Aye Finance Receives $37 Million in Funding from UK International Investment

Aye Finance, an Indian startup that provides a digital lending platform for small businesses, continues to help small businesses grow their businesses and increase incomes for their employees, with $37.18 million in new funding round led by British International Investment was procured.

The Series F round brings Aye’s total funding to nearly $200 million and includes participation from Waterfield Fund of Funds and the startup’s existing investor A91 Partners. In 2020, the startup raised $27.5 million in a Series E funding round led by Alphabet’s CapitalG.

Founded in 2014, I agree — which means “Yes” in English and “Income” in Hindi — is a term used by underserved businesses that find it difficult to secure the necessary working capital from traditional lenders such as banks. We provide business loans in the form of mortgages, temporary security, and term credit to small and medium-sized enterprises. The startup uses a combination of in-house technology and analytics to offer a variety of financial solutions based on a company’s needs.

To date, the 10-year-old company claims to have provided more than $959 million in loans to more than 700,000 unorganized businesses. The company competes with companies such as Capital Float, Lendingkart and Indifi, which are working on providing credit to small and medium-sized enterprises in South Asia.

One of the main reasons why startups like Aye Finance are gaining enough traction in India is the lack of credit for small and medium enterprises.

India has over 63 million MSMEs. To contribute According to government data, it accounts for nearly 30% of gross domestic product, more than 43% of all exports, and employs more than 123 million people. The government considers the importance of these companies to the country’s overall growth and has introduced a number of initiatives to ease credit requirements. However, some small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are struggling to find funding to start and sustain their operations because the eligibility requirements for government systems and programs do not match their business model or size, or involve lengthy processes. I still find it difficult to procure. Startups like Aye are capitalizing on that gap by offering credit through their platforms.

“We believe there is tremendous potential in lending to underserved and small businesses, and the new capital is a strong complement to our complex story.” said Sanjay Sharma, co-founder, MD and CEO of Aye Finance, in a prepared statement.

“Aye Finance is on a growth path and we are pleased to partner with BII, which has a deep understanding of India’s financial services sector. It’s proof.”

Headquartered in Gurugram and present in 22 states through 395 offices, the start-up manages assets of over $959 million and generated over $9.59 million after tax in the first six months of FY24. He says it has brought benefits.

“Our investment in Aye Finance confirms our commitment to backing companies with strong philosophies that impact development and fostering financial inclusion for underserved groups in India. The i team stands out for its dedication and experience in delivering scalable technology-enabled financial solutions,” said Gaurav Malhotra, Director, UK International Investment Financial Services.

Source: techcrunch.com

FCC Denies $885 Million in Starlink Grants

The F.C.C. Starlink’s $885 million application finally rejected Despite spending public money to expand orbital communications infrastructure that covers parts of rural America, the company said it “has not been able to demonstrate that it can deliver the services it promised.”

As previously reported, the funds in question were part of the Provincial Digital Opportunity Fund. It’s a multibillion-dollar program that subsidizes the deployment of Internet service in areas where private companies have previously found it too expensive or remote. The $885 million was first set aside for Starlink in 2020, in response to the company’s bid to provide how much connectivity to which regions and at what cost.

The FCC explained that this initial application is high-level and short-term, and those who qualify will be subject to close scrutiny. For example, one organization that was allocated more than $1 billion in funding turned out to be a regional effort that was unable to scale as hoped.

In Starlink’s case, last summer’s proposal for satellite internet showed promise, but it turned out to be a “developing technology” that would require users to purchase a $600 dish. Most people wouldn’t pay that much for a year’s internet bill. Therefore, given the target audience of under-resourced people, this should be seriously considered. (In fact, the FCC considered not allowing orbital carriers to apply, but decided to let them compete on their own merits.)

This was in addition to “numerous financial and technical deficiencies” that authorities identified in the proposal and the company’s operations. This is not to say that this is a poorly run company that provides excellent service to some, but for the purpose of this auction and winning bid, there were serious questions:

After reviewing all information submitted by Starlink, the Bureau ultimately determined that Starlink would have a network of the scope, size, and scale necessary to serve 642,925 model locations in 35 states. We concluded that the company had not demonstrated a reasonable ability to meet RDOF’s requirements to deploy. That was the winning bidder.

Starlink called for a review of the decision, arguing among other things that the decision was made on the basis of “inappropriately burdensome criteria,” as is their right in this situation. (Apparently, the relevant parts have been edited in the latest version) order) claimed that although short-term tests showed a drop in speed and other metrics, the company has plans to launch more satellites and will be able to expand its network as claimed. It also relied on the promise of SpaceX’s super-heavy rocket Starship as proof of its claims.

However, the FCC notes that:

At the time of the station’s decision, Starship had not yet been launched.Certainly even today [i.e. over a year later], Starship has not yet been successfully launched. All attempted launches failed. Based on Starlink’s previous claims regarding plans to launch second-generation satellites via Starship and the information available at the time, [Wireline Competition] In making prospective judgments regarding Starlink’s ability to meet its RDOF obligations, the Secretariat necessarily considered the inability to continue to successfully launch Starship rockets.

A footnote notes that it was only after the denial was issued that SpaceX announced it would not use Starship after all for the second generation of Starlink satellites.

Fundamentally, they recognized the benefits of this approach, but were not 100% convinced that this was the best use of the lion’s share of $1 billion. Probably in the next fund.

Two Republican FCC commissioners, Brendan Carr and Nathan Symington, opposed the decision. Simington is probably correct in pointing out that “many RDOF recipients never deployed service at any speed or in any location,” while Starlink had service to 500,000 subscribers at the time of its rejection. many of which were in areas not served by other broadband options. He dismissed the launch issue as a ploy of the agency’s “motivated reasoning.”

Carr calls this politics. “After Elon Musk took over Twitter and used it to express his political and ideological views without filter, President Biden gave federal agencies the green light to pursue him… Elon Musk I became a ‘progressive enemy.’” No. 1. Today’s decision certainly fits the Biden administration’s pattern of regulatory harassment. ”

Of course, Starlink’s denial was made long before its acquisition and subsequent downfall of Elon Musk (what was he doing?), and the FCC is here today to reaffirm its case. It is not a new announcement. That’s quite a factual error.

Both prove that their faith in Starlink may or may not be misplaced. But given that $885 million is at stake, the FCC’s decision to err on the side of caution makes sense if it does so at all. Funds will be donated to other applicants and programs.

Although this money did not actually go to Starlink, the loss of income (or whatever such awards are classified as monetary) is not easy to endure. However, the company probably knows that the appeal of this decision will be difficult and has not counted on this funding for quite some time.

Although the company is not profitable, it recently reached what CEO Elon Musk calls “breakeven cash flow.” True, its revenues have soared (from about $222 million to $1.4 billion), but the significant operational costs of building and launching the satellites needed to serve thousands of new customers It took. The company, which has missed predictions for several years that it would be in the billions of dollars by now, has at least convincingly demonstrated its capabilities both at home and in war.

Maybe they don’t need that $885 million after all. The Pentagon’s money is just as green.

Source: techcrunch.com

Federal Authorities Push for Introducing Drunk-Driving Prevention Technology in Cars, But Face Challenges

The in-vehicle technology used by Ford, GM and others to ensure drivers pay attention to the road has come a long way. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it is still not enough to prevent or reduce the harm caused by drunk driving.

This assessment is included throughout the agency’s new 99-page Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. released Tuesday was a pit stop of sorts on the way to enacting regulations that would require in-vehicle technology to recognize when a driver has been drinking.

NHTSA is currently seeking assistance in determining what technology should be incorporated into vehicles to completely reduce or prevent this problem, in part because NHTSA has no commercially available options. states that it does not exist. After the notice is published in the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to submit comments.

NHTSA says it evaluated 331 driver monitoring systems and found no commercially available systems that adequately handle the identification of alcohol impairment. The magazine noted that there are three DMS systems that claim to detect alcohol-induced impairment, but said they are still in the research and development stage. (We did not reveal the names of those systems.)

However, driver monitoring is not the only option at NHTSA’s disposal. NHTSA embarked on this mission after President Biden ordered the agency to find a solution in 2021 with bipartisan infrastructure legislation. The act charged NHTSA with developing federal motor vehicle safety standards that could determine whether a driver is impaired by passively monitoring the driver. Or it could be by passively (and accurately) detecting whether the blood alcohol concentration is too high, or a combination of both.

Accuracy is key, and NHTSA findings suggest that blood alcohol detection technology is a more viable solution in the short term. After all, dozens of states already require breathalyzer-based alcohol ignition interlocks for repeat offenders or high-BAC offenders. However, this technology is considered ‘active’, meaning that drivers must actively engage with it, which is contrary to the law’s passive requirement.

There may be another option.

Since 2008, NHTSA has been working with the Alliance for Automobile Traffic Safety (ACTS) on a public-private partnership called Driver Alcohol Sensing Systems for Safety (DADSS). As part of that program, DADSS has developed both breath-based and contact-based methods to detect driver impairment. Breath-based methods are also considered active and therefore non-starters, while touch sensors are designed to be embedded in something the driver needs to touch to operate the vehicle (such as a push-start button). NHTSA has “preliminarily determined that such touch sensors may be considered passive.”

ACTS CEO Robert Strassberger said he believes touch sensors may be the best option in the short term, given the technology’s limitations in being passive. He wants to know what the public thinks.

“That’s going to be one of the areas of interest for me when I read the comments that are ultimately submitted. How do people feel about it? Will it ultimately be accepted by consumers? It depends,” he says. “I think one of the things we definitely want to avoid doing is asking drivers to learn a new way of interacting with their cars.”

Timing is critical. Not only does drunk driving kill thousands of people each year and cost the country billions of dollars, final regulations need to be standardized by November 2024.

Judging by the number of questions NHTSA raises in its notice, achieving this goal may be difficult. The agency is raising all sorts of thorny questions, as well as seeking further comment on driver monitoring and the definition of “passive.” For example, if the start/stop button has a touch sensor, how does it know that the driver is pressing it? If the system determines that the driver is too drunk to start the car, Should you prevent your car from starting? What if the driver is trying to escape a wildfire?

“This is very complex rulemaking,” Strassberger said. “There are a lot of details that the agency needs to get right.”

Source: techcrunch.com

Rage and frustration sparked by COP28 draft excluding fossil fuel phase-out

DUBAI, UAE – A draft COP28 climate change agreement that does not include a phase-out of fossil fuels has drawn widespread criticism from key stakeholders, highlighting deep-seated rifts on the final day of the international summit. There is.

The document, released by the United Arab Emirates, which hosts the climate summit, emphasized the need to reduce emissions but did not call for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels. Scientists believe that fossil fuels the single biggest factor Contributing to potentially life-threatening climate change.

Representatives from the United States, the European Union and countries vulnerable to climate change, including many in Africa and the Pacific Islands, have issued dire warnings about the draft agreement, putting it at odds with many oil-producing countries.

Wopke Hoekstra, the EU’s chief negotiator for COP28, told reporters that the draft was “clearly inadequate and inadequate to address the issues we need to address here.”

“It’s not because we want it, it’s not because the minister or I want it, it’s not because the Europeans want it,” Hoekstra said. “Because scientists clearly understand what is needed, and at the top of that list is the phasing out of fossil fuels. [correlation] Between doing so and ensuring we have the planet, we rescue people from danger. ”

Wopke Hoekstra, EU Commissioner for Climate Change.
Peter DeJong/Associated Press

US climate change envoy John Kerry expressed similar concerns, saying: Significant reductions are expected over the next 10 years. ”

“This is a war for survival,” he added.

The combustion of coal, oil, and gas accounts for more than three-quarters of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This is why so many people asked for the results of COP28 to show that “We are truly at the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.”

However, COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber said: faced a backlash last week He insisted there was “no science” behind calls to phase out fossil fuels and that such a move would not enable sustainable development “unless we want the world to go back into caves”. .

In response to the subsequent outcry, Jaber, who is also the chief executive of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), said his team “very much believes in and respects science.”

A COP28 spokesperson told CNBC at the time that Al-Jaber was “steadfast” in saying that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius requires action across many regions and sectors.

“We consider that there are elements in this document that are completely unacceptable,” Spain’s Minister of Environmental Transition, Teresa Rivera, told reporters after Monday’s publication of the draft, adding: “We believe there are elements in this document that are completely unacceptable.” How can we move forward in this important decade in the energy sector? ”

“I think it’s good to be clear about what we really want to create in this COP that the world needs, and whether we want this COP to create what it’s supposed to be: a turning point in the fight against climate change. ” she said. Added.

Meanwhile, German Foreign Minister Annalena Verbock said the text was misleading. “In this critical decade, there is a complete lack of need to urgently replace and reduce fossil fuels in the power sector. The language on coal is inconsistent with EU energy policy, and the construction of new coal-fired power plants is completely absent. “is tolerated,” she said.

“Above all, the context around fossil fuels is misleading the world. This suggests that fossils may continue to play a significant role in our future. and send a misleading signal to the market.”

The draft document outlines several options for countries to reduce emissions, including “to achieve net zero by, or before, 2050. It includes “reducing both the consumption and production of fossil fuels in a fair, orderly and equitable manner.”

COP28 President Jaber said on Monday that the nearly 200 countries taking part in the talks “still have a lot of work to do”.

“Progress is needed on many areas, including the language on fossil fuels,” he said, calling for “more flexibility” from stakeholders.

The UAE is a member of the powerful oil producing group OPEC and is among the top 10 oil producing countries in the world.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

True Anomaly secures $100 million in funding for the expansion of space security technology

true anomaly has closed $100 million in new funding, a strong signal that the appetite for startups operating at the intersection of space and defense is not slowing down.

The new round was led by Riot Ventures with participation from Eclipse, ACME Capital, Menlo Ventures, Narya, 645 Ventures, Rocketship.vc, Champion Hill Ventures, and FiveNine Ventures. The funds will be used to continue expanding all parts of the business, according to a press release.

True Anomaly aims to fill critical gaps in space situational awareness and defensive operations through software and hardware, including a line of autonomous reconnaissance and tracking spacecraft called Jackals. These vehicles are equipped with an array of sensors and cameras to track, monitor, and collect data on objects in space. On the software side, the company is developing an integrated operating platform called Mosaic that will eventually be able to work in conjunction with the Jackal in orbit.

In a previous interview with TechCrunch, True Anomaly CEO Even Rogers pointed to a significant “information asymmetry” between the United States and its adversaries in space. Jackal, Mosaic, and the company’s other efforts in space domain awareness aim to fill that gap.

Founded in 2022 by a quartet of former Space Force members, the startup is rapidly moving towards this goal. During the company’s first full year of business, he opened his 35,000 square foot facility in Centennial, Colorado and doubled his headcount to more than 100 people.

In September, True Anomaly won a $17.4 million contract from the U.S. Space Force to help warfighters find and track objects in space, characterize those objects, and use artificial intelligence to predict changes in space. The agreement was signed to build a suite of space domain awareness capabilities, including prediction and identification. Object behavior.

The first two Jackal spacecraft are scheduled to launch on SpaceX’s Transporter 10 rideshare mission in March. In August, the company received permission from regulators to conduct imaging beyond Earth and demonstrate close space rendezvous operations with two spacecraft. This is such a huge technical challenge that I have no doubt that many people in both Silicon Valley and Washington will be paying close attention to how the demo mission unfolds.

Source: techcrunch.com

The Changing Debate on Fossil Fuels at COP28: Even if the Climate Summit Fails

Climate change protester Risipriya Kangujam takes the stage during the COP28 debate on December 11th

Dominika Zarzycka/NurPhoto via Getty Image

The COP28 climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, has gone into extra time, with a real possibility that negotiations will fail given how far countries are separated on the future of oil, gas, and coal. It has become a target. But whatever the outcome, this summit changed the way the world talks about fossil fuels and climate change.

“The calculations are being made for fossil fuels,” he says. David Waskow at the World Resources Institute, an environmental nonprofit organization. “This has put the issue front and center and changed the conversation around it, and I hope that will continue to be the case.”

At the summit, and in the months leading up to it, many countries and many civil society organizations lobbied for strong language on phasing out fossil fuels in any deal reached in Dubai. The phasing out of fossil fuels received unexpected attention near the end of last year’s COP27 summit in Egypt, but the role of fossil fuels in driving climate change as a major source of greenhouse gas emissions has never been more important. There has never been a COP with such continuous focus.

“Even a year ago, the historic debate on phasing out fossil fuels currently taking place at COP28 was completely unthinkable,” he says. Jonas Kuehl At the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Canada. “The joint efforts of nearly 130 countries and civil society forced them into a process that has been fruitless for many years.”

The draft core agreement, published on December 11, drew heavy criticism from a number of countries and organizations yesterday for not mentioning the phasing out of fossil fuels. However, the draft does mention the need to reduce the production and use of fossil fuels and makes two other references to these fuels. This alone represents a significant change from past summits, which referred to emissions but not major sources.

“This is the first COP to actually include the word fossil fuels in a draft decision,” he said. Mohamed Addo At Powershift Africa, a Kenyan energy think tank. “This is the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.”

Summit participants are fundamentally divided on what should be included in the agreement. High-income Western countries, as well as small island states and some low-income countries such as Colombia and Kenya, are demanding stronger language on ending the use of fossil fuels to be part of the agreement. We are united. But countries that rely on oil and gas revenues, and those that consider fossil fuel development essential to future development, oppose disqualifying language.

“The United States, Canada, and Australia are all fossil fuel producers, but they are all perfectly aligned with European countries,” he says. Andrew Deutz At the Nature Conservancy. “This puts even more pressure on fossil fuel producing countries.”

Countries that oppose language phasing do so for a variety of reasons. For example, the Group of African States, while not totally opposed to such an agreement, recognizes that any agreement would have different responsibilities and timelines for phase-out, and that it is important for countries to implement energy transitions. It claims to provide support to do so.

“Asking Africa to phase out fossil fuels is like asking Africa to stop breathing without life support,” Nigeria’s Environment Minister Isiak Kunle Salako said at a press conference at the summit on December 12. African ministers also emphasized the need for further support. This is to adapt to the climate change that is already occurring.

Nigeria is part of a group of oil-exporting countries called OPEC, and its members, especially Saudi Arabia, have been the strongest opponents of the phase-out. But the overwhelming focus on fossil fuels means it may not matter in the long run.

“I think because of the pressure from oil and gas interests, if we don’t agree to phase out fossil fuels here, it’s likely to be a pyrrhic victory for them,” he said. bill hare At the think tank Climate Analytics. “They would have kept it going, but they wouldn’t have stopped it.”

A complete failure at COP28 could help build momentum towards an unjust end to the fossil fuel era, Hare says. “Next year we’ll probably see more countries wanting to phase out fossil fuels, more countries thinking about it more and putting more pressure on oil and gas producers.”

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Blue Origin, founded by Bezos, plans to finally return with a long-awaited launch next week

blue origin aims to finally end the more than 15-month grounding of its New Shepard suborbital rocket, with the company today announcing it will fly unmanned missions as early as Dec. 18.

The company confirmed its release social media accounts Followed by Bloomberg reporting Content of internal email for new target date. The mission, called NS-24, will carry 33 scientific research payloads and other cargo.

The new Shepard has been grounded since September 2022, when an engine nozzle problem triggered an automatic shutdown and released the unmanned capsule from its booster. The capsule landed safely. The booster was destroyed upon crashing to Earth. (This mission was also unmanned.)

The Federal Aviation Administration formally closed its investigation into the crash in September and directed Blue Origin to take 21 corrective actions, including redesigning engine and nozzle components and “organizational changes.”

This new launch date means Blue Origin has implemented all measures and received a revised launch license from the FAA. The amended license expires in August 2025 and is limited to launches only from Blue Origin’s West Texas facility, according to the regulator’s website.

Blue Origin has ambitious projects in development, including a heavy-lift rocket called New Glenn, which aims to take flight late next year, and a lunar lander called Blue Moon, for which it is seeking a $3.4 billion contract from NASA. The Shepard Flight Program is the only one currently in operation. To date, the vehicle has flown over his 22 flights, taking 31 people (including CEO Jeff Bezos himself) to the edge of space and back.

Source: techcrunch.com

Give Your Proposal Materials a Refresh with These Tips

The holidays are in full swing. So when people go on vacation, they might start receiving auto-reply emails.

But don’t let a relatively quiet holiday stop you from fundraising. According to DocSend’s report on funding trends, young startups don’t seem to be getting as much attention. This means that they have been trying to attract investors’ attention without success. For example, investors are spending less time on the “product” and “business model” slides, and significantly more time on the “competitor” slides.


All articles on TechCrunch+ are available to members only.
Use discount code TC Plus Roundup Save 20% on a 1-year or 2-year subscription.


Now is the perfect time to brush up your pitch deck, practice your pitch, and be ready for when it starts again next year, writes resident pitch deck expert Haje Jan Kamps.

thank you for reading!

Karin

secondary, venture secondary,

Image credits: We/Getty Images

As I wrote last week, if startup IPOs pick up in 2024, as many predict, the secondary market could start to return to normal. But what are investors in the secondary venture market thinking now? One of the things venture reporter Rebecca Skutak found in her research is that LPs don’t actually want liquidity as much as you think.

Deep tech startups should use these 4 techniques when raising capital

Image credits: oxygen (Opens in new window) / Getty Images

Roman Axelrod, founder of smart contact lens maker XPANCEO, knows a thing or two about raising capital for deep technology startups. His company just raised a $40 million seed round. He offers his four tips on what to focus on when raising capital for his own deep tech business.

Why internal platforms can undermine your business strategy

Image credits: henrik sorensen (Opens in new window) / Getty Images

That’s natural. It’s better to build tools in-house than to buy or subscribe to them from a vendor. Having control over every aspect of your business reduces costs and even increases efficiency.

But not so soon, says Asanka Abeysinghe, CTO of WSO2. Having complete control over everything is an “illusion” and “leads organizations down a path full of unforeseen challenges and constraints.” What may seem like a comprehensive solution at first, quickly becomes can turn into a quagmire of rising costs, lack of focus, and suffocating complexity. ”

Get the TechCrunch+ Roundup newsletter in your inbox!

To receive TechCrunch+ Roundups via email every Tuesday and Friday, scroll down on this page, find the “Subscribe to Newsletter” section, select “TechCrunch+ Roundups,” enter your email, and click ” Click “Subscribe.”

Click here to subscribe

Startups need to master operations

Image credits: Lujan Nagiyev/Getty Images

“While technological innovation gets most of the glory, operational innovation is the next big leap for companies looking to gain a competitive edge,” writes Accelsius CEO Josh Claman. He offers some tips on how companies should think about innovation rather than improvement and excellence.

Source: techcrunch.com