Monthly Archives: February 2021

News: As location becomes irrelevant, Greek VCs eye local talent and spread their wings

Venture capital and venture debt have continued to grow in the country, although the angel scene remains low-key.

According to a recent report on Greece’s startup ecosystem by management consultants Found.ation, venture capital and venture debt have continued to grow in the country, although its angel scene remains low-key.

Oddly enough, 2020 was a banner year, with the sale of InstaShop to Delivery Hero valuing the company at $360 million, making it the largest exit for a Greek-founded startup with operations in Greece.

The pandemic has meant Greek investors and startups realize that if they can work from anywhere and hire from anywhere, then Greece is not such a bad place to be. And the Greek VC market benefits as the diaspora returns from the mega cities of the West. The nation’s startup ecosystem is also attracting more outside investors, who see low capital costs, an educated workforce and the move to remote working/hiring.

Bessemer Venture Partners, Insight Venture Partners and FJ labs are all backing Greek startups, and Microsoft completed its first acquisition in the country.

Greek startups and investors are also extending collaboration with near neighbors in Cyprus, Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

Investors in our survey said they were excited by sectors such as infrastructure, agtech, cybersecurity, proptech, efficient software, renewable tech and platforms aimed at helping the recovery of blue-collar jobs.

Were they seeing green shoots after the worst of the pandemic? Yes, but still small.

Investors are spreading their wings outside of Greece “as location becomes irrelevant and work-from-anywhere the new standard” although “the local ecosystem is always a priority.”

Here’s who we spoke with:


Subscribe to Extra Crunch for access to all of our investor surveys, company profiles and other insider coverage for startups everywhere. Save 25% off the cost of a one-year Extra Crunch membership by entering discount code GREEKSURVEY. Offer valid until March 31, 2021.


Panos Papadopoulos, partner, Marathon Venture Capital

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

Infrastructure, agtech, cybersecurity, efficient software.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Hack The Box (the largest cybersecurity playground in the world).

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

Infrastructure software is far from being optimized and resulting in huge bills. There is a lot to be done to leverage modern hardware architecture to make things cheaper and easier to operate.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Industry people fixing their industry.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

Data management/analytics is oversaturated.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

More than 80%, we operate in underserved market and enjoy preferential pricing.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term? What are companies you are excited about (your portfolio or not), which founders?

Shipping is an obvious one but we don’t think venture returns can be accomplished in this space.
Our portfolio company Netdata is changing IT monitoring. Huge OSS community and $30 million raised so far from Marathon, Bain and Bessemer.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

Get to know the people first and where they are coming from (culturally).

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Yes absolutely, big expensive cities will drain talent to their peripheries (not going very far TBH).

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel is the obvious answer.

We see a lot of opportunity in software rebuilding, consolidation. There is truly too much software duct taped together. It’s expensive, difficult to run and creates silos.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

It hasn’t changed anything really, we just want founders to be able to use exclusively online channels. Companies with a hardware component are more challenged but even they have to innovate on support, which becomes a net positive if/when achieved.
Advise to startups: If you can find money sweep it.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Remote work could become a great equalizer or at least give more opportunities to people living far from the big hubs.

Any other thoughts you want to share with TechCrunch readers?

I think investing in local/geographical ecosystems is not so much about the law/economies of the ecosystem but rather the culture. Actually I was working on an article about that I wanted to share with TC πŸ™‚

Dimitris Kalavros-Gousiou, founding partner, Velocity Partners

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?
Future of work, enterprise software, edtech, AI.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Intelligencia.ai — supporting drug discovery with ML and Big Data.

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

Edtech is a hugely untapped market, especially in vertical education and non-English-speaking content.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Given the stage we invest in (pre-seed and seed), we are always looking to find founders with a unique perspective, market insights and understanding.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

Although we are an Athens-based fund, we are location-agnostic. Half of our portfolio companies are based overseas, with the majority being in the U.K., where there is a strong community of Greek expats and diaspora.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

Given the size of the local market, which is relatively small, I believe by reality our country is better positioned for B2B and enterprise software ventures. The most recent exit of RPA startup Softomotive to Microsoft (May 2020) validates just that. Two companies I’m excited about are Intelligencia.ai, which helps big pharma companies predict and accelerate clinical development of new drugs, and Netdata. Netdata is an open-source system for monitoring applications, servers, containers and devices in real-time.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

Greece has recently started to get more traction and headlines in international publications, Softomotive’s exit as mentioned were good news for the local ecosystem, together with a few up rounds for Athens-based startups such as TileDB, Plum and others.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Absolutely, as location becomes irrelevant and work-from-anywhere the new standard we expect more founders to emerge from less profound places. Brain-regain will also be a significant driver, as more and more people will go back to their home countries.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel tech is profoundly negatively affected by the pandemic and while it’s really early to tell when and how travel will reemerge, I see little opportunities there for the next 12 to 18 months.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

For our post-revenue investments, cash flow and its impact on runaway is the biggest challenge. Our pre-market, pre-revenue startups are less affected. Fundraising for the next round is a major concern and challenge for all. We strongly recommend continued monitoring and cost-cutting where and if needed. For their fundraising strategies, we recommend raising more money, effectively extending their runway to 18-24 months. In cases where their ideal fundraising scenario is no longer a viable option, we suggest smaller rounds — emergency financing driver primarily by existing investors — that will support the companies until the market is less volatile.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

We are seeing interesting areas for growth as some of our companies decided to partially pivot their core product offering or market segment focus. A great example is MyJobNow a local blue-collar marketplace startup. Their initial product was targeting blue-collar workers using classifieds. Just before the COVID pandemic, the company introduced a second product, staffing on-demand service for delivery and last-mile transportation. The product faced significant and accelerated adoption by retail clients and e-commerce ventures as the need for last-mile delivery was significantly and positively affected by the lockdown.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Most founders showed a mix of good reflexes, empathy and business clarity during the first months of the pandemic.

Any other thoughts you want to share with TechCrunch readers?

A key parameter that will greatly affect the next phase of the local scene is for new first-time founders to be able to attract initial angel and pre-seed investment, as access to €50,000-200,000 tickets is still problematic and limited. We need to enhance the investment numbers on this stage in order to enlarge the footprint of the ecosystem and create a strong bottom-up startup funnel.

Aristos Doxiadis, partner, Big Pi Ventures

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

I most like to invest in radically better solutions to very basic problems, such as preventing disease, or food provision, or increasing productivity in small firms. This is the social context of the fourth industrial revolution, and where some of the great success stories of the next 10 years will be.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

It’s a tough choice, but I pick 2bull MeDiTherapy. They have developed a unique blood test for prognosis and diagnosis of aortic aneurysm. These is a very common “silent killer,” that could only be diagnosed up to now by cumbersome and expensive imaging techniques. Once the test gets the required CE mark, we hope it will be widely adopted as a screening method across Europe and the U.S.

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

In agritech, I haven’t seen much that would help small farms in rough terrain to increase productivity, secure quality or exploit unique niche varieties. This is potentially a big opportunity in many emerging economies as well as in the Mediterranean.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Ideally, a tool that can solve a fundamental production bottleneck across several industries, and that is based on years of research and has strong IP. An example from our portfolio is Navenio, which has location solution for people and equipment in large indoor spaces, that is infrastructure-free and requires no physical mapping. This has applications in hospitals, shopping malls, logistics centers, railroad stations, etc.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

We see too many applications for e-commerce and service marketplaces. Most are copycats, but even if there is a new concept somewhere, network effects and economies of scale are prohibitive for almost all new teams.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

By our mandate, we invest only in companies that have a substantial presence in Greece. This usually means an R&D center and/or product development team. Within Greece we have no specific preference for Athens, our home base, but most of the good deals we see are there.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

Greece has strong research teams in biomedical science, and a large number of doctors with international experience and networks. I expect that health tech and medtech will be a big growth sector. Another area is HR tech: Workable (a leading applicant tracking system), Epignosis (learning technology for corporate users) and Bryq (a new bias-free candidate assessment platform) have all started in Athens. The first two already have nine-digit valuations, while Bryq is just taking off.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

The greatest advantage of Athens and some other Greek cities is the number of highly skilled Greeks in their thirties, who are working in technology or research in the rest of Europe and are looking to return home. Tech employers can easily attract such talent if they offer an exciting and/or well-paid job. These experienced people can train many of the excellent engineering and science grads that come out of local universities. Almost every company in our portfolio has done this. Investment climate is also rapidly improving under the current government, especially for knowledge industries, via various tax incentives, but also by encouraging the research community to open up to business.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Yes, I expect that, and we are already seeing this in Greece, as one of the places of origin of such founders, but also as a destination for talent that is leaving expensive and crowded cities.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel and hospitality will be hurt. Big Pi has not invested in the sector (by chance, not by design) but some very good Greek teams were in there, and inevitably some will have to move to other things. Great opportunities arise in remote provision of sophisticated services (health, entertainment, education and also equipment maintenance and repair).

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

There have been delays in enterprise sales, and in the supply chain for hardware products. We have set aside capital to support longer runways, but beyond that we don’t anticipate much damage. Our advice to founders is to focus all resources on achieving targets that will enable them to raise the next equity round.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

The Greek government designed and implemented in record time a logistics system for COVID vaccines, and, most impressively, a very user-friendly appointment platform for the vaccinations that is working seamlessly. For a state that until recently was very slow and inefficient, this was a great leap ahead and bodes well for future digital public services.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally?

All six VC teams that were funded by Equifund in 2018 have done a very good job (Marathon, Venture Friends, Uni.Fund, Metavallon, Velocity and Big Pi) and have given a big boost to the ecosystem. Founders from Greek diaspora have been instrumental (e.g., Stavros Papadopoulos of TileDB, Vergetis and Skaltsas of Intelligencia, Masouras of Saphetor).

Pavlos Pavlakis, principal, VentureFriends

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

Proptech, fintech and marketplace models, interested in both B2C and B2B startups.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?
Influ2 (Person Based Marketing startup — B2B SaaS).

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

Some investors shy away from capital intensive models e.g., that need a lot of debt fundraising and many prefer B2B SaaS startups. We like B2C a lot, we like operational plays i.e., not pure tech necessarily, plus we are comfortable with models that require a lot of debt raising in parallel to equity.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Founders with global aspirations that execute well a scalable model. The team and the market size are the two most important factors, and then a number of other factors: competition, timing/market trend, short- and long-term defensibility/USP, etc.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

Many markets/areas are oversaturated or would be too hard to compete — this however can vary on geography as well e.g., we have seen some great opportunities in LatAm for example that are “copy cats” of other models.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

The local ecosystem is always a priority. Also apart from local startups we are looking for Greek founders across the globe e.g., recently invested in a U.S.-based Greek founder. However given the size of our fund and opportunities out there we do not restrict our investments only in the local ecosystem. So far more than 50% has been in the local ecosystem (company or founder) however because we are an international (European mostly) VC more and more of our investments are from outside of the local ecosystem.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

Blueground is a great example that we are excited about. It is a proptech portfolio company of VentureFriends. It is a Greek company that we were first institutional investors in. Blueground has expanded globally (13 cities in U.S., Europe and Middle East) and raised more than $100 million so far.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

Athens and Greece in general is definitely an up-and-coming market. Each year there are more and large success stories that inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs. Capital availability is no longer a large issue (given the presence of multiple funds) and Greek has great and relatively cheap human capital — and great weather πŸ™‚

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

I do not necessarily expect this kind of change i.e., more founders coming from geographies outside major cities. However Greek talent — as mentioned, relatively cheap while of high quality plus the surge of remote work — indeed has created more demand and an increase in certain wages (e.g., developers).

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel tech is by far the most exposed vertical. In terms of opportunities given that startups are incumbents and digital solutions typically most verticals can present opportunities. Some obvious ones are edtech, delivery/logistic solutions, e-commerce, etc.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

No major change in our investment strategy whatsoever. Only slight change would be not to pursue travel tech opportunities (even though it depends on a case by case basis — we were very close in investing in a new startup in this sector amid the pandemic — they were doing amazingly well πŸ™‚ The advice to startups that are impacted is to weather the storm by trying to be cautious on burn on the one hand, but preserve as much as possible and build/work on things they have now more time to do so (housekeeping, product, etc.)

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

Of course, many if not most of them! Apart from our travel tech startups all others have grown in 2020 and recovered from the first major wave of the pandemic. Some specific ones from our portfolio even tippled in size (benefited from the pandemic) — this is the example of InstaShop that was sold to Delivery Hero for $360 million in 2020.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Even though 2020 was an extremely bad year on a health and economic basis, life goes on and many friends and family are getting married, having babies. I became an uncle for the third time, so there are some very happy and hopeful parts of life always.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally?

Founders are by far the most important ones, and then investors are important to support and finance them. But without founders there is nothing πŸ™‚ Blueground, Beat, eFood, Workable, Softomotive, Skroutz, Epignosis and of course InstaShop are some great examples with successful founders who have played an important role in inspiring the ecosystem.

Any other thoughts you want to share with TechCrunch readers?

There seems to be a general move from U.S. to Europe and from Europe to Eastern Europe, and from there to emerging markets e.g., LatAm and Asia. Undiscovered and less competitive ecosystems that are on the rise, like Greece, are expected to play a more significant role in the years to come πŸ™‚ We are excited about this.

Yorgos Mousmoulas, partner, Metavallon

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

Data/AI/analytics; renewable tech; mostly B2B.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Valk, a secure platform for trading unlisted assets on the Corda blockchain.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Great team; proprietary, defensible technology; first signs of traction.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

Marketplaces, B2C, food delivery, etc.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

About 50%. We also invest heavily in startups elsewhere in Europe (and beyond) having some connection to Greece, e.g., founders/investors/advisors, or having it among its target markets.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

Maritime; anything related to data and analytics.

Perceptual Robotoics (Kostas Karachalios)
Ferry Hopper (Christos Spatharakis)
Valk (Antoine Loth)

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

This is a rapidly growing ecosystem with quite a few exits in the past year (including our portfolio company Think Silicon, acquired by Applied Materials. We’re starting to see the familiar pattern of second-generation founders from the first-generation success stories. Connections to a worldwide diaspora are a strong plus. Operating/personnel costs are low for same quality.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

A lot of people from the Greek diaspora are basing themselves in Greece again, as they realize they can work from anywhere; also starting to attract international tech workers due to favorable climate, low costs, etc.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Tourism; anything requiring on-premises presence.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

We have continued to invest at the same pace, are just more cautious/selective vis-a-vis impacted sectors e.g., tourism, transportation. We have supported portfolio companies as needed with bridge rounds, etc.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

Yes. CreatorUp is doing tech-enabled remote video training and are seeing tremendous revenue growth under the circumstances.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Some of our companies continuing to close follow-on rounds, despite the COVID climate. Even in adversely affected sectors like tourism — that’s validation of the fundamental soundness of their business model.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally?

The NBG Seeds initiative by National Bank of Greece is a major organizer of events, get-togethers, etc. helping startups in the very early stages achieve some visibility — and not just in the major couple of cities.

Myrto Papathanou, founding partner, Metavallon

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

We mainly invest in early-stage B2B companies and are sector agnostic. Over 80% of our portfolio is from companies developing proprietary [technology] mainly using ML, AI, cloud, SaaS and analytics. So far we have invested in health, energy, security, logistics, media and enterprise software and tools companies.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

We just closed a follow on round led by Berlin-based Fly Ventures for one of our portcos, Better Origin. The bio startup is Cambridge- and Athens-based and developing the world’s first insect minifarm that converts local food waste into high-quality animal feed in the form of insect larvae. It’s solution combines automation and AI to replicate nature’s recycling system. Following impressive client demand, the recent funding will accelerate its operations and deploy their scalable solution to hundreds of farms across the U.K. and the world. We are very excited about what the company is developing and how fast they are progressing.

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

Europe and Greece in particular are amazing places to develop deep companies. The highly qualified and loyal workforce, value for money engineering, availability of nondilutive finance and newly introduced product skills, business acumen and entrepreneurial ambition are making it an exciting place for B2B startups. I would like to see more startups tackling energy and sustainability problems through technology, I think there is opportunity and the right momentum.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

We are looking for articulate, highly qualified engineers with a business acumen that can execute. Founders that have deep expertise in an industry and have identified the broken elements that their technology can disrupt.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

On the B2C space, where we are not active, it seems that there are many teams working on very narrow, niche problems. Even if successful, a lot of those in my humble opinion are very hard to create significant VC-type returns.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

We are very focused on Greece and also believe there is an amazing opportunity in the diaspora. People who left the country last decade, gained experience and know-how from other markets and are now seeing the opportunity to start their technology companies back home.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

We are excited about Athens-based Useberry, Prosperty and Loctio.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

The landscape for technology startups and investment in Greece has completely changed the last three years. The value of exits and unrealized value quadrupled in 2020 alone and there is great momentum at the moment. The presence of early-stage VCs on the ground also helps in terms of access to initial finance, validation of the business model and its scalability and a global outlook of the businesses. At Metavallon we are happy to have already co-invested with 20+ VCs, local, regional and international and over 40 angels, usually with vertical expertise and strategic interest in our portcos. There is still a lot of space. Finally some companies created last decade are scaling up and adding to the virtuous cycle of introducing previously missing skills, like product and biz dev and sales ops, in the market. The entire southeast of Europe is an overlooked market, which international investors are now waking up to.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Yes, for two reasons. First, the world is now flatter and access to capital and talent is location independent, as long as the technology built has global relevance. The pandemic has in fact created a mini-brain gain in Greece, with technology professionals coming back here and getting involved in startups as founders, executives and investors. Second, access to global talent and efficient remote work are making it hard to justify the costs mainly in human capital, but also peripheral like professional services and even real estate, that the traditional hubs demand. So I expect to see a surge in companies coming up from previously looked over locations.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Hospitality and travel are in for the long game in terms of weathering the effects of the pandemic. These sectors will need patient capital and a prolongment of their business plans. We were impressed to see one of our portcos, Ferry Hopper, that runs a ferry booking engine switch its operations overnight during the pandemic to focus on local customers and commuters as opposed to tourists. These companies will need quick reflexes and adaptability.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

We have had little impact in our investment strategy as we did not focus on B2C. In a way, investment in very early stages is affected the least as time to a large extend is spent on product and getting to product-market fit. Founders were initially worried about their runway and access to capital, a fear that didn’t really materialize. There is an opportunity on the business development side for B2B companies as clients have more urgency to digitalize, innovate and improve efficiencies. We are asking our companies to stay focused, keep an ear to the ground and their customers and be ready to adapt.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

With the exception of the first two months of the pandemic, retention and growth have not seemed so problematic. What we are seeing in cases are longer cycles in B2B sales, especially when clients are larger corporations in industry, health or the financial sector.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Schools reopened in Athens.

George Dimopoulos, founding partner, VentureFriends

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

Proptech, fintech, B2C and travel tech.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Spotawheel, an online used car sales business! First team of this category to have expanded successfully to a second market (Greece and Poland).

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

I wish I was able to see more fintech and especially insurtech startups coming from Greece. Insurance is a space that is long overdue for disruption.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Amazing team, huge market and a product that solves an actual problem i.e., the company to be able to offer a “must-have” type of solutions not “nice to have.”

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

It would be really hard to compete for a hardware startup since we don’t have the necessary background knowledge/expertise and our goal is not to bring just our checkbook at the table. We want to utilize our network, know-how and past experience for every investment we are being involved.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

As VentureFriends we are quite an outward-looking team having team members in other ecosystems also (U.K. and Poland). We will continue supporting Greek startups since we can’t afford to miss out on an amazing company from our own backyard but we will be investing actively across Europe and opportunistically even outside of Europe.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

We are big fans of B2C companies. Greek founders have demonstrated that they can use the Greek market as a sandbox and then expand internationally to bigger markets. Blueground (Greece, Turkey, UAE, USA) and Spotawheel (Greece, Poland) are just two recent examples.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

I wrote the first check as an angel back in 2011 to a Greek startup. Back then a round of $200,000 or an exit at $10 million was a big deal. Today these round sizes or exits below $50 million are not even raising an eyebrow. The aspirations and the confidence of Greek founders have changed dramatically, fueled by big rounds and quite notable exits that have taken place over the last couple of years. We believe that we are only a couple of years away from the first Greek unicorn!

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Not really. When it comes to the Greek ecosystem I think that the main 2-3 hubs will continue to churn out the majority of exciting and interesting Greek companies. The pandemic will be just a bad memory in 1-2 years from now. The need to surround yourself with other driven and capable people and the obvious benefits that come with this, will pretty much pull founders and talent at the cities where already there is a vibrant/active startup community. In the case of Greece these cities are Athens, Thessaloniki and Patra.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel tech has been and continues to be of interest to us. As you can imagine it has been hit very hard over the last year. We do believe though, that as soon as a meaningful percentage of the population gets vaccinated and life returns back to normal, travel will resume. First for leisure and eventually even for business reasons. The people who will have managed to weather these difficult 2019-2020 years will benefit a lot!

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

COVID-19 hasn’t really impacted our investment strategy. Investing in startups at seed stage is a quite long-term type of investment and commitment. Even if a company as we speak is facing some difficulties, the way we approach it in order to evaluate it is by looking at how the company will perform in a more stable environment and/or in a steady state.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

Somehow our portfolio seemed to have achieved a natural hedge. Indeed we had some companies that faced some difficult times while we had some others that were growing by high double-digit percentages month over month. The most obvious example was InstaShop (groceries on demand), our UAE investment into Greek founders where we saw the company triple in size in a matter of months and eventually bringing forward by 2-3 years our exit to Delivery Hero for $360 million.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

The exit of InstaShop to Delivery Hero for $360 million for sure has been the highlight of this year for us. It pretty much launched us to another level both as a fund and to an extent as a Greek ecosystem since it has set the precedent for current and future founders and has cemented the belief that a Greek team can indeed register a big international success.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally, whether investors, founders or even other types of startup ecosystems roles like lawyers, designers, growth experts, etc. We’re trying to highlight the movers and shakers who outsiders might not know.

The local office of Endeavor is definitely a group of people who someone must be connected to. They are very well-connected across the ecosystem of startup and with players of the traditional economy. They can really add value to a young company that is seeking ways to get in touch with more traditional business people.

Any other thoughts you want to share with TechCrunch readers?

If someone had told me in January 2019 that end of 2019 and the whole 2020-2021 we would be dealing with a pandemic, I would probably have tried to find a way to get access to antidepressants. However here we are today sort of getting a glimpse of the light at the end of the tunnel. On a global level, I think that overall governments and central banks have managed the situation better than expected and given the situation we are doing OK. On a more regional level, Greece beat expectations in terms of managing the pandemic while supporting the economy. We have had an excellent performance during the first wave and now during the second wave we are among the countries with the lower cases/population. The government has launched 4-5 rounds of supporting initiatives while also making Greece an attractive investment destination for direct investments. All these are very promising of what to expect from this country when things somehow normalize.

George Karantonis, partner, Metavallon

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

We are a horizontal fund understanding better the B2B biz model and focus in teams with a relation to Greece.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Biopix-T.

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

We would like to have invested in startups active in the wide blue economy sector.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

We are looking for more experienced teams with complete plans for aggressive market expansion.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

Tourism/hospitality has turned into a problematic sector these days — also most of the marketplace find it difficult to maintain customer traction.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

Well above 50% due to the nature of the funds under management (80% comes from GR structural funds and the EIF). Exception is companies founded abroad from members of the Greek diaspora, or they have/want to build some kind of activity in Greece.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term? What are companies you are excited about (your portfolio or not), which founders?

Everything that has to do with logistics, remote collaboration and training, health tech, as well as fintech.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

An ecosystem in an early accelerating growth stage with good quality of technical skills.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

This sounds like a reasonable scenario.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Tourism/hospitality, marketplaces. I believe founders should focus now more than ever on real/needs and problems.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

The concern is how difficult it would be to close rounds in this business environment. so far, we have made it, but as the crisis is prolonged it becomes more of a challenge. The advice is to start fundraising as soon as possible with more than usual reserves/runway.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

Yes — SaaS/cloud companies, health tech and digital productions companies are doing great.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

That we managed to have an exit and close one seed and two Series A rounds within the pandemic.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally, whether investors, founders or even other types of startup ecosystems roles like lawyers, designers, growth experts, etc. We’re trying to highlight the movers and shakers who outsiders might not know.

The difference here is that for the first time we have 4-6 funds focusing in early-stage tech startups.

Katerina Pramatari, founding partner, Uni.Fund

What trends are you most excited about investing in, generally?

Tech-transfer and broader tech space, retail tech, AI, analytics, IoT, SaaS.

What’s your latest, most exciting investment?

Kinvent.

Are there startups that you wish you would see in the industry but don’t? What are some overlooked opportunities right now?

Climate, environmental sustainability.

What are you looking for in your next investment, in general?

Passionate team with strong IP that has generated (limited) revenues to test the market.

Which areas are either oversaturated or would be too hard to compete in at this point for a new startup? What other types of products/services are you wary or concerned about?

B2C, especially in travel, tourism, culture.

How much are you focused on investing in your local ecosystem versus other startup hubs (or everywhere) in general? More than 50%? Less?

More than 80%.

Which industries in your city and region seem well-positioned to thrive, or not, long term?

Retail, tourism, shipping industry, agrofood. Companies I’m excited about: Kinvent, BibeCoffee, Flexcar, ExitBee, Tekmon, BeSpot, Cyrus, Nanoplasmas.

How should investors in other cities think about the overall investment climate and opportunities in your city?

Great momentum, ecosystem really growing, a lot of untapped potential especially around the universities and research space.

Do you expect to see a surge in more founders coming from geographies outside major cities in the years to come, with startup hubs losing people due to the pandemic and lingering concerns, plus the attraction of remote work?

Yes, already happening.

Which industry segments that you invest in look weaker or more exposed to potential shifts in consumer and business behavior because of COVID-19? What are the opportunities startups may be able to tap into during these unprecedented times?

Travel and tourism for sure. E-commerce and new service models from the positive direction.

How has COVID-19 impacted your investment strategy? What are the biggest worries of the founders in your portfolio? What is your advice to startups in your portfolio right now?

We were following a “cash-flow positive growth” strategy already before COVID and COVID had little impact on our portfolio. Some companies were seriously affected but turned this into an opportunity by unlocking new revenue streams. The overall sentiment among all our founders has been positive. Total portfolio revenues have increased by 4x since the start and 2x during COVID.

Are you seeing “green shoots” regarding revenue growth, retention or other momentum in your portfolio as they adapt to the pandemic?

We foresee a 5x revenue increase in the total portfolio in 2021, mainly driven by six companies.

What is a moment that has given you hope in the last month or so? This can be professional, personal or a mix of the two.

Significant contracts (of above $1 million value) signed by two companies, term sheet of above $1 million rejected, buy-out offer rejected, partial exit to a multinational consulting company of a small portion for great value, significant traction entering the U.S. market.

Who are key startup people you see creating success locally, whether investors, founders or even other types of startup ecosystems roles like lawyers, designers, growth experts, etc. We’re trying to highlight the movers and shakers who outsiders might not know.

Apostolos Apostolakis, Marco Veremis, Sotiris Papantonopoulos, Aristos Doxiadis, George Karantonis, myself for my role around universities and the research space, Angeliki Karagiannaki, Spyros Arsenis, Roula Bachtalia, George Nounesis, Dimitris Tsingos.

Any other thoughts you want to share with TechCrunch readers?

Greece is now developing its startup ecosystem and there is great momentum in the country. Apart from great people with high skills, big smiles and resilience, the country offers ideal conditions for the new model of working from home (sea, sun, great food and, hopefully soon after the pandemic, culture).

News: Two new efforts push to transform more people into limited partners of VC funds

Venture funds have historically counted on a few types of investors — or limited partners — for their investing capital. One of these groups is institutional investors — think pension funds, university endowments, hospital systems and the like. Another is corporations. A third bucket centers on the family offices of wealthy individuals. It’s a fairly

Venture funds have historically counted on a few types of investors — or limited partners — for their investing capital. One of these groups is institutional investors — think pension funds, university endowments, hospital systems and the like. Another is corporations. A third bucket centers on the family offices of wealthy individuals.

It’s a fairly small universe, in other words, but two new initiatives, both announced this week and both very different, are looking to change the equation — and could usher in similar efforts soon.

Arlan Hamilton came out with her news first. Hamilton is the founder of Backstage Capital, a venture firm focused on investing in startups founded by people of color, women, and teams with members from the LGBTQ community. In short, diversity is at its very core. But Hamilton, who is herself Black, isn’t interested in funding diverse founders alone; she is also interested in enabling more people from diverse backgrounds — including socioeconomically — to invest in venture capital as an asset class.

Toward that end, earlier this week, on the private investing platform Republic, she opened a new fund that anyone — including unaccredited investors — could back under a Securities and Exchange Commission rule called Reg CF, or Regulation Crowdfunding.

Hamilton hit the upper boundary of what Reg CF allows an outfit to raise — $1,070,000 within a 12-month period — in what seemed like hours from 2,790 investors who were invited to invest as little as $100. But more could be coming. The reason why: that rule underwent a change in November under former SEC chair Jay Clayton, and will next month begin allowing outfits to crowdsource up to $5 million. The process could be slowed down by the incoming SEC chief. (President Biden has appointed former regulator and former Goldman partner Gary Gensler, who must now receive Senate confirmation.) If it’s not, however, it’s easy to imagine more unaccredited investors being invited to fund other, and larger, venture funds soon.

Subhead

A second initiative this week has similar objectives to Hamilton — bringing more diverse investors into the ranks of limited partners — though it has a different approach and it’s targeting accredited investors only, which basically means individuals who are earning $200,000 a year and/or have a net worth of $1 million or more.

Launched by Acrew Capital — a Palo Alto- and San Francisco-based early-stage venture spearheaded by veteran VC Theresia Gouw — the firm revealed yesterday that it’s currently raising a traditional growth-stage fund with a twist. In addition to giving its current limited partners a crack at investing in the new fund, it is also opening the vehicle up to more women, people of color, and underrepresented individuals who may not have had a chance historically to invest in a later-stage private vehicle.

The key here is Acrew’s emphasis on growth-stage investing. While more women and people of color are breaking into the ranks of seed-stage investing, it takes a long time to make money with early-stage funding. Meanwhile, growth-stage funds are more exclusive because the companies they back are closer to an “exit” typically. That makes them very appealing to institutions — including mutual funds and hedge funds — which leaves a lot of room for the kinds of individuals who Acrew hopes to bring into the fold.

Like Backstage, diversity is in DNA of Acrew, which Gouw cofounded with Laura Kolodny, Vishal Lugani and Mark Kraynak, colleagues from their previous fund, Aspect Ventures.

It’s little surprise that the firm — which says 88% of its overall team is female and 63% comes from underrepresented backgrounds —  would be the first to publicly focus on pulling more women and people of color who are angel investors, board members, and C-level execs into the world of later-stage deals.

But it’s also strategic on the part of Acrew, which focuses largely on fintech and cybersecurity, and which has stakes in the highly valued challenger bank Chime, and the big data security analytics company Exabeam, among many others.

As Kolodny explains it, a growing number of companies is focused on enhancing diversity in the board room, and having an LP base filled individuals from underrepresented groups (with highly vetted networks), works out well for everyone involved.

In fact, it’s an approach that they hope won’t distinguish the firm for long, says Kolodny. “Our hope is that five years from now, a venture firm helping companies to add diverse independent board members and diverse executives won’t be a unique strategy.”

The hope,” she adds, “is [this effort] gets people to embrace a new standard around what is what is expected of venture firms.”

Pictured above: the members of Acrew Capital who are part of its first growth fund, which it has dubbed its Diversity Capital Fund.

News: Daily Crunch: Myanmar blocks Twitter and Instagram

Myanmar’s government extends its internet crackdown, Microsoft’s lobbying arm blacklists presidential election objectors and Dublin’s Frontline Ventures raises a new fund. This is your Daily Crunch for February 5, 2021. The big story: Myanmar blocks Twitter and Instagram The military government in Myanmar recently told telecom operators and internet service providers to block access to

Myanmar’s government extends its internet crackdown, Microsoft’s lobbying arm blacklists presidential election objectors and Dublin’s Frontline Ventures raises a new fund. This is your Daily Crunch for February 5, 2021.

The big story: Myanmar blocks Twitter and Instagram

The military government in Myanmar recently told telecom operators and internet service providers to block access to Facebook. Now it’s doing the same thing to Twitter and Instagram.

This comes after the military staged a coup in Myanmar to take power from the civilian government. The new government claims that Twitter and Instagram were being abused to spread propaganda and misinformation, posing a threat to the country’s stability.

Telenor Group, one of the country’s largest telecom providers, said in a statement that it is “gravely concerned with this development in Myanmar” and that “freedom of expression through access to communication services should be maintained at all times, especially during times of conflict.”

The tech giants

Microsoft PAC blacklists election objectors and shifts lobbying weight towards progressive organizations — After “pausing” political giving to any politician who voted to overturn the 2020 election, Microsoft has clarified changes to the lobbying policy of its employee-funded PAC.

Peloton will pump $100M into delivery logistics to ease supply concerns — Peloton has announced that it will invest more than $100 million in air and ocean freight deliveries due to “longer-than-acceptable wait times for the delivery of our products.”

PayPal is shutting down domestic payments business in India — It’s been less than four years since PayPal kickstarted local operations in the world’s second-largest internet market.

Startups, funding and venture capital

Dublin’s Frontline Ventures raises new $83.8M seed fund for European B2B startups — The firm is aiming to invest in up to 45 companies over the next four years.

BeGreatTV to offer MasterClass-like courses taught by Black and brown innovators — The courses are designed to teach folks how to execute and succeed in a particular industry.

Why these co-founders turned their sustainability podcast into a VC-backed business — These podcast co-hosts are turning validation from listeners into the blueprint for a standalone business called Brightly.

Advice and analysis from Extra Crunch

Lightspeed’s Gaurav Gupta and Grafana’s Raj Dutt discuss pitch decks, pricing and how to nail the narrative — The duo explained how they came together for Grafana’s Series A … and eventually, its Series B.

How the GameStop stonkathon helped Robinhood raise $3.4B last week — Robinhood has shown an impressive ability to raise enormous amounts of capital.

TechCrunch’s favorite companies from 500 Startups’ latest demo day — Startup picks from Alex Wilhelm and Jonathan Shieber.

(Extra Crunch is our membership program, which helps founders and startup teams get ahead. You can sign up here.)

Everything else

House punishes Republican lawmaker who promoted violent conspiracy theories — As the House moved to vote on the highly unusual resolution, Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that her embrace of QAnon was in the past.

‘Orwellian’ AI lie detector project challenged in EU court — This suit highlights questions of ethics and efficacy attached to the bloc’s flagship R&D program.

Learn about the importance of accessible product design at TechCrunch Sessions: Justice — At our event on March 3, we will examine the importance of ensuring accessible product design from the beginning.

The Daily Crunch is TechCrunch’s roundup of our biggest and most important stories. If you’d like to get this delivered to your inbox every day at around 3pm Pacific, you can subscribe here.

News: Extra Crunch roundup: 500 Startups’ demo day, smart SaaS pricing and much more

I’ve never used “stonkathon” in a headline before, but it’s been that kind of week.

Demo days at startup accelerators are a pretty big deal around here.

These events aren’t just a chance to review the latest cohort of hopeful entrepreneurs — they also showcase the technology, products and services that will compete for VC and consumer attention over the next few years.

You never know where a hit will come from, which is why these events capture our attention. Here’s just one example from Y Combinator’s Summer 2013 Demo Day:

Positioning itself as the “FedEx of today,” it hopes to provide a logistics framework that goes beyond food and can be used for any type of on-demand order.

That startup was DoorDash, by the way.


Full Extra Crunch articles are only available to members
Use discount code ECFriday to save 20% off a one- or two-year subscription


Full disclosure: In 2016, I was 500 Startups’ Journalist-in-residence. I covered one demo day in person, spending most of my time backstage where founder teams practiced their pitches.

It was quite a scene: Several people literally jumped up and down to shake off their nervous energy, but I also recall one who calmly recited their lines while gazing through a window.

Yesterday, Jon Shieber and Alex Wilhelm covered 500 Startups’ 27th virtual demo day and selected eight companies as their favorites:

  • Stack
  • Adapty
  • MightyFly
  • Omnitron Sensors
  • AWSM
  • Memechat
  • Ryu Games
  • Apothecary

Thank you very much for reading Extra Crunch this week! I hope you have a safe, relaxing weekend.

Walter Thompson
Senior Editor, TechCrunch
@yourprotagonist

TechCrunch’s favorite companies from 500 Startups’ latest demo day

Chick hatching from egg on egg tray

Image Credits: David Malan (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

How the GameStop stonkathon helped Robinhood raise $3.4B last week

I’ve never used “stonkathon” in a headline before, but it’s been that kind of week.

The war between hedge funds and day traders over GameStop vaulted discount trader Robinhood into the headlines for days.

But how did it affect the company’s financial health?

This morning, Alex Wilhelm examined why Robinhood’s investors were willing to inject $3.4 billion more into the company in just one week.

“More trades means more PFOF (payment for order flow) revenue,” says Alex. “And Robinhood effectively doubled in size.”

Udemy’s new president discusses the reskilling company’s future

Electronic signature on laptop. Business Esignature technology, digital form attached to electronically transmitted document, verification of intent to sign agreement, legal deal. Vector illustration

Image Credits: Andrew_Rybalko / Getty Images

Reporter Natasha Mascarenhas interviewed Greg Brown, new president of digital learning platform Udemy, after his company announced that it surpassed $100 million ARR.

A new arm of the company, Udemy for Business, just secured a 100,000-employee contract with Cisco Systems to offer software, business and technology courses.

“The opportunity that the company sees has really forced us to reallocate resources and strategy,” said Brown.

Why one Databricks investor thinks the company may be undervalued

After scaling its ARR to $425 million and reaching a valuation of $28 billion, data analytics company Databricks is clearly IPO-ready.

Battery Ventures has backed Databricks since 2017, so Alex Wilhelm interviewed General Partner Dharmesh Thakker to understand why he thinks the company may be undervalued.

“Whether it’s digital transformation, whether it’s analytics, data is everywhere,” said Thakker. “So the TAM is massive.”

4 strategies for deep tech founders who are fundraising

Laser Light Interrupted by Unfolded Book Shape of Paper.

Image Credits: MirageC (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Deep tech founders face special challenges when pitching investors: they usually don’t have a product, customers or revenue.

It’s difficult enough to ask a stranger for a check when there’s a beta product, but how do you drum up interest in an unproven idea that may exist largely in your imagination?

“Early-stage investors are in the business of funding dreams,” says angel investor Jessica Li.

“Investors are less interested in the intricacies of your technology and more interested in what impact it can create.”

Step one: use storytelling to highlight your big vision.

Edtech valuations aren’t skyrocketing, but investors see more exit opportunities

Above view of mom working on the laptop computer while her daughter reading the e-learning resources on the digital tablet in the workspace at home

Image Credits: Images by Tang Ming Tung (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Investors funded edtech startups with $10 billion last year as the pandemic forced widespread adoption of remote learning.

The valuations of these companies aren’t rising at the same rate as SaaS or fintech startups, but “where edtech lacks in impressive valuations, investors see it gaining in exit opportunities,” writes Natasha Mascarenhas.

For this edtech investor survey, she interviewed:

  • Deborah Quazzo, managing partner, GSV Ventures (an education fund backing ClassDojo, Degreed and Clever)
  • Ashley Bittner, founding partner, Firework Ventures (a future-of-work fund with portfolio companies LearnIn and TransfrVR)
  • Jomayra Herrera, principal, Cowboy Ventures (a generalist fund with portfolio companies Hone and Guild Education)
  • John Danner, managing partner, Dunce Capital (an edtech and future-of-work fund with portfolio companies Lambda School and Outschool)
  • Mercedes Bent and Bradley Twohig, partners, Lightspeed Venture Partners (a multistage generalist fund with investments including Forage, Clever and Outschool)
  • Ian Chiu, managing director, Owl Ventures (a large edtech-focused fund backing highly valued companies including BYJU’s, Newsela and MasterClass)
  • Jan Lynn-Matern, founder and partner, Emerge Education (a leading edtech seed fund in Europe with portfolio companies like Aula, Unibuddy and BibliU)
  • Benoit Wirz, partner, Brighteye Ventures (an active edtech-focused venture capital fund in Europe that backs YouSchool, Lightneer and Aula)
  • Charles Birnbaum, partner, Bessemer Venture Partners (a generalist fund with portfolio companies including Guild Education and Brightwheel)
  • Daniel Pianko, co-founder and managing director, University Ventures (a higher-ed and future-of-work fund that is backing Imbellus and AdmitHub)
  • Rebecca Kaden, managing partner, Union Square Ventures (a generalist fund with portfolio companies including TopHat, Quizlet and Duolingo)
  • Andreata Muforo, partner, TLcom Capital (a generalist fund backing uLesson)

Deep Science: AIs with high class and higher altitudes

Artificial Intelligence digital concept

Image Credits: MF3d (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

In his latest recap of recent breakthroughs in applied science, Devin Coldewey looked at how researchers are using AI to:

  • Categorize thousands of pieces of classical music
  • Read MRIs to spot patients with schizophrenia
  • Track elephant herds via satellite
  • Improve accessibility on mobile phones

Spotify Group Session UX teardown: the fails and their fixes

London, UK - July 31, 2018: The buttons of the music streaming app Spotify, surrounded by Podcasts, Apple Music, Facebook and other apps on the screen of an iPhone.

Image Credits: Getty Images

In the latest of a series of articles that examines user experiences for consumer apps, UX expert Peter Ramsey and TechCrunch reporter Steve O’Hear studied Spotify Group Session, the shared-queue feature that permits users to create playlists collaboratively.

“Many of these lessons can be applied to other existing digital products or ones you are currently building,” such as the need to add context for important decisions and how to best use “react and explain” prompts.

Lightspeed’s Gaurav Gupta and Grafana’s Raj Dutt discuss pitch decks, pricing and how to nail the narrative

Gaurav Gupta, Lightspeed Venture Partners + Raj Dutt, Grafana Labs

Extra Crunch Live returned this week with two guests: Lightspeed Venture Partners’ Gaurav Gupta and Raj Dutt, co-founder and CEO of Grafana Labs.

In addition to walking us through the presentation that encouraged Lightspeed to invest in Grafana’s Series A, the duo also gave direct feedback to audience members about their pitch decks.

Watch a video with our complete episode, or read highlights from the chat to get Gupta and Dutt’s insights on what goes into a successful pitch deck.

New episodes of Extra Crunch Live drop each Wednesday at 12 p.m. PST/3 p.m. EST/8 p.m. GMT.

Here’s a breakdown of the complete episode with Gaurav Gupta and Raj Dutt:

  • How they met — 2:00
  • Grafana’s early pitch deck — 12:00
  • The enterprise ecosystem — 25:00
  • The pitch deck teardown — 32:00

Subscription-based pricing is dead: Smart SaaS companies are shifting to usage-based models

paper plane made from a ten dollar bill

Paper plane made from a ten-dollar bill. Image Credits: LockieCurrie (opens in a new window)/ Getty Images

Some IT managers may still be debating the merits of usage-based pricing versus subscription-based models, but SaaS investors have made up their minds.

Compared to their rivals, companies that employ usage-based pricing trade at a 50% revenue multiple premium. You can argue with success, but seven out of the nine IPOs since 2018 with the best net dollar retention offer usage-based models.

If you’re a founder who hopes to break into the $100M ARR club, this guest post can help you identify the right usage metrics for creating a sustainable customer journey.

For more actionable advice regarding SaaS pricing and sales, see these previously published Extra Crunch stories:

Bumble IPO could raise more than $1B for dating service

How many dating networks can the public market support?

In Tuesday’s column, Alex Wilhelm examined the latest IPO filing from relationship-finding service Bumble.

The company set a range of $28 – $30 per share, so Alex set out to find its simple and diluted valuations, how much it expects investors to pay and “how those stack up compared to Match Group’s own numbers.”

Robinhood’s Q4 2020 revenue shows a return to growth

Discount brokerage Robinhood stayed in the news last week as it became a proxy battlefield for institutional and retail investors, but its backers “put in another billion just last week,” says Alex Wilhelm.

Why were investors so bullish after days of screaming headlines?

In yesterday’s column, Alex unpacked Robinhood’s Q4 2020 numbers, “which shows a return to sequential-quarterly growth at the trading upstart.”

Trading app Public drops payment for order flow in favor of tips

close up of man hand with digital tablet analyzing stock market graph at night

Image Credits: Towfiqu Photography / Getty Images

Before Redditors came after GameStop, zero-cost trading service Public says it was seeing “steady ~30%” month-over-month growth.

Last week, however, “new user signups went up 20x,” founders Leif Abraham and Jannick Malling told TechCrunch.

After closing a $65 million Series C, Public announced yesterday that it would “stop participating in the practice of Payment for Order Flow,” replacing PFOF with an “optional tipping feature.”

Customer advisory boards are a gold mine for startup brand champions

People figures with comment clouds above their heads. Commenting on feedback, participation in discussion. Brainstorming, fresh new ideas. Communication in civil society. Cooperation and Collaboration (People figures with comment clouds above their he

Image Credits: Andrii Yalanskyi (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Startups that don’t directly engage their earliest customers with purpose and intention are leaving money on the table.

Creating a Customer Advisory Board (CAB) is a proven method for soliciting product ideas, testing marketing plans and turning early users into loyal brand advocates.

Before you call a CAB, read this post to find out how to identify customers who’ll contribute real insights, establish goals and “pick members who play well together.”

Best practices as a service is a key investment theme to watch in 2021

Red and white stop sign on the wall. Image Credits: Karl Tapales (opens in a new window)/ Getty Images

Identity and access management company Okta announced in a study last week that its largest customers use an average of 175 different applications to manage their operations.

Managing Editor Danny Crichton says this “explosion of creativity and expressiveness and operational latitude” offers widespread benefits, but it’s “also a recipe for disaster,” since many end users aren’t well-trained when it comes to using these tools.

This enterprise version of the Tower of Babel creates an opening for companies that offer “best practices as a service,” says Danny. “The next generation of SaaS software has to take those abecedarian building blocks and forcibly guide users to using those tools in the best possible way.”

News: A look at how proptech startup Knotel went from a $1.6B valuation to filing for bankruptcy

This week, flexible workspace operator (and one-time unicorn) Knotel announced it had filed for bankruptcy and that its assets were being acquired by investor and commercial real estate brokerage Newmark for a reported $70 million. Knotel designed, built and ran custom headquarters for companies. It then managed the spaces with “flexible” terms. In March 2020,

This week, flexible workspace operator (and one-time unicorn) Knotel announced it had filed for bankruptcy and that its assets were being acquired by investor and commercial real estate brokerage Newmark for a reported $70 million.

Knotel designed, built and ran custom headquarters for companies. It then managed the spaces with “flexible” terms. In March 2020, it was reportedly valued at $1.6 billion.

At first glance, one might think that the WeWork rival, which had raised about $560 million since its 2016 inception, was another casualty of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

But New York-based Knotel was reportedly in trouble – facing a number of lawsuits and evictions – before the pandemic had even hit, according to multiple reports, such as this one in The Real Deal.

Jonathan Pasternak, a partner in the bankruptcy, restructuring and creditor rights group at New York-based Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, believes the company’s Chapter 11 filing was inevitable despite it reaching unicorn status after raising $400 million in Series C funding in August 2019.

“In addition to being grossly overvalued on the market, the company overextended itself with long term leases and lavish build-outs, leaving the company in significant debt while failing to ever turn a profit,” Pasternak wrote via email. “The pandemic exacerbated their vacancy situation, resulting in more than 35% vacancies in their 2.4 million square-foot NYC portfolio. The company overextended and likely ran out of cash.”

Newmark’s purchase of Knotel’s assets is an effort to recoup some of its investment, according to Pasternak.

Anytime a company that has raised more than half a billion dollars basically implodes, it’s worth taking a look at the roller coaster ride it was on before it got to that point.


2016

Virgin Mobile co-founder Amol Sarva and former VC Edward Shenderovich founded Knotel, essentially reversing the WeWork model. There’s hype around the company in its early days.

2017

Knotel raised a Series A round of $25 million in February from investors such as Peak State Ventures, Invest AG, Bloomberg Beta and 500 startups. It marketed its offering as “headquarters as a service” — or a flexible office space that could be customized for each tenant while also growing or shrinking as needed. 

2018

In April, Knotel announced the close of a $70 million Series B financing led by Newmark Knight Frank and The Sapir Organization. In August, the company told me that it was operating over 1 million square feet across 60 locations in New York, London, San Francisco and Berlin, and that it was on track to reach 2.5 million square feet and $100 million in revenue by year’s end. Revenue growth had increased by 300 percent year over year, according to the company. Customers and users and clients ranged from VC-backed startups Stash and HotelTonight to enterprise customers such as The Body Shop. 

“What they’re doing is different,” said Barry Gosin, CEO of Newmark Knight Frank, in a press release, at the time of the round. “It’s a new category the industry hasn’t seen and is rapidly adopting. We’ve watched their ascent from a distance and are now thrilled to join them on the journey. It marks a shift in how owners and tenants are coming together.”

2019

In August, Knotel announced the completion of a $400 million financing, led by Wafra, an investment arm of the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Kuwait. With the round, the company had achieved unicorn status and was being touted as a formidable WeWork competitor. At the time, Knotel said it operated more than 4 million square feet across more than 200 locations in New York, San Francisco, London, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Paris, Berlin, Toronto, Boston, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. 

In a statement at the time, CEO Sarva said: “Knotel is building the future of the workplace, and we are excited to welcome a group of investors who believe passionately in our product, vision and ability to execute. Wafra will help us continue our rapid global expansion and solidify our position as the leader in a fast-growing, trillion-dollar flexible office market.”

2020

In late March, Forbes reported that Knotel had laid off 30% of its workforce and furloughed another 20%, due to the impact of the coronavirus. At the time, it was valued at about $1.6 billion. 

The company had started the year with about 500 employees. By the third week of March, it had a headcount of 400. With the cuts, about 200 employees remained with the other 200 having either lost their jobs or on unpaid leave, according to Forbes. 

“Business as usual is over,” Amol Sarva, Knotel’s CEO and co-founder, said in a statement to Forbes. “Knotel has decided to take sharp action to prepare for the worst case — a long health and economic crisis.”

In the second quarter, Knotel’s revenue slipped by about 20% to about $59 million compared to the first quarter, reported Forbes. Multiple landlords had filed lawsuits against the company.

By July, Forbes had reported that Knotel was attempting to raise as much as $100 million, according to various sources “familiar with the matter.”

2021

Knotel filed for bankruptcy, agrees to sell assets to investor Newmark for a reported $70 million after being valued at $1.6 billion less than one year prior.

“Newmark’s commitment offers a path forward amidst this challenging climate,” CEO Sarva said in a statement. “We are optimistic that, through a successful restructuring, we can refocus on our mission of providing state-of-the-art, tailored flex space in key U.S. and international markets.”

To facilitate the transaction under Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, an affiliate of Newmark agreed to provide Knotel with about $20 million in cash as DIP financing to support Knotel through the bankruptcy process.

Just as the startup and VC world watched as WeWork lost a significant amount of value over the past two years, we’re paying attention to the demise of Knotel and wondering what this means for the flexible workspace sector. As much of the world continues to work from home and office buildings remain mostly vacant as this pandemic rages, our guess is that things will only get worse before they get better.

News: The SAFE TECH Act proposes Section 230 reform, but the law’s defenders warn of major side effects

The first major Section 230 reform proposal of the Biden era is out. In a new bill, Senate Democrats Mark Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) propose changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that would fundamentally change the 1996 law widely credited with cultivating the modern internet. Section 230

The first major Section 230 reform proposal of the Biden era is out. In a new bill, Senate Democrats Mark Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) propose changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that would fundamentally change the 1996 law widely credited with cultivating the modern internet.

Section 230 is a legal shield that protects internet companies from the user-generated content they host, from Facebook and TikTok to Amazon reviews and  comments sections. The new proposed legislation, known as the SAFE TECH Act, would do a few different things to change how that works.

First, it would fundamentally alter the core language of Section 230 — and given how concise that snippet of language is to begin with, any change is a big change. Under the new language, Section 230 would no longer offer protections in situations where payments are involved.

Here’s the current version:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information speech provided by another information content provider.”

And here are the changes the SAFE TECH Act would make:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any speech provided by another information content provider, except to the extent the provider or user has accepted payment to make the speech available or, in whole or in part, created or funded the creation of the speech.

(B) (c)(1)(A) shall be an affirmative defense to a claim alleging that an interactive computer service provider is a publisher or speaker with respect to speech provided by another information content provider that an interactive computer service provider has a burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence.

That might not sound like much, but it could be a massive change. In a tweet promoting the bill, Sen. Warner called online ads a “a key vector for all manner of frauds and scams” so homing in on platform abuses in advertising is the ostensible goal here. But under the current language, it’s possible that many other kinds of paid services could be affected, from Substack, Patreon and other kinds of premium online content to web hosting.

“A good lawyer could argue that this covers many different types of arrangements that go far beyond paid advertisements,” Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who authored a book about Section 230, told TechCrunch. “Platforms accept payments from a wide range of parties during the course of making speech ‘available’ to the public. The bill does not limit the exception to cases in which platforms accept payments from the speaker.”

Internet companies big and small rely on Section 230 protections to operate, but some of them might have to rethink their businesses if rules proposed in the new bill come to pass. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), one of Section 230’s original authors, noted that the new bill has some good intentions, but he issued a strong caution against the blowback its unintended consequences could cause.

“Unfortunately, as written, it would devastate every part of the open internet, and cause massive collateral damage to online speech,” Wyden told TechCrunch, likening the bill to a full repeal of the law with added confusion from a cluster of new exceptions.

“Creating liability for all commercial relationships would cause web hosts, cloud storage providers and even paid email services to purge their networks of any controversial speech,” Wyden said.

Fight for the Future Director Evan Greer echoed the sentiment that the bill is well intentioned but shared the same concerns. “…Unfortunately this bill, as written, would have enormous unintended consequences for human rights and freedom of expression,” Greer said.

“It creates a huge carveout in Section 230 that impacts not only advertising but essentially all paid services, such as web hosting and [content delivery networks], as well as small services like Patreon, Bandcamp, and Etsy.”

Given its focus on advertising and instances in which a company has accepted payment, the bill might be both too broad and too narrow at once to offer effective reform. While online advertising, particularly political advertising, has become a hot topic in recent discussions about cracking down on platforms, the vast majority of violent conspiracies, misinformation, and organized hate is the result of organic content, not the stuff that’s paid or promoted. It also doesn’t address the role of algorithms, a particular focus of a narrow Section 230 reform proposal in the House from Reps. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Tom Malinowski (D-NJ).

New exceptions

The other part of the SAFE TECH Act, which attracted buy-in from a number of civil rights organizations including the Anti-Defamation League, the Center for Countering Digital Hate and Color Of Change, does address some of those ills. By appending Section 230, the new bill would open internet companies to more civil liability in some cases, allowing victims of cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, discrimination and wrongful death to the opportunity to file lawsuits against those companies rather than blocking those kinds of suits outright.

The SAFE TECH Act would also create a carve-out allowing individuals to seek court orders in cases when an internet company’s handling of material it hosts could cause “irreparable harm” as well as allowing lawsuits in U.S. courts against American internet companies for human rights abuses abroad.

In a press release, Warner said the bill was about updating the 1996 law to bring it up to speed with modern needs:

“A law meant to encourage service providers to develop tools and policies to support effective moderation has instead conferred sweeping immunity on online providers even when they do nothing to address foreseeable, obvious and repeated misuse of their products and services to cause harm,” Warner said.

There’s no dearth of ideas about reforming Section 230. Among them: the bipartisan PACT Act from Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and John Thune (R-SD), which focuses on moderation transparency and providing less cover for companies facing federal and state regulators, and the EARN IT Act, a broad bill from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) that 230 defenders and internet freedom advocates regard as unconstitutional, overly broad and disastrous.

With so many proposed Section 230 reforms already floating around, it’s far from guaranteed that a bill like the SAFE TECH Act will prevail. The only thing that’s certain is we’ll be hearing a lot more about the tiny snippet of law with huge consequences for the modern internet.

News: The Founder Institute’s VC Lab is a free training program for budding venture capitalists

The Founder Institute isn’t just trying trying to help entrepreneurs launch new startups — with its new VC Lab, the accelerator says it’s also hoping to fuel the launch of 1,000 new venture capital funds. Fi co-founder Jonathan Greechan described this as an attempt to bring more “alignment” to the startup ecosystem.” “The thinking here

The Founder Institute isn’t just trying trying to help entrepreneurs launch new startups — with its new VC Lab, the accelerator says it’s also hoping to fuel the launch of 1,000 new venture capital funds.

Fi co-founder Jonathan Greechan described this as an attempt to bring more “alignment” to the startup ecosystem.”

“The thinking here is that if we can better align the startup and funding ecosystems towards impact, then we can create companies that are truly positive for humanity,” Greechan said.

In fact, FI has already held two sessions of the VC Lab, one in the spring of last year (which Greechan compared to a minimum viable product) and one in the summer-fall (which he compared to a beta test). Now the deadline to apply for the next cohort is coming up on February 14.

Greechan said that 48 funds have emerged from its most recent cohort and they’re on-track to raise a total of $100 million in the first quarter of this year.

While many of those funds are still in the fundraising process and cannot be disclosed publicly yet, he noted that one-third of those funds are being created by partners from underrepresented backgrounds and that more than half of them are focused on impact. And he pointed to Pacer Ventures — a $3 million fund targeting startups in sub-Saharan African — as an example of the kind of firm VC Lab is meant to support.

“What we found was that a lot of the issues that these new fund managers have are pretty similar to the issues that new entrepreneurs have,” Greechan said. “They don’t understand the sequence of steps to actually get them off the ground.”

VC Lab is meant to help them understand those steps, with a curriculum that includes webinars, virtual office hours and conversations on Slack. Participants are also required to take The Mensarius Oath, which commits them to a number of values including endeavoring “to help create positive outcomes for all of humanity” and opposing “any abuse of power that leads to unfair advantage, seduction, corruption or mistreatment.”

The program is free, although participants can also pay $500 a month for access to “premium office hours.” Founders Institute/VC Lab isn’t participating in the funds financially.

When I asked about the business model, Greechan said, “We’re not looking at this necessarily as the next phase of our business. We’ve been fostering this community of people building interesting and impactful companies, and now we’re making sure that we build a correlated community of people funding impactful companies. It’s not for charity, but there’s long-term benefits that we see for all of our grads.”

News: Microsoft PAC blacklists election objectors and shifts lobbying weight towards progressive organizations

After “pausing” political giving to any politician who voted to overturn the 2020 election, Microsoft has clarified changes to its lobbying policy, doubling down on its original intention and changing gears with an eye towards funding impactful organizations. Microsoft, along with most other major companies in the tech sector and plenty others, announced a halt

After “pausing” political giving to any politician who voted to overturn the 2020 election, Microsoft has clarified changes to its lobbying policy, doubling down on its original intention and changing gears with an eye towards funding impactful organizations.

Microsoft, along with most other major companies in the tech sector and plenty others, announced a halt to political donations in the chaotic wake of the capitol riots and subsequent partisan clashes over the legitimacy of the election.

At the time, Microsoft said that it often pauses donations during the transition to a new Congress, but in this case it would only resume them “until after it assesses the implications of last week’s events” and “consult[s] with employees.”

Assessing and consulting can take a long time, especially in matters of allocating cash in politics, but Microsoft seems to have accomplished their goal in relatively short order. In a series of sessions over the last two weeks involving over 300 employees who contribute to the PAC, the company arrived at a new strategy that reflects their priorities.

In a word, they’re blacklisting any Senator, Representative, government official, or organization that voted for or supported the attempt to overturn the election. Fortunately there doesn’t seem to be a lot of grey area here, which simplifies the process somewhat. This restriction will remain in place until the 2022 election — which, frighteningly, happens next year.

In fact, as an alternative to donating to individual candidates and politicians in the first place, the PAC will establish a new fund to “support organizations that promote public transparency, campaign finance reform, and voting rights.”

More details on this are forthcoming, but it’s a significant change from direct support of candidates to independent organizations. One hardly knows what a candidate’s fund goes to (Superbowl ads this time of year), but giving half a million bucks to a group challenging voter suppression and gerrymandering in a hotly contested district can make a big difference. (Work like this on a large scale helped tip Georgia from red to blue, for instance, and it didn’t happen overnight, or for free.)

There’s even a hint of a larger change in the offing, as Microsoft’s communications head Frank X. Shaw suggests in the blog post that “we believe there is an opportunity to learn and work together” with like-minded companies and PACs. If that isn’t a sly invitation to create a coalition of the like-minded I don’t know what is.

The company also will be changing the name of the PAC to the Microsoft Corporation Voluntary PAC to better communicate that it’s funded by voluntary contributions from employees and stakeholders and isn’t just a big corporate lobbying slush fund.

As we saw around the time of the original “pause,” and indeed with many other actions in the tech industry over the last year, it’s likely that one large company (in this case Microsoft) getting specific with its political moves will trigger more who just didn’t want to be the first to go. It’s difficult to predict exactly what the long-term ramifications of these changes will be (as they are still quite general and tentative) but it seems safe to say that the political funding landscape of the next election period will look quite a bit different from the last one.

News: β€˜Orwellian’ AI lie detector project challenged in EU court

A legal challenge was heard today in Europe’s Court of Justice in relation to a controversial EU-funded research project using artificial intelligence for facial ‘lie detection’ with the aim of speeding up immigration checks. The transparency lawsuit against the EU’s Research Executive Agency (REA), which oversees the bloc’s funding programs, was filed in March 2019

A legal challenge was heard today in Europe’s Court of Justice in relation to a controversial EU-funded research project using artificial intelligence for facial ‘lie detection’ with the aim of speeding up immigration checks.

The transparency lawsuit against the EU’s Research Executive Agency (REA), which oversees the bloc’s funding programs, was filed in March 2019 by Patrick Breyer, MEP of the Pirate Party Germany and a civil liberties activist — who has successfully sued the Commission before over a refusal to disclose documents.

He’s seeking the release of documents on the ethical evaluation, legal admissibility, marketing and results of the project. And is hoping to set a principle that publicly funded research must comply with EU fundamental rights — and help avoid public money being wasted on AI ‘snake oil’ in the process.

“The EU keeps having dangerous surveillance and control technology developed, and will even fund weapons research in the future, I hope for a landmark ruling that will allow public scrutiny and debate on unethical publicly funded research in the service of private profit interests,” said Breyer in a statement following today’s hearing. “With my transparency lawsuit, I want the court to rule once and for all that taxpayers, scientists, media and Members of Parliament have a right to information on publicly funded research — especially in the case of pseudoscientific and Orwellian technology such as the ‘iBorderCtrl video lie detector’.”

The court has yet to set a decision date on the case but Breyer said the judges questioned the agency “intensively and critically for over an hour” — and revealed that documents relating to the AI technology involved, which have not been publicly disclosed but had been reviewed by the judges, contain information such as “ethnic characteristics”, raising plenty of questions.

The presiding judge went on to query whether it wouldn’t be in the interests of the EU research agency to demonstrate that it has nothing to hide by publishing more information about the controversial iBorderCtrl project, per Breyer.

AI ‘lie detection’

The research in question is controversial because the notion of an accurate lie detector machine remains science fiction, and with good reason: There’s no evidence of a ‘universal psychological signal’ for deceit.

Yet this AI-fuelled commercial R&D ‘experiment’ to build a video lie detector — which entailed testers being asked to respond to questions put to them by a virtual border guard as a webcam scanned their facial expressions and the system sought to detect what an official EC summary of the project describes as “biomarkers of deceit” in an effort to score the truthfulness of their facial expressions (yes, really🤦‍♀️) — scored over €4.5M/$5.4M in EU research funding under the bloc’s Horizon 2020 scheme.

The iBorderCtrl project ran between September 2016 and August 2019, with the funding spread between 13 private or for-profit entities across a number of Member States (including the UK, Poland, Greece and Hungary).

Public research reports the Commission said would be published last year, per a written response to Breyer’s questions challenging the lack of transparency, do not appear to have seen the light of day yet.

Back in 2019 The Intercept was able to test out the iBorderCtrl system for itself. The video lie detector falsely accused its reporter of lying — judging she had given four false answers out of 16, and giving her an overall score of 48 which it reported that a policeman who assessed the results said triggered a suggestion from the system she should be subject to further checks (though was not as the system was never run for real during border tests).

The Intercept said it had to file a data access request — a right that’s established in EU law — in order to obtain a copy of the reporter’s results. Its report quoted Ray Bull, a professor of criminal investigation at the University of Derby, who described the iBorderCtrl project as “not credible” — given the lack of n evidence that monitoring microgestures on people’s faces is an accurate way to measure lying.

“They are deceiving themselves into thinking it will ever be substantially effective and they are wasting a lot of money. The technology is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what humans do when being truthful and deceptive,” Bull also told it.

The notion that AI can automagically predict human traits if you just pump in enough data is distressingly common — just look at recent attempts to revive phrenology by applying machine learning to glean ‘personality traits’ from face shape. So a face-scanning AI ‘lie detector’ sits in a long and ignoble anti-scientific ‘tradition’.

In the 21st century it’s frankly incredible that millions of euros of public money are being funnelled into rehashing terrible old ideas — before you even consider the ethical and legal blindspots inherent in the EU funding research that runs counter to fundamental rights set out in the EU’s charter. When you consider all the bad decisions involved in letting this fly it looks head-hangingly shameful.

The granting of funds to such a dubious application of AI also appears to ignore all the (good) research that has been done showing how data-driven technologies risk scaling bias and discrimination.

We can’t know for sure, though, because only very limited information has been released about how the consortia behind iBorderCtrl assessed ethics considerations in their experimental application — which is a core part of the legal complaint.

The challenge in front of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg poses some very awkward questions for the Commission: Should the EU be pouring taxpayer cash into pseudoscientific ‘research’? Shouldn’t it be trying to fund actual science? And why does its flagship research program — the jewel in the EU crown — have so little public oversight?

The fact that a video lie detector made it through the EU’s ‘ethics self-assessment‘ process, meanwhile, suggests the claimed ‘ethics checks’ aren’t worth a second glance.

“The decision on whether to accept [an R&D] application or not is taken by the REA after Member States representatives have taken a decision. So there is no public scrutiny, there is no involvement of parliament or NGOs. There is no [independent] ethics body that will screen all of those projects. The whole system is set up very badly,” says Breyer.

“Their argument is basically that the purpose of this R&D is not to contribute to science or to do something for public good or to contribute to EU policies but the purpose of these programs really is to support the industry — to develop stuff to sell. So it’s really supposed to be an economical program, the way it has been devised. And I think we really actually need a discussion about whether this is right, whether this should be so.”

“The EU’s about to regulate AI and here it is actually funding unethical and unlawful technologies,” he adds.

No external ethics oversight

Not only does it look hypocritical for the EU to be funding rights-hostile research but — critics contend — it’s a waste of public money that could be spend on genuinely useful research (be it for a security purpose or, more broadly, for the public good; and for furthering those ‘European values’ EU lawmakers love to refer to).

“What we need to know and understand is that research that will never be used because it doesn’t work or it’s unethical or it’s illegal, that actually wastes money for other programs that would be really important and useful,” argues Breyer.

“For example in the security program you could maybe do some good in terms of police protective gear. Or maybe in terms of informing the population in terms of crime prevention. So you could do a lot of good if these means were used properly — and not on this dubious technology that will hopefully never be used.”

The latest incarnation of the EU’s flagship research and innovation program, which takes over from Horizon 2020, has a budget of ~€95.5BN for the 2021-2027 period. And driving digital transformation and developments in AI are among the EU’s stated research funding priorities. So the pot of money available for ‘experimental’ AI looks massive.

But who will be making sure that money isn’t wasted on algorithmic snake oil — and dangerous algorithmic snake oil in instances where the R&D runs so clearly counter to the EU’s own charter of fundamental human rights?

The European Commission declined multiple requests for spokespeople to talk about these issues but it did send some on the record points (below), and some background information regarding access to documents which is a key part of the legal complaint.

Among the Commission’s on the record statements on ‘ethics in research’, it started with the claim that “ethics is given the highest priority in EU funded research”.

“All research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must comply with ethical principles and relevant national, EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights,” it also told us, adding: “All proposals undergo a specific ethics evaluation which verifies and contractually obliges the compliance of the research project with ethical rules and standards.”

It did not elaborate on how a ‘video lie detector’ could possibly comply with EU fundamental rights — such as the right to dignity, privacy, equality and non-discrimination.

And it’s worth noting that the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has raised concerns about misalignment between EU-funded scientific research and data protection law, writing in a preliminary opinion last year: “We recommend intensifying dialogue between data protection authorities and ethical review boards for a common understanding of which activities qualify as genuine research, EU codes of conduct for scientific research, closer alignment between EU research framework programmes and data protection standards, and the beginning of a debate on the circumstances in which access by researchers to data held by private companies can be based on public interest”.

On the iBorderCtrl project specifically the Commission told us that the project appointed an ethics advisor to oversee the implementation of the ethical aspects of research “in compliance with the initial ethics requirement”. “The advisor works in ways to ensure autonomy and independence from the consortium,” it claimed, without disclosing who the project’s (self-appointed) ethics advisor is.

“Ethics aspects are constantly monitored by the Commission/REA during the execution of the project through the revision of relevant deliverables and carefully analysed in cooperation with external independent experts during the technical review meetings linked to the end of the reporting periods,” it went on, adding that: “A satisfactory ethics check was conducted in March 2019.”

It did not provide any further details about this self-regulatory “ethics check”.

“The way how it works so far is basically some expert group that the Commission sets up with propose/call for tender,” says Breyer, discussing how the EU’s research program is structured. “It’s dominated by industry experts, it doesn’t have any members of parliament in there, it only has — I think — one civil society representative in it, so that’s falsely composed right from the start. Then it goes to the Research Executive Agency and the actual decision is taking by representatives of the Member States.

“The call [for research proposals] itself doesn’t sound so bad if you look it up — it’s very general — so the problem really was the specific proposal that they proposed in response to it. And these are not screened by independent experts, as far as I understand it. The issue of ethics is dealt with by self assessment. So basically the applicant is supposed to indicate whether there is a high ethical risk involved in the project or not. And only if they indicate so will experts — selected by the REA — do an ethics assessment.

“We don’t know who’s been selected, we don’t know their opinions — it’s also being kept secret — and if it turns out later that a project in unethical it’s not possible to revoke the grant.”

The hypocrisy charge comes in sharply here because the Commission is in the process of shaping risk-based rules for the application of AI. And EU lawmakers have been saying for years that artificial intelligence technologies need ‘guardrails’ to make sure they’re applied in line with regional values and rights.

Commission EVP Margrethe Vestager has talked about the need for rules to ensure artificial intelligence is “used ethically” and can “support human decisions and not undermine them”, for example.

Yet EU institutions are simultaneously splashing public funds on AI research that would clearly be unlawful if implemented in the region, and which civil society critics decry as obviously unethical given the lack of scientific basis underpinning ‘lie detection’.

In an FAQ section of the iBorderCtrl website, the commercial consortia behind the project concedes that real-world deployment of some of the technologies involved would not be covered by the existing EU legal framework — adding that this means “they could not be implemented without a democratic political decision establishing a legal basis”.

Or, put another way, such a system would be illegal to actually use for border checks in Europe without a change in the law. Yet European taxpayer funding was nonetheless ploughed in.

A spokesman for the EDPS declined to comment on Breyer’s case specifically but he confirmed that its preliminary opinion on scientific research and data protection is still relevant.

He also pointed to further related work which addresses a recent Commission push to encourage pan-EU health data sharing for research purposes — where the EDPS advises that data protection safeguards should be defined “at the outset” and also that a “thought through” legal basis should be established ahead of research taking place.

The EDPS recommends paying special attention to the ethical use of data within the [health data sharing] framework, for which he suggests taking into account existing ethics committees and their role in the context of national legislation,” the EU’s chief data supervisor writes, adding that he’s “convinced that the success of the [health data sharing plan] will depend on the establishment of a strong data governance mechanism that provides for sufficient assurances of a lawful, responsible, ethical management anchored in EU values, including respect for fundamental rights”.

tl;dr: Legal and ethical use of data must be the DNA of research efforts — not a check-box afterthought.

Unverifiable tech

In addition to a lack of independent ethics oversight of research projects that gain EU funding, there is — currently and worryingly for supposedly commercially minded research — no way for outsiders to independently verify (or, well, falsify) the technology involved.

In the case of the iBorderCtrl tech no meaningful data on the outcomes of the project has been made public and requests for data sought under freedom of information law have been blocked on commercial interest grounds.

Breyer has been trying without success to obtain information about the results of the project since it finished in 2019. The Guardian reported in detail on his fight back in December.

Under the legal framework wrapping EU research he says there’s only a very limited requirement to publish information on project outcomes — and only long after the fact. His hope is thus that the Court of Justice will agree ‘commercial interests’ can’t be used to over-broadly deny disclosure of information in the public interest.

“They basically argue there is no obligation to examine whether a project actually works so they have the right to fund research that doesn’t work,” he tells TechCrunch. “They also argue that basically it’s sufficient to exclude access if any publication of the information would damage the ability to sell the technology — and that’s an extremely wide interpretation of commercially sensitive information.

“What I would accept is excluding information that really contains business secrets like source code of software programs or internal calculations or the like. But that certainly shouldn’t cover, for example, if a project is labelled as unethical. It’s not a business secret but obviously it will harm their ability to sell it — but obviously that interpretation is just outrageously wide.”

“I’m hoping that this [legal action] will be a precedent to clarify that information on such unethical — and also unlawful if it were actually used or deployed — technologies, that the public right to know takes precedence over the commercial interests to sell the technology,” he adds. “They are saying we won’t release the information because doing so will diminish the chances of selling the technology. And so when I saw this then I said well it’s definitely worth going to court over because they will be treating all requests the same.”

Civil society organizations have also been thwarted in attempts to get detailed information about the iBorderCtrl project. The Intercept reported in 2019 that researchers at the Milan-based Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights used freedom of information laws to obtain internal documents about the iBorderCtrl system, for example, but the hundreds of pages they got back were heavily redacted — with many completely blacked out.

“I’ve heard from [journalists] who have tried in vain to find out about other dubious research projects that they are massively withholding information. Even stuff like the ethics report or the legal assessment — that’s all stuff that doesn’t contain any commercial secrets, as such,” Breyer continues. “It doesn’t contain any source code, nor any sensitive information — they haven’t even released these partially.

“I find it outrageous that an EU authority [the REA] will actually say we don’t care what the interest is in this because as soon as it could diminish sales then we will withhold the information. I don’t think that’s acceptable, both in terms of taxpayers’ interests in knowing about what their money is being used for but also in terms of the scientific interest in being able to test/to verify these experiments on the so called ‘deception detection’ — which is very contested if it really works. And in order to verify or falsify it scientists of course need to have access to the specifics about these trials.

“Also democratically speaking if ever the legislator wants to decide on the introduction of such a system or even on the framing of these research programs we basically need to know the details — for example what was the number of false positives? How well does it really work? Does it have a discriminatory effect because it works less well on certain groups of people such as facial recognition technology. That’s all stuff that we really urgently need to know.”

Regarding access to documents related to EU-funded research the Commission referred us to Regulation no. 1049/2001 — which it said “lays down the general principles and limits” — though it added that “each case is analysed carefully and individually”.

However the Commission’s interpretation of the regulations of the Horizon program appears to entirely exclude the application of the freedom of information — at least in the iBorderCtrl project case.

Per Breyer, they limit public disclosure to a summary of the research findings — that can be published some three or four years after the completion of the project.

“You’ll see an essay of five or six pages in some scientific magazine about this project and of course you can’t use it to verify or falsify the technology,” he says. “You can’t see what exactly they’ve been doing — who they’ve been talking to. So this summary is pretty useless scientifically and to the public and democratically and it takes ages. So I hope that in the future we will get more insight and hopefully a public debate.”

The EU research program’s legal framework is secondary legislation. So Breyer’s argument is that a blanket clause about protecting ‘commercial interests’ should not be able to trump fundamental EU rights to transparency. But of course it will be up to the court to decide.

“I think I stand some good chance especially since transparency and access to information is actually a fundamental right in the EU — it’s in the EU charter of fundamental rights. And this Horizon legislation is only secondary legislation — they can’t deviate from the primary law. And they need to be interpreted in line with it,” he adds. “So I think the court will hopefully say that this is applicable and they will do some balancing in the context of the freedom of information which also protects commercial information but subject to prevailing public interests. So I think they will find a good compromise and hopefully better insight and more transparency.

“Maybe they’ll blacken out some parts of the document, redact some of it but certainly I hope that in principle we will get access to that. And thereby also make sure that in the future the Commission and the REA will have to hand over most of the stuff that’s been requested on this research. Because there’s a lot of dubious projects out there.”

A better system of research project oversight could start by having the committee that decides on funding applications not being comprised of mostly industry and EU Member State representatives (who of course will always want EU cash to come to their region) — but also parliamentary representatives, more civil society representatives and scientists, per Breyer.

“It should have independent participants and those should be the majority,” he says. “That would make sense to steer the research activities in the direction of public good, of compliance with our values, of useful research — because what we need to know and understand is research that will never be used because it doesn’t work or it’s unethical or it’s illegal, that wastes money for other programs that would be really important and useful.”

He also points to a new EU research program being set up that’s focused on defence — under the same structure, lacking proper public scrutiny of funding decisions or information disclosure, noting: “They want to do this for defence as well. So that will be even about lethal technologies.”

To date the only disclosures around iBorderCtrl have been a few parts of the technical specifications of its system and some of a communications report, per Breyer, who notes that both were ‘heavily redacted”.

“They don’t say for example which border agencies they have introduced this system to, they don’t say which politicians they’ve been talking to,” he says. “The interesting thing actually is that part of this funding is also presenting the technology to border authorities in the EU and politicians. Which is very interesting because the Commission keeps saying look this is only research; it doesn’t matter really. But in actual fact they are already using the project to promote the technology and the sales of it. And even if this is never used at EU borders funding the development will mean that it could be used by other governments — it could be sold to China and Saudi Arabia and the like.

“And also the deception detection technology — the company that is marketing it [a Manchester-based company called Silent Talker Ltd] — is also offering it to insurance companies, or to be used on job interviews, or maybe if you apply for a loan at a bank. So this idea that an AI system would be able to detect lies risks being used in the private sector very broadly and since I’m saying that it doesn’t work at all and it’s basically a lottery lots of people risk having disadvantages from this dubious technology.”

“It’s quite outrageous that nobody prevents the EU from funding such ‘voodoo’ technology,” he adds.

The Commission told us that “The Intelligent Portable Border Control System” (aka iBorderCtrl) “explored new ideas on increasing efficiency, convenience and security of land border crossing”, and like all security research projects it was “aimed at testing new ideas and technologies to address security challenges”.

“iBorderCtrl was not expected to deliver ready-made technologies or products. Not all research projects lead to the development of technologies with real-world applications. Once research projects are over, it is up to Member States to decide whether they want to further research and/or develop solutions studied by the project,” it also said. 

It also pointed out that specific application of any future technology “will always have to respect EU and national law and safeguards, including on fundamental rights and the EU rules on the protection of personal data”.

However Breyer also calls foul on the Commission seeking to deflect public attention by claiming ‘it’s only R&D’ or that it’s not deciding on the use of any particular technology. “Of course factually it creates pressure on the legislator to agree to something that has been developed if it turns out to be useful or to work,” he argues. “And also even if it’s not used by the EU itself it will be sold somewhere else — and so I think the lack of scrutiny and ethical assessment of this research is really scandalous. Especially as they have repeatedly developed and researched surveillance technologies — including mass surveillance of public spaces.”

“They have projects on Internet on bulk data collection and processing of Internet data. The security program is very problematic because they do research into interferences with fundamental rights — with the right to privacy,” he goes on. “There are no limitations really in the program to rule out unethical methods of mass surveillance or the like. And not only are there no material limitations but also there is no institutional set-up to be able to exclude such projects right from the beginning. And then even once the programs have been devised and started they will even refuse to disclose access to them. And that’s really outrageous and as I said I hope the court will do some proper balancing and provide for more insight and then we can basically trigger a public debate on the design of these research schemes.”

Pointing again to the Commission’s plan to set up a defence R&D fund under the same industry-centric decision-making structure — with a “similarly deficient ethics appraisal mechanism” — he notes that while there are some limits on EU research being able to fund autonomous weapons, other areas could make bids for taxpayer cash — such as weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons.

“So this will be hugely problematic and will have the same issue of transparency, all the more of course,” he adds.

On transparency generally, the Commission told us it “always encourages projects to publicise as much as possible their results”. While, for iBorderCtrl specifically, it said more information about the project is available on the CORDIS website and the dedicated project website.

If you take the time to browse to the ‘publications‘ page of the iBorderCtrl website you’ll find a number of “deliverables” — including an “ethics advisor”; the “ethic’s advisor’s first report”; an “ethics of profiling, the risk of stigmatization of individuals and mitigation plan”; and an “EU wide legal and ethical review report” — all of which are listed as “confidential”.

News: Why these co-founders turned their sustainability podcast into a VC-backed business

When Laura Wittig and Liza Moiseeva met as guests on a podcast about sustainable fashion, they jibed so well together that they began one of their own: Good Together. Their show’s goal was to provide listeners with a place to learn how to be eco-conscious consumers, but with baby steps. Wittig thinks the non-judgmental environment

When Laura Wittig and Liza Moiseeva met as guests on a podcast about sustainable fashion, they jibed so well together that they began one of their own: Good Together. Their show’s goal was to provide listeners with a place to learn how to be eco-conscious consumers, but with baby steps.

Wittig thinks the non-judgmental environment (one that doesn’t knock on a consumer for not being zero-waste overnight) is the show’s biggest differentiator. “Then, people were emailing us and asking how they can be on our journey beyond being a listener,” Wittig said. Now, over a year after launching the show, the co-hosts are turning validation from listeners into the blueprint for a standalone business: Brightly.

Brightly is a curated platform that sells vetted eco-friendly goods and shares tips about conscious consumerism. While the startup is launching with more than 200 products from eco-friendly brands, such as Sheets & Giggles and Juice Beauty, the long-term vision is to start their own commerce brand of Brightly-branded products. The starting lineup will include two to four products in the home space.

To get those products out by the holiday season, Brightly tells TechCrunch that it has raised $1 million in venture funding from investors, including Tacoma Venture Fund, Keeler Investments, Odile Roujol (a FAB Ventures backer and former L’Oréal CEO) and Female Founder’s Alliance.

The funding caps off a busy 12 months for Brightly. The startup has gone through Snap’s Yellow accelerator, an in-house effort from the social media company that began in 2018. As part of the program Snap invests $150,000 in each Yellow startup for an equity stake. The company also did Ready Set Raise, an equity-free accelerator put on by Female Founders Alliance, in the fall.

With new funding, Brightly is seeking to take a Glossier-style approach to become the next big brand in commerce: gather a community by recommending great products, then turn the strategy on its head and make your superfans buy in-house products under the same brand.

“We have access to a community of women who are beating our door down to shop directly with us and have exclusive products made for them,” Wittig said.

Brightly wants to be more than a “boring storefront” one could quickly whip up on Shopify or Amazon, Wittig says.

The company’s curation process, which every product goes through before being listed on the platform, is extensive. The startup makes sure that every product is created with sustainable and ethical supply chain processes and sustainable material. The team also interviews every brand’s founders to understand the genesis of any product that lives on the Brightly platform. The co-founders also weigh the durability and longevity of products, adopting what Wittig sees as a “Wirecutter approach.”

“It’s more like, ‘why would we pick an ethically produced leather handbag over something that might be made not from leather but wouldn’t last too long necessarily,’ ” she said. “These are the conversations we have with our audience, because the term eco-friendly is very much our grayscale.”

Image Credits: Brightly

More than 250,000 people come to Brightly, either through their app or website, every day, according to Wittig. The startup monetizes largely through brand partnerships and getting those users in front of paid products.

Image Credits: Brightly

The monetization strategy is similar to what you might find a podcast use: affiliate links or product placement mid-episode. But while the co-founders are relying on this strategy right now, they see the opportunity to create their own e-commerce company as larger and more lucrative.

“The billion-dollar opportunity is not with that,” Wittig said. “The value will be going direct commerce and selling our picks of ethical sustainable goods.”

Marking the transition from podcasting about eco-friendly goods to creating them in-house is a strong pivot. The co-founders consider creating a distribution commerce channel to be a larger opportunity and likely more lucrative than the podcasting business.

Beyond creating a line of their own products, Brightly is thinking about how to partner with white-label sustainable products. Another option, Wittig said, is to partner with big corporations to get products on their shelves with colors and customization for Brightly. An example of an ideal partnership would be Reformation’s recent partnership with Blueland.

Wittig declined to share more details on how they plan to win, but likened the strategy to that of Goop or Glossier, two companies that started with content arms and drew their community into a commerce platform.

“It’s not going to be a Thrive Market where there are hundreds and thousands of sustainable goods on there. It’s going to be much more curated,” she said.

COVID-19 has helped the startup further validate the need for a platform that unites a conscious consumer community.

“We are all so aware of the purchasing power we have,” she said. “As consumers we go out and support small businesses by getting coffee on the go. But before, we did not think twice about getting everything from Amazon.”

The conversation with investors hasn’t been as simple, the co-founder said. Investors continue to be “hands off” about community-based platforms because they are unsure it will work. Wittig says that many bearish investors have placed bets on singular direct-to-consumer brands, such as Away or Blueland.

“Those investors know the rising costs of customer acquisition, and see what happens when you don’t have a community that surrounds our business,” she said.

Brightly is betting that the future of commerce brands has to start with a go-to-market, and then bring in the end-product, instead of the other way. The end goal here for Brightly is attracting, and generating excitement from, Gen Z and millennial shoppers. To do so, Wittig says that Brightly is experimenting with ways to implement socialization aspects into the shopping experience.

Leslie Feinzaig, the founder of Female Founders Alliance, said that what’s special about Brightly is that it “demonstrated demand before building for it.”

“I think a lot of people today could build software to connect people and sell things, but very few people could get thousands of fanatical followers to actually engage with each other and make that software useful,” Feinzaig said. “Brightly built that community with matchsticks and tape.”

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin