TheChek News Flow

Sorare is not completely shuttering its New York office but is shifting more employees to Paris

Web3-enabled fantasy sports platform Sorare laid off 22 employees based in its New York office in February. The move comes as the startup wants certain teams to be concentrated at the company’s Paris headquarters to improve communication and efficiency, a source familiar with the matter told TechCrunch.

“As we plan for our next stage of growth, Sorare has made the decision to centralize some of our functions at our Paris HQ,” Nicolas Julia, the co-founder and CEO of Sorare, told TechCrunch through email. “This primarily affects our product development team as we believe that bringing that team together in the same space in Paris will allow them to collaborate more effectively as they continue to build best in class products across our football, baseball and basketball offerings.”

An additional 11 employees in the New York office were asked to relocate to Paris, a source familiar with the matter said. The company will backfill most of these laid-off roles in Paris, according to Julia, with plans to hire more than 20 roles in the next six months.

Sorare is not shutting down its New York office. It will keep certain teams there like those that work with U.S. customers or on its U.S. brand partnerships with leagues like the MLB and NBA, according to Julia. Sorare’s partnerships with these sports leagues are locked in for several years, a source added.

While a source familiar with the matter said that these layoffs were not financially driven, the source did add that like many other web3 companies, the time horizon for how long it will take Sorare to reach its growth goals is longer than it originally thought. Sorare’s users can buy and sell NFT cards from other players on its platforms, although Sorare primarily makes its money by issuing and selling new cards. Sorare saw $200 million in user transaction volume in 2023, a source familiar with the situation said. The company declined to say if it was profitable or what runway it had left.

Sorare hasn’t raised capital since its $680 million Series B round in 2021, which valued the company at $4 billion. According to secondary data platforms, Sorare hasn’t been garnering much interest from investors there. To be fair, the declining interest isn’t strictly an issue for Sorare — web3 companies have largely fallen out of favor with investors. Startups in the category raised $7 billion in 2023, according to Crunchbase data, a drop of 74% from 2022’s $26 billion. For context, overall venture funding dropped 38% in the same timeframe.

Web3 companies focused on gaming have struggled to find meaningful traction. Last month, video game–focused VCs told TechCrunch that the market for web3 games turned out to be significantly smaller than some investors had hoped. This has become evident.

Mythical Games, a web3 gaming startup, raised nearly $300 million in venture money before holding three rounds of layoffs. Dapper Labs, another startup in the category, has also held numerous rounds of layoffs.

This is not to say Sorare will see the same fate. The company has an active community of nearly 13,000 people on Reddit posting regularly about the fantasy games and a community of third-party media dedicated to these competitions. Hopefully, even if the web3 winter continues, Sorare’s reorg will be enough.

A directive known as Document 79 ramps up Beijing’s effort to replace U.S. tech with homegrown alternatives

For American tech companies in China, the writing is on the wall. It’s also on paper, in Document 79.

The 2022 Chinese government directive expands a drive that is muscling U.S. technology out of the country—an effort some refer to as “Delete A,” for Delete America.

Document 79 was so sensitive that high-ranking officials and executives were only shown the order and weren’t allowed to make copies, people familiar with the matter said. It requires state-owned companies in finance, energy and other sectors to replace foreign software in their IT systems by 2027.

American tech giants had long thrived in China as they hot-wired the country’s meteoric industrial rise with computers, operating systems and software. Chinese leaders want to sever that relationship, driven by a push for self-sufficiency and concerns over the country’s long-term security.

The first targets were hardware makers. Dell, International Business Machines and Cisco Systems have gradually seen much of their equipment replaced by products from Chinese competitors.

Document 79, named for the numbering on the paper, targets companies that provide the software—enabling daily business operations from basic office tools to supply-chain management. The likes of Microsoft and Oracle are losing ground in the field, one of the last bastions of foreign tech profitability in the country.

The effort is just one salvo in a yearslong push by Chinese leader Xi Jinping for self-sufficiency in everything from critical technology such as semiconductors and fighter jets to the production of grain and oilseeds. The broader strategy is to make China less dependent on the West for food, raw materials and energy, and instead focus on domestic supply chains.

Officials in Beijing issued Document 79 in September 2022, as the U.S. was ratcheting up chip export restrictions and sanctions on Chinese tech companies. It requires state-owned firms to provide quarterly updates on their progress in replacing foreign software used for email, human-resources and business management with Chinese alternatives.

The directive came down from the agency overseeing the country’s massive state-owned enterprise sector—a group that includes more than 60 of China’s 100 largest listed companies.

That agency, the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, and the country’s national cabinet, the State Council, didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Spending by China’s state sector topped 48 trillion yuan, or about $6.6 trillion in 2022. The directive leverages that purchasing power to support Chinese tech companies, which in turn can improve their products and narrow the technology gap with U.S. rivals.

State firms have dutifully ramped up their buying of domestic brands, even if the Chinese substitutes sometimes aren’t as good, according to a Wall Street Journal review of data and procurement documents, and people familiar with the matter. The buyers include banks, financial brokerages and public services such as the postal system.

Back in 2006, “China was the land of milk and honey, and intellectual property was the main challenge,” a former U.S. Trade Representative official involved in previous technology discussions with the Chinese said. “Now, there is a feeling that the sense of opportunity is off. Companies are merely hanging on.”

The push to localize tech is known as “Xinchuang,” loosely translated as “IT innovation” with a reference to technology that is secure and trustworthy. The policy has gained urgency amid an escalating tech and trade war with Washington, which has cut many Chinese entities off American technologies.

Premier Li Qiang reiterated the push during China’s annual legislative sessions this week. China’s central government plans to increase its spending on science and technology by 10% to about $51 billion this year, according to a budget report released on Tuesday—up from a 2% increase last year.

At some trade fairs across the country, vendors tout homegrown tech as an alternative to foreign brands. One semiconductor equipment maker stall in Nanjing put it bluntly, offering to help buyers “Delete A” from their supply chain.

Domestically developed alternatives are growing more user-friendly. A local official recalled how in 2016, it took a whole day to open and close a spreadsheet on a computer with an operating system known as KylinOS, developed by a Chinese military-linked company. He compares the usability of the latest KylinOS version to Microsoft’s Windows 7, introduced in 2009—workable if not great.

As recently as six years ago, most government tenders sought hardware, chips and software from Western brands. By 2023, many were seeking Chinese tech products instead.

When the customs department in the eastern Chinese city of Ningbo sought to purchase rack servers in 2018, it stated a preference for brands such as Dell and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and for hardware powered by Intel’s Xeon central processing units. Five years later, the same agency asked for rack servers made by Chinese companies and equipped with Huawei chips.

These servers are typically assembled by state-owned tech manufacturers that barely sell equipment overseas, such as Beijing-based Tsinghua Tongfang. Tongfang’s controlling shareholder is a state-owned company in charge of China’s civilian and military nuclear programs.

Some government officials in China’s capital had their foreign-branded PCs replaced with those made by Tongfang and officials last year were told to use Chinese phones instead of Apple’s iPhones for work.

Losing orders

Over the past decade, Xi has repeatedly emphasized technological innovation and the use of trusted homegrown technology in government departments and industry. Revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 that U.S. authorities had hacked into Chinese mobile phone communications, universities and private companies strengthened Xi’s resolve. More recently, Xi has told senior officials that China should leverage its strengths and market to break bottlenecks in the development of essential software such as operating systems.

As China focused on replacing hardware, IBM’s China revenues have steadily declined. It downsized its China research operations in Beijing in 2021, more than two decades after it opened.

Cisco, once a technology powerhouse in China, said in 2019 that it was losing orders in the country to local vendors because of nationalist buying. American PC maker Dell’s market share in China almost halved in the past five years, to 8%, researcher Canalys said.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise, or HPE, which makes servers, storage and networks, got 14.1% of its revenue from China in 2018, according to estimates from database provider FactSet. By 2023, that had fallen to 4%.

In May, HPE said it would sell its 49% stake in its Chinese joint venture. The company continues to sell direct to certain multinational customers in China and sells selected products to the broader mainland market through its Chinese partner, a spokesman said.

In software, Adobe, Citrix parent Cloud Software Group and Salesforce have pulled out or downsized direct operations in the country over the past two years.

Microsoft, the world’s biggest software provider, historically dominated computer operating systems in China. A Morgan Stanley poll of 135 chief information officers in China found that many expected the share of computers powered by Microsoft’s Windows operating system installed in their companies to fall over the next three years. They expected Linux-based UOS, or Unity Operating System, an effort co-led by a state-owned company, to gain in the shift.

Even as Microsoft’s top executives and its co-founder Bill Gates have frequently traveled to Beijing for high-profile meetings with senior Chinese leaders on subjects like cooperation on AI and U.S.-China trade relations in recent years, the company has decreased its offerings in China. Microsoft President Brad Smith said in a subcommittee hearing last September that China made up just 1.5% of the company’s overall sales. The company posted sales of $212 billion in the last fiscal year.

Microsoft declined to comment.

Some state-owned companies are dragging their feet on orders to replace foreign IT products that are essential to their core businesses, people familiar with company procurements said, over concerns about the stability and performance of domestic alternatives.

But in addition to growing more advanced, China’s own technology is also well plugged into the local ecosystem. Providers of domestic business software allow interoperability with WeChat, a ubiquitous chat messaging app widely used in place of email among Chinese businesses.

The buy local policy is trickling down to privately run companies, which are showing greater inclination to buy domestic software, according to Morgan Stanley’s CIO survey.

Homegrown shift

A shift toward hosting and managing data on cloud servers instead of servers on the premises has also allowed Chinese companies to narrow the gap. Oracle, IBM and Microsoft dominated the database software market in China in 2010. Since then, Chinese companies including Alibaba and Huawei have come up with their own database management products to replace American technology.

China-based vendors took more than half of that market in China—worth $6.3 billion overall—for the first time in 2022, and continue to grow, according to researcher Gartner. Tenders examined by the Journal also show more state-linked entities and companies have opted for Huawei’s databases in recent years.

China’s banks, brokerage firms and insurers have sped up procurement of homegrown databases, Yang Bing, chief executive of Chinese database company OceanBase, said at a Beijing conference in November. OceanBase, developed by Alibaba and its fintech affiliate Ant Group, replaced Oracle databases at Alibaba and Ant in 2016.

Western companies are being replaced not just by Chinese national champions such as Huawei but also more specialized companies. Yonyou Network Technology, a Shanghai-listed firm with a market value of $6 billion, provides systems to manage businesses’ human resources, inventory and finances.

Yonyou has been gaining users at the expense of Oracle and SAP, which together used to dominate more than half the market, according to data from Chinese researcher Huaon Research Institute. By 2021, Yonyou had become the largest player in the market, holding 40%.

There continue to be pockets of opportunity in China for Western companies, especially in more advanced tech where China still lags behind and in sales to multinational companies operating there.

Looking forward, analysts say the preferential demand from China’s state sector could mean Western ones keep slipping further behind in the Chinese market.

“The growth of software requires continuous feedback from users,” said Han Lin, China head of the Asia Group, a business advisory firm, “and that will be the advantage of domestic providers.”

‘Continuation funds’ gain popularity amid subdued market for initial public offerings

The subdued market for initial public offerings in Asia is prodding private equity investors in the region to pursue a controversial strategy for exiting investments: selling assets to so-called continuation funds they raise themselves.

Five continuation funds closed in Asia last year, the most in a year since 2010, according to data from Preqin, and dealmakers say interest in creating more of the vehicles is rising, particularly in China.

“We have received many, many requests from the Chinese players,” said Won Ha, head of Singapore and South Korea for French private equity firm Ardian, which recently invested in a DWS continuation fund focused on infrastructure.

Private equity firms face pressure to sell their holdings because they raise money from their investors for set periods of time, typically up to 10 years. To lock in profits, they sell their holdings through initial public offerings or to other investors.

The IPO option has become more difficult because of challenging market conditions in places such as Hong Kong and China. “The equity markets, especially in Hong Kong and China, are very poor,” said a private equity manager who has been raising capital in Asia for a single-asset continuation fund.

The problem with continuation funds is that the firms involved are in effect sellers and buyers of the same assets, raising the question of how they can arrive at fair prices for such transactions.

One senior deal adviser at a global consulting group said private equity managers can put off the recognition of losses by selling investments to a continuation fund rather than listing them on public markets. Continuation funds typically last for seven years, dealmakers said.

“At best, there’s an appearance of a conflict of interest. At worst, there is a real conflict of interest,” said Rodney Muse, managing partner at Malaysia-based Navis Capital, which in 2021 closed a $450mn continuation fund with investments in five companies. In 2022, it sold one of those holdings, TES, a battery recycling group, to South Korea’s SK ecoplant for $1bn.

To manage conflicts, Navis solicited bids for its assets from 50 institutional investors and used the best one as the price for sales from its original fund to its continuation fund, Muse said. Investors in its original private quity funds, known as limited partners, had to live with the results, he added.

“It was still a discount — that’s the harsh reality,” Muse said. “There’s a whole lot to it to make sure that it doesn’t tarnish your brand, and that you really are looking after the [limited partners].”

To increase the appeal of continuation funds, managers also tend to lower their fees and commit more capital than they would in a typical fund “so there’s a strong alignment of interest”, said Jan Philipp Schmitz, executive vice-president at Ardian.

Hamilton Lane, a US private equity firm that has been a lead investor in at least three Asian continuation funds totalling $830mn since 2020, said it avoided being both a seller and buyer of the same underlying asset, according to Mingchen Xia, co-head of Asia investments. The three continuation funds include two managed by the Chinese group Legend Capital and one by US-based L Catterton.

Regional lender’s shares plunge 40% but recover following news of a deal to shore up its finances

New York Community Bank will raise more than $1bn in a deal led by the investment firm of former US Treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, in an effort to shore up its finances and calm fears after weeks of turmoil surrounding the bank.

The regional lender also appointed Joseph Otting, a former Comptroller of the Currency in the Donald Trump administration, as its new chief executive. Otting replaces Alessandro DiNello, who became CEO of the bank less than a week ago and will return to a previous role as non-executive chair. Mnuchin is also joining the board.

Mnuchin said: “With the over $1bn of capital invested in the bank, we believe we now have sufficient capital should reserves need to be increased in the future to be consistent with or above the coverage ratio of NYCB’s large bank peers.”

NYCB’s shares had plunged more than 40 per cent earlier on Wednesday, before being halted at $1.86 for the announcement, after a report about the potential stock sale. The stock, rebounded on the news of the deal, almost doubling from its lows, but is still down about two-thirds since the end of January. The shares closed up more than 7 per cent at $3.46.

The latest fall in NYCB’s stock was not echoed in the wider regional banking sector. The KBW Regional Bank index, which includes NYCB, closed down just 0.4 per cent on Wednesday.

The investor group will purchase NYCB’s common stock at a price of $2 per share and convertible preferred stock at the same conversion price, according to a press release. It will also receive warrants to buy additional non-voting shares at $2.50 per share.

Mnuchin’s firm, Liberty Strategic Capital, is being joined by other investors including Hudson Bay Capital, Reverence Capital Partners and hedge fund Citadel. The group cautioned that its $1.05bn total investment was subject to “finalisation of definitive documentation and receipt of applicable regulatory approvals”.

Mnuchin started Liberty in 2021 after leaving the Trump administration. It has raised more than $2.5bn and struck a handful of small deals, including building a minority stake in movie studio Lions Gate Entertainment and four cyber security companies. Liberty’s backers include SoftBank and Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund.

Reverence Capital, founded by three former Goldman Sachs executives, is led by Milton Berlinski, who founded the investment bank’s financial institutions group and has targeted mid-sized financial services deals.

DiNello said the involvement of Mnuchin, Otting and Berlinski was “a positive endorsement of the turnaround that is under way and allows us to execute on our strategy from a position of strength”.

In 2009, Mnuchin led a group of private equity investors that bought IndyMac, a mortgage lender that failed in the 2008 financial crisis, from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. After the deal closed, Otting was named chief executive of the bank, which was renamed OneWest and later sold to CIT.

Shares of NYCB have been under pressure since late January, when the bank reported a surprise loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. Moody’s cut the company’s credit rating over the weekend to junk status, days after the lender disclosed it had replaced its chief executive and identified “material weaknesses” in internal controls that guide how loans are reviewed.

NYCB is working with Jefferies as a financial adviser. Its legal advisers are a team lead by Sven Mickisch, a Skadden Arps partner who was recently hired by Simpson Thacher.

The largest funding rounds raised by startups are becoming rarer and rarer. For upstart companies working on the future of energy, however, the market is surprisingly strong.

The venture deceleration, and its late-stage glaciation, are not stopping the companies that want to reinvent energy from raising huge rounds. Given what we’re seeing around the world, it’s a welcome fact, even if it does feel a decade or more too late.

Powering up

Nine-figure rounds are often called “mega-rounds” due to their massive heft. During the first two months and first days of March last year, some 12 deals met our “energy” criteria, tracking companies that are working in power generation and distribution using Crunchbase data. This includes projects like solar power generation, batteries and EV charging. We did not include OEMs that build electric vehicles like Lucid or Fisker in our analysis, however.

From the start of 2023 through March 4 of the same year, 11 deals met our criteria. Of that group, seven were based in China. During the same portion of Q1 2024, we saw 12 deals that met our standards. However, this time around only one was a Chinese company.

A reformed global venture capital market

As the global venture capital market adjusts to persistently higher interest rates, capital flowing into technology startups has slowed. The deceleration of private-market investing into private tech companies has been especially sharp in the later-stages of startup formation, thanks to a limited exit environment and less ebullient public-market valuations for many software companies.

Later-stage startup dealmaking has changed so much in the last several quarters that it’s easy to forget how bullish private-market investors were in recent years. CB Insights reported that from Q1 2019 through Q4 2022, every quarter saw more than 100 nine-figure deals, or startup rounds worth $100 million or more. In contrast, Q4 2023 saw just 78, the worst result since at least the end of 2018.

More recent data underscores a continuing trend. A TechCrunch analysis of Crunchbase data found that from January 1 through March 4 2023, around 115 rounds met our criteria for nine-figure private-market deals (excluding private equity, all post-IPO transactions, certain debt rounds, etc.). During the same portion of this year, the number fell to 75.

If the number of energy-focused mega-rounds was all but flat year-over-year, why highlight the metric? Because energy-focused mega-rounds made up a larger portion of the nine-figure deals that TechCrunch analyzed, from just under 10% in the 2023 period we are examining to 16% in the same portion of 2024. That’s a more than 60% gain in relative share, a massive shift for any single sector in just one year.

That’s why the 12 venture capital rounds that we saw in the energy sector stood out to us like a beacon; there aren’t that many to see, period, making the density in one sector that is not as known to be in favor (as with AI) all the more remarkable. And with a massive geographic shift underway at the same time, something is clearly heating up in energy-land.

Inside energy’s power surge

In 2023, China dominated energy mega-rounds, with most of the money going to makers of solar panels and battery materials. Both are sectors that China has lavished with incentives and state funding, and as a result, the country has dominated the market for both. In 2021, 75% of the world’s solar modules and a whopping 85% of all cells were made in China, according to the International Energy Agency. The new funding, therefore, was less about investing in a promising market than lapping the competition.

The same could be said for battery materials. Chinese companies own 75% of the graphite supply chain, which encompasses everything from mining to finished anodes, according to Benchmark Minerals Intelligence. And yet two Chinese companies attracted a combined $380 million of investment in the first quarter of 2023.

Fast-forward to this year and the picture in energy mega-rounds looks dramatically different. Diversity is the name of the game. Only one Chinese firm cracked the top ranks, with the remainder almost equally balanced between the U.S. and EU. That’s because of industrial policy: The Inflation Reduction Act in the U.S. and the Green Deal in the EU offered hundreds of billions in incentives for manufacturers and suppliers to set up operations onshore. In return, companies have invested hundreds of billions more. These mega-rounds are a reaction to market trends, suggesting that the reshoring of key parts of the climate tech economy will persist for years to come.

Geographic diversity is only part of the picture. Where solar and battery materials captured the lion’s share of megadeals in 2023, the same round sizes this year have been spread across a range of technologies. Geothermal energy, industrial heat, e-fuels, battery recycling, EV charging, lithium mining and geologic hydrogen are all accounted for. Even heat pumps, a decades-old technology, received a €145 million infusion — that’s how promising that market has become.

The wide range of industries represented this year suggests that many formerly early-stage companies have mastered their science or technical risks and have started their journey toward commercialization. Investors appear confident they’ll make it, too, happy to underwrite a part of the startup journey that delivers smaller though more likely returns. The IPO window is still probably a few more years away for these companies, but the check sizes suggest that investors can see it on the horizon.

With the ocean at record temps, news about sea ice looking grim and droughts hitting hard around the world, it’s a good moment to sit back and consider what we are doing to our small planet. The above investing trends are welcome, but with carbon emissions still setting records, we’re still throwing cups of water at a house fire. More, and faster, please

OpenAI, the most valuable AI startup, said Wednesday it intends to dismiss all claims made by Elon Musk in a recent lawsuit and suggested that the billionaire entrepreneur, who was involved in the company’s co-founding, didn’t really have that much impact on its development and success.

In a blog post authored by the entire OpenAI band — Greg Brockman, Ilya Sutskever, John Schulman, Sam Altman, Wojciech Zaremba and OpenAI — the Microsoft-backed startup revealed that since its inception in 2015, it had raised less than $45 million from Musk, despite his initial commitment to provide as much as $1 billion in funding. The startup also secured more than $90 million from other donors to support its research efforts, it said.

OpenAI’s response follows Musk suing Altman, Brockman, OpenAI and other affiliates of the firm last week, alleging the ChatGPT-maker had breached its original contractual agreements by pursuing profits instead of the nonprofit’s founding mission to develop AI that benefits humanity. OpenAI was founded to build a counterweight to Google, he said.

OpenAI’s founding agreement required the startup to make its technology “freely available” to the public but the firm had over time changed its priorities to maximizing profits for Microsoft, Musk said in the lawsuit.

The high-stakes legal battle between Musk and OpenAI could have far-reaching implications for the future of AI. As the most valuable AI startup, with a valuation of over $80 billion, OpenAI’s success with ChatGPT has ignited an unprecedented AI race since its public release in late 2022. The outcome of this lawsuit could significantly impact the direction and pace of AI development, as well as the balance of power among key players in the industry.

In its blog post today, OpenAI asserted that as it recognized the vast computational resources necessary to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) — an AI system with human-level or superior intelligence — it became clear that the annual costs would amount to billions of dollars. This realization led to the understanding that transitioning to a for-profit structure was essential to secure the required funding and resources.

This is when disagreements started between Musk and other co-founders of OpenAI, OpenAI wrote in the blog post, which includes five email exchanges between Musk and OpenAI executives.

“As we discussed a for-profit structure in order to further the mission, Elon wanted us to merge with Tesla or he wanted full control. Elon left OpenAI, saying there needed to be a relevant competitor to Google/DeepMind and that he was going to do it himself. He said he’d be supportive of us finding our own path,” OpenAI wrote.

“In early February 2018, Elon forwarded us an email suggesting that OpenAI should ‘attach to Tesla as its cash cow,’ commenting that it was ‘exactly right . . . Tesla is the only path that could even hope to hold a candle to Google,'” OpenAI wrote.

OpenAI said Wednesday it maintains that its mission is to ensure AGI benefits all of humanity, which includes developing safe and beneficial AGI while promoting widespread access to its tools. OpenAI’s technology is being used in places, including Kenya and India, to empower people and improve their daily lives, the startup wrote.

“We’re sad that it’s come to this with someone whom we’ve deeply admired — someone who inspired us to aim higher, then told us we would fail, started a competitor, and then sued us when we started making meaningful progress towards OpenAI’s mission without him,” OpenAI wrote in the blog post.

In response to Musk’s accusation of OpenAI abandoning its open source principles, the Microsoft-backed startup countered by emphasizing that Musk had been aware of and agreed to the eventual shift away from complete transparency as the organization made significant progress in its AGI development.

“Elon understood the mission did not imply open-sourcing AGI. As Ilya told Elon: ‘As we get closer to building AI, it will make sense to start being less open. The Open in openAI means that everyone should benefit from the fruits of AI after its built, but it’s totally OK to not share the science . . . ,’ to which Elon replied: ‘Yup.'”