Bitcoin is making gains after a strong volume weekend while ether’s percentage of BTC price shows it may have room to climb.
Read more MassMutual’s $100M BTC investment has the potential to open a massive new investment category, according to analysts.
Read more Square Crypto is issuing another Bitcoin developer grant for research on Bitcoin design and user experience.
Read more The Seattle-based firm plans to invest in 10-15 ventures in the blockchain space over the next two to three years.
Read more Only about a third of the yields Indian farmers produce reaches the big markets. Those whose produce makes it there today are able to leverage post-harvest services. Everyone else is missing out.
A Noida-based startup is working with all the stakeholders — farmers, food processors, traders and financial institutions — to bridge this post-harvest services gap — and it just secured new funds to continue its journey.
Seven-year-old Arya said on Tuesday it has raised $21 million in its Series B financing round. The round was led by Quona Capital, a venture firm that focuses on fintech in emerging markets. Existing investors LGT Lightstone Aspada and Omnivore also participated in the round, while multiple unnamed lenders are providing additional debt financing to the startup, Arya said.
Nearly all post-harvest interventions that exist in India today are focused largely toward major agriculture centres such as Kota in the northern Indian state of Rajasthan and Azadpur Mandi in capital New Delhi, explained Prasanna Rao, co-founder and chief executive of Arya, in an interview with TechCrunch.
This uneven concentration has deprived millions of farmers in the country of reasonable options to efficiently store and sell their produce and of financing options to maintain their cash flow, he said.
“Our belief is that we should cater to the two-thirds of the market that are currently underserved. The Kota mandi (market), for instance, has 35 bank branches in a kilometre of radius. But if you travel 70 to 80 kilometres away from Kota, this really declines,” said Rao, who previously worked at a bank.
Arya is solving all the aforementioned challenges: It operates a network of more than 1,500 warehouses in 20 Indian states where it stores over $1 billion worth of commodities. This network allows farmers to store their produce at a centre that is much nearer to their farms, avoiding any spillage and exorbitant real estate costs of the big markets. On the credit side, Arya has disbursed over $36.5 million to farmers and its banking partners have disbursed more than $95 million.
“Arya is addressing a vastly underserved market of farmers in India, half of whom previously had little access to post-harvest finance,” said Ganesh Rengaswamy, co-founder and partner at Quona Capital, in a statement. “We believe Arya’s unique approach, providing a full-service digital platform with embedded finance and differentiated efficiencies for small farmholders, will drive the future of farming in India.”
The startup’s offerings have proven even more useful during the coronavirus pandemic, which saw New Delhi enforce one of the world’s strictest lockdowns earlier this year. The lockdown broke the supply chain network, and prices of agricultural commodities dropped by over 20%.
To navigate this, Arya connected farmer produce organizers, or FPOs, with buyers through its own digital marketplace a2zgodaam.com. “The need for immediate liquidity saw demand increase for credit against these warehouse receipts. Arya’s credit portfolio saw a 3x jump year-on-year,” wrote Prashanth Prakash, a founding partner at Accel in India, and Mark Kahn, managing partner at Omnivore in an industry report last week.
Rao said Arya will deploy the fresh capital to scale its fintech platform in a “big way” as the startup broadens its network of warehouses across the country. Additionally, the startup plans to fuel the growth of a2zgodaam.com, which also aggregates unorganized warehouses, and supercharge them with their own set of financiers and insurers and ways to allow farmers to sell directly through these warehouses if they need.
The U.K. is moving ahead with a populist but controversial plan to regulate a wide range of illegal and/or harmful content almost anywhere online such stuff might pose a risk to children. The government has set out its final response to the consultation it kicked off back in April 2019 — committing to introduce an Online Safety Bill next year.
“Tech platforms will need to do far more to protect children from being exposed to harmful content or activity such as grooming, bullying and pornography. This will help make sure future generations enjoy the full benefits of the internet with better protections in place to reduce the risk of harm,” it said today.
In an earlier partial response to the consultation on its Online Harms white paper ministers confirmed the U.K.’s media regulator, Ofcom, as its pick for enforcing the forthcoming rules.
Under the plans announced today, the government said Ofcom will be able to levy fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual global turnover (or £18 million, whichever is higher) on those that are deemed to have failed in their duty of care to protect impression eyeballs from being exposed to illegal material — such as child sexual abuse, terrorist material or suicide-promoting content.
Ofcom will also have the power to block non-compliant services from being accessed in the U.K. — although it’s not clear how exactly that will be achieved (or whether the legislation will seek to prevent VPNs being used by Brits to access blocked internet services).
The regulator’s running costs will be paid by companies that fall under the scope of the law, above a threshold based on global annual revenue, per the government, although it’s not yet clear where that pay-bar will kick in (nor how much tech giants and others will have to stump up for the cost of the oversight).
The online safety “duty of care” rules are intended to cover not just social media giants like Facebook but a wide range of internet services — from dating apps and search engines to online marketplaces, video sharing platforms and instant messaging tools, as well as consumer cloud storage and even video games that allow relevant user interaction.
P2P services, online forums and pornography websites will also fall under the scope of the laws, as will quasi-private messaging services, according to a government press release.
That raises troubling questions about whether the legal requirements could put pressure on companies not to use end-to-end encryption (i.e. if they face being penalized for not being able to monitor robustly encrypted content for illegal material).
“The new regulations will apply to any company in the world hosting user-generated content online accessible by people in the UK or enabling them to privately or publicly interact with others online,” the government writes in a press release.
The rules will include different categories of responsibility for content and activity — with a top tier (category 1) only applying to companies with “the largest online presences and high-risk features,” which the government said is likely to include Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Twitter.
“These companies will need to assess the risk of legal content or activity on their services with ‘a reasonably foreseeable risk of causing significant physical or psychological harm to adults’. They will then need to make clear what type of ‘legal but harmful’ content is acceptable on their platforms in their terms and conditions and enforce this transparently and consistently,” it said.
Category 1 companies will also have a legal requirement to publish transparency reports about the steps they are taking to tackle online harms, per the government’s PR.
While all companies that fall under the scope of the law will be required to have mechanisms so people can easily report harmful content or activity while also being able to appeal the takedown of content, it added.
The government believes that less than 3% of U.K. businesses will fall within the scope of the legislation — adding that “the vast majority” will be Category 2 services.
Protections for free speech are also slated as being baked in — with the government saying the laws will not affect articles and comments sections on news websites, for example.
The legislation will contain provisions to impose criminal sanctions on senior managers (introduced by parliament via secondary legislation). On this the government added that it will not hesitate to use the power if companies fail to take the new rules seriously (such as by not responding “fully, accurately and in a timely manner” to information requests from Ofcom).
Commenting on the plans in a statement, digital secretary Oliver Dowden said: “I’m unashamedly pro tech but that can’t mean a tech free for all. Today Britain is setting the global standard for safety online with the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation. We are entering a new age of accountability for tech to protect children and vulnerable users, to restore trust in this industry, and to enshrine in law safeguards for free speech.
“This proportionate new framework will ensure we don’t put unnecessary burdens on small businesses but give large digital businesses robust rules of the road to follow so we can seize the brilliance of modern technology to improve our lives.”
In another supporting statement, home secretary Priti Patel added: “Tech companies must put public safety first or face the consequences.”
Also commenting, Ofcom CEO Dame Melanie Dawes welcomed its new broader oversight remit, adding in a statement that: “Being online brings huge benefits, but four in five people have concerns about it. That shows the need for sensible, balanced rules that protect users from serious harm, but also recognise the great things about online, including free expression. We’re gearing up for the task by acquiring new technology and data skills, and we’ll work with Parliament as it finalises the plans.”
The government has said it will publish Interim Codes of Practice today to provide guidance for companies on tackling terrorist activity and online child sexual exploitation prior to the introduction of legislation — which is unlikely to make it into law before late 2021 at the earliest to allow adequate time for parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
And while a noisy political push to “protect kids” online can expect to enjoy plenty of tabloid-level support, the wide-ranging application of the duty of care rules the government is envisaging — with large swathes of the U.K.’s tech sector set to be impacted — means ministers can expect to attract plenty of homegrown criticism too, from business groups, entrepreneurs and investors and legal and policy experts, including over specific concerns about knock-on impacts on privacy and security.
Its plan to push ahead with an Online Safety Bill that will impact scores of smaller digital businesses, instead of zeroing in on the handful of platform giants that are responsible for generating high volumes of harms, has already attracted criticism from the tech sector.
Coadec, a digital policy group that advocates for startups and the U.K. tech sector, branded the plan “a confusing minefield” for entrepreneurs — arguing it will do the opposite of fostering digital competition, counteracting other measures recently announced by the government in response to concerns about market concentration in the digital advertising sphere.
“Last week the Government announced a new unit within the CMA [Competition and Markets Authority] to promote greater competition within digital markets. Days later they have announced regulatory measures that risk having the opposite effect,” said Dom Hallas, Coadec’s executive director in a statement. “86% of UK investors say that regulation aiming to tackle big tech could lead to poor outcomes that damage tech startups and limit competition — these plans risk being a confusing minefield that will have a disproportionate impact on competitors and benefit big companies with the resources to comply.”
“British startups want a safer internet. But it’s not clear how these proposals, which still cover a huge range of services that are nowhere near social media from ecommerce to the sharing economy, are better targeted than the last time government published proposals nearly a year and a half ago,” he added. “Until the Government starts to work collaboratively instead of consistently threatening startup founders with jail time it’s not clear how we’re going to deliver proposals that work.”
One gap in the government’s proposal is financial harms — with issues such as fraud and the sale of unsafe goods explicitly excluded from the framework (as it says it wants the regulations to be “clear and manageable” for businesses and to avoid the risk of duplicating existing rules).
Some “lower-risk” services may also be exempt from the duty of care requirement, per the government, to avoid the law being overly burdensome.
Email services will also not be in scope, it confirmed.
And while it says some types of advertising will be in scope (such as influencer ads posted on social media) ads placed on an in-scope service via a direct contract between an advertiser and an advertising service (such as Facebook or Google Ads) will be exempt because “this is covered by existing regulation” — which looks set to let the adtech duopoly off the harmful ads hook without good clear reason.
After all, existing U.K. regulations do not seem to have done much to stem the tide of crypto scam ads running on Facebook (or served via Google’s ad tools) in recent years — which led to a campaign by a consumer advice personality to get Facebook and other companies to clean up their act, for example.
Consumer group Which? has criticized the lack of government attention to financial scams in the Online Safety Bill. In a response statement, Rocio Concha, its director of policy and advocacy, said: “It’s positive that the government is recognising the responsibility of online platforms to protect users, but it would be a big missed opportunity if online scams were not dealt with through the upcoming bill. Our research has shown the financial and emotional toll of scams and that social media firms such as Facebook and search engines like Google need to do much more to protect users.
“We look forward to the detail and hope to see a clear plan to give online platforms greater responsibility for fraudulent content on their sites, including having in place better controls to prevent fake adverts from appearing, so that all users can be confident that they will truly be safe online.”
European Union lawmakers are due to unveil their own pan-EU policy package to regulate illegal and harmful content later today — but the Digital Services Act will tackle the sale of illegal goods online as well as proposing to harmonize rules for reporting troublesome content on online services.
We review Apple Fitness+, Gmail goes down and Pornhub cracks down on unverified content. This is your Daily Crunch for December 14, 2020.
The big story: Apple launches Fitness+
Brian Heater tried out Apple’s new $10-per-month subscription service for guided workouts, prompting some broader reflections on exercise during this terrible year — and on how Fitness+ might fit in.
The service requires an Apple Watch to sign up, which is a hurdle if (like me) you don’t already own the device, but Brian writes:
Honestly, the Apple Watch integration is probably the best-executed aspect of the entire undertaking — down to the way the wearable doubles as a start and stop button for the workout. It also ensures a more complete rundown of your workouts at the end of the day.
The tech giants
Gmail, YouTube, Google Docs and other services go down in multiple countries — A huge range of Google services went down for about an hour today.
Reddit acquires Dubsmash — Dubsmash will retain its own platform and brand, while Reddit will integrate its video creation tools.
Apple launches its new app privacy labels across all its App Stores — The new labels aim to give Apple customers an easier way to understand what sort of information an app collects across three categories.
Startups, funding and venture capital
Tonic is betting that synthetic data is the new big data to solve scalability and security — Tonic transforms raw data into more manageable and private data sets usable by software engineers and business analysts.
German Bionic raises $20M led by Samsung for exoskeleton tech to supercharge human labor — The company describes its Cray X robot as “the world’s first connected exoskeleton for industrial use.”
Mombox is a curated kit of postnatal products that puts new moms first — The standard Mombox includes organic overnight pads, a peri bottle, perineal ice pack, post-pregnancy panties and other care products.
Advice and analysis from Extra Crunch
MIT professor wants to overhaul ‘The Hype Machine’ that powers social media — Sinan Aral has spent years analyzing the social media market.
Five questions every IT team should be able to answer — When the CEO comes calling, are you prepared?
IPO delays are bumming me out — Roblox is on ice and Affirm could slip.
(Extra Crunch is our membership program, which aims to democratize information about startups. You can sign up here.)
Everything else
FDA grants emergency use authorization for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, distribution to begin within days — And vaccinations started today!
Pornhub removes all unverified content, following reports of exploitation — Pornhub announced last week that it would be limiting uploads to only verified users.
Original Content podcast: David Fincher presents a compelling character study in ‘Mank’ — Gary Oldman delivers a mesmerizing performance as the co-writer of “Citizen Kane.”
The Daily Crunch is TechCrunch’s roundup of our biggest and most important stories. If you’d like to get this delivered to your inbox every day at around 3pm Pacific, you can subscribe here.
The FTC is ordering the companies behind many of the largest social and video platforms to explain how they use the treasure troves of data they harvest from users. Amazon, TikTok owner ByteDance, Facebook, WhatsApp, Discord, Reddit, Snap, Twitter and YouTube were all sent the order, with a deadline set 45 days from now.
The FTC’s focus is on how these companies “collect, use, and present personal information, their advertising and user engagement practices, and how their practices affect children and teens.” Four of the FTC’s commissioners voted in favor of the order, with Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips dissenting.
“Despite their central role in our daily lives, the decisions that prominent online platforms make regarding consumers and consumer data remain shrouded in secrecy,” Commissioners Rohit Chopra, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Christine S. Wilson said in a joint statement.
“… Policymakers and the public are in the dark about what social media and video streaming services do to capture and sell users’ data and attention. It is alarming that we still know so little about companies that know so much about us.”
The FTC’s new fact-finding mission is the latest federal action to put tech in its crosshairs, following last week’s news that the agency would sue Facebook over antitrust violations. The new order was issued under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act as a study of tech industry practices. It isn’t coupled with any law enforcement action, but that doesn’t preclude the agency from pursuing enforcement options with what it finds.
Last year the FTC signaled a deeper interest in tech, particularly on antitrust issues. The agency launched a purpose-built tech task force to monitor acquisitions and other potential competition-crushing behavior that raises red flags. In early 2020, the FTC launched an extensive separate study examining nearly a decade’s worth of acquisitions made by Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft.
Pinterest today announced it has settled the gender discrimination lawsuit brought forth by former COO Francoise Brougher. In August, Brougher sued Pinterest, alleging gender discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination.
As part of the settlement, Pinterest will pay $20 million to Brougher and her attorneys, and both Pinterest and Brougher will commit $2.5 million toward “Advancing women and underrepresented communities” in the tech industry, the company wrote in a filing.
“Pinterest recognizes the importance of fostering a workplace environment that is diverse, equitable and inclusive and will continue its actions to improve its culture,” Pinterest and Brougher said in a joint statement detailing the settlement. “Francoise welcomes the meaningful steps Pinterest has taken to improve its workplace environment and is encouraged that Pinterest is committed to building a culture that allows all employees to feel included and supported.”
Shortly after Brougher went public with her claims, Pinterest employees staged a walkout in response to her accusations as well as in response to the claims of two former Black Pinterest employees. Prior to Brougher’s claims, Aerica Shimizu Banks and Ifeoma Ozoma accused Pinterest of racial discrimination.
In addition to the walkout, a petition circulated throughout the company demanding systemic change. The change they sought entailed full transparency about promotion levels and retention, total compensation package transparency and for the people within two layers of reporting to the CEO to be at least 25% women and 8% underrepresented employees.
Since then, Pinterest has notably made some changes at the board level. A couple of days after the walkout, Pinterest announced Andrea Wishom as the company’s first-ever Black board member. In October, Pinterest added its second Black board member, Salaam Coleman Smith.
Pinterest says it has also enhanced its hiring and interview processes to try to improve diversity at senior levels, updated its inclusion training and launched an internal wiki detailing how Pinterest makes compensation decisions.
California’s exposure notification system launched statewide on December 10, which means that almost half of all Americans now live somewhere covered by an app that will warn them if they’ve been close to someone with covid-19.
We’re watching these rollouts closely as part of our Covid Tracing Tracker, which monitors the development of contact tracing apps in the US and around the world. These apps are now operating in 19 states, as well as in Washington, DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico. A handful of other states are either in a pilot period or have said they are considering using smartphone-based exposure notifications.
As in several other states using the system designed by Google and Apple, California’s app is embedded in the operating system of newer iPhones: you just need to switch it on in the settings menu. (Android users still need to download software, but that should be changing soon.) See our full list of state apps, below.
Can these apps help? Early in the pandemic, apps that warn about potential covid-19 exposures were promoted as a way to contain transmission, and countries like Singapore and Australia launched their services in the spring (though early adopters had problems too). But without a coordinated national effort in the US, states created a patchwork of systems that launched at staggered times and didn’t necessarily work across local borders. The first wave of US apps launched in August, months after those in other parts of the world, and in some areas they are arriving once widespread community transmission has already taken place. In California—the most populous state in the US—cases are surging, for example, and most people are under a stay-at-home order.
At this point in the pandemic, experts say it’s too late for these apps to dramatically lower transmission on their own. But the software is still useful for keeping you personally safe and aware of when you should get tested. As vaccinations begin and cases go down again, experts say they’ll be even more important.
“On an individual level, in fact, it’s more important now than it was three months ago, because there’s a lot more virus circulating in the community than there was three months ago,” said Rajeev Venkayya, who helped write the US’s first national strategy on pandemic preparedness in 2005.
Julie Samuels led the task force that developed New York state’s app. She puts it this way: “In American society, people are really looking for a silver bullet—for the one thing that we can do to stop covid. The way to think about the app is that it’s one more layer of protection. If it keeps even one more person from getting covid, isn’t that worth it?”
—Additional reporting by Lindsay Muscato
This story is part of the Pandemic Technology Project, supported by the Rockefeller Foundation.
A public version of the underlying data is kept in a tab of this read-only spreadsheet. If you have an update, correction, or addition to the tracker, please email the relevant information to us at CTT@technologyreview.com.