PitchBook: AI disruption rises, VC optimism cools in H1 2025
The latest PitchBook survey finds that venture capital investors are making "strategic adjustments as they navigate geopolitical uncertainty and technological transition."
0
This content has been selected, created and edited by the Finextra editorial team based upon its relevance and interest to our community.
52% of VC investors are expecting major changes in the sector this year, up from 32% in late 2024, according to PitchBook's H1 2025 VC Tech Survey.
The rise is driven by technologies such as automated underwriting and generative AI copilots. However, adoption hurdles remain, with nearly half of respondents citing unclear use cases, followed by skills shortages and high implementation costs. Regulatory concerns, meanwhile, have eased, falling from 55% to 39%.
Despite macroeconomic uncertainty, fintech remains one of the top sectors for growth capital, attracting 38% of allocations. Still, investor caution is rising. 34% are scrutinising deals more closely, 44% are pausing investments for clarity, and 25% are pulling back from international opportunities amid renewed trade tensions.
The broader fundraising outlook has cooled, with only 38% of respondents expecting a rise in VC funding this year, a decrease from 58% in H2 2024. Liquidity expectations are also more conservative, with fewer anticipating exit improvements.
As AI capabilities mature and geopolitical risks reshape capital flows, fintech startups are under growing pressure to deliver clear value and defensible AI strategies to stand out in a more selective market.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ohio food banks strain as Trump slashes federal aid programs
COLUMBUS, Ohio On a warm spring morning, volunteers at the Mid-Ohio Food Collective plucked cucumbers from a greenhouse where a state psychiatric hospital once stood and the land lay fallow. Now the state's largest food bank is working that ground again, part of an urgent effort to shore up supplies amid shrinking federal support, including deep funding cuts under President Donald Trump. They are planting more. Prepping soil for fruit trees, and installing hives for honey. In the greenhouse, crates of romaine and butterhead lettuce were packed for delivery, bound for a pantry across town. Back at headquarters in Grove City, staff chased leads from grocers, manufacturers, even truckers looking to unload abandoned freight. Every pallet helped. Every pound counted. In a state that handed Trump three straight wins, where Trump flags flap near food aid flyers pinned on bulletin boards, the cost of his austerity push is starting to show. 'Food banks will still have food,' said Mid-Ohio CEO Matt Habash. 'But with these cuts, you'll start to see a heck of a lot less food, or pantries and agencies closing. You're going to have a lot of hungry, and a lot less healthy, America.' For decades, food banks like Mid-Ohio have been the backbone of the nation's anti-hunger system, channelling government support and donations from corporations and private donors into meals and logistics to support pantries at churches, non-profits and other organizations. If a food bank is a warehouse, food pantries are the store. Outside one of those – the Eastside Community Ministry pantry in rural Muskingum County, Ohio – Mary Dotson walked slow, cane in hand. The minute she stepped through the doors, her whole body seemed to lift. They call her Mama Mary here, as she's got the kind of voice that settles you down and straightens you out in the same breath. The regulars grin as Dotson, 77, pats shoulders, swaps recipes. She had tried to do everything right: built a career, raised five children, planned for the quiet years with her husband. But after he died and the kids moved away, the life they'd built slipped out of reach. Now her monthly Social Security check is $1,428. She budgets $70 of that for groceries, and she gets $23 in food benefits as well. She started as a volunteer at Eastside. Simple math convinced her to become a customer. 'I figured if I'm going to take these things,' Dotson said, 'I'm going to work here, too.' Campaign fodder The Mid-Ohio Food Collective was born out of church basements and borrowed trucks nearly a half-century ago, when factory closures left more families hungry. It's now the state's largest food bank, feeding more than 35,000 Ohio families a week. It supplies more than 600 food pantries, soup kitchens, children and senior feeding sites, after-school programs and other partner agencies. When Trump returned to office in January, Mid-Ohio was already slammed. Pantry visits across its 20 counties hit 1.8 million last year, nearly double pre-COVID levels, and are continuing to grow this year. The biggest surge came from working people whose paychecks no longer stretch far enough due to pandemic-era inflation under Joe Biden's presidency, staff said. Then came the Trump cuts. In March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled the pandemic-era Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program, which funded about $500 million annually for food banks; and froze about $500 million in funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), one of the agency's core nutrition programs that supplies food to states to pass on to food banks for free. Much of the food Mid-Ohio distributes is donated, but donations alone can't stock a pantry consistently. Its current $11.1 million purchasing budget, built from federal, state and private dollars, helps fill the gaps. The March cuts wiped out about 22% of Mid-Ohio's buying power for next fiscal year – funds and food that staff are trying to replace. In early December, Mid-Ohio ordered 24 truckloads filled with milk, meat and eggs for delivery this spring and summer. The food came through the TEFAP program, using about $1.5 million in government funding. The first delivery was scheduled to show up April 9. The only thing to arrive was a cancellation notice. USDA said in a statement Secretary Brooke Rollins is working to ensure federal nutrition spending is efficient, effective, and aligned with the administration's budget priorities. More cuts could come. Last month, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Trump's tax and spending bill. It called for $300 billion in cuts to food benefits for low income people under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which fed nearly 1.4 million Ohioans in January, according to the latest state data. If the cuts survive the Senate and are passed into law, it annually would cost Ohio at least $475 million in state funding to maintain current SNAP benefits, plus at least $70 million for administrative program costs, said Cleveland-based The Center for Community Solutions, an independent, nonpartisan policy research group. That would consume nearly every state-controlled dollar in Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services budget, roughly 95% of the general revenue meant to help fund everything from jobless claims to foster care. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and other lawmakers in this GOP supermajority state capitol, facing a constitutional requirement to pass a balanced budget, told Reuters that extra money for food banks isn't there. The proposed fiscal 2025 Ohio budget would set food bank funding back to 2019 levels – or about 23% less than what it spent this year, in a state where nearly one in three people qualify for help. Federal safety-net programs have become campaign fodder, too. At a recent Ohio Republican Party fundraiser in Richland County, Ohio, voters in suits and Bikers for Trump gear alike listened to Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech millionaire turned presidential candidate now running for Ohio governor. He spoke out against 'a culture of dependence on the entitlement state that has festered in our country for 60 years.'
Reuters
36 minutes ago
- Reuters
Critical minerals part deux: China's dominance
Follow on Apple or Spotify. Listen on the Reuters app. Decades ago, China foresaw what the U.S. didn't - a future dependent on critical minerals. Now, the U.S. is playing catch up as China's export controls threaten global supply chains. Join Laurie Chen, Ernest Scheyder and Jarrett Renshaw to hear the latest on critical minerals, particularly what China's dominance means for the modern world. Listen to part one here. Sign up for the Reuters Econ World newsletter here. Listen to the Reuters Econ World podcast here. Visit the Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement for information on our privacy and data protection practices. You may also visit to opt out of targeted advertising. Further Reading China's rare earth weapon changes contours of trade war battlefield, opens new tab China's rare earth export curbs hit the auto industry worldwide, opens new tab Global alarm as China's critical mineral export curbs take hold, opens new tab
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___
