From a BCG Report: “The gender pay gap is well documented: women make about 80 cents for every dollar that a man earns. Less well known: the gender investment gap. According to our research, when women business owners pitch their ideas to investors for early-stage capital, they receive significantly less—a disparity that averages more than $1 million—than men. Yet businesses founded by women ultimately deliver higher revenue—more than twice as much per dollar invested—than those founded by men, making women-owned companies better investments for financial backers. “

Though I have not read the full BCG study, what we see here is that women looking for funds are fewer and on average are more prepared than men. Yes, the women have deeper experience and are more prepared to lead companies. You rarely see a woman coming out of college and asking for funds to run a startup. But men do that all the time. In short, many men do drop out to become founders. Statistically, women run the shows better.

But it is not about gender.  Simply, it is analogous to what happens when you compare Africa’s top 10% of graduating class who migrate to America with the broad brothers and sisters who came before us. Women are those new  immigrants while the men are the broad spectrum of those who came before. Statistically, the migrant Africans do outperform because they’re already filtered across American embassies.

In other words, what BCG found is supported but it is not necessarily about gender. Rather, those women who do get funds are always better and prepared to lead. They have accomplished so much before coming to raise funds while men can ask for money without even knowing why. When you run the average, women hold the ace, statistically, because the very best end up being funded.

One might think that gender plays no role in the realm of investing in early-stage companies. Investors make calculated decisions that are—or should be—based on business plans and projections. Moreover, a growing body of evidence shows that organizations with a higher percentage of women in leadership roles outperform male-dominated companies. (See “ How Diverse Leadership Teams Boost Innovation ,” BCG article, January 2018.) Unfortunately, however, women-owned companies don’t get the same level of financial backing as those founded by men.

To determine the scope of the funding gap, BCG turned to the detailed data MassChallenge has collected on the startup organizations it has worked with. About 42% of all MassChallenge-accelerated businesses—of all types and in all locations—have had at least one female founder. Aiming to build on the growing proportion of women entrepreneurs, the availability of education and support for them, and the sizable community of women who are business experts, MassChallenge determined that it needed to learn more about how its women entrepreneurs were faring and how the program could better prepare them for future success.

In a review of five years of investment and revenue data, the gender-focused analysis showed a clear funding gap (see the exhibit).

Last night, I read Larry Fink’s 2025 Annual Chairman’s Letter to investors. Fink is the Chairman of Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager, managing close to US$12 trillion. He wrote about the democratization of investing: “When the world’s first stock exchange opened in Amsterdam in 1602, investing became a more democratic enterprise. Until then, investing was mostly reserved for wealthy merchants. And indeed, about 90% of the original 1,143 investors at Amsterdam’s exchange were wealthy. But the remaining investors were ordinary people. They included 53 artisans, eight shopkeepers, six silk weavers, four soap makers—and at least two maids who each invested 50 guilders, about enough to rent a modest cottage for a year.

A few years ago, I was in Amsterdam on the invitation of The Netherlands Academy of Engineering, to speak on microelectronics and neuromorphics. They took me to a building, and shared the story of New Amsterdam, and what we call now New York City. As we toured the place, my mind flashed how capital has moved from Amsterdam, to the modern New York City, and massively democratized investing. In Fink’s letter, he wrote “Economies run on capital” and humans control capital.

On Monday, April 7 2025, Tekedia Capital will begin our twice yearly tradition where ordinary citizens come together, pool resources, and take positions in startups and empires of the future. As that next week arrives, we will have Tekedia Capital Open, a free and open event for all, titled “The Abundance of Nations”, and during that share a top-level synthesis of 17 startups joining our next investment cycle.

• Event: Tekedia Capital Open
• Topic: The Abundance of Nations and Preview of Next Tekedia Capital Investment Cycle’s 17 Startups
• Date: Saturday, April 5, 2025
• Time: 4-5pm WAT
• Zoom link: here 

To learn more about Tekedia Capital and join our community, go here.

Find below the key dates for the next Tekedia Capital investment cycle.

• Duration: April 7 – May 15, 2025
• Startups Unveiling in Portal: April 7
• Demo Day: April 26, 2025

Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr have invested in a Bitcoin-mining company. It was reported that the two brothers partnered with Hut 8, a publicly traded cryptocurrency infrastructure firm, to launch a new venture called American Bitcoin. The Trump brothers merged their company, American Data Centers, with Hut 8, securing a 20% stake in American Bitcoin, while Hut 8 holds the remaining 80%. Eric Trump has taken on the role of Chief Strategy Officer for the new company, which aims to leverage Hut 8’s 61,000 mining machines to become a major player in Bitcoin mining. The venture also plans to build a “Bitcoin reserve” by retaining mined coins, with intentions to capitalize on low U.S. energy costs for efficient operations. This move marks a significant expansion of the Trump family’s growing involvement in the cryptocurrency industry.

The investment by Eric and Donald Trump Jr. in a Bitcoin-mining company like American Bitcoin, in partnership with Hut 8, carries several potential implications across economic, political, and environmental spheres. The Trump family’s high-profile involvement could lend legitimacy and visibility to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining, potentially encouraging more institutional and retail investment in the sector. Their participation might signal to others that crypto is a viable long-term asset class. With a 20% stake in a company tied to Hut 8’s infrastructure (61,000 mining machines), the Trumps could influence Bitcoin’s supply dynamics if American Bitcoin’s “Bitcoin reserve” strategy succeeds in hoarding mined coins, potentially driving up prices during scarcity periods.

Bitcoin mining operations, especially if scaled in the U.S. with a focus on low energy costs, could create jobs in regions hosting data centers, aligning with broader economic development narratives. This venture strengthens the Trump family’s pivot toward tech and finance, diversifying their business portfolio beyond real estate and media. It could also bolster their appeal among libertarian-leaning or crypto-enthusiast voter bases, especially if tied to deregulation or “America First” energy policies.

Given their political connections—particularly with Donald Trump Sr.’s past presidency and potential future influence—the brothers might push for crypto-friendly legislation, such as tax incentives for miners or relaxed regulations on energy use, shaping the U.S. crypto landscape. Their involvement might polarize opinions on crypto further. Supporters may see it as a bold move toward innovation, while critics could view it as another opportunistic venture by a controversial family, especially if linked to speculative bubbles or environmental concerns.

Bitcoin mining is notoriously energy intensive. American Bitcoin’s focus on leveraging “low U.S. energy costs” could reignite debates about sustainability, especially if operations rely on fossil fuels rather than renewables. Critics may point to the carbon footprint, while proponents might argue it drives energy infrastructure investment. Depending on where mining facilities are located, local ecosystems and power grids could face strain, particularly in areas with cheap but non-renewable energy sources. This could lead to community pushback or, conversely, economic revitalization in energy-rich regions.

American Bitcoin enters a crowded field with established players like Marathon Digital and Riot Platforms. The Trump name might give it a branding edge, but success will hinge on operational efficiency and market conditions (e.g., Bitcoin price volatility or mining difficulty). If Bitcoin’s price drops or mining profitability wanes (due to halving events or regulatory crackdowns), the venture could face financial strain, impacting the Trumps’ reputation and Hut 8’s stock performance. The Trump brothers’ involvement might deepen the cultural divide around cryptocurrency—seen by some as a revolutionary tool and by others as a speculative fad. Their polarizing personas could amplify this split.

By framing it as an “American” endeavor, they might tap into nationalist sentiment, positioning Bitcoin mining as a patriotic counter to foreign dominance (e.g., China’s past mining supremacy). In summary, this investment could ripple through markets, policy, and public discourse, amplifying both opportunities and risks in the crypto space. Its success—and broader impact—will likely depend on Bitcoin’s trajectory, energy strategies, and the Trumps’ ability to navigate their unique blend of business and political capital.