Yellow Card expands global stablecoin network with Swiss regulatory approval
Yellow Card, the stablecoin infrastructure provider operating across Africa and other emerging markets, has secured a regulatory anti-money laundering (AML) affiliation in Switzerland, allowing it to offer regulated virtual asset-related services through a supervised Swiss entity. The approval enables institutional and corporate clients to access Yellow Card’s stablecoin infrastructure through its Swiss subsidiary, providing a regulated entry point for businesses and financial institutions looking to move capital into emerging markets using stablecoins. The regulatory approval comes seven months after Yellow Card discontinued its retail trading business to focus on its business-to-business infrastructure operations. The company noted at the time that it was doubling down on providing regulated, institutional-grade infrastructure for businesses as a response to the growing demand from enterprises using stablecoins for cross-border payments and treasury management. Since then, Yellow Card has expanded its enterprise offerings through partnerships with companies including Visa, Mastercard, Western Union, Thunes, and MoneyGram. “Stablecoins have become critical infrastructure for global institutions, and compliant access to the rails and payments is a requirement for companies looking to utilise this technology,” Chris Maurice, CEO and co-founder of Yellow Card, said. “Our Swiss subsidiary gives them a regulated, supervised counterparty for accessing our global Stablecoin infrastructure.” Maurice added that clients will be able to access its payments and settlement network across Africa, Latin America (LATAM), the United States, and other emerging markets through the Swiss entity. According to the company, its Swiss operations will be led by Olpha Bribech, a French lawyer and member of Yellow Card’s senior management team. The company is also establishing a permanent presence in Lugano, a Swiss city that has emerged as an active blockchain hub through initiatives aimed at attracting digital asset companies and investment. In 2025, the city completed a CHF100 million ($123 million) blockchain bond issuance, making its fourth, and partnered with stablecoin issuer Tether under the Plan ₿ initiative, which aims to leverage bitcoin technology to transform the city’s financial infrastructure. “Switzerland holds financial intermediaries to one of the highest regulatory standards in the world, and our Swiss subsidiary was built to meet these standards,” said Craig Stoehr, General Counsel of Yellow Card. “Combined with the licenced infrastructure already in place across our global network, this standard provides our partners a rare combination of regulatory confidence and real operational reach.” Founded in 2016, Yellow Card operates across more than 50 emerging markets and already holds licences and regulatory authorisations across Africa, including a virtual asset service provider (VASP) licence in Botswana. The company said it would continue pursuing licences, registrations, and authorisations as it expands its global regulatory footprint.
Read MoreSouth Africa’s blockchain fan token is testing a new business model for African football
As Bafana Bafana, the South African national football team, prepares for its final FIFA World Cup group-stage match against the Republic of Korea on Thursday morning, the South Africa Football Association (SAFA) is pursuing a different goal off the pitch: turning fan passion into a digital business. Through a blockchain-based fan token launched in May on Socios.com, SAFA is banking on supporters becoming participants in a year-round digital economy. The move places Bafana Bafana alongside national teams such as Argentina, Portugal and Italy, all of which have embraced fan tokens as part of broader digital engagement strategies. The national football team is betting that supporters are worth more than television audiences and matchday tickets. Through a blockchain-based fan token, SAFA is attempting to build a digital economy around Bafana Bafana. “This partnership represents a new chapter in SAFA’s journey into Web3, blockchain and Fan Tokens, to reward exclusive experiences to our passionate fans not only across South Africa but also as we grow our fan base globally,” SAFA CEO Lydia Monyepao said at the launch. “Through this collaboration, we are exploring innovative ways for fans to be part of the team’s global journey.” The $SAFA Fan Token is built on the Chiliz Chain, a blockchain network developed specifically for the sports and entertainment industry. Supporters can acquire the token through the Socios.com app by creating and verifying an account, purchasing Chiliz’s native cryptocurrency, CHZ, and exchanging it for $SAFA tokens. Once acquired, the tokens are stored in an in-app wallet and can be used to vote in official fan polls, earn rewards, access exclusive content, unlock matchday experiences, and redeem merchandise. Holders can also trade the tokens on Socios.com’s marketplace and compatible crypto exchanges, meaning their value can fluctuate depending on market demand and sentiment around the team. Early signs suggest there is appetite for the product. Mariola Montoya, Chiliz senior public relations and communications manager, told TechCabal on Tuesday that 840,000 $SAFA tokens have been snapped up. “Across the Socios platform, nearly 248,000 users have participated in polls while more than 37,000 have redeemed fan rewards,” she said. Bitexen South Africa, a digital asset platform that entered the South African crypto market in May, is supporting the initiative. Rather than competing solely as a crypto exchange, the company is positioning itself as a provider of tokenisation infrastructure, blockchain-based payments, digital asset issuance and fan-token ecosystems. It is a strategy that reflects the growing convergence between sport, fintech and digital communities. Mark Diuga, chief executive officer of Bitexen South Africa, told TechCabal that fan communities represent an untapped digital asset class. “The most valuable asset a club owns may not be its stadium, players, or broadcast rights. It may be the community that has formed around it,” he said. “The question is whether sport is ready to start treating that community like the strategic asset it really is.” Neither SAFA nor Chiliz have disclosed how much revenue the federation expects to generate from the initiative. Montoya, however, explained the economics of fan-token partnerships. “Our partnerships are based on a revenue-sharing model, with the allocation of revenues determined by the specific terms and objectives of each agreement,” she said. Globally, the model has delivered mixed results. Socios says it has returned more than $700 million to sports organisations through more than 170 partnerships since 2018. Major football brands including FC Barcelona, Paris Saint-Germain and the Argentine Football Association have launched tokens to deepen fan engagement and diversify revenue streams. Yet fan tokens have also attracted criticism. Prices can fluctuate sharply, leading some supporters to treat them as speculative assets rather than engagement tools. Montoya said Fan Tokens are designed primarily as utility products rather than investments. “Fan Tokens are utility tokens designed to enhance the supporter experience,” she said. “Their primary purpose is to give fans access to engagement opportunities such as polls, rewards, experiences and exclusive content.” Diuga believes participation, rather than speculation, will determine whether the model succeeds. The challenge for South African football will be converting the passion surrounding Bafana Bafana’s World Cup campaign into a year-round digital community that fans are willing to actively support, and pay to join.
Read MoreWhat 22 investors taught us so far in 2026: exits are the only thing that matters
In the first half of 2026, we published 22 editions of Ask an Investor. The investors we spoke to could not have been more different. A $670 million private equity manager taking African companies to global markets. A former partner at a venture capital firm managing over $200 million. A bank in Luanda that tracked one startup for three years before investing. A Nairobi firm that spent a decade in equity then left it. The only thing they have in common is appearing in this column. Despite their different approaches to investing in African startups, the running theme has centred on a single question: can invested money come back? Almost every conversation, whatever the starting point, ended up there. Here is what the past six months have taught us and what founders should take from it. Lesson 1: The exit problem is now the centre of discussion In 2026, exits became the only thing investors wanted to discuss. Ido Sum, who spent 14 years as a partner at TLcom, an Africa-focused venture firm managing over $250 million, told us that African venture capital is not broken as many think because of the slow pace of exits; it is just early. In our conversation, he outlined his thoughts on how Africa currently sits where the US was in the 1970s and Israel in the 1980s. Those ecosystems matured through stepping-stone exits first: deals in the tens of millions, then the low hundreds, with systematic in-continent mergers and acquisitions building trust before anyone realised a billion-dollar outcome. Despite his enthusiasm, he still warns founders that they have a number problem. Every time founders raise at a higher valuation, they shrink the pool of people who can buy the startup. So the question becomes: who are they actually building value for? Launch Africa gave the clearest example of an answer. The Mauritius-domiciled fund returned $2.5 million to its investors, roughly 7% of paid-in capital on its $36 million first fund, after completing 11 exits. Eight of those were secondaries to other VCs and growth-stage investors; three were trade sales or management buyouts. No position came in below 1x, and the best returned 5x. Managing partners Zachariah George and Janade du Plessis made two points worth holding onto. First, they chose to start returning capital in year five rather than waiting for the fund to wind down at year ten, because early liquidity is what convinces limited partners (LPs) to back the next fund. Second, they built a dedicated head-of-exits role, which most African firms do not have, because in this market, an exit has to be worked for, not waited for. Lesson 2: Local capital now comes first, not second The single biggest structural change of the half-year is who is writing the cheques. African investors now account for nearly 40% of funding on the continent, up from 25%, as global money pulled back from roughly $5 billion in 2022 to about $2.3 billion, according to Briter, a research firm. Fadilah Tchoumba, the chief executive of the African Business Angel Network (ABAN), put the principle plainly: Africa must fund Africa. She reminds us that the angels who backed Flutterwave and Paystack before anyone else were Africans on the ground, and without that first layer of capital, foreign investors have nothing to follow. There is no example anywhere in the world of foreign money arriving first while local money waits. In May, the Africa Finance Corporation gave us the most surprising version of this local capital. The $19 billion development finance institution, known for funding bridges, ports, mines, and subsea cables, made its first commitment to African venture capital: $40 million anchoring Future Africa and LightRock as the first deployments from a $100 million programme. Begna Gebreyes, who runs the technology desk, said the board initially resisted, telling him they sat on the board of an infrastructure developer, not a VC firm. The strategy now is to anchor funds as the first and largest LP, then crowd in another $300 to $500 million in institutional capital from foreign foundations, endowments, and pension funds. Lesson 3: Debt is having its moment, because equity’s limits finally showed The clearest shift in conviction of the half-year was toward credit. AHL Venture Partners spent more than a decade doing a bit of everything: early-stage equity, growth equity, fund commitments, and mezzanine. Around 2020, the family behind the firm gave CEO Rosanne Whalley a blank canvas and one question: what can make money and have a durable impact? The answer was private credit. Debt recycles faster than equity in African markets, the returns are more predictable, and the liquidity profile lets you fund more businesses over time. Whalley’s nuance matters for founders: she lends against cash flows, the team quality, and the ability to keep raising, not against collateral, which she assumes will recover nothing if a company fails. She also deliberately prices currency risk, favouring USD-revenue businesses or structured hedges, and walks away from sole founders, fragmented cap tables, and too much talk of disruption. Ido Sum made the structural case from the founder’s side. Over-dilution happens because everything is funded with equity. A company raising $5 million, where $3 million is really working capital, could split the round, price better, and dilute less if the market allowed it. BFA Asset Management’s Rui Oliveira described his Kimbo Fund as closer to mezzanine, thinking like a fixed-income investor who asks whether a company could one day support a bond. And by February, with only 26 startups raising $174 million in January, the column noted that African funding was starting to look more like credit underwriting than long-term experimentation. Lesson 4: DFI money is the foundation Development finance institutions remain the backbone of African venture, and the half-year showed how uncomfortable that has become. Ido Sum estimated DFIs make up 70 to 75% of the capital in the ecosystem and was blunt that none of it would exist without them. But that dominance creates friction, because DFI mandates do
Read MoreAfter two decades, Nigeria’s 3G era is nearing its final call
For nearly two decades, 3G was the network that moved Nigeria from a voice-first telecom market into a mobile internet economy. The journey began in 2006 when telecom operator Starcomms launched Nigeria’s first 3G service using Evolution-Data Optimised (EV-DO) technology. Initially designed for laptop data cards and USB modems, the service offered an early glimpse of a future where internet access would no longer be confined to cybercafés and office connections. Built on 3G technology—the third generation of mobile networks that enabled faster internet access, calls, and data services than 2G—it marked the beginning of Nigeria’s mobile broadband era. While Starcomms would eventually fade from the market and shut down in August 2012 amid fierce competition from GSM operators, its early investment helped pave the way for the country’s internet revolution. The arrival of mass-market 3G networks a year later accelerated that transformation. It powered the BlackBerry era, drove smartphone adoption, and provided the digital rails on which many of Nigeria’s earliest Internet businesses were built. For 32 million Nigerians actively connected to GSM by the end of 2006, 3G was their first real experience of the Internet. Now, the technology that helped launch Nigeria’s digital revolution is approaching the end of its life. MTN Group, the continent’s largest operator, plans to shut down some of its 3G networks before 2030 as telcos across Africa move customers to newer technologies such as 4G and 5G. While no formal timeline has been announced for Nigeria, the direction of travel is clear: 3G’s role in the telecom industry is rapidly shrinking. “The focus today for us is really on 3G shutdown,” said Selorm Adadevoh, MTN Group’s chief commercial, strategy and transformation officer, during the company’s Capital Markets Day on June 11, 2026, which TechCabal monitored online. “We should have quite a robust plan between now and 2030 to shut down some of our 3G networks,” he said. “From a technology and commercial basis, we actually do have readiness in some of our markets.” For telecom operators, the goal is to repurpose the 3G network assets it occupies. “With fewer users on 3G, telcos are committing resources to a network that no longer delivers adequate returns,” Osita Odafi, a telecom industry expert, told TechCabal in an interview. “By decommissioning 3G cells, operators can free up spectrum and tower capacity to deploy more 4G and 5G services, where demand and revenue growth are increasingly concentrated.” The technology that changed everything In March 2007, the regulator issued four licences in the 2GHz band to MTN Nigeria, Celtel Nigeria (now Airtel), Globacom, and Alheri Engineering, which later became part of Etisalat, and eventually 9mobile, and is now T2 Mobile. Each operator paid $150 million for spectrum rights, generating $600 million for government coffers. The licences triggered a nationwide race to build the infrastructure needed for a new era of connectivity. By December 18, 2007, operators had begun rolling out commercial 3.5G (HSDPA) services, investing heavily in towers, transmission networks, and fibre backhaul. Operators upgraded towers, expanded transmission networks, and invested heavily in fibre infrastructure to support growing demand for data services. The timing could not have been better. The arrival of 3G coincided with the global smartphone boom. BlackBerry devices became a cultural phenomenon among Nigerian professionals and students. BBM transformed communication habits. Android smartphones followed, opening internet access to millions more users. By 2014 and 2015, 3G accounted for an estimated 45% to 50% of active mobile connections in Nigeria, making it the dominant technology for Internet access, according to GSMA Intelligence Data. The network became the digital infrastructure behind Nigeria’s emerging tech ecosystem. Online media platforms, e-commerce startups, fintech companies, and digital communities all grew atop 3G connectivity. Before 3G, Internet access was largely confined to cybercafés. After 3G, it lived in people’s pockets. Why 3G is disappearing Despite its historic role, 3G now sits in an uncomfortable position within Nigeria’s telecom ecosystem. It is slower and less efficient than 4G and 5G, yet increasingly difficult to justify commercially. Unlike 2G, which still supports a range of legacy services and remains widely used, 3G offers few advantages to either operators or consumers. “The way we think about our network infrastructure today, 2G is still a technology that we see as quite relevant going into the future,” MTN’s Adadevoh said. “3G, on the other hand, has an economic equation that is not very promising for us.” According to NCC data, 3G penetration fell to just 5.32% in April 2026, making it the second least-used mobile technology in the country. By comparison, 4G accounted for 54.41% of connections, while 2G still held a surprisingly large 35.93% share. Operators have also spent the last few years aggressively expanding their 4G networks. MTN’s 4G population coverage has surpassed 84.6%, while Airtel Nigeria serves more than 31 million active data subscribers. Even 5G, which only launched commercially on August 24, 2022, is rapidly closing the gap. NCC data shows 5G penetration reached 4.34% in April 2026, underscoring how quickly users are migrating away from 3G and toward newer, more efficient networks. Yet some industry experts argue that the decline in usage does not necessarily mean 3G is ready for retirement. “Do I think we have enough capacity on 4G to make the shutdown call? No, I don’t think so,” said Olajide Mafolabomi, executive director at Cloud Interactive Media Group, a Nigerian technology and digital infrastructure company, and non-executive director at Telserve Networks, a Lagos-based Internet service provider. While 4G penetration has crossed 50%, Mafolabomi argues that operators need to migrate far more users before they can comfortably switch off 3G. “Before you can say you have enough of a critical mass on 4G, you need to get to maybe 85% to 90% of connections,” he said.
Read MoreDanish TechBBQ secures grant to connect Nordic investors with African startups
TechBBQ, a Danish non-profit startup and innovation conference organiser, has secured DKK4 million ($620,000) from the Novo Nordisk Foundation to build a permanent desk linking Nordic university startups, investors, and corporations with tech talent in Africa and India. The three-year grant will fund the Nordic-Africa Innovation Summit and Nordic-India Innovation Summit, which TechBBQ plans to include in its annual conference. The initiative plans to create a platform for investment, commercial partnerships, and tech collaboration between the regions. The funding comes as Europe seeks closer economic and tech ties with both Africa and India amid growing concerns over competitiveness, access to talent, and the need to diversify strategic partnerships beyond traditional markets. The programme will give African startups a route into Nordic capital, research institutions, and corporate networks. The Nordic startup ecosystem attracted $7.7 billion in venture capital funding in 2025 and is on track to exceed $9 billion in 2026, according to Dealroom. The region is also home to more than 100 unicorns and accounts for about 12% of all European venture capital despite representing a small share of the continent’s population. “This significant backing will help us connect the Nordic ecosystem with India and Africa in a more structured and sustainable way,” TechBBQ’s chief executive Avnit Singh told TechCabal. “There is immense untapped potential in building stronger links between these ecosystems.” The announcement follows TechBBQ’s participation in Bharat Innovates 2026, an initiative launched by Indian President Narendra Modi and his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron in Nice, France, to strengthen global innovation and entrepreneurship networks. Deeptech focus TechBBQ said the grant would allow it to transition from pilot projects to a permanent platform focused on three areas prioritised by the Novo Nordisk Foundation, including life sciences, deeptech and artificial intelligence (AI), and climate and agricultural technology. The project will run from August 2026 through December 2028 and will operate alongside TechBBQ’s flagship conference at Copenhagen’s Bella Center. “The potential for joint development, investment and market access between the Nordics and the global markets in India and Africa has never been stronger,” TechBBQ chief strategy officer Thomas Ebdrup told TechCabal. The initiative also carries an equitable-access requirement from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, meaning knowledge generated through the programme must be shared openly where possible and resulting innovations should be made available at affordable prices in low- and middle-income countries.
Read MoreFor every ₦1 Nigerian banks lent consumers, corporates got ₦10
This is Follow the Money, our weekly series that unpacks the earnings, business, and scaling strategies of African fintechs, financial institutions, companies, and governments. A new edition drops every Monday. Four of Nigeria’s biggest banks held ₦89.94 trillion ($65.63 billion) in customer deposits in 2025. Much of that money came from the millions of retail customers who save, transact, and bank with them every day. Yet nearly 90% of the loans the banks disbursed went to corporate borrowers. Oil and gas companies, manufacturers, and telecom operators accounted for most of the credit exposure. For every ₦1 these banks lent to retail customers, they lent about ₦10 to corporates. The Credit Chasm ₦10 to Corporates, ₦1 to You. Nigeria’s top four banks hold ₦89.9 trillion in deposits. But when it comes to lending that money back out, the gap between everyday consumers and large corporations is staggering. The Retail to Corporate Ratio 1 : 10.3 Naira Values Percentages Retail Loans ₦3.47 Trillion 10.5% Corporate Loans ₦29.60 Trillion 89.5% Source: TechCabal Analysis / 2025 Annual Reports (GTCO, Access, UBA, First Bank). This is according to an analysis of the annual reports of Access Holdings Plc, Guaranty Trust Holding Company Plc (GTCO), United Bank for Africa (UBA), and First HoldCo Plc. The numbers reveal a banking system where millions of retail customers provide part of the deposits that fund lending, but large businesses receive most of the credit. For traditional lenders, large corporate loans are easier to monitor, cheaper to administer, and often more profitable than thousands of small consumer loans. But this imbalance has left a large section of consumers and small businesses underserved by formal lending and created the gap that digital lenders and fintechs are increasingly trying to close. Only around 6% of adults borrow from formal sources, even though over 64% of adults are financially included, according to Enhancing Financial Inclusion and Advancement (EFInA), a financial sector organisation that tracks financial inclusion. “Limited access to credit can hinder economic growth and development by constraining investment in productive assets, stifling entrepreneurship, and impeding consumption,” EFInA said. Interactive Tool Where Does Your Deposit Go? 1. Select a Bank All Four Banks (Average 1:10.3) GTCO (1:5) Access Holdings (1:6) UBA (1:11) First Bank (1:18) 2. Enter a hypothetical deposit ₦ 100k 500k 1 Million 5 Million For every ₦1 lent to ordinary people, this bank lends ₦10.3 to businesses. 8.8% 91.2% Retail Credit ₦8,850 Corporate Credit ₦91,150 Source: 2025 Annual Reports (Access, GTCO, UBA, First Bank) Built by TechCabal Share this Insight Follow the loans At the end of 2025, GTCO held ₦12.55 trillion ($9.16 billion) in customer deposits. including ₦5.92 trillion ($4.32 billion) from retail customers. For every ₦1 GTCO lent to retail customers, it lent about ₦5 to corporates. GTCO Deep Dive The Deposit-Loan Paradox Everyday consumers supply nearly half of GTCO’s deposits. Yet, when those funds are deployed as credit, large corporations secure the vast majority of the capital. Naira Values Percentages Money In: 2025 Deposits Retail Customers ₦5.92 Trillion 47.2% Corporate Customers ₦6.63 Trillion 52.8% Money Out: 2025 Loans Retail Loans ₦517.1 Billion 16.5% Corporate Loans ₦2.62 Trillion 83.5% YoY Credit Growth (2024 – 2025) Retail Credit +33.2% ₦388.3B → ₦517.1B Corporate Credit +9.1% ₦2.40T → ₦2.62T Source: TechCabal Data Analysis / GTCO 2024 & 2025 Annual Reports. Access Holdings ended the year with ₦34.56 trillion ($25.22 billion) in customer deposits. For every ₦1 Access lent to retail borrowers, it lent more than ₦6 to businesses. Access Bank Breakdown More than ₦6 to Businesses for Every ₦1 to You. In 2025, retail consumers deposited ₦9.87 trillion with Access Bank. Yet despite funding 28% of the bank’s deposit base, they received only 13.7% of the total dispersed credit. Naira Values Percentages Money In: 2025 Deposits Retail Banking ₦9.87 Trillion 28.5% Corporate & Commercial ₦24.70 Trillion 71.5% Money Out: 2025 Loans Retail Loans ₦1.88 Trillion 13.7% Corporate Loans ₦11.81 Trillion 86.3% YoY Credit Growth (2024 – 2025) Retail Credit +32.0% ₦1.42T → ₦1.88T Corporate Credit +14.2% ₦10.34T → ₦11.81T Source: TechCabal Data Analysis / Access Holdings 2024 & 2025 Financial Reports. At UBA, loans to individuals amounted to roughly ₦588.89 billion ($429.70 million). For every ₦1 UBA lent to retail customers, it lent nearly ₦11 to corporates. UBA Breakdown Nearly ₦11 to Businesses for Every ₦1 to You. In 2025, everyday consumers supplied nearly 41% of UBA’s customer deposits (₦9.77 trillion). However, when those funds were disbursed, the retail sector received just 8.4% of the credit. Naira Values Percentages Money In: 2025 Deposits Retail Customers ₦9.77 Trillion 40.8% Corporate Customers ₦14.17 Trillion 59.2% Money Out: 2025 Loans Retail Loans ₦588.9 Billion 8.4% Corporate Loans ₦6.43 Trillion 91.6% YoY Credit Growth (2024 – 2025) Retail Credit +2.8% ₦572.8B → ₦588.9B Corporate Credit +0.8% ₦6.38T → ₦6.43T Source: TechCabal Data Analysis / UBA 2024 & 2025 Financial Reports. First Bank showed the widest gap. Loans to individuals stood at roughly ₦487.91 billion ($356.02 million). For every ₦1 First Bank lent to retail customers, it lent almost ₦18 to businesses. First Bank Breakdown Nearly ₦18 to Businesses for Every ₦1 to You. First Bank holds a massive ₦18.88 trillion in total customer deposits. Yet out of their entire disbursed loan book, retail consumers received just 5.3% of the credit—and that fraction actually shrank over the last year. Naira Values Percentages Money In: 2025 Deposits Total Customer Deposits ₦18.88 Trillion 100% Money Out: 2025 Loans Retail Loans ₦487.9 Billion 5.3% Corporate Loans ₦8.74 Trillion 94.7% A Shrinking Loan Book Retail Credit Growth -3.0% ₦502.9B → ₦487.9B Corporate Credit Growth -0.2% ₦8.76T → ₦8.74T Source: TechCabal Data Analysis / First Bank Holdings 2024 & 2025 Financial Reports. Across the four banks, they lent roughly ₦10.3 to corporates for every ₦1 extended to retail customers. The trend extends beyond the biggest lenders. According to the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), consumer credit stood at ₦3.81 trillion ($2.78 billion) in January 2026. Personal loans accounted for 51.44% of the total, while retail loans stood at ₦1.85 trillion
Read More
The Next Wave: The myth of founder-friendly capital
Cet article est aussi disponible en français <!– In partnership with –> First published June 21, 2026 When Google graduated another cohort from its African startup accelerator this week in Nairobi, it repeated a decision it has made for years: take no equity from participating startups. The arrangement is often presented as founder-friendly support, proof that startups can access resources, expertise and distribution without diluting ownership. Yet Google’s model points to a larger reality taking shape across technology and finance. The most sophisticated capital providers are becoming less interested in owning startups and more interested in owning the ecosystems, revenue streams and commercial relationships that startups eventually create. That interpretation is seductive, but is also incomplete. Much of the conversation around startup funding over the last three years has been shaped by a single concern: dilution. As venture valuations corrected, down rounds became more common and fundraising timelines stretched, founders began searching for ways to avoid selling larger portions of their companies at lower prices. The response has been a surge of interest in non-dilutive financing, a broad category that includes venture debt, revenue-based financing, royalty agreements and platform support programmes such as Google’s accelerator. The appeal is obvious: why surrender ownership when alternative sources of capital appear willing to fund growth while leaving the cap table untouched? Yet the obsession with dilution may be causing founders to focus on the wrong metric. The real issue is not whether founders surrender equity, but whether they surrender future economic value through other means. This distinction becomes clearer when viewed through the lens of the private credit market, which has grown into a roughly $3 trillion asset class. The expansion of private credit is often presented as evidence that entrepreneurs have more funding options than ever before. A closer look suggests that private credit has not reduced the cost of capital so much as it has given investors new ways to capture startup upside without taking ownership. Google’s accelerator illustrates this dynamic in a softer form. The company does not need equity because ownership is not the primary source of value it seeks. Every startup that scales on Google Cloud, builds products for Android, purchases advertising inventory or embeds itself deeper into Google’s ecosystem generates value for Google without requiring a seat on the cap table. From Google’s perspective, equity would arguably be the less attractive asset. While a minority stake in a startup may or may not generate returns years down the line, an expanding ecosystem of companies building on Google’s infrastructure can produce commercial returns almost immediately. Next Wave continues after this ad. We’re thrilled to announce the official theme for Moonshot 2026: “Courage & Conviction: Building for a New World.” This year, we’re calling on the African tech scene to back bold ideas and dig deep to build an ecosystem that solves African problems on a global scale. The continent’s most ambitious founders, investors, LPs, operators, creatives, and policymakers will converge at Moonshot 2026 to chart Africa’s next era. You don’t want to be left out. Secure Your Spot! Seen this way, Google’s equity-free model suggests not that ownership has lost its value, but that it is no longer the most efficient way to capture it. The same logic is becoming visible across the wider startup financing market. Revenue-based financing firms advance capital in exchange for a fixed percentage of future sales until a predetermined repayment threshold is reached. Royalty investors purchase rights to future revenue streams without acquiring shares. Venture debt providers attach warrants and backend fees that allow them to participate in upside while maintaining creditor protections. These structures differ in their mechanics, but they share a common objective: securing access to future economic value while avoiding the risks associated with common equity ownership. What makes these instruments attractive is that they turn an obvious cost into a hidden one. Equity dilution is visible the moment a deal closes, while the cost of revenue-sharing agreements, royalty structures and venture debt reveals itself slowly through future cash flows. Giving up 20% of a company feels expensive because the sacrifice is immediate and tangible. Committing 5% of future revenue feels modest by comparison, even though a successful company may ultimately surrender more economic value through that arrangement than it would have through a traditional equity round. The dilution illution This is where the language of non-dilutive capital begins to break down. Dilution has traditionally referred to ownership. But ownership is only one dimension of economic control. If a company commits a portion of future revenue to investors, pledges key assets to lenders, grants warrants to debt providers and structures future cash flows around multiple financing obligations, the founder may retain nominal ownership while steadily surrendering economic freedom. The consequences become visible when companies attempt to raise additional capital. Venture investors tend to dislike pre-existing claims on future revenue because every dollar committed to servicing historic obligations is a dollar unavailable for growth. What initially appeared to be founder-friendly financing can therefore create friction precisely when a company needs flexibility the most. Some startups discover that preserving ownership today complicates fundraising tomorrow. The problem becomes even more acute when alternative financing products pile up. Revenue-based financing may coexist with venture debt. Venture debt may sit alongside invoice factoring. Factoring arrangements may conflict with traditional bank lending facilities. Each instrument is designed to solve a specific financing problem. Together they can create a balance sheet crowded with competing claims, conflicting priorities and legal complexity. At that point, the issue is no longer dilution. It is whether the company still controls enough of its future cash flow to operate effectively. Next Wave continues after this ad. Are you a business leader or data analyst? Join us this July as we celebrate the retirement of PAWA BI and welcome Immortal BI – the smarter and intuitive way of intelligent data processing. From Africa to the world; get your free tickets HERE. What often goes unexamined in the celebration of founder-friendly capital is
Read MoreSpiro secures another $55 million three weeks after $215 million raise
Spiro, one of Africa’s largest electric motorcycle and battery-swapping companies, has secured an additional $55 million equity investment from Chinese early-stage investor NewTrails Capital, bringing the funding round announced earlier this month to $270 million. The investment comes three weeks after Spiro disclosed a record $215 million equity raise, one of the largest funding rounds announced in Africa’s electric mobility sector. With the latest commitment, Spiro’s total disclosed funding now stands at about $557 million, cementing its position among the continent’s most heavily funded electric mobility companies. It also comes less than two weeks after Spiro appointed former Indofast Energy chief executive Anant Badjatya as group CEO. Badjatya previously oversaw a battery-swapping network of more than 1,800 stations in India, one of the world’s most developed markets for the technology. “Partnering with NewTrail Capital’s deeply experienced team marks a powerful new chapter for Spiro as we prepare for the next steps of our pan-African and international expansion,” founder and chairman Gagan Gupta said in a statement on Monday. The company said it will use the fresh capital to expand its battery-swapping network, manufacturing operations and energy infrastructure across African markets where it already operates, including Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria. The investment also deepens Spiro’s ties to Chinese investors and suppliers. The company has previously sourced batteries from Chinese manufacturers, including a $11.6 million supply deal with CBAK Energy Technology. In October 2025, Spiro said 30% of the value of its motorcycles is now produced locally. NewTrails Capital said it views Spiro as an “infrastructure-like business” and sees the company’s battery-swapping network as part of a broader energy transition taking place across African markets. “Spiro is still a young company, and everything today is only the beginning. We look forward to continuing to fulfill our role as a long-term investor, contributing our resources and experience, growing together with Spiro, and helping accelerate Africa’s new energy transition,” said Yufan Zhang, Founding Partner of NewTrails Capital. Founded in 2022 by Gupta, Spiro says it has deployed more than 100,000 electric vehicles and built over 2,500 battery-swapping stations across seven countries. The company has attracted backing from investors including Impact Fund Denmark, Equitane, FEDA, Nithio, Afreximbank and the Africa Go Green Fund.
Read MoreWhat to expect from Samsung Galaxy Watch Ultra 2
Table of contents Has Samsung announced the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? When will the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 release? How much will the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 cost? Expected specs of the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 vs Galaxy Watch Ultra What we still do not know A new Galaxy Watch Ultra is on the way, and the early signs point to one of the biggest upgrades the Ultra line has seen. Samsung has refreshed its own health app, and Qualcomm has detailed a new chip built for the next Galaxy Watch. Regulatory filings add to the picture too, even though Samsung has stayed quiet about the name. This guide separates what is confirmed from the leak, so you know what to trust. It covers the expected launch date, pricing, key features and upgrades, and how the device compares with the current Galaxy Watch Ultra. Has Samsung announced the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2? Samsung has not confirmed the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 yet. As of June 20, 2026, the company has not sent out an Unpacked invite or used the name “Galaxy Watch Ultra 2” in any official statement. Four things tied to the watch have surfaced so far. A Samsung Health app overhaul. On June 4, 2026, Samsung’s Global Newsroom announced a major update to the Samsung Health app, rolling out from June 8. Samsung built the update for “the upcoming Galaxy Watch,” though it stopped short of naming the device. Hon Pak, who leads Samsung’s Digital Health team, said the update connects your health data to AI-driven insights to help you better understand your body. The app now centers on five areas: Sleep, Activity, Nutrition, Mindfulness, and Vitals. New features include: Vitals checks five overnight signals (heart rate, heart rate variability, breathing rate, skin temperature, and blood oxygen) against your baseline and alerts you only when something looks off. Heart Health Score, a single daily number that replaces last year’s Vascular Load and blends your sleep, stress, activity, and body composition data. Daily Cardio Load, which tracks how much strain your body has taken on and suggests when to train and when to rest. Fitness Index, which compares your heart rate and VO2 max against your peers and factors in your daily steps. Hearing Health, which uses your watch’s microphone to flag loud places that could damage your hearing. Antioxidant Index and AGEs Index upgrades, both of which now track trends over time instead of single readings. This update applies to the whole Galaxy Watch lineup, not just the Ultra 2. Current Watch owners get the redesigned app now, but the full feature set is tied to new hardware coming later this year. A new chip has been confirmed for the next Galaxy Watch. At MWC 2026 in March, Qualcomm confirmed that the next Galaxy Watch will use its new Snapdragon Wear Elite chip. Samsung backed this up with an on-record quote from InKang Song, who leads technology strategy for Samsung’s mobile business. He said the new chip will help the watch become an even more complete wellness companion. Here is what the Snapdragon Wear Elite brings: A 3nm chip with one fast core at 2.1GHz and four efficiency cores at 1.95GHz. Up to 5 times the CPU power and 7 times the GPU power of the previous Snapdragon wearable chip, enough to render 1080p video at 60fps. A dedicated AI chip that can run models with up to 2 billion parameters right on your wrist, working through about 10 tokens every second, with no phone or cloud needed. 30% more battery life than the last generation, plus a 50% charge in around 10 minutes. Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 6.0, UWB, GPS, 5G, and satellite messaging support, all in one chip. Qualcomm named Samsung and Google as launch partners for the chip, along with Motorola. There is a catch, though. Samsung and Qualcomm only said “the next generation Galaxy Watch,” not which model gets it. This has led to conflicting reports. Some outlets say both the Watch 9 and Watch Ultra 2 get the Snapdragon Wear Elite chip. Other sources claim only the Watch Ultra 2 gets it, while the standard Watch 9 keeps the older Exynos W1000. A separate leak goes further, claiming a regional split: the US version of the Watch Ultra 2 uses a Snapdragon chip with 5G, while the European version keeps the Exynos chip with LTE. Even the model numbers do not fully agree. An earlier leak pointed to SM-L716 as the US 5G model, but a more recent FCC filing lists the US carrier model as SM-L715U instead. Samsung has not confirmed any of these versions, so treat the chip question as open until Samsung says otherwise. The Unpacked date. Korean media reports point to July 22, 2026, in London, as the date for Samsung’s next Unpacked event, where the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 is expected to share the stage with the Galaxy Watch 9, the Z Fold 8, Z Flip 8, Z Fold 8 Wide, and Samsung’s new Galaxy Glasses. Samsung has not confirmed this date. Regulatory filings. In the middle of June 2026, the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 cleared both FCC and CMIIT certification under the model number SM-L715, with SM-L715F for global markets and SM-L715U for US carriers. Neither filing included a Watch 9 Classic model number, which is a strong sign Samsung is skipping a Classic model this year. A separate charging certification from China’s 3C agency confirmed the Watch Ultra 2 sticks with 10W wired charging, the same speed as before. India’s BIS database and additional CMIIT listings also confirmed the device exists, though none of these filings listed a battery capacity. When will the Galaxy Watch Ultra 2 release? Last year’s launch gives the clearest clue here. Samsung announced the Galaxy Watch Ultra on July 9, 2025, and put it on sale on July 25, a gap of 16 days. If Samsung follows that same pattern this year, expect the Galaxy Watch Ultra
Read More
Samsung Galaxy Buds to buy in 2026: Every model compared
Table of contents Quick comparison Galaxy Buds4 Pro Galaxy Buds4 Galaxy Buds3 Pro Galaxy Buds3 Galaxy Buds3 FE Galaxy Buds Core Open fit or sealed: what the difference actually means Which one should you buy? Should you wait for the Galaxy Buds Able? Samsung currently sells six different Galaxy Buds models right now, but the names alone do not make it obvious which pair is right for you. From the budget-friendly Buds Core to the flagshipBuds4 Pro, each model is designed for a different kind of listener, with varying features. This guide breaks down every Galaxy Buds model available today to help you choose the right pair for your budget and needs. You will find a quick comparison table, a full breakdown of each model, an explainer on the two main earbud designs Samsung uses, and a final verdict on which pair to buy. Quick comparison Here is how the six current Galaxy Buds models stack up at a glance. Galaxy Buds4 Pro Image source: Marques Brownlee on YouTube Samsung announced the Buds4 Pro on February 25, 2026, alongside the Galaxy S26 phones, and it went on sale on March 11. It costs $249 in the US, £219 in the UK, and R4,999 in South Africa. These buds use a sealed, in-ear design with silicone tips in three sizes. Each earbud carries two drivers, an 11mm woofer and a 5.5mm tweeter, which give you fuller bass and clearer highs than a single driver can manage. Noise canceling is where the Buds4 Pro stands out. Lab testing by SoundGuys found it blocks about 84% of outside noise at full strength. That beats the older Buds3 Pro, though it still trails the Sony WF-1000XM6 and the Apple AirPods Pro 3, which both cancel slightly more noise. Battery life sits in the middle of the pack. You get about 6 hours with ANC turned on and 8.5 hours with it off, based on independent lab tests. The case adds roughly three and a half extra charges. A few features only show up on this model: Head Gestures, so you can nod to accept a call or shake your head to decline it 360 Audio with head tracking, for a more immersive listening feel A dedicated 360 Audio recording mode Six microphones plus a voice pickup sensor for clearer calls in noisy places It comes in Black, White, and Pink Gold, with Pink Gold sold only through Samsung’s online store. If you already own a Galaxy phone, this is the easiest pair to recommend. TechRadar called the sound fantastic, but pointed out that the best features only work on Samsung devices. Galaxy Buds4 The standard Buds4 launched on the same day as the Pro, at $179 in the US and £159 in the UK. It uses an open fit design with no ear tips, similar to the original AirPods. This design makes the Buds4 light and comfortable for long wear, but it comes at a cost. Lab tests show that the open fit limits how well ANC can work, since there is no seal to block outside sound in the first place. Water resistance also drops to IP54, a step down from what the Buds3 offered. Battery life is about 5 hours with ANC on and 6 hours with ANC off, almost identical to the older Buds3. You still get the full set of Galaxy AI features, including Live Translate and Interpreter mode, just without Head Gestures, which Samsung kept exclusive to the Pro. SoundGuys called it the best unsealed earbud for Samsung users, but warned that an unstable fit can hurt both sound and noise canceling. If you already know open-fit earbuds suit your ears, this is a solid pick. If not, the Buds4 Pro will serve you better. Galaxy Buds3 Pro Image source: 6 Months Later on YouTube Before the Buds4 Pro, this was Samsung’s flagship. It launched in July 2024 at $249.99, the same price as its successor, and uses a similar dual-driver setup with a 10.5mm woofer and 6.1mm tweeter. Noise canceling sits a step below the Buds4 Pro. SoundGuys measured about a 76% reduction with ANC on, compared to 84% on the newer model. Battery life is roughly 6 hours with ANC on. Now that the Buds4 Pro has replaced it as the flagship, you can often find the Buds3 Pro discounted well below its original price, sometimes for less than half. If you want most of what the Buds4 Pro offers without paying full price, this is the model to look for. Galaxy Buds3 The standard Buds3 launched on the same day as the Buds3 Pro and also uses an open-fit design. Originally $179.99, it now sells for much less. Lab testing found ANC reduces noise by only about 35%, well below what the sealed models manage. Battery life matches the Buds4 at around 5 hours with ANC on. SoundGuys put it simply: pick the Buds3 only if open-fit earbuds already fit you well and you want wireless charging at a lower price. For most people, the Buds3 FE is a better choice at a similar price point. Galaxy Buds3 FE Image source: Mike O’Brien on YouTube The Buds3 FE launched in September 2025 at $149.99, and it might be the smartest buy in the whole lineup. It uses a sealed design with ear tips, and despite costing $100 less than the Buds4 Pro, its noise canceling actually tests stronger. SoundGuys measured 86% noise reduction with ANC on, beating every other model in this guide, including the flagships. Battery life is also strong, at 8.5 hours with ANC off and up to 30 hours total with the case. You still get most of the Galaxy AI features that matter day to day, including Live Translate, Bixby, and a 9-band EQ with six presets. In everyday use, the only things missing are wireless charging and multipoint, an easy trade for the price you pay. SoundGuys called it the Goldilocks of the Galaxy Buds lineup, and it is hard
Read More