South Korea’s economic model has for decades leaned on export-led manufacturing operated by family-owned corporate giants. A 2015 report from McKinsey outlined how the country would need small companies to drive an innovative model in preparation for the next phase of economic growth. “The key to fostering such innovation is a vibrant startup community. … Currently, the Korean startup community falls far short of this ideal,” the report said.
South Korean conglomerates like Samsung, LG and Hyundai still play significant roles in Korea’s primary economic growth; most of them, once focused on manufacturing, are now tech-driven firms.
Along with the Big Tech giants in South Korea, the country’s startup ecosystem has immensely grown compared to 2014, as have startups in other Asian countries like China, India and those in Southeast Asia.
Back in 2014, there were just 10 unicorns — including Coupang, Naver, Kakao, Line (which relocated to Japan), and game companies like Nexon and N.C. Soft —among 29,561 startups. As of 2022, Korea had 22 unicorns, with a valuation of 1 trillion won (approximately $744 million), up from 18 unicorns in 2021. It might not sound like a massive leap from 2014, but the increased number of unicorns is a testament to the hard work being done by Korean startups.
After the recent pandemic fueled the startup boom worldwide, the startup valuations in South Korea skyrocketed unrealistically just as they did globally. Jumping to the present, the startup funding landscape has shrunk, and valuations have dropped everywhere in the world in the face of uncertain macroeconomic conditions. Venture funding in Asia in the first quarter of 2023 declined 33% from Q4 2023 and 57% from Q1 2022, according to a report by Crunchbase.
We spoke to select investors, who make investments in the South Korean market to hear their predictions for 2023, their investment strategy, which sectors excite them and more.
All the investors we spoke to said there are barely any changes in their investment strategies but approval for due diligence by committees has become rigorous.
“The days of ‘swiping right’ on a deal are well over, and the required level of due diligence has also reverted to historical norms, taking three to four months rather than three to four days,” said Yeemin Chung, managing director of BRV Capital Management.
The investors are now advising startup founders and executives to prioritize profitability over growth, extend their runway and prepare to stay agile amid fears of a possible recession.
And startups are now seeing a drop in valuations compared to the previous two years. Still, in a way, it is healthy as “people are approaching it more rationally,” according to Han Kim, general partner of Altos Ventures.
“I think the current environment might feel a bit harsh for entrepreneurs, but in a sense, it’s doing a favor for the founders that can realistically map their growth path,” said Eunse Lee, founder and managing partner of 541 Ventures.
We spoke with:
- Han Kim, general partner, Altos Ventures
- Tim Chae, managing partner, 500 Global
- JP Lee, CEO and managing partner, SoftBank Ventures Asia
- Yeemin Chung, managing director, BRV Capital Management
- Eunse Lee, founder and managing partner, 541 Ventures
(Editor’s note: The following surveys have been edited for length and clarity. These answers are strictly limited to South Korea and do not encompass all of Asia.)
Han Kim, general partner, Altos Ventures
We’re seeing a significant drop in VC funding in Asia’s first quarter this year. How has your VC investment strategy changed along with the market condition?
Our strategy has not changed much. We’ve been investing more in our existing companies since the second half of last year, so there are more investment dollars in total. It’s slightly different from other investors. I think it’s because some funds don’t invest much [these days]. In a way, there’s more opportunity for us to invest more. (Those are not new startups but existing companies in our portfolio.) We usually invest between 1 billion won and 10 billion won ($750,000 and $7.5 million) in new companies and we sometimes invest even up to 100 billion won ($75.5 million) in existing portfolios.
What caused the lowest funding in Asia since 2021? Do you think VC funding will continue to decline this year? What are your prospects regarding funding volumes in Asia in 2023 and 2024?
If you look at the data, it includes China. I think that has been a little bit impacted by China. Chinese VCs have faced some regulations on big businesses’ [investment], and now the U.S. also regulates investing in Chinese companies. There are a lot of checklists [for investment in China]. It’s my guess, but at least this year, I think until the tensions between the U.S. and China fade away or resolve, this challenging atmosphere won’t be easy to bounce back [from].
How does the investment trend in South Korea differ from other regions like the U.S. and Europe?
Now the trend is profitability before growth. I think this trend is becoming more important in South Korea. The U.S. used to be growth over profitability, but now it has changed to profit over growth, but the U.S. has more leeway than Korea. In other words, U.S. investors have more patience than investors in South Korea.
There are two things. First, in the U.S., funds are bigger. You could invest more dollars so investors in the U.S. can somewhat accept the company’s burn rate. But, investors in Asia, which has a smaller fund size than the U.S., could be more nervous when it comes to portfolios’ burn rate. Secondly, on the Korean side, investors cannot wait for more [time for companies to succeed] than the U.S. because the fund period is typically the seven-year maximum in South Korea. After five years, VCs in South Korea prepare for exit strategies. In the U.S., VCs can continue to extend it to 10 to 12 years with the consent of limited partners. Korea rarely extends the maturity of funds. (The U.S.-based Altos fund life is about 12 years.)
Are deals competitive in terms of deal sourcing and/or valuations? How does it differ from the unrealistic valuations in 2020-2022?
I think deal sourcing in Korea is still quite active and competitive, but the committee approval has become highly selective. We definitely see a drop in startups’ valuations now compared to the first half of last year. But I don’t think the valuation has been cut badly; people are approaching it more rationally. From the entrepreneur’s point of view, I feel that the valuation has dropped a lot, and from the VC’s point of view, it has not gone down enough. That’s how I feel. I think it’s healthy.
The biggest drop among all rounds year to year was in late-stage growth rounds, even though we see some big late-stage funding announcements in South Korea at rare intervals these days. What does your firm prefer now? Are you focusing on more early- or late-stage startups?
We prefer the early-stage investment in a new company the most, the Series A round. Sometimes we invest in Series B, but we like Series A the most in a new company because we want to set up a company culture from the beginning. Altos rarely invests in a new company unless we participate in the round as a lead investor with a primary relationship. That’s why we typically go into Series A a lot, and we’re doing a big round based on the existing portfolios we already invested in.
In addition, we are supportive of our portfolio company getting a better deal done [in the next round] with another investor. But if the portfolio company CEO is not happy with the new investor’s follow-on investment conditions, we can sometimes help meet the founder’s particular needs and participate in the follow-on investments.
What advice would you give your portfolios to survive the current challenging market?
If you don’t need money, there will always be a lot of investors. If you don’t need money and you’re still growing, then there are always more investors that want to invest. So let’s get to that stage.
If the company is making money, that’s great. But if the company is losing money and unless they’re sure there’s more money coming, we’d say, Don’t run out of money. This is the number one priority.
We are also investors, but don’t tempt us because if the company runs out of the money, we can’t give them very good conditions. So, we always tell them [founders] to make it a company that doesn’t need money.
What is the most important thing you look for in startups and founders when you invest? What should founders prepare before they pitch for fundraising?
It can be a little different on a case-by-case basis, and in a way, we like founders who have something like a unique edge. It means we like founders with a strong desire, ability and someone who knows what one’s capability is. Founders need to hire people to fill the gap they can’t do. However, some founders who are too accommodating unquestioningly are not for us. We like founders who can share their thoughts. If they think we’re making a dumb statement, we love those founders who can say, “That’s a dumb statement.” We can only improve relationships with founders once they put in their 2 cents and share their ideas.
How does your firm prefer to be pitched? Are you open to cold pitches?
We take pitches via various routes. We like to be introduced by our portfolio company representatives or close friends. We no longer use email, but we have our own channel here.
What sectors does your firm keep an eye on?
We’re not sector driven, but I’d say we pay attention to founders. That is to say, Coupang and Viva Republica (Toss) are companies we know very well. There are a lot of brilliant and good workers, so if someone leaves there and starts something new, we just want to get close to what they do from the beginning. From what they’re doing to what they’re thinking about, there’s also an interest in a very solid stage. So if we’re not at the stage of investing, we’re going to introduce them somewhere else and we prefer to continue our relationship from the very beginning even if we don’t invest.
The South Korean Ministry of SMEs and Startups recently announced it would invest 10.5 trillion won to support Korean startups as startup investment fell amid the global economic downturn and recession fear. How would it help startups in South Korea?
Korean venture capitalists are smart, and they are good at investing. Most VCs get the return. The government, which participates as a limited partner and allocates money to VC firms in South Korea, will eventually get the money back anyway. It’s an opportunity to make money. Altos is based out of the U.S., so we’re not planning to get investment from the South Korean government.
Tim Chae, managing partner, 500 Global
We’re seeing a significant drop in VC funding in Asia’s first quarter this year. How has your VC investment strategy changed along with the market condition?
No changes for us at 500. We are expecting to have our most active year in terms of total money deployed and total companies funded.
What caused the lowest funding in Asia since 2021? Do you think VC funding will continue to decline this year? What are your prospects regarding funding volumes in Asia in 2023 and 2024?
The Korean VC market largely depends on the activity of the Korea Venture Investment Corporation, a government-backed fund of funds management firm, in the fund of funds for domestic managers. There are efforts to increase the budget for this year, so I think activity in Korea will start to pick up more compared to the recent years at the early stages.
Growth stages in Korea will be down significantly for the next couple of years as growth stage capital has only recently started to trickle in from non-Korean capital (U.S., SEA- and MENA), and growth stages in their local markets are frozen at the moment. Once the local markets of the growth stage investors start to thaw, a year or two after that, you should start to see that growth stage investment activity pick up again in Korea.
How does the investment trend in South Korea differ from other regions like the U.S. and Europe?
I’d say, in the U.S., we are seeing AI-specific companies represent 40%+ or so of the companies we look at. Maybe 20% or so in Korea.
Korea is very much still a blue ocean in terms of the spaces startups can thrive in. Due to the legal framework (Korea being a whitelisted legal system versus U.S. and Europe being blacklisted), whenever favorable “de-regulations” or the Korean equivalent of regulations permitting startups in certain sectors, you always see booms there. Fintech becoming categorized and certain businesses becoming possible through the regulatory framework that has taken place since 2015 has resulted in a pretty big boom of great fintech companies (Toss, Finda, PeopleFund).
Besides that, Korean founders work on all kinds of ideas. Some as straight-up clones of Western markets designed for the local markets, and some are uniquely positioned to try to capture global market share. Our assessments as investors at the early stages are always to size up the true opportunity and see if those warrant venture capital.
Are deals competitive in terms of deal sourcing and/or valuations? How does it differ from the unrealistic valuations in 2020-2022?
Similar to the U.S. The later stage you go, the more founders are willing to do down rounds (if needed). The earlier stage you go, the founders are still raising at seed rounds that are around 2018-2020 prices. Not seeing any $10 million to $20 million pre-launch companies as you did in 2021 in Korea anymore. I think it’s healthy.
The biggest drop among all rounds year to year was in late-stage growth rounds, even though we see some big late-stage funding announcements in South Korea at rare intervals these days. What does your firm prefer now? Are you focusing on more early- or late-stage startups?
We continue to make investments at all stages. We are a unique firm in that we have the capacity to continue supporting our startups through the later stages for as long as they are an existing portfolio company. We don’t do entry checks at Series B. We like to lead with seed and work with the founders to continue to provide more capital and support the company as they progress through the stages of company growth if the founder lets us.
Because of that, we always have to maintain focus on seed and early-stage investments. Our relationships and work with the founder are what dictate our ability to invest as the company progresses. In the last five years, we’ve invested in companies where we’ve put in as little as $25,000 to $100,000 to as much as $50 million+ into a single company.
What advice would you give your portfolios to survive the current challenging market?
For pre-product-market fit: Don’t hire your way to PMF. Just stay nimble. Minimize spend. Extend runway. Buy yourself as much time as possible to figure “it” out.
For after PMF: Be financially prudent. “How would you change your business if you knew you weren’t going to be able to raise any more money?” Grow prudently and sustainably; that’s the framework I use for all of our startups I work with.
What is the most important thing you look for in startups and founders when you invest? What should founders prepare before they pitch for fundraising?
Most of the stuff any professional investor looks for in the early stage is pretty similar. That said, where I put a lot of emphasis on is (1) how fast the founder(s) are wired to execute and (2) whether I feel I can trust the founder(s).
How does your firm prefer to be pitched? Are you open to cold pitches?
We can [have] cold pitches all the time. The vast majority of the companies we work with apply through our website.
What sectors does your firm keep an eye on?
We are proudly generalists when you look at the various sectors we invest in. As early-stage investors (who are oftentimes the first institution checks into our startups), we generally want to take the view that the future of the world will be determined by the talented founders we meet with. It’s our job to try to understand their assumptions and thesis about the future and why they are choosing to spend their life’s work pursuing this startup. That’s usually the key to figuring out which “sectors” we end up investing in.
I think as early-stage investors, by the time a sector has been coined something like “fintech,” “web3” and “marketplaces,” you may be late into a sector, and the future category leaders may have already been well funded and on their way.
The South Korean Ministry of SMEs and Startups recently announced it would invest 10.5 trillion won to support Korean startups as startup investment fell amid the global economic downturn and recession fear. How would it help startups in South Korea?
As mentioned above, Korean VC activity is very correlated with government support, specifically funding to GPs. This will have a positive impact on companies at all stages.
JP Lee, CEO and managing partner, SoftBank Ventures Asia
We’re seeing a significant drop in VC funding in Asia’s first quarter this year. How has your VC investment strategy changed along with the market condition?
Due to the potential global economic crisis and rapid market changes, VCs are now closely scrutinizing … startups’ profitability and commercialization potential during due diligence before they make investments. Some Korean startups face challenges in attracting capital from investors owing to a lack of knowledge or strategic skills on how to improve their business structure to make profits. Korea is a country where the consumer market is highly competitive, challenging startups to create a profitable business model. Therefore, investors (SoftBank Ventures Asia) are currently focusing on startups that have a well-defined path to profitability and revenue generation and have already established a strong presence in their respective markets.
What caused the lowest funding in Asia since 2021? Do you think VC funding will continue to decline this year? What are your prospects regarding funding volumes in Asia in 2023 and 2024?
The recovery depends on two factors: First off, startups need to be aware of the changes that are likely to happen in the market [in the coming months or years] and adjust their strategies along with valuation expectations accordingly. This means that startups must be prepared to enter the market at a valuation that reflects current volatile market conditions.
Having a good understanding of the current market dynamics and the impact these changes can have on their business is needed for founders.
Secondly, the recovery also depends on how nimbly startups can address the challenge of improving their revenue-generating capabilities. For instance, they may need to streamline their operations, adjust marketing efforts or pivot to a new business model altogether.
How does the investment trend in South Korea differ from other regions like the U.S. and Europe?
Industry-wise, South Korea, along with Asian countries, is experiencing a surge of new startups, mostly in commerce and internet services. This is because there are several vertical markets where innovation is still possible, and an increasing number of startups are targeting global markets right from scratch.
Europe and the United States are witnessing startups mainly focusing on their domestic markets. Europe is placing more emphasis on green technology in response to strict environmental regulations, while in the U.S., generative AI companies are gaining popularity with Open AI’s ChatGPT.
Are deals competitive in terms of deal sourcing and valuations? How does it now differ from the unrealistic valuations in 2020-2022?
Ultimately, what matters the most to investors now is not the current valuation but the growth potential a startup aims for. The key factor is how fundamentally the startup can grow in the next three to five years with its low current valuation, and I think that could draw investors’ attention. Simply put, investors are now emphasizing how a company monetizes with its core business rather than solely on the speed of its growth.
The biggest drop among all rounds year to year was in late-stage growth rounds, even though we see some big late-stage funding announcements in South Korea at rare intervals these days. What does your firm prefer now? Are you focusing on more early- or late-stage startups?
With the current market situation, early-stage companies with substantial growth potential and pre-IPO stage companies have already been validated. Given our strengths and track record, SBVA will continually invest in early-stage companies.
What advice would you give your portfolios to survive the current challenging market?
Startups can ensure they have sufficient resources to weather the storm and emerge stronger in the long run by prioritizing survival. So, prioritize survival. We’d recommended securing a runway of at least 18 months and taking proactive measures to reduce burn in response to the current situation. This is particularly crucial for startups facing financial constraints and uncertainties in the market.
What is the most important thing you look for in startups and founders when you invest? What should founders prepare before they pitch for fundraising?
SBVA has invested in startups committed to leveraging technology to drive innovation and create unique value propositions in the market. This belief stems from our conviction that technology has the potential to enhance people’s lives. We aim to invest in startups with a profound understanding of their target market and the ability to identify shifts in customer behavior. Nimble Founders who deeply understand the market can make informed decisions and adapt to changing market conditions.
How does your firm prefer to be pitched? Are you open to cold pitches?
If a startup has a well-prepared [investor relations] deck, we are happy to get cold pitches. However, evaluating early companies’ services or growth metrics objectively in the market is challenging. Therefore, we find it helpful to receive introductions from trusted partners as it allows us to more thoroughly vet potential investment opportunities.
What sectors does your firm keep an eye on?
We continue to see promising opportunities in companies that are driving market innovation with technology. Although SBVA’s strength lies in [information and communications technology] investments, we are also closely monitoring emerging sectors such as semiconductors, renewable energy, SaaS, AI and automation. Our goal is to identify and invest in startups with the potential to disrupt and transform their respective industries.
The South Korean Ministry of SMEs and Startups recently announced it would invest 10.5 trillion won to support Korean startups as startup investment fell amid the global economic downturn and recession fear. How would it help startups in South Korea?
Undoubtedly, the recent injection of government funding into the domestic startup ecosystem is good news. With the fear of a global economic downturn and recession, startups face a challenging investment climate. This government funding can provide much-needed stability and support to the startup ecosystem. Korean startups have typically depended on public and private sector investments. However, due to the current reduction in LP investments, government funding can help fill the gap and ensure that the momentum of the startup ecosystem is not disrupted.
Yeemin Chung, managing director, BRV Capital Management
We’re seeing a significant drop in VC funding in Asia’s first quarter this year. How has your VC investment strategy changed along with the market condition?
We closely monitor macro-driven factors dictating the current market dynamics and profound paradigm shifts led by generational technological advancements, which are reflected in our portfolio construction and management disciplines. Nevertheless, we are not in this to play the short game – as a patient and steadfast capital, our fundamental strategy to identify and back (potential) category winners is here to stay despite market fluctuations.
What caused the lowest funding in Asia since 2021? Do you think VC funding will continue to decline this year? What are your prospects regarding funding volumes in Asia in 2023 and 2024?
It is clear that aggregate funding peaked in 2021; previous precedents hint that it will take another bull cycle to rise above that level. History has also taught us that the best vintages are born from the ashes. As such, I doubt that investors with capital ready to go to work are idling away their time.
Having said that, understanding what limited partners are doing is often a decent indicator for anticipating the vitality of the broader investor community over the coming quarters. Currently, LPs of all sizes are minimizing new allocations to venture capital and private equity funds to focus on portfolio rebalancing. In contrast to the quiet primary market, the secondary market has been very active, with a heavy volume of VC and PE stakes transacted to resolve over allocations.
I believe that a series of wake-up calls, including the SVB collapse, are pushing them further to embrace reality and take action. Until asset pricing levels off in the secondary market, many global and regional general partners (GPs) will have difficulty raising new funds to deploy.
How does the investment trend in South Korea differ from other regions like the U.S. and Europe?
Compared to the U.S. and Europe, I would highlight the lack of attractive investment opportunities to date in software, including SaaS, and deep tech. To be fair, this is, in part, an industrywide mea culpa situation with a historically low number of bets in the said facets of the innovation economy by (Asian and) South Korean investors (although this will most definitely not hold true during the next cycle).
Are deals competitive in terms of deal sourcing and/or valuations? How does it differ from the unrealistic valuations in 2020-2022?
Price correction across the board is quite evident, and we are receiving a massive number of inquiries from founders and early-stage investors around the world to initiate a dialogue. However, the price tag itself matters less when investors now look through an entirely different lens when valuing a company. We often see companies neglect this transition and end up frustrated while attempting to defend their valuation using the same equation and tactics they utilized 18 to 24 months ago. Today, only a select few are still positioned to do so.
The biggest drop among all rounds year to year was in late-stage growth rounds, even though we see some big late-stage funding announcements in South Korea at rare intervals these days. What does your firm prefer now? Are you focusing on more early- or late-stage startups?
With crossover and multistrategy funds less active for now and the IPO market in the near term remaining unwelcoming, the late-stage investing landscape will only be occupied by those who are dedicated and mandated. The days of “swiping right” on a deal are well over, and the required level of due diligence has also reverted to historical norms, taking three to four months rather than three to four days.
As a stage-agnostic, technology-focused investor, we are fortunate to be able to pursue opportunities where we hold the highest level of conviction, regardless of check size.
What advice would you give your portfolios to survive the current challenging market?
Take all measures to ensure that razor-sharp focus on the mission and alignment of interests are not compromised. Everything else is futile compared to these two principles.
What is the most important thing you look for in startups and founders when you invest? What should founders prepare before they pitch for fundraising?
Innovation is an arduous journey. Founders must prove they have the capacity and determination to hold their position at the forefront of disruption for a prolonged period. At the same time, we spend a lot of time assessing “institutionalization feasibility,” especially when underwriting late-stage opportunities. More often than desired, the founding teams themselves become the bottleneck to structured, long-term growth. To avoid this fallacy, we try to sense whether the founding teams are capable of and comfortable with surrounding themselves with people who are more competent and sophisticated and delegating core R&Rs across the decision-making process. The organization and its mission transcend one person.
How does your firm prefer to be pitched? Are you open to cold pitches?
We are open to all pitches, although we may not be able to respond to all queries promptly.
What sectors does your firm keep an eye on?
We seek durable growth opportunities in pillar sectors, including consumer retail, media/entertainment, EV/new energy, semiconductor and blockchain/crypto.
The South Korean Ministry of SMEs and Startups recently announced it would invest 10.5 trillion won to support Korean startups as startup investment fell amid the global economic downturn and recession fear. How would it help startups in South Korea?
Startups, as propellants for innovation, are critical components of South Korea’s continued economic growth. Moreover, in an era where geopolitical tensions and the clash of power are most visible across the global technological value chain, the South Korean government’s decision to double down on fostering innovation is definitely the right move to ensure national security.
As long as the announced initiatives are rolled out in a practical manner, the renewed vote of confidence will catalyze private capital to resume activity.
Eunse Lee, founder and managing partner, 541 Ventures
We’re seeing a significant drop in VC funding in Asia’s first quarter this year. How has your VC investment strategy changed along with the market condition?
The latest drop happens primarily in the later and growth stages and the denominator effect from such drops has consequently affected the early/seed stages. 541 Ventures is a seed-only investor; therefore, the impact from such declines has very little — if any — impact on our investment strategy. In addition, the fact that we are in enterprise spaces — not consumer, where companies have traditionally been buying growth — has helped us remain consistent with our investment strategy.
What caused the lowest funding in Asia since 2021, and do you think VC funding will continue to decline this year? What are your prospects regarding funding volumes in Asia in 2023 and 2024? And do you expect it will bounce back anytime soon?
I don’t think the VC activities in terms of the number of deals, especially in the earlier stages, will change significantly. However, I’m inclined to say that the volume will stay somewhat lower in the earlier stages and visibly low in the later stages due to the lingering effect of “tech winter” in the U.S. toward Asia. I do think it will recover faster than expected (in the next ~12 months) but not to the degree of 2020/2021 because of the global macro economy and GPs more concerned about the fundamentals of the startups.
How does the investment trend in South Korea differ from other regions like the U.S. and Europe?
Just like the U.S. doesn’t represent the whole global market, I think it’s hard to characterize entire Asia under one label of “Asian ecosystems,” as every constituent has pretty varying characteristics.
On the other hand, my observations are: (1) The ecosystems in Southeast Asia are very heavily biased toward consumers, which may make the rebound from the recent declines more difficult. (2) The ecosystems in Northeast Asia (Korea, Japan) generally have more colorful spectrums.
Also, it’s notable that many Asian governments are aggressively investing in building and nurturing the local innovation ecosystem, and sometimes, it plays an important role in keeping their respective ecosystems independent (for better or worse) from the global environment.
Are deals competitive in terms of deal sourcing and/or valuations? How does it now differ from the unrealistic valuations in 2020-2022?
Deals have to be competitive. If they’re not, then that’s a real problem because it means the quality has plummeted. I observe that the valuations in the earlier stage have declined, but I think it’s rather the product of the decreased check sizes.
I think you’ve picked the right word to call the 2020/2021 valuations “unrealistic.” I’ve seen many companies raise “super seed” during that period of time because of the hype in certain spaces or whatever reasons; they’re now going through a very challenging time because they couldn’t get to the point where such “super seed” valuations could be justified.
Therefore, I think the current environment might feel a bit harsh for entrepreneurs, but in a sense, it’s doing a favor for the founders that can realistically map their growth path.
What advice would you give your portfolios to survive the current challenging market?
The advice should be company/founder specific. In general, though, I’d tell them that high efficiency is just as important as high growth.
What is the most important thing you look for in startups and founders when you invest? What should founders prepare before they pitch for fundraising?
What is the unique future that they see, and what technical problem are they trying to solve to arrive at that unique future? Do they think logically all the way? How big is their vision?
How does your firm prefer to be pitched? Are you open to cold pitches?
Of course! Find me on LinkedIn!
What sectors does your firm keep an eye on?
Frontier tech. More specifically: big data enablement and management, ultra-high-performance computing, human-device interfaces, cybersecurity, energy solutions and infrastructure, and opportunistically AI-powered enterprise solutions.
The South Korean Ministry of SMEs and Startups recently announced it would invest 10.5 trillion won to support Korean startups as startup investment fell amid the global economic downturn and recession fear. How would it help startups in South Korea?
The South Korean government and its institutions and agencies have been the largest LPs in Korea; therefore, it’s definitely good news for many investors and entrepreneurs in Korea as it means more liquidity in the nation’s ecosystem.
On the other hand, I think it’s time to reassess the long-term effect of such support using the taxpayers’ money and figure out better ways to truly globalize its very “Korean” startup ecosystem.