Thursday, October 1, 2026
Home Blog

Reverion raises $175m to scale its fuel cell power plants

0
Reverion funding round: $175m for new German factory

Energy start-up Reverion, based in Eresing near Munich, has closed a $175m Series B round. Deeptech and climate fund Kembara led the investment. Reverion will spend most of the money on a new factory in Germany, which it says will raise output tenfold.

Kembara leads the Series B as Allianz and KfW Capital join

  • Amount: $175m
  • Round: Series B
  • Lead investor: Kembara, the European scale-up fund of Mundi Ventures
  • New investors: Allianz, KfW Capital, aurum Impact, Carbon Equity
  • Existing investors: Extantia, Energy Impact Partners, alfa8, UVC Partners, EIC Fund, Possible Ventures
  • Previous round: $62m Series A (2024)
  • Founded: 2022, as a spin-off from the Technical University of Munich (TUM), by five founders
  • Headquarters: Eresing, Bavaria

The new round takes the total raised across Reverion’s Series A and B to around $237m.

Power from gas, without combustion

Reverion builds power plants based on solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). These cells turn gas into electricity through an electrochemical reaction rather than by burning it. The plant also captures the CO₂ from the gas stream in pure form. Operators can then reuse it or store it permanently.

When the plant runs on renewable gas such as biomethane, the captured CO₂ is biogenic. As a result, Reverion says the plant is carbon-negative in operation. The company puts its electrical efficiency at 74.2%, which it describes as a world record. It says it measured this figure at customer sites, using early units from pre-series production. According to Reverion, that is nearly double the efficiency of conventional generators.

The system also works in reverse. In electrolysis mode, it turns surplus electricity into gases that can be stored. This gives operators an asset that can respond to price signals in both the power and gas markets. Stephan Herrmann, CEO and co-founder, sees this as the core of the business: “Solar and wind give us clean energy, but only when the weather cooperates. What the world needs is clean power on tap.”

Seven plants are already in regular operation at customer sites. Reverion has also raised output per unit to 500kW. With the new funding, it plans to push the product into the megawatt class. “That opens up entirely new markets for Reverion,” Herrmann says.

Data centres emerge as a key growth market

So far, most of Reverion’s customers have come from the biogas sector. Now the company is turning its attention to data centres. Many operators face long delays in securing a grid connection. At the same time, public pushback over their energy use is growing. Reverion’s answer is power generated on site. Its plants draw on local gas infrastructure and supply continuous power. As a result, operators become less exposed to grid expansion delays and volatile electricity prices.

The lead investor shares this view. “Solid oxide fuel cells are the most efficient way to convert gas into electricity,” says Robert Trezona, Climate Lead at Kembara. In his view, the growth market lies in powering data centres, where a negative carbon footprint matters as much as efficiency. “Hyperscalers need massive, reliable power, but they cannot compromise on their climate commitments,” Trezona adds.

Felix Fischer, COO and co-founder, reports strong demand from abroad. He says utilities and industrial customers increasingly see dispatchable clean power as essential to energy security. The fresh capital should therefore help Reverion clear its order backlog quickly. In the long run, Fischer is aiming for profitability.

New factory with 250MW capacity and up to 800 jobs

Reverion will invest most of the funds in a new production site in Germany. The factory is set to reach an annual capacity of 250MW, ten times its current output. It is also expected to create up to 800 jobs. At the Eresing headquarters, the team has recently grown from 100 to more than 200 staff.

A large project pipeline lies behind the expansion. According to the company, it carries revenue potential of more than $2bn. Reverion also plans to deliver its first projects outside Germany later this year. For Herrmann, the round marks a turning point: “By closing this Series B, we are laying the foundation for industrial mass production.”

FAQ

How much has Reverion raised?

Reverion raised $175m in its Series B funding round. In 2024, it secured $62m in a Series A.

Who are Reverion’s investors?

Kembara led the round. Allianz, KfW Capital, aurum Impact and Carbon Equity joined as new investors. Existing backers Extantia, Energy Impact Partners, alfa8, UVC Partners, EIC Fund and Possible Ventures also took part.

What does Reverion do?

Reverion builds power plants using solid oxide fuel cells. They generate electricity from gas without burning it and capture pure CO₂ in the process. In reverse mode, they turn surplus power into storable gases.

What will Reverion use the money for?

Most of the funds will go into a new factory in Germany with 250MW of annual capacity and up to 800 jobs. Reverion also plans to scale its plants into the megawatt class.

When was Reverion founded?

Five founders from the Technical University of Munich set up Reverion in 2022. The company is based in Eresing near Munich.

Picture Source Reverion

From Belfast to global markets: How sovereign AI company Whitespace scales

0
Whitespace: AI and Technology for Trusted Operations founder  Paul Jenkinson

Whitespace develops AI and technology for organisations that need secure, resilient and trusted solutions in complex operational environments.

Could you briefly introduce Whitespace and tell us how the company was founded?

I co-founded Whitespace in Belfast in 2015. From the beginning, the ambition was to build technology that could solve difficult, real-world problems rather than technology for technology’s sake.

Today, Whitespace is a British sovereign AI company helping organisations operationalise trusted AI in complex and highly regulated environments. We’ve built much of our credibility in defence and government, where resilience, security and control really matter, and we’re now taking that capability into a much broader global market.

You founded Whitespace around a decade ago. How has the company evolved since then?

We’ve evolved enormously. Whitespace started by building digital products and solving complex workflow problems, which gave us a strong foundation in understanding how organisations actually adopt and use technology.

Over time, particularly through our work in defence and government, we saw a much bigger opportunity emerging around AI. That led to Collective, our AI operating system, which provides the environment through which organisations can use AI securely and build and deploy operational AI applications.

The company has evolved with the technology, but the principle has remained remarkably consistent: start with the operational problem and build technology around the outcome.

What is the vision behind Whitespace, and what role does sovereign AI play in it?

We believe AI is approaching an important inflexion point. The last few years have been about AI learning from historical data, and it has learnt so well it can now generate credible new content, whether text, images, audio, video or code. However, AI that has learnt about the past is very different from AI that can help you decide the future. This is the real inflexion point that we are leading on – AI becoming operational, helping organisations understand situations, make decisions, act, learn from what happens in real time and adapt.

Our vision for Whitespace is to help organisations make that transition. Those that can make trusted decisions faster, continuously learn and adapt will have an enormous advantage. We call that Decision Superiority, and it is fundamental to operational resilience.

Sovereignty is an important enabler of that resilience, but I don’t define sovereignty simply by where a company or model was developed. It comes down to control, choice and resilience: control over your data and technology, the freedom to choose and change suppliers or models, and the ability to continue operating when circumstances change.

Ultimately, we’re building for a world where AI isn’t simply something organisations ask questions of, but something they can trust as part of how they operate.

Whitespace already works with organisations such as the Royal Navy and the British Army. What are their key requirements when it comes to AI?

Defence organisations don’t lack interest in AI. The challenge is turning AI into something they can trust and use operationally.

That means security, governance, audibility and control are essential, but so is resilience. Technology may need to operate across cloud, on-premises, edge and disconnected environments, often with highly sensitive information.

That’s what we’ve designed Collective around. It allows organisations to bring together different models, data, knowledge and AI capabilities within a governed environment, rather than becoming dependent on a single model or supplier.

The technology has to work around the operational environment, not the other way around.

What sets Whitespace apart from other companies developing AI solutions?

We’ve spent a decade building credibility in some of the most demanding operational environments in defence and government. Impressive AI technology means very little if organisations don’t trust you to deploy it against real problems.

Our approach is also different. We start with the decision or operational challenge, rather than a model or dataset looking for a use case. Through Collective and our team, we work alongside customers to build capabilities around those problems.

Collective is designed around resilience and choice, allowing organisations to use different models and technologies without becoming locked into a single provider. And importantly, we build learning into the process – helping organisations decide, act, learn and adapt.

Ultimately, we combine technology, operational experience and proximity to the customer. We’re building AI alongside organisations that need it to work in the real world.

Sovereign AI has become an important topic for governments. What does technological sovereignty mean to you in practice?

Sovereign AI is becoming a widely used term, and I think we need to be careful about what it actually means. A company being British, or technology being built in the UK, does not automatically make the capability sovereign.

For me, sovereignty comes down to control, choice and resilience. Who controls your data and technology? Can you choose where it runs and change models or suppliers? And can you continue operating if access to a provider changes?

That doesn’t mean everything needs to be built domestically. Organisations should be able to use the best technology available without becoming dependent on any single component or supplier.

Sovereignty isn’t isolation, and it isn’t simply a label based on where something was built. It’s having the control and choice to keep operating when circumstances change.

Defence is a highly demanding environment for technology. What have been the biggest challenges for Whitespace so far?

Ironically, the technology often isn’t the hardest part. One of the biggest challenges is getting innovative technology through the processes required to put it into operational use.

Defence understandably has extremely high standards around security, assurance and risk, but procurement processes weren’t designed for the pace at which AI is developing. Smaller technology companies can sometimes prove a capability quickly and then spend considerably longer navigating the route to deployment.

I don’t think the answer is lowering standards – particularly in defence. It’s creating procurement and adoption models that maintain those standards while allowing genuinely capable technology to move much faster from experimentation into operational use.

You have successfully exited two companies and invested in more than 100 tech businesses. How has that experience shaped the way you lead Whitespace?

It’s taught me that technology companies succeed by solving problems people genuinely care about.

I’ve seen incredibly sophisticated technologies struggle because they were looking for a problem, and comparatively simple ideas become enormous businesses because they solved something important.

That’s shaped how we’ve built Whitespace. We spend a lot of time close to customers and the environments in which our technology will actually be used. It’s also taught me not to become too attached to a particular technology or business model. Markets change incredibly quickly, particularly in AI, and founders need to be willing to learn and adapt with them.

How do you see the role of AI in defence evolving over the next few years?

We’re going to see AI move much further into operational environments. The focus will shift from isolated experiments and individual use cases towards trusted, auditable systems that can support people operating in complex and high-pressure situations.

That will make resilience increasingly important. Defence organisations will need AI that can operate securely across different environments, continue functioning when connectivity is constrained, and give users confidence in how outputs and decisions are reached.

The technology is moving quickly enough to make this possible. The challenge now is ensuring procurement, infrastructure and adoption can move quickly enough with it.

What are the next steps for Whitespace, and where do you see the company in the future?

We raised an oversubscribed $13 million Series A last year and are now preparing for our Series B funding round as we enter the next stage of Whitespace’s growth.

We’ve scaled significantly over the past year, and our ambition is to grow the team by a further 50% as we scale Collective, deepen our work across defence and government, and expand our presence internationally, particularly across the US and EU.

Defence has given us an extraordinary environment in which to build and prove our technology, but the challenges we’re solving – operational resilience, complex decision-making, organisational knowledge and control over AI – exist across many industries and markets.

We’re building a global AI company from Belfast, and the next phase is about taking what we’ve proven in some of the world’s most demanding environments and scaling it internationally.

Finally, what three pieces of advice would you give to other founders building technology companies today?

First, spend more time talking to customers than talking to investors. Funding is important, but ultimately customers build companies.

Second, solve a real problem. Don’t start with a technology and then try to manufacture a use case around it.

Third, be prepared to adapt. Whitespace today looks very different from the company we founded in 2015. The ambition hasn’t changed, but the technology, market and opportunity have. Knowing what shouldn’t change – and what absolutely should – is an important part of building a company.

Picturecredits Whitespace

Thank you Paul Jenkinson for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

Tagsight CEO on industrial AI, engineering drawings, and global growth

0
Tagsight, Engineering and AI for Industrial Workflows Image Muaawia Jannat, founder of Tagsight Technologies Inc., based in Calgary, Canada. Image supplied courtesy of Tagsight Technologies Inc.

Tagsight combines Engineering and AI to turn information from technical drawings into structured records and streamline complex industrial workflows.

Could you briefly introduce Tagsight and tell us how the idea for the company came about?

Tagsight is engineering document management and workflow automation software. It helps engineers turn information in drawings and technical documents into records they can review and use, without having to compile everything manually.

I wanted to work on a challenging problem where AI could help, but still struggled to produce the result people needed consistently. Conversations with electrical and process engineers brought me to the amount of time they spent extracting, checking and reconciling information across documents.

The information was often already there. Getting it into a usable, consistent form was still a considerable amount of work. That interested me both as a technical problem and as something worth building a business around. Experienced engineers were spending time on tasks that better software should help them complete much faster.

Who is behind Tagsight, and what experiences led you to focus on engineering data and industrial software?

I’m Muaawia Jannat, founder of Tagsight, based in Calgary. I come from an entrepreneurial family and began building Tagsight while studying computational and applied mathematics at the University of Calgary.

I developed the platform myself, including the AI processing systems, the application and the cloud infrastructure. We have built the company without outside equity investment, and I still lead the product and technical development.

I work with advisors who bring more than 30 years of combined experience in electrical and process engineering. Their experience has been important in understanding what engineers need from the software, including details that would not be obvious from studying the documents alone.

Alongside Tagsight, I work on algorithms and publish technical writing. My writing on engineering information has appeared in the UK’s Engineering Maintenance Solutions, and Calgary.tech recently featured the company.

Engineering teams often work with large amounts of information stored in technical drawings. What problems does this create in day-to-day engineering workflows?

A drawing may contain the information needed for several different tasks, but someone still has to locate it, organise it and put it into the right records. That might mean building an instrument index, preparing an equipment register or checking information against another document.

Revisions add another layer of work. A change on a drawing can affect several records, so someone needs to establish what changed and where that change needs to be carried through.

The burden is keeping all of that information consistent as a project progresses. Copying one item is straightforward. Doing it across a document set, retaining the context and checking subsequent changes takes a lot of skilled attention.

Tagsight turns information from industrial drawings into structured records that engineering teams can review and use. How does this process work in practice?

An engineer uploads a drawing set into a workspace. Tagsight extracts the relevant information and organises it into engineering records.

For a piping and instrumentation diagram, those records can include an instrument index, an I/O list and an equipment register. The engineer can inspect the extracted information alongside the original drawing, check where an entry came from and make corrections.

The reviewed records can then be exported to Excel or supported engineering formats.

Instead of starting with an empty spreadsheet, the engineer starts with prepared information and the source available for checking. The aim is to make that information useful in the next task, rather than simply produce a summary of the drawing.

AI is becoming increasingly common in engineering software. Where does AI create the greatest value within Tagsight, and where is human verification still essential?

AI is most useful in the detailed preparation work: identifying information in drawings, organising it and reducing the amount that has to be entered by hand.

The engineer still needs to determine whether that information is correct, complete and suitable for its intended use. Recognising a component on a drawing does not amount to approving an engineering decision.

Keeping that review step does not give the software a pass on accuracy. It still needs to produce useful work and save time once checking and corrections are included. Otherwise, we have only moved the effort from one task to another.

Engineering data can be highly sensitive and errors can have significant consequences. How do you approach accuracy, security and reliability?

These documents can relate to infrastructure where a mistake has consequences for equipment and people’s safety. We do not treat an AI-generated record as an approved engineering deliverable.

The extracted information needs to remain traceable to its source, open to correction and subject to engineering review before it is relied on. Different drawing styles and document quality also create different challenges, so reliability has to be considered across the kinds of documents people actually work with.

On confidentiality, we do not train models on customer engineering data. Those documents can contain years of proprietary work. Protecting that intellectual property is fundamental to the relationship we want with engineering firms. Using our software should help them make better use of their information while leaving their expertise and intellectual property theirs.

Tagsight has users on its evaluation plan across more than 30 countries. How many companies are actively using the platform today, and how many of them are paying customers?

We have more than 100 people on Tagsight’s evaluation plan across more than 30 countries.

We have recently started ramping up the commercial side of the business and are keeping active-company and paying-customer figures private at this stage.

We are in early discussions with a few engineering, procurement and construction firms in Canada and the United States, and we recently demonstrated Tagsight to a major EPC in Taiwan. We are also seeing interest from Europe, particularly the Netherlands and Germany.

That international interest has been encouraging at this stage of the company. Our focus now is on growing commercial adoption.

You decided to address a highly specialized industrial market rather than build a broad AI product. Why did you choose this particular niche?

I was interested in work that still required substantial technical development, even with capable AI models available.

Engineering drawings are a good example. A model might recognise a label but associate it with the wrong item, or handle one drawing well and miss important information on another. The task requires understanding symbols, text and relationships, then producing records that an engineer can actually use.

That gap between what AI can attempt and what the work requires is what interested me. There is a difficult problem to solve, and a clear reason to solve it: engineering firms are already spending considerable time doing the work manually.

It also serves companies of different sizes. A small specialist firm with decades of experience can benefit from better tools just as a large EPC can.

Industrial companies often rely on established systems and workflows. What is the biggest challenge when convincing engineering teams to adopt a new software solution?

The biggest challenge is demonstrating value on their own work.

A team needs to see how the software handles its documents, how much checking is required and whether the result fits the tools and deliverables it already uses. Those questions matter more than a demonstration on a carefully selected example.

I also do not expect a firm to change its whole process around our product. Established workflows often reflect years of experience and accountability. We need to understand those processes and show where Tagsight can remove effort without creating unnecessary disruption or taking control away from the engineer.

Building internationally from Canada gives Tagsight access to a global market from an early stage. Which regions or industries currently offer the greatest opportunities for growth?

North America and Europe are both important to us. We are having early conversations with EPCs in Canada and the United States, and the interest from the Netherlands and Germany makes Europe an important part of our commercial outlook as well.

Our focus is on electrical, process and controls engineering, including both specialist firms and larger EPCs. That includes work on new infrastructure and existing facilities, where drawing archives and successive revisions can involve substantial document reconciliation.

Data centres are another area of interest because of the electrical and supporting infrastructure involved. We see an opportunity to support the engineering firms delivering those projects.

The company is based in Calgary, but we are building for an international engineering market.

What is your long-term vision for Tagsight, and what are the next major milestones for the company?

I want Tagsight to become a standard part of how engineering firms manage their information and deliver projects.

A firm may have spent twenty years developing its expertise. Our role is to help it get more work done with that expertise by reducing the repetitive effort around documents and data.

The next milestones are to expand commercial adoption, improve processing speed and reliability, and support more of the documents and workflows engineers already use.

We do not intend to become an engineering services company ourselves. We build software for engineering firms so they can deliver their services better. Their engineering knowledge, client relationships and intellectual property remain theirs.

What are the three most important pieces of advice you would give to founders building AI-powered B2B software for specialized industries?

First, learn what the completed work needs to look like. Ask practitioners to show you the deliverable, the checks and the steps required to get there. That helps you understand what the product actually needs to accomplish.

Second, account for the person who is responsible for the result. Give them a practical way to inspect and correct the output. Measure whether you save them time across the whole task, including review.

Third, work with real inputs early. Different drawing styles, older scans and inconsistent information will reveal problems that clean examples do not. Those are the problems the product will have to handle in practice.

Image Muaawia Jannat, founder of Tagsight Technologies Inc., based in Calgary, Canada.
Image supplied courtesy of Tagsight Technologies Inc.

Thank you Muaawia Jannat for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

Evveko founder on Istanbul urban renewal and PropTech growth

0
Evveko: renewal platform for apartment owners Yusuf Kara Founder, Evveko Picture credit: Emlak Konut – Anahtar Fikirler Summit

Evveko helps owners navigate apartment-building renewal by connecting them with verified contractors and making proposals easier to compare

Could you introduce yourself and Evveko and tell us what inspired you to start the company?

I’m Yusuf Kara, founder of Evveko. Evveko is an Istanbul platform that helps the owners of an apartment building go through urban renewal (kentsel dönüşüm) together: they apply for their building, verified contractors reach them, and each owner can see what a proposal means for his or her own flat. The idea came from watching renewal decisions stall for years, not because the numbers were bad, but because a dozen owners could not compare proposals on the same basis or trust the company across the table.

Your background is in civil engineering. Which experiences made you realize that apartment-building renewal needed a better coordination process?

Working in construction, I saw the same meeting again and again: one contractor, many owners, a proposal expressed as a percentage split of flats, and very little shared information. Owners did not know their building’s zoning rights, their own share of floor area, or how to compare two offers. The technical part of renewal is well understood in Turkey; the coordination part is not.

What are the biggest challenges owners face when trying to agree on a renewal project?

Istanbul renewal projects typically need the agreement of the owners who hold a majority of the shares, so a building is only as fast as its most hesitant owner. The recurring issues are information asymmetry, fear of choosing an unreliable contractor, rent and relocation costs during construction, and simple uncertainty about “what will my new flat look like and what will I pay?”.

How does Evveko work, from an owner’s application to comparing proposals?

An owner or building manager applies online in about two minutes. After a short phone conversation, the application is published on the platform in one of two models. In the direct-contact model, contractors whose documents have been approved by Evveko can message the owners through the platform; owners’ phone numbers stay hidden. In nine districts we also run a managed-dossier service: we prepare the building’s zoning information, unit list and floor areas, and contractors submit proposals on the same data, so owners compare like with like. Our calculators turn construction prices and the flat allocation into an estimate for each owner.

How does Evveko check contractors before they can contact owners?

A contractor cannot send a proposal or a first message until its tax registration and its construction contractor authorization certificate (yapı müteahhidi yetki belgesi), which is issued by the Ministry, have been reviewed and approved by our team. We describe this honestly as a document check; it is not a guarantee of the contractor’s work, and we always encourage owners to review contracts with their own lawyer.

How does your business model work?

Owners never pay. Contractors can use the platform for free with one new application contact per month; paid monthly packages give them more contact rights plus tools such as specification, contract and flat-allocation modules. In managed-dossier projects, Evveko earns a success commission from the contractor when the renewal contract is signed.

What have you learned from operating across all 39 districts of Istanbul?

Demand is everywhere, but the market is very local: land values, building ages and contractor networks change from one neighbourhood to the next. That is why we open applications city-wide but keep the hands-on dossier service in nine districts where we know the ground well.

What traction has Evveko achieved so far?

Since we started taking applications at the end of 2025, around 140 buildings have applied, close to 600 people have registered and about 95 contractor firms have created accounts. Our renewal guides reach over 3,000 visitors a month from Google search, and our Android app is live. Renewal decisions take many months, and we do not yet have a completed renewal delivered through the platform; our focus now is increasing the number of verified contractors who actively respond to owners.

What have been the biggest challenges in building trust?

Trust has to be earned on both sides at once. Owners are cautious because the sector has well-known horror stories; contractors are cautious because they have been asked for many “free” offers that went nowhere. Being transparent about what we check and what we do not, and not charging owners anything, has been essential.

How is Evveko financed?

Evveko is founder-funded so far. We are alumni of Emlak Konut’s PropTech programme and are based at BTM, the Istanbul Chamber of Commerce’s innovation and incubation centre. We will consider external investment once the contractor side of the marketplace is repeatable.

What are the next milestones, and could the model expand beyond Istanbul?

Our next milestones are growing the pool of document-verified contractors, reaching our first signed renewal contracts through managed dossiers, and bringing document upload to the mobile app. Urban renewal is a national programme in Turkey, with major cities such as Izmir, Bursa and Ankara facing the same challenge, so expansion within Turkey is the natural next step. Multi-owner building renewal is a problem in many earthquake-prone and ageing cities, so the model could travel later on.

Three pieces of advice for PropTech founders in an emerging market?

First, the software is the easy part; the offline process around it is the product, so spend time in the meetings your users sit in. Second, be precise about your promises: in real estate, one overclaim can cost you the trust you spent a year building. Third, watch the side of the marketplace that is harder to win; for us it has been the contractors, not the owners.

Image Yusuf Kara Founder, Evveko Picture credit: Emlak Konut – Anahtar Fikirler Summit

Thank you Yusuf Kara for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

Growth Without Employees: How Vizura Studio Redefines B2B Tech Branding

0
Branding: Vizura Studio for Technology Companies Vedran Obradović Vizura Studio

Vizura Studio founder Vedran Obradović explains why branding matters for technology companies and how he is building an international specialist studio from Zagreb.

Could you briefly introduce yourself and Vizura Studio and tell us what inspired you to start your own branding studio?

I’m Vedran Obradović, founder and designer behind Vizura Studio®, a one man branding studio based in Zagreb, Croatia. I work mainly with B2B and technology companies across brand strategy, positioning, logo design, identity systems and digital experiences.

Vizura really came from wanting to build the kind of design business I personally would want to hire.

I never liked the idea of a client speaking to one person during sales, someone else during strategy, and then seeing the actual work passed further down the chain. I wanted the person making strategic decisions to also be the person designing the identity and speaking directly with the client.

Anzeige

Over time, that preference became the actual business model.

What interests me now is seeing how far a deliberately small studio from Zagreb can go internationally without pretending to be a much larger agency.

You describe Vizura Studio as a one-man branding studio rather than a traditional agency. Why did you consciously choose this business model?

Because I think growth and headcount are two different things.

Creative businesses are often expected to follow the same path: hire more people, add account managers, create departments and eventually become an agency. I never really accepted that as the only definition of progress.

I wanted Vizura to grow through better work, stronger clients, larger problems, deeper expertise and more international reach.

A one man model also creates a very simple promise. The person you speak with at the beginning is the same person thinking through the strategy, designing the identity and caring about the final detail.

Fewer layers also mean less information gets diluted between stages.

Capacity is obviously more limited, but I would rather solve that problem carefully than make the business bigger simply because bigger is supposed to mean more successful.

So I’m not keeping Vizura small because of a lack of ambition. I’m testing whether ambition can look different.

What does strong branding mean for B2B and technology companies, and why is it particularly important for startups?

For me, strong branding is not about making a company look expensive. It is about making the company easier to understand, easier to remember and easier to trust.

B2B and technology companies often sell something complex, invisible or technically difficult to evaluate quickly.

Buyers usually cannot inspect an entire product before forming an opinion. They are already judging the company through its website, messaging, visual identity, presentation and overall consistency.

Startups sometimes treat branding as a cosmetic layer that can be added once all the “serious” work is finished. I think that underestimates how much perception affects growth.

A company can have an excellent product and still create unnecessary friction if it looks unclear, generic or less mature than the technology behind it.

Good branding helps close that gap between actual capability and perceived capability.

You have worked with companies across technology, AI, enterprise IT and electronics. What are the biggest branding challenges you see in these industries?

One of the biggest problems is sameness.

Technology companies are often surrounded by the same references, same competitors and increasingly the same AI generated inspiration. Everyone wants to communicate intelligence, speed, innovation and trust, so entire categories gradually start using the same visual language.

Complexity is another major challenge.

Technical teams usually understand exactly why their product is exceptional, but a lot of that difference gets lost by the time someone encounters the company from the outside.

I have recently worked across projects including heyMirai, Deepsea Networks, Verticomm, Talentix, Breach.ai and Soldered Electronics. The industries and products are different, but the underlying problem appears surprisingly often.

Companies know what makes them different internally. Branding has to make enough of that difference visible externally without reducing a sophisticated product into vague marketing language.

Many founders invest heavily in developing their product but think about branding much later. At what point should branding become part of a startup’s strategy?

Earlier than most founders think, but that does not necessarily mean investing in a huge branding project on day one.

Early on, clarity matters most. Who is this for, what problem are we solving, why should somebody care and why are we meaningfully different?

A more complete identity system becomes increasingly important once the company starts asking the market for greater trust.

That moment might come when moving upmarket, raising capital, hiring important people, entering a more competitive category, approaching enterprise customers or simply reaching the point where the product has matured faster than the brand.

I see that last situation quite often.

Product, team and ambition evolve quietly while the brand keeps communicating the much earlier company.

Once the gap between what the business has become and what the market perceives becomes too wide, branding stops being decoration and starts becoming a business issue.

How do you translate complex technologies and products into a brand identity that customers can quickly understand and trust?

I normally begin by removing complexity before adding design.

Technology companies naturally want to explain everything because they have spent years building everything. Customers rarely need everything at once.

My first question is usually not what the logo should look like. It is what someone needs to understand within the first few seconds for the rest of the story to make sense.

Positioning, language and visual identity should then reinforce the same core idea.

Visual design becomes a kind of compression system. Typography, hierarchy, colour, imagery, motion and the logo all help communicate maturity, precision and character before someone reads a detailed explanation.

Trust rarely comes from one impressive element.

It comes from many small signals consistently agreeing with each other.

Vizura Studio is based in Zagreb, but you are building an international specialist business. How have you managed to attract and work with clients beyond your local market?

The internet removed geography much faster than it removed perception.

Technically I can work with a company almost anywhere, but that does not automatically mean an international client will trust a designer in Zagreb with an important part of their business.

A lot of the work has therefore been about reducing that distance through portfolio quality, communication, positioning and the way Vizura presents itself.

Platforms such as Upwork played an important role earlier because they created access to international companies that would otherwise have been much harder to reach.

Every strong project then becomes another piece of proof.

My goal now is to make Vizura itself visible enough that geography becomes interesting context rather than something that needs to be overcome.

I actually like building the studio from Zagreb. I do not think somebody has to move to London, New York or San Francisco before they are allowed to think internationally.

What are the advantages of working as a highly specialized independent studio compared with building a larger agency team?

Speed of understanding is probably one of the biggest advantages.

When the same person hears the founder explain the problem, develops the positioning, explores the identity and builds the final system, very little information disappears between stages.

Decision making is also faster because there are fewer layers of interpretation.

Accountability becomes very clear too. There is nowhere for work to disappear inside the organisation. If a decision is good, I made it. If something is wrong, it is also mine to solve.

Specialisation matters just as much.

I would rather become exceptionally useful to a narrower type of client than moderately useful to everyone.

For Vizura, that increasingly means B2B and technology companies where clarity, trust and perceived maturity genuinely affect business outcomes.

I do not think this model is automatically better than a large agency. Some projects genuinely need large multidisciplinary teams.

But many companies are looking for senior thinking, direct collaboration and speed more than organisational size.

At the same time, where do you see the biggest challenges of running a one-person business while working with international clients?

Capacity is the obvious challenge.

When you are the strategist, designer, project manager, salesperson and studio owner, growth cannot simply mean putting more projects into the calendar.

That forces me to be disciplined about which projects I accept and sometimes means saying no to work that would look attractive financially in the short term.

Poor prioritisation also becomes expensive very quickly. If I spend three hours on something that does not matter, there is no larger team absorbing the mistake.

On the other hand, those constraints have made me much more conscious about systems, communication and how projects are structured.

The next challenge for Vizura is increasing leverage without destroying the reason the model works in the first place.

I’m much more interested in better systems, technology, selective partnerships and smarter processes than automatically turning the studio into a traditional agency.

AI is changing both the technology sector and the creative industry. How is artificial intelligence affecting branding and design, and where do you still see the value of human expertise?

AI is making execution abundant.

Concepts, images, copy and variations can now be produced at a speed that would have sounded ridiculous only a few years ago.

I think that is genuinely useful.

An interesting consequence appears when polished output becomes easier to create. Simply producing something polished becomes less valuable.

Value starts moving toward judgment.

Which idea is actually relevant? Which direction is ownable? What should the company avoid saying? Which visual choice is distinctive rather than fashionable? What will still make sense several years from now?

AI is very good at giving you more.

Branding often depends on knowing what to remove.

There is also a real risk of companies using the same models, prompts and reference pools gradually moving toward the same average aesthetic. Parts of AI and SaaS already show signs of that.

So I do not see human expertise disappearing. Its value is shifting further toward taste, context, decision making and responsibility for the final answer.

What are your plans for Vizura Studio over the next few years, and how do you want to grow without becoming a traditional agency?

I want Vizura to become more specialised, more recognised and more international without becoming unnecessarily complicated.

The direction is increasingly focused on B2B and technology brands, especially companies where trust, complexity and differentiation are real business problems rather than purely aesthetic ones.

I also want the studio to become known for a point of view, not only for a portfolio.

That means publishing more, contributing to conversations around branding and technology, building stronger case studies and creating visibility beyond platforms where somebody is already actively searching for a designer.

Growth for me would mean better projects, stronger relationships, greater reach, smarter systems and more intellectual property around the way I work.

There may absolutely be specialist collaborators and partners around Vizura as projects become more ambitious, but I want to protect the direct relationship between the client and the person responsible for the thinking and work.

I would rather build an extremely strong specialist studio than a larger agency simply because larger sounds like progress.

Finally, what three pieces of advice would you give founders who want to build a specialized business and establish themselves internationally?

  1. Be specific enough that people can remember why you exist. Trying to be relevant to everybody usually makes a business harder to remember. Specialisation gives the market a reason to associate your name with a particular type of problem.
  2. Build proof before trying to manufacture perception. Strong positioning and a good website help, but eventually people need evidence. Do excellent work, document it properly, collect real results and turn every strong project into credibility for the next one.
  3. Do not wait for geography to give you permission. International clients do not necessarily care where your desk is. They care whether you understand the problem, communicate clearly and can deliver at the level they need.

International credibility is usually built one project, one relationship and one piece of proof at a time.

That has probably been one of the biggest lessons for me personally.

Zagreb is where Vizura is based. It does not have to define the boundary of what Vizura can become.

Picturecredits Ilaria Perrella

Thank you Vedran Obradović for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

From Street Vendor to EdTech Founder: How Luciano Almeida Is Uniting Education and Careers

0
LDR Academy: Entrepreneurship meets education LDR Academy Luciano Rodrigues Almeida

LDR Academy founder Luciano Rodrigues Almeida shares how entrepreneurship shaped his journey from Brazil to Europe and his vision for connecting education, careers and professional opportunities.

Luciano, could you briefly introduce yourself and tell us what brought you from Brazil to Europe?

I’m Luciano Rodrigues Almeida, a Brazilian entrepreneur and university student currently living in Belgium. I grew up in the interior of Bahia, and entrepreneurship entered my life long before I knew that word. As a child, I sold papayas at the local market and went door to door selling bananas.

One of the reasons I came to Europe was to step outside the Brazilian bubble and look back at my own country from another perspective. When we are inside a reality, we often see its problems very clearly but can become blind to some of its possibilities. Distance helped me see Brazil differently — and also see myself differently.

My path has moved through human resources, psychoanalysis, people development and entrepreneurship. Living in Europe has made me question systems I once took for granted and has influenced many of the ideas I am building today.

You jokingly describe yourself as “the ideas kid.” What is behind this expression, and what does it say about the way you approach entrepreneurship?

I use “the ideas kid” with some humor because my mind is constantly asking: “Why does this have to work this way?”

That instinct has been with me for a long time. When I was a child in Bahia, I was already trying to find ways to sell something and reach people. Today the products and the doors are different, but in a sense I am still doing the same thing: knocking on doors.

Now the door might belong to a university, a company, a potential partner or even a newsroom. The technology changed, the scale changed and I changed, but I still believe opportunities often begin when you have the courage to knock.

Entrepreneurship has also taught me that having ideas is the easy part. An idea has little value until it meets a real need. So today I try to move from “I have an idea” to “Is there a real problem here, and will people actually use the solution?”

You started by questioning why education, professional networks, skills development and employment often exist separately. Which personal experiences led you to this question?

Part of it came from my own experience as a student, professional and immigrant.

I would look for a course in one place, professional opportunities somewhere else, networking on another platform, career guidance somewhere else again, and job vacancies on yet another website. Starting again in another country made that fragmentation even more visible.

A person does not experience life in separate platforms. Someone can be studying today, looking for a job tomorrow, needing career guidance next month and eventually becoming an entrepreneur or offering their own services.

That question became one of the foundations of LDR Academy: what if more of this journey could be connected instead of forcing people to restart their story every time they need something different?

LDR Academy began with the idea of connecting areas that are often separated. How did that original concept develop into what you are building today?

It evolved gradually.

Initially, the focus was much more on education and access to learning. Then I started seeing connections with employability, professional development, networking and entrepreneurship.

Instead of creating an isolated solution every time I encountered another problem, I began asking whether these problems were actually parts of the same journey.

Today, the broader vision is an ecosystem where a person can enter to learn something and continue in the same environment to develop skills, build professional relationships, discover opportunities and, eventually, offer their own knowledge or services.

LDR Academy is still evolving. I think it is important to say that openly. We are building and testing rather than pretending everything is already finished.

You speak openly about the fact that some of your ideas worked while others failed. Can you share an example of something that did not work and what you learned from it?

My first company failed.

What makes that experience especially meaningful to me is that it was, in many ways, an earlier attempt to build something connected to what I am trying to create today. I could have interpreted that failure as proof that I should stop. Instead, I eventually chose to understand what had gone wrong and try again with more experience.

I learned that enthusiasm cannot replace validation, focus or a sustainable business model. I also learned that failure does not erase what you discovered while trying.

So when I say I am building again, I am not starting from zero. I am starting with lessons that were expensive — emotionally, professionally and financially — to learn.

I failed once, but I did not give up. LDR Academy is also part of that continuation.

How do you determine whether an idea solves a real problem or simply sounds promising in theory?

I ask whether the problem exists without my product.

Are people already trying to solve it somehow? Are they spending time, money or effort on alternatives? Do they complain about it? Do I repeatedly encounter the same difficulty myself?

Then I try to put something real in front of people. This is one of the lessons I carry from my first business: building is not the same as validating.

A conversation can validate interest, but behavior is stronger evidence. Someone actually using a product tells you much more than someone saying, “That’s a great idea.”

What role do technology and digital solutions play in your vision for connecting education, career development and employability?

Technology is the infrastructure, not the purpose.

The purpose is helping people move forward.

Technology allows us to connect experiences that historically have been separated: learning, professional profiles, opportunities, communities, employers and services.

I am particularly interested in how technology and AI can reduce friction — helping someone understand what skills they need for an opportunity, find relevant learning, demonstrate what they know and connect with organizations looking for those capabilities.

But technology should make the human journey simpler, not more confusing. If the system is impressive but the person feels more lost after using it, then we have solved the wrong problem.

You are building without the resources and structures of a large startup. What are the biggest challenges you currently face?

Focus is probably the biggest one.

When resources are limited, every decision matters. You cannot build everything simultaneously, even when you can see many possibilities.

There is also the challenge of credibility. When you are building something new without a famous investor, a large team or a recognized brand behind you, you have to earn trust one conversation at a time.

That is where my childhood story still feels surprisingly current. I used to go door to door trying to sell what I had. Today I still have to knock on doors — only now I am presenting ideas, partnerships and a vision.

Funding, technology, partnerships and customer acquisition are obvious challenges, but prioritization and persistence sit underneath all of them.

You are working between Brazil and Europe. What differences do you see between the two markets when it comes to education, careers and entrepreneurship?

Living in Europe changed the way I look at Brazil.

From inside a country, it is easy to focus on what does not work. Distance gave me another perspective. I began to see not only Brazil’s difficulties, but also the creativity, adaptability and scale of possibilities that can be difficult to notice when they are part of your everyday life.

Europe, meanwhile, has exposed me to different institutions, cultures and ways of organizing education, work and mobility. Being able to observe both environments has made me less interested in deciding which one is “better” and more interested in what they can learn from each other.

That bridge between Brazil and Europe is increasingly part of how I think about LDR Academy.

Many young founders have plenty of ideas but struggle to decide which one to pursue. How do you decide whether an idea is worth investing your time and energy in?

I look for the intersection of three things: a real problem, people I can realistically reach and something I am willing to work on even after the initial excitement disappears.

That last part matters because ideas are exciting, while execution becomes repetitive, difficult and sometimes frustrating.

My first company taught me that wanting something badly is not enough. You have to listen, adjust and sometimes admit that part of what you built was wrong.

I now ask myself not only whether I love an idea, but whether I care enough about the problem to stay with it when the excitement is gone.

Where do you want to take LDR Academy over the next few years, and what are the next steps in turning your broader vision into reality?

I want LDR Academy to become an ecosystem connecting education, professional development, community and opportunity.

The ambition is simple to explain, even if it is difficult to build: someone might enter because they want to learn something, then use the same ecosystem to develop their career, build professional connections, find opportunities and, eventually, create or offer something themselves.

For companies and institutions, I want it to become another bridge to talent, learning and professional development.

The next step is not simply adding more features. It is proving that these connections create real value, strengthening partnerships and building a sustainable business around them.

I have already learned what it feels like when a company does not work. That makes me more ambitious about the vision, but also more serious about proving each step.

Finally, what three tips would you give to young founders who have an idea but do not yet have a large network, significant funding or an experienced team?

First: start before you feel completely ready. Reality will teach you things that planning cannot.

Second: talk to people before building too much. Your assumptions are not your customers’ reality.

Third: do not confuse a small beginning with a small possibility.

I think about that last point personally. I was once a boy in the interior of Bahia selling papayas at the market and knocking on doors. Today I live in Europe and I am still, in a different way, knocking on doors with an idea.

I do not know yet how far LDR Academy will go. That uncertainty is part of the story. What I do know is that a first failure did not have to become the final chapter.

I am still following these three pieces of advice myself.

Image credit: Private photo / Luciano Rodrigues Almeida

Thank you Luciano Rodrigues Almeida for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

75 Million Views to Retail: How TheRealTbat Turned ‘HAGS’ Into a Global Apparel Brand

0
HAGS: HAGS Clothing builds a brand around community Tyler Batliner HAGS

HAGS founder Tyler Batliner explains how HAGS Clothing grew from a simple university idea into a brand built around summer, sport, community and social media.

Could you briefly introduce yourself and HAGS Clothing and tell us how the idea for the brand first came about?

I’m Tyler Batliner, founder of HAGS Clothing and the creator behind TheRealTbat. I started HAGS while I was attending the University of Missouri.

The original idea came from something really simple: “Have A Great Summer.” Growing up, I would see people write “HAGS” in yearbooks at the end of the school year. Everyone knew exactly what those four letters meant.

I liked it because there was a feeling behind it. Summer meant being out of school, travelling, being outside, hanging out with friends and making memories. It was something people looked forward to every year.

I started thinking that HAGS could be more than something written in a yearbook. It could represent that feeling and become something people could actually wear.

As the brand developed, “Have A Great Saturday” became another part of HAGS. It takes the same feeling behind Have A Great Summer and brings it into weekends, sport, events and everyday life.

Have A Great Summer is still the heart of HAGS. Have A Great Saturday is an extension of it.

“Have A Great Summer” is at the heart of HAGS, while “Have A Great Saturday” was added later. What do these two ideas mean to you and the brand?

The heart of HAGS actually started with Have A Great Summer, and that will always be the foundation of the brand.

Have A Great Saturday came later.

When I was at university, Saturdays were what everyone looked forward to. You had football games, tailgates, friends getting together and usually something going on all day. It reminded me of the same feeling I associated with summer.

That’s when Have A Great Saturday started making sense.

The two phrases really represent the same idea to me: enjoy where you are, spend time with people you care about and make memories.

You’re never going to get that exact summer or that exact Saturday back.

That idea is much bigger than American college culture. Whether your Saturday is spent at a football match, a festival, on holiday, at the beach, at a race or simply out with friends, the feeling is the same.

That’s what I want HAGS to represent.

College and gameday culture play an important role in HAGS Clothing. What makes this market particularly exciting for you?

My experience at the University of Missouri definitely had a big influence on this side of HAGS.

What we call “gameday” in American college sport is really an entire experience built around the event. There are traditions, friends getting together, food, clothing and entire communities participating.

I think that idea translates well outside the United States too. Sport has an incredible ability to create communities and traditions. You see it with football clubs in the UK and Europe, motorsport, rugby and plenty of other sports.

For HAGS, I’m interested in everything surrounding the event, not just what happens during the game itself.

People remember where they went, what they wore and who they were with. That lifestyle and community aspect is what makes the market exciting to me.

Who is the core target audience for HAGS Clothing, and what do your customers value most about the brand?

Our core audience is currently younger consumers, particularly students, recent graduates and people interested in sport, travel, weekends and casual fashion.

But I don’t want HAGS to be restricted to one age group or one country.

Everyone understands looking forward to summer. Most people understand looking forward to Saturday too.

I think customers connect with the simplicity of HAGS. We’re not trying to make the message overly complicated.

Have A Great Summer.

Have A Great Saturday.

Go somewhere, spend time with your friends and enjoy it.

That’s something I think people can understand almost anywhere in the world.

The apparel market is highly competitive. What makes HAGS Clothing different from other college and gameday brands?

There are thousands of companies selling T-shirts and hats, so I don’t think simply making another design is enough.

For me, the difference starts with the meaning behind HAGS.

Have A Great Summer gives us an identity that isn’t dependent on a particular product, sport or location. Have A Great Saturday lets us take that same identity into weekends, sport and events.

That gives HAGS room to grow.

We can create something inspired by a university town, but we can also create something for summer, motorsport, travel or another experience without completely changing what the brand represents.

The product is important, but I want the idea behind HAGS to be what people eventually remember.

You have also built a community of more than 200,000 followers with TheRealTbat. How has that experience influenced the development of HAGS Clothing?

It has given me a huge head start, but it has also taught me that having followers doesn’t automatically mean you have customers.

Through TheRealTbat, I built an audience of more than 200,000 followers and my content has generated more than 75 million views.

That experience taught me how to get people’s attention, experiment with content and understand what an online audience responds to.

When I started HAGS, I already had a way to introduce the brand to a large number of people, which was a major advantage.

But I learned quickly that getting somebody to watch a video and getting somebody to spend money on a product are completely different things.

The audience gave HAGS an opportunity. The brand and products still have to give people a reason to buy.

How important are social media and community building when launching and growing a consumer brand today?

I think they’re incredibly important, especially for a young brand.

Social media has made it possible for a small company to reach people all over the world without needing the marketing budget of a major fashion company.

It also gives you immediate feedback.

I can show people a new HAGS idea and see how they react before investing heavily in it. That doesn’t mean likes automatically equal sales, because they definitely don’t, but the feedback is still valuable.

Long term, community is even more important.

I don’t want somebody to buy HAGS once because they happened to see one of my videos. I want people to understand what HAGS represents and choose to follow the brand itself.

That’s when you start moving from selling products to actually building a brand.

What have been the biggest challenges in turning HAGS from an idea into a growing business?

Probably realising how many different things go into building a clothing company.

Coming up with the idea and creating designs is the fun part. Then there is the website, fulfilment, shipping, customer service, marketing, product photography, margins and everything else happening behind the scenes.

Another challenge has been learning what people actually want.

I’ve created products I thought would do really well that didn’t. Then a much simpler idea can perform better than expected.

That has taught me to test things and pay attention to what customers actually do rather than assuming I already know the answer.

I’m still learning all the time, and I think that’s just part of building something.

I always try to start with whether the product actually makes sense for HAGS.

Obviously, I pay attention to fashion and social media trends. You have to understand what people are wearing, especially when your audience is young.

But I don’t want HAGS to release something just because it happens to be popular that month.

I want there to be some connection to summer, weekends, sport, travel, college culture or the general lifestyle we’ve built around HAGS.

The goal is to take inspiration from trends without letting trends decide what the entire brand becomes.

What have you learned about converting an online audience into customers and building long-term loyalty beyond social media?

The biggest lesson has been that attention and sales are not the same thing.

You can have a video receive thousands of views and barely sell anything. Another product might receive much less attention online but convert really well.

Trust is a huge part of it.

People need to feel comfortable with your website, products, delivery and customer service. That’s especially important when someone discovers a brand through social media and has never heard of the company before.

One of my biggest goals is for HAGS to eventually reach people who have absolutely no idea who TheRealTbat is.

TheRealTbat helped give HAGS its start, but I want HAGS to have its own identity and its own community.

What are your plans for HAGS Clothing over the next few years, and where would you like to take the brand internationally?

I want to keep growing the college and gameday side because it has become an important part of HAGS, but I also want to expand the lifestyle side of the brand.

That’s where Have A Great Summer becomes really important.

I’d love to eventually see HAGS in the UK and other markets, particularly around sport, university life, summer travel, festivals and other communities that fit naturally with the brand.

I don’t want to expand internationally just for the sake of saying we’re international. I want to find places where the message actually makes sense and build a real community there.

The goal is for someone to see those four letters anywhere in the world and eventually understand what they stand for.

Have A Great Summer.

Finally, what three pieces of advice would you give to founders who want to build a strong consumer brand and community from scratch?

The first would be start before everything is perfect. HAGS today is different from what I pictured when I started, and I’m sure it will look different again in a few years. You learn a lot more by actually putting something into the world than you do by waiting for everything to be perfect.

Second, pay attention to what people actually do, not just what they say. Likes, comments and views are great, but purchases and repeat customers tell you much more about whether you’re creating something people really value.

Third, give people something to connect with. There are endless places to buy a T-shirt or a hat. The product matters, but people also need a reason to remember your brand.

For HAGS, that started with four letters and a phrase almost everyone understands:

Have A Great Summer.

As the brand grew, that became Have A Great Saturday too.

Picturecredits

Thank you Tyler Batliner for the Interview

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

Most founders can’t question their own data

0

Founders have a habit of looking more at dashboards than the spreadsheets or raw numbers. Someone else built the model, chose the cohort, decided what counted as “active,” and picked the date range that made the chart more readable. The founder’s job, in theory, is to decide what to do next. And, it makes sense for founders to outsource and delegate, especially if they’re a non-technical founder.

But in practice, a lot rests on trusting that whoever built the analysis asked the right question in the first place. After all, for what the founder lacks in technical analyst skills, the analyst lacks in business intelligence and context relative to the founder.

Most founders have no reliable way to check. Not because they can’t read a chart, but reading a chart and interrogating the method behind it are very different things. Only one of them gets taught.

The failure is deceiving because it’s not that the answer (analysis and dashboard) is bad, but that it’s a good answer to the wrong question.

The sums, not the story

The clearest example of what gets missed is in a 1973 admissions dataset from Berkeley. In aggregate, the university had acceptance rates of 44% from male applicants and only 35% from female applicants that year. It was a big, concerning gap that looked like clear evidence of bias. But when broken down, the picture began to reverse. Women applied in far larger numbers to hyper-competitive departments that had overall acceptance.

Pool the departments together and the aggregate number found a pattern that doesn’t really exist in any single department. In a business context, the dashboard and top-line figure in isolation didn’t tell the whole story. When the founder is presented with only half the story, they can draw the wrong conclusions.

The data that never made it back

The same failure runs the other way too. Not a total that hides a pattern, but a dataset that’s missing the cases that actually mattered the most. In 1943, the US Army wanted to know where to add armor to its bombers, and the obvious approach was to study the bullet holes on planes that returned from missions so it could reinforce the areas that were hit most often.

The statistician Abraham Wald, working with Columbia University, pointed out the flaw in this approach: the returning planes were, by definition, the ones that survived their damage.

So the areas with the fewest bullet holes on returning aircraft weren’t actually the safest places to get hit, they were the most devastating places, because a hit meant the plane never made it back to be counted at all.

So the armor went on the gaps in the data rather than the marks on it. Wald wasn’t working from a bigger dataset than the officers that were already studying the same bombers, he was asking a different question of the identical numbers.

A founder analysing churn might focus completely on exit surveys from departing users, missing the fact that the most critical failure signals are found in the lost prospects who abandoned the product before reaching the onboarding phase to leave any feedback at all. Once you pose the right question, the absence of data is telling in and of itself, but it not an intuition that many have naturally (due to human biases), so it must be taught.

Where the skill actually gets taught

Interrogating a data set and asking what’s missing, what’s been pooled together that shouldn’t be, what assumption the model is making, does not come naturally to humans, but it’s a teachable skill.

It shows up as a deliberate part of some business degrees rather than something students pick up accidentally. Schiller International University’s degree in international business is an example of building that kind of analytical questioning into its coursework along with the more obvious international business skills.

For students or founders who want that training, an american university in Germany means not settling for a translated course, but having it natively created in English, while also benefiting from studying in an internationalised environment.

A confidence problem, not a skills one

This isn’t so much a founder-specific failing, nor does it fade with seniority. A KPMG global survey of executives (ten countries) found:

  • 70% believed using data and analytics exposed their organisation to reputational risk. This mistrust tracked all the way through the process
  • 10% of respondents said their organisation excelled across every stage of managing data and analytics
  • 16% were confident in the accuracy of the models they were producing
  • 18% had governance frameworks they’d confidently describe as adequate across the board

It became clear that data sourcing had the most trust, but confidence soon fell away at every stage downstream. Founders of large organisations report the same gap a first-time founder has – it’s not a lack of dashboards, but a lack of grounds to trust their foundations.

The founders who ask the better questions usually aren’t smarter, but simply just learned, at some point, to stop reading the answer before they understand the method that produced it.

Picture Tumisu / Pixabay

Author Dino Bozzi

Statements of the author and the interviewee do not necessarily represent the editors and the publisher opinion again.

Ground A raises €9.1 million to industrialise laser-based counter-drone system

0
The Ground A founding team Ground A funding round: the Berlin-based defence tech start-up receives €9.1 million for laser-based drone defence with the GA 1000.
Ground A Founder Team © Gordon Welters

German defence tech company Ground A has closed a pre-seed funding round of €9.1 million, the company announced. This round is aimed at moving its GA 1000 counter-drone system from prototype into series production. The round was led by Vsquared Ventures. Participation came from a consortium of venture and strategic investors. Ground A, founded in January 2026 and based in Berlin and Düsseldorf, says the GA 1000 has already progressed from prototype to testing and validation within months of the company’s launch.

Ground A’s Investor Consortium: Vsquared Ventures Leads the Round

The round brought together a mix of venture capital and strategic backers from the defence, technology and industrial sectors. Alongside lead investor Vsquared Ventures, the press release names Quantum Systems, GRIF, Robin Capital, ABACON, Leblon Capital and OVNI Capital as participants. The round also included individual entrepreneurs and investors from Europe’s defence and software industries. These included Florian Seibel, Sven Kruck, J14 Capital, Andreas Nauerz, Marlon Braumann and Arx Robotics managing director Stefan Roebel. As this is Ground A’s first disclosed financing round, there is no prior round to compare it against.

What Ground A’s GA 1000 Counter-Drone System Does

The GA 1000 is a compact, laser-based counter-drone system built to detect, classify and track small, agile drones automatically. It combines radar and multiple sensor types with computer vision and proprietary AI. The decision to deploy the laser effector remains with a human operator. Housed within a Euro-pallet footprint, the system is designed to be mobile and deployable across a range of operational settings. Its open, vendor-agnostic architecture allows it to be integrated into existing air defence and command-and-control systems. Additionally, it can be used on land, sea and air platforms, rather than operating only as a stand-alone unit.

Ground A’s Path to Series Production in 2027

Ground A says the pace of development — from company formation in January 2026 to a system already in testing and validation just months later — reflects a deliberate early focus on product and technology ahead of any public announcement. Now, the company is setting up modular series production in Germany, with series production targeted for 2027. A further financing round, also planned for 2027, is intended to expand production capacity. Ground A works towards a broader product platform for counter-drone and air defence applications. This expansion goes beyond the GA 1000 alone.

Leadership and Investors on the Funding Round

‘We founded Ground A in January and already have our first system in testing and validation, approaching market launch,’ said Dr Tobias Brune, chief executive and co-founder of Ground A. ‘Europe needs effective counter-drone solutions that not only work technologically but can also be industrialised quickly and made available in large numbers. The GA 1000 is just the beginning of a much larger product platform.’

Benedikt von Schoeler, general partner at Vsquared, said the fund backed Ground A for its combination of operational flexibility and execution speed. ‘What matters is that systems are not only high-performing, but also mobile and rapidly deployable,’ he said. ‘Ground A combines precisely this operational flexibility with technological excellence, high execution speed and the ambition to scale industrially from day one.’

What’s Next

With the pre-seed round secured, Ground A’s near-term priorities are industrialisation and scaling in parallel. The company is building out modular series production capacity in Germany and progressing the GA 1000 toward market launch. It is also preparing a further funding round in 2027 to expand manufacturing capacity. Furthermore, the company frames this as a contribution to the broader defence capability of Germany, NATO and allied nations, rather than a single-product commercial launch.

FAQ about Ground A

How much funding has Ground A raised?

Ground A closed a pre-seed round of €9.1 million in June 2026.

Who invested in Ground A?

The round was led by Vsquared Ventures, with participation from Quantum Systems, GRIF, Robin Capital, ABACON, Leblon Capital and OVNI Capital, plus individual investors including Florian Seibel, Sven Kruck, Andreas Nauerz, Marlon Braumann, J14 Capital and Arx Robotics managing director Stefan Roebel.

What does Ground A do?

Ground A builds software- and laser-based counter-drone and air defence systems. Its first product, the GA 1000, detects, classifies and tracks small drones and neutralises them using a laser effector under human control.

When was Ground A founded?

Ground A was founded in January 2026 and is based in Berlin and Düsseldorf.

When will the GA 1000 enter series production?

Ground A is targeting series production in 2027, alongside a further funding round planned for the same year to expand manufacturing capacity.

Photo/source: Ground A GmbH – © Gordon Welters www.GordonWelters.com

Limetax raises €36 million to build Germany’s agentic-first accounting & tax group

0
Limetax: AI Platform for Tax Firms Raises €36M

Berlin-based technology company Limetax is bringing established tax firms together in one group and building a proprietary AI agent platform for them. The company has raised €36 million to fund its expansion: the equity round is led by Motive Partners, with participation from Activant, Heliad and angel investors including former German Finance Minister Christian Lindner, alongside a €30 million credit facility provided by a consortium of German banks.

Berlin, 9 September 2026 – Limetax has raised €36 million in financing, comprising €6 million in pre-seed equity led by Motive Partners, with participation from Activant and Heliad, and a €30 million credit facility from a consortium of German banks. Angel investors include former German Finance Minister Christian Lindner, former Rocket Internet executive and 468 Capital co-founder Alexander Kudlich, as well as Anton Rummel and Ante Spittler, founders of fintech unicorn Moss. The capital will be used to further develop Limetax’s agentic platform and partner with additional tax firms across Germany.

Eight months after launching in January 2026, the Limetax group has grown to four firms across seven locations with around 150 employees and annualised revenue in the double-digit millions. Its AI platform is already deployed across every firm in the group.

Tackling the structural constraints of the tax profession

Germany’s nearly 54,000 accounting & tax firms are the finance operations backbone of the country’s Mittelstand. Many are struggling to hire enough skilled professionals, while tax regulation continues to become more complex. At the same time, a significant share of their teams’ time is still spent on repetitive work: collecting data, processing bookkeeping and managing deadlines. That leaves little time for the advisory work clients increasingly need.

Limetax is tackling this capacity constraint by bringing established tax firms together and building technology directly into how they work. Its proprietary agentic platform is developed alongside the firms and embedded into their day-to-day operations.

The platform sits on top of DATEV, the core software infrastructure used by much of the German tax profession, and orchestrates specialised AI agents across bookkeeping, payroll and financial statements. The agents take on repetitive workflows, while outputs pass through a review layer where the firms’ professionals apply their judgement and expertise. Professional responsibility and client advice remain in the hands of the human experts.

Early bookkeeping deployments show the potential. In initial cases, AI agents have reduced monthly processing time from around twenty hours to six. For employees, that means less manual data entry and more time for client work. For clients, it means faster financial statements and more of their advisers’ time for the questions AI cannot answer today.

The result is more capacity without losing what makes local accounting & tax firms valuable: professional expertise, trusted relationships and personal advice.

Built by entrepreneurs, engineers and experts

Limetax was founded by Christoph Gamon, Maximilian Meyer and Christoph Dansard. Gamon previously co-founded Razor Group, where he served as CFO and helped scale the company to a reported $500 million-plus in revenue. Before that, he worked in the executive office at Rocket Internet and in investment banking at UBS in London. Meyer was part of Razor Group’s founding team and later served as SVP Operations, leading more than 100 employees, having previously worked at Lazard and N26. Dansard was a founding engineer at fintech unicorn Augustus, formerly Ivy and is an alumnus of Technical University Munich.

The Berlin-based team brings together engineers and operators with backgrounds at Taxfix, McKinsey, EY, Buena, Raisin and ETL.

“The future of accounting & tax advisory will not be built by adding another AI tool. It will be built by rethinking advisory and technology together from the ground up,” said Christoph Gamon, Co-Founder and CEO of Limetax. “That is what we are doing at Limetax. Together with our partner firms, we are building a group where our agentic platform becomes the technological backbone of day-to-day work. That creates more space for the things people do best: applying judgement, solving complex problems and providing real advice.”

“Professional services is one of the largest sectors where the potential of AI is only beginning to be unlocked. In accounting & tax, the constraint is not demand, it is capacity,” said Michael Hock, Partner, Venture at Motive Partners. “Limetax is building technology where the work actually happens: together with the partner firms and deeply embedded in their operations. The combination of technology and professional expertise has the potential to build a new generation of accounting & tax firms.”

“Our profession is going through the biggest shift I have seen in my career. The opportunity is enormous, but for an individual firm, building the technology required to capture it is almost impossible,” said Uwe Tille of bplus, one of the founding partners of the Limetax group. “With Limetax, we can actively shape that transition ourselves. Technology is taking more and more routine work off our hands and giving us more time with our clients. That is where we, as tax advisers, want to spend our time.”

Source Picture and PR Limetax

LATEST NEWS