The company is a marketing analytics platform that acts as an independent referee of sorts to track which digital ads actually drive mobile app downloads and in-app purchases. It helps companies measure their return on ad spend while claiming to protect user privacy and block ad fraud.

While AppsFlyer CEO and co-founder declined to comment on specific deal details, he did confirm to Axios that , , and each took a minority stake in the San Francisco-based startup.

AppsFlyer’s most recent raise before this was in 2020. With the latest round, the company has now raised $1.3 billion in known funding since its 2011 inception, per .

Previous backers include , 1, , and .

“They believe what we believe: that attribution and measurement must be independent, unbiased and trusted,” Kaniel was quoted as saying of AppsFlyer’s newest investors. “As AI takes over more of how advertising gets bought and optimized, the signals feeding those systems become the most consequential infrastructure in the industry.”

He added that the company is eyeing the public markets, calling the financing “a step on that path.”

So far in 2026, companies in sales, marketing and CRM categories have pulled in around $4.1 billion globally in seed- through growth-stage funding, per 91Ÿ«Æ· . That puts the space on track to come in roughly flat with or a bit up from the prior three years — when annual funding hovering around the $8 billion mark — though still far below boom-era levels, when sales and marketing investment topped $20 billion. Notably, many of the startups funded in recent quarters have been AI-focused, with many of them offering agentic tools and automation in areas such as sales, marketing and customer experience management.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· query:

Related reading:

• ​â¶Ä‹Sector Snapshot: Sales And Marketing Gets An AI Makeover
• Exclusive: Schematic Raises $6.5M To Help Companies Update Their Pricing Faster And Easier In The AI Era
• Exclusive: Winn.ai Raises $18M Series A For AI-Powered Real-Time Sales Assistant
• AI-Powered Sales Automation Startup Clay More Than Doubles Valuation To $3.1B

Illustration:

Globally, robotics startups have so far raised $18.8 billion in 2026, compared to $15 billion in the full year of 2025. The figure also handily surpasses the $14.1 billion raised in the peak venture funding year of 2021, and we still have more than six months of fundraising left.

The impressive rise in funding reflects a marked shift in perception among venture investors about the robotics sector, which was traditionally considered an expensive, asset-heavy hardware gamble. In particular, investors appear to be drawn to startups working on embodied AI, or artificial intelligence with a physical body that interacts with the real world in real time.

Noteworthy recent rounds

The surge in funding is driven by a number of robotics-focused startups raising considerable capital from investors this year. Also, interestingly, two of the five largest raises in 2026 to date have been by Austin-based companies.

Topping the list of largest deals in 2026 so far is Austin-based , a defense tech startup focused on autonomous sea vessels. In March, the 4-year-old company raised $1.75 billion in Series D funding, bringing its total funding to around $2.6 billion. led the round, which set Saronic’s valuation at $9.25 billion — more than double its Series C level in 2025.

Earlier this month, Germany’s , a developer of AI infrastructure for robots to learn, collaborate and operate across real-world environments, said it secured up to $1.4 billion in Series C funding. led that raise.

In January, , a robotics company building an “omni-bodied” brain to operate any robot for any task, announced that it had raised $1.4 billion, tripling its valuation to over $14 billion. That financing came just over seven months after Skild raised at a $4.5 billion valuation. led the startup’s latest round, which included participation from , ’s venture capital arm.

On June 15, Beijing-based , which creates water robots and intelligent unmanned equipment, raised $1 billion in a massive Series A round led by .

And in February, AI-powered robotics company raised $520 million in an extension of its $415 million Series A raise in February 2025, bringing the total round to over $935 million. Existing backers , , and joined new investors, including and manufacturing giant in participating in the extension.

Interestingly, spinout has already raised two rounds in 2026. In March, the Palo Alto, California-based startup closed on a $500 million Series A round, co-led by and . Then in May, it raised another $400 million in a financing led by . The company is developing an AI-enabled industrial robotics platform focused on automating industrial and manufacturing tasks at scale.

Exits

While mergers and acquisitions have been relatively robust with several strategic buyouts, the robotics IPO landscape is a bit quieter, particularly in the U.S.

In China, however, a number of robotics companies have recently gone public. The of , targeting a $3 billion to $7 billion valuation, was considered a milestone for the industry. In March, the company filed for an to list on the , and its IPO was widely expected to spur other startups in the space to pursue their own public-market debuts.

, a startup based in China’s Shandong province that makes lightweight industrial robots, in May listed on the , raising about $86 million. And it did not disappoint. Robotphoenix closed its first full day of trading at HK$53.75 ($6.86 U.S.), up nearly 80%, though shares have dipped to the HK$37 range more recently.

On the M&A front, a number of Big Tech and automotive giants have been aggressively acquiring embodied AI and humanoid talent to anchor their physical automation strategies.

In February, AI-powered supply chain provider acquired , an Austin-based maker of autonomous forklifts and lift trucks.

Skild AI in April that it had picked up the robotics arm of in an effort to deploy its technology to warehouses.

And in May, tech giant entered the humanoid robotics field directly by acquiring San Diego-based . The team was absorbed into Meta’s Superintelligence Labs unit to accelerate training of its foundational physical AI model.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· queries:

Related reading:

• 5 Startup Sectors Seeing Big Funding Growth
• The Year Of Humanoid Robots
• Embodied AI Fuels Record Robotics Funding In China As IPO Momentum Builds
• Amid Record Robotics Funding, Apptronik Raises $520M Series A Extension To Boost Production Of Humanoid Robot Apollo
• Robotics Startup Skild AI Lands $1.4B, Tripling Valuation To $14B In Just 7 Months

Illustration:

His investment mandate primarily focuses on early-stage technology companies from seed to Series B that align with or impact the global telecommunications, network infrastructure and enterprise software sectors.

Under his leadership, AT&T Ventures targets investments in software, hardware and infrastructure sectors where AT&T’s network scale and internal engineering resources provide a distinct commercial or technical diligence advantage. Portfolio companies include enterprise and deep-tech firms such as , , , , and .

Prior to his current 12-year stint directing AT&T Ventures, Taneja spent more than two decades working across corporate development, venture lending and investment banking. He previously managed M&A and strategic investment activities for during ownership.

Taneja also served as a director at , where he focused on growth-capital debt and equity investments in mid- to late-stage technology businesses, as well as holding corporate finance and investment banking roles at and .

In an email interview with 91Ÿ«Æ· News, Taneja shares why he believes that while AI has drastically lowered the barrier to building software, it has also shifted the definition of seed-stage technical risk.

The new dynamics, in his view, gives AT&T Ventures an opportunity to differentiate itself by offering immediate, real-world technical validation and network integration rather than just capital.

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

91Ÿ«Æ· News: If startups are building fully functioning apps by the seed round using AI, what does that mean for the traditional definition of technical risk? Is tech risk dead at seed, or has it just evolved into something else?

Vikram Taneja: The old definition of technical risk was “can they build it?” Although not entirely absent at the seed stage, I’d say it is becoming less relevant given the dramatically lower barrier to building software with AI tools.

But what replaced it is actually harder to answer: “Is the tech defensible?” Not just “does it work?” but “does it compound?”

Data moats, proprietary training sets, network effects built into the architecture — that’s the new measure of durability.

In prior cycles, technical complexity alone created some natural protection. As a result, the technical risk conversation has shifted to focus on how a company defends itself over the next three to four years, especially as frontier labs move down the stack into application layers and start targeting entire verticals.

Similarly, the distribution question shows up much earlier. “How can you get this to market?” is increasingly asked at the seed stage rather than later in the cycle.

We’re also seeing increased competition for investors to secure larger stakes at seed that they would have previously pursued at the A round. This is driving investors to be more thorough at the seed stage, and founders have to be prepared to meet higher expectations across the board.

When anyone can use AI tools to spin up a working app in a weekend, product execution happens fast, but moats can be incredibly shallow. At the seed stage, how are you separating a truly defensible platform from a beautifully executed wrapper?

Taneja: In early 2025, we saw a wave of AI wrapper companies built on top of frontier models like ‘s GPT, ’s Claude or LLaMA, and a lot of capital flowed into them. What’s changed is that frontier LLMs have now clearly started to take more of a platform approach — moving into the application layers and beginning to pick off the low-hanging fruit.

This is why defensibility becomes critical in AI investing. No platforms are totally defensible, but on some level, you have to ask that question now at the seed stage.

We’re looking for platforms using proprietary data that can’t be replicated by AI, companies that have embedded deep domain expertise — areas where general-purpose AI still lacks industry context — into their workflows, or highly specialized ecosystems or niche markets that provide another layer of insulation in categories that are too targeted for frontier labs to pursue directly.

Are you seeing a change in the actual headcount or makeup of seed teams? If AI handles the heavy lifting of the initial code, are these founders spending their seed capital on engineers, or are they shifting resources immediately to distribution and go-to-market?

Taneja: There is still an engineering focus in the early stage, as there should be, but we are increasingly seeing product, sales, or partnership roles becoming sought after earlier than in the past. And the reason is, as you stated, that it’s easier to build a working prototype, or even a production-ready application, so the focus very quickly turns to establishing trials with customers or exploring distribution paths to dial in the product features.

For strategic investors like AT&T Ventures, where we often do proof-of-concepts with potential portfolio companies, this is very exciting. We get a chance to work with companies earlier in their formation, can get real technical validation much earlier than otherwise, and can similarly try to find a path to collaborate more quickly.

AT&T Ventures has traditionally played heavily in the Seed to Series B space. If institutional VCs are rushing to seed to grab larger stakes because the tech is mature, how does that change the competitive landscape for CVCs? Are you finding yourself competing directly with traditional multistage funds earlier than before?

Taneja: The makeup of seed rounds has definitely changed. Multi-stage funds used to show up at Series A or B when there was enough traction to underwrite. Now they’re at seed because, as we discussed, the companies are mature enough, and they are trying to find winners earlier in the cycle. So yes, we’re in the same rooms as before.

But I’d push back on the idea that we’re competing directly.

A Tier 1 financial VC’s seed check and an AT&T Ventures seed check are different instruments. They are offering capital, brand, guidance and pattern recognition from backing hundreds of companies.

We’re offering something a financial VC structurally does not: our network teams working with your product in a production environment, oftentimes before we even write the check, for example. That’s free diligence running in both directions. We’re validating the company, but it’s also receiving a real-world signal from one of the world’s largest network operators.

For a seed-stage company that’s already solved the building problem and now needs distribution, that’s tangible value and complementary to what financial VC firms are providing. So that competitive pressure has actually sharpened our value proposition. It forces us to bring more than just capital to the table.

Historically, corporate partners want to see enterprise readiness, security compliance and scalability — things a seed startup rarely has. If a seed startup has a fully functioning product but is still a two-person team, can an enterprise like AT&T actually run a pilot with them, or does the corporate integration timeline become a bottleneck?

Taneja: It starts with strategic rationale. That has always been the entry point for us at AT&T Ventures, and that hasn’t changed. If that is in place, then it doesn’t always require full enterprise readiness to start a pilot. It can be a structured trial or a highly targeted engagement, depending on the company’s stage.

We have a number of ongoing proof of concepts with portfolio companies across areas such as AI-RAN, connected infrastructure and computer vision.

The key is clarity upfront — clarity on what the objective of the engagement is and how we measure success. Once that is clear, even early-stage companies can be integrated into a learning or testing environment without unnecessary delay. The goal is to make the AT&T relationship feel like an accelerant to further adoption.

If seed is the new Series A in terms of product maturity, are you seeing Series A pricing bleed into the seed round? How are you disciplined about valuations when the product looks like a Series A, but the company infrastructure is still very early?

Taneja: Seed pricing indeed looks different than maybe four or five years ago. We’re routinely seeing seed deals priced in the low- to mid-single-digit-million range at about $20 million to $25 million post-money. This is pretty much where Series A deals were a few years ago. But it’s not necessarily unjustified — the makeup and traction of seed-stage companies are much further along than predecessor vintages as we’ve discussed.

We stay disciplined by being explicit about what we’re actually underwriting. We’re not just underwriting the financial return on this round — we’re underwriting the strategic value of the relationship over a five- to 10-year horizon.

Does this company make AT&T’s network more intelligent? Does it open up a new customer segment? Does it validate a thesis we’re building around? Are there commercial opportunities beyond our initial thesis? When you frame it that way, it gives us a longer horizon to work with and provides multiple levers to pull.

And honestly, that’s where our engineering and product teams play a key role. They help us decipher whether the product that looks like a Series A is actually built like one, or whether it’s a great demo sitting on a foundation that hasn’t been stress-tested. That technical read bolsters our conviction when making investments.

A functional AI app at the seed stage still requires massive infrastructure. When you evaluate these early-stage companies, how much does their underlying architecture and how they handle data processing or edge computing factor into your decision?

Taneja: Architecture is a key part of our diligence process. The way we think about it really depends on the ultimate use case. Is it for internal use — i.e., a tool that AT&T will be working with in our environments — or is it something we’d be distributing or incorporating into some form of product offering?

If the former, all aspects of the architecture will be reviewed, and this is most likely to occur throughout trials and proof of concepts as we develop a technical understanding of the application or product. If it’s the latter, then we’re likely most interested in understanding how this product architecture scales over time and what it means from a cost, latency and infrastructure perspective. We love to see companies embracing edge-related technologies, but that doesn’t preclude us from working on applications that use traditional data processing methods.

You’ve spoken before about your interest in “physical AI” and robotics (like Apptronik). The software lifecycle is easily compressed by generative AI, but hardware and physical deployment take time. Does this “seed is the new Series A” trend apply to pure-play software strictly, or are you seeing AI accelerate physical tech and IoT at the early stage too?

Taneja: Physical AI is a sector we’ve been looking at quite a bit, particularly because inference and decisioning in autonomous systems, robotics and connected devices create a very different type of demand profile on networks.

The software layer is clearly accelerating — things like perception, control systems and decisioning are moving faster because of AI (the rounds show it!). That will ultimately help pave the way for the adoption of physical AI. However, the physical deployment cycle still takes time, so you don’t see quite the same level of time compression there.

What is interesting for us at AT&T is the intersection — how intelligence is moving closer to the edge and how that changes the way networks need to be architected to handle those workloads.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· queries:

Related reading:

• In Charts: Seed Deals Keep Getting Bigger As Odds Of Reaching Series A Fall Dramatically
• Amid Record Robotics Funding, Apptronik Raises $520M Series A Extension To Boost Production Of Humanoid Robot Apollo

Illustration:

Only around $942 million — or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per 91Ÿ«Æ· . That’s one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by Black founders or co-founders.

The consistently low numbers have led some Black founders to turn to investing in an effort to help level the playing field. 91Ÿ«Æ· News talked with two such founders to hear more about their experiences in raising capital and what they’ve learned from investing.

Clarence Bethea

founded , an extended warranty startup, in 2014. He went on to raise nearly $30 million in venture capital before the startup was ultimately acquired by in 2024.

The process of raising capital for a St. Paul, Minnesota-based startup as a Black founder was arduous, he recalls, describing it as being especially “very hard in the beginning.”

“I believe that raising money for anyone is very difficult. When you add in race, gender, and proximity, it becomes even more difficult,” he told 91Ÿ«Æ· News in an email interview. “… I often tell founders, raising that first million will be your hardest. Do I believe that race played a factor [in making it harder to raise capital]? Yes! Because it plays a factor in every part of my life.”

It didn’t take long for Bethea to come to a distinct realization: The system was never designed with everyone in mind.

“This system wasn’t built for me, and I knew that from day one,” he reflects. Yet, rather than allowing that structural reality to become a barrier, he shifted his focus toward mastery.

“My focus quickly became about learning and understanding the game of venture capital,” he said. “I didn’t want the fact that it wasn’t for me to get in the way of being a part of it.”

Bethea later made the leap into venture capital itself. In 2023, he joined , one of Upsie’s backers, as an investor and entrepreneur-in-residence. The move, he said, was motivated partly “by the people,” and wanting to be in an environment where he was “encouraged to learn deeply about the industry and how to look at deals.”

But it was also driven by a deeper mission to alter the very dynamics he faced on the other side of the table.

“I wanted to be a voice for founders who either looked like me, weren’t in-network and didn’t match the normal ‘pedigree’ of a founder,” he said.

Stepping into the investor’s shoes provided Bethea with a dual perspective, he said, both validating his instincts as an entrepreneur and revealing new dimensions of the fundraising puzzle.

Becoming a VC “confirmed some things that I knew were true as a founder, but it also opened my eyes to ways founders can improve their chances,” Bethea said.

From his vantage point as an investor, he routinely witnessed what he described as the same avoidable mistakes being made by talented teams. That realization prompted him to move on from his role at True Ventures earlier this year and became the catalyst for his current venture, “”

Bethea describes the initiative as an “always-on” educational platform, course and live-programming series designed to give early-stage entrepreneurs clear, unfiltered insight into the real mechanics of company building and venture fundraising.

Built on “lived experience,” the platform equips founders with more than 75 high-level videos and 90 workbook pages in an effort to demystify how venture decisions are actually made, what makes a pitch fundable, and how to approach fundraising strategically. The impact is already tangible, according to Bethea, as it’s helped two founders raise millions so far using its frameworks.

Ultimately, his time in the venture capital trenches has left him looking toward the future with a striking amount of hope.

“I’m more optimistic than ever before,” he said, pointing to technological shifts as a potential massive equalizer for underrepresented builders.

“AI brings down the walls of building an MVP, talking to customers, and starting to gain traction,” he said. “That’s really exciting for founders who don’t fit the normal founder stereotype. But we have to get better at the game of venture.”

Cortney Woodruff

Over the years, has founded and raised venture capital for two startups: , an online platform that provides software services to personal trainers, and , an online learning platform that provides online courses taught by notable, Black innovators that was co-founded by actor .

Those experiences led him to conclude that while building a company is universally grueling, the playing field is far from level. Reflecting on his early days as an entrepreneur, he notes that “raising venture capital is hard for almost everyone, especially first-time founders,” given that investors must make highly risky decisions with limited information. Yet, he simultaneously observed a stark disparity in how different founders are evaluated.

“I often felt young minority founders were expected to arrive as finished products,” Woodruff told 91Ÿ«Æ· News in an email interview. “There seemed to be less patience, less coaching, less developmental support. I watched founders receive years of benefit-of-the-doubt capital while learning on the job. Many minority founders are expected to prove everything upfront.”

This friction became undeniable during pitches for his first company, Trainersvalut. Despite walking into meetings with customers and real revenue traction, Woodruff recalls that he and his team often left “feeling like we were still being evaluated as an idea rather than a business.”

He came to that determination after a number of confusing rejections. While founders would naturally assume they are competing on product, execution and traction, Woodruff eventually concluded that it’s usually more related to familiarity.

“Many investors are looking for patterns they’ve seen before,” he said. “If your background, network, school, or story doesn’t fit those patterns, you often have to produce significantly more evidence before receiving the same conviction.

“That realization changed how I viewed entrepreneurship and venture capital,” Woodruff added.

Driven by a desire to learn more about how decisions were made from the other side of the table, Woodruff began angel investing. The move pulled back the curtain on the industry’s inner workings, confirming just how deeply venture capital relies on pattern recognition to signal success.

“What surprised me was how much venture capital is driven by pattern recognition,” he said. “Investors are trying to identify signals that increase the probability of success. The challenge is that those signals are often informed by prior successes, which can unintentionally narrow the range of founders and ideas that receive attention.”

Sitting in the investor’s chair also reframed his perspective on institutional bias. As a founder, it is easy to view every rejection as personal or discriminatory, but underwriting deals revealed to him just how difficult these choices are. Today, Woodruff views the industry’s shortcomings in diversity through a systemic lens rather than an individual one.

“The people who talk about bias often underestimate the role of networks, while the people who talk about networks often underestimate the role of bias,” he said. “Most investors are not waking up trying to exclude people. However, they are often sourcing opportunities from familiar circles, relying on familiar signals, and backing founders who feel familiar to them. Over time, those patterns compound.”

This concentration of networks helps explain why venture capital continually underinvests in Black founders. Because VC is fundamentally relationship-driven — reliant on referrals, universities and existing investor circles — homogeneous networks naturally yield homogeneous deal flow.

“I don’t think the issue is simply that investors don’t want to fund Black founders,” Woodruff said. “I think many investors never encounter a sufficiently diverse set of founders in the first place.”

In his view, the resulting disparity isn’t always about who eventually gets a check, but who is given the grace to stumble and iterate. Throughout his years in the ecosystem, Woodruff said he has routinely watched founders with stronger traction receive less enthusiasm than those with stronger narratives.

“The difference is often not who gets funded eventually. The difference is who receives patience, coaching, introductions, and the opportunity to grow into the founder investors believe they can become,” he said.

Now, Woodruff uses his position to bridge that gap, treating mentorship and network access as critical forms of capital. He focuses on guiding founders through an unfamiliar system, helping them avoid missteps, and opening doors to rooms they otherwise wouldn’t enter.

When looking toward the industry’s future, his outlook is balanced by both optimism and pragmatism. Woodruff is heartened that conversations around representation are more visible than ever and that technology has drastically lowered the barrier to entry for small teams building meaningful businesses. Yet, he recognizes that “systems change slowly. Networks evolve slowly. Institutions evolve slowly.”

Ultimately, he rejects the premise that venture capital can be fundamentally reengineered for fairness.

“I don’t think venture capital was designed to be equitable. It was designed to generate returns,” Woodruff said. Instead, he believes the real paradigm shift will come from diversifying the perspectives of those who write the checks.

“If every investment committee has similar backgrounds, similar networks, and similar reference points, they will naturally gravitate toward similar founders and similar ideas. I don’t believe the economics of venture capital need to change as much as the pattern recognition does,” he said. “The most successful investors in the future may be the ones who can recognize extraordinary opportunities in places others have been trained to overlook.”

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· query:

Related reading:

• 91Ÿ«Æ· Data: Venture Dollars For Black Startup Founders Stay Scarce Despite AI Funding Boom
• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Illustration:

Operating as an “all-in-one” software ecosystem, Scotch provides liquor retailers with point-of-sale hardware, custom software, payment processing and a back-office suite to manage state-by-state regulatory complexities. Customers range from boutique single-register shops to enterprise stores running over a dozen lanes.

led Scotch’s Series A raise, which included participation from , and . The injection of capital comes on the heels of a growth spurt, with the Denver-based startup reporting greater than 500% year-over-year growth and surpassing $1 billion in processed payment volume.

While the company declined to reveal its valuation, co-founder and CEO said the funding marks “a significant step-up” from its $10 million seed round, raised in September 2024 and led by First Round Capital.

Old-school market

Formally incorporated in January 2024, Scotch was born out of a unique industry challenge encountered by Bolling and CRO during their previous venture, . A convenience-store software company that supported 15,000 stores across the U.S., Skupos attracted attention from major consumer packaged goods giants such as , and Budweiser owner .

“Budweiser, in some way, shape, or form, tried to get us not only to continue to grow our C-store business, but to also expand into the liquor store industry,” Bolling told 91Ÿ«Æ· News in an interview.

Market research conducted in 2022 revealed a striking contrast between the two sectors. While the $650 billion convenience store market is highly fragmented, its point-of-sale technology is heavily consolidated around four major players.

Conversely, the liquor-store industry proved to be an entirely different beast: highly fragmented, intensely regulated and flooded with more than 200 regional, legacy POS systems.

Recognizing that the Skupos business model didn’t align with that level of fragmentation, the founders held off. Following the acquisition of Skupos by in August 2023, the team revisited the concept.

Drawing inspiration from the business model of restaurant tech giant — with whom the founders frequently shared strategy notes in the mid-2010s — they recognized the potential to replicate that success in a highly specialized, nuanced retail market.

, former chief architect of (acquired by for more than $1 billion), serves as Scotch’s CTO.

‘Business in a box’ strategy

The platform’s business model scales directly with the merchant, driving revenue through a hybrid mix of SaaS fees, charged on a per-device, per-month basis; fintech monetization, or collecting standard interchange fees on its payment volume and hardware sales, providing the modern storefront terminals necessary to run the infrastructure.

While general retail giants like Lightspeed and exist, Scotch markets itself as the only player capable of handling the severe operational and compliance hurdles distinct to alcohol retail.

Customers include The Liquor Store of Jackson Hole, Big Bear Wine & Liquor, Corkdorks and Everest Spirits Superstore.

Eradicating the ‘toil’ via AI

With inventory sizes ranging from 2,000 to 12,000 distinct products per store, manual inventory and vendor management can lead to miscalculated ordering and tied-up working capital, noted Bolling.

Scotch says it differentiates itself by building artificial intelligence directly into these back-office workflows. The platform uses AI to eliminate administrative friction, with the company claiming its offering can save business owners over a full day of work per week. It also saves them money by giving them, for example, a more accurate picture of their inventory, according to Bolling.

“We’ve really focused our AI workflows on the ‘toily’ aspects of running one of these businesses,” Bolling said. “Some of our customers are sommeliers who opened a store because they are passionate about serving their community with the right wine curation. That’s their creative outlet. We try to take up the parts of the day that suck for these business owners.”

By optimizing supply chains and automating store management, Bolling believes that Scotch’s AI native architecture is driving “measurable” gross margin expansion for its merchants.

Grassroots growth and word of mouth

Because it is targeting an industry historically dominated by “old-school,” family-owned, mom-and-pop operations, Scotch has employed an unconventional go-to-market approach. The company relies on a dual strategy of targeted geographic inside and outside sales reps as well as localized trade association partnerships. The reasoning behind that approach, according to Bolling, is because liquor store owners rarely search for new POS hardware on a whim.

However, the startup’s fastest growth vector over the last six months has been organic word of mouth. Because many state laws cap the number of liquor licenses an individual can own, competitive hostility is low, creating tight-knit networks of friendly competitors.

“They go to the same industry events, they talk to each other, they are in study groups together,” Bolling noted. “When one of them adopts a system like Scotch, they refer a lot of other customers our way.”

Scotch currently has about 45 employees working out of its Denver headquarters. It plans to use its new capital in part to scale its engineering and sales operations across the United States in addition to accelerating product development.

Going after ‘the hard part of the market first’

, general partner at VMG Partners, believes that Scotch is modernizing “one of the last major categories of retail.”

“The beverage alcohol market is nearly $250 billion and, despite that, is still operating on systems built in the 1970s with on-prem servers,” he wrote via email. “It isn’t an exaggeration to say Scotch is the only player that has solved enterprise-level complexity.”

Most industry startups never moved beyond basic solutions for small businesses, believes Stenmark.

“Scotch went after the hard part of the market first, solving for some of the largest and most complex retailers in the country,” he wrote via email. “This approach allowed them to harden their product early, and has translated to them having the only product that can actually solve every business operations and payments problem a retailer might have, whether they be a national brand or a beloved regional storefront.”

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· query:

Illustration:

Although the number of women-owned businesses keeps growing, startups led by women continue to fall behind their male counterparts when it comes to raising venture funding.

That’s why former executive teamed up with , a veteran and marketing executive, to found , an -registered, funding portal.

The platform, also called AQi, gives women-led businesses — those that are at least 50% women-owned — a way to raise capital through , a securities framework aimed at opening up startup investing.

Launched in 2024, AQi seeks to help female entrepreneurs reach everyday investors by simplifying regulatory disclosures and business documentation. As a member of the , the platform has passed a rigorous federal vetting process and agrees to operate under strict oversight to protect investors and ensure transparency.

91Ÿ«Æ· News recently spoke with Huyck and Konwinski to hear more about what led them to start AQi, why they think women don’t need to give up board seats early on, and how they want to help female entrepreneurs raise and hold on to more equity.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

91Ÿ«Æ· News: What is your platform’s mission and what led you to launch this company?

Huyck: I spent 21 years at PayPal, where I mentored women through a partnership with the . It was there I learned about the $5 trillion gap in global GDP resulting from women entrepreneurs lacking access to capital.

In the U.S., while women start nearly half of all businesses, they receive only 2% of venture capital and less than 20% of small business loans. I wanted to build an innovative system to solve this. I considered starting a fund, but many already exist. Instead, I wanted to create a crowdfunding platform exclusively for women, providing an additional avenue to raise money. The economic irony is that women entrepreneurs earn 78 cents for every dollar invested, compared to 31 cents for men. It simply didn’t make sense, and I wanted to build a system that truly enables women.

Konwinski: To add to that, we are a very distinct entity. We are not a broker-dealer; we are an SEC-registered and FINRA-member crowdfunding platform. Following the 2012 JOBS Act, Reg CF (Regulation Crowdfunding) was created to allow nonaccredited investors to invest in private, early-stage companies. There are about 50 active platforms in the U.S., but we are the only one founded by women, owned by women, and exclusively serving women-owned businesses.

Beyond just providing a neutral platform, we act as a “quarterback.” We help entrepreneurs navigate the process — whether they are just starting or ready for a “glow-up” — by providing access to accountants, lawyers and marketing firms. We are creating a community where women can get the resources they need to build their businesses without competing for attention in male-dominated tech circles.

How does your platform differ from sites like ?

Konwinski: Kickstarter and are for charitable gifting. We are not asking for charity; we are facilitating investments. We are on par with platforms like or , but our fee structure is more founder-friendly. On platforms like Kickstarter, you might only keep about 60% of the funds raised. Our success fee is only 6.5%. When investors invest in these businesses, they receive equity in return. Furthermore, there is a clear social return: Studies show that for every dollar a woman earns in her business, she creates significant economic benefit for her community and family.

How many businesses have you helped raise capital for thus far?

Huyck: We spent our first year building the technology and another six months on the rigorous SEC and FINRA registration process. We believe this high level of regulation is critical to ensuring investor trust. We currently have a pipeline of 20 businesses. We closed our first campaign earlier this month and have two more launching in the coming weeks.

Since Reg CF has a $5 million cap per 12-month period, how do you position yourselves for high-growth startups? And do you view this as a permanent alternative to traditional venture capital, or a bridge?

Huyck: I don’t see the VC space changing soon because it is heavily reliant on “pattern matching,” where investors look for people and paths that resemble previous successes. Until that breaks, women founders face significant barriers. Crowdfunding is a vital, viable alternative.

Konwinski: I would challenge the notion that $5 million isn’t enough. For many of the companies we work with, that is a strong runway for 18 to 24 months. Because Reg CF allows for rolling raises, a company can raise up to $5 million every 12 months. We see companies use this to reach a significant milestone and then potentially pursue a Series A later. We aren’t trying to be a broker-dealer for Series A deals. We are here for those who get “ghosted” by VCs or don’t want to leverage their homes to secure an SBA loan.

Does a distributed ownership structure with many unaccredited investors create a “messy” cap table that scares off traditional VCs?

Huyck: We utilize special-purpose vehicles. This consolidates all Reg CF investors into a single line item on the company’s cap table, often with a lead investor managing voting rights. This keeps the cap table clean.

Konwinski: Additionally, one of the greatest benefits of our model is that founders retain autonomy. VCs often demand board seats, veto rights and up to 20% equity. With us, founders usually give up only 5%-10% equity, allowing them to maintain control of the company they built from the ground up.

Without the pressure of a VC board, how do you help founders maintain operational discipline? And what do exit horizons look like?

Konwinski: Women entrepreneurs are natural “hustlers” who are inherently self-motivated. They are also excellent at collaborating and leveraging their community rather than operating with ego. Many of the founders we work with are Gen X, balancing business with family, and they have developed an incredible ability to multitask and execute.

Huyck: We also encourage founders to bring on advisers rather than giving up board seats too early. As for exit strategies, many women founders are mission-driven and haven’t historically been forced to consider an exit. We provide the guidance to help them think through those horizons — whether that’s acquisition or long-term growth — so they can make informed decisions rather than being forced into a timeline by traditional VC pressure.

Finally, how does your platform compare to other equity crowdfunding sites like Wefunder?

Konwinski: It is apples-to-apples in terms of our SEC/FINRA licensing. Where we differ is our value proposition: we provide a “concierge” service. On many larger platforms, you are processed through an AI-driven, automated checklist. We are building relationships, talking to our founders, and acting as their partner throughout the process.

Related reading:

• The Portion Of US VC Funding That Went To Female Founders Hit A New Peak In 2023, Thanks To Massive AI Deals
• How Female Founders Can Access Capital In A Tight VC Funding Market
• Is There A Gender Bias in Funding? Yes. Here’s How Female Founders Can Overcome

Illustration:

The amount includes previously announced corporate-led rounds by ($) and (), bringing the new funding in the latest raise to a still-staggering $50 billion.

Anthropic’s new valuation also means the San Francisco-based startup has now surpassed its closest rival, on that metric. In February, OpenAI announced it had closed a $110 billion round at an $840 billion post-money valuation. That financing marked the largest raise ever, according to .

, , and led Anthropic’s latest raise. , , , , and co-led the round. The financing also included $15 billion of previously committed investments from hyperscalers, $5 billion from , which, interestingly, also participated in OpenAI’s most recent round of funding.

Anthropic’s massive round comes just over three months after the startup raised $30 billion in a Series G that valued it at $380 billion post-money. It has now raised around $125 billion since its 2021 inception, .

Since that round, Anthropic says it has grown its enterprise customer base. Its run-rate revenue crossed $47 billion earlier this month, according to the company.

“Claude is increasingly indispensable to our growing global community of customers, and we work tirelessly to make tools like Claude Code and Cowork more helpful, more powerful, and more adaptable to their needs,” said , chief financial officer of Anthropic, in . “This funding will help us serve the historic demand we are experiencing, stay at the research frontier, and bring Claude to more of the places where work happens.”

Correction: This article has been updated to correct Anthropic’s total funding amount to date and the amount of new, previously announced capital in its Series H.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· queries:

• The 91Ÿ«Æ· 91Ÿ«Æ·

Related reading:

• Q1 2026 Shatters Venture Funding Records As AI Boom Pushes Startup Investment To $300B
• OpenAI’s New $110B Raise At A $840B Valuation Marks The Largest Venture Deal Ever
• Anthropic Raises $30B At $380B Valuation In Second-Largest Venture Funding Deal Of All Time

Illustration:

The share of U.S. venture funding going to companies with Black founders in 2025 remained low, even as overall startup investment ticked slightly higher, 91Ÿ«Æ· data shows.

Only around $942 million — or just 0.32% of total U.S. venture funding — went to startups with a Black founder or co-founder last year, per 91Ÿ«Æ· data. That’s one of the lowest shares in years, and down more than two-thirds from just three years prior.

This year has started off on a slightly rosier note, with $643 million raised by U.S.-based startups with a Black founder or co-founder as of May 20. The majority of that was raised in the first quarter, marking the most raised in a single quarter since Q2 2022, when $653 million was raised by a Black founder or co-founder.

It’s important to note that the relatively robust quarter was in large part due to an outsized round — a February $350 million Series E raise by Palo Alto, California-based . Co-founded in 2017 by chief technologist , the AI chip startup has raised a total of $1.5 billion in known funding. and co-led its latest raise.

As such, it’s not surprising that the $643 million raised so far this year was secured across just 34 deals, signaling larger deal sizes overall.

It’s important to note that the total funding raised by startups with a Black founder or co-founder so far this year is still a small percentage of the $252 billion raised by U.S.-based startups in 2026.

Last year’s total also represents a sharp decline from the record venture funding year of 2021, when investment in Black startup founders hit a high of $5.2 billion in the wake of the 2020 racial justice movement. Still, even during the peak year, investment in Black founders represented just 1.5% of U.S. venture funding, per 91Ÿ«Æ· data.

, managing partner at said the decline in venture funding to Black entrepreneurs coincides with a marked shift in the political environment. “There are fewer conversations on the topic as many are afraid to speak on it directly, which is concerning,” he told 91Ÿ«Æ· News via email.

Overall, Pierre-Jacques believes venture capital is about finding outliers. “That isn’t going to change for any group,” he said. “I focus on what we can do as a firm and then advocate for underserved founders.“

Notable rounds

Similar to 2025, much of the funding tally for Black-founded startups in 2026 came from a few larger rounds. Standouts include:

• SambaNova, the AI hardware and software company mentioned above. It specializes in providing infrastructure for AI and machine learning applications. Notably, tech giant reportedly in SambaNova to 8.2% following its investment in the Series E round.
• , a New York sweepstakes-based sports prediction market, picked up $75 million in a February Series B round led by at a $500 million post-money valuation. The platform has users participate in peer-to-peer wagering on sporting events.
• San Francisco-based , which is building an AI-native insurance brokerage for SMBs, also raised in February, a $47 million Series A led by . It is an alumnus of the prestigious startup accelerator .
• Live events platform in March raised a $37 million Series B led by .
• , which sells AI-driven government contracting software, raised $30 million in a January Series B round co-led by and.

Relationships and networking

Investors and founders who spoke with 91Ÿ«Æ· News on the topic said that in the current AI-centric funding environment, relationships and networking have only become more important for startup founders, particularly Black and other historically overlooked entrepreneurs.

“In an age of AI, who you know matters more than ever,” Pierre-Jacques said. “There are fewer deals getting done by firms and partners. You have to build personal relationships in order to make it to the top of the stack. It isn’t just about KPI comparisons.”

is a two-time startup founder currently raising capital for his fintech startup, . He agrees with Pierre-Jacques on the importance of Black founders widening their networks as much as possible.

Spearman urged younger or Black founders who are building and raising for the first time to gain as much insight and inside knowledge as possible from other founders.

“This can save significant headaches, time and limited resources, especially during the early stages,” he said. “Black people in America have defined, and continue to shape, what it means to be in community, and I’m thankful to play a small role in that ecosystem.”

Having worked at , an Austin analytics software company, Spearman said that he built a network over time that included exited founders whom he was able to turn to as “adviser-investors.”

“These advisers can write checks, make intros and think like operators, which is sometimes better than seeking advice from VCs who haven’t been operators during the zero-to-one stages,” he said. He also recommends that new founders, particularly those in focused sectors such as fintech or insurance tech, consider attending industry-specific conferences like Money 20/20 or ITC to make connections with VCs “months and sometimes years before you’re ready to raise.”

Spearman also said Black founders should be open to sources of funding other than traditional venture capital, particularly when first starting out. Many are steered toward accelerators at the early stages, he noted.

“I don’t think this is bad counsel,” he told 91Ÿ«Æ· News via email, “especially if it involves an accelerator like the one offers annually.” TenYour participated in that accelerator in 2025, which resulted in both an investment and industry connections, he said.

Looking forward, not back

The startup funding landscape has drastically changed in the span of just five years. In 2021, the aftermath of the COVID pandemic, a heated 2020 presidential election, and the high-profile killings of Black Americans including George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery spurred many of the largest startup investors to make high-profile pledges to back more Black and other underrepresented founders.

Now, “we are so far from 2020, not only in the pledges made but also in the social and venture landscape,” Spearman said.

Still, “rather than looking back,” he said, “I’d recommend we collectively continue to push forward to envision and co-create the world we want. For founders, that often starts with their ventures and the choice to solve a meaningful problem that other founders (and investors) may overlook.”

, co-founder of and an investor with , is frustrated that funding to Black-founded startups relative to overall venture investment funding has fallen in the past few years. That’s especially disheartening, she said, given research indicating that Black Americans are more active consumers of AI tools than the general population, with a reported 53% using such tools daily or weekly, versus 39% of people overall.

“To me, this shows early signals that the investment cycle creating wealth from AI is not flowing back to the communities using AI the most,” she said.

In 2021, Lal and started VC Unleashed, a nonprofit, to increase access to the venture capital world for both founders and aspiring investors. While the organization is open to all, Lal said, Unleashed uses its platform “to uplift underrepresented founders as much as we can to help them access capital and build their network,” including through its upcoming conference.

When asked if she could change one structural aspect about how venture capital operates to improve outcomes for Black founders, Lal said it would be moving the conversation upstream from general partners at VC firms to those firms’ limited partners.

“GPs deploy capital that LPs give them, and if a pension fund or endowment isn’t asking its VC managers about founder portfolio composition with the same rigor it applies to sector concentration or stage exposure, that absence gets transmitted all the way down to the founder level,” she wrote via email. “Questions on founder demographics, asked consistently and at scale, would do more to shift behavior than anything else.”

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· queries:

Related reading:

• Share Of Startup Funding For Black Founders Hits Multiyear Low
• Funding To Black Startup Founders Quadrupled In Past Year, But Remains Elusive

Methodology

The data contained in this report comes directly from 91Ÿ«Æ·, and is based on reported data provided by our partners, venture partners, our community network and news sources. The data in this report is focused on the U.S. market for underrepresented minorities, namely Black-/African-American-founded companies.

91Ÿ«Æ·â€™s dataset is constantly expanding, but there are gaps. A company may not have founders listed, or the Diversity Spotlight data may not be updated on its 91Ÿ«Æ· profile.

We do believe we are missing companies, especially at the early stages of funding.

If you notice missing data, please reach out to spotlight@crunchbase.com or verify with your company email to update your company’s Diversity Spotlight tags directly onsite.

91Ÿ«Æ·, like all databases of private-market transactions, experiences some reporting delays. The data for 2025 and 2026 will increase over time relative to previous years. As data is added to 91Ÿ«Æ· over time, some of the numbers in this report may shift.

Illustration:

led the round, which included participation from , , , , and others.

Founded in 2020, New York-based Capchase initially made a name for itself by providing revenue-based financing for SaaS companies. However, by late 2022, the company began to evolve into its current iteration: a vendor-financing technology platform. Capchase embeds itself directly into the sales workflows of companies such as original equipment manufacturers, software vendors and cybersecurity providers.

It has entirely discontinued its revenue-based financing, and instead now focuses on B2B buy now, pay later tools that help software and hardware vendors offer flexible payment terms while getting paid upfront.

The concept addresses a longstanding friction point in enterprise sales: vendors want cash immediately, while buyers want to preserve capital. Rather than forcing a buyer to pay $1 million upfront in 30 days, Capchase allows a sales rep to offer more flexible terms — say, $15,000 per month for up to five years. When the deal is signed, Capchase pays the vendor the full amount upfront, net of a financing fee.

“We started to see that there was a very big pull in the market,” , co-founder and CEO of Capchase, said in an interview. “We saw that sales cycles were expanding, CAC was going up, and all of this was driven by the high interest rates. Buyers wanted to pay as late as possible and pay installments.”

He added: “We shipped a product quickly to solve that need, and we started to get very strong market pull to the point that that ended up eclipsing the other product lines, and we decided to focus everything there.”

Displacing a legacy market with AI

The pivot has unlocked impressive growth. Capchase says it has a 400% growth rate over the past 12 months and forecasts another 200% growth in the upcoming year. Its workforce has scaled alongside this momentum, expanding to 75 employees, up from 50 a year ago.

While legacy banks, independent financing firms and captive financing arms have dominated the $1.3 trillion equipment financing market for decades, Capchase says it differentiates itself by replacing 1980s-era workflows with real-time automation.

Traditional financing approvals often require an email-driven back-and-forth that can take four to 17 days, according to Fernandez. Capchase claims to compress that timeline into seconds.

Capchase uses artificial intelligence and machine learning agents across its platform. For example, an “order generation agent” parses uploaded quotes or purchase orders to create flexible payment links in under 60 seconds — down from a manual process that typically took eight hours — according to Fernandez. As another example, an AI email agent automatically handles multiparty coordination between vendors, resellers and buyers, all without human intervention.

“What makes us different is that we are both the lender and the technology. And AI is what makes the combination work at the speed enterprise tech sales demands,” Fernandez told 91Ÿ«Æ· News in an interview. “We built the credit decisioning engines that allow us to look at all the data these other players look at as well, but we were able to do it and infer it in just seconds.”

Moving upmarket and expanding globally

The new capital will primarily support Capchase’s rapid transition into the enterprise space.

“In the past 24 months, we went from serving vendors in the tens of millions of revenue to in the last 12 months in the hundreds of millions in revenue, and now in the multiple billions of revenue,” Fernandez said.

The startup’s platform now underwrites more stable, established borrowers. The average buyer utilizing Capchase has roughly $80 million in annual revenue, has been operating for over 20 years, and is profitable, he added. This profile has allowed Capchase to maintain a highly controlled risk environment and what he described as a “spectacular” default rate.

Capchase currently supports hundreds of tech vendors and tens of thousands of buyers. Its customer roster features enterprise tech giants, public cybersecurity firms and massive distributors, including , , , and .

Though Capchase keeps its specific financials, valuation and cumulative funding figures confidential, Fernandez confirmed that the latest capital injection represents a valuation step up from its 2021 $80 million Series B round. At the time of that raise, the company had raised more than $400 million in equity and debt.

Looking ahead, Capchase will use its fresh capital to scale beyond its core markets in North America — the U.S. and Canada — and Europe, including the U.K., Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands, the Nordics and Spain. Driven by direct demand from its enterprise partners, the company is officially entering the Australian market this year.

Reducing friction with flexible terms

, co-founder and managing partner of 01 Advisors, said he was drawn to Capchase primarily because of how AI has helped it disrupt traditional vendor financing.

Incumbents possessed plenty of capital but “have never been forced to build real technology because their customers had nowhere else to go,” he wrote via email.

AI fundamentally shifts this dynamic, allowing Capchase to “underwrite a buyer and create accurate docs in 30 seconds,” he said.

This solution hits close to home for Bain, who previously ran the sales team at and says he intimately understands the friction Capchase aims to eliminate. In traditional enterprise sales, momentum frequently stalls when a ready-to-buy customer hits a roadblock over payment terms, forcing sales leaders to either “discount to close, wait for the next budget cycle, or spend weeks negotiating.”

Those outcomes drain margin or time. Capchase completely removes that friction, Bain said, by offering instant approvals and flexible terms.

Fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI to traditionally manual or burdensome processes, have benefited from increased investment in recent quarters. Global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per 91Ÿ«Æ· . That’s a more than 29% increase from 2024’s total of $41.6 billion raised.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Startups Globally Raise More Money In Far Fewer Deals In Q1 2026
• Exclusive: Capchase Raises $80M Series B To Give Startups Alternatives To Venture

Illustration:

That’s up 49% from the $3.5 billion valuation it achieved when announcing its $300 million Series C — which included primary and secondary funding — in March of 2025. The latest capital infusion brings San Francisco-based Mercury’s total primary and secondary funding to approximately $700 million since its 2017 inception.

led the latest financing, which included participation from returning backers , , , , and .

Mercury counts more than 300,000 companies as customers, including startups and larger entities such as , , , , and .

Interestingly, Mercury recently received from the banking regulator, the OCC, to establish its own bank. This is in contrast to many fintechs, which typically work with a sponsor bank but are not banks themselves.

The company hit $650 million in annualized revenue as of the 2025 third quarter, and claims to have achieved four consecutive years of profitability on both a GAAP net income and EBITDA basis.

AI’s effects

“AI is collapsing the friction between an idea and a company faster than anything I have seen in my career,” , co-founder and CEO of Mercury, said in a press release. “We are going to see more founders in the next five years than in the last twenty. But legacy banking in 2026 still works the way it did when I started my first company in 2006. I started Mercury because banking should do more than be a vault, it should help customers run the best business possible.”

Fintech startups, particularly those that apply AI to traditionally manual or burdensome processes, have benefited from increased investment in recent quarters. Global funding to VC-backed financial technology startups totaled $53.8 billion in 2025, per 91Ÿ«Æ· . That’s a more than 29% increase from 2024’s total of $41.6 billion raised.

Disclosure: The author of this article is a freelance writer who also writes for Mercury’s independent magazine, Meridian.

Related 91Ÿ«Æ· query:

Related reading:

• Fintech Startups Globally Raise More Money In Far Fewer Deals In Q1 2026

Illustration: