Just two months after its last funding announcement, Indonesian crypto assets platform Pintu has closed a $35 million Series A+. The new round was led by Lightspeed Ventures, with participation from returning investors like Alameda Ventures, Blockchain.com Ventures, Castle Island Ventures, Coinbase Ventures, Intudo Ventures and Pantera Capital.

Pintu’s previous funding, a $6 million Series A led by Pantera, Intudo and Coinbase Ventures, was announced in late May. Pintu is the latest investment app in Southeast Asia to quickly raise a much larger follow-on round as interest in retail investing grows. Other examples include Bibit, Ajaib and Syfe.

Andrew Adjiputro, Pintu’s chief operating officer, told TechCrunch that Pintu raised a Series A+, instead of a Series A extension or Series B, because its focus on product development and execution is still the same. “With the Coinbase IPO and a lot of new users onboarding, we think it’s the right time for us to raise a larger round to finance faster growth,” he said. “It’s good momentum for us to launch new products and grab the market.”

Pintu plans to use its Series A+ on “aggressive” hiring for all its teams and rolling out new features and products. During the first half of 2021, Pintu says app downloads grew by 3.5x through organic growth, while active traders on the platform increased by 4x.

The platform currently offers trades on 16 cryptocurrencies, with plans to add more coins, including NFT tokens.

Adjiputro said Coinbase’s successful initial public offering in April helped fuel interest in crypto trading, especially among first-time investors.

“They became curious and the bread and butter of our business is essentially education,” said Adjiputro. “We have a lot of education on our platform and it attracts this new breed of investors who want to learn more.”

While the rate of retail investment in Indonesia is still low, its growing quickly because of a confluence of factors, including people’s desire to diversify and increase their assets during the pandemic.

For many of Pintu’s users, the app was their first introduction to investing instead of stocks, Adjiputro said. The company recently surveyed current users, asking about the top five asset classes they are invested in. Crypto came in third after mutual funds and digital gold, and before stocks at number four.

The preference for crypto over stocks is echoed in figures released by the Indonesian Ministry of Trade, which showed that as of June 2021, there were over 6.6 million crypto investors in Indonesia, or about triple the 2.2 million public equity investors in the country.

Pintu is a licensed crypto broker under the Indonesian Commodity Futures Trading Regulatory Agency (BAPPEBTI). It has a low minimum investment rate of 11,000 IDR, or about 75 cents USD, making more attractive to new investors.

Timothius Martin, the company’s chief marketing officer, was a first-time investor when he started using Pintu. He told TechCrunch that the number one draw was accessibility. “It’s easy to start investing and also withdraw assets. In Indonesia, we are now at a stage where people have heard about crypto, about Bitcoin, are very interested and may already want to invest, but there are not many options that are easy enough for them to understand.”

Instead of encouraging users to make an investment when the open the app for the first time, Pintu presents them with educational materials. For example, one of its features is Pintu Academy, a collection of articles and videos. While Pintu’s target demographic is millennials, it’s also attracting older demographics, including people who have traded other assets, like stocks, but want to learn more about the fundamentals of crypto trading.

Adjiputro said Pintu’s focus on education is what differentiates from other Indonesian crypto platforms like Indodax and Tokocrypto.

The company is getting ready to launch new features, like Pintu Earn, a crypto asset account that lets users earn interest on a variety of crypto assets, and e-wallet integration for easier deposits and withdrawals.

It’s also deciding what coins to add next. “We’re very selective in terms of the coins we introduce, because this is a platform for first-time investors and beginners, so we want to protect them, not only in terms of our UI, but also the selection of coins we have,” Martin said.

Pintu’s criteria for new coins include ones that have a high market cap, meaning adoption is already relatively mainstream. It also looks at how long a coin has been around and its liquidity.

Pintu plans to focus on expanding in Indonesia before entering other Southeast Asian markets.

In a statement, Lightspeed partner Hemant Mohapatra said, “Lightspeed has invested in over 17 crypto and blockchain companies globally including FTX, Blockchain.com, Offchain Labs and more. We believe crypto is at an inflection point to become an important asset class globally, and will give rise to massive companies that will become regional leaders. Pintu has created the strongest market brand, best user experience and hands down one of the strongest teams we’ve ever come across in this market.”

 

Students can get access to Extra Crunch at a discounted rate of $50/year (plus tax).  Here’s how to claim the discount:

Use a .edu or university email address and send a message to our customer support team at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Please let them know that you are seeking the student discount.The team will respond within 24 hours with a unique link to claim your discount.

If you are part of a student group like an entrepreneurial club and interested in getting access for a large number of users, reach out to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. to learn more about custom discounts on large groups.

What is Extra Crunch?

Extra Crunch is a members-only community from TechCrunch that helps startup teams and founders get ahead. Membership includes analysis and advice from experienced entrepreneurs on startup topics like fundraising and growth. Members can discover how successful startups operate through deep-dive interviews with founders and investors, and spot trends and opportunities with market analysis, investor surveys, and topical newsletters.

If you have interest in attending TechCrunch events, you can save 20% on tickets as an Extra Crunch member. Once you join Extra Crunch, reach out to our customer service team with the event name to receive a discount code for any TechCrunch event.

For questions about this offer, reach out to customer support at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Companies should begin to experiment with some of the building-block technologies that will define the metaverse era.Read More

Threat actors are demonstrating a lot of creativity, and the NIST definition of critical software underscores this point.Read More

Although consumers were aware of the impacts of online shopping, they weren’t planning to change their habits anytime soon.Read More

The Samsung Neo QLED QN90A TV is an excellent choice, and it should be in the conversation for best gaming TV alongside LG's CX/C1.Read More

Many organizations said they aren’t prepared enough to manage new attacks across employees, executives, and board members.Read More

Sonic Colors comes from an era when the series was tragically hit-or-miss. I always wondered if the game was actually good.Read More

On this week's episode of GamesBeat Decides, there's a lot of news about earnings, Switch sales, PlayStation Plus performance, and more.Read More

Winner of the AI in Business Applications category, Pilot complements its financial expertise with supervised machine learning models.Read More

Assembling a startup team is harder than assembling 10 IKEA dressers, and the stakes are much, much higher.

Starting with the assumption that 90% of startups will fail and the most successful ones take an average of six years to IPO, founders must make careful decisions about whom they invite to join the core team.

Will that stellar engineer become a great CTO? Should your product person be opinionated or a team player? Are you even the best choice for CEO?

ThoughtSpot CEO Sudheesh Nair shared some of his thoughts about building a sturdy leadership team and drafted a thorough checklist for entrepreneurs who are putting a crew together. His initial advice?

“Investors love founder-CEOs, and founders are often fantastic candidates for this role. But not everyone can do it well, and more importantly, not everyone wants to.”

In a related article, Gregg Adkin, VP and managing director at Dell Technologies Capital, shared the framework he’s developed for helping founders set up their board.

Choosing the right mix of people can impact everything from fundraising to hiring: “Investors often ask founders about their board [because] it says a lot about their character, their judgment and their willingness to be challenged,” he writes.

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

Miranda Halpern spoke to Amsterdam-based coach Ward van Gasteren for our latest growth marketing interview, which is free to read.

In their discussion, van Gasteren addressed misconceptions about growth hacking, the mistakes most startups are likely to make, and the distinctions he draws between growth hacking and growth marketing:

“Growth hacking is great to kickstart growth, test new opportunities and see what tactics work,” he tells us.

“Marketers should be there to continue where the growth hackers left off: Build out those strategies, maintain customer engagement, and keep tactics fresh and relevant.”

Thanks very much for reading Extra Crunch this week; I hope you have a great weekend.

Walter Thompson
Senior Editor, TechCrunch

@yourprotagonist

What Square’s acquisition of Afterpay means for startups

In his first column since returning to TechCrunch, reporter Ryan Lawler considered the potential ripples Square’s purchase of Afterpay may send across the pond of buy now, pay later startups.

For commentary and perspective, he interviewed:

Dan Rosen, founder and general partner, Commerce VenturesJake Gibson, founding partner, Better Tomorrow VenturesTX Zhuo, partner, Fika VenturesMatthew Harris, partner, Bain Capital Ventures

The investors he spoke to agreed that deferring payments helps drive e-commerce, “but scale matters and long-term margins look slim for BNPL startups,” reports Ryan.

Enterprise AI 2.0: The acceleration of B2B AI innovation has begun

Businesses have been deploying AI solutions for 20 years, but few have achieved the outstanding gains in efficiency and profitability promised when the technology first appeared.

But there’s a burgeoning new generation of enterprise AI, Eshwar Belani, an operating partner at Symphony AI, writes in a guest column.

“Companies on the leading edge of AI innovation have advanced to the next generation, which will define the coming decade of big data, analytics and automation — Enterprise AI 2.0.”

Embodied AI, superintelligence and the master algorithm

Over the next 18 months, one technologist says the increased adoption of embodied artificial intelligence will open a path to superintelligence — incredibly powerful software that dwarfs anything the human mind could produce.

“All the crazy Boston Dynamics videos of robots jumping, dancing, balancing and running are examples of embodied AI,” says Chris Nicholson, founder and CEO of Pathmind, which uses deep reinforcement learning to optimize industrial operations and supply chains.

“The field is moving fast and, in this revolution, you can dance.”

A lot of cash and little love: An insurtech story

The Exchange looks at the valuations of public insurtech companies and considers what that means for startups — but from a slightly different perspective.

“We’d typically riff on the new values of public neoinsurance companies and use that data to work our way into a guess concerning what the price declines might mean for related startups,” Alex Wilhelm writes. “Taking public-market data and using it to better understand private markets is pretty much the national pastime of this column.

“Not today.”

5 factors founders must consider before choosing their VC

The fact that the globe is awash in venture capital should not be news to readers of this newsletter.

For founders, it means more than just fat checks, Kunal Lunawat, the co-founder and managing partner of Agya Ventures, writes in a guest column.

“Founders would be well served to go back to the basics and focus on the principles of fundraising when determining who sits on their cap table.”

Neobanks’ moves toward profitability could be the path to public markets

Alex Wilhelm checks in on results from Starling Bank and Monzo to see what the neobanks’ most recent financial figures say about the state of neobanks overall.

“Although some neobanks are managing to clean up their ledgers and work toward profits — or reach profitability — not all are in the black,” he notes.

But among those that are?

“At least a portion of the neobanking world is financially stable enough to consider public offerings.”

Founders must learn how to build and maintain circles of trust with investors

The red-hot venture capital market may give founders lots of investors to choose from, but the most important thing (if you can be choosy) is being able to trust and rely on your investors, Ripple Ventures’ Matt Cohen and True’s Tony Conrad write in a guest column.

“This … new dynamic is forcing founders to be extremely selective about exactly who is sitting around their mentorship table,” they write.

“It’s simply not possible to have numerous deep and meaningful relationships to extract maximum value at the early stage from seasoned investors.”

What’s the board’s role in an early-stage startup?

Assembling a board of directors is not merely about finding individuals who can aid your early-stage journey, Gregg Adkin, the vice president and managing director at Dell Technologies Capital, writes in a guest column.

The composition of the board can also impact your fundraising.

“Investors often ask founders about their board [because] it says a lot about their character, their judgment and their willingness to be challenged,” he writes.

Adkins offers a framework he calls “SPIFS” — for strategy, people, image, finance and systems for compliance — to aid founders in setting up a board.

Do bronze medals ever make sense for unicorns?

In the wake of Deliveroo’s plans to abandon the Spanish market after the country passed legislation requiring companies dependent on gig workers to hire employees, Alex Wilhelm wondered about the battle for smaller markets and whether third place is sufficient.

“One company exiting a market is not a big deal, but we were curious about Deliveroo’s comments regarding the need for market leadership — or something close to it — to warrant continued investment,” he writes for The Exchange.

“Is this the common reality for startups battling for market position, no matter if those markets are cities or countries?”

With most popular online video games, there’s a huge gap between being a good player and a great one. A casual player might be able to hold their own against other casual players, only for a random pro to wander by and chew through everyone like they’re somehow playing with a different set of rules.

Could an AI-driven voice in your ear help close that gap, if only a bit? SenpAI.GG, a company out of Y Combinator’s latest batch, thinks so.

Much of that aforementioned gap boils down to practice, muscle memory and — let’s face it — natural ability. But as a game gets older/bigger/more complex, the best players tend to have a wealth of one resource that’s oh-so-crucial, if not oh-so-fun to gather: information.

Which guns do the most damage at this range? Which character is best suited to counter that character on this map? Hell, what changed in that “minor update” that flashed across your screen as you were booting up the game? Wait, why is my favorite weapon suddenly so much harder to control?

Staying on top of all this information as players discover new tactics and updates shift the “meta” is a challenge in its own right. It usually involves lots of Twitch streams, lots of digging around Reddit threads and lots of poring over patch notes.

SenpAI.GG is looking to surface more of that information automatically and help new players get good, faster. Their desktop client presents you with information it thinks can help, post-game analysis on your strategies, plus in-game audio cues for the things you might not be great at tracking yet.

It currently supports a handful of games — League of Legends, Valorant and Teamfight Tactics — with the info it provides varying from game to game. In LoL, for example, it’ll look at both teams’ selected champions and try to recommend the one you could pick to help most; in Valorant, meanwhile, it can give you an audio heads-up that one of your teammates is running low on health (before said teammate starts yelling at you to heal them), when you’ve forgotten to reload or how long you’ve got before the Spike (read: game-ending bomb) explodes.

Just as important as the information it provides is the information it won’t provide. In my chat with him, SenpAI.GG founder Olcay Yilmazcoban seemed very aware that there’s a hard-to-define line here where “assistant” blurs into “cheating tool” — but the company follows certain rules to stay on the right side of things and prevent their players from getting banned.

They won’t, for example, ever take action on a player’s behalf — they might fire an audio cue to say “hey, you should heal that teammate,” but they won’t press the button for you. They’ll only generate their real-time insights from what’s on your screen — not anything hidden within the running process. They also won’t do things like reveal an enemy’s location just because your teammate is also running the app and can see them. Think “good player standing over your shoulder,” not “wall hack.” The company says that they’re always within each game developer’s competitive fairness guidelines, and only work with approved/provided APIs.

It’s a good idea because it’s one that, arguably, never gets old. With each new game they support, they’ve got a new potential audience to serve. Meanwhile, it’s not as if the old games/insights will expire — a game’s big ol’ book-of-stuff-you-need-to-know tends to only get bigger and more complex as a game ages and the patches pile up. There are games I’ve been playing for years where I’d still love a voice assistant that says “Oh hey, the recoil on the gun you just picked up has gotten way more intense since the last time you played.” SenpAI.GG isn’t there yet, but there’s a ton of natural room for growth.

Yilmazcoban tells me that they currently have over 400,000 active users, with a team of 11 people working on it. The base app is free, with plans to offer advanced features for a couple bucks a month.

Everyone at an organization should own growth, right? Turns out when everyone owns something, no one does. As a result, growth teams can cause an enormous amount of friction in an organization when introduced.

Growth teams are twice as likely to appear among businesses growing their ARR by 100% or more annually. What’s more, they also seem to be more common after product-market fit has been achieved — usually after a company has reached about $5 million to $10 million in revenue.

I’m not here to sell you on why you need a growth team, but I will point out that product-led businesses with a growth team see dramatic results — double the median free-to-paid conversion rate.

How do you hire an early growth leader?

According to responses from product benchmarks surveys, growth teams have transitioned dramatically from reporting to marketing and sales to reporting directly to the CEO.

Some of the early writing on growth teams says that they can be structured individually as their own standalone team or as a SWAT model, where experts from various other departments in the organization converge on a regular cadence to solve for growth.

My experience, and the data I’ve collected from business-user focused software companies, has led me to the conclusion that growth teams in business software should not be structured as “SWAT” teams, with cross-functional leadership coming together to think critically about growth problems facing the business. I find that if problems don’t have a real owner, they’re not going to get solved. Growth issues are no different and are often deprioritized unless it’s someone’s job to think about them.

I put early growth hires into a few simple buckets. You’ve got:

Product-minded growth experts: These folks are all about optimizing the user experience, reducing friction and expanding usage. They’re usually pretty analytical and might have product, data or MarketingOps backgrounds.

Since things have started to return to normal, there are more jobs than ever, and we're so excited to share them with you.Read More

Venture capitalists are chatting this week about a recent piece from The Information titled “The End of Venture Capital as We Know It.” As with nearly everything you read, the article in question is a bit more nuanced than its headline. Its author, Sam Lessin, makes some pretty good points. But I don’t fully agree with his conclusions, and want to talk about why.

This will be fun, and, because it’s Friday, both relaxed and cordial. (For fun, here’s a long-ass podcast I participated in with Lessin last year.)

A capital explosion

Lessin notes that venture capitalists once made risky wagers on companies that often withered away. Higher-than-average investment risk meant that returns from winning bets had to be very lucrative, or else the venture model would have failed.

Thus, venture capitalists sold their capital dearly to founders. The prices that venture capitalists have historically paid for startup equity in high-growth tech upstarts make IPO pops appear de minimis; it’s the VCs who make out like bandits when a tech company floats, not the bankers. The Wall Street crew just gets a final lap at the milk saucer.

Over time, however, things changed. Founders could lean on AWS instead of having to spend equity capital on server racks and colocation. The process of building software and taking it to market became better understood by more people.

Even more, recurring fees overtook the traditional method of selling software for a one-time price. This made the revenues of software companies less like those of video game companies, driven by episodic releases and dependent on the market’s reception of the next version of any particular product.

As SaaS took over, software revenues kept their lucrative gross margin profile but became both longer-lasting and more dependable. They got better. And easier to forecast to boot.

So, prices went up for software companies — public and private.

Another result of the revolution in both software construction and distribution — higher-level programming languages, smartphones, app stores, SaaS and, today, on-demand pricing coupled to API delivery — was that more money could pile into the companies busy writing code. Lower risk meant that other forms of capital found startup investing — super-late stage to begin with, but increasingly earlier in the startup lifecycle — not just possible, but rather attractive.

With more capital varieties taking interest in private tech companies thanks in part to reduced risk, pricing changed. Or, as Lessin puts it, thanks to better market ability to metricize startup opportunity and risk, “investors across the board [now] price [startups] more or less the same way.”

You can see where this is going: If that’s the case, then the model of selling expensive capital for huge upside becomes a bit soggy. If there is less risk, then venture capitalists can’t charge as much for their capital. Their return profile might change, with cheaper and more plentiful money chasing deals, leading to higher prices and lower returns.

The result of all of the above is Lessin’s lede: “All signs seem to indicate that by 2022, for the first time, nontraditional tech investors — including hedge funds, mutual funds and the like — will invest more in private tech companies than traditional Silicon Valley-style venture capitalists will.”

Capital crowding into the parts of finance once reserved for the high priests of venture means that the VCs of the world are finding themselves often fighting for deals with all sorts of new, and wealthier, players.

The result of this, per Lessin, is that venture “firms that grew up around software and internet investing and consider themselves venture capitalists” must “enter the bigger pond as a fairly small fish, or go find another small pond.”

Yeah, but

The obvious critique of Lessin’s argument is one that he makes himself, namely that what he is discussing is not as relevant to seed investing. As Lessin puts it, his argument’s impact on seed investing is “far less clear.”

Agreed. Sure, it’s the end of venture capital as we know it. But it’s not the end of venture capital, because if capitalism is going to continue, there’s always going to need to be risky-ass shit for VCs to bet on at the bottom.

The factors that made later-stage SaaS investing something that even idiots can make a few dollars doing become scarce the earlier one looks in the startup world. Investing in areas other than software compounds this effect; if you try to treat biotech startups as less risky than before simply because public clouds exist, you are going to fuck up.

So the Lessin argument matters less in seed-stage and earlier investing than it does in the later stages of startup backing, and doubly less when it comes to earlier investing in non-software companies.

While it’s a little-known fact, some venture capitalists still invest in startups that are not software-focused. Sure, nearly every startup involves code, but you can make a lot of money in a lot of ways by building startups, especially tech startups. The figuring-out of SaaS investing does not mean that investing in marketplaces, for example, has enjoyed a similar decline in risk.

So, the VCs-are-dead concept is less true for seed and non-software startups.

Is Lessin correct, then, that the game really has changed for middle- and late-stage software investing? Of course it has, but I think that he takes the concept of less risky, private-market software investing in the wrong direction.

First, even if private-market investing in software has a lower risk profile than before, it’s not zero. Many software startups will fail or stall out and sell for a modest sum at best. As many in today’s market as before? Probably not, but still some.

This means that the act of picking still matters; we can vamp as long as we’d like about how venture capitalists are going to have to pay more competitive prices for deals, but VCs could retain an edge in startup selection. This can limit downside, but may also do quite a lot more.

Anshu Sharma of Skyflow — and formerly of Salesforce and Storm Ventures, where I first met him — made an argument about this particular point earlier this week with which I am sympathetic.

Sharma thinks, and I agree, that venture winners are getting bigger. Recall that a billion-dollar private company was once a rare thing. Now they are built daily. And the biggest software companies aren’t worth the few hundred billion dollars that Microsoft was largely valued at between 1998 and 2019. Today they are worth several trillion dollars.

More simply, a more attractive software market in terms of risk and value creation means that outliers are even more outlier-y than before. This means that venture capitalists that pick well, and, yes, go earlier than they once did, can still generate bonkers returns. Perhaps even more so than before.

This is what I am hearing about certain funds regarding their present-day performance. If Lessin’s point held up as strongly as he states it, I reckon that we’d see declining rates of return at top VCs. We’re not, at least based on what I am hearing. (Feel free to tell me if I am wrong.)

So yes, venture capital is changing, and the larger funds really are looking more and more like entirely different sorts of capital managers than the VCs of yore. Capitalism is happening to venture capital, changing it as the world of money itself evolves. Services were one way that VCs tried to differentiate from one another, and probably from non-venture capital sources, though that was discussed less when The Services Wars were taking off.

But even the rapid-fire Tiger can’t invest in every company, and not all its bets will pay out. You might decide that you’d be better off putting capital into a slightly smaller fund with a slightly more measured cadence of dealmaking, allowing selection at the hand of fund managers that you trust to allocate your funds among other pooled capital to bet for you. So that you might earn better-than-average returns.

You know, the venture model.

V2Food is one of many new contenders in the alternative protein space, founded in Australia but now setting its sights on Europe, Asia and beyond. It has a few key advantages over the competition, and with €45 million in new funding it may be finding its way to plates in the Eurozone soon.

The company has seen strong uptake in its home market, and the first goal is to be No. 1 in Australia, said CEO and founder Nick Hazell, formerly of MasterFoods and PepsiCo R&D. But in the meantime they’ll be expanding their presence in Asia, where partner Burger King has launched a Whopper with their patty, and in Europe, where the product’s minimal suspicious elements come into play.

Currently v2Food makes plant-based ground beef and patties, sausages and a ready-made Bolognese sauce. Obviously they have strong competition in those categories, which are sort of the opening play of most alternative protein companies. But v2Food has a leg up on many of them in two ways.

First, v2Food products are made, or at least can be made, using “any standard meat production facility.” That’s a big plus for scaling and a minus for cost, since economies of scale are already in play. The processes for creating and mixing the plant-derived and other artificial substances that make up alternative proteins in general aren’t always amenable to existing infrastructure. This also opens the door to partnerships with existing meat companies that might have balked at having to switch processes. (Incidentally, Hazell noted that what they’re aiming for isn’t so much about replacing traditional meats so much as growing the market in a new direction, a philosophy those companies may appreciate.)

Second, as the press release announcing the fundraise puts it, “v2food products do not contain GMOs, preservatives, colors or flavorings. This makes it an ideal product for the European market, where the many large competitors have been unable to enter the market due to strict regulation.” It’s also a soft advantage for winning over in-store buyers vacillating between two plant-based options; who hasn’t on occasion ended up going for the one with fewer ingredients that proudly touts its lack of preservatives and such? The alt-protein buying demographic is likely especially sensitive to this consideration.

The €45 million round is a “B Plus,” led by European impact fund Astanor, with participation from Huaxing Growth Capitol Fund, Main Sequence and ABC World Asia. The money is going toward both R&D and scaling.

“This funding is an important step towards v2food’s goal of transforming the way the world produces food,” said Hazell. “It’s imperative that we scale quickly because these global issues need immediate solutions.”

To that end a large portion will go toward simply creating enough product to meet demand. They’re also doubling R&D spend to both accelerate new products and improve the existing ones. And rather than import the necessary ingredients to Australia, they’re exploring the possibility of building a local manufacturing facility there. With luck and a bit of plant-based elbow grease, the region could become a net exporter, propping up the local economy as well as building up v2Food’s resilience and cutting costs.

The Europe expansion is still a twinkle in the company’s (and Astanor’s) eye, for even with its simplicity and non-GMO origins, it’s not trivial to launch a new product in the European market.

 

Companies are looking to 'scale up' their deployments of AI as they look to incorporate machine learning throughout the organization.Read More

Michelle Davey’s pitch to Jordan Nof of Tusk Venture Partners about Wheel, a startup focused on providing a full suite of virtual care solutions to clinicians, was front-loaded with early metrics. It may not be standard practice to start with the numbers, especially early on, but she explained to us why she chose that strategy — and Nof told us why it worked.

Davey and Nof joined us on a recent episode of Extra Crunch Live and went into detail on why Tusk was eager to finance Wheel, walking us through the startup’s Series A pitch deck and sharing which slides and bits clinched the deal.

Extra Crunch Live is a weekly virtual event series meant to help founders build better venture-backed businesses. We sit down with investors and the founders they finance to hear what brought them together, what they saw in each other and how they work together moving forward. We also host the Extra Crunch Live Pitch-Off, where founders in the audience can pitch their startups to our outstanding speakers.

Extra Crunch Live is accessible to everyone live on Wednesdays at noon PDT, but the on-demand content is reserved exclusively for Extra Crunch members. You can check out the full ECL library here.

When to lead with traction

Davey emphasized the importance of not sticking to a rigid format for building a pitch deck. She said it’s important to instead focus on crafting your pitch around what makes you appealing and unique. That should be on the foreground and featured prominently.

For Wheel, that meant leading with traction, since the company had impressive uptake even early on. That remained true for their recent Series B raise, too.

High-quality UX for websites and apps is no longer a nice-to-have, it’s a must-have if a company is to succeed. But scaling the impact of UX teams is not simple, and in recent years teams have turned to what’s know as DesignOps platforms to help them.

Now, a new startup hopes to become a key DesignOps platform for UX teams, and has raised money to help it, in turn, scale-up.

Zeroheight has now raised a $10 million Series A funding round led by Tribe Capital, with participation from Adobe, Y Combinator, FundersClub and Expa, as well as angel investors including Tom Preston-Werner (co-founder of GitHub), Bradley Horowitz (VP Product at Google), Irene Au (built and ran UX design for Google) and Nick Caldwell (VP Engineering at Twitter).

London-based zeroheight will now expand to the San Francisco/Bay Area, and grow the team across the board. Its focus so far has been on UX documentation, but it will now also explore other areas such as closing the gap between design and development.

Co-founder Jerome de Lafargue said: “zeroheight does for UX what DevOps platforms like GitHub do for building and shipping code, providing a central place to document and manage UX components, coupled with design APIs that allow teams to skip the design hand-off stage entirely and speed up the UX delivery process.”

He said the company addresses the scaling problem for UX teams: “Problems have emerged because UX teams have grown dramatically in the past few years, because UX is now so important for most companies to just compete. And so because of this you now need centralization, you need components that are reusable so that teams can be efficient and not lose quality as it keeps shipping.”

Zeroheight counts several Fortune 500 companies like Adobe and United Airlines as customers among its 1,300+ customer base.

Hippo began to trade earlier this week after completing its SPAC combination. The home-focused U.S. neoinsurance provider initially stuck close to its $10 per-share pre-combination price before plummeting yesterday during regular trading.

But Hippo’s declines don’t appear to be of its own doing. Lemonade, another U.S. neoinsurance player — albeit one more focused on rental coverage — posted slightly better-than-expected Q2 results earlier in the week. After its report, Lemonade’s value dropped sharply, and it appears it dragged Hippo down with it.

The Exchange explores startups, markets and money.

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

The trading volatility is interesting on its own, but what matters more is that the drop in the value of several neoinsurance companies is part of a larger trend. This week’s declines are not incredibly surprising — the market has negatively repriced tech-enabled insurance providers in recent quarters, which can be an uncomfortable situation for a category that previously basked in warm attention from public investors.

At this juncture, we’d typically riff on the new values of public neoinsurance companies and use that data to work our way into a guess concerning what the price declines might mean for related startups. Taking public-market data and using it to better understand private markets is pretty much the national pastime of this column.

Not today. Instead, we’re going to look into an interesting dynamic among neoinsurance companies that may matter a bit more for our comprehension of the private markets. Namely that the players in the space that we can name and track are generally cash-rich and market-sentiment poor.

Public markets are cutting the value of neoinsurance stocks, but the companies behind the valuation declines are rather wealthy. This makes their enterprise values smaller than you might guess from a quick glance at their market cap figures. But do Lemonade or Hippo really care if the stock market decides from one quarter to the next that their businesses are worth plus or minus 10%? Do they have enough cash to pursue their long-term visions, regardless?

Let’s unpack all the numbers, discuss an interview The Exchange held with Hippo CEO Assaf Wand earlier in the week and consider what Lemonade had to say during its earnings call.