I’ve signed the term sheet for 4 GWh of lithium-ion cell offtake and sighed. I fired my CCO about half a year earlier and didn’t yet get a replacement. So I had to do all the work of negotiating and securing my biggest sales deal. I now had some time to sort out the long conflict between my engineering and financial planning teams and fly to those important negotiations with a regional governor about the perspective site for our factory. I needed support from my team, but I was only getting a trickle. There was no one else to blame but myself.  Succeeding in $1B+ business can only be done with a solid team. As a founder/CEO, I was ultimately responsible for picking the right people and making sure they worked as a team. In a couple of other projects, where I had success in hiring, my time was divided between three things. First, developing, monitoring, and adjusting strategy. Second, keeping my superiors informed and happy. Third, managing the team, so that they all get the resources and information they need, they are motivated and focused.  The were only two cases when I needed to delve into details. First, at one-on-one meetings, where we would go over specific projects, contracts, or situations. Second, preparing for board meetings or some specific committee meetings. Other times the team worked like a clock, dealing with anything thrown in their way. But this time it was different, and here is why.  Industry and work type mismatch I was hiring people to build the first Russian lithium-ion cell gigafactory. Anything that has been done for the first time, automatically implies that no one has done it before. Well, at least in Russia there were no people who built a gigafactory before or had secured any major lithium-ion cell deal. So I had to choose people from other industries. For my CCO I was looking into electrical equipment business development and sales. Naturally, I started talking with people whose backgrounds were in GE, Siemens, Schneider Electric, etc. I’ve ended up hiring a guy from GE, with a solid track of electrical equipment sales. That was a mistake.  Sales of big electrical equipment, like gas-fired turbines, or 500 KW transformers look good on the CV and are probably good if you are hiring a new sales manager from GE for your Siemens office. What I did not consider at that moment, was that most of my clients are most likely to come from the automotive business, and only a few would be from the energy business.  I got a CCO capable of selling big and expensive pieces of equipment to big energy companies, while I needed someone who knew all the automotive procurement officers and design engineers, capable of selling thousands of the same units. This was an industry/work type/product mismatch, that ultimately failed me.  Not following through with references The last part of my hiring process was to call 5 people, who previously worked with the candidate and ask them for references. This was the most tedious part for me, and I was usually satisfied with two to three calls. That proved insufficient. For both of my key hires - my CCO and CE (Chief Engineer), getting at least five references would have made a huge difference. Here is why. The reason why I hired that particular CE, was that he built three electrical assembly factories in his career. What I didn’t realize then, is that building a huge electro-chemical manufacturing plant is different, and the responsibility of the CE is much higher, so he has to be good at taking ownership of the project and handling responsibility.   I could’ve found out the true relation to responsibility by the candidate if I had interviewed several people who worked with him. I skipped that part and hired the guy. But when things got tough, he started shifting responsibility to other team members, blaming anyone but himself for any real or imaginary problems. The tougher it got, the fiercer became the resistance to take any responsibility.  When deciding to hire a CCO I called three people who worked with him before. Speaking to one of them, I asked what was it like to work with this person, and got a cryptic reply that I should try myself and see. This should’ve been a red flag for me, but two other references came up positive, so I’ve ignored it. To my peril, as it turned out.  Rushing it I was in a hurry. I had tons of reports to make and do some real work alongside, while I had zero employees. I wanted to get people hired ASAP. I knew that they would need at least 2-3 months of learning about the business, understanding the company’s culture, and getting to know their colleagues. It would be six months from now, that I would have a semblance of a working team.  When I looked at my CE list of candidates, I realized that at that moment only one was available. For the CCO there were three available candidates, but only one was scoring on the most criteria. I had doubts. There was a nagging thought in my head that I needed to start again, find more candidates, and make sure that I had a choice of at least three top candidates. But I rushed and made an offer to the ones available.  Have I taken two to three additional months to search and interview candidates, I would have likely found at least one or two more for each position. This would allow me to compare the candidates who are closely matched and would allow me to evaluate all candidates deeper. A side bonus from taking more time to search and interview would be having a list of top-notch candidates, that I could pull in quickly, should my first pick be the wrong one.  Working on the mistakes I didn’t get a chance for another hiring round. I’ve quit the project and moved out of the country. But I kept coming back to this episode and thinking what could be done differently. In the meantime, I’ve also interviewed several startups and scaleups on their practices of hiring key people. Here is what I’ve synthesized: Take time to think about the type of product and the type of customer you are going to serve. Then find a person, who sold similar products to the customers you are going to approach.  Take time to call at least five people who worked with your candidate before. Ask them hard questions about the candidate, like how he works with subordinates, how he handles responsibility, does he takes ownership of failures, does he gossips about other colleagues, and so on.  Take time to find more candidates.  Don’t rush. If you rush your hiring process you are 99% likely to repeat it later, and that will be the time when your project is in full swing, when changing the team is a very tough option.  I’ve found this out the hard way. It pays to invest time and effort in finding and interviewing candidates, sorting and ranking them, and getting references from their former bosses, co-workers, and subordinates. So take your time hiring your team. They’ll make or break your project. Share your experience of hiring people in the comments, I’d love to know!

Last week, I tuned into an insightful interview with Yair Reems, Partner at Extantia Capital, conducted by Yoann Berno of Climate Insiders. Yair and his team focus on funding climate tech scale-ups, and their perspective is invaluable for founders seeking investment. Here are my three main takeaways from the podcast that you should consider while preparing your pitch: 1. Know Your Competition and Differentiate: When investors like Extantia receive your pitch deck, the first thing they do, is dive deep into researching the current state of technology and your competitors. It’s crucial to provide a clear justification for why your product is superior and do it from the start. 2. Is Your Product a “Drop-In” Solution?: Investors want to know if your product can be seamlessly integrated into existing manufacturing processes and supply chains, or if it requires a complete redesign. A drop-in solution is far more attractive because it means less disruption and faster adoption. 3. Do You Have an Off-Take Agreement?: Most greentech/cleantech products target B2B markets, meaning your clients are likely large corporations that could become regular buyers. An off-take agreement shows customer trust and makes your financial projections more predictable. Often, the existence of an off-take is a deal-breaker. No off-take, no money. Listen to the full episode for more insights: https://youtu.be/R-hk5qFrRXI?si=4jO3Zlbd6fjDO1y2

Securing that first sale can be a daunting challenge, especially if your customer isn’t also your investor, and you lack a government contract or a lucrative offtake agreement. So, how do you get your foot in the door? Here’s a strategy that’s worked for me: hire a national from a country that’s at the forefront of your technology field. In batteries, that’s China or Korea. In wind energy, it used to be Germany, Denmark, or the Netherlands, but now it’s China. Why does this work? Key Advantages 1. Existing Network: These professionals come with a built-in network of contacts that can open doors and facilitate introductions. 2. Trust of Compatriots: There’s an inherent trust factor when dealing with someone from the same country. This trust can significantly accelerate your sales process. 3. Industry Knowledge: Nationals from leading countries in your field bring deep industry insights and understanding, which can be invaluable for positioning and selling your product. While this strategy may not guarantee long-term sales growth, it can help you secure those critical first sales quickly. By leveraging existing networks, trust, and industry knowledge, you can jumpstart your sales process and set your scale-up on the path to success. Keep pushing forward and exploring new strategies to drive your startup’s growth!

One rainy Amsterdam morning This was not going to be good. I was quietly contemplating how much money we could lose on this deal. I took a sip of strong coffee, to shake off my jet lag, looked at the CEO of LM, the number 1 manufacturer of wind turbine blades in the world, and got back to negotiating my first cross-border multimillion-dollar deal. It is hard to get suppliers to work with your startup. You can’t give them a guarantee that you will eventually pay because you don’t really know if your product is going to work as advertised and you don’t know exactly how and when your customer will pay you. Those who agree to supply you will demand 100% upfront payment. And then, you will not be their number 1 priority customer. Meanwhile in Moscow How to make sure, that suppliers support your scaleup? Everything seems to be going against you. Well, as in all cases when it is you against the world, you first prioritize, then execute. The work of getting your suppliers starts with finding not the right supplier, but with finding the right customer. When you can show your suppliers that you have a customer, who is ready to buy from you in the long term, wonderful things start to happen. We were building the wind industry in Russia from scratch at the time. There was no supplier base. But we had secured 660 MW of capacity in wind auctions. In effect, we were the customer. This made searching for suppliers relatively easy. We could offer each supplier a 5 years perspective. As a result, a lot of them invested money in buying very sophisticated machinery, like a 15-meter long and 8-meter high metal press, to make very specific tower sections for our wind turbines. Back to Amsterdam… One example was absolutely off the charts. The design of our wind turbine assumed only one specific type of blade, produced exclusively by the Dutch company LM, which was at that time still independent from GE (it was bought right as we were negotiating a deal). We couldn’t change the supplier. Doing so would mean another 1,5 years of design and testing. We didn’t have that time. It is hard to think of a worse negotiating position. So we were sitting at the Schipol business district of Amsterdam, in the LM office, and negotiating 400-something 50m blades. LM had only one factory open, where they were making them, and they were thinking of closing it. We got a deal, that the blades will be delivered, with a progressive discount. The first blade would have a small discount, but with each successive batch the discount will grow, and the last blade will come in at a double-digit discount, lowering our blade costs several times. LM too had an interest in keeping their factory going for a few more years. Their capital costs have been paid off long ago, so all they had to do was cover the operational costs and earn some profit. This allowed us to negotiate such a nice progressive discount. And off to Korea But what if you don’t have a nice, long, juicy offtake? Well, don’t despair just yet. A friend of mine, Duke Oh from Korea, recently launched a startup in manufacturing lithium-ion electrodes. He had zero offtakes, and his team is working hard on getting sales (full disclosure - I’m helping Duke on an agency basis with sales). Electrode manufacturing is highly complex and knowledge-intensive. You need excellent machinery and highly-trained personnel. What Duke did, was that he got the main equipment supplier as an investor. This created confidence along the whole supply chain. In turn, this enabled Duke and his team to focus on perfecting the manufacturing process and on business development. How to build trust You can say that your business is as good as your supply chain. As a pre-seed or A-series startup, you don’t need to worry much about it. As you start to scale, the supply chain can make or break your business. As I hope I’ve shown in this article, building a supply chain is not about procurement, or getting the lowest bidder. It is first and foremost about building trust with your suppliers. It is all nice and coachy to say “build trust”, but how exactly? Let me summarize the takeaways from my own experience and from those I trust. First, get a solid sales pipeline, ideally an offtake. This will show suppliers that customers trust you and that now they have a chance to help you execute this sale. This is what we’ve done in our wind business in Russia. We started by going to the auction and securing the 660 MW pipeline. Second, get investors on your side. Having just received a check from investors works wonders. But don’t get too excited, as if this is your only trump, then the supplier will still push for a 100% prepayment. And discounts will be rarely seen. When I was launching the wind business, after securing the pipeline we got all the necessary funding from the banks. Third, get a supplier to be your investor. Make them have skin in the game. This is what Duke has done, without having any significant sales contracts signed. Now, you’ll have to tread carefully here, as later you might want to switch suppliers. Building a supply chain is more than just a series of transactions. It’s about forging relationships and building trust. From my globe-trotting examples, the lesson is clear: your suppliers are your partners. You need to show them that you have solid customers and secured investment, and, when necessary, get them invested in your success. This isn’t about getting the lowest bid; it’s about creating a network of trust and reliability that can withstand the pressures of scaling up. So, whether you’re a startup or a scaleup, remember that your supply chain can make or break you. Build it wisely, and it will be your greatest asset.

Yesterday, I heard a fascinating story about the state of the heat pump market from a developer in Germany. They installed a heat pump in a multi-flat building, only to hand over ownership and operations to the housing management company. The management company received a subsidy from the state for installing the heat pump. But when the heat pump broke down, instead of calling for repairs, they simply switched on the old gas boiler. In another instance, a management company turned off the heat pump and reverted to using gas because the heat pump was "noisy." What Does This Tell a Startup Founder? For me, as an economist, this is a textbook illustration of the principal-agent problem. But here, I’m not writing about economics; I’m writing about growing startups. As a founder, I love these stories. They highlight problems, and solving problems is what startups are all about. Key Problems 1. Quality and Reliability: Heat pumps are expensive pieces of equipment. A 10 kWh heat pump, capable of heating and cooling a 250m² home, can cost anywhere from €4000 to €7000. When you spend this kind of money, you expect a product that won’t break down. Ensuring high quality and reliability is crucial. 2. Noise Levels: This equipment should operate as smoothly and quietly as a top-notch Mercedes Benz, allowing even a newborn baby to sleep nearby. Addressing noise issues is essential for customer satisfaction. 3. Economic Viability: The fact that heat pumps require subsidies to gain acceptance indicates a need for cost reduction or financial innovation. Finding ways to make heat pumps more economically viable without subsidies is a significant opportunity. Keep Looking These stories from the heat pump market underscore the importance of tackling real-world problems. As a startup founder, always look for these pain points and turn them into opportunities for innovation and improvement. Embrace the challenges, and keep solving problems to drive your startup’s growth and success. Keep looking for problems to solve! #energytransition #manufacturing #heatpumps #heating #subsidies #startups #scaleups #greentech #climatetech #cleantech

In 2016 I convinced Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, to invest $1B in wind energy and wind turbine manufacturing. Why did they agree? Let's break it down: 1. Significant Margins from Energy Generation:  The margins were substantial enough to cover all possible losses and penalties, even in a worst-case scenario. 2. Existing Industrial Base in Rosatom:  The company had some confidence in its ability to handle wind turbine manufacturing, as it was currently manufacturing nuclear reactor cores. While we didn’t end up relying on this expertise at all, it provided a necessary connection to utilizing existing assets. 3. Corporate Target for Diversifying Income:  Rosatom had a strategic goal to increase revenue from non-nuclear businesses. Wind energy fit this objective perfectly. Key Takeaways Avoiding Risks:  Corporations want to invest in ventures that are highly profitable, matching or exceeding the profit margins of their current products. Leveraging Existing Assets:  It's all about how to squeeze extra dollars from existing assets. Demonstrating how the project ties into the corporation’s operations is crucial, but be cautious. This connection can hinder or kill the project if followed too rigidly. Show the connection, but leave yourself a way out. Hitting Where It Hurts:  The project goals must align with the corporation’s overarching strategic aims. This alignment increases the likelihood of approval from top executives, whether it’s the CEO or the chairman of the board. Conclusion Proving a business case to a huge corporation like Rosatom isn’t just about numbers or technology. It’s about strategy, risk management, and aligning with broader corporate goals. When pitching your project, make sure to highlight significant margins, leverage existing assets, and align with the company’s strategic objectives. This approach is key to securing corporate investment. #climatetech #cleantech #scaleups #startups #corporation #investment #investors #manufacturing #energytransition

Startups like their technology. Can’t blame them. You get to witness awesome feats of engineering when you work with startups. But I tend to treat those like works of art, rather than products. Because they command prices like valuable art, rather than products. Founders tend to focus too much on their technology. This is understandable, but that is not what your corporate purchasing manager is after. To win that B2B contract focus on these three things in this exact priority. Price Corporate customers don’t pay green premiums for commodities. Forget marketing your product as sustainable. Batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines have become commodities. You can begin trying to sell in these markets your new technology only if you can offer a lower price. No amount of “sustainability” or “quality” differences will be relevant. Lower life-cycle costs are also a poor sell. Corporate purchasing managers do not get rewarded for paying higher prices now for possible savings later. They have a budget, and they need to stick to it, or better, spend less. In a consumer market, you could charge a green premium, as there will always be a group, willing to pay it. Like in electric cars. But not in the B2B. Reliability Even if your price can beat Chinese competition any day, you still have to prove that your product can actually perform as promised. A good price doesn’t guarantee good performance, and the purchasing manager will take some heat if your product doesn’t perform. Get any certification you can. Run your product for a year or more in industrial park test zones, or in less regulated markets. Show your corporate customers that your product works reliably. Resilience COVID-19, war in Ukraine, and China’s dominant position in many parts of the green supply chain got everyone thinking of supply chain resilience. An innovative product, relying on 90% of Chinese-made parts has a much lower chance of being purchased, than a product with a diverse supply chain. This sounds like a contradiction. How can you make a cheap and reliable product, if you don’t source all of its parts from China? The straightforward answer is to use subsidies. You can get compensated for using local content in some places, like the USA. Another would be innovating along the supply chain. Get someone to make you your product, instead of doing it yourself. A manufacturer-as-a-service is likely to have bigger economies of scale than you and a more diverse supply chain. Partner with startups, who are working to disrupt your supply chain. They also need customers, and you can be their first customer. Keep in mind, that If there is any premium that a corporate customer might be willing to pay, it is the resilience premium, but not a green premium. Sustainability This is what startups usually put first when marketing their product. In reality, this should be the last thing you say. Ah, and by the way, it will enhance your sustainability. If the product is all of the above, sustainability is a nice bonus.

A recruiter recently reached out with an intriguing proposition: the position of Chairman of the Board at a burgeoning battery company. Initially, it seemed like a fascinating opportunity, but after careful consideration, I decided to decline. I want to share the thought process behind my decision in this post. The Company’s Background The company in question is owned by three friends who founded it over two decades ago. Their primary business revolves around selling lead-acid batteries, imported from China. This product line makes-up  90% of their revenue. Recently, they ventured into assembling lithium-ion batteries, attempting to diversify their offerings. Two years ago, they brought in new management, aiming to drive growth. However, despite these changes, significant revenue increases remained elusive. The Chairman’s Mandate The role of the Chairman came with a substantial challenge: devising a new strategy to propel the company into new markets and triple its revenue within the next five years. This ambitious goal was at the heart of their recruitment drive. So, why did I ditched it? 1. Market Realities: The core of my skepticism lay in the market dynamics. The company’s foundation in reselling lead-acid batteries is stable but limited. Transitioning to a dominant player in the lithium-ion battery market posed significant challenges. The local demand for lithium-ion batteries is modest, and existing suppliers hold a strong foothold. It was hard to envision a pathway for this company to disrupt such an established market. 2. Founders' Dynamics: Another crucial factor was the company’s internal dynamics. The founders have operated without a formal board for over twenty years. Introducing a Chairman into this mix seemed counterintuitive. Power-sharing with an outsider, who hasn’t been part of their longstanding camaraderie and internal battles, would likely be resisted. It’s natural for founders to be wary of diluting their control, especially when the board is a new concept for them. 3. Potential Internal Conflict: The scenario I foresaw was less about collaboration and more about internal power struggles. The founders might leverage the Chairman as a counterbalance to the CEO, fostering a competitive rather than a cooperative environment. In such situations, the CEO often has the upper hand, given their direct influence over company resources and personnel. Employees, whose paychecks come from the CEO, are more likely to align with their directives rather than those of a new Chairman. While the opportunity to shape the future of a growing company was tempting, the inherent challenges and potential for conflict outweighed the potential benefits. A successful Chairman’s role requires not only strategic insight but also a conducive environment for change, which I did not perceive here. In leadership, sometimes the best decisions are those that involve walking away from opportunities that don’t align with one’s strategic vision and values.

EU companies seem to be unable to get their gigafactories up and running. Britishvolt, Italvolt cancelled. Freyr and Beyonder are moving out. Northvolt is struggling with quality issues, after almost two years after launch. After so many grand announcements, things look like they are fizzling out. I don’t have the answer. But what I know is that launching large-scale manufacturing is f***ing hard even if you’ve done that once already. Or even twice. When I was just starting out in my manufacturing career, I was charged with building wind turbine manufacturing in Russia. I was not sure if we could pull off blade manufacturing. So I’ve talked to Vestas, Enercon, Siemens, GM, and so on to learn about blade manufacturing. At one time, I was sitting in a meeting room at Charles de Gaulle airport with a representative from Gamesa (they were not yet acquired by Siemens at that time). We were talking about possible localization of manufacturing of blades in Russia and that’s when he told me this story. Gamesa was setting up blade manufacturing in the USA. The factory was closed after three years of operation. The scrap rate was over 50%. And they couldn’t find a way around it. That was when I decided that we were not going to even try to localize blade manufacturing. I remembered this story when I read recently about Northvolt’s woes. I can only hope that Northvolt investors will have enough patience, and its engineers and workers enough diligence to overcome the current manufacturing difficulties. There is a way around it. EU doesn’t manufacture its own chips. But it does manufacture the equipment needed to make those chips. And its companies design chips. And the chips are then made in Taiwan, at TSMC factories. Nothing wrong with doing the same with batteries. EU could focus on development, and outsource making batteries to, say, Korea or Japan. For full disclosure - I am working with JR Energy Solution, a Korean electrode foundry, offering manufacturing-as-a-service for lithium-ion electrodes. Or is there another way? I would love to know your thoughts.

In the 90s Intel was considering switching to making a completely new chip. It was simpler and consumed less power. It was clear, that the chip application would be on mobile devices, which would also be the future of computing. There was just one problem - it would be less profitable to make them than to continue the production of existing chips. A couple of years later, Steve Jobs approached Intel with an offer to make chips for his new iPhone product. Intel, and Jobs himself at that time thought that the product would be niche. After some thought, Intel turned down the offer. Again, it was simply not feasible to serve the emerging niche market. I can see how perfectly sensible that decision was. Investing in a new, risky product. Similar ventures in portable devices have failed. Even if it became a success, then it would still make less money than the current product - the chips for PCs. No way you would get such a project approved by any sensible board of directors. Several years later, Apple made more money from the iPhone than Intel from PC chips.

I first saw a flying car while watching Blade Runner, in the early 90s. Five years passed since 2019 - the year in which the events of the movie take place, but only last year we got ourselves the first certified flying car. And that was in China, not in LA. All the technologies necessary to make a flying car are available today. The key one is the high-density lithium-ion batteries. These became light and cheap enough thanks to the progress made in making electric cars. Cells with Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt cathode (NMC) seem to be the preferred type for these cars, as it currently packs more energy per kg of weight The growth in the drone market also helped to develop the necessary technologies, for controlling flight. The emergence of AI paves the way for making flying cars autonomous from the start. Two things hold back the development of the personal flight market. The first is regulations. Western regulators have been slow in allowing cars to fly over cities. Chinese regulators came a little faster. This year should see other places like Israel and France have their first flying cars. In Israel, AIR One is expected to start shipping first commercial orders and Volocopter is expected to launch its flying taxi service in Paris.  Still, any new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) vehicle will take years to test and certify. The electric aircraft market is around $8B now and is projected to grow to about $35B by 2030. This includes drones, which are by far the most visible representation of electric aviation today. The growth could become exponential closer to the end of this decade, as more electric VTOL aircraft get certified and take to the skies. But there is a second problem, to be overcome. The problem is why. Why do we need a flying car? Zipping above the traffic jams seems cool until you factor in the cost. Current models are priced over $300K, making them unaffordable for all but the super-rich, corporations or governments. If the price of EVs is any guide, then it would take 15-20 years for the prices of flying cars to reach the prices of EV today. As more flying cars fill the skies above the cities, AI air traffic regulation is likely to happen, queuing all the flying cars in the multi-story air traffic jams. Getting to work 20 min earlier is not the problem I’d want to solve with a flying car. I rarely travel to the office now, and public transport is getting better all the time. From the climate perspective, flying cars will not contribute to any meaningful CO2 reduction. All air travel today contributes just over 2% of global CO2 equivalent emissions, and most of it is from long-haul flights. VTOLs could be taken up first by city services like police, ambulances, and firefighters. Big cities could afford them. Ambulances have a hard time pushing through city traffic, and for these kinds of life-or-death situations, flying cars can make a real difference. But as budgets and procurement procedures go, this will take a couple of years. With this in mind, I see flying cars as a luxury market. It doesn’t solve global climate or other global issues. They definitely will not save the world. But they may save lives.

Recently, the EU and the US slapped import tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs). In my circles, the reaction has been one of outrage, with many accusing the governments of undermining climate efforts and harming consumers. But let’s take a step back and look at the bigger picture. While these tariffs may seem counterproductive at first glance, they are, in fact, a prudent hedge against over-reliance on China for critical goods and technology. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us a valuable lesson about the power of distributed systems. These systems, which Nassim Taleb describes as 'antifragile,' actually grow stronger under stress. If you do not want to put all of your eggs in one basket, then you need to buy a second, and maybe a third basket. Three baskets are more expensive than one, but then, it may let you bake your cake. A system that may look good and work best during normal times (like cheap Chinese EVs), may, and most likely will, shatter in crisis. A system that is a bit more expensive, and slow. and a little inefficient, can be the only one you can rely on in your time of need. Consider this: a system that functions perfectly under normal conditions, like the availability of cheap Chinese EVs, might crumble when a crisis hits. On the other hand, a slightly more expensive and slower system, though less efficient, can be your lifeline when things go south. It’s like having a sturdy backup generator or battery when the main power grid fails. The Russian invasion of Ukraine starkly reminds us that global stability is never guaranteed. Russia isn't the only player—China has made its intentions towards Taiwan clear. What seemed unthinkable is now within the realm of possibility. So, why continue as if it’s still the calm of 1999? We are all in it for the long haul, and the more we become antifragile - the better.  It’s past the time to prepare for a more unpredictable future.