Author Archives: TBR Team

Black Economic Empowerment: South Africa’s Failed Attempt at Redress.

By Joseph Kennedy.

When Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) was introduced by the government, the promise of a new economic landscape came with it. Yet over thirty-five years after the official end to the country’s apartheid, South Africa remains one of the most divided societies in the world. Despite billions in business deals and endless government scorecards, inequality has barely shifted, unemployment has worsened, and a handful of connected elites have become the faces of the failed movement.

The Black Economic Empowerment movement emerged in the years after Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress party took office in 1994, when the new government inherited an economy completely divided by race. Apartheid had locked the Black majority out of ownership, skilled work, and corporate leadership. BEE was designed to be the economic counterpart to South Africa’s political liberation.

Formalized through the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act in 2003, the policy set out to expand ownership, provide employment opportunities, and grow a Black middle class that had been racially excluded for generations. In practice, this meant a corporate scorecard system that rewarded companies for Black ownership stakes, affirmative action in recruitment, and procurement from Black-run businesses.

These scorecards covered metrics including who sat on boards and executive teams, recruitment and promotion of black employees, money was invested in training and skills development, and trade with black-owned suppliers. Businesses could climb the BEE “levels” by hitting these targets, and a higher score made it easier to win government contracts or become a preferred supplier for large corporations.

From the government’s perspective, this mix of ownership transfers, hiring targets and skills investment was supposed to create a broad-based Black middle class and open pathways for new Black entrepreneurs. At its launch, BEE was promoted as the blueprint that would finally give Black South Africans a meaningful place in the economy they had long been cut out of.

So, what went wrong? The issue wasn’t the idea; it was how it was implemented. Rather than creating broader opportunities, the first wave of empowerment deals instead placed enormous quantities of wealth in the hands of a small group of politically connected elite. Billions of South African Rand in share transfers went to fewer than 100 people, according to governance researchers. As a result, most Black South Africans saw little change in income, employment, or mobility.

Companies often treated BEE as a compliance exercise, ticking boxes on ownership targets without building real ground skills or supporting new entrepreneurs. Procurement rules, designed to favor Black-owned suppliers, were frequently exploited through “fronting”, where businesses appointed Black partners on paper to secure contracts.

Once politics became involved, the trouble only deepened. Procurement around state-owned giants like Eskom and Transnet became crowded with well-connected government officials, inflating prices and driving the corruption crisis that later defined the state capture years. So as the wider economy stalled, the policy’s promise of change was replaced by rising frustration from a middle class that was supposed to be expanding, not shrinking.

In 2025, the impact of BEE’s failures is plain to be seen in South Africa’s economy. Inequality has barely shifted, with the average white household still earning more than four times the income of a Black household, according to Stats SA.

Unemployment tells the same story, where joblessness sits at around 37% for Black South Africans but falls to single digits for their white peers. The policy’s narrow focus on share deals and political insiders left millions without the skills, capital or mobility needed to break into the formal economy. On the ground, this has meant fewer new jobs, higher living costs, and a squeeze on families trying to climb into the middle class. South Africa is now left with the worst of both worlds; a transformation project that hasn’t transformed much, and an economy struggling to grow under the weight of inequality it was supposed to fix.

BEE was initially implemented with the aim of levelling the playing field and reducing the stark contrast between ordinary white and black families. Instead, it created a new political oligarchy, where wealth and opportunity circulate among the same well-connected names while millions remain shut out. The policy’s original promise hasn’t disappeared, but it now depends on shifting away from elite share deals and towards genuine skills, entrepreneurship, and most importantly, economic opportunity. Without that reset, equality, prosperity and economic freedom will remain something South Africans talk about, rather than experience.

BioTech for Longevity: Inside the Irish Startup Aerska’s $21M Raise

By Gaia Mambelli

The role which technology plays in longevity is still unfolding. How can technology meaningfully improve people’s lives? Aerska was founded on this question, driving progress in MedTech with a long-term vision. Real impact takes time, but with sustained research, innovation, and commitment, the effects can be life changing.

A new year also brings new plans and ambitions. Aerska, a biotech company headquartered in Dublin, had already laid the groundwork by October 2025. The company closed out the year with a $21M seed round to advance antibody-oligonucleotide conjugates designed to systemically deliver RNA interference (RNAi) medicines to the brain, one of the most ambitious challenges in today’s medicine landscape.
In BioTech, the most powerful goals are those that can change lives. At Aerska, that ambition is already in motion.

Founder’s Track of Records.

Founded by Jack O’Meara, Stuart Milstein, and David Hardwicke, the company is built on extensive expertise in RNA interference (RNAi). This rapidly emerging therapeutic modality precisely silences disease-causing genes and addresses conditions with high levels of unmet medical needs in neurology.


O’Meara, CEO and co-founder of Aerska, had previously led Ochre Biotech; another company focused on RNA-based therapies. His co-founder Hardwicke; a PhD graduate and Foundation Scholar at Trinity College Dublin, had also previously ran a company developing oral drug-delivery technologies. Hardwicke later relocated to London, where he continued to deepen his expertise in RNAi mechanisms.


O’Meara is joined by fellow Ochre alumnus David Coughlan, who serves as Aerska’s Head of Early Development, as well as Mike Perkinton, former Head of Discovery at AstraZeneca Neuroscience. Aerska’s Clinical Development and Operations teams are based in London, which acts as the company’s central hub for the planning, oversight, and execution of its clinical programs.

Aerska’s Delivery Model – “Brain Shuttle” Approach & Patient-Matching and Data Strategy.

Think of Aerska as a delivery model. The brain has a security wall, the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB). While BBB restricts contact with harmful toxins and germs, it simultaneously limits the functionality of most medicines. The difficulty in treating these diseases stems from the inaccessibility of brain cells, as effective drugs must cross the blood–brain barrier to reach targets inside them. Here is where the genetic medicine RNAi comes into play. RNAi works by silencing the genes that cause brain diseases to occur, genes which are bound to certain antibodies in the brain. Such antibodies are better known as “Brain Shuttles”. The medicine shuttles from the bloodstream to the inside of the brain. Once inside, the RNAi medication enters the affected neurons, thus switching off the disease-causing genes and providing aid to the correct part of the body. “We’re pairing this with a strategy to match the intervention to the right patient, at the right stage of their disease”, Jack stated in the Oct. 1 release.

Investment & Post-Seed Growth – Details of the Deal.

Aerska has developed a proprietary delivery system capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier (BBB), entering brain cells, and selectively switching off the genes responsible for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. So, what does this mean for the future of the field? This breakthrough approach differentiates the company in a highly competitive BioTech landscape, and is a key reason leading investors to advocate its vision.

Following this, Aerska closed a €17 million seed financing round, co-led by Age1, Backed VC, and Speedinvest, with participation from BlueYard Capital, Lingotto (Exor), Norrsken VC, Kerna Ventures, PsyMed Ventures, and Ada Ventures. This investment round reflects strong investor confidence in Aerska’s science, team, and long-term potential in neurotherapeutic operations.

The Challenge.

BioTech is not an easy business. It operates within one of the most highly regulated environments, shaped by strict laws and compliance requirements. At the same time, patients ultimately depend on the treatments and technologies provided by clinics and healthcare professionals, placing deep trust in the system.


The need for effective neurological solutions has never been more urgent. Aerska addresses some of the most critical neurological illnesses affecting Irish society today. While its R&D work is based in London, the company is headquartered in Dublin to stay close to Ireland’s dynamic innovation ecosystem and its strong network of pharmaceutical and biological players. This setup lets the team tap into top scientific talent on the research side, while positioning the business at the center of a growth-oriented life sciences hub.

Longevity is not a future promise; it is a responsibility. By combining scientific research, a brain-delivery platform, and investors’ trust, Aerska is tackling one of medicine’s most complex challenges head-on. In the fast-aging Irish society with growing neurological need, the company’s long-term commitment to precision RNAi therapies positions it not just to advance MedTech, but to redefine how brain diseases are treated: patient by patient, gene by gene.

Here for a good time, not a long time: Dublin’s dining scene runs on hype

Jessica Weld

Over the last few years, the food and drink scene in Dublin has become a quick-moving conveyor belt of sparkly new concept destinations, each trying to win foodies over to be crowned the best in its particular niche in the capital.

One glaringly obvious reoccurrence has been the short-lived nature of most of these ventures. In Dublin these days, it’s feast or famine – miss a beat and due to the extortionately high overheads of rent, labour and utilities and not to mention the ever lingering cost-of-living crisis hampering footfall, your new venture won’t be long going under. 

The Restaurants Association of Ireland reported that in the first three months of 2025, a whopping 150 restaurants closed across the country, citing rising operating costs as the reason for closure. In this report, RAI CEO Adrian Cummins called on the government to reduce the VAT rate on food and beverage sales to 9% in order to prevent further closures.

While many new entrants to the Dublin food scene typically fail after one year, there are some popular spots that stand the test of time and are regularly booked up and thriving. Social media has become an invaluable marketing tool for hospitality startups seeking to make their mark on the Dublin food scene. The reality of the current state of the Dublin hospitality trade is that the entire scene is being determined by online influence and for lack of a better word – “hype”. 

There are a growing number of Dublin based “foodie” influencers that fuel this hype, adhering to a whole range of different tastes and targeting very diverse audiences. From dual-threat DJ and Chef Marcus O’Laoire to the edgy and alternative vibe of former TV presenter Cassie Stokes, representation of the Irish food and drink scene on social media is at an all time high. 

Additionally, the rise of “User Generated Content” attributes to the Dublin foodie hype train. Everyone wants to be credited with finding the next “hidden gem” and gaining their own individual fame from a popular video on TikTok or Instagram.

This influence doesn’t just hit Dublin, shockwaves quickly ripple abroad leaving people from all over Ireland in a state of puzzlement over makeup guru James Charles’ TikTok video review of a Spice Bag from Xi’an Street Food in the centre of the city. The video posted in October 2024 garnered a whopping 6.3 million views and brought the restaurant international acclaim, causing an influx of tourists that were travelling to Dublin specifically to try their newly “viral” Spice Bag.

It’s these “viral” moments that are keeping the lights on in Dublin’s current flavour-of-the-month food spots. Popular steak restaurant Boeuf and Frites cultivated its own social media frenzy ahead of its opening in February 2024. The rapidly expanding restaurant group exploited a gap in the market for a good quality steak in the centre of the city – without paying the steakhouse premium price. 

They struck a very hard-to-find balance in the Dublin hospitality game and a lot of their success can be credited to their strong social media presence, appearing regularly on TikTok and Instagram feeds of Dublin locals through both their own content and masses of User Generated Content. Due to their consistent presence and a well-received “good bang for your buck” offering, Boeuf has continued to thrive in the local market despite the poor economic conditions.

Despite Dublin’s hype economy keeping some of the city’s old and new favourite institutions afloat, this whole situation begs the question of how much more can Dublin’s food and beverage scene really take? 

With an exponential rise in restaurant closures and the industry’s outcry for a VAT decrease being ignored in the latest budget, will our favourite hotspots be able to survive on vibes and hype alone? Or are spoiled dishes and closed doors the price of dining in Dublin?

US/China AI Wars Escalate as China Effectively Bans Major US Developers.

By Michael Fennell

Prior to the economic, cultural, and seemingly unending prominence of Artificial Intelligence, the US had unequivocal control in chip development. American companies like Intel and AMD dominated the space. But the industry has changed. A company once known for making graphics cards for gaming PCs is now a multi trillion dollar empire on the cutting edge of the most burdening industry in the world.
Nvidia chips have been viewed as an industry flagship with the ability for massive parallel processing, a crucial part of training AI and the execution of AI prompts. What once lay in the gaming PCs now lines server warehouses across the world. And the country of the company who makes them has a big say in who can buy them and when.


China’s Interest in the AI Industry
AI has undoubtedly become a gigantic industry, one which many speculate is not just here to stay, but to change the world. China wants to be the major player in this space for a number of reasons. Most notably the economic growth; if anything akin to the tech boom of the early 2000s, this has the potentiality to create trillions in GDP growth, tens of thousands of jobs, as well as international esteem. Not only is there a positive ambition, but a defensive one too. A reliance on the US in these tumultuous times with fluctuating relations could cause serious trouble for China. But if the roles were reversed, they would have serious bargaining power.


China Battling US Strategy
Despite the excitement around AI, China has a dilemma on their hands. Unfortunately for them the new major chip manufacturer in the space, Nvidia, is another American company. Almost all cutting edge AI technology is being developed and operated with Nvidia at their core. For China, this means that in order to compete in the present, they need to depend on the United States, who are controlling and regulating Nvidia and their exports.


In July the US Commerce secretary took to the media to explain that the US plan to both profit off of China and prevent any AI leapfrogging from them. He stated the only chip they’d be able to buy was the H20, an inferior chip which he repeatedly referred to as the “fourth best”. He said China would become “addicted to the American technology stack” and that this would stifle their domestic innovation, keeping them from the AI mantle both in terms of chips and software.


Whether it was the interview in which the US Commerce secretary made the US economic strategy abundantly clear, or the Chinese government seeing the writing on the wall, they immediately sought to ban all US chips as quickly as possible, preventing all Chinese companies from the future purchase of Nvidia chips. This was something that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang referred to as “disappointing” in a BBC interview, a comment which was not surprising considering the potential profits Nvidia could have made from a US China arms race with Nvidia in the middle. Now China seeks to develop their own Nvidia, with companies such as Cambricon, one which is working closely with Chinese AI powerhouse Deepseek.

While undoubtedly sub the standard of Nvidia, the prospects of a new chip making powerhouse in the AI space excited investors, thus skyrocketing stock prices. Now seemingly cash rich, it would appear as though the Chinese chip industry is well armed in their race against the US. Even prior to the banning, the Chinese technology company Huawei seemed desperate to catch up to Nvidia in the AI race, massively ramping up funding by billions in the AI chip space.


Consequences for China and the US
In the immediate future, China’s inability to obtain top of the line chips will undoubtedly stifle their ability to adapt and evolve in this ever-emerging industry. Despite backing domestic manufacturers, Deepseek too may take a hit with less access to domestic chips for servers and AI training. Although with their seemingly relentless pursuit from the Chinese government who are providing deregulation to fuel innovation and massive capital investments, a catch up in some way is not out of the realm of possibility. The US opium wars style tactics of dependency against China have failed, but they themselves are also investing heavily in AI both with huge sums of private capital and through the federal government through shared data factories, US AI is being fostered for world domination.


Despite their failure to export to China, the rest of the world seem eager to embrace the top of the line tech, including the UAE who recently secured a billion dollar a year investment agreement with the US for the securing of Nvidia chips.

Can I Zip You? – Are Irish Banks Too Late to the Instant Transfer Revolution?

By Sarah Renehan


The online platform Revolut, with an Irish customer base of three million people is finally
faced with a worthy rival in the Irish market, with the announcement of a new market entrant called
“Zippay”. Zippay, a feature being added to AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB’s online
banking apps, will allow customers to send, request, and spilt payments with other users
without the use of third-party applications. Zippay may be seen as directly challenging the
long established success of Revolut, but will such a feature take off or have the traditional
Irish banks left it too late to reclaim the instant transfer market segment?


What Makes Revolut So Successful?
Launched over 10 years ago as a fintech startup, Revolut was co-founded by Nikolay
Stornosky and Vlad Yatsenko, and has a current valuation of $75bn as of September 2025.
The platform began with the promise of transparent currency exchange and is now used by
individuals across 160 countries and regions worldwide. It’s feature of instant payment transfers,
with no sending fees amongst Revolut users, has revolutionized the online banking space. Since
its original launch, it as expanded into other markets, including insurance and savings
accounts with competitive rates of AER. Revolut adapts quickly to market changes, in 2018
becoming the first European fintech app to offer cryptocurrency trading for the likes of Bitcoin
and Litecoin, and over 10 million users have traded £45 billion since 2017.


Can Traditional Banks Compete?
Since Revolut’s establishment as a fully-fledged digital banking platform, traditional banks
have lagged behind by failing to launch competing features, ultimately hindering their
opportunity to gain a share in this new market. Zippay will only challenge one aspect of the
Revolut model, arguably the most used aspect of the model; the instant transfer
function. Despite the delay in action, Zippay has showcased potential to disrupt the market.
It will service 5 million potential Irish customers across the three banks, AIB, BOI, and
Permanent TSB, and will be backed by the perceived security that these banks offer.


Interestingly, the EU recently introduced legislation making SEPA Instant Payments
mandatory for all EU Payment Service Providers from the 9th of October 2025. This is a
system for making cashless payments which is used across the EU, a legislation which will allow banking customers to make instant transfers using IBANs; transfers which
previously took up to one business day, will now take moments. Ironically,  Zippay is built
on the previous SEPA payment system and not the SEPA instant payment system. This is due
to Zippay being built long before the announcement of this new legislation.


The slow response of the Irish banks in creating a rival has made their new platform feature
somewhat redundant even before its initial launch. As online banking users are now able to
send instant payments with SEPA through the use of IBANs, the convenience of instant payments is lost, and instead Zippay’s success relies on the convenience of allowing users to send money with just a phone number.
However, there are certainly some obstacles to the usage of this platform which may inconvenience users, with an example being Zippay’s sending limit of 1000 EUR per day, which is also dependent on individual bank transaction limits. Meanwhile, Revolut sees no funds transfer limit. Moving forward, it will be interesting to see how Zippay can compete with “Revolut Junior” a service which allows parents to open
accounts for their children which only they can deposit money into. This has proven to be
extremely popular, with over 400,000 of Revolut’s Irish customer base being under 18 years
of age.


Will the Delayed Response be Zippay’s Downfall?

In terms of business strategy, the traditional Irish banks may have left
joining the instant payments trend too late. In Eisenhardt & Martins article “Dynamic Capabilities:
What are They?” (2000), the idea of fast-moving markets and how a firm’s ability to sense,
seize, and reconfigure matters more than static advantage, and this theory can be applied in
the case of the Irish banks. Although the traditional banks offer high levels of security and
protection, and the new services which Zippay seeks to provide will eliminate the need for
topping up a digital wallet or downloading a separate app, they still lag behind their
competitors. In 2020, Irish banks attempted to launch a similar venture called “Yippay”,
and though it had never launched due to legislative restrictions and software issues, the concept of Yippay could have potentially offered a more adequate and timely rival to Revolut.


Ultimately only time will tell, we must wait until the 2026 launch of Zippay to truly gauge its
success. The odds, however, are not in it’s favour.

« Older Entries