DD
MM
YYYY

CATEGORIES

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

CATEGORIES

PAGES

Home Blog Page 32

Female Founders in Germany Significantly Outpaced by Male Founders in Startup Funding 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Recent data confirms that female founders in Germany continue to be significantly outpaced by male founders in startup funding, with a persistent and in some metrics widening gender gap in venture capital (VC) allocation.

Female representation among founders remains low and has declined slightly. Women make up only about 19% of startup founders in Germany down to 18.8% in the latest Female Founders Monitor 2025 by Bertelsmann Stiftung, after years of modest growth. This drop is partly linked to economic pressures hitting sectors like B2C where women are more represented.

Funding disparity is stark: All-male founding teams receive the vast majority of VC funding — around 91% according to the Female Founders Monitor 2025. Startups with at least one female founder secure only about 9% of total VC volume and 15% of funding rounds. All-female founded startups fare even worse: They account for roughly 4% of funded startups but receive just 1% (or in some DACH-region data, as low as 0.6%) of total investment volume.

Specific 2024 figures from the EY Startup Barometer 2025 highlight the gap: Out of 702 German startups that received investment, only 27 (4%) had all-female teams, raising €43 million — a 58% decrease from €102 million in 2023. All-male teams (79% of funded startups) raised €6.2 billion, up 25% year-over-year.

Mixed-gender teams raised €834 million (12% of volume). Female-founded startups dropped to 1% of total investment volume from 2% in 2023, despite representing 4% of funded companies. In the broader DACH region in 2024: Women-only teams received close to 2% of funding and ~6% of rounds. Mixed teams improved to 22.8% of funding volume.

Germany showed the lowest female founder representation in the region at ~10.6% of founders. This gap persists despite evidence that diverse teams often perform strongly; higher revenue per dollar invested in some global studies, and factors like unconscious bias, work-life balance challenges, fewer female role models, and differences in investor networks contribute.

Awareness of the issue is higher among female founders (87%) than males around 50%. While mixed-gender teams show some progress, and public/grant funding helps female-led ventures more proportionally, the overall trend indicates male founders continue to dominate VC funding in Germany’s startup ecosystem. Initiatives like targeted funds and bias awareness aim to address this, but substantial change remains slow.

Social norms and gender expectations shape aspirations from youth:Men are more likely to view entrepreneurship as a career goal during youth or studies (65% of male founders vs. 43% of female founders). In higher education, female students prioritize job security (60%) over entrepreneurial risks, compared to male students (32%).

Only 21% of female students consider starting a business or joining a startup, vs. 40% of males. Young women often lack visible female role models in entrepreneurship, and education systems fail to challenge stereotypes about who makes an “ideal” founder; technical expertise, risk-taking associated more with men.

 

This results in fewer women pursuing high-growth, VC-attractive ventures from the start. A major structural barrier is reconciling entrepreneurship with family/care work:81% of female founders and 60% of males in the ecosystem see family-entrepreneurship compatibility as crucial to closing the gap.

Women face a “double risk”: financial uncertainty from startups combined with primary childcare responsibilities. Many lack a stable partner for support, unlike some male founders. This deters entry into entrepreneurship and makes high-intensity fundraising (long cycles, travel, networking) harder, often leading to slower scaling or avoidance of VC-heavy paths.

VC decisions are influenced by biases: Investors predominantly male; women hold few decision-making roles in German and European VC firms tend to back founders similar to themselves (“pattern matching”). Female founders face scrutiny on risks and outcomes, while males are evaluated on potential and growth.

Stereotypes portray men as better suited for entrepreneurial roles. Women-led pitches may be seen as less innovative or scalable, even when data shows diverse teams often perform strongly. This perpetuates a vicious cycle: fewer female investors mean less early-stage support for women-led startups.

Female founders often target sectors like B2C, health, education, sustainability, or regional/service-oriented models: These attract less VC interest (perceived as lower scalability or capital needs) compared to male-dominated areas like deep tech or global software.

Economic downturns hit consumer-focused sectors harder; where women are overrepresented, contributing to the 2024 decline in female founders down to 18.8%. Women enter entrepreneurship later, often after professional experience, focusing on social impact rather than high-risk/high-reward models favored by VCs.

Fewer female angel investors and VCs limit early support and progression to later stages. Male-dominated networks exclude women from key connections. German bureaucracy adds hurdles for all, but compounds issues for underrepresented founders. 87% of female founders see inequality as a problem in the ecosystem, but only ~50% of male founders agree rising to 64% in mixed teams.

This reduces collective urgency for change. While mixed-gender teams show progress gaining funding share, and public/grant funding helps more proportionally, the overall VC disparity persists. All-male teams received ~91% of funding in recent data, with female-only teams at ~1-4% of volume despite representing a small but notable share of founders.

Experts emphasize that addressing these requires better entrepreneurial education, role models, family support policies, bias training, and more women in investing roles to unlock economic potential.

Trump Victory Card in Iranian War Will Be Profound if Strait of Hormuz Aren’t Restricted to the West 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

The US under President Trump and Israel initiated major military strikes on Iran starting February 28, 2026, which escalated into an ongoing war. In direct response, Iran effectively closed or severely restricted the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil and significant LNG supplies normally flow.

Shipping traffic has plummeted to near-zero for Western-aligned vessels and often overall, with reports of only a handful of transits per day at best—sometimes as low as one. Iran has declared the strait open under “special conditions” but closed to US, Israeli, and allied/enemy ships, threatening attacks via missiles, drones, speedboats, or mines on any attempting passage.

This has caused oil prices to surge well above $100/barrel, prompted massive strategic reserve releases, and created broader supply chain ripples affecting energy, metals, agriculture, and more. Trump has repeatedly claimed decisive military success—describing Iran’s military as “decimated,” its navy destroyed, and little left to target—while pushing for a quick resolution.

He has urged and pressured allies, NATO partners, China, Japan, South Korea, France, the UK, and others to send warships to secure and reopen the strait, framing it as essential for global energy security and warning of consequences. However, responses have been tepid or non-committal so far, with reluctance to escalate into direct naval confrontation.

Iran’s side—via statements from the new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, IRGC officials, and others—has insisted the closure and blockade remains a key leverage tool against “enemies” and aggressors. They reject unconditional surrender demands, refuse to reopen for US and allied traffic without concessions like US withdrawal from the region, and show no immediate signs of backing down.

Some Iranian diplomats have downplayed a total closure while defending the right to secure the waterway, but on-the-ground reality is de facto disruption. Without the strait reopening, Trump lacks a clear “victory” moment to declare—especially as global economic pain mounts; higher fuel/food prices, stalled shipping, etc. and the war’s costs climb already ~$12 billion for the US in the first weeks.

This removes an easy off-ramp, increasing pressure for further escalation; direct US Navy escorts, mine-clearing ops, strikes on IRGC assets in/near the strait, or broader coalition action to force it open. Analysts note Iran has incentives to limit total disruption (they need oil revenue too), but current statements point to persistence.

Partial reopening or selective exemptions for non-Western ships like China/India have been floated but aren’t resolving the core impasse. The conflict shows no quick end in sight, with risks of spillover into Lebanon/Hezbollah, Gulf attacks and economic fallout continuing to build.

Higher fuel, shipping, and freight costs are pushing up consumer prices across the board. Analysts warn of 2–2.5 percentage point global inflation increases in prolonged scenarios, with stagflation risks (high inflation + slowed growth) reminiscent of the 1970s oil shocks.

Global GDP hit: Estimates range from $330 billion (short disruption) to $2.2 trillion (3–6 months of severe closure), with Gulf economies potentially down 22%. Net oil importers (Asia, Europe) face the heaviest burdens—e.g., mass disruptions in Asian economies within days, weaker trade balances, currency pressures, and reduced manufacturing.

Gasoline prices have jumped sharply; +65 cents/gallon or more since late February, with averages pushing toward $4+ in many areas; diesel potentially $4.50–$5. This raises costs for transport, goods, heating, and electricity, contributing to a moderate stagflationary drag. Stock markets show volatility, with safe-haven shifts (gold, yen, Swiss franc).

Supply chain ripples: Shipping insurance rates have skyrocketed, rerouting adds delays/costs, and sectors like autos, metals, agriculture, and aviation feel the pain. A prolonged halt could tip vulnerable economies into recession.

 

Germany Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2025 Showed Minimal Decline 

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Germany’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2025 showed only a minimal decline, barely allowing the country to meet its national annual climate target under the Climate Protection Act (Klimaschutzgesetz), according to official data released by the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt, UBA).

Emissions totaled around 649 million tonnes of CO? equivalents, down by just 0.1% from 2024 levels. This placed them approximately 12.8 million tonnes below the legally permitted limit for the year around 662 million tonnes, based on sectoral budgets and overall caps in the Act. Environment Minister Carsten Schneider described the reduction as insufficient, highlighting the slowdown compared to stronger declines in prior years.

This near-stagnation contrasts with earlier estimates from think tank Agora Energiewende in January 2026, which projected a 1.5% drop to about 640 million tonnes, driven by factors like industrial recession, record solar power generation which overtook natural gas and coal in the energy mix for the first time, but offset by rising emissions in buildings (+3.2%, due to colder weather boosting heating demand) and transport (+1.4%, from higher fuel use).

The official UBA figures appear higher and show far less progress, possibly reflecting updated or finalized inventory methods.The tiny 0.1% cut underscores challenges in key sectors: Energy/power saw benefits from renewables expansion. Industry benefited from economic weakness reducing output. Buildings and transport lagged significantly, with slow adoption of heat pumps, electric vehicles, and efficiency measures.

Germany remains on a path toward its longer-term goals—65% reduction by 2030 vs. 1990 levels and climate neutrality by 2045—but experts warn the current pace is inadequate for 2030 ambitions and EU obligations. Without accelerated action, the country risks missing cumulative budgets, potentially requiring expensive allowance purchases from other EU states.

This development has sparked criticism of insufficient policy momentum, especially amid economic pressures and political shifts. Stronger measures in electrification, building retrofits, and transport decarbonization will be essential to regain traction.

The buildings sector in Germany remains one of the most persistent challenges in meeting national and EU climate targets, as highlighted by the minimal overall emissions progress in 2025. Emissions from buildings rose or stagnated in recent years, driven by structural and implementation hurdles, despite some policy tools in place.

In 2025, emissions in the buildings sector increased by approximately 3.2% around 3 million tonnes CO? equivalents compared to 2024, reaching roughly 104 million tonnes CO? eq according to estimates from Agora Energiewende with official UBA figures aligning closely in the 100-104 Mt range for recent years.

This rise was largely weather-related — a colder start to the year boosted heating demand, leading to higher consumption of natural gas and heating oil (+3% each). Even weather-adjusted trends show slow decarbonization, with the sector repeatedly missing annual indicative targets under the Climate Protection Act. For instance, 2024 emissions were around 100.5 Mt CO? eq against a permitted 95.8 Mt, and projections indicate a cumulative shortfall of about 110 million tonnes from 2021-2030.

Key challenges include: Slow adoption of renewable heating technologies, particularly heat pumps. Sales reached around 300,000 units in 2025; a rebound from lower 2024 levels and surpassing gas boiler sales for the first time, but rollout remains far below the pace needed for 2030 goals. High upfront costs, uncertainty from policy debates including past controversies over the Building Energy Act/GEG “Heating Act”, limited installer capacity, and concerns about suitability in older, poorly insulated buildings deter faster uptake.

Low energy efficiency renovation rates. The annual refurbishment rate hovers around 1% of the building stock — roughly half the level needed to align with climate targets. Most of Germany’s building stock is old (pre-1970s), with high heating energy demand from fossil fuels (gas and oil dominate).

Energetic retrofits (insulation, windows, etc.) progress slowly due to high costs, landlord-tenant split incentives (where landlords pay for upgrades but tenants benefit from lower bills), bureaucratic hurdles, and insufficient scaling of programs like the Federal Funding for Efficient Buildings (BEG).

Around 78% of sector emissions come from households, with gas/oil heating prevalent. Mild winters previously masked underlying issues by reducing demand, but colder periods expose vulnerabilities. Higher energy prices in recent years encouraged some savings, but not enough structural change. Policy and regulatory uncertainty. Frequent debates and revisions create hesitation among homeowners and investors.

Upcoming EU-ETS 2 from 2027 will add carbon pricing to fuels for heating, potentially increasing costs without sufficient accompanying support. These issues contribute to broader risks: the sector drives much of Germany’s projected shortfall under the EU Effort Sharing Regulation (non-ETS sectors), potentially requiring expensive allowance purchases from other EU states.

Experts from UBA, Agora Energiewende, and others stress that without accelerated action — faster heat pump deployment, higher renovation rates targeting 2-2.5%, targeted subsidies, better information, and reliable frameworks — the buildings sector will continue lagging, jeopardizing 2030 and 2045 neutrality goals.Positive notes include growing heat pump acceptance in some cases and support via BEG funding, which has delivered notable savings in promoted projects.

However, the pace remains insufficient to offset stagnation or rises in other lagging sectors like transport. Stronger, consistent measures in electrification, efficiency, and incentives are urgently needed to regain momentum.

European Stocks Slip As Middle East Conflict And $100 Oil Weigh On Investor Sentiment

By
Samuel Nwite
-
0

European equities opened lower on Monday as the intensifying conflict involving Iran and the surge in global oil prices unsettled investors, reinforcing concerns that geopolitical tensions could soon begin to ripple through the global economy.

The pan-European STOXX Europe 600 fell 0.4% shortly after 9:40 a.m. in London, with most regional sectors and major stock markets trading in negative territory.

Among the region’s key benchmarks, Germany’s DAX declined 0.4%, France’s CAC 40 slipped nearly 0.6%, and Italy’s FTSE MIB dropped more than 1%. The UK’s FTSE 100, however, remained broadly flat as gains in energy companies helped offset wider market losses.

The cautious tone across European markets underscores how investors are increasingly bracing for the economic consequences of the escalating war in the Middle East and the sharp jump in oil prices.

Energy Stocks Rise As Crude Tops $100

Oil and gas companies led the gains in early trading as crude prices remained elevated. Benchmark Brent Crude has climbed above $100 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate also surged past the same threshold late Sunday, extending a rally that has seen oil rise more than 40% this month.

The surge in prices follows military strikes by the United States and Israel on Iranian targets and subsequent retaliatory measures by Tehran, including disruptions to shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

The narrow waterway between Iran and Oman is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, carrying roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Any sustained disruption there threatens to tighten global supply and amplify inflationary pressures.

The spike in oil prices has therefore become a double-edged sword for equity markets. While energy companies benefit from stronger crude prices, sectors sensitive to fuel costs—such as airlines, transport, and manufacturing—face higher operating expenses.

Reflecting that dynamic, autos, utilities, and travel stocks led the declines in European trading.

One of the few bright spots in the market was the German banking sector. Shares in Commerzbank jumped 3.9% after UniCredit launched an offer to increase its stake in the German lender to above 30%, a threshold that triggers important regulatory considerations and could pave the way for a potential full takeover bid.

The Italian banking group’s proposal is reportedly priced at about a 4% premium to Commerzbank’s share price, highlighting UniCredit’s ambition to deepen its presence in Germany’s banking market.

Despite the development, UniCredit’s own shares slipped 1.9%, suggesting investors remain cautious about the costs and regulatory complexities associated with cross-border banking consolidation in Europe.

Geopolitics Dominate Market Outlook

For global markets, the conflict involving Iran remains the overriding concern. Energy prices spiked again after reports that the White House was weighing potential military strikes on Iranian oil export facilities on Kharg Island, a key terminal that handles a significant portion of the country’s crude exports.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said in an interview with the Financial Times that his planned visit to China later this month could be delayed as Washington presses Beijing to help reopen shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The remarks underscore how the conflict is quickly evolving into a broader geopolitical and economic challenge, drawing in major global powers whose economies rely heavily on energy supplies passing through the Gulf.

Adding to the market uncertainty, several of the world’s most influential central banks are scheduled to hold policy meetings this week. The Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, and Bank of England are all set to announce interest-rate decisions in the coming days.

Before the escalation in the Middle East, investors had been anticipating signals about potential interest-rate cuts as inflation cooled in many economies. However, the sharp surge in oil prices now threatens to reignite inflation pressures, complicating the outlook for policymakers.

As a result, expectations for imminent policy easing have cooled, with analysts suggesting central banks may adopt a wait-and-see stance until the economic fallout from the conflict becomes clearer.

Global Markets Brace For Spillover Effects

The geopolitical uncertainty has already rippled across other regions. Markets in the Asia-Pacific region fell overnight as investors reacted to the spike in oil prices and the intensifying conflict, while U.S. stock futures edged slightly higher as traders attempted to stabilize Wall Street after another losing week.

With no major earnings announcements or economic data releases scheduled in Europe on Monday, market sentiment is likely to remain closely tied to geopolitical developments.

The immediate concern for investors is that if the unrest in the Middle East continues and oil prices remain elevated, the consequences could extend far beyond energy markets—raising inflation, slowing economic growth, and testing the resilience of global financial markets.

Aave Releases Post-Mortem on Major Swap Incident of User Losing $50M to Swap

By
Paul Ugbede Godwin
-
0

Aave has released an official post-mortem on a major swap incident from March 12, 2026, where a user lost approximately $50 million specifically around $50.4 million while attempting to swap aEthUSDT (wrapped USDT) for aEthAAVE via the CoW Swap router integrated into the Aave interface (aave.com).

What Happened

The user tried to exchange roughly $50.43 million worth of aEthUSDT for AAVE tokens. Due to extremely low liquidity in the relevant markets and routing issues, the trade executed with a massive ~99.9% price impact. The user ended up receiving only about 324–327 aEthAAVE tokens, valued at roughly $36,000–$36,500 at the time—a near-total loss of over $50 million.

This wasn’t a hack or exploit of the Aave core lending protocol which remained unaffected. Instead, it stemmed from: Executing a very large order in an illiquid market/pool. Routing through CoW Swap (a third-party aggregator), which provided a poor quote under the circumstances.

A sandwich attack by an MEV bot that captured around $10 million in profit from the trade. The user explicitly confirming multiple high-risk warnings in the interface including a checkbox acknowledging potential extreme slippage or total loss. Aave emphasized that the interface displayed strong warnings, and the trade required user confirmation.

CoW Swap published its own separate post-mortem, highlighting infrastructure and auction failures that compounded the poor execution. Aave plans to contact the affected user and refund approximately $110,000–$600,000 in fees collected from the transaction via the 0.25% swap fee on the interface, pending verification.

In direct response, Aave is deploying a new protective feature called Aave Shield. This will: Automatically block any token swaps on the Aave interface (aave.com) that would result in a price impact greater than 25%. Act as a default high-friction guardrail to prevent similar catastrophic executions in low-liquidity scenarios.

Allow advanced users to disable it manually in settings if they accept the higher risk. The goal is to enhance user protections without altering the underlying permissionless nature of DeFi, while reducing the chance of users accidentally or carelessly approving ruinous trades. This incident has sparked broader discussions on DeFi UX, liquidity fragmentation, MEV risks, and the need for better frontend safeguards—especially for large trades.

Interestingly, despite the negative event, AAVE token price has seen some upward movement in reports, possibly tied to perceived proactive response or broader market factors.

MEV sandwich attacks are one of the most common and notorious forms of Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) exploitation in DeFi, particularly on automated market makers (AMMs) like Uniswap, or when trades route through aggregators.

MEV refers to the additional profit that block producers (miners in pre-merge Ethereum, validators post-merge), searchers, or bots can extract by reordering, including, including, or censoring transactions within a block they control or influence. A sandwich attack specifically targets a user’s large swap (often on a DEX) by “sandwiching” their transaction between two of the attacker’s own transactions.

This manipulates the price in the liquidity pool to the attacker’s advantage, forcing the victim to get a worse execution price while the attacker pockets the difference. A user broadcasts a transaction to swap a significant amount of Token A for Token B; swapping millions in USDT for another token on a low-liquidity pool.

This pending tx sits in the public mempool visible to everyone, including MEV bots. Attacker detects the opportunity. Sophisticated bots constantly scan the mempool for large trades that will cause meaningful price impact / slippage due to the AMM’s constant product formula (x * y = k).

The attacker submits their own buy transaction just before the victim’s tx. If the victim is buying Token B, the attacker buys Token B first ? this pushes the price of Token B up in the pool. The victim’s swap now executes against a worse price for Token B, receiving fewer tokens than expected.

The user’s trade goes through at the now-inflated price ? they suffer extra slippage and get rekt (worse rate). Immediately after the victim’s tx, the attacker submits a sell transaction. They sell the Token B they just bought back into the pool at the now-higher price created by the victim’s large buy.

This captures the profit from the temporary price spike. The three transactions end up in the same block in this order: The attacker risks almost no capital often using flash loans for zero-risk execution and extracts profit purely from the victim’s slippage. Imagine a low-liquidity Uniswap pool with USDC-TOKEN: Without attack: Your $1M USDC buy might get you 10,000 TOKEN at an average ~$100 each.

In extreme cases like very illiquid pairs or huge orders, victims can lose massive portions of value — as seen in incidents where users lost tens of millions due to near-total slippage amplified by sandwiches. Transactions in the mempool are public ? bots see them instantly.

Validators / builders can reorder txs within a block post-Merge via PBS — proposer-builder separation — this has evolved but sandwiches persist. AMMs are deterministic and permissionless ? predictable price impact from order size. Trade via CoW Swap or other intent-based / batch-auction protocols.

Set tight slippage tolerance. Avoid huge trades in low-liquidity pools. Newer frontend features like the Aave Shield’s 25% price impact block add guardrails. Some chains or encrypted mempools reduce visibility. Sandwich attacks remain one of the biggest “taxes” on regular DeFi users — generating millions in weekly profits for searchers — but awareness, better routing, and protocol-level fixes continue to chip away at their dominance.

1...313233...8,376Page 32 of 8,376

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy

© Tekedia. All rights reserved.

Term & Privacy