Tag Archives: Blog

News: Allozymes looks to upend chemical manufacturing with rapid enzyme engineering and $5M seed

Part of the complex process that turns raw materials into finished products like detergents, cosmetics and flavors relies on enzymes, which facilitate chemical transformations. But finding the right enzyme for a new or proposed drug or additive is a drawn out and almost random process — which Allozymes aims to change with a remarkable new

Part of the complex process that turns raw materials into finished products like detergents, cosmetics and flavors relies on enzymes, which facilitate chemical transformations. But finding the right enzyme for a new or proposed drug or additive is a drawn out and almost random process — which Allozymes aims to change with a remarkable new system that could set a new standard in the industry, and has raised a $5M seed round to commercialize.

Enzymes are chains of amino acids, the “building blocks of life” among of the many things encoded in DNA. These large, complex molecules bind to other substances in a way that facilitates a chemical reaction, say turning sugars in a cell into a more usable form of energy.

One also finds enzymes in the world of manufacturing, where major companies have identified and isolated enzymes that perform valuable work like taking some cheap base ingredients and making them combine into a more useful form. Any company that sells or needs lots of any particular chemical that doesn’t appear abundantly in nature probably has enzymatic processes to aid in creating more of it.

But it’s not like there’s just an enzyme for everything. When you’re inventing new molecules from scratch, like a novel drug or flavoring, there’s no reason why there should be a naturally occurring enzyme that reacts with or creates it. No animal synthesizes allergy medicine in its cells. So companies must find or create new enzymes that do what’s needed. The problem is that enzymes are generally at least 100 units long, and there are 20 amino acids to choose from, meaning for even the simplest novel enzyme you’re looking at uncountably numerous variations.

By starting with known enzymes and systematically working through variations that seem intuitively like they might work, researchers have been able to find new and useful enzymes, but the process is complex and slow even when fully automated: at most a couple hundred a day, and that’s if you happen to have a top-of-the-line robotic lab.

So when Allozymes comes in with a claim that it can screen up to ten million per day, you can imagine the level of change that represents.

Illustration comparing the multiple steps of an enzyme testing process with the simpler Allozymes process.

Image Credits: Allozymes

Allozymes was founded by Peyman Salehian (CEO) and Akbar Vahidi (CTO), two Iranian chemical engineers who met while pursuing their PhDs at the National University of Singapore. The three years of research leading up to the commercial product also occurred at NUS, which holds the patent and exclusively licenses it to the company.

“The state of the art hasn’t changed in 20 years,” said Salehian. “When we talk with GSK, Pfizer, Merck, they have whole departments for this, they have $2 million robots, and it still takes a year to get a new enzyme.”

The Allozymes platform will speed up the process by several orders of magnitude, while decreasing the cost by an order of magnitude, Salehian said. If these estimates bear out, it effectively trivializes the enzyme search and obsoletes billions in investments and infrastructure. Why pay more to get less?

Traditionally, enzymes are isolated and selected over a multi-step process that involves introducing DNA templates into cells, which are cultured to create the target enzymes, which once a certain growth state is achieved, are analyzed robotically. If there are promising results, you go down that road with more variations, otherwise start again from the beginning. There’s a lot of picking and placing little dishes, waiting for enough cells to produce enough of the stuff, and so on.

The process Salehian and Vahidi designed is fully contained with a little benchtop device the size of a microwave, and generates almost no waste. Instead of using culture dishes, the device puts the necessary cells, substrate, and other ingredients in a tiny droplet in a microfluidic system. The reactions occur inside this little drop, which is incubated, tracked, and eventually collected and tested in a fraction of the time a larger sample would take.

Animation showing droplets moving through a microfluidic system.

Allozymes isn’t selling the device, though. It’s enzyme engineering as a service, and for now their partners and customers seem content with that. Its primary service is cut-to-size, depending on the needs of the project. For instance, maybe a company has a working enzyme already and just wants a variant that’s easier to synthesize or less dependent on certain expensive additives. With a solid starting point and flexible goal that might be a project on the smaller side. Another company may be looking to completely replace hard chemistry processes in their manufacturing, know the start and the end of the process but need an enzyme to fill in the gaps; that might be a more wide ranging and expensive project.

Peyman Salehian, left, and Akbar Vahidi.

Vahidi explained that the goal is not to “democratize” enzyme engineering. It’s still expensive and large-scale enough that it will primarily be done by large companies, but now they can get a hundred thousand times more out of their R&D dollar. The speed and value put them above the competition, said Sahelian, with companies like Codexis, Arzeda, and Ginkgo Bioworks also doing enzyme bioengineering but at lower rates and with different priorities.

Occasionally the company might strike a bargain to take part ownership of an IP or product, but that’s not really the business model, Sahelian said. Some early work consisted of actually making the final compound, but ultimately the core product is expected to be the service. (Still, a million-dollar order is nothing to sneeze at.)

It may have occurred to you that in the process of doing a job, Allozymes might sort through hundreds of millions of enzymes. Rest assured, they are well aware of the value these may represent. The service transitions seamlessly into the inevitable data play.

“If you have a big data set that shows ‘if you change this amino acid this will be the function,’ you don’t even need to engineer it, you can eliminate it [i.e. from consideration]. You can even design enzymes if you know enough,” Salehian said.

The company’s recent $5M seed round was led by SOSV and Temasek, Singapore’s sovereign fund. Salehian explained that they planned to incorporate in the U.S. following interest from American venture firms, but Temasek’s early stage investor convinced them to stay.

“Biotransformation is in huge demand on this side of the world,” Salehian said. “Chemical, agriculture, and food companies need to do it, but no platform company can deliver these services. So we tried to fill that gap.”

News: Single.Earth to link carbon credits to crypto token market, raises $7.9M from EQT Ventures

Here’s the theory: Instead of linking carbon and biodiversity credits to the sale of raw materials such as forests, which cause CO2, what if you linked them to crypto tokens, and thus kept these CO2-producing materials in the ground? That’s the theory behind Single.Earth, which has now raised a $7.9 million seed funding round led

Here’s the theory: Instead of linking carbon and biodiversity credits to the sale of raw materials such as forests, which cause CO2, what if you linked them to crypto tokens, and thus kept these CO2-producing materials in the ground?

That’s the theory behind Single.Earth, which has now raised a $7.9 million seed funding round led by Swedish VC EQT Ventures to, in its own words, ‘tokenize nature’. Also participating in the round was existing investor Icebreaker, and Ragnar Sass and Martin Henk, founders of Pipedrive. The funding will be used to launch its marketplace for nature-backed MERIT tokens.

Single.Earth says its ‘nature-backed’ financial system will use using MERIT tokens. And given the market for carbon credits is estimated to be worth more than $50 billion by 2030 and crypto surpassed a $2 trillion market cap in 2021, their plan might just work.

It plans to build a ‘digital twin’ of nature that reveals how much any area of ecological significance in the world absorbs CO2 and retains biodiversity. Using environmental data such as satellite imagery, it aims to build global carbon models on which to base its token marketplace, generating profits through carbon compensations, ‘mining’ a new MERIT token for every 100 kg of CO2 sequestered in a specific forest or biodiverse area.

The MERIT tokens are then used to trade, compensate for a CO2 footprint, or contribute to climate goals (as the token is ‘used up’ and cannot be traded anymore). Companies, organisations, and eventually individuals will be able purchase these tokens and own fractional amounts of natural resources, rewarded with carbon and biodiversity offsets. The company says the market for carbon credits is estimated to be worth more than $50 billion by 2030.

Because of the traceability of blockchain and its link to a tradable token, payment to landowners would be immediate.

Single.Earth was co-founded in 2019 by CEO Merit Valdsalu and CTO Andrus Aaslaid. Valdsalu said: “Nature conservation is scalable, accessible, and makes sense financially; what’s more, it’s vital to engineer a systematic change.”

Sandra Malmberg, Venture Lead at EQT Ventures, added: “Oil was the new gold, data the new oil; now, nature is now the most precious and valuable resource of all. A company having a hectare of forest saved as a key metric to scale is a company we are thrilled to back. Disrupting the economy and financial markets with a new tradable and liquid asset class that has a positive impact on the environment is an irresistible investment.”

News: Max Q: Billionaire Blast-off Boys Club

Max Q is a weekly newsletter from TechCrunch all about space. Sign up here to receive it weekly on Mondays in your inbox. It’s a space race of the most indulgent kind, plus there’s a new commercial launch enterprise in the games and another is prepping for production at a massive scale. Also, Starlink aims

Max Q is a weekly newsletter from TechCrunch all about space. Sign up here to receive it weekly on Mondays in your inbox.

It’s a space race of the most indulgent kind, plus there’s a new commercial launch enterprise in the games and another is prepping for production at a massive scale. Also, Starlink aims for the stars — ‘the stars’ in this case being not going bankrupt.

The billionaire bragging rights battle no one asked for

Richard Branson surprised absolutely no one by announcing last week that he’d be aboard the next Virgin Galactic to fly to low Earth orbit, which is set to take off on July 11, and be the space tourism company’s first to carry a full crew complement. Jeff Bezos is heading up in his company’s own phallic reusable rocket on July 20, which means if all goes to schedule, Branson will beat him by just over a week.

If you find you have a hard time mustering a lot of enthusiasm or really any feelings at all about these two grown man boys burning cash in a race to be the first billionaire to spend a couple minutes at an altitude technically considered ‘space’ by a more or less arbitrary definition, then congratulations: You should not care. No one should, and yet here we are, writing and reading about it in a newsletter.

These ‘events’ will be worth watching because of the technical achievements they represent for the companies involved, and the teams that worked hard on making sure either spacecraft is able to safely transport humans to space; the billionaires on board are mere chattel, weight and mass simulators that can provide a surprisingly good, but not altogether perfect, simulacrum of a human passenger.

Elon actually wins some rare kudos for not apparently giving much of a shit about this particular bro off.

SpaceX and Virgin Galactic deliver

SpaceX and Virgin Orbit have delivered payloads on behalf of paying customers this past week — par for the course for the former, but a novel experience for the latter. SpaceX sent up 85 satellites on behalf of customers during its second official rideshare mission, along with three of its own, and Virgin Orbit launched its first official commercial mission (after its successful demonstration launch earlier this year), carrying a number of small satellites including the first ever for the Netherlands military.

If Virgin Orbit succeeds in ramping its operations according to its plan, a week like this with multiple launches from a number of commercial launch providers capable of sending up small satellites might become a lot more common. Virgin Orbit joins SpaceX and Rocket Lab now as having the potential to fly on any given week, and others are hot on their heels, including Astra (which is now an officially publicly traded company) and Relativity.

Speaking of that last one, Relativity announced a new 1 million square foot factory that will house a lot of its massive 3D printers to ramp up production of its larger Terran R rocket. The company has yet to fly its Terran 1, the first of its 3D printed spacecraft, but that’s still on track to happen later this year.

SpaceX’s Starlink terminal costs over 2x what it costs

Image Credits: Starlink

Elon Musk virtually joined the MWC conference in Barcelona to talk about Starlink, and when asked what success for the bourgeoning global connectivity service would look like, he said that essentially they’ll be happy if it doesn’t go bankrupt. Then, if they can jump that hurdle, they’ll start thinking longer term.

He pointed out that everyone who has tried to do what Starlink is trying to do so far has gone bust, and admitted that the company has probably already sunk between $5 and $10 billion into its work on the constellation and service so far, with another $30 billion expected to be invested long-term. He also pointed out that the $500 terminal and modem kit customers need to buy to get connected actually costs SpaceX over $1,000 to produce, so it’s selling them at a significant loss for now.

Starlink could be a big source of ongoing revenue, and more consistent and predictable than the launch business, but it’s obviously going to take a long time to get there. Now it make sense why the company is launching Starlink satellites with such frequency, as it aims for global coverage, and the larger customer base that brings.

News: Box takes fight with activist investor public in SEC filing

The war between Box’s current leadership and activist shareholder Starboard took a new turn today with a detailed timeline outlining the two groups’ relationship, thanks to an SEC filing and companion press release. Box is pushing back against a slate of board candidates put forth by Starboard, which wants to shake up the company’s leadership and sell

The war between Box’s current leadership and activist shareholder Starboard took a new turn today with a detailed timeline outlining the two groups’ relationship, thanks to an SEC filing and companion press release. Box is pushing back against a slate of board candidates put forth by Starboard, which wants to shake up the company’s leadership and sell it.

The SEC filing details a lengthy series of phone calls, meetings and other communications between the technology company and Starboard, which has held a stake in Box greater than 5% since September of 2019. Since then shares of Box have risen by around $10 per share.

Today’s news is multi-faceted, but we’ve learned more concerning Starboard’s demands that Box sell itself; how strongly the investor wanted co-founder and CEO Aaron Levie to be fired; and that the company’s complaints about a KKR-led investment into Box that it used to repurchase its shares did not match its behavior, in that Starboard asked to participate in the transaction despite its public statements.

Activist investors, a bit like short-sellers, are either groups that you generally like or do not. In this case, however, we can learn quite a lot from the Box filing. Including the sheer amount of time and communication that it takes to manage such an investor from the perspective of one of its public-market investments.

What follows are key excerpts from Box’s SEC filing on the matter, starting with its early stake and early agreement with Starboard:

  • On September 3, 2019, representatives of Starboard contacted Mr. Levie to inform Mr. Levie that Starboard would be filing a
  • Schedule 13D with the SEC reporting a 7.5% ownership stake in the company.
  • On March 9, 2020, Mr. O’Driscoll and Ms. Barsamian had a call with representatives of Starboard to discuss entering into a settlement agreement with Starboard.
  • On March 22, 2020, the company and Starboard entered into an agreement[.]
    Also on March 23, 2020, Starboard reported beneficial ownership of 7.7% of the outstanding Class A common stock.

Then Box reported earnings, which Starboard appeared to praise:

  • On May 27, 2020, the company reported its fiscal first quarter results, noting a 13% increase in year-over-year revenue, a 900 basis point increase in year-over-year GAAP operating margin and a $36.4 million increase in year-over-year cash flow from operations. Peter Feld, a representative of Starboard, and Mr. Levie had an email conversation related to the company’s first quarter results in which Mr. Feld stated “you guys are on a good path…congrats to the team and keep it up.”
  • Also on May 29, 2020, Starboard reported that it had decreased its beneficial ownership to 6.0% of the outstanding Class A common stock.

The same pattern repeated during Box’s next earnings report:

  • On August 27, 2020, Mr. Levie, Mr. Smith and company IR discussed the company’s earnings release with Starboard. Starboard indicated it was pleased with the rate of margin expansion and where the company was heading. In an email exchange between Mr. Feld and Mr. Levie related to the company’s results, Mr. Feld stated that he was “thrilled to see the company breaking out and performing better both on the top and bottom line. Appreciate you guys working with us and accepting the counsel. Not everyone behaves that way and it is greatly appreciated. Shows your comfort as a leader and a willingness to adapt. Very impressive.”

Then Box reported its next quarter’s results, which was followed by a change in message from Starboard (emphasis TechCrunch):

  • On December 1, 2020, the company announced its fiscal third quarter results, noting an 11% increase in year-over-year revenue, an improvement of 2100 basis points in year-over-year GAAP operating margin and a $36 million increase in year-over-year cash flow from operations. The company also provided guidance regarding its fiscal fourth quarter results, noting that its revised revenue guidance was due to “lower professional services bookings than we noted previously, which creates a roughly $2 million headwind” and that the company was being “prudent in our growth expectations given the macroeconomic challenges that our customers are facing.” The revised guidance for revenue was 1.1% below analysts’ consensus estimates of $198.8 million.
  • On December 2, 2020, Box’s common stock declined approximately 9% from its prior close of $18.54 to $16.91. On December 2, 2020 and December 4, 2020, Mr. Levie, Mr. Smith and Box IR discussed the company’s earnings release with representatives of Starboard. Despite the prior support Mr. Feld communicated to the company, Starboard reversed course and demanded that the company explore a sale of the entire company or fire the company’s CEO, or otherwise face a proxy contest from Starboard. Mr. Feld further stated that the company should not turn down an offer from a third party to buy the entire company “in the low twenties” and that Starboard would be a seller at such a price.

Recall that Box shares are now in the mid-$26s. At the time, however, Box shares lost value (emphasis: TechCrunch)

  • On December 16, 2020, two weeks after earnings, the company’s stock price closed at $18.85, which was above where it was trading immediately prior to the announcement of the company’s fiscal third quarter results on December 1, 2020.
  • On January 11, 2021, Starboard disclosed that it had increased its beneficial ownership to 7.9% of the outstanding Class A common stock.
  • On January 15, 2021, Mr. Lazar and Ms. Barsamian had a call with representatives from Starboard. Mr. Feld expressed his view that, while the company’s Convertible Senior Notes were executed on favorable terms, he was not supportive of the transaction. He reiterated his demand that the company sell itself and indicated that if the company did not do so then it must replace its CEO or otherwise face a proxy contest from Starboard to replace the CEO.

Over the next few months, Box bought SignRequest, reported earnings, and engaged external parties to try to help it bolster shareholder value. Then the KKR deal came onto the table:

  • On March 31, 2021, the Strategy Committee met to discuss the status of the strategic review. At such time, the Strategy Committee was in receipt of a proposal from KKR pursuant to which KKR and certain partners would make an investment in the form of convertible preferred stock at an initial yield of 3%, which had been negotiated down from KKR’s proposal of 7% yield in its preliminary indication of interest in early March.

The deal was unanimously approved by Box’s board, and announced on April 8th, 2021. Starboard was not stoked about the transaction, however:

  • Later on April 8, 2021, Ms. Mayer and Mr. Lazar had a call with representatives of Starboard. Mr. Feld expressed Starboard’s strong displeasure with the results of the strategic review. During the conversation, Mr. Feld indicated that he would stop the fight immediately if Mr. Levie were replaced.
  • On April 14, 2021, Ms. Mayer, Mr. Lazar and Ms. Barsamian had a call with Mr. Feld. Despite his prior statements, Mr. Feld now indicated that Starboard was not willing to sell its shares of Class A common stock at $21 or $22 per share. Mr. Feld requested that the company release KKR from its obligation to vote in favor of the company as a gesture of good faith. Mr. Feld reiterated Starboard’s desire to replace Mr. Levie as CEO and indicated that he would like to join the Board of Directors if the company did so. Ms. Mayer offered Mr. Feld the opportunity to execute a non-disclosure agreement to receive more information about the strategic review process, which Mr. Feld immediately declined.

Box was like, all right, but Feld doesn’t get to be on the board:

  • On April 20, 2021, Ms. Mayer and Mr. Lazar had a call with representatives of Starboard. Mr. Feld stated that Starboard would not move forward with its planned director nominations if Starboard were offered the opportunity to participate in the KKR-Led Transaction and Mr. Feld were appointed to the Board of Directors. Mr. Feld reiterated that he was not willing to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
  • On April 27, 2021, Mr. Park had a discussion with Mr. Feld. During this conversation, Mr. Feld reiterated his desire for Starboard to participate as an investor in the KKR-Led Transaction.
  • On April 28, 2021, Ms. Mayer and Mr. Lazar informed Mr. Feld that the Board of Directors was amenable to allowing Starboard to participate in the KKR-Led Transaction but would not appoint Mr. Feld as a director. Mr. Feld indicated that there is no path to a settlement that doesn’t include appointing him to the Board of Directors.

And then Starboard initiated a proxy war.

What to make of all of this? That trying to shake up a company from the position of a minority stake is not impossible, with Starboard able to exercise influence on Box despite having a sub-10% ownership position. And that Box was not willing to put a person on the board that wanted to fire its CEO.

What’s slightly silly about all of this is that the fight is coming at a time when Box is doing better than it has in some time. Its profitability has improved greatly, and in its most recent quarter the company topped expectations and raised its forward financial guidance.

There were times in Box’s history when it may have deserved a whacking for poor performance, but now? It’s slightly weird. Also recall that Starboard has already made quite a lot of money on its Box stake, with the company’s value appreciating sharply since the investor bought in.

Most media coverage is surrounding the public criticism by Starboard of the KKR deal and its private demand to be let into the deal. That dynamic is easily explained: Starboard thought that the deal wouldn’t make it money, but later decided that it could. So it changed its tune; if you are expecting an investor to do anything but try to maximize returns, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

A person close to the company told TechCrunch that the current situation should be a win-win for everyone involved, but Starboard is not seeing it that way. “If you’re a near term shareholder, [like Starboard] then the path Box has taken has already been better. And if you’re a long term shareholder, Box sees significantly more upside. […] So overwhelmingly, the company believes this is the best path for shareholders and it’s already been proven out to be that,” the person said.

Alan Pelz-Sharpe, founder and principal analyst at the Deep Analysis, who has been watching the content management space for many years, says the battle isn’t much of a surprise given that the two have been at odds pretty much from the start of the relationship.

“Like any activist investor Starboard is interested in a quick increase in shareholder values and a flip. Box is in it for the long run. Further, it seems that Starboard may have mistimed or miscalculated their moves, Box clearly was not as weak as they appeared to believe and Box has been doing well over the past year. Bringing in KKR was the start of a big fight back, and the proposed changes couldn’t make it any clearer that they are fed up with Starboard and ready to fight back hard,” Pelz-Sharpe said.

He added that publicly revealing details of the two companies’ interactions is a bit unusual, but he thinks it was appropriate here.

“Actually naming and shaming, detailing Starboard’s moves and seemingly contradictory statements, is unusual but it may be effective. Starboard won’t back down without a fight, but from an investor relations/PR perspective this looks bad for them and it may well be time to walk away. That being said, I wouldn’t bet on Starboard walking away, as Silicon Valley has a habit of moving forward when they should be walking back from increasingly damaging situations”

What comes next is a vote on Box’s board makeup, which should happen later this summer. Let’s see who wins.

It’s worth noting that we attempted to contact Starboard Value, but as of publication they had not gotten back to us. Box indicated that the press release and SEC filing speak for themselves.

 

 

News: Meet Super.mx, the Mexico City-based insurtech that raised $7.2M from VCs and unicorn CEOs

Super.mx, an insurtech startup based in Mexico City, has raised $7.2 million in a Series A round led by ALLVP. Co-founded in 2019 by a trio of former insurance industry executives, Super.mx’s self-proclaimed mission is to design insurance for “the emerging Latin American middle class,” according to CEO Sebastian Villarreal. “That means insurance that is

Super.mx, an insurtech startup based in Mexico City, has raised $7.2 million in a Series A round led by ALLVP.

Co-founded in 2019 by a trio of former insurance industry executives, Super.mx’s self-proclaimed mission is to design insurance for “the emerging Latin American middle class,” according to CEO Sebastian Villarreal.

“That means insurance that is easy to buy – it can be bought on a cell phone in minutes – and that pays quickly with no adjusters,” he said. The company has built its offering with proprietary models that are used both on the underwriting side to predict risk and on the claims side to make payments automatically. 

Goodwater Capital, Kairos Angels and Bridge Partners also participated in the Series A round in addition to angels such as Joe Schmidt IV, vice president of business development at insurtech Ethos and former investor at Accel and Kyle Nakatsuji, founder and CEO of auto insurance startup Clearcover (and also a former VC). Better Tomorrow Ventures led Super.mx’s $2.4 million seed round, which also saw capital from 500 Startups Mexico, Village Global, Anthemis and Broadhaven Ventures, among others.

Unlike most insurtech startups in Latin America, Villarreal emphasizes that Super.mx is neither an aggregator nor a carrier. Instead, it’s an MGA, or managing general agent.

“This lets us have a ‘best of both worlds’ approach,” Villarreal said. “We handle the entire user experience just like a direct to consumer carrier, but with the breadth of product choice offered by an aggregator.”

That product choice includes property, natural disasters and life insurance. The company soon plans to expand to also offer health insurance. 

The founding team brings a variety of insurance experience to the table. Villarreal previously co-founded Chicago-based Kin Insurance (which raised over $150 million in funding from the likes of Flourish Ventures, Commerce Ventures and QED Investors). He was also once head of auto product at Avant, a growth-stage company funded by General Atlantic and Tiger Global, among others.

With over two decades of insurance industry experience, Dario Luna once served as Mexico’s insurance regulator and helped develop Mexico’s disaster risk management strategy. Marco Ahedo has designed parametric insurance products for 19 Caribbean countries. He was also once a solvency expert for life and health insurance lines at MetLife, and has developed financial models for several P&C carriers.

Villarreal lived in the U.S. for a while before deciding to move back to Mexico, which he recognized was home to an “underinsurance problem.”

“That’s actually a very acute problem,” he said. “People in Latin America buy a lot less insurance than they do in the U.S., and people in Mexico, in particular, buy a lot less insurance than they do in other Latin countries.”

Some have blamed the lack of insurance coverage on the country’s culture but Super.mx operates under the belief that this notion is “total BS.”

“It’s not a cultural problem,” Villarreal said. “The problem is that the insurance products that exist in the market just suck. They’re super expensive. They’re really hard to buy, and they pay very little.”

Image Credits: Super.mx

So far, Super.mx has sold “thousands of policies” but is more focused now on increasing the number of products that it’s selling. The company started out by selling earthquake insurance before adding COVID insurance, and more recently, in April, it launched life insurance. Next, it’s going to offer property, renter’s and health insurance.

“It’s really a different strategy than what you would find in the U.S.,” Villarreal said. “In the U.S, when you look at insurtechs, it’s like everyone just does one thing, but here, it’s very different because when someone says ‘I want insurance,’ really what they’re saying is ‘Hey, something happened that makes me nervous that didn’t make me nervous before.’”

That something could be a new child, for example, that prompts a need for life insurance.

“What we’re trying to do is like Lemonade, Roots and Hippo or Kin all rolled into one,” he added. It’s a big, big play.”

Digital adoption in Mexico, and Latin America in general, has increased exponentially in recent years. The bigger hurdle for Super.mx, according to Villarreal, has less to do with technology and more to do with Mexicans getting over what he describes a “deep mistrust” based on bad experiences in the past.

“People are really distrustful and that’s a huge hurdle, but once you show them that you actually are different,” Villarreal told TechCrunch, “that you actually do things in a different way, you get this incredible emotional response.”

Eventually, Super.mx plans to outside of Mexico to other countries in Latin America.

ALLVP’s Federico Antoni said his Mexico City-based firm had been looking for a team building in this space “for years” before investing in Super.mx. The venture firm was impressed with the company’s technical knowledge and industry expertise. It was also drawn to their multi-product approach and “capacity to ship highly complex products to the market quickly” — both of which he believes are “unique” in the region.

Citing statistics from MAPFRE Economics, Antoni pointed out that globally, the insurance market has been growing over the last 10 years. During that time, Latin America expanded faster on average (4.4% vs. 2.4% worldwide), albeit with more volatility. Life insurance has been driving this growth, at 6.1%, over the period. 

“Insurtech may be even bigger than fintech. Also, harder,” he told TechCrunch via email. “We knew the team to unlock the market potential would need to be highly competent and highly disruptive.”

Antoni said he is also convinced that Insurtech is the “next frontier” in financial inclusion in Latin America especially as digitization continues to increase.

“Providing risk coverage to individuals and businesses in the region, brings financial stability to families and unlocks economic potential for SMEs,” he said. “Moreover, the insurance incumbents have been unable to address a growing and underserved market.”

 

News: Kill the standard privacy notice

If Facebook’s privacy policy is as hard to comprehend as German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” we have a problem.

Leif-Nissen Lundbæk
Contributor

Leif-Nissen Lundbæk is the co-founder and CEO of Xayn. He specializes in privacy-preserving AI.

Privacy is a word on everyone’s mind nowadays — even Big Tech is getting in on it. Most recently, Apple joined the user privacy movement with its App Tracking Transparency feature, a cornerstone of the iOS 14.5 software update. Earlier this year, Tim Cook even mentioned privacy in the same breath as the climate crisis and labeled it one of the top issues of the 21st century.

Apple’s solution is a strong move in the right direction and sends a powerful message, but is it enough? Ostensibly, it relies on users to get informed about how apps track them and, if they wish to, regulate or turn off the tracking. In the words of Soviet satirists Ilf and Petrov, “The cause of helping the drowning is in the drowning’s own hands.” It’s a system that, historically speaking, has not produced great results.

Today’s online consumer is drowning indeed — in the deluge of privacy policies, cookie pop-ups, and various web and app tracking permissions. New regulations just pile more privacy disclosures on, and businesses are mostly happy to oblige. They pass the information burden to the end user, whose only rational move is to accept blindly because reading through the heaps of information does not make sense rationally, economically or subjectively. To save that overburdened consumer, we have only one option: We have to kill the standard privacy notice.

A notice that goes unnoticed

Studies show that online consumers often struggle with standard-form notices. A majority of online users expect that if a company has published a document with the title “privacy notice” or “privacy policy” on its website, then it will not collect, analyze or share their personal information with third parties. At the same time, a similar majority of consumers have serious concerns about being tracked and targeted for intrusive advertising.

Online businesses and major platforms gear their privacy notices and other relevant data disclosures toward obtaining consent, not toward educating and explaining.

It’s a privacy double whammy. To get on the platform, users have to accept the privacy notice. By accepting it, they allow tracking and intrusive ads. If they actually read the privacy notice before accepting, that costs them valuable time and can be challenging and frustrating. If Facebook’s privacy policy is as hard to comprehend as German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,” we have a problem. In the end, the option to decline is merely a formality; not accepting the privacy policy means not getting access to the platform.

So, what use is the privacy notice in its current form? For companies, on the one hand, it legitimizes their data-processing practices. It’s usually a document created by lawyers, for lawyers without thinking one second about the interests of the real users. Safe in the knowledge that nobody reads such disclosures, some businesses not only deliberately fail to make the text understandable, they pack it with all kinds of silly or refreshingly honest content.

One company even claimed its users’ immortal souls and their right to eternal life. For consumers, on the other hand, the obligatory checkmark next to the privacy notice can be a nuisance — or it can lull them into a false sense of data security.

On the unlikely occasion that a privacy notice is so blatantly disagreeable that it pushes users away from one platform and toward an alternative, this is often not a real solution, either. Monetizing data has become the dominant business model online, and personal data ultimately flows toward the same Big Tech giants. Even if you’re not directly on their platforms, many of the platforms you are on work with Big Tech through plugins, buttons, cookies and the like. Resistance seems futile.

A regulatory framework from another time

If companies are deliberately producing opaque privacy notices that nobody reads, maybe lawmakers and regulators could intervene and help improve users’ data privacy? Historically, this has not been the case. In pre-digital times, lawmakers were responsible for a multitude of pre-contractual disclosure mandates that resulted in the heaps of paperwork that accompany leasing an apartment, buying a car, opening a bank account or taking out a mortgage.

When it comes to the digital realm, legislation has been reactive, not proactive, and it lags behind technological development considerably. It took the EU about two decades of Google and one decade of Facebook to come up with the General Data Protection Regulation, a comprehensive piece of legislation that still does not rein in rampant data collection practices. This is just a symptom of a larger problem: Today’s politicians and legislators do not understand the internet. How do you regulate something if you don’t know how it works?

Many lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic often do not understand how tech companies operate and how they make their money with user data — or pretend not to understand for various reasons. Instead of tackling the issue themselves, legislators ask companies to inform the users directly, in whatever “clear and comprehensible” language they see fit. It’s part laissez-faire, part “I don’t care.”

Thanks to this attitude, we are fighting 21st-century challenges — such as online data privacy, profiling and digital identity theft — with the legal logic of Ancient Rome: consent. Not to knock Roman law, but Marcus Aurelius never had to read the iTunes Privacy Policy in full.

Online businesses and major platforms, therefore, gear their privacy notices and other relevant data disclosures toward obtaining consent, not toward educating and explaining. It keeps the data flowing and it makes for great PR when the opportunity for a token privacy gesture appears. Still, a growing number of users are waking up to the setup. It is time for a change.

A call to companies to do the right thing

We have seen that it’s difficult for users to understand all the “legalese,” and they have nowhere to go even if they did. We have also noted lawmakers’ inadequate knowledge and motivation to regulate tech properly. It is up to digital businesses themselves to act, now that growing numbers of online users are stating their discontent and frustration. If data privacy is one of our time’s greatest challenges, it requires concerted action. Just like countries around the world pledged to lower their carbon emissions, enterprises must also band together and commit to protecting their users’ privacy.

So, here’s a plea to tech companies large and small: Kill your standard privacy notices! Don’t write texts that almost no user understands to protect yourselves against potential legal claims so that you can continue collecting private user data. Instead, use privacy notices that are addressed to your users and that everybody can understand.

And don’t stop there — don’t only talk the talk but walk the walk: Develop products that do not rely on the collection and processing of personal data. Return to the internet’s open-source, protocol roots, and deliver value to your community, not to Big Tech and their advertisers. It is possible, it is profitable and it is rewarding.

News: Bentley reveals Flying Spur Hybrid, its latest in the push toward electric

Bentley Motors, the 102-year-old ultraluxury automaker under Volkswagen Group, revealed its newest hybrid model on Tuesday. The company says this latest iteration of the Flying Spur Hybrid is its most environmentally friendly vehicle yet. This new model is part of Bentley’s Beyond100 plan to become a carbon-neutral organization with an entirely electrified range by 2023

Bentley Motors, the 102-year-old ultraluxury automaker under Volkswagen Group, revealed its newest hybrid model on Tuesday. The company says this latest iteration of the Flying Spur Hybrid is its most environmentally friendly vehicle yet.

This new model is part of Bentley’s Beyond100 plan to become a carbon-neutral organization with an entirely electrified range by 2023 and a totally electric lineup by 2030. That’s a tall order given the fact that the British company’s first all-electric vehicle is expected to come to market in 2025. So far, Bentley only has this hybrid and another, the Bentayga SUV.

Most major OEMs have made such commitments, with Ford, GM, Mercedes, Kia and Nissan already producing electric models. If automakers like Bentley want to reach their goals, their production of electric vehicles will need to increase exponentially, especially if they want to keep up with Tesla, which is currently owning the luxury EV market.

According to a statement released by the company, the new powertrain of the hybrid Flying Spur combines a 2.9 liter V6 engine with an electric motor. The engine achieves 410 HP and 550 Nm of torque up to 5,650 rpm, and the motor, which is located between the transmission and the engine, provides up to 134 HP and 400 Nm of torque. When combined, the Flying Spur delivers an additional 95 HP in comparison to the Bentayga hybrid.

The 14.1 kWh lithium ion battery charges in about two and a half hours. The Flying Spur can cover over 435 miles when fully fueled, and it can go from 0 to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds, which is nearly the same as the V8 version of the vehicle, at a top speed of 177 mph.

When in the drivers seat, customers can choose between three E modes to manage battery usage. The EV Drive mode is the default when the car is turned on. The hybrid mode relies on data from the car’s intelligent navigation system when the driver is following directions somewhere to predict usage of the different E-modes and engine coasting. The vehicle automatically switches to the right mode for each part of the journey depending on what’s more fuel efficient. For example, EV driving is best when in the city, but the car might engage the V6 engine more on the highway. The third E-mode, hold, balances power between the engine and the battery to conserve electric energy, holding onto it for later use. This mode is usually put in place when the driver selects Sport mode.

The Flying Spur’s infotainment screen shows energy flow, range, battery level and charging information. Bentley will deliver the hybrid with all the necessary charging cables and provides customers with a Bentley-branded wall box at no extra cost to store the at-home charge unit and cables.

Flying Spur Hybrid is available to order in most markets, but is currently not available in the E.U., U.K., Switzerland, Israel, Ukraine, Norway, Turkey and Vietnam, according to Bentley.

On the same day, Bentley also announced a partnership with single malt Scotch whisky manufacturer Macallan to “develop distinctive collaborations and further their vision of a more sustainable future,” according to a statement released by the company. The point of the partnership was unclear (encourage high-end drinking and driving?), and Bentley did not respond in time to requests for more information, but one somewhat clear outcome of the announcement is a commitment from the Macallan Estate to have a fully electric passenger vehicle fleet by 2025. In addition, this year, Macallan will order two hybrid Bentleys for the estate.

News: Will Didi’s regulatory problems make it harder for Chinese startups to go public in the US?

For China-based companies hoping to list in the United States, the market likely just got much, much colder.

Shares of Chinese ride-hailing business Didi are off 22% this morning after the company was hit by more regulatory activity over the holiday weekend. The recently public company traded as high as $18.01 per share since it held an IPO last week; today, shares of Didi are worth just $12.09, off around a third from their 52-week high.


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


The decline in value follows a review by a Chinese cybersecurity agency that led to Didi being unable to onboard new users, a decision that arrived as last week rolled to a close.

Over the weekend, Didi was hit with more regulatory action. This time, the Cyberspace Administration of China said, via an internet translation, that “after testing and verification, the ‘Didi Travel’ App [was found to have] serious violations of laws and regulations in collecting and using personal information,” which led the agency to command app stores “to remove the ‘Didi Travel’ app, and required [the company] to strictly follow the legal requirements and refer to relevant national standards to seriously rectify existing problems.”

Being yanked from relevant app stores was enough for Didi to alert investors that its mobile app “had the problem of collecting personal information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations.” Didi said that the change in its app availability “may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.”

Understatement of the year, I reckon.

But there’s more going on than what Didi is enduring. As CNBC reported:

News: Amazon is now selling its own Covid-19 test kits for $39.99 in the U.S.

Amazon announced this morning it would begin to sell its own brand of Covid-19 at-home tests to Amazon shoppers in the U.S. The test retails for $39.99 on the Amazon.com website and is available to any U.S. customer without a prescription. The Covid-19 PCR collection kit is shipped to the customer’s home via Amazon Prime,

Amazon announced this morning it would begin to sell its own brand of Covid-19 at-home tests to Amazon shoppers in the U.S. The test retails for $39.99 on the Amazon.com website and is available to any U.S. customer without a prescription. The Covid-19 PCR collection kit is shipped to the customer’s home via Amazon Prime, offering everything needed to perform a nasal swab. Customers will then return the collection tube with the swab inside via the included return box. Amazon says it will be able to provide results within 24 hours of receiving the sample at its lab.

The collection kit will be processed by Amazon’s in-house laboratory, which the company created during the pandemic as part of its in-house Covid-19 testing program for its frontline workers. To date, Amazon’s labs in the U.S. and U.K. have processed millions of tests from over 750,000 of its employees, the company says. With the new at-home kit, Amazon is expanding its U.S. lab’s capabilities to its retail shoppers.

Amazon says it’s using the more accurate PT-PCR method, which means you will have to wait for the lab to process your results. It also notes the kits have received Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Image Credits: Amazon

According to the Amazon.com listing for the new Amazon COVID-19 Test Collection Kit DTC, the kit will includes the swab, a collection tube with saline, a plastic bag with an absorbent pad, and the return box with shipping label. The return shipping is handled by UPS at no additional charge to the customer, and is sent to Amazon’s CAP accredited and CLIA-certified lab in Hebron, Kentucky. 

The kit additionally includes instructions on how to get your results via Amazon’s secure website, AmazonDx.com, and access to documents needed for testing verification. These tests will meet any requirements for testing when traveling within the US (except Hawaii), and when traveling from the U.S. to many international locations, Amazon says. And the kits are FSA and HSA eligible.

“Even as Covid-19 vaccinations continue, widespread access to reliable and affordable Covid-19 testing remains a critical tool in the fight against the spread of the virus, said Cem Sibay, the Amazon VP heading the company’s Covid-19 testing work. “The Amazon collection kit offers customers the convenience they’ve come to expect from Amazon.com by providing access to COVID-19 testing whenever and wherever they need it. The test collection kit provides highly accurate and timely results, helping customers feel more confident as they safely return to travel, work, college, and daily life,” Sibay added.

News: Didi gets hit by Chinese government, and Pelo raises $150M

Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture-capital-focused podcast where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines. This is Equity Monday Tuesday, our weekly kickoff that tracks the latest private market news, talks about the coming week, digs into some recent funding rounds and mulls over a larger theme or narrative from the private markets. You

Hello and welcome back to Equity, TechCrunch’s venture-capital-focused podcast where we unpack the numbers behind the headlines.

This is Equity Monday Tuesday, our weekly kickoff that tracks the latest private market news, talks about the coming week, digs into some recent funding rounds and mulls over a larger theme or narrative from the private markets. You can follow the show on Twitter here and myself here.

What a busy weekend we missed while mostly hearing distant explosions and hugging our dogs close. Here’s a sampling of what we tried to recap on the show:

It’s going to be a busy week! Chat tomorrow.

Equity drops every Monday at 7:00 a.m. PST, Wednesday, and Friday at 6:00 a.m. PST, so subscribe to us on Apple PodcastsOvercastSpotify and all the casts!

WordPress Image Lightbox Plugin