Education is eating the world

By Allison Baum,

Five years ago, when we first started talking about investing in and building a truly global edtech ecosystem, a lot of people thought we were crazy. Though I had brought General Assembly from New York to Asia, we had made several cross-border edtech investments from our first fund at Fresco Capital, and we helped those investments make their first international footprints, many potential investors insisted that education was an inherently localized problem. Edtech lacks scale, liquidity, and cross-border appeal, they insisted.

At the time, there was no argument the edtech ecosystem was in its early stages. But having spent time on the ground as operators, founders, and investors, we could see where it was going. So, we started evangelizing. We collected data points, distilled them into trends, published articles, outlined the key ingredients for a global edtech ecosystem, and spoke to hundreds of startup founders and corporate LPs about the value of an international strategy in edtech. We talked to anyone that would listen, and in the process, we launched two funds comprised of some of the most forward thinking corporate LPs interested in edtech and the future of work. Then, we built a portfolio of 60 companies from all around the world, and now have 7 successful exits from that portfolio.

In 2017, I outlined two major predictions for the following year, which were a pick up in cross-border M&A, and edtech going mainstream. Indeed, with three major exits announced these past few weeks — NetDragon buying Edmodo for US$137.5 million, Adecco buying General Assembly for $413 million, and finally Pluralsight filing for their IPO — this marks an exciting milestone for the evolution of an ecosystem we’ve so passionately played a role in building. So, I figured this would be a good time to pause, summarize what we’ve learned so far, and speculate on where we might be going next.

Here are 3 key lessons we’ve learned so far:

1. Investing early makes a big difference

I’ve talked to a lot of corporates and investors who believe that edtech is risky, so instead of investing in a portfolio of early stage companies, they’d rather make direct investments in later stage startups that have “proven” their business model. However, what recent exits have made clear is that the stage and the terms at which you invest make a big difference for your returns.

To quote one of the greatest hockey players of all time, Wayne Gretzky, “Skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.”

Especially when it comes to edtech, the market is rapidly growing and also rapidly evolving. That means investing in the right team at the early stage pays off.

For example, General Assembly’s Series A post-money valuation was US$20 million. For us early stakeholders, a US$413 million exit is a huge win. However, later stage investors are facing much less impressive returns. Yes, investing early is risky and the total capital deployed is smaller, but the return profile is significantly better.

2. A cross-border strategy pays off

All three of these companies had international strategies that directly contributed to their growth as well as their exit profiles.

Pluralsight expanded aggressively internationally, beating competitors to the punch by localizing their offerings and selling courses in places like India. This helped diversify their revenue base, solidify a larger overall market size, and create a stickier brand. Surely this led to their options for liquidity and contributed to their recent S-1 filing.

Similarly, General Assembly expanded early on into London, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Sydney. Not only did this contribute to a strong, global brand that differentiated versus competitors, but also led to the development of strategic, international corporate relationships with customers and partners like Switzerland-based Adecco.

Edmodo had boots on the ground in Asia from very early on, and welcomed investors from Singapore and Japan into their later rounds of funding. NetDragon, based in China, ultimately acquired them, so there is little doubt that their presence in Asia had an impact on their ultimate exit.

3. Cross-sector partnerships are the most fruitful

Many edtech founders believe that their ideal partners are traditional education companies. Similarly, many traditional education companies are only looking to invest in and partner with startups in edtech. We have always been of the view that creativity is a key ingredient for scale, and the isolation of the edtech sector will only hinder its growth.

Indeed, through our experience as entrepreneurs, operators, and VCs, it is clear that the most productive partnerships are cross-industry. If you work with a partner not in the traditional education business, you are creating new possibilities for both of you. This means you are not competing for the same customer base, but instead opening up new customer segments for both parties. Consequently you are more like to have an open, collaborative partnership. It also means the multiples on your acquisition are likely going to be higher, as they represent completely new revenue streams and business lines for your new partner.

NetDragon is a China-based gaming company, and though Edmodo’s ultimate acquisition price may seem low compared to their later rounds of funding, the multiple on their revenue base is remarkable. Similarly for General Assembly, Adecco is a Switzerland-based HR/staffing firm, and not a traditional education business. At first glance, these aren’t the most logical partnerships, but they certainly have proven to be rewarding.

So, now that edtech is going cross-border, and cross-sector, you might be asking yourself… what’s next? Here’s what I think.

Here’s why education is eating the world

In 2011, Marc Andreessen made a splash by declaring that “software is eating the world.” In 2018, as a direct result of that assertion, education is eating the world. Back in the early days of the internet, and even when Marc first published his post, technology companies were considered to be a separate sector. This was largely due to the fact that barriers to integrating technology into your core business were high. However, as technology became cheaper and more advanced, billions of people came online via their mobile phones, demand for online services exploded, and software made its way into every business model. Today, no matter what your core product is — healthcare, financial, utilities, energy — there is a technology component. Every company, in some form, is a technology company.

Similar to the evolution of the technology sector, there will be a day in the near future when education is no longer a separate sector, but instead a layer that sits on top of every type of business. You see, every company is a technology company, and therefore every business is becoming a technology business. As a direct result, every job is a technology job. Technology is evolving at an exponential rate. Jobs and businesses have not only been transformed, but they are continuing to change at a rate faster than ever before. This requires companies to create a process for constant adaptation in order to remain competitive, productive, and profitable. (And this is precisely why Adecco, an HR/staffing firm, sees value in acquiring a business like General Assembly.) Every company must, in some form, become an education company.

At an individual level, since jobs are evolving so quickly, regular retraining is necessary. As a result, education can no longer remain a distinct portion of our early years. Instead, it must be integrated across all aspects of our lives and over the course of an entire lifetime. Day in and day out, we must constantly be learning if we are to remain competitive and productive members of society. Hell, given the recent scandals with cybersecurity and data privacy, we have to constantly be learning if we want to simply avoid being manipulated or hacked.

Given our education system has been largely unchanged for hundreds of years, the decentralization and globalization of education is a significant cultural shift that will take time to play out. I still meet people who assume “education” means K-12. However, there are early signs that this perception is changing. We’re already seeing cracks in the demand for tertiary degrees, increasing acceptance of vocational training programs, and a more informed, globally mobile student base. Instead of continuing to question whether or not edtech is a sizable opportunity, let’s seek to understand how technology is transforming businesses, jobs, and individuals’ lives worldwide, and what that means for how we will all need to adapt to that reality.

That’s what edtech is really about, and that’s why at Fresco, we’re putting our money toward investing in technology not just for education, but also the future of work, and healthcare. If we embrace a constant state of learning, then we will not only be able to keep up with how technology is inevitably disrupting every aspect of our lives, but we can also empower the next generation of innovative solutions to the world’s biggest problems.

Education is eating the world was originally published in Fusion by Fresco Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

  Category: edtech, Medium
  Comments: Comments Off on Education is eating the world

2 Inspiring Educators with Lessons About Learning for Everyone

By Tytus Michalski,

At the recent Yidan Prize Summit, I had a chance to hear from Professor Carol S. Dweck and Vicky Colbert who were chosen as the first ever Laureates of this award. It’s about time that the top education practitioners are treated as superstars, though they were both extremely humble despite all the attention.

Vicky Colbert is the founder and director of Fundación Escuela Nueva. With roots in rural Colombia from 1975, her practical approach has been changing lives ever since. As one person commented during the awards video of classrooms using the philosophy: “the kids look so happy!”

The most well known work of Professor Carol S. Dweck of Stanford is about psychological mindset, especially the difference between a growth and a fixed mindset. As the awards event made clear, her overall contribution and influence in terms of both ideas and implementation across education is both broad and deep.

Importantly, their speeches and discussion contained lessons for us all — here are some of my key takeaways from their talks over the two day event.

1. Education of children transforms society today, not just in the future

It’s obvious that our children will one day be the leaders of society and so by definition education is key to transforming the future. But the message from the two Laureates is that children can be agents of change for society today — right now. Under this approach, children are proactive participants in social reform. Vicky gave an example of how children were important participants for improving healthcare awareness and treatment in rural parts of Colombia.

2. Expanding the status quo is not the goal

Governments love to talk about how they are spending more money on education. The unfortunate problem is that simple expansion of the current system is not the answer. The global education system has badly lagged changes in the rest of society. More of the public and private sector investment should be focused on better, not simply bigger.

3. The right to learn is global — across culture, religion, race

A clear message from the Yidan Prize event was the universal importance of education across all traditional boundaries of culture, religion, and race. Of course there are always local nuances when it comes to implementation but the core desire to learn and right to learn transcend barriers.

4. Problem solving focus

When asked about what the goal of learning and education should be, the answers from Carol and Vicky emphasized solving practical problems in today’s world. That has absolutely been our philosophy at Fresco Capital and I hope we have more students, educators, and parents who embrace this goal.

5. Co-operative learning and teamwork

If we aspire to have leaders of society who understand the benefits of co-operation, wouldn’t it make sense to start that habit at a young age? Both Laureates highlighted the power of team based learning in contrast to the traditional emphasis on individual performance. They also led by example by exploring collaboration opportunities across their respective areas of focus during the conference.

6. Teacher and student roles should change

The role of teachers needs to change. To be clear, the message is not about replacing teachers with technology. Instead, students should be more active learners. This then allows teachers to support and listen to children as they learn.

7. Test theories in real life

There are many elegant theories about learning and education. Both of these educators are consistent in their rigorous approach to use real life for testing theories. They are not content with ideas alone — the focus is tangible outcomes and results.

8. Opportunity to think big

The most inspiring lesson was to see these very successful leaders accept their awards, and then very quickly focus on thinking bigger for an even larger impact on society. Far from being content and satisfied, their curiosity and determination remains unwavering.

The first Yidan Prize Laureates set a high bar for everyone else involved in learning and education (which technically includes all of us). If we each reach just a fraction of their impact, we have the potential to create an exponential positive compound effect for generations into the future.

2 Inspiring Educators with Lessons About Learning for Everyone was originally published in Fusion by Fresco Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

  Category: Medium, society
  Comments: Comments Off on 2 Inspiring Educators with Lessons About Learning for Everyone

Inspiration from Leading 8 Million Active Parents & Volunteers

By Fusion by Fresco Capital,

The most inspirational founders are able to find a mission bigger than themselves and I was fortunate to have a recent Q&A with one of these founders, Karen Bantuveris. Not only is she a savvy entrepreneur and mother herself, her company empowers a community of 8 million parents and volunteers. Karen was recently at the White House as part of the Computer Science for All initiative and this was a great topic to start the discussion.

You recently spoke at the White House about’s role as an official partner to the Computer Science for All initiative (#CSforAll). What was that like?

Speaking at the White House was of course an unforgettable experience for me. I felt honored, inspired, empowered — and excited to see SignUp.comjoining other tech leaders like Google and Facebook as an official partner in such an important initiative in education. It’s a movement anyone can contribute to — you can learn more about it on the White House’s website.

How will be contributing to this initiative?

We’re here to help engage parents. They’re a powerful, untapped audience capable of making a huge impact in our nation’s goal to bring computer science to ALL kids, and is connected to 8 million of them. We’re doing a variety of things to help parents and families drive this movement at a local level, but the one we’re most proud of is “Family Code Night.”

During a memorable and fun Family Code Night event, families learn to code together. Thanks to a program produced by our partner, MV Gate, hosting a school-wide Family Code Night is easy for any parent to coordinate. Kids and parents get an exciting introduction to computer science — they get to do something fun and empowering with their family and with their friends and school community. Families leave the event eager for more and ready to support computer science learning at school and at home. The Family Code Night event kit is available free at, and we’ll be encouraging our users to download this and other free computer science ideas and resources from our new CSforAll Idea Center in partnership with the CSforAll Consortium.

Tell us why you chose to get involved with CSforAll?

There are so many things we each want to do with our day, with our lives, for our children — but it’s overwhelming if you try to do it on your own. As a business leader and mom, I get that. We’ve spent seven years building around the belief that we are all stronger in numbers. Every day, our solutions help people unite groups of 10, 50, 1,000 people around common goals and interests. With CSforAll, gets to do that for a nationwide movement. Given the powerful role parents play in influencing school priorities and our unique connection with them, it makes perfect sense that we would contribute to this movement.

Image Source: White House

Until recently, your brand used the name VolunteerSpot. Why the change to

Our solutions were originally designed for moms like myself who were looking for a better way to coordinate school activities that depended on parent volunteers. Over time, parents began to expand how they used our solutions — with friends, at work,… Today, people use our solutions for every type of activity that relies on people to sign up and participate.

We recognized it was time to adopt a name that more accurately reflected our solutions and enabled our company to reach new audiences such as universities and small businesses. So this summer, we rebranded as Our new name more accurately reflects what we do and who we serve (everyone!), and therefore generates better outcomes for the people using our solutions to organize activities that depend on group participation.

Based on your experience, what advice would you share to other companies who are thinking about a change in brand?

  1. Consult an outside brand strategist early and often.
  2. Build a comprehensive project plan and assign a skilled project manager, just as you would a website launch or product launch.
  3. As you design your transition plan, carefully consider all of the people and components of your business that will be affected — each group of stakeholders and audience segments may need targeted communication plans but deploying a change is much more than marketing and communications. For example, site infrastructure, SEO, help desk, partner contracts, human resources and banking are all touched with a brand change.

Your community of users is extremely active and engaged. What kind of brand partners are the best fit for your community?

We wouldn’t be here without our brand partners. Brands like Lands’ End, Penguin Random House, Uncle Ben’s, and Chuck E. Cheese advertise with us to reach the millions of highly influential moms that use our site. best fits brands that want to connect with active people (which includes pretty much every mom with school age kids!). They use because they’re always looking for ways to do more with less time — for some that means personal interests like church or book clubs, for others that means career achievements, and for the majority of users, that means contributing to their child’s education and success.

You’re based in Austin and have an insider’s perspective of SXSW. Any tips for visitors, especially those who are thinking of going for the first time?

Treat it like any travel adventure: wear smart shoes, try new things, embrace the unexpected, and sleep when you get home! SXSW is immersive and you may not see a lot of Austin, but don’t leave without eating a breakfast taco (or three). Everyone has their favorite taco shop, but personally, I’m Team Torchy’s all the way!

Thank you for reading!

Our portfolio companies including are always on the lookout for top talent and also partnership opportunities. To learn more, get in touch.

Image Source: White House

  Category: People
  Comments: Comments Off on Inspiration from Leading 8 Million Active Parents & Volunteers

The Most Effective Way Governments Should Support Startup Ecosystems

By Fusion by Fresco Capital,

I once met an active angel investor from Europe who was convinced that government subsidies of investors were the most effective way to build startup ecosystems. Of course I asked the obvious question, “what about Silicon Valley?”

“Except Silicon Valley” was his reply.

Huh. Lightbulbs going on everywhere (at least in my mind).

The Best Intentions

Small scale grants to get startups off the ground in place of friends, family and fools money certainly makes sense. After all, most people actually don’t have friends, family and fools with enough money to support them.

What about when governments start subsidising rich angel investors with tax breaks? While this may be the result of genuine intentions to encourage risk taking, if investors are ultimately viewing startup investments as tax deductions, then this is a fundamentally flawed strategy. Instead of being investments, startups are transformed into tax loopholes.

Moving up the investment value chain, it’s certainly admirable for governments to actively support local venture capital because there is a positive knock-on effect of helping the real economy. This leads to a natural question:

How should governments support local venture capital funds in order to scale and build a local ecosystem?

One approach to building a local venture capital ecosystem is to provide rebates and other complex incentives where the government takes on more risk and leaves the private sector with extra return benefits. No matter what the fancy official name of this kind of program, it is effectively a subsidy.

As a venture capital investor, I’m supposed to jump at the chance of getting subsidised returns. Call me old fashioned, but I don’t want to receive subsidies to juice returns because it’s wrong for society (my altruistic side) and I don’t want my returns to be artificially boosted by subsidies (pure ego).

Fortunately, there’s a simpler idea.

Instead of tilting the risk / return in favour of funds via subsidies, government related capital should simply be open to investing in new venture capital funds on market terms. The boring reality is that most government capital is allocated through various intermediaries and by the time it gets to venture capital funds, many decision makers take the view of something like this:

New venture capital funds are too risky, so we prefer teams that have worked together for at least 10 years and are raising fund 5.

If you want to attract venture capital investors to your local ecosystem, it’s a lot easier to do so before fund 5. Rather than throwing around subsidies to attract funds, governments should take a hard look at how their existing capital is being allocated through various intermediaries to make sure that there is an allocation for emerging venture capital funds.

If done correctly, this market driven approach will actually increase returns, as there’s plenty of data to show that new funds are generating outsized returns. Instead of spending money to subsidize venture capital funds, governments can get more money through higher returns.

The Unintended Consequences

Beyond the obvious concern that governments should not be subsidising investors directly, there is also the problem of unintended consequences.

At the company level, since small scale grants for startups to get off the ground usually do make a positive impact, it’s very tempting for governments to scale that up.

Unfortunately, when companies raise institutional capital which was only possible because of subsidies tied to the investment either directly or indirectly, the incentive mechanisms tend to train grantpreneurs.

The reality is that all startup subsidies come attached with complicated forms because governments need to protect themselves from criticism. So there is no such thing as “simple startup subsidies”.

Grantpreneurs are extremely efficient and skilled at filling out the complicated forms and ticking all the right boxes for subsidies but unfortunately are a lot less skilled in building successful businesses.

People improve their skill through repetition. The worst case scenario is creating serial grantpreneurs, who are able to jump from subsidy to subsidy.

One of the goals usually cited by governments to subsidise investors is that this will then lead to more jobs. Of course, there are usually many restrictions on the people who may be hired.

This prescriptive approach to hiring can actually lead to increased inequality because it increases demand for a fixed pool of talent rather than increasing the overall pool of talent. Wages go up for those already with skills. Everyone else, not so much.

Throwing money at jobs is not the same as increasing the overall pool of talent.

A Better Way

Should we just throw our hands up in the air with the view that governments are always wrong and it’s foolish to mess with markets?

Not quite.

Markets are far from perfect and as the impact of technology continues to accelerate, cities and countries that do nothing to build thriving startup ecosystems are at risk of being left behind.

So what should governments focus on when it comes to extra support for startup ecosystems?

Ultimately, every government has limited resources and a key starting question should be “what is the best use of our resources for maximum impact?”

If the goal is to encourage innovation across society and the improvement of overall welfare, better to focus on talent.

What would a program to support talent look like? Rather than giving money to startups, which would empower grantpreneurs to fill out forms more successfully, governments should be subsidising individuals to learn new job skills. To be clear, this does not mean training everyone to become an entrepreneur.

Empowering individuals to make their own job skill education choices at least creates a pathway for them to find new job opportunities. It won’t work for everyone but it has the potential to enhance the overall pool of talent at scale. So rather than funnelling more money to the same number of people, there will be a broader base of talent.

Will there be inefficiency? Of course yes.

Will there be fraud? Probably.

But at least by focusing on individuals, the magnitude of any individual fraud case should be smaller.

Even with inefficiency and fraud, as long as the overall talent pool is improved, then this approach could create massive value for society.

The Unexpected Benefits

Beyond the direct impact of enhancing the talent pool, there is an important secondary benefit: increasing the quality of overall talent should attract more institutional capital.

Why does increasing the pool of talent attract more capital? Because capital follows talent.

Just take a look at the history of Silicon Valley. The talent moved first, led by pioneers like the Traitorous Eight, and the capital followed.

There are two factors behind this dynamic. First, great talent is still scarcer than capital. Second, it’s easier to move capital than talent.

So by focusing on improving the talent base, governments will naturally be building the foundations of attracting capital for the right reasons.

The First Steps

It’s tempting for governments to go big with a fancy launch party and lots of hype around a new program.

But for a talent subsidy program to actually be effective, better to act like a startup and start with a small test. Make it small because then the mistakes will be small and there is only one guarantee with a talent subsidy program: there will be mistakes.

Then this is the most important part: get feedback, learn from the mistakes, and don’t scale up until it’s actually working on a small scale.

This means less publicity in the short-term but ultimately much larger positive impact in the long-term. It’s a marshmallow test for governments who want to support startup ecosystems.

Lightbulbs are a metaphor for new ideas and innovation. If governments truly want to support startup ecosystems, they should be focused on helping people find their unique lightbulb moments.

For anyone else interested in figuring out how governments can help support startup ecosystem talent, please get in touch.

  Category: Ecosystem
  Comments: Comments Off on The Most Effective Way Governments Should Support Startup Ecosystems

Behind the Scenes at Nanosatellite Company Spire

By Fusion by Fresco Capital,

I first connected with Peter Platzer in 2012 during the early days of Spire, before any of the company’s nanosatellites were actually in space. We hit it off immediately, and very quickly this led to an investment by us at Fresco Capital. There are many teams with big dreams, but Peter and the Spire team are one of the few teams that consistently execute those big dreams. In addition to launching and managing a constellation of nanosatellites, the satellite-powered data company has built a truly global business with offices across Asia, Europe and North America.

Here’s a recent Q&A I had with Peter.

When most people think of satellites, they think of very large and expensive projects that only governments can afford. What has changed in the past 15 years and why?

Nanosatellites are about the size of a bottle of wine and since 2014, there have been more nanosatellites launches than traditional large ones. With nanosatellite being far more affordable, this has dramatically changed the number of space faring nations, companies, and even individuals!

The two biggest reasons for that is the integration of new technologies from other industries and the creation of the CubeSat standard. Components from smartphones, drones, and robotics have made it possible to build an incredibly powerful satellite in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the price — it is still quite a bit or rocket science, but simply by replacing the need for lots of money with the need for lots of ingenuity and brain, it opened access for innovation from the private sector to space. Secondly, when it comes time to launch, there are now opportunities to share a ride in almost every space-faring country because the standard form factor is now a well-known and accepted by over a dozen launch vehicles.

Image Credit: Spire Global

You are originally from Europe and have lived in both Asia and North America. How does that influence your perspective of which country or countries Spire considers home?

When I was a teenager I came to my father with my passport and said “I’d like it to say ‘Peter Platzer, citizen of earth”. This was the time before the fall of the wall, my home town being just 45’ away from the Iron Curtain. An avid reader of both science and science fiction this separation between me in wealthy Vienna and others just 45’ drive away made no sense. Since then I travelled to over 60 countries and worked extensively in 7 countries on 3 continents. Clearly this has deeply influenced my thinking, curiosity, and appreciation for different cultures, norms, perspectives. And while I don’t think that my background influenced my perspective on Spire’s ‘home country’ it has certainly influenced the type of problem I want to solve and the type of company I would want to start. So from the beginning it was very clear that Spire needed to be a global company, with global customers, global operations, a global talent pool, solving global problems. Its home country is Earth.

Image credit: Spire Global

The transformation of the space industry is likely be a much needed catalyst for job creation in the future. What should governments, schools and parents be doing to make sure that their children are well prepared for these new job opportunities?

The best thing that schools can do is to keep kids engaged with technology. We need people who can code, build electronics, and understand complex systems. Thankfully there are great minds in ed-tech, like, working on this problem. We put an educational payload into every satellite because investing in children’s passion for science and technology is an investment in our future.

Image Credit: Spire Global

Anything related to space has a huge amount of global and national regulations. Recently, startups in other industries have been hurt by not following regulations. How do you approach the challenge of innovating in a highly regulated industry?

It’s always going to be difficult to deal with a highly regulated industry like aerospace but it is worth reminding yourself that the regulations were created for a reason. When we run into a roadblock, we talk with people. It’s often the case that no one even imagined a world with nanosatellites when they wrote the rules. So far we have found regulators to be very keen on understanding and supporting New Space, even though they often have to work with regulations that are anachronistic to today’s rapid pace of space technology development.

Image Credit: Spire Global

Many technology companies struggle with having diversity in the team. Spire, as a space company, is obviously working on some very advanced technology, so how does the company approach the issue of talent diversity?

Our approach to talent is to hire the best people and to build a heterogeneous team. Research has showed that heterogeneous teams consistently outperform homogeneous teams. Our team now consists of people from 18 countries and counting. It is also worth noting that from our perspective, diversity comes far more in the form of different personalities, approaches to problems, situations, desires, and aspirations, that differences visible on the outside. We measure diversity far more by the “content of the book” rather than “the cover of the book”, something that we think is often forgotten in the diversity debate.

Image Credit: Spire Global

What benefits do you think this new technology will be bringing to companies, government, and people in the next 1–3 years?

Nanosatellites are bringing about a sea-change in how much data is available from space to benefit mankind. Its like switching from a 1950 black and white silent movie to a 2015 4k 3D IMAX movie. Many of those benefits are yet to be discovered, but simply imagine a world were no airplane is ever lost again, global shipping is running on half the emissions because of route optimisation, our oceans are replenished in fish stock thanks to eradicating illegal fishing, and weather forecasts are as accurate as swiss train schedules, allowing you to never be late for a date (or miss a shipping to a customer). And those are just the areas that one company, Spire, is working on. We are certain that many more areas will be positively impacted by the wide-spread use of nanosatellites, similarly as the widespread use of the PC instead of the mainframe brought about the internet.

Thank you for reading!

Our portfolio companies including Spire are always on the lookout for top talent and also partnership opportunities. To learn more, get in touch.

Image credit: Spire Global

  Category: Innovation, People
  Comments: Comments Off on Behind the Scenes at Nanosatellite Company Spire