But now, two years later, that description is starting to feel a little outdated, because Durov is back in hot water once again.

This week, Russia formally charged Telegram founder Pavel Durov with facilitating terrorism and announced plans to place him on an international wanted list. According to Reuters, Russian authorities allege that Telegram has been used by Ukrainian intelligence services to coordinate attacks inside Russia and recruit individuals through channels and bots operating on the platform. Both Durov and Telegram deny any wrongdoing.

The allegations themselves are significant and raise a plethora of important questions – like how can messaging platforms be used for political purposes, who should control user activity and how much should activity be controlled at all? But perhaps the bigger here is what these allegations in particular reveal about Telegram’s place in the modern technology landscape.

��

From Messaging App To Digital Infrastructure

��

When Telegram launched in 2013, it was largely positioned as an alternative to WhatsApp and other messaging services. With a little more focus on group messaging and other special features, it was adopted by a fairly significant number of people, although it never got close to seriously competing with WhatsApp on a serious level.

As we previously reported, Telegram surpassed one billion monthly active users earlier this year. At that scale, it’s no longer just a place where people send messages. Now, it’s where news is consumed, communities are built, businesses operate and political movements communicate. Thus, quite different to WhatsApp.

According to a 2026 academic study, Telegram’s bot ecosystem alone supports everything from moderation and e-commerce to financial services and automated trading tools. Researchers described bots as a form of software infrastructure rather than simply platform features.��That evolution is important in this discussion, because infrastructure attracts a different level of scrutiny than apps do, and that’s kind of always been the case.

Governments may tolerate a messaging platform, but they tend to pay much closer attention to communications networks that influence politics, public opinion and national security. Especially in recent years…

��

Durov’s Balancing Act

��

One of the reasons Durov has become such a fascinating figure in tech is that he’s spent much of his career positioning himself as resistant to government control.

After leaving Russia in 2014 following disputes with authorities over his previous company VKontakte, Durov built Telegram around privacy, encryption and independence. According to AP News, he has repeatedly presented himself as a defender of free expression against state interference, and he’s done so pretty openly.

But, Telegram’s growth has (arguably) made that position harder to maintain.

As 91̽�� covered following Durov’s French arrest, Telegram has gradually introduced measures that would once have seemed unthinkable for a platform built on absolute privacy. The company expanded moderation efforts and introduced new reporting mechanisms for private chats, moves many observers interpreted as an attempt to demonstrate greater cooperation with regulators.

The result is an increasingly difficult balancing act. Governments want stronger oversight, while users often want more privacy. So, how can they make everybody happy?

Unsurprisingly, the answer isn’t simple, and Telegram appears stuck in the middle.

��

��

Why Governments Keep Coming Back To Telegram

��

What’s especially interesting about the latest case is that Russia isn’t actually the only government scrutinising the platform. Australia has also launched legal action against Telegram over alleged extremist content, while European regulators continue debating the responsibilities of large digital platforms. Telegram disputes the allegations and says it removes terrorist-related material when identified.

Meanwhile, researchers continue to study Telegram’s role in everything from political communication to misinformation networks and wartime information sharing. Studies examining the Russia-Ukraine conflict have described Telegram as a major battlefield for competing narratives, highlighting its influence far beyond private messaging.

That may explain why governments increasingly view Telegram as something more consequential than a social app.

��

Is This a Sign Of What Comes Next?

��

Sure, it would be easy to frame Russia’s latest move as just another chapter in a long-running dispute between the Kremlin and one of Russia’s most famous tech entrepreneurs.

But there may be a broader lesson for the tech industry, and Australia’s similar unhappiness with Telegram points to this too.

As platforms grow larger, they often evolve beyond their original purpose. Indeed, social networks become media companies, e-commerce platforms become logistics businesses and ride-hailing apps become transport infrastructure. It’s all part of the process, and in some ways, it’s just a result of natural growth. And at this point, it seems like Telegram may be going through a similar transformation.

The platform still delivers messages, but it also hosts political movements, distributes news, powers businesses, supports financial activity and increasingly sits at the centre of international disputes. Whether Russia’s allegations (as well as those raised by Australian authorities) ultimately lead anywhere remains to be seen, but what seems clearer is that Telegram’s importance now extends far beyond casual chat bubbles and group conversations.

The post Russia’s Latest Move Against Pavel Durov Shows That Telegram Is No Longer Just A Messaging App appeared first on 91̽��.

��

91̽�� is excited to announce the winners of the 2026 HealthTech44 campaign, celebrating the most exciting and innovative businesses in health and medical technology this year.

Founded in 2016, 91̽�� is the UK’s best-known and fastest-growing startup and tech news site. This��is where decision-makers, investors and startups of all sizes and nature come to find out the latest developments and trends within the industry.

��

See The List

��

Top 44 – See Here >>

Top 40 – See Here >>

Top 30 – See Here >>

Top 20 – See Here >>

Top 10 –��See Here >>

Who Ranked Number 1? –��See Here��>>

��

Feedback From The Judges

One of the most encouraging aspects of judging this year’s HealthTech44 competition was seeing how many founders were thinking beyond the technology itself. The strongest entries combined innovative technology with a clear understanding of the clinical problem they were solving and a credible pathway to bringing that solution into practice. That combination of innovation, evidence and a clear route to adoption made this an exceptionally strong field and was a reminder of just how much high-quality innovation is taking place across the sector. Congratulations to everyone who took part, and particularly to this year’s winners.

Head Judge 2026

Dr. Stuart Grant, Founder of

��

Judging this field reinforced how quickly healthtech is moving from point solutions toward trusted clinical infrastructure. The strongest entries did more than present an interesting idea: they addressed a meaningful care or workflow problem, showed evidence of execution, and designed around the realities of clinicians, patients, regulation, and deployment. I was particularly drawn to companies combining clinical usefulness with measurable traction, explainable AI, strong data foundations, or devices capable of improving access outside traditional care settings.

I deliberately did not rank companies based only on size, valuation, or fundraising. Several early-stage teams scored well because the problem was urgent, the founder insight was authentic, and the pathway to validation was credible. The main gap across weaker entries was not ambition, but proof—clear outcomes, regulatory strategy, differentiation, and evidence that the solution can work consistently in real healthcare environments.

Jeremy Lawson, Founder and CEO of Salynt Inc.

��

As an independent virtual CISO with a background in risk management, cybersecurity, and regulatory compliance, I prefer facts over marketing claims. For 91̽��’s HealthTech44 2026, I ranked the submissions on five evidence-based dimensions: stated security maturity, AI claim substantiation, clinical validity, patient impact, and the team’s credibility. Companies that scored higher had provided named certifications, published benchmarks, regulatory clearance, quantified outcomes, and experienced clinical leaders named in their submission. By comparison, entries with visible AI instructions, placeholder content, or contradictory claims were disqualified, and submissions that were primarily unsubstantiated product marketing ranked poorly with me.

Kayne McGladrey, Independent Virtual CISO

��

The list of startups are amongst the top health tech companies in the world tackling the most challenging health problems with their impact able to improve healthcare outcomes around the world. With the current theme of AI helping to deliver great outcomes, I am glad to see many healthtech companies utilising and being AI-first.

Samuel Okwuada, Founder and CEO of Remedial Health

��

Judging this year’s HealthTech competition was an inspiring experience. The quality of the submissions reflected the incredible innovation happening across the healthcare sector, with companies tackling real-world challenges through technology. From advancements in remote patient monitoring to AI-driven diagnostics and neurological care, these solutions demonstrated both technical excellence and a clear understanding of the needs of patients and healthcare professionals. What stood out most was the focus on creating accessible, scalable technologies with the potential to make a meaningful impact. It was encouraging to see such a high standard of innovation, and I look forward to seeing how these companies continue to shape the future of healthcare.��

Laliq Schuman, Reporter and SEO Executive at 91̽����

��

Thank You To Our Judges

��

Head Judge 2026

Dr. Stuart Grant, Founder of

Dr. Stuart Grant is the Founder of Archetype MedTech, where he provides product development leadership to founders, investors, and MedTech companies, bringing innovative medical technologies to market.

Alongside Archetype, Stuart is Co-Founder of C-True Surgical, Product Development Leadership Advisor to the Science and Engineering Health Technologies Alliance (SEHTA) and a Product Development Mentor with the NHS Clinical Entrepreneur Programme. His work spans the UK, Europe, the US and APAC, including Australia, China, and India.

Before founding Archetype, Stuart spent 25 years with Johnson & Johnson MedTech, where he established and led the company’s Shanghai R&D Centre of Excellence. He is a Chartered Engineer, a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, holds a PhD in Medical Device Technology and Innovation, is a named inventor on multiple US medical device patents and is a regular speaker, mentor and contributor across the global MedTech sector.

Read more about Dr. Stuart Grant and what he’s looking out for in HealthTech44 entrants here.

��

Aline Gómez-Acebo Finat, CEO at ENIAX

Aline Gomez-Acebo Finat is a prominent tech operator, angel investor, and ecosystem builder specializing in deep tech, digital health, and venture capital. As the CEO of ENIAX, she scales a healthtech platform utilizing machine learning and natural language processing to manage data for nearly 100 million patients across 8 countries.

Committed to bridging the venture funding gap, she is also the Co-Founder of Calafia Iberia, the region’s first women-led angel investment syndicate. An Adjunct Professor at IE Business School with executive credentials from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard, Aline has received numerous awards like Top 100 Female Leader and EPIC award for her sustainability efforts in business.

��

Jeremy Lawson, Founder and CEO of Salynt Inc.

Jeremy Lawson is the Founder and CEO of Salynt Inc., a healthcare AI company developing advanced neuroimaging and clinical decision-support technologies that help clinicians better understand and treat complex neurological conditions. With over a decade of experience in artificial intelligence, data science, and technology innovation across the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community, he understands the intersection of healthcare, technology, and commercialization. Jeremy holds a Master’s in Data Science from The George Washington University and a Bachelor’s in Mathematics from Jackson State University.

Beyond his professional work, Jeremy is committed to mentorship, education, and community impact. He is a member of The National Alliance for Doctoral Studies in the Mathematical Sciences and previously served as President of the Maryland Black Caucus Foundation and Vice President of the International Black Firefighters Museum. He is passionate about empowering the next generation of innovators while advancing technologies that improve patient outcomes and clinical decision-making.

Jeremy enjoys cooking, playing the piano, traveling, and watching football in his spare time.

��

Kayne McGladrey, Independent Virtual CISO

Kayne McGladrey is an independent virtual CISO who helps SMBs and mid-market firms navigate compliance, AI regulation and cyber risk. Author of the upcoming book “Cyber Risk is a Myth,” and ranked number one globally for his cybersecurity and risk management expertise, Kayne bridges technical security with business outcomes.

��

Oren Hershkovitz, Chief Executive Officer and Enlivex

Oren Hershkovitz is the CEO at Enlivex (Nasdaq: ENLV), a quality longevity company advancing Allocetra, a clinical-stage immunotherapy targeting age-related osteoarthritis, alongside a prediction markets treasury strategy built around the RAIN protocol.

In 2025 the company reported $1.23 billion in net profit and received FDA clearance for a Phase 2b clinical trial in the same week. Oren is a pharmaceutical executive with over 20 years of experience leading clinical programs from early discovery through Phase III trials and has overseen more than $200 million in financing throughout his career. He holds a PhD in Immunology with distinction from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

Prior to joining Enlivex in 2019, Oren served as General Manager of OPKO Biologics, where he led the late-stage clinical development of Ngenla, a long-acting growth hormone co-developed with Pfizer that is now approved in more than 40 countries, including the United States, the European Union and Japan.

��

Samuel Okwuada, Founder and CEO of Remedial Health

Samuel Okwuada is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Remedial Health, a healthcare technology company focused on optimizing the pharmaceutical supply chain in Africa. Educated as a pharmacist with a Master’s degree in Pharmacy from the University of East Anglia, UK; he is also a self-taught software engineer who initially began writing code at age 14.

During his university studies, Okwuada established a track record as a serial entrepreneur by founding 3 distinct startup companies and successfully completing 2 corporate exits. Through his leadership at Remedial Health, he builds direct-to-retail distribution networks for medical and non-medical consumables to improve inventory affordability for independent pharmacies across the African continent. His platform directly addresses regional supply shortages and pricing inefficiencies within the traditional medical distribution model.

Okwuada remains focused on leveraging his dual expertise in software engineering and clinical pharmacy to modernize medicine access and healthcare logistics.

��

Laliq Schuman, Reporter and SEO Executive at 91̽��

Laliq is an SEO Executive with experience writing optimised content for a wide range of clients. She specialises in creating SEO-driven blogs and on-site content that aligns with both search intent and brand voice. With a client base spanning multiple industries, Laliq brings a broad knowledge of tech and consumer-focused topics to her work. Her exposure to innovation-driven sectors has sparked a particular interest in how technology can support and improve healthcare.

The post Announced! 91̽��’s HealthTech44 Winners 2026… appeared first on 91̽��.

Business creates the wealth that funds every public service, so every government department should see helping business succeed as part of its job.”

– Anne Cantelo, Founder of Onyx Media and Communications

��

The first thing you need to know about running a business in Britain today is that…

��

Nearly half of private-sector employment is in businesses with fewer than 50 employees, yet political debate too often assumes businesses can fund specialist teams to manage compliance and have steady cash flow and large profit margins. SMEs and startups often have one founder or a tiny leadership team worrying about sales, recruitment, tax, regulation and customers.

Tax increases for employers have to be funded. That means freezing recruitment or wages, increasing prices or cutting suppliers. These are all measures that impact growth. Fantastic businesses fail not through lack of ambition or ideas, but because simply keeping the business functioning can become overwhelming.

��

The biggest challenge facing UK founders that politicians don’t completely understand is…

��

Cashflow. The government could use its teeth to reduce the problem significantly. Some of the worst payers are large corporations, many of which benefit from government contracts. I know from experience that 60 or even 90-day payment terms are still common.

Instead of yet another ‘code’ or initiative the government should make prompt payment a condition of doing business with the public sector: large companies should automatically be excluded from public contracts unless 90% of supplier invoices are paid within 30 days.

Small businesses shouldn’t provide interest-free working capital to much larger companies. Government has enormous purchasing power; using it to change payment behaviour and that would transform cashflow for thousands of SMEs.

��

��

The promise I would most like to see your government keep is…

��

To be more supportive of growth. Test every major policy affecting business against a simple question: will this make somebody more or less likely to start, grow, employ people or invest in a business in Britain?

I’d also like HMRC to bring far more real-world business experience into their decision-making. An otherwise viable business can have a short-term cashflow problem. An inflexible decision that pushes it into insolvency destroys the business and jobs; it also means the Treasury loses tax that might have been collected if that business had been given reasonable time to pay.

��

Please don’t…

��

Mistake government activity for economic progress. I’ve seen government from both sides, working within it and subsequently running businesses and advising private-sector organisations. Governments are good at creating strategies, initiatives, taskforces and announcements, then measuring meetings held and people consulted. Those measures are largely irrelevant.

Businesses measure success differently: customers won, products launched, exports made and profits generated. Government should judge business policy by outcomes too. What impact have its policies had on growth? Are insolvencies rising or falling? Are businesses of different sizes employing more or fewer people? Measure what actually matters. E.g. Do they know these top line figures for the impact of the rise in employer NI contributions?

��

What would make the UK a more attractive place to build and scale a company is…

��

A stable, proportionate tax and regulatory environment that rewards growth. The simultaneous increases in employer NI and the minimum wage were disastrous for many small businesses. Where did the government expect them to find the money? It demonstrated how poorly the reality of tight margins is understood by those making the decisions.

We also need a fairer international tax system. British SMEs can compete for the same customers with multinationals whose structures enable profits to be taxed elsewhere. We should move towards taxing multinational profits where customers and economic activity are located. Small businesses shouldn’t find that, proportionately, the much bigger business next door has a lower tax burden.

��

What gives me confidence in Britain’s future is…

��

The people building businesses here. Working in technology PR means I see innovations long before most people hear about them and have worked with some amazing people. I’m continually struck by the quality of British founders and their ability to identify problems and create commercial solutions.

AI in particular is creating opportunities for smaller companies to compete in ways that would have required enormous resources even a few years ago. Britain has the talent, universities, entrepreneurial culture and international reputation to benefit enormously from that, provided we create the right environment around them.

��

What worries me most about the next five years…

��

We aren’t attracting the brightest and best into politics. Parliament has a recruitment problem. At £98,599, becoming an MP can mean a huge pay cut for high-calibre candidates. i.e., those who are at the top of their professions, running businesses or senior figures in public service, charities and unions.

I’d double MPs’ salaries. The additional £64m a year is tiny in government spending terms. In return, ban second jobs and outside interests.

I can hear the screams of protest, but this isn’t about rewarding current MPs. If a business isn’t attracting candidates of the calibre it needs, it changes what it’s offering. Parliament should too, or we will continue to witness a revolving door at Number 10.

��

If you take one thing from this letter, let it be this:

��

Give businesses confidence to plan. Entrepreneurs are risk-takers, but there is a difference between calculated commercial risk and unnecessary political uncertainty.

A founder should be worrying about whether customers will buy their product, whether they can beat their competitors and whether their next hire is the right one, not trying to second-guess what government might change next.

Create a stable, competitive environment and give businesses the space to do what they do best.

��

��My hopes and dreams for 2030…

��

I hope by 2030 we’ve stopped debating Brexit. Entrepreneurs understand that every disruption creates winners and losers. The winners are those who stop complaining first and start adapting fastest.

Innovations in AI, crypto and autonomous vehicles are moving very quickly, so present huge opportunities and challenges to governments. Outside the EU, Britain has greater freedom (agility and flexibility) to develop regulatory frameworks that nurture innovation while protecting society. But that advantage is worthless unless we act quickly enough to use it.

By 2030, I’d want government to point to measurable outcomes: investment, productivity, exports and successful British businesses. Entrepreneurs measure success by results. Government should too.

The post Dear Mr. Prime Minister: Anne Cantelo, Founder Of Onyx Media And Communications appeared first on 91̽��.

Remote work, access to global talent and digital collaboration tools mean companies are increasingly building teams that span multiple countries and currencies – and it’s been incredibly advantageous for both businesses and individuals in a plethora of different ways. But, according to new research from Native Teams, there’s another factor that we may have been missing up until now. That is, the financial systems supporting those global workforces may not have evolved at the same pace.

Native Teams’ latest report, “Global by Default, Financially Exposed: How Global Payments and Employment Reshape Financial Risk for North American Companies”,�� suggests that cross-border payroll is becoming a significant financial operations issue for many organisations. Based on research conducted by Censuswide among more than 500 senior finance decision-makers across the US and Canada, finance teams are facing growing challenges around foreign exchange (FX), compliance, cash planning and payroll administration.

Basically, it’s not actually that easy to deal with finances across borders.

��

Payroll Is Becoming More Than An HR Function

��

According to the report, 97% of finance leaders said foreign exchange movements changed their total payroll costs over the past 12 months, while 77% believe their organisation is exposed to payroll-related financial risk today.

Native Teams argues that payroll is increasingly behaving less like an administrative HR process and more like part of a company’s wider financial infrastructure.

As Jack Thorogood, Founder and CEO of Native Teams, said,��“Payroll has quietly become one of the most exposed parts of scaling up to the global market. Once it runs across multiple banking systems, currencies and compliance rules, it stops behaving like a payroll workflow and starts behaving like a holistic financial infrastructure – and 77% of finance leaders now agree they’re carrying that risk.”

��

��

He added that “the real issue is structural: how companies employ people across borders, and how they pay them, are still managed as two separate problems. Until that gap closes, payroll will keep being the most measurable tool of a business that has globalised faster than its financial systems have.”

��

��

International Hiring Brings Operational Challenges

��

The report suggests that managing payroll across multiple countries involves a range of operational pressures rather than one single challenge. According to the findings, 55% of finance leaders said cross-border payroll complexity has increased over the past year, compared to 19% who said it has decreased – a pretty big difference.

Respondents identified sisx main things as the biggest challenges involved in managing payroll across many different countries:

• Employee training (58%)
• Cash planning (55%)
• The number of systems used (52%)
• Foreign exchange movement (49%)
• Compliance and regulatory differences (46%)
• Manual work (44%)

The report also notes that many organisations are still managing international payroll using multiple systems, local providers and manual processes.

��

Foreign Exchange Is Affecting Payroll Costs

��

One of the report’s most significant findings, however, relates to the actual impact of currency movements. Indeed, according to the research, 97% of finance leaders said FX rate movements changed their total payroll costs during the previous 12 months. Meanwhile, 45% reported payroll cost variances of between 2% and 5% against forecast because of FX movements.

The report concludes that foreign exchange volatility is becoming a structural payroll planning factor rather than simply an external financial consideration. Thus, in many senses, they’re starting to need to expect the unexpected, so to speak.

��

��

Payroll Timing Is Affecting Cash Planning

��

The research also found that cross-border payroll timing is influencing short-term financial planning, which isn’t exactly a huge surprise given the report’s findings. Indeed, according to the research, 79% of finance leaders said payroll timing affects short-term cash planning over the next 30 to 90 days, with 27% describing the impact as significant.

The survey found that all finance teams surveyed had moved funds during the past 12 months because of cross-border payroll timing or settlement. Further to this, 99% had changed transfer timing to adjust cash positioning and 99% had held additional cash buffers to manage payroll-related cash exposure.

��

Visibility Still Relies On Manual Processes

��

While many organisations reported having visibility into payroll liabilities, the report suggests that this visibility isn’t always fully automated.��According to the findings, 84% of finance leaders said they have visibility into total payroll liabilities across countries and currencies before each payroll cycle. But, only 33% reported having full real-time or near real-time visibility.

The report also found that 62% spend between two and five hours manually consolidating payroll and payment data during every payroll cycle, while a further 13% spend between six and ten hours doing so. A time-consuming manual process either way.

As Thorogood said, “Cross-border payroll is no longer an administrative HR function. It is a live financial operations issue with direct implications for cash planning, visibility, compliance, and operational resilience.”

��

Global Hiring Might Just Be Changing The Role Of Payroll Altogether

��

The report doesn’t suggest that businesses should rethink hiring internationally. Instead, it actually argues that the financial infrastructure supporting global workforces is becoming increasingly important as organisations expand across borders.

Ultimately, the message here is that payroll is evolving beyond a traditional HR workflow and is becoming a broader finance, compliance and operational issue. As companies continue to employ people across multiple countries and currencies (as they absolutely will), the report suggests that payroll is increasingly connected to treasury, cash flow management, compliance and financial planning.

So, for businesses embracing global hiring, the research indicates that attracting international talent may be only one part of the equation. Managing the financial complexity that comes with a global workforce, however, is becoming more and more important too, and something that can no longer be overlooked.

The post Could Global Hiring Be Costing Businesses More Than They Think? appeared first on 91̽��.

Just because. Just for fun. For no big reward other than feeling good and getting some fresh air.

And now? Oh, we don’t do anything just because. I always joke about switching my smartwatch on when I go for a stroll to record an activity, saying that “I don’t do steps for free”. Of course, I’m being totally facetious and I get nothing out of doing this other than the deep satisfaction of ending the day with the precise knowledge of how many steps my little body has taken since I woke up. And of course, this is fascinating in itself from a psychological perspective for many different reasons, but it’s not the point we’re focusing on today.

The point here is, we seem to have taken things a whole lot further. Now, it’s not just about recording physical activities, but providing incentives for doing them in the first place that are not only instant, but monetary too.

I guess we can track the idea back to the Pokémon GO craze from a few years back, but things have become a whole lot weirder and more extreme recently, and that’s a hill I’m willing to die on.

��

Have We Finally Gamified Health Enough?

��

For years, health apps have tried to make exercise feel less like exercise. We got badges, streaks, leaderboards and push notifications reminding us that we’d spent most of the day sitting down. Being told by your watch to “Move!” or, to the contrary, that you need to “recover” still feels very much health and fitness related.

But Steppa takes the concept one step further. Why settle for digital rewards when you could risk actual money?

The app sits at the intersection of two enormous trends: society’s growing obsession with health tracking and our increasing willingness to turn absolutely everything in life into a game.

According to the logic behind the platform, putting money on the line creates accountability. If missing your daily walk costs you financially, you’re supposedly more likely to get moving. Because if there’s nothing on the line, it’s just way too easy to stay indoors, curl up on the couch and make an excuse for why you’re not doing your steps.

And sure, it’s difficult to argue with the psychology, nor am I trying to. Humans are notoriously motivated by the prospect of losing money, and that’s not something worth denying – I mean, I’m certainly motivated by money (in certain contexts, calm down). The question in this situation, however, is whether that’s necessarily a healthy foundation for building long-term habits.

��

��

Is It Betting, Fitness Or Something In Between?

��

Steppa’s central argument is that it isn’t really gambling because users are betting on themselves. And sure, to a point, that’s true – you are essentially betting on yourself, and in many respects, you’re in control of the outcome. Indeed, unlike a casino game or sports bet, the outcome is largely within the participant’s control. If you want to win, all you have to do is walk. Easy, right?

But the idea still feels oddly familiar. After all, the core mechanic remains the same. You put money in, take a risk and hope to get more money back.

The difference here, however, is that instead of relying on luck, you’re relying on your own discipline. And at first thought, yes, that’s something we have control over. But in reality, do we? Surely if we had complete control over our own sense of discipline, we wouldn’t need to bet on it in the first place – we’d just walk, right…?

��

The Monetisation Of Literally Everything

��

Perhaps the most interesting question is whether apps like Steppa reveal something larger about modern life – something a little weird and maybe even a little icky.

For years, technology companies have searched for ways to monetise our attention. And then they monetised our social interactions, our hobbies and our spare time.

Now, we’re monetising our walks.��What used to be a simple health habit has become something measurable, trackable and potentially profitable.

There’s something slightly absurd about needing a financial incentive to take a stroll around the block. But, at the same time, plenty of people already spend money on gym memberships, fitness coaches and wellness programmes. Steppa simply repackages the same motivation in a different format. Why walk for free if you can get paid to do it?

So perhaps the app isn’t creating the trend so much as reflecting it.

��

When Walking Becomes A Side Hustle

��

Perhaps the strangest reports surrounding the concept are stories that some employers have allegedly become frustrated by workers spending large chunks of the day pacing around to hit their targets, and I think that’s kind of hilarious.

It’s not difficult to imagine. A century ago, employers worried workers weren’t moving enough. Now they may have the opposite problem – employees aggressively marching laps around the office car park because they’re 1,500 steps short and there’s money at stake. They’re walking so much that some employees have had to implement absurd rules specifying things like “the number of laps” you’re allowed to walk around the office per hour.

And the image is funny because it captures the contradiction at the heart of the idea.��Health is supposed to improve our lives, but when optimisation becomes the goal, even something as simple as walking can start to feel like work.

��

So Is This Healthy?

��

The honest answer is that it probably depends on the person. If a financial incentive helps someone become more active, there are certainly worse habits to encourage. Walking more is unlikely to feature on many lists of society’s greatest problems.

But, there’s something fascinating about the fact that we’ve reached a point where exercise, finance and gamification have merged into a single product. Steppa may be a clever accountability tool, it may be a fitness app with a gambling twist or, it may simply be the latest example of our inability to leave any part of life unoptimised, untracked or unmonetised.

Either way, it says something about the moment we’re living in. Because apparently, getting your steps in isn’t enough anymore – now your walk needs a business model too.

The post Everybody’s Talking About Steppa: Finally, A Way To Lose Weight And Money At The Same Time appeared first on 91̽��.

From Trump referring to Mamdani as “a 100% Communist Lunatic” back in 2025 after his victory in NYC’s Democratic primary to his last-ditch effort to endorse Andrew Cuomo towards the end of the year, the pair have had a publicly tumultuous relationship over a pretty short period of time. Of course, Trump’s endless feuds with his political opponents is nothing new, so this, in itself, was no surprise – in many ways, it may have been expected – but then things got really weird.

In April, Mamdani visited the President at the Oval Office and they seemed to get along. It’s not like we were expecting actual fisticuffs, but old Trump has been known to be rather transparent about his inability to tolerate dissidence, so why was he suddenly telling the people of New York that they were, “going to have, hopefully, a really great mayor”?

It was disconcerting. Double-take worthy in nature.

Sure, politicians can certainly disagree on some things while finding common ground on others. Politicians can, I’d expect that Mayor Mamdani can, but Trump? I don’t think many people would’ve anticipated the Cheshire cat-esque photo that came out of the White House from that day.

And then, in a turn of events that was almost a relief, in some ways, Trump had turned on Mamdani by April 2026 and order had been restored in the universe.

��

Trump and Mamdani Back At Logger Heads

��

Indeed, despite the bizarre glitch in the matrix that somehow allowed the President and NYC Mayor to seemingly get on (at least publicly) for about seven-odd months, the overwhelming relationship between the politicians has mostly been overwhelmed by their incredibly different political views.

And now, the heat’s back on, and at the centre of the current disagreement is an issue dividing not only these politicians and Americans more generally, but a great deal of the world at large.

Will Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu be arrested if he sets foot on American soil, as per an ICC warrant issued in 2024, according to Reuters? Specifically, in this case, if he enters New York City jurisdiction?

Mamdani says yes, Trump says no.

��

��

How Will Their Feud Affect New Yorkers?

��

A political dispute over foreign policy may seem far removed from New York City’s startup scene, but that’s not necessarily the case at all. Some experts believe the ongoing clash between President Donald Trump and Mayor Zohran Mamdani could have knock-on effects for both founders and investors if tensions continue to escalate, and it’s a fair question to pose, because in the past, Trump has threatened to “starve New York City of federal funding” as a result of similar disagreements.

According to Juan Mathews Rebello Santos, Cybersecurity Researcher, Ethical Hacker and Founder of BNVD.org, prolonged disagreements between City Hall and the White House can create exactly the kind of uncertainty that early-stage businesses try to avoid. He argues that when federal and local governments appear to be divided, founders may face delays to permits, uncertainty around grants and mixed signals about regulation, all of which can make investors far more cautious. Santos also notes that startups relying on things like federal contracts, city-backed programmes or R&D incentives may be particularly exposed if political tensions start influencing policy or funding decisions.

And the impact may not stop with venture-backed companies. Rhys Hanson, who runs a novelty cocktail candle business alongside his corporate job, says political instability can also really affect consumer confidence. He believes shoppers become more hesitant to spend money on non-essential products when uncertainty rises, particularly as many small businesses are already dealing with the effects of tariff policies: “consumers have heightened anxiety and are less likely to spend their money on products they don’t necessarily need ‘just in case’ something does happen”.

While the results of the Trump-Mamdani feud remain speculative, founders will undoubtedly be hoping the political headlines don’t begin spilling over into the city’s business environment.

The post Could The Trump-Mamdani Feud Create Uncertainty For NYC Startups? appeared first on 91̽��.

��

��

Tell Me About Yourself and Your Company

��

Initially from Poland, my family came to the UK when I was a teenager and after studying Archaeology and Anthropology at University College London, I built a career inside UK financial services. I was the first Head of Mobile at Metro Bank, then ran a hip-flask brand across 26 countries. From 2017 I embedded AI into programmes at PwC and GKN and spotted that even when organisations automate decisions they still need human oversight.

My brother Sebastian and I founded Curvestone in 2023 when we found that generative AI could give us the technology needed to fully solve the compliance related problems we had been working within these large organisations.

Compliance teams manually spot-check 5–10% of casework because they don’t trust automation, but only checking such a small sample size was leaving firms exposed to error, with an incredibly high cost if you get things wrong. Curvestone checks 100% of cases with a 100% audit trail.

Currently, we are live within the heavily regulated legal and financial sectors where we process thousands of checks a quarter.

��

What Inspired You To Start Your Company, and What Problem Were You Trying To Solve?

��

During the years I spent helping big firms deploy AI, I repeatedly saw the same pattern. Systems work beautifully on clean demo data – you feed them perfect documents and they perform perfectly. Then they hit real data and collapse.
I had seen that in the real world, you don’t get pristine documents. You get photographed IDs taken at angles, scanned payslips with coffee stains and email chains that have been forwarded six times. And in regulated industries that stuff doesn’t cut it as official evidence.

To take one example, mortgages are actually the perfect storm for this problem. You’ve got huge document volumes, incredibly strict FCA rules, and the economics are completely broken. You can either audit everything and go bankrupt, or you cut corners and hope nothing breaks. There’s no sustainable middle ground.

That’s what changed when generative AI matured enough. It actually became possible to solve. So instead of consulting on other people’s AI programmes, we decided to build our own.

��

��

What Has Been Your Biggest Challenge So Far, and How Did You Overcome Them?

��

The biggest challenge has been selling AI to compliance teams, the most sceptical of buyers, and quite rightly, you have to be in a regulated industry. So we stopped pitching and started proving. We ran pilots on their own historical files, benchmarked against their own reviewers and showed them the evidence behind every finding. It was slower than selling on promise but we saw the pay off quickly – one sceptical compliance director’s reference beats any campaign.

It’s also how we reached profitability before raising a penny. There’s no shortcut to trust in regulated industries. You build it, case by case.

��

Can You Describe a Pivotal Moment That Significantly Shaped the Direction of Your Startup?

��

We spent years building AI for other people and handing back everything we’d learned at the end of every project.

When gen AI hit, document understanding was obviously going to be a commodity. Every vendor would have it but we saw the opportunity was that almost nobody was actually building for regulated spaces and we wanted to build something that could survive FCA scrutiny, where you can’t be 80% right.

That was the moment. We killed the advisory business and bet everything on one product.

The real validation came in production. The first time it actually ran on a real broker file, complete with photographed payslips and paywalled PDFs, not our test data and it held up. It didn’t break. That’s when we knew we’d found something worth building.

��

How Do You Define Success:

��

As a Business: It has been about making 100% compliance checking the norm, not 5 to 10% spot-checks. We watch volumes – how many cases run through the platform – not headcount and then revenue follows. It’s increased 7x in twelve months but for us, cases checked are always the north star.

For Myself: It is about things actually running in production, not AI theatre. Demos that never change how a single case gets processed are pointless. True success is also building this with my brother without breaking either the company or the family – and we’re succeeding on that so far!

��

What Advice Would You Give To Someone Thinking About Launching Their Own Startup?

��

My first piece of advice is to get profitable before you raise, if you can. It changes every conversation – with investors, with customers and with yourself. You’re not pitching potential but showing evidence.

Aside from that, pick the genuinely hard problem, not the one that demos well. Anyone can build a demo. The moat is the hard bit – the part that takes years and breaks things along the way. That’s why we’re called Curvestone. It’s literally about taking something brittle and shaping it into something stronger.

��

What’s Next for Your Company – Any Exciting Developments We Should Watch Out For?

��

We’re expanding across the full compliance stack, including financial promotions, PEP and adverse-media checks, wealth advisory. There is so much potential beyond mortgages, although they will always be a core part of the business. We’re also embedding deeper into the platforms firms already use so there is no need for rip-and-replace theatre.

Governance is something that Curvestone takes very seriously. We’re completing ISO 42001 for AI management this year alongside our existing 27001. We’re also excited to have been selected for the FCA’s Open Finance TechSprint on mortgages and SME finance (Smart Data Accelerator, building and testing synthetic data on explainable decision-making. This kind of experimentation is where we get real value – value that goes straight back into the business. It is a great initiative and means we stay close to real production work with real regulatory constraints. That’s where the honest feedback comes from.

��

Want to be featured as 91̽��’s Founder of the Week? Find out more about this weekly feature and how to get involved here.

��

Founder’s 5 with Dawid Kotur

��

We wanted a little more insight into the man behind Curvestone AI, so here’s 91̽��’s exclusive Founder’s Five with Dawid Kotur.

��

Favourite Business Tool

��

Claude

��

One Lesson You Learned the Hard Way?

��

Building B2B SaaS is all about iteration speed. Waiting for customers to use your product and volunteer feedback could kill you as you won’t be improving fast enough. You need to find creative ways to get feedback and get your own team to really use the platform so the feedback is non stop.

��

One Future Trend You’re Watching?

��

Cost of intelligence. Our space will transform if the cost of model usage goes down 100 x

��

One Quote You Live By

��

“It’s not about 10,000 hours, it’s about 10,000 iterations.”

��

One Book/Podcast You Recommend

��

“Huberman Podcast” – great protocols for maintaining energy and focus that is needed to be a founder of a fast-growing company.

��

Want to be featured as 91̽��’s Founder of the Week? Know someone who deserves to be recognised as a founder making waves in the startup landscape? Find out more about this weekly feature and how to get involved here.

The post Founder Of The Week: Dawid Kotur appeared first on 91̽��.

For insurance companies, wildfires present a particularly difficult challenge. Unlike a single house fire or isolated weather event, large-scale wildfires can generate thousands of claims, and when so many claims arise simultaneously, this can have a dramatic effect on entire regions, and it can and create long-term uncertainty around future risk.

In the age of AI, this raises an important question. If AI is being applied to pretty much everything from healthcare to software development, could it help insurers better manage the growing wildfire crisis?

��

The Insurance Industry’s Wildfire Problem

��

Climate-related disasters have always been part of the insurance equation, but plenty of experts argue that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events are changing the economics of the industry. And it’s quite clear (and understandable) why they’re saying this.

When major wildfire events occur, insurers face multiple challenges at once. They need to estimate risk accurately, price policies appropriately, process claims quickly and avoid excessive financial exposure.

In the past, much of this has relied on historical data. The problem here is that historical data becomes less useful when weather patterns themselves appear to be changing.

As a result, insurers are increasingly looking for new ways to predict risk and respond more effectively.

��

��

How Could AI Make A Difference?

��

AI is already being used across the insurance sector to improve things like underwriting, claims processing, customer service and fraud detection – some of the most important, and time-consuming, tasks that need to be done by insurance brokers. In fact, some insurers are increasingly exploring AI-driven analytics to support decision-making and operational efficiency.

Now, when it comes to wildfires specifically, one potential application is risk modelling.

AI systems can process massive amounts of information from satellite imagery, weather forecasts, vegetation data, topography and historical fire patterns. In theory, this could help insurers build more detailed risk assessments than traditional methods alone.

So rather than viewing risk at the postcode or regional level, insurers may be able to assess individual properties with greater precision.

That doesn’t necessarily mean AI can predict exactly where the next wildfire will occur – in fact, wildfire prediction remains notoriously difficult – but it may help insurers identify areas where risk is increasing and adjust their strategies accordingly.

��

Faster Claims and Better Responses

��

Another area where AI could prove valuable is after a wildfire has, sadly, already occurred. In some cases, insurers are experimenting with AI-powered claims systems that can automate parts of the claims process and analyse large volumes of information quickly.

Indeed, when a major wildfire event occurs in which a large amount of damage has taken place, like in California in 2025, claims departments can become overwhelmed.

AI tools could potentially analyse photographs, satellite imagery and damage reports to help prioritise cases and speed up assessments – something that would usually take a huge amount of time. As a result, this may reduce waiting times for policyholders while helping insurers manage large claim volumes more efficiently. It would also allow people who have been affected by the wildfires and lost property and homes to attempt to begin to move forward.

Again, this isn’t a silver bullet. Human expertise is still absolutely critical, particularly when assessing complex losses. But still, AI could help insurers cope with the sheer scale of modern disaster events.

��

Can AI Actually Prevent Insurance Losses?

��

However, things become more speculative when we start considering the insurance losses that may actually be prevented.

Some technology companies are already developing AI systems that are specifically designed to detect wildfires earlier using sensors, drones and satellite imagery. So, if these systems become more effective, they could theoretically reduce the scale of future losses by helping emergency services respond more quickly.

Of course, for insurers, even a small reduction in wildfire severity could have significant financial implications.

The challenge, on the other hand, is that wildfire behaviour is influenced by countless variables, including weather conditions, terrain and human activity. So, even the most sophisticated AI systems may struggle to account for all of them.

As recent events in Spain and France demonstrate, wildfires can escalate rapidly despite extensive monitoring and firefighting resources.

��

AI Won’t Solve The Wildfire Crisis, But It May Just Help Insurers Adapt

��

The insurance industry is facing a very difficult reality. Wildfire risk appears to be becoming a more prominent part of the global risk landscape, from the United States to Europe and Australia, and traditional approaches may not always be enough.

AI is unlikely to eliminate wildfire losses or provide perfect predictions – the technology still has limitations, particularly when dealing with complex environmental systems.

At the same time, however, according to a great deal of insurance industry analyses from organisations, it certainly seems as though AI may offer insurers new tools for understanding risk, processing claims and improving operational efficiency.

As wildfires continue to make headlines across Europe and beyond, the question may not be whether insurers will use AI, but rather how effectively they can integrate it into an increasingly unpredictable future.

The post Can AI Save The Insurance Industry From The Wildfire Crisis? appeared first on 91̽��.

The company behind Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp has reportedly withdrawn from RE100, a global initiative that encourages companies to source 100% renewable electricity. According to reporting by Recharge News, Meta’s departure follows discussions with Climate Group, which oversees the initiative, after the company could no longer meet RE100’s technical criteria due to investments in new gas-powered infrastructure. Investments that have not, by any means, slipped under the radar.

For anyone with an ear on the ground in the environmental conversation in the world of big tech, the timing here is worth questioning. Meta still publicly states that it aims to achieve net-zero emissions across its value chain by 2030 and says it continues to match 100% of its electricity use with renewable energy on an annual basis.

And that’s not just public comment that remains in the ether. Their website still clearly states this goal with absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever: “We have set a goal to achieve net zero emissions across our value chain in 2030.”

So, are these two positions fundamentally incompatible? Or is the reality a little more complicated?

��

What Is RE100?

��

First things first, let’s do a quick run down of the RE100.

The RE100 is a global corporate initiative whose members commit to sourcing their electricity from renewable sources. Companies including Apple, Google and Microsoft remain members, and the membership of these core big tech personalities has always been a really important part of the initiative.

According to reports, Climate Group concluded that the reason Meta left the RE100 was less of a choice and actually because the company could no longer satisfy the initiative’s requirements due to its growing investments in natural gas infrastructure to support expanding AI data centre operations.

Obviously, it goes without saing that that doesn’t necessarily mean Meta has abandoned renewable energy altogether. In fact, the company says it has matched 100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy since 2020 through power purchase agreements and continues to invest in renewable projects.

But, that doesn’t make the story and the questions disappear. Leaving a high-profile renewable energy coalition inevitably creates questions about whether the company’s climate strategy is evolving, as it absolutely should.

��

��

The AI Boom Is Completely Changing The Energy Conversation

��

If there is one thing driving this shift, it appears to be AI and its relentless need for power. Indeed, Meta is currently engaged in a huge AI infrastructure buildout. According to multiple reports, the company has backed a number of natural gas projects to help power new data centres, including facilities linked to its massive Hyperion AI campus.

Of course, Meta isn’t the only company in tech that’s dealing with this conundrum of sorts. Across the tech sector, AI companies are discovering that ambitious climate goals and rapidly growing computing demands don’t always go hand in hand.

Training and running large AI models requires enormous amounts of energy, and while renewable generation continues to grow, many utilities argue that gas remains one of the fastest ways to bring additional capacity online at scale.

The result is a growing tension between long-term sustainability commitments and the immediate energy needs of AI infrastructure.

��

Can Meta Still Reach Net Zero?

��

This is where things get interesting. On paper, leaving RE100 doesn’t automatically mean abandoning a net-zero target, and according to Meta’s sustainability commitments, the company’s net-zero goal covers its entire value chain by 2030. The company says it plans to achieve this through emissions reductions, efficiency improvements, supplier engagement and carbon removal projects for residual emissions that can’t be eliminated.

So in theory, a company could still reach net zero while using some gas-powered electricity, provided it reduces emissions elsewhere and offsets or removes remaining emissions.

The totally straightforward answer? Yes, it is theorestically plausible that Meta can still reach net zero given these changes and its inability to achieve the goals and requirements of the RE100.

Critics, however, argue that expanding fossil fuel infrastructure while simultaneously pursuing net zero sends very mixed signals and makes things a lot more complicated than before.

Of course, supporters might counter that the energy transition was never going to be perfectly linear, especially as AI places unprecedented demands on electricity grids. And this, I think most people can agree, is certainly a fair arguement, in many respects.

But the bigger question may not be whether net zero is still technically achievable, but rather two other issues. First, is net zero still genuinely their goal? And if so, do investors, regulators and the public view the pathway as credible?

��

Meta As the “Sacrificial Lamb”?

��

Meta’s departure from RE100 could end up becoming a test case for the wider technology industry – a bit of a “take on for the team” kind of situation.

For years, many large technology companies have positioned themselves as leaders in renewable energy adoption. But the rise of AI is creating an entirely new challenge in how it would be possible to power enormous data centres without derailing climate commitments.

As AI competition intensifies, companies may increasingly find themselves balancing two priorities that do not always align neatly. That is, how can they continue to build more computing capacity while still reducing emissions?

Whether Meta, or any other big tech giants, can successfully do both remains to be seen.��What is clear already, however, is that the company now faces greater scrutiny over how it plans to reconcile its 2030 net-zero pledge with its expanding energy footprint.

91̽�� contacted Meta for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

The post Meta Has Pledged To Be Net Zero By 2030. So Why Is It Walking Away From RE100? appeared first on 91̽��.

We’ve had digital transformation, Web3, the metaverse, AI agents and probably a dozen others that sounded like they were about to change the world before most of them quietly disappeared from LinkedIn posts.

But one term that’s popping up more frequently is superconvergence. It sounds a bit like something a Marvel villain would threaten humanity with, but it’s actually a useful way of describing what’s happening across the technology industry right now.

The crux of it is that technologies aren’t just evolving anymore; they’re actually colliding.

��

What Does Superconvergence Actually Mean?

��

The term “superconvergence” doesn’t have one universally accepted definition, but it’s generally used to describe a period where multiple breakthrough technologies mature and combine at the same time, accelerating innovation much faster than normal. It’s kind of like technological convergence on steroids.

According to the World Economic Forum, technology convergence occurs when different technologies combine to create new forms of value, new business models and entirely new industries. And rather than existing separately, technologies begin working together as part of larger systems.

Superconvergence takes this another step further. Instead of one or two technologies merging, several major advances happen simultaneously.

AI, robotics, biotechnology, quantum computing, cloud infrastructure, advanced semiconductors and automation are all developing at the same time. And the theory is that when these technologies start interacting with one another, progress happens exponentially faster.

��

Why Do We Care About Superconvergence Right Now?��

��

Because for the first time, many of these technologies appear to be reaching maturity together.��A decade ago, AI was impressive but still limited; robotics struggled with flexibility; quantum computing felt largely theoretical; and biotechnology was advancing steadily but often in isolation.

Now, however, those barriers are starting to blur.��AI is helping scientists design new drugs, robotics is becoming smarter through machine learning, cloud infrastructure provides the computing power needed to train advanced models and new chip designs are making all of it faster and more affordable.

According to the OECD, technological convergence has increasingly been associated with the combination of fields such as biotechnology, information technology, cognitive sciences and advanced engineering, leading to entirely new products and industries.

So in other words, the next breakthrough might not come from a single technology. It could emerge from the overlap between several.

��

��

The Smartphone Was An Early Example

��

If you’re struggling to picture convergence, just look at your pocket (or in your handbag or, honestly, in your hand). Smartphones are often considered to be one of the clearest examples of technological convergence. They combined devices that were once completely separate, including cameras, telephones, GPS units, music players and internet browsers.

What used to require a backpack full of gadgets now fits into a single device. Now, superconvergence applies the same principle on a much bigger scale.

Imagine AI, biotech, sensors, automation and quantum computing all feeding into the same healthcare system. Or autonomous factories where robotics, predictive AI and digital twins work together continuously.��That’s the type of future people are referring to when they talk about superconvergence.

��

How Does This Affect Startups?

��

For startups, superconvergence creates opportunities that didn’t exist before. Historically, founders often built companies around a single technology. Today, some of the most interesting startups are sitting at the intersection of multiple fields.

Healthtech companies are combining AI and genomics; climate startups are bringing together sensors, machine learning and advanced materials; and fintech businesses increasingly blend AI, cloud computing and automation.

The challenge is that building in a world of superconvergence requires broader expertise, because it’s no longer enough to understand one technology in isolation.

��

Will “Superconvergence” Fade From Memory Too?��

��

Well, maybe. After all, the tech industry has never met a catchy phrase it didn’t like.

But the underlying idea is difficult to ignore and the reality is even more difficult to get away from. The biggest shifts in technology rarely happen because of one breakthrough. They happen when several breakthroughs arrive at the same time and start reinforcing one another.

Whether “superconvergence” becomes the next defining tech term or quietly fades away, the trend behind it is already visible.

Because the future of innovation may not belong to individual technologies, but rather��what happens when they all start working together.

The post What Is Super Convergence In Tech? appeared first on 91̽��.