Tag Archives: Blog

News: EdTech startup bina raises $1.4M to teach 4 to 12-year-olds, launch School-as-a-Service

With the pandemic wreaking havoc amongst early years education amid school lockdowns, it’s no wonder EdTech startups have piled into the space. But it’s also served to highlight the abysmal nature of earl years teaching: Some 40 million teachers across the globe are leaving the sector, according to to the World Bank. Of the 1.5

With the pandemic wreaking havoc amongst early years education amid school lockdowns, it’s no wonder EdTech startups have piled into the space. But it’s also served to highlight the abysmal nature of earl years teaching: Some 40 million teachers across the globe are leaving the sector, according to to the World Bank. Of the 1.5 billion primary-age children, only a few can access high-quality education, and approximately 58 million primary-age children are out of education, most of whom are girls

So the opportunity to make a difference, using online teaching, in these very young years is great, because classes sizes can be reduced online, and the quality of teaching improved.

This is the idea behind bina, which bills itself as a “digital primary education ecosystem”. It’s now raised $1.4M to aim at the education of 4 to 12-year-olds.

The funding round was led by Taizo Son, one of Japan’s billionaires. Other investors and advisors include Jutta Steiner, Founder at Parity Technologies, the company behind Polkadot decentralized protocol, and Lord Jim Knight, Ex-Minister of Education (UK).

Bina’s ‘schtick’ is that is has very small online class sizes of 6 students (3x smaller than the OECD average).

It also boasts of “adaptive learning paths” that cover international standards; teachers with a minimum of 8 years of digital teaching experience; and data-driven decision making for its pedagogical approach. 


Noam Gerstein, bina’s CEO and founder said: “I’ve interviewed students, teachers, and parents globally for years, and it is clear a new systemic design is needed. With our founding families, we are building a world in which every child has access to quality education, educators’ skills are valued and continuously developed, and parents don’t need to choose between their work and family life.”
 
He says it also grants pupils company shares (RSUs) as they grow with the school. Currently available to English-speaking students in the CET timezone, the bina School is planning a SaaS product for governments, NGOs and school systems.

“We right now compete against companies like Outschool, Pearson’s online Academy, primer and Prisma,” he told me over a call. “So these are the big names of the last year for the first phase. But the strategy is that we’re building it in two phases. The first phase is actually building a school that we operate as a ‘lab’ school. And the second phase is what we call ‘bina as a service’. So it’s a SaaS ‘school as a service’. The idea is that we offer collaboration with NGOs and governments, doing accreditation and training and licencing of the product. So for that second part we’re actually competing against the big accreditation system.”

News: CELA Innovation holds a master class on Lean Startup Methodology for the Startup Alley+ cohort

Startup Alley is the place to be at TechCrunch Disrupt 2021 on September 21-23. The sold-out expo area is the virtual home to hundreds of innovative startups ready to demo their tech and talent. While exhibiting offers plenty of opportunity for all, a VIP experience kicked off in July for 50 startup exhibitors the TechCrunch

Startup Alley is the place to be at TechCrunch Disrupt 2021 on September 21-23. The sold-out expo area is the virtual home to hundreds of innovative startups ready to demo their tech and talent. While exhibiting offers plenty of opportunity for all, a VIP experience kicked off in July for 50 startup exhibitors the TechCrunch staff chose to form the first Startup Alley+ cohort.

Part of that experience includes a series of master classes in the run-up to Disrupt. Case in point, on August 24, Dan Olsen will lead a master class called “How to Create Product-Market Fit.” Now, we’re ready to share the next presentation, and it’s another great one, folks.

On August 17th, John Lynn, co-founder of CELA Innovation, and Jade Kearney, Lean Startup expert and co-founder and CEO of She Matters, will present a master class called, “The Key Principles of the Lean Startup Methodology.”

A quick tangent: If you’re not already familiar with CELA or what it does, the NYC-based company matches early-stage startups to world-class accelerators and incubators that align with a startup’s vertical and business goals. Last year, at Disrupt 2020, CELA connected the winners of our Pitchers and Pitches mini pitch-off competitions with an accelerator to boost their business.

Meanwhile, back at the master class: Change — positive or negative — is inevitable, and this master class will focus on what founders can do when change arrives on their doorstep. Examples of change can include receiving funding, running out of funding, losing a co-founder or a key customer or anything else that’s shaking up their situation.

John and Jade will help each cohort founder produce a Lean Startup transformation for one current business situation. Founders can then use it as a template for optimizing anything in their business the next time change comes calling.

The session begins by examining why you should use the Lean Startup methodology at inflection points — when there is a sudden change to your company, good or bad.

You’ll learn how you can use the Lean Startup methodology to create resources when you are overwhelmed by opportunity or just feel like you have gone as far as you can go with what you have.

Next, John and Jade will show how this methodology makes the difference between knowing what you want to build and learning what you need know about your customers, industry or product.

Lastly, Team CELA will isolate some of your key business activities as they exist right now. Then they will walk you through a process to turn that activity into a Lean Startup experiment that produces insights, new value and new opportunities.

TechCrunch Disrupt 2021 takes place September 21-23. Don’t miss your opportunity to meet the Startup Alley+ cohort and hundreds of other innovative startups in our expo area. Opportunity is knocking — buy your TC Disrupt 2021 pass and go kick down the door.

Is your company interested in sponsoring or exhibiting at Disrupt 2021? Contact our sponsorship sales team by filling out this form.

News: Nikola cuts delivery outlook for its electric semi trucks

Nikola, the electric truck startup that went public via a SPAC merger, warned Tuesday that supply chain constraints are causing numerous delays forcing it to slash its vehicle delivery projections in half. The company, which is still in pre-production, said in its second-quarter earnings call that its plans to produce 50 to 100 electric semi

Nikola, the electric truck startup that went public via a SPAC merger, warned Tuesday that supply chain constraints are causing numerous delays forcing it to slash its vehicle delivery projections in half.

The company, which is still in pre-production, said in its second-quarter earnings call that its plans to produce 50 to 100 electric semi trucks in this year have been lowered to 25 to 50 units. The less than rosy projections continued on the revenue front.

The company cut its revenue forecast for the year to $0 to $7.5 million. It was previously $15 million to $30 million.

Nikola reported a net loss of $143 million in the second quarter, up from a $115.7 million loss in the same period last year. Its adjusted loss was 20 cents per share, which is actually better than analysts expected. The company’s cash balance at the end of the quarter was $632.6 million.

While the company focused its earnings call on its progress toward producing electric trucks — which included testing pre-production vehicles and completing 0.5 Phase of its factory in Arizona — the market was more interested in its lowered outlook and the lingering effects from its founder Trevor Milton being charged with securities fraud. Among the company’s updates is that it has built 14 pre-production vehicles, five alpha and nine beta prototypes.

Shares of Nikola were down 7.47% in midday trading.

Milton, who resigned last year as Nikola’s CEO and executive chairman, was charged July 29 with two counts of securities fraud and wire fraud by a federal grand jury. Prosecutors detailed in the complaint how Milton used social media and frequent appearances on television in a PR blitz that flooded “the market with false and misleading information about Nikola” before the company even produced a product.

In March 2020, the company announced it would go public via a merger with special purpose acquisition company VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. Milton frequently posted on Twitter, directing his messages to retail investors after the company went public that summer. Then, in September, just days after GM had announced a $2 billion investment in the company, noted short-seller Hindenburg Research accused Nikola of fraud. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission opened an inquiry in the matter and within two weeks Milton had stepped down as executive chairman.

News: A docuseries on the Inspiration4 mission is coming to Netflix

Inspiration4 is getting its own documentary. Netflix said Tuesday it would be releasing a five-part series on the mission, its first documentary to cover an event “in near real-time,” in five parts in September. “Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space” will follow the first all-civilian Inspiration4 crew as they prepare for and undergo a three-day flight

Inspiration4 is getting its own documentary. Netflix said Tuesday it would be releasing a five-part series on the mission, its first documentary to cover an event “in near real-time,” in five parts in September.

“Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space” will follow the first all-civilian Inspiration4 crew as they prepare for and undergo a three-day flight to low Earth orbit. The private flight is being funded by — surprise! — a billionaire: Jared Isaacman, the CEO and founder of payment processor Shift4 Payments. He will be joined by Hayley Arceneaux, a physician assistant at St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital and a pediatric bone cancer survivor; Christopher Sembroski, a Lockheed Martin engineer and Air Force veteran; and professor of geoscience Sian Proctor.

Isaacman has committed to donating $100 million to St. Jude’s out of his own funds, in addition to the public donation drive that was used to select Sian Proctor’s seat. As of March, the donation drive raised an additional $13 million for the children’s hospital.

The crew will travel to orbit in a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft and a Falcon 9 rocket. The launch giant is customizing the Dragon especially for the mission, replacing a docking mechanism with a transparent glass dome out of which crewmembers will be able to take in what will likely be some pretty spectacular views. The dome will only be large enough to fit one passenger at a time, and it’ll only open once the spacecraft has safely exited Earth’s atmosphere. (Stellar views are a relatively recent concern for launch developers and space passengers, mostly an effect of the burgeoning space tourism industry.)

The Netflix series will likely be the cherry on top of the massive media event that will be Inspiration4. The Netflix series will be directed by Jason Hehir, who previously headed “The Last Dance,” an ESPN documentary miniseries about Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls.

This September, four civilians will launch into space for a three-day trip orbiting Earth.

Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission To Space — the first Netflix documentary series to cover an event in near real-time — will premiere in five parts leading up to and following the mission. pic.twitter.com/8fLnxHCQNN

— Netflix (@netflix) August 3, 2021

News: How public markets can help address venture capital’s limitations

‘Draper Esprit’s model enables it to deploy them right back into new investments, ensuring more of Europe’s best startups can raise funding.’

British venture capital firm Draper Esprit recently moved its listing from the AIM to the main board in London, the LSE. The investing group also moved its secondary listing from Dublin’s Euronext Growth Market to its larger sister exchange, Euronext Dublin, which makes sense given its long connection to Irish capital.

Draper has always felt like something of an anomaly from our perspective, a generalist venture capital firm that was itself public. But this July, Forward Partners listed its shares on the AIM, and there are other venture firms in Europe that are also listed.

At first blush, the setup may seem odd; venture capital firms invest in companies that they hope to see go public one day — why would they float themselves? But Draper Esprit co-founder Stuart Chapman told TechCrunch in an interview that he finds it shocking “that venture capital backs some of the most mind-blowing tech advances in our history over the last 70 years, using the same legal structure as a 1958 property vehicle in New York.” It’s a reasonable point.

Perhaps fundraising success is part of why the venture model has not seen much disruption in recent decades, apart from rising fund sizes. But the model is not perfect. It can foist artificial time constraints on investors and force them to focus their deal flow into particular stages for fund-construction reasons. As we found out researching this piece, the public venture model highlights some of these limitations — and may be able to alleviate them in part.


The Exchange explores startups, markets and money.

Read it every morning on Extra Crunch or get The Exchange newsletter every Saturday.


And yet we can’t come up with a single U.S. venture capital firm, for example, that has publicly listed in the same manner as Draper Esprit or Forward Partners.

To better understand why we’re seeing European VCs float, and not their peers in other markets, The Exchange reached out to Draper Esprit, Forward Partners, and fellow listed venture investors Mercia and Augmentum Fintech. From the group, we’ve learned that there are plenty of reasons why the model may be popular in the U.K. and not in the U.S.

But there are also reasons why being a public venture capitalist can make the VC game a rather different, longer-term effort. The firms in question did not go public on a whim.

So let’s talk about the good, the bad, and the regulatory concerning publicly listed venture capital firms. The future? Or just a regional quirk?

From exception to trend?

Following its move, Draper Esprit is now the largest “purely tech VC” listed on London’s Main Market. Its initial listing had also been a market milestone: “Listing Draper Esprit five years ago was a radical and unusual step for a venture capital business,” Chapman said of Draper’s 2016 dual-listing on London’s AIM and Dublin’s Enterprise Securities Market (ESM) – now Euronext Growth.

Just last month, two tech-related investment funds IPO’d on the London Stock Exchange: space-focused Seraphim Capital and Nic Brisbourne’s Forward Partners. In both cases, Draper Esprit was happy to assist with information, Chapman told us, adding that the firm also invested in Forward via its fund-of-funds effort.

The news adds up to a roster of listed investors that also includes fintech fund Augmentum Fintech, asset manager Mercia Asset Management PLC and intellectual property commercialization company IP Group. “We’re supportive of others following in our footsteps and we will be big fans of having much wider diversity,” Chapman told TechCrunch in an interview, which you can read in full here.

Having recently joined the club, Forward Partners’ founder and CEO Nic Brisbourne gave us a good overview of the three high-level reasons that could lead a fund to list: open opportunities to create more value from new initiatives that sit outside traditional investment capital; breaking the cycle of fundraising; and opening access to the early-stage venture capital asset class. Let’s take a closer look.

News: Rani Therapeutics’ $73M IPO will fund upcoming clinical trials

Rani Therapeutics, a San Jose-based company developing a pill to replace medical injections, went public on Friday.  According to S-1 filings, shares were estimated to price between $14 and $16 last week. On Friday, shares debuted slightly lower, around $11. Rani raised about $73 million in its debut. Rani’s debut comes amidst a flurry of

Rani Therapeutics, a San Jose-based company developing a pill to replace medical injections, went public on Friday. 

According to S-1 filings, shares were estimated to price between $14 and $16 last week. On Friday, shares debuted slightly lower, around $11. Rani raised about $73 million in its debut.

Rani’s debut comes amidst a flurry of IPO activity in therapeutics. In 2020, 71 biotech companies went public. Already in 2021, 59 companies have IPO’ed and even more are on the way. On July 30 alone, eight different biotech companies are expected to begin trading, including Rani Therapeutics. 

Rani Therapeutics, is, as Imran puts it “laser focused” on itself, rather than the IPO activity around it. The decision to go public was partially bolstered by the results of a phase I study– early evidence that the RaniPill, the company’s flagship product could be brought into the clinic. 

We are already in humans, and clearly on a strong path to make oral biologics [a] reality. This is a hot and unique market for life science direction and we’re excited to be driving innovation in this area,” Imran tells TechCrunch. 

Rani Therapeutics flagship product is RaniPill, essentially, a capsule designed to deliver medicines that would usually be delivered via injections. TechCrunch covered the pill in more detail here, but it works according to a few basic steps. 

The pill is covered by a coating resistant to stomach acid. Once the pill enters the small intestine, the coating dissolves, allowing for a small balloon to inflate. Once that small balloon inflates, medication is delivered by a microneedle (which dissolves after the drug is administered). Then, the rest of the balloon is “excreted through normal digestive processes,” per the company’s S-1 filing. 

This whole process occurs in a pill that, on the outside, looks like a gel capsule. 

There is evidence for some conditions suggesting patients prefer oral drugs to injections: for example, studies on cancer patients have illuminated patient preference for oral therapies rather than regular injections. That’s not the case for every condition. Some patients show preference long-acting medicines delivered via injection rather than having to take lots of pills (this is the case in for some HIV patients)

However, it’s fair to say that needles aren’t exactly pleasant. A 2019 review and meta analysis of 35 studies found that between 20 and 30 percent of young adults are afraid of needles, a fear which can lead some people to avoid medical treatments or vaccines. 

Rani Therapeutics has been developing capsules for drugs that have already been approved by the FDA, but are often administered via regular injections. They include: 

  • Octreotide for acromegaly or neuroendocrine tumors in the GI tract (NETs) 
  • TNF-alpha inhibitors for psoriatic arthritis 
  • Parathyroid hormone (PTH) for osteoporosis 
  • Human growth hormone (HGH) for HGH deficiency 
  • Parathyroid hormone for hypothyroidism 

The product furthest along in the research cycle is the pill developed to administer octreotide (called RT-101), which was tested in a phase I clinical trial on 62 participants. The trial results, partially reported in the S-1 filing, showed 65 percent bioavailability of the octreotide drug, compared to an injection. That suggests that the pills can get the drugs into the body efficiently, though these results are early. 

Next year, the company plans to initiate two additional Phase I studies on PTH for osteoporosis, and human growth hormone. Studies on the rest of the drugs in the pipeline are scheduled for 2023. 

Ultimately, the company’s goal is to validate the RaniPill independently of specific drugs. The company is pursuing an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE), which would allow the company to test RaniPill in a clinical study without a drug involved. This study aims to establish how safe the product is for repeated dosing, and is slated to begin next year. 

“I think we want to continue to generate data with drugs, because we will be making drugs. But nonetheless, it’s important to establish what the platform’s safety and tolerability is,” said Imran.  So that’s quite important as well.” 

The company’s leadership does have a track record of successful exits in the biotech space. 

Rani Therapeutics was founded in 2012 by Mir Imran, a founder who has already overseen several exits and acquisitions of medical device companies. In 1985, Imran developed an implantable cardiac defibrillator as part of his first company, Intec Systems, which was later acquired by Eli Lilly. Since, he has started 20 different medical device companies, of which 15 have either IPOed or been acquired. 

However, for now, Rani Therapeutics financials report significant losses. Net losses for 2019 and 2020 totaled $26.6 million and $16.7 million, respectively. As of March 2021, the company was running a deficit of $119.6 million. 

In total, the company has raised about $211.5  million in funding since inception, without counting cash generated from today’s IPO. RaniTherapeutics  has plans to use the $73 million raised during the IPO to fund the IDE study and pursue additional clinical trials. 

News: YouTube’s $100 million Shorts Fund to challenge TikTok goes live

YouTube earlier this year announced its plans to significantly invest in original creator content for its TikTok competitor, YouTube Shorts, with the introduction of a $100 million YouTube Shorts Fund. The fund will reward creators for their most engaging and most viewed short-form videos over the course of 2021 to 2022, with the goal of quickly

YouTube earlier this year announced its plans to significantly invest in original creator content for its TikTok competitor, YouTube Shorts, with the introduction of a $100 million YouTube Shorts Fund. The fund will reward creators for their most engaging and most viewed short-form videos over the course of 2021 to 2022, with the goal of quickly scaling creator activity on YouTube’s new short-form video platform, Shorts, to better rival TikTok. Today, YouTube announced the fund is officially launching and creators will begin to receive their first payouts in August.

Image Credits: YouTube

Every month, YouTube will invite thousands of eligible creators to claim a payment from the fund. These payouts may range anywhere from $100 to $10,000, based on viewership and engagement with their Shorts videos. Reached for comment, YouTube declined to share the exact viewership thresholds creators will have to reach to earn the payouts, saying that those numbers may change from month to month.

The company told TechCrunch it will determine how it calculates the thresholds by analyzing the best-performing channels and then calculating their bonus based on a number of factors, which includes views, where their audience is located and more. The company also said it wanted to make sure it was rewarding as many creators as possible, which is why it set a minimum payment of $100.

To qualify, creators must produce original content — not videos that were re-uploaded from other channels or those with watermarks from other social services. That was a problem that Instagram’s TikTok competitor Reels has faced — creators often re-used the same content they’re sharing on TikTok when they publish to Reels. To fight the problem, Instagram even had to adjust its algorithm to downrank the recycled content.

While there are plenty of tools that allow creators to strip the watermark from a video, as well as those that let you edit videos for upload to multiple short-form video platforms, YouTube says it will be using a combination of automation and human reviewers to ensure creators meet its guidelines around original content.

Creators will also need to be 13 or older in the U.S., or the age of majority in other countries and regions, to quality. Those ages 13 to 18 will also need to have a parent or guardian set up their AdSense account, link it to the creator’s channel and accept the terms, as this is where payments will be directed. All of a creator’s Shorts videos will count toward their bonuses each month they receive views — not just the month they were uploaded, YouTube notes.

The channels also need to have uploaded at least one eligible Short in the last 180 days and must follow YouTube’s Community Guidelines, copyright rules and monetization policies. While YouTube Partner Program members can participate in the fund, creators don’t have to already be monetizing on YouTube to quality for the new Shorts bonuses.

At launch, the fund will support creators in the U.S., Brazil, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. Over time, it will expand to more markets.

Image Credits: YouTube

The company also told us it’s not looking for any specific types of video to reward, as the fund gets off the ground. Instead, it’s only looking at the metrics, like the total monthly performance a channel’s Shorts received.

On the one hand, not specifying any video categories or subject matter to lean into gives creators a lot of freedom to experiment when producing Shorts. But on the other, it could also lead creators to simply make more TikTok-like content, but publish it to YouTube instead in hopes of cashing in. That could result in YouTube Shorts feeling a lot like the TikTok clone that it is, rather than allowing it to differentiate itself by the nature of its content.

For comparison, other TikTok rivals, like Pinterest’s Idea Pins or Snapchat’s Spotlight aim to leverage what makes their platform unique and deliver that as short-form, public videos. Pinterest’s Idea Pins are often focused on tutorials or recipe-making, which are popular searches on its service. Spotlight, meanwhile, can feature Snaps — including those from private accounts, not professionals. That makes some Spotlight videos feel less polished and produced, compared with TikTok or Reels, which fits in with its more casual aesthetic.

YouTube says it will begin reaching out to creators starting next week to let them know if they’ve qualified for a bonus. The company will send a notification in the YouTube app, which includes the amount of the bonus and details on how to claim it. Creators will then have until the 25th of the month to claim the bonus payment before it expires.

Image Credits: YouTube

TikTok’s growth and popularity has encouraged a number of social platforms to invest directly in the creator community in hopes of winning back some of their audience. Facebook recently announced its own $1 billion-plus bonus system for videos across both Facebook and Instagram through the end of 2022, including but not limited to Reels videos. Snap initially said it would distribute $1 million per day through the end of 2020 for top Snaps on Spotlight, but later dialed that back. Pinterest announced a much smaller ($500,000) creator fund that runs through 2021.

And to counteract all the challenges, TikTok last month introduced a $200 million fund for U.S. creators.

With the official launch of the Shorts Fund, YouTube notes it now has 10 ways creators can make money on its platform, including ads, YouTube Premium subscription revenue shares, channel memberships, Super Chat, Super Thanks, Super Stickers, merchandise, ticketing and YouTube BrandConnect.

 

News: Substack doubles down on uncensored ‘free speech’ with acquisition of Letter

Substack announced last week that it acquired Letter, a platform that encourages written dialogue and debate. The financials of the deal weren’t disclosed, but this acquisition follows Substack’s recent $65 million raise. Newsletters are all the rage — Facebook launched its exclusive, celeb-studded Bulletin platform last month, and Twitter acquired the newsletter startup Revue earlier

Substack announced last week that it acquired Letter, a platform that encourages written dialogue and debate. The financials of the deal weren’t disclosed, but this acquisition follows Substack’s recent $65 million raise.

Newsletters are all the rage — Facebook launched its exclusive, celeb-studded Bulletin platform last month, and Twitter acquired the newsletter startup Revue earlier this year. Letter doesn’t publish email newsletters like Substack, but rather, it allows writers to engage in epistolary exchanges about fraught topics like Brexit, dating and the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. The idea behind Letter makes sense. Complicated conversations require nuance, yet these online debates too often happen on platforms like Twitter, where short-form tweets make it harder to have nuanced conversations.

“We could see that Letter, like Substack, was working in opposition to the ad-driven attention economy, attempting to change the rules of engagement for online discourse,” Substack wrote in its acquisition announcement.

But this acquisition may be cause for concern among those already troubled by the controversy Substack faced earlier this year, when news came out that the platform offered some writers up to six-figure advances as part of its Substack Pro program. The problem wasn’t that Substack was incentivizing writers to join the platform, but rather, who Substack had hand-picked to pay an advance. Plus, Substack says that it’s up to the writer to disclose whether or not they’re part of Substack Pro, which creates a lack of editorial transparency.

As Substack grew, writers left jobs at Buzzfeed and the New York Times, lured by pay raises and cautious optimism. But as more writers came forward as part of the Substack Pro program, Substack was criticized for subsidizing anti-trans rhetoric, since some of these writers used their newsletters to share such views. Substack admits it’s not entirely apolitical, but the choices of which writers to subsidize, and its decision to use only lightweight moderation tactics, are a strong political choice in an era of the internet when content moderation has a tangible effect on global politics. Some writers even chose to leave the platform.

Annalee Newitz, a non-binary writer who since left the platform, wrote on Substack, “Their leadership are deciding what kinds of writing and writers are worthy of financial compensation. […] Substack is taking an editorial stance, paying writers who fit that stance, and refusing to be transparent about who those people are.”

So, when Substack described its new acquisition Letter as a platform that encourages people to “argue in good faith instead of dropping bombs for retweets,” it made the acquisition worthy of a deeper examination. Statements like this sound agreeable, yet this kind of language often appears in arguments that deem social justice a threat to free speech. But free speech shouldn’t mean endorsing hate speech.

Substack wants to position itself as a neutral platform, and for many writers, it’s a valuable way to make money, especially in an unstable journalism industry. But given that some users have already become skeptical of who Substack chooses to financially incentivize, it’s worth examining the implications of buying Letter, a platform that includes writers associated with the so-called intellectual dark web in its group of twenty “featured writers.” On Letter, some of these writers question the validity of childhood transgender identity and refer to the statement “trans women are women” as propaganda, for example. Substack has already lost the trust of some trans and gender non-conforming writers, and the content on its newly acquired Letter won’t help rebuild that trust.

In addition, Letter co-founder Clyde Rathbone wrote in support of a controversial letter published in Harper’s Magazine, which called for the “concerted repudiation of cancel culture.” But critics of the letter point out that free speech isn’t really at stake here.

The open letter had been signed by over 150 prominent writers — like Gloria Steinem, Noam Chomsky (a Letter author), and Malcolm Gladwell (a Bulletin author). It argued: “We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.” These “professional consequences” echoed the predicament that J.K. Rowling — who also signed the letter — had put herself in. After denying that trans women are women, her reputation suffered. Some might call that “cancel culture,” but others might call it the refusal to continue to platform people who perpetuate harmful beliefs.

“The panic over ‘cancel culture’ is, at its core, a reactionary backlash,” wrote journalist Michael Hobbes. “Conservative elites, threatened by changing social norms and an accelerating generational handover, are attempting to amplify their feelings of aggrievement into a national crisis.”

Substack says it plans to use the acquisition of Letter to help writers collaborate, and that it won’t integrate Letter into its platform. Rather, the Letter team will relocate from Australia to San Francisco to “bring their expertise to help build more of the infrastructure and support.”

TechCrunch asked Substack if the anti-trans content on Letter is cause for concern within the company, given the recent backlash against the platform.

“We think that open debate and disagreement are absolutely part of having free press, and that includes views that you or I may not like,” a representative from Substack said. “Anyone could browse Substack and find things they agree with and things they don’t agree with. Substack has no ad-driven feeds pushing content based on virality and outrage, and there is a direct relationship between writers and readers who can opt out of that anytime. So the bar for us to intervene in that relationship and tell writers what they should be saying is really high, and the fact that Letter allowed writers to openly debate and discuss is consistent with that philosophy.”
We don’t know yet how or if Letter will change Substack — but given the existing discourse around the kind of content Substack pays for, Substack isn’t demonstrating “good faith” with this acquisition.

News: Sophos extends its spending spree with Refactr buy

Thoma Bravo-owned Sophos has announced its second takeover in as many weeks with the acquisition of Seattle-based DevSecOps startup Refactr. Refactr was founded in 2017 and offers an automation platform that helps cybersecurity and DevOps teams to collaboratively operate. The platform, which is used by the non-profit Center for Internet Security and the U.S. Air

Thoma Bravo-owned Sophos has announced its second takeover in as many weeks with the acquisition of Seattle-based DevSecOps startup Refactr.

Refactr was founded in 2017 and offers an automation platform that helps cybersecurity and DevOps teams to collaboratively operate. The platform, which is used by the non-profit Center for Internet Security and the U.S. Air Force’s Platform One, features a drag-and-drop low-code pipeline builder and DevOps-friendly features that encourage disparate teams to collaborate on the same agile workflow process, according to the company.

“Our mission is to enable DevSecOps to become the modern approach to automation, where cybersecurity use cases like Security Operation, Automation and Response (SOAR), Extended Detection and Response (XDR), compliance, cloud security, and Identity and Access Management (IAM) become building blocks for DevSecOps solutions,” said Michael Fraser, CEO and co-founder of Refactr.

The deal, the terms of which were not disclosed, will see Refactr’s entire team of developers and engineers join Sophos. While Sophos says it will continue to develop and offer Refactr’s DevSecOps automation platform to existing customers, it will also embed its SOAR capabilities to its own managed threat response (MTR) and XDR solutions.

“With Refactr, Sophos will fast track the integration of such advanced SOAR capabilities into our adaptive cybersecurity ecosystem, the basis for our XDR product and MTR service,” said Joe Levy, chief technology officer at Sophos.

Sophos’ acquisition of Refactr lands shortly after it announced plans to buy Braintrace, a cybersecurity startup that provides organizations visibility into suspicious network traffic patterns. Thoma Bravo completed its $3.9 billion takeover of Sophos in 2020 as the company continues to increase its reach in the cybersecurity space. Since then, the private equity firm has acquired security vendor Proofpoint for $12.3 billion and led a $225 million funding round in zero-trust unicorn Illumio.

News: Marvell nabs Innovium for $1.1B as it delves deeper into cloud ethernet switches

Marvell announced this morning it intends to acquire Innovium for $1.1 billion in an all-stock deal. The startup, which raised over $400 million according to Crunchbase data, makes networking ethernet switches optimized for the cloud. Marvell president and CEO Matt Murphy sees Innovium as a complementary piece to the $10 billion Inphi acquisition last year,

Marvell announced this morning it intends to acquire Innovium for $1.1 billion in an all-stock deal. The startup, which raised over $400 million according to Crunchbase data, makes networking ethernet switches optimized for the cloud.

Marvell president and CEO Matt Murphy sees Innovium as a complementary piece to the $10 billion Inphi acquisition last year, giving the company, which makes copper-based chips, more ways to work across modern cloud data centers.

“Innovium has established itself as a strong cloud data center merchant switch silicon provider with a proven platform, and we look forward to working with their talented team who have a strong track record in the industry for delivering multiple generations of highly successful products,” Marvell CEO Matt Murphy said in a statement.

Innovium founder and CEO Rajiv Khemani, who will remain on as an advisor post-close, told a familiar tale from a startup CEO being acquired, seeing the sale as a way to accelerate more quickly as part of a larger organization than it could on its own. “As we engaged with Marvell, it became clear that our data center optimized portfolio combined with Marvell’s scale, leading technology platform and complementary portfolio, can accelerate our growth and vision of delivering breakthrough switch silicon for the cloud and edge,” he wrote in a company blog post announcing the deal.

The company, which was founded in 2014, raised over $143 million last year on a post money valuation of $1.3 billion, according to Pitchbook data. The question is was this a reasonable deal for the company given that valuation?

No company wants to sell for less than it was last valued by its investors. In some cases, such deals can still be accretive for early backers of the selling concern, but not always. In this case TechCrunch is not privy to all the details of the Innovium cap table and what its later investors may have built into their deals with the company in the form of downside protection; such measures can tilt the value of the sale of company more towards its later and final investors. This is usually managed at the expense of its earlier backers and employees.

Still, the Innovium deal should not be seen as a failure. Building a company that sells for north of $1 billion in equity value is impressive. The deal appears to be slightly smaller in enterprise value terms. In the business world, enterprise value is a useful method of valuing the true cost of an acquisition. In the case of Innovium, a large cash position, what was described as “Innovium cash and exercise proceeds expected at closing of approximately $145 million,” lowered the cost of the transaction to a more modest $955 million in net outlays.

Our general perspective is that the sale is probably not the outcome that Innovium’s backers had hoped for, but that it may still prove lucrative to early workers and early investors, and still works at that lower figure. It’s also notable how in today’s market of mega-rounds and surfeit unicorns, an exit north of the $1 billion mark in equity terms can be viewed as a disappointment in any terms. Innovium is selling for around the price that Facebook paid for Instagram in 2012, a deal that at the time was so large that it dominated technology headlines around the world.

But with so much capital available today, private valuations are soaring and mega deals abound. And recent rounds north of $100 million, much like Innovium’s 2020-era, $143 million round, can set companies up with rich valuations and a narrow path in front of them to beat those heightened expectations.

What likely happened? Perhaps Innovium found itself with more cash than opportunities to spend it; perhaps it simply needed a large partner to help it better sell into its market. With expected revenues of $150 million in Marvell’s fiscal 2023, its next fiscal period, Innovium did not fail to reach scale. It may have simply grown well as a private, independent company, and stalled out after its last round.

Regardless, a billion dollar exit is a billion dollar exit. The deal is expected to close by the end of this year. While both company boards have approved the deal, it still must clear regular closing hurdles including approval by Innovium’s private stock holders.

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin