CMA investigation:

Creating a more private web, while also enabling the publishers and advertisers who support the free and open internet, requires the industry to make major changes to the way digital advertising works. The Privacy Sandbox has been an open initiative since the beginning and we welcome the CMA’s involvement as we work to develop new proposals to underpin a healthy, ad-supported web without third-party cookies.

Google had previously said it would implement the Sandbox in 2021 — accelerating an earlier timeline for the phasing out of third party cookies and sending ripples of fear (and loathing) through an adtech industry that bet the farm on mass surveillance of Internet users.

No changes have been made so far, according to Google.

It also said today that any changes will not be made before 2022 — as it continues a process of public collaboration (now coupled with close regulatory engagement, via the CMA) on how to replace tracking cookies.

With the looming demise of third party cookies, digital marketers are concerned about their ability to target ads at web users as browsers decommission support for key tracking technologies.

But it’s worth noting that Google’s Chrome is actually the laggard in proposing to pull the plug on tracking cookies; WebKit, which underpins Safari, announced a tracking prevention policy back in 2019 — taking inspiration from Mozilla’s earlier anti-tracking stance. (The latter made third party cookie blocking in Firefox the default in September of the same year.)

These anti-tracking plays by browser-makers are, on one level, a response to consumer distaste over creepy ads and concern for their online privacy.

And in the European Union at least, many core elements of adtech infrastructure are subject to complaints and remain under regulatory scrutiny. (Albeit, the UK’s data protection regulator, the ICO, is currently being sued for failing to act on complaints about the lawfulness of real-time bidding which date back to September 2018.)

But the contention by the marketing, publishing and adtech businesses which are crying foul over the end of cookies is that tech giants — Google in this case — are using privacy as a convenient excuse to increase their market power (and control over user data) at smaller entities’ expense.

“The investigation will assess whether the proposals could cause advertising spend to become even more concentrated on Google’s ecosystem at the expense of its competitors,” the CMA writes in a press release announcing its investigation. “It follows complaints of anticompetitive behaviour and requests for the CMA to ensure that Google develops its proposals in a way that does not distort competition.”

The announcement also makes clear that the regulator is alive to the genuine issue of privacy concern — with the CMA writing that it’s been “considering how best to address legitimate privacy concerns without distorting competition”. This has included holding discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and talking to Google to “better understand its proposals”, it says.

“The current investigation will provide a framework for the continuation of this work, and, potentially, a legal basis for any solution that emerges,” the CMA adds.

Exactly what will replace tracking cookies is still very much up in the air.

Google has made a number of proposals, via the W3C standards forum, including one called ‘Dovekey’ which suggests using a key value server and which Google says builds on the feedback and proposal from adtech firm Criteo’s Sparrow proposal.

It’s also shared the algorithms for its Federated Learning of Cohorts (FLoC) proposal — referring to a suggestion to use a specific machine learning technique to allow behavioral ad targeting to continue (but without needing to collect individuals’ data).

The wider adtech industry, meanwhile, has also been coming up with various ideas and offers for replacing tracking cookies. Such as the UnifiedOpen ID 2.0 proposal (that’s being built by The Trade Desk) and proposes a centralized system for tracking Internet users based on personal data such as an email address or phone number; or the Unified ID service launched by TechCrunch’s parent Verizon Media (leveraging its access to first party data), to name just two.

So whatever replaces tracking cookies looks unlikely to be simple or singular. Not least given the formal regulatory dimension that’s now been added to Google’s mix.

With its Sandbox project underway but no replacement for tracking cookies yet selected the CMA’s intervention certainly looks very strategic — giving the UK regulator a (potentially major) role in influencing the future shape of adtech.

Although it could also lead to regulatory divergence for adtech in the UK vs the European Union, where the Commission’s antitrust regulators have also been eyeing Google’s adtech practices but have not yet launched a formal investigation — depending on the outcome of any probe/intervention there.

Back in the UK, a recent CMA market study of the digital advertising sector led it to report substantial concerns over the power of the Google-Facebook adtech duopoly — and it sought views on breaking up the tech giants — although in its final report it deferred any competitive intervention in favor of waiting for the government to legislate.

Since then UK ministers have unveiled a plan to establish a pro-competition regulatory regime that will include a new statutory code of conduct, overseen by a Digital Market Unit (to be set up this year), with the aim of putting some hard limits on big (ad)tech — including potentially requiring them to offer users an opt out from behavioral advertising (something Facebook, for example, currently does not).

News: Chris Krebs and Alex Stamos have started a cyber consulting firm

Former U.S. cybersecurity official Chris Krebs and former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos have founded a new cybersecurity consultancy firm, which already has its first client: SolarWinds . The two have been hired as consultants to help the Texas-based software maker recover from a devastating breach by suspected Russian hackers, which used the company’s

Former U.S. cybersecurity official Chris Krebs and former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos have founded a new cybersecurity consultancy firm, which already has its first client: SolarWinds .

The two have been hired as consultants to help the Texas-based software maker recover from a devastating breach by suspected Russian hackers, which used the company’s software to set backdoors in thousands of organizations and to infiltrate at least 10 U.S. federal agencies and several Fortune 500 businesses.

At least the Treasury, State and the Department of Energy have been confirmed breached, in what has been described as likely the most significant espionage campaign against the U.S. government in years. And while the U.S. government has already pinned the blame on Russia, the scale of the intrusions are not likely to be known for some time.

Krebs was one of the most senior cybersecurity officials in the U.S. government, most recently serving as the director of Homeland Security’s CISA cybersecurity advisory agency from 2018, until he was fired by President Trump for his efforts to debunk false election claims — many of which came from the president himself. Stamos, meanwhile, joined the Stanford Internet Observatory after holding senior cybersecurity positions at Facebook and Yahoo. He also consulted for Zoom amid a spate of security problems.

In an interview with the Financial Times, which broke the story, Krebs said it could take years before the hackers are ejected from infiltrated systems.

SolarWinds chief executive Sudhakar Ramakrishna acknowledged in a blog post that it had brought on the consultants to help the embattled company to be “transparent with our customers, our government partners, and the general public in both the near-term and long-term about our security enhancements.”

News: Jobandtalent tops up with $108M for its ‘workforce as a service’ platform

Madrid-based Jobandtalent, a digital temp staffing agency which operates a dual-sided platform that connects temp workers with employers needing regular casual labor in sectors like transport and logistics, has added €88 million (~$108M) to its Series C — bringing the total raised following an earlier (2019) closing of the round to €166M. The 2009-founded startup

Madrid-based Jobandtalent, a digital temp staffing agency which operates a dual-sided platform that connects temp workers with employers needing regular casual labor in sectors like transport and logistics, has added €88 million (~$108M) to its Series C — bringing the total raised following an earlier (2019) closing of the round to €166M.

The 2009-founded startup has raised more than $290M to date over its decade+ run but describes itself as just at the beginning of a journey to make a dent in the massive and growing market for temporary work, expecting demand to keep stepping up as more sectors and processes go digital in the coming years.

Jobandtalent says more than 80,000 workers have used its platform to secure temp gigs in the last year across the seven markets where it operates in Europe and LatAm (namely: Spain, UK, Germany, France, Sweden, Mexico and Colombia); while 750+ employers are signed up to “recurrently manage a large part of their workforce”, as it puts it, including XPO, Ocado, Saint Gobain, Santander, Bayer, eBay, Huawei, Ceva Logistics and Carrefour.

It’s focused on competing with traditional staffing agencies such as Adecco and Randstad, though other similar startups are cropping up to cater to an ever more precarious temporary employment market. (And Uber, for example, launched a shift-finder app experiment called Works, back in 2019, also targeting demand for on-demand labor — but doing so in partnership with staffing agencies in its case).

Jobandtalent reports the number of workers looking for temp jobs on its platform doubling every year, while it’s grown revenue to €500M and says it’s hit positive EBITDA.

The beefed up Series C funding will be put towards expanding into more markets and doubling down on growing its existing footprint, it said today.

“We will keep expanding through Europe and will consider some additional opportunities (the US and some LatAm countries),” co-founder Juan Urdiales told us, noting that its main markets remain Spain and the UK, while its main sectors are logistics, last mile, warehousing and transport.

The lead investor in the expansion tranche of its C round is new investor InfraVia, a French private equity firm, which is putting in €30M — investing via a Growth Tech Fund it launched last year that’s focused on European b2b high-growth tech companies.

Existing Jobandtalent investors, including Atomico, Seek, DN Capital and Kibo Ventures, also participated in the Series C top-up.

Urdiales said the reason it’s taken in another chunk of funding now is because of increased opportunity for growth as the coronavirus pandemic continues to accelerate demand for temping. “The reason why we are raising more is because we are seeing a high potential now to grow even faster than expected,” he told us. “The pandemic has helped us with both workers and employers in terms of adoption of our platform.”

“Covid has accelerated the transformation of many industries. We have seen more adoption of new technologies in the last nine months than in the last five years. The staffing market is experiencing a huge transformation that will be accelerated in the upcoming years, moving from brick and mortar traditional structures to data driven platforms that will improve the experience of both workers and employers,” Urdiales went on in a statement.

“This market is really big and we are just in the beginning of our journey (even though we have been a lot of years in the market now),” he added via email, discussing whether an IPO is on the business’ roadmap in the next few years. “We think that if we continue growing at the pace that we are growing now, and we add some private investors to help us with our growth plans, we may stay private for longer.”

Jobandtalent has been through a number of pivots since kicking off more than a decade ago with the idea of using technology to streamline the messy and consummately human business of recruitment. It started out testing a number of approaches before settling on a linguistics algorithm to parse job ads and create alerts to loop in passive job seekers.

Then in 2016 it pivoted away from enterprise recruitment to focus on mobilizing hiring for SMEs — zeroing in on the growing opportunity for temp job-matching offered by the rise of gig work fuelled by smartphone apps. From there, it’s been honing tools to cater to the needs of employers that are managing large temporary workforces.

The flip side of the rapid growth of ‘flexible’ platform-based labor — and Jobandtalent says it’s eyeing a pool of some 500M temp workers globally — is something that gig platforms don’t usually like to talk about: Worker precariousness.

But that’s something this startup says it wants to help with too. A key part of the proposition Jobandtalent offers to workers is increased benefits vs what a temp might otherwise expect to get.

The average gig platform does not offer a full suite of workers rights and benefits, just as they don’t provide a contractual guarantee of future shifts, as they classify on-demand labor as ‘self-employed’ — even as, simultaneously, they apply mobile technology to tightly manage this workforce (via data, algorithms and their own devices). 

This disconnect, between the level of gig worker rights and platform control, has led to a number of legal challenges in Europe — including in several of the markets where Jobandtalent operates (such as Spain, where Glovo continues to face legal challenges over its classification of delivery couriers, for example; and France and the UK, where Uber has lost a number of employment tribunals over driver status).

EU lawmakers are also eyeing conditions for gig workers — considering whether legislation is needed to protect platform workers’ rights. While some platform giants, like Uber, have already felt politically pressured to offer a level of insurance in the region.

Jobandtalent’s promise is it’s pushing for more perks for temps — leveraging the scale of its platform to get workers a better deal, including by making precarious work more steady (by lining up the next gig) and therefore less uncertain.

“All of the workers have access to the same benefits,” said Urdiales via email when we ask about how Jobandtalent’s perks are structured. “There are benefits such as advance payroll, health insurance, training courses, etc (not all the benefits are available in all countries, it depends on the level of maturity of each country).”

“We want to give any worker that starts working through Jobandtalent access to those benefits and offer a high standard employment treatment, so they have a similar status to what a perm employee has,” he added.

In a press release trumpeting its investment in Jobandtalent, new investor, InfraVia, also suggests the platform makes “temporary work a fulfilling professional step” — by defining “career plans” for temporary workers so they can “progress towards permanent and rewarding positions”.

However when we asked Urdiales what data it has on temp-to-permanent switches that have been enabled by its platform he said this is “not a common thing”.

“Employers are not looking to add workers to their perm workforces, and Jobandtalent is precisely trying to solve that for the workers, trying to give constant employment in different work assignments at different companies so they can find more stability,” he told us, adding: “The market is moving even more into a more precarious temporary employment market, and we believe that in this context a platform like the one that we are offering makes even more sense.”.

The other big carrot for workers to plug into Jobandtalent’s temp work marketplace is convenience: It takes a mobile app-based approach — offering a one-stop-shop for giggers to find their next shift, apply for the temp job (via in-app video interview), sign the contract and get paid, as well as access the touted benefits.

Its streamlining of admin around recruitment and payroll is also of course a key carrot for employers to get on board with Jobandtalent’s ‘workforce as a service’ proposition — which claims an upgraded offer (such as a CRM that bakes in analytics for tracking workforce performance in real time) vs traditional temping agency processes, as well as lower costs and increased numbers of job offers.

Its worker-to-temp job matching tech is designed to take the (temp) recruitment strain for employer customers via a proprietary quality worker scoring algorithm which it calls a Worker Quality Score (WQS).

Urdiales told us the criteria that feeds this score include attrition rate, absenteeism rate — and “some productivity metrics of the workers that we place” — when we asked for details, having found no information about the WQS on its website.

Algorithmic scoring of workers can have obvious implications for worker agency.

Nor is it without legal risk in Europe where EU citizens have rights attached to their personal data, such as access rights, and also (under the GDPR) a right to human review of any purely automated decisions that have a legal or similarly substantial impact on them (and decisions impacting access to work would be likely to qualify).

In a recent judgement, for example, a court in Italy ruled that a reputation ranking algorithm used by on-demand delivery platform Deliveroo had discriminated against workers because the code failed to distinguish between legally protected reasons for being absent from work (such as sickness or being on strike) and more trivial reasons for not turning up for a previously booked shift. (Deliveroo no longer uses the algorithm in question.)

Uber is also facing legal challenges in the Netherlands to its use of algorithms to automatically terminate drivers and to its use of data and algorithms to profile and manage drivers. While ride-hailing company Ola is facing a similar suit over its algorithmic management of gig workers. So EU courts are certainly going to busy interrogating the intersection of app-driven algorithmic management and regional data and labor rights for the foreseeable future.

The European Commission has also proposed a sweeping reform of the regional rulebook for digital services which includes a requirement for regulatory oversight of key decision-making algorithms with the aim of shrinking the risk of negative impacts such as bias and discrimination — although any new laws are likely still years out.

Asked whether Jobandtalent’s worker users are provided with their own WQS and given the chance to appeal substantial decreases in the score — including the opportunity to request a human review of any automated decisions — Urdiales said: “The platform gives them constant feedback based on the main metrics that they can affect (voluntary attrition, absenteeism, etc) with the aim to make them improve at work and consequently improve their ability to get more jobs in the future.”

News: Shares of Hyundai Motors Co. climb more than 20% on potential EV deal with Apple

Hyundai Motor Company is downplaying reports that it is in talks with Apple to produce an autonomous electric vehicle, stating that discussions are still in the “early stage” and still undecided. But the news of a potential tie-up (however tentative) with Apple, which is known for keeping a tight lid on deals before they are

Hyundai Motor Company is downplaying reports that it is in talks with Apple to produce an autonomous electric vehicle, stating that discussions are still in the “early stage” and still undecided. But the news of a potential tie-up (however tentative) with Apple, which is known for keeping a tight lid on deals before they are announced, was enough to send shares of Hyundai Motor Company up more than 20% on the Korea Exchange during trading on Friday.

The talks were first reported by the Korea Economic Daily and confirmed by Hyundai to Bloomberg in a statement that said “Apple and Hyundai are in discussion, but as it is at early stage, nothing has been decided.” The Korean auto giant also told CNBC that “we understand Apple is in discussion with a variety of global automakers, including Hyundai Motor. As the discussion is at its early stage, nothing has been decided.”

A Hyundai spokesperson declined to comment to TechCrunch. Apple has also been contacted for comment.

Last month, Reuters reported that Apple’s car initiative, called Project Titan, is still going on, with plans to develop an autonomous electric passenger vehicle. But the car is not expected to launch until 2024.

Hyundai launched its own electric vehicle brand, Ioniq, in August 2020, with plans to bring three all-electric vehicles to market over the next four years, as part of its strategy to sell one million battery electric vehicles and take a 10% share of the EV market by 2025. Hyundai also has a joint venture with autonomous driving technology company Aptiv to make Level 4 and Level 5 production-ready self-driving systems available to robotaxi, fleet operators and automakers by 2022. The Aptiv partnership was announced in 2019.

 

News: Tencent investment stays on game in 2020

It’s no secret that Tencent, the Chinese tech giant behind WeChat and a handful of blockbuster video games, is an aggressive investor. Even during 2020 when the pandemic slowed down economic activity in many parts of the world, Tencent was charging ahead with its investment ambitions. During the year, the company participated in more than

It’s no secret that Tencent, the Chinese tech giant behind WeChat and a handful of blockbuster video games, is an aggressive investor. Even during 2020 when the pandemic slowed down economic activity in many parts of the world, Tencent was charging ahead with its investment ambitions.

During the year, the company participated in more than 170 funding rounds that amounted to a total of 249.5 million yuan ($38 million), according to the Chinese startup database ITJuzi. That made 2020 the most active year to date for Tencent’s investment team, which had been delivering superior results in the last decade.

By January 2020, over 70 of Tencent’s 800 portfolio companies had gone public and more than 160 of them surpassed $100 million in valuation, Martin Lau, Tencent’s president, told a room of investees at the time. The achievement could well place Tencent side by side with some of the world’s top venture funds.

Tencent established an investment and M&A unit back in 2008 and began to seriously ramp up financing around 2012. Since 2015, it has been funding more than 100 companies per year, ITJuzi data shows.

The social and entertainment giant has for long kept its funding activity close to its chest and data gleaned by third-party organizations like ITJuzi is often not exhaustive. The company did not immediately respond to TechCrunch’s questions about its investment in 2020, and the story draws mainly from public disclosures and interviews with people of knowledge.

B2B interest

While Tencent’s overall investment strategy has remained consistent — a diversifying portfolio with a focus on digital entertainment — it has quietly stepped up efforts in areas outside its main gaming arena. For instance, the firm has paid more attention to enterprise services ever since it announced a B2B pivot in 2018, putting more focus on cloud computing, fintech and the likes. The number of investments it made in enterprise software went from five in 2015 to 28 in 2020, according to ITJuzi.

In line with its new focus on enterprise, Tencent has also upped its game in fintech. In 2019 and 2020, it backed 18 and 15 fintech startups, respectively, ITJuzi shows, up from only four in 2015. The rise, though incremental, reflects the firm’s increased interest in an area that’s both hugely lucrative but also comes with many constraints.

In China, Tencent has long been competing with Ant Group, the Alibaba fintech affiliate, to court users in payments, lending, wealth management, and even insurance. The regulatory troubles facing Ant are not exclusive to the Jack Ma empire and will likely come to daunt its smaller contenders, including Tencent’s fintech segments.

That said, Tencent is “not nearly as aggressive” as Ant when it comes to strengthening its position in China’s financial market, a person who partners with Tencent’s overseas fintech business told TechCrunch.

Fintech overseas

The company is also prudent with its fintech expansion overseas in times of geopolitical tensions. So far, it’s mostly limited its ambition to providing cross-border payment services to China’s outbound tourists, rather than serving locals directly.

“There’s a lot of scrutiny around what Tencent and Alibaba are doing within the United States and that presents challenges,” said the CEO of a Tencent-backed startup based in the U.S. who declined to be named.

Through investments, however, Tencent has familiarized itself with the foreign financial markets. In 2015, the company made one fintech investment outside China. In 2020, it funded eight, according to public data collected by Crunchbase.

A significant portion of Tencent’s outside investments doesn’t bear strategic significance, and the company tends to let its portfolio startups operate autonomously. Partly for that reason, Tencent was slammed for prioritizing investment and financial return over product development and innovation in a viral article in 2018, titled ominously “Tencent Has No Dream.” The hands-off attitude is a stark contrast to the stranglehold practice of Alibaba, which prefers buying controlling stakes in businesses and shaking up their top management, as it did for Lazada.

But many Tencent investments do add value to its business, even when the press announcements leave out the potential strategic synergies. Over the years, Tencent has made a series of small investments in the U.S. and other Western countries. Few of them appear to bring collaborative opportunities in the near term, but Tencent would still invite executives from these companies to China where they would learn from each other.

“Tencent made those investments really just to kind of learn what people are doing in the U.S. and how it might be able to be applied in China,” said the executive from the Tencent-backed startup.

“We don’t have any near term plans to do anything in China. But Tencent is a very reputable name, whether it’s in China or the U.S. And you know, it’s good to have the option to be able to do something more strategic in partnership with Tencent down the road.”

Tencent’s fintech investments outside China could also be conducive to the firm’s gaming expansion overseas, according to a Hong Kong-based fund manager. The goal is to have half of its gamers to be overseas users, Tencent pleged in 2019.

“For the gaming industry in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the biggest bottleneck is, surprisingly, not hardware but payments,” the fund manager told TechCrunch. “Of course, localization and compatibility are also important.”

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin