 |
|
|
|||||
The federal government signaled a new direction in federal funding this week when it announced plans to put as much as $150 million into a private semiconductor startup. Instead of a grant or a loan, the government would take an equity stake. It’s a meaningful departure from how federal funding has traditionally operated. For years, federal R&D support came structured as non-dilutive grants and Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) awards that didn’t require equity concessions. An early-stage company proves its idea with federal support, investors wait for validation, and the company grows. If the government begins converting grants into equity stakes, that calculus changes fundamentally. A quiet shift The semiconductor deal is the latest in what has otherwise been a relatively quiet shift taking place inside the federal funding system as the Trump administration considers treating some grants like venture investments. For founders, this creates genuine uncertainty. The government has not yet defined the rules of engagement for what ownership in a startup means. There are no clear answers about how much equity might be taken, how dilution would work over time, when the government expects a return, or who would manage these positions. Startups already struggle to keep their capitalization tables clean enough for private investment. Adding a federal agency to the picture introduces new friction. While experienced investors routinely ask about investor composition before committing capital, even seasoned ones may hesitate if the answer includes “the United States government.” History lessons There is instructive history here. Twenty years ago, the state of Texas launched the Emerging Technology Fund with the goal of supporting high-growth technology companies through a venture model. The fund encountered structural problemsincluding non-dilution clauses that prevented it from being fairly diluted alongside other investorsthat ultimately undermined its portfolio companies’ growth. New investors wouldn’t fund them because the risk was not shared fairly. The lesson is clear: Public capital can be valuable, but if it ignores downstream market dynamics and investor expectations, it can choke off the very growth it intends to catalyze. The timing of this equity push is particularly concerning given that SBIR and STTR programshistorically the backbone of non-dilutive federal support for early-stage companiesexpired on September 30, 2025, and remain unauthorized. With traditional grant pathways frozen and equity stakes emerging as the new model, founders face unprecedented uncertainty about federal funding structures. The scale of this disruption is significant: These programs typically distributed approximately $4.73 billion annually to support scientific progress and early company formation. That scale alone makes it essential to understand how any replacement federal support structure would function. Program officers are experts in research evaluation and scientific merit. They are not trained to make venture-style assessments about valuation, equity terms, or long-horizon return timing. Asking them to perform both roles simultaneously creates tension. Conversely, finance-oriented staff who understand investment models are not necessarily equipped to evaluate frontier science. These programs do not operate like traditional venture funds. Ripple effects If the federal government proceeds with equity investments, it must understand the implications for early-stage companies and the ripple effects that follow. If federal agencies become equity holders, they will need to establish clear standards: How are positions structured? Who holds them? When is liquidity expected? How does the relationship evolve as companies raise capital? How are equity percentages, dilution rights, and board representation determined? These decisions cannot be improvised. They determine whether private investors engage or walk away. Startups also need to reconsider their assumptions about federal programs. If equity or royalty components begin appearing, founders must decide what they are prepared to trade for early capital. They’ll need to understand how those terms affect later fundraising rounds and how private investors react to a federal stakeholder at the ownership table. Digital health and medtech founders already have to navigate a complex landscape of regulatory pathways and clinical validation procedures. Having to decipher unclear investment rules from an early funder is more likely to stymie growth than accelerate it. Eyes wide open That’s not to say startups should avoid federal funding if equity is introduced. They may simply need to approach it with clear-eyed expectations about the long-term implications. There is opportunity here if the federal government establishes clear rules. Beyond Texas, other states have experimented with public venture approachessome that helped companies grow, others that created lasting complications. If policymakers systematically study both categories, they can avoid repeatable mistakes. The worst outcome would be moving forward without a framework and discovering too late that the system discourages private capital, slows company formation, or generates new burdens on innovators, investors, and taxpayers. Policymakers have a responsibility to design federal equity participation that is predictable enough that companies aren’t blindsided by unclear terms, and transparent enough that private investors understand the government’s expectations and governance role. Otherwise, having Uncle Sam on your capitalization table may come with complications no one is prepared to manage.
Category:
E-Commerce
Ellie Ghassali was on a plane back to the U.S. from Sydney when he spilled red sauce on his new phone. The phone still had its screen protector on, so he just peeled it off, and the red sauce was gone. At this very moment, an idea popped into his head: What if you could “peel off” your dinner plate in a similar way?Ghassali, who lives in New Jersey, is now the founder and CEO of Peelware, a company that makes disposable, peelable dinnerware that is biodegradable and compostable. Plates come in stacks of 15, meaning that you eat on the top layer, peel it off and compost it when you’re done, then eat anew on the next layer (the 14th). And then the next layer (the 13th), and so on. This reduces the need for single-use plastic plates, which are wasteful and often end up in a landfill. The concept is also more sustainable than the typical plant-based disposable plate, because it uses even less material per plate (considering one plate is basically as thin as parchment paper).The leakproof material, which took three years to develop and is now FDA-approved, feels a bit like parchment paper, but it’s more pliable. And each layer is made of plant-based wood pulp and sugarcane, with a sand-based coating. There is no wax, plastic coating, or PFAS (forever chemicals), which some parchment paper is treated with. And plates are just the beginning.[Photos: Peelware]Convenience has long fueled the American market. By some estimates, the U.S disposable tableware industry was worth $10 billion in 2025, and is showing no signs of slowing in the near future. While plastic ruled the industry for years, many brands are now rushing to make more sustainable alternatives, like World Centric or Repurpose, which make plant-based compostable plates and cutlery from annually renewable plants like sugarcane or bamboo. Peelware is part of that ecosystem, though it also comes with a reinvented UX.A paper plate made with 12 tons of pressureShortly after Ghassali got off the plane, he rushed home to make a prototype in his garage. The first prototype consisted of two regular plates that he ran over with his car in order to test how they would bond when compressed under immense pressure.Three years and 12 different models later, Peelware plates are now made by compressing layers with a hydraulic press. Ghassali explains that there are no additive layers or glues between each layer. What holds them together is simply 12 tons of pressure, as well as a cleverly designed edge that folds down to prevent layers from coming apart. “There’s nothing like this paper,” he says. “You can’t get it anywhere else.”Since Peelware launched in July, the company has sold 6,000 units. Earlier last year, the company had launched with a white version that Ghassali ended up retracting, as it was bleached with chlorine. His team couldn’t fulfill the first batch of orders, which left many customers angry enough to vent on Reddit. But Ghassali says the company has now reverted to a natural, unbleached material, and is back in business and fulfilling orders. They can ship internationally, thanks to collaborations with paper mills around the world.At-home testing has mixed (but mostly good) resultsWhen I tried the plates at home, I was a little skeptical. The layers were so thin I couldn’t believe my knife wouldn’t slash through the paper. I also worried that saucier foods would leak through to the bottom layer. So I decided to stress-test them with two of the oiliest foods I had in my fridge: first, leftover noodles with chili crisp; then, gnocchi with pesto. I also poured a spoonful of olive oil and left it sitting on the plate for two hours.The result took me by surprise. No amount of scratching cutlery against the plate did any damage. None of the olive oil seeped through. The pesto dish left the underneath layer slightly more wrinkled than it was, but none of the oil had actually leaked through. The only meal that appeared to pose a slight challenge was the noodle dish, which showed a couple of oily patches on the layer below. That night, the underneath layer smelled like chili crisp, but the smell was gone by the following morning. (Ghassali says the company will soon be releasing a new version in which each layer is 25% thicker, which may remedy the problem.)For now, Peelware sells peelable plates, which it calls Peelplates. In spring 2026, the company will also launch Peelbowls with the same folded edge, and later on, Peelcups and Peeltrays. Peelable cutting boards are also in the pipeline, which Ghassali sees as a safer alternative to the countless plastic boards out there that release microplastics when you run a knife through them.To be sure, wooden cutting boards remain your best bet, and ceramic dinnerware isn’t going anywhere. But next time you’re throwing a casual party with 20 people busying around in your kitchen, peelable plates just might be your new best friend.
Category:
E-Commerce
Decades after selling Americans on the idea of jumping through transactions with online strangers, Craig Newmark is trying to get them to hold off on clicking through. Last September, the Craiglist founder-turned-philanthropist and tech-policy activist launched Take9, a program pushing a nontechnical response to the complex problems of online scams and frauds. Traditionally, security advice has focused on tools: Install security updates promptly, use a password manager, enable multifactor authentication, and upgrade to passkey logins if you can. But phishing scams, misinformation campaigns, and other digital attempts to part people from their money, or their account credentials, evolve constantly. They usually retain one common element, though: They aim to provoke a response rooted in fear or anger, not thought. In fewer words, theyre targeting your lizard brain. Take9s advice doesnt involve any software or settings: Simply take a nine-second pause and think before you click, download, or share. Newmark has been working on the problems of digital security for a long time. But his previous efforts were aimed more at professionals. Take9 is aimed at individuals with fingers poised over a touchscreen, a mouse, or a keyboard, uncertain of what to do next. No one is looking out for regular peopleand that’s how I identify, if nothing else because I’ve been a customer-service rep for the great majority of my work life, Newmark says on a video call. We all need a hand in terms of protecting ourselves, our families, our homes. The federal government seems less likely to lend that hand after the Trump administrations deep cutbacks of federal cybersecurity staffing and programs. With Take9, Newmark is trying to help people help themselves in a low-tech way. Please hold up Waiting can give your noggin a chance to downshift. Thats the core advice of Take9. There’s some behavioral research which suggests you wait a little while, and they typically cite 9 or 10 seconds before you actually go in and click things, Newmark says. He cites his own past misadventure rushing to buy some knockoff Ray-Ban sunglasses: I only realized after that I gave bad people my credit card number. Compromised credit cards are relatively easy to fix. A hacked email account or social media presence can, by contrast, leave a much wider blast radius. And the messages trying to spoof or scare us into giving up critical credentials keep coming, because the attackers know that few of us can resist the urge to click. It’s an ongoing problem with certain members of the family, but I will not disclose specifics, because Mrs. Newmark would yell at me, Newmark says. As secondary steps to learning to take a beat before a click, the Take9 site offers pointers on the usual technological countermeasures, such as using a password manager and upgrading to passkey logins. (We would take exception with the sites recommendation to avoid public Wi-Fi; the advent of nearly universal encryption between sites and browsers should relegate that outdated advice to tech-myth status.) It also invites visitors to sign up for a mailing list for updates on its campaign, partners, and useful resources. Incremental improvements Newmark isnt counting only on more self-aware behavior to slow the flood of attacks. I think progress is being made, he says, pointing first to the rise of more secure domain-name-service systems that encrypt lookups of site names to prevent an attacker from shunting a visitor to a hostile look-alike. Hes also optimistic about threat-sharing partnerships such as Global Signal Exchange, launched in October by Google and the industry groups DNS Research Federation and Global Anti-Scam Alliance. GSE, which Newmark supported with a $1 million contribution in December, lets member firms share data about attackers and attacks confidentially to coordinate responses and research into future threats. Newmark says hes already benefited from Googles addition of on-device AI to screen calls and messages from noncontacts for likely scam patterns, demoed at Google I/O two years ago and initially shipped in March. Of course, AI is a weapon that can point either way: AI-generated people can now convincingly imitate real ones. And this attack isnt just a problem for IT hiring. Businesses have been scammed out of millions of dollars by AI deepfakes. Newmark suggests that families agree on a code word that only they would know but allows that there might be something better. Many security experts think there is. The recommend that if youre in doubt about a call from somebody who sounds like a friend or family member, hang up and call them back directly. Or ask the caller about something that only the real person would be in a position to know. What does success look like? Can a project with a goal as subjective as making people a little more street-smart online have a definable finish line? Real success would look like ransomware scammers simply giving up because protections were that good, Newmark says. Scammers would find other crime to exploit. But he also allows that those are impossible metrics. Those are examples of the perfect, and were not going to get there, he says, noting that hes in it for the long haul. Newmark says he still gets angry about the idea of somebody trying to rip off his customers. I take it personally, and I think everyone involved in any kind of platform should feel the same way, he says. It should piss them off.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||