VC leading Bolt’s hoped-for $450M deal confirms he’s offering ‘marketing credits’

illustration of two dollar bills shaking hands

Image Credits: Tim Robberts / Getty Images

Ashesh Shah, the founder and CEO of The London Fund is, as you might imagine, bullish on Bolt. The London Fund is a U.K. venture firm with “over $1 billion in cash and assets” in AUM that is leading a proposed $450 million raise for Bolt, a one-click checkout startup that has been embroiled in a number of controversies over the years.

But all that isn’t deterring Shah, who describes the term sheet that is in play for Bolt as “a fabulous transaction about a company that we believe has a lot more room left in it.”

I interviewed Shah on Wednesday afternoon about the deal and its eyebrow-raising terms. The interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

TC: What are you able to say about this proposed transaction?

Shah: The London Fund has been around since 2003. We are always looking for Ferraris with flat tires. Sometimes people don’t understand why. Maybe it’s not the right color. Maybe it’s not what the market knows. We’re deeply technical. I’m a multi-time founder, and have gone through a lot of this. We really at the end of the day saw something here that is quite special. Bolt has an unbelievable reach — if you look at the number of wallets and people that have used the system, how it works, and if you compare them to like a Shopify, or to some of the other bigger players, they’re on par. I think that’s a hidden gem.

If you look at the ability over time, if you launch the Super App, the ability to have interactions between wallet holders. When you start looking at Shopify or Bolt, and you start realizing that the user base is massive, and you have a big opportunity.

Obviously, this is a term sheet — it’s not yet final. There are a lot of things that would need to happen for the pay-to-play/cramdown to work. What do you think are the chances this is approved?

I hope this goes to conclusion. We’ve worked very hard on this. There’s been six months of thinking and working and tracking. We believe that what we bring to the table as a firm and what Bolt has can lead to some amazing new activity. I think there’s a lot of value for all the shareholders. I think a lot of folks have got it quite wrong. We’re simply asking that existing shareholders show that they’re committed to the future of what this journey looks like. Right? We’re not saying anything negative, but I’m sort of saying, if I’m putting my skin in the game, then I want others to make sure that they’re there. And I think, assuming all goes well, then hopefully this transaction concludes quite well, and we’ve left it open so others can come in with capital as well. We’re simply leading on this. There’s plenty of room.

As part of the proposed transaction, your firm would be contributing $250 million. What are some examples of marketing services that you are offering as part of your $250 million investment in lieu of cash?

We provide tactical capital. We want to make sure that what we’re deploying has a very real impact in a firm that we give it to. When it comes to marketing credits, we get to decide how that looks like. Essentially, it has to be the cash equivalent….We believe that over time, a lot of the kind of resources that funds will provide don’t have to take the intermediate step of cash. 

One of our funds actually has influencers and media as our LPs. So we’re offering visibility, just like Warner Brothers would offer television time — except ours are influencers and people who are able to speak about services or products or things like that. So if you look at Bolt, they spend a lot of money on co-marketing dollars, like they spend about $80 million in marketing already, and they use that to co-market. So we can provide the co-marketing funds that they need and the co-marketing impressions that their brands need.

Think of it like a barter, like OpenAI did that with Microsoft, right? Ten billion. It was compute on Azure. They just said it was a ten billion dollar investment. But the reality: it’s also a way for Microsoft to manage and watch exactly how they’re performing. 

For us, we like to have full alignment between our LPs all the way to the company. I don’t take a 2% fee. So I think the other important thing is we are very aligned with our investments. We only do well if there’s an exit, which is a big thing.

On our side, we tend to believe that if we can go into companies that fundamentally have core assets, like in this case, wallets and transactions and users, you could do some really great things with it.

What is your opinion on Ryan Breslow returning as CEO? 

I think it’s important. I mean, the guy came up with it. The guy had foresight to figure out how to do a system where you can get into so many different retailers and help them in a way that is also helpful for the consumer. That’s no small feat. I mean, compare it to Revolut, compare it to Shopify — look at the speed at which he was able to grow. I think that there are ways to make sure that this business can keep growing. I think you need to have the vision behind it. There’s a couple more stages to this. Ryan’s got that vision.

Are you confident though that this is going to get approved?

We want this to go through, and I think that all the shareholders who are already present should really consider that this is a great way forward and sort of a path to a much higher sort of return.

Want more fintech news in your inbox? Sign up for TechCrunch Fintech here.

Want to reach out with a tip? Email me at [email protected] or send me a message on Signal at 408.204.3036. You can also send a note to the whole TechCrunch crew at [email protected]. For more secure communications, click here to contact us, which includes SecureDrop (instructions here) and links to encrypted messaging apps.

Even after $1.6B in VC money, the lab-grown meat industry is facing ‘massive’ issues

cultivated meat

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch

When Mosa Meat served up a first-of-its-kind, lab-grown hamburger in 2013, it cost over $300,000. Eleven years later, around 200 startups worldwide remain hopeful that growing meat from cells, rather than slaughtering animals, will one day be a major portion of our food supply. 

Despite their optimism, such success is not a given. In 2024, the industry has hit such rocky times that multiple startups have been forced to scale back or close shop. 

The industry is talking about eventually producing about 30 million pounds of finished product annually. However, over 100 billion pounds of traditional meat is produced annually today. And if plant-based meat accounts for about 1% of all meat by volume, it’s going to take time for cultivated meat to get to that point, said Better Meat CEO Paul Shapiro, who wrote a book in 2018 called “Clean Meat.”

Any goal that puts cultivated meat in big box grocery stores or on fast food menus in the 2020s is “unrealistic,” he told TechCrunch.

“Even if it were ready now, and the funding was available now, the time that it takes to build these factories is years. And the fact is, the money isn’t there for it, which is why a lot of these companies have abandoned their plans for commercial-scale factories,” Shapiro said.

For instance, New Age Eats shut down in early 2023, with founder Brian Spears posting on LinkedIn that the company was unable to secure funds to complete its pilot facility. Berkeley-based Upside Foods laid off workers and put plans on hold for a new Chicago-area facility. Israel-based Aleph Farms let go of 30% of its staff in June, also citing difficulties in raising capital. 

San Francisco Bay Area-based SCiFi Foods also permanently closed in June. SCiFi CEO Joshua March shared on LinkedIn: “Unfortunately, in this funding environment, we could not raise the capital that we needed to commercialize the SCiFi burger, and SCiFi Foods ran out of time.” 

“It’s a really tough time right now, not just for cultivated meat, but any biotech related field,” said Tufts University Professor of Biomedical Engineering David Kaplan. “The economy is in the toilet, the investing funds are not there and people are being very, very cautious these days.”

It’s important to note that the startups pursuing lab-grown meat are not just pursuing scientific curiosity or a more humane, but equally nutritious, protein alternative. Most global organizations, including the United Nations, are throwing out 2050 as the date when we will need to be producing 60% more food to feed the nearly 10 billion people expected to be inhabiting Earth. 

Those working on cultured meat hope it will be a significant portion of that 60%, with no need to slaughter animals or use the kind of land, water and energy resources needed by the traditional meat industry.

Still, as promising as this field was 11 years ago, there has been frustratingly slow progress on the industry’s main barriers. 

Companies working on lab-grown meat — although the industry prefers the terms cell-cultured or cultivated meat — make it from animal cells, typically stem cells, that are fed growth factors in some sort of cell-feeding solution, or medium. The cells are fed and grown in bioreactors, then processed with ingredients and flavorings to mimic the taste, texture, look and mouth feel of traditional meat.

Yet most companies are unable to produce large quantities of meat from their processes, much less at a low-enough cost or even at price parity with traditional meat. Moreover, the facilities cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to build. Achieving taste and texture is also a problem, as is changing the perceptions of people who tend to think of these products as unappetizing “Franken meat.”

On top of all that, very few companies have achieved regulatory approval in the U.S. for their cultivated meat processes.

Perhaps the biggest difficulty of all is the downturn in venture capital funding. In 2021 and 2022, cultivated meat companies pulled in over $1.6 billion in venture funding, according to Crunchbase analysis. As of June, Crunchbase was showing around $20 million in funding into this industry so far in 2024.

“Changing the world and reinventing the food system is hard, which is probably the least shocking conclusion that one can come to,” Amy Chen, chief operating officer for Upside Foods, told TechCrunch.

However, she, like all others in the cultured-meat industry, believes it can be done. She thinks there will be a point in development where some kind of Moore’s law equivalent will kick in, and the industry will start seeing dramatic increases in production and achieve regulatory approval, which will increase the ways this product is brought to market, driving affordability and public acceptance.

UPSIDE Foods Cultivated Chicken Filet
Upside Foods’ cultivated chicken filet. (Image credit: Upside Foods)
Image Credits: Upside Foods /

Government funding to the funding rescue?

Before these companies can solve their technical problems, they must first overcome their funding ones. Lever VC managing partner Nick Cooney says investment into the category “has dropped considerably in the last year or so,” largely due to the general drop in VC funding overall. “But this sector is outpacing that drop,” Cooney said. 

The problem is that (other than all things AI), VCs are currently avoiding funding tech that has enormous upfront capital costs, doesn’t currently produce much (if any) revenue (let alone profits), and may never prove to be viable businesses. 

“VCs have largely made this shift from growth to profitability, and that’s wreaked havoc” on this industry, said Alex Frederick, senior emerging technology analyst at PitchBook. It’s difficult to be profitable when you don’t have a product to sell, he points out. 

PitchBook puts fundraising into cultivated meat at a double-digits decline over the past few years, Frederick said. The first quarter of 2024 was on pace to somewhat match the low pace of 2023 funding with 12 deals logged so far. Another 20 or so more potential deals are in the pipeline, he said.

At the start of 2024, there were around 200 cultured meat companies worldwide, according to PitchBook. But because most cultivated meat companies are startups, if they lose their ability to raise more venture funding, they tend to go out of business or be acquired. That’s the stage where Tuft’s Kaplan says the market sits now and, unfortunately, he has no prediction on when that will change, or how many will survive.

One possible solution is for startups to outsource cell manufacturing, leasing equipment and production rather than each of them spending $100 million to $200 million on their own facilities, Frederick says. Venture capitalists have liked this approach and infused some funding into companies doing this, like Ark Biotech, Prolific Machines, Pow.bio, No Meat Factory and Planetary.

Another funding option, Kaplan points out, is if governments are willing to kick in. Singapore, the first country to approve cultured meat for consumer consumption, is doing so. It’s committed $230 million to research of alternative proteins. And the Israel Innovation Authority has an $18 million fund for alternative protein startups and research. Tufts’ Kaplan believes we’ll see more countries follow.

“In a world that’s kind of struggling right now with food security, it will become how much can the government invest into this approach,” he said. “Just like the government has invested in battery technology and chips, they are going to have to do the same thing for cultivated meat if we are going to make this work.”

He has reason to hope. He points to Mosa Meat’s $300,000 hamburger, saying that most companies today can make the same hamburger for $20. 

Yes, that’s still way more costly than a McDonald’s Big Mac, but in 10 years, there was a four orders of magnitude reduction in cost with minimum government investment, he said.

‘Massive’ engineering hurdles 

Others point out that even if money wasn’t so tight, the industry still hasn’t figured out how to make enough meat. Upside Foods knows about this. A lot about this. 

So does competitor Eat Just. Founder Josh Tetrick said his company has sold 10 times the amount of cultivated meat as the entire rest of the industry combined. “But that’s hardly any meat,” he told TechCrunch. “It’s in the single digit thousands of pounds, just to give you a sense of how small the volumes are, since only a handful of companies have regulatory approval.”

Eat Just and Upside Foods are two of the only companies to receive regulatory approval to sell this meat to consumers, with Eat Just being the first to sell in Singapore and then the United States. Tetrick is using this market advantage to focus on how to make millions of pounds at or below the cost of conventional meat. But “there are massive engineering and technological hurdles to be overcome,” he said. 

For instance, his company is working on increasing cell densities, or edible cells produced per unit volume. That’s a key metric for manufacturers in order to produce the maximum amount of meat from each bioreactor. 

There are a variety of bioreactor technologies, each with different approaches to cell density. Some use batch methods (fixed amount of cells and the growth food medium processed at one time); others use continuous methods (a steady stream of inputs/outputs). Some stir the cells when adding fresh cell food; others suspend the cells and rotate the walls of the reactor.

Which of these technologies will be reliably best is still a matter of scientific research. Cultivated meat producer Believer Meats, for instance, showed in a 2023 study that cells grown in suspension can deliver densities of over 100 billion cells per liter — which it claims is over 17 times the industry standard. This increased process yields from 2% to 36% weight per volume of edible meat per run. 

Image of WildType's sushi-grade, lab-grown salmon. Image Credit: Arye Elfenbein/WildType
Image of WildType’s sushi-grade, lab-grown salmon. Image Credit: Arye Elfenbein/WildType
Image Credits: Arye Elfenbein/WildType

Costly cell food

Beyond the reactor engineering, another major hurdle is both the engineering and cost of the cell growth medium. Cell media typically includes a mixture of an energy source, like glucose, that includes amino acids, salts, vitamins, water and other components. 

Along with the hundreds of millions of dollars to build a facility, the cost to produce this media at scale is quite expensive. A 2022 study by the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University found that 1 kilogram (equal to about 2 pounds) of cell-cultured meat was estimated to cost $63 to produce. That was compared to $6.17 per kilogram for beef.

Wildtype, for instance, is making cultivated salmon. It started with a single cell and hasn’t needed to go back to an animal to obtain more cells for five years now, according to co-founder Aryé Elfenbein. It has now gained more understanding in how to best feed these cells to improve cell density.

“We’ve improved the yield of that process over time by understanding what nutrients these cells do best in,” Elfenbein said. “Raw fish is just extraordinarily complex, and all the aromatics and different components are something that we’ve aspired to create a more difficult, structured product from the beginning.”

The industry is also still working on methods to get the cells without taking them from animals. MarineXcell, for instance, is developing a way to produce embryonic stem-like cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPSCs, from crustacean cells — like lobster, shrimp and crab — using advanced nuclear reprogramming technologies. 

The Israeli-based company says the technology, spearheaded by chief scientific officer Yossi Buganim, accelerates cell growth twice as fast as adult stem cells, but also maintains differentiation and cell growth potential over time, even under suboptimal conditions. Buganim’s lab was able to do this with bovine cells and is now applying similar techniques to crustaceans.

Getting along with the government

Founders say that the lack of regulatory policies is holding the industry back, too.

“It’s the main reason why quite a number of companies haven’t launched products yet,” Wildtype co-founder Justin Kolbeck said. “They’re on the journey during a multi-year regulatory review process, which is what consumers are watching. They want to make sure that the food regulators are taking their time looking under every stone, making sure that what we’re putting out on the market is as safe as possible.”

That said, no one thinks food safety is an area to skimp on — Wildtype’s conversations with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration were “constructive and positive iterative processes for a number of years now,” Kolbeck said. However, the company has also had conversations with potentially large customers interested in buying their products today. And Kolbeck doesn’t want to speculate when Wildtype’s regulatory approval will come.

Upside’s Chen said progress is being made. She believes regulators now have a better understanding about what cultivated meat is and more educated safety and regulatory concerns.

“When we got the first FDA approval, and others followed, it pretty much answered the question of, ‘Could this ever be approved and is it safe?’ Now our next-generation products need to go through a similar regulatory process, but that’s more of a ‘when,’ not an ‘if,’” she said.

Scientist holding Petri dish with cultured meat
Scientist holding petri dish with cultured meat. Image Credits: Liudmila Chernetska
Image Credits: Liudmila Chernetska (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Public perception

Both Upside Foods and Eat Just tested out their cultivated chicken products in a few restaurants following regulatory approval. However, Upside’s Chen and Eat Just’s Tetrick say those pilots have ended until they can scale further. 

One thing they learned: Wide consumer appeal remains a problem, with people calling it “Frankenfood,” “faux meat” or “lab-grown” meat — which technically it is — but those descriptions don’t sound appetizing. Florida has even already banned lab-grown meat. 

“A challenge for all of us is how to help consumers fall in love with the category, understand what cultivated meat is, why we are behind it and what’s in it for them,” Chen said.

Tuft’s Kaplan believes that more education, more transparency by the industry and more peer-reviewed published papers from respected universities, will all help. 

Chen expects the field to be very different even two years from now. She’s optimistic that consumers in a variety of geographies will be able to take their first bite of cultivated meat and “that it will be delicious.” 

Lever VC’s Cooney also sees real progress being made. He points to Lever’s portfolio company Clever Carnivore, a cultivated meat company that has raised around $9 million. “From a price point reduction standpoint, they’ve found a way to produce meaningful pilot quantities at quite a reasonable capex,” Cooney said.

In the meantime, Eat Just’s approach overall will be what the company is doing currently in Singapore with launching its cultivated meat in retail. The product is 3% cultivated meat, while the other portion is plant-based proteins. 

Tetrick admits it is significantly less than the 60+% Eat Just first launched in 2020. However, by developing meat at 3%, he believes the company can significantly drive the cost down, thus building more consumer experience and awareness around cultivated meat.

He has a plan to increase that 3% over the next three to five years, while at the same time working on a lower-cost infrastructure, working on getting cell densities up and working on getting media costs down.

“We don’t think there’s anything magical about it,” Tetrick said. “We just have to do the necessary work across those different dimensions to get it done.”

As Spain gets its latest VC fund, Southern Europe appears to be on a roll

Enrique Linares and Oriol Juncosa, founders, Plus Partners

Image Credits: Plus Partners / Enrique Linares and Oriol Juncosa, founders, Plus Partners

While startup valuations have plummeted since the bull run of 2021-2022, a factor that’s hit the European startup ecosystem particularly hard, there’s one region of Europe where the correction has slightly worked in its favor: the South.

Evidence for this was apparent during Mobile World Congress in Barcelona earlier this year, as time and time again your TechCrunch reporter bumped into Northern European VCs scouting startups on the “Iberian peninsula” (Spain and Portugal). These young companies bring a killer combination that VCs love: significantly lower operating costs and far less punchy valuations.

Further evidence of this “Southern trend” arrives with news that a new venture capital fund, Plus Partners, is being launched by Enrique Linares, one of the co-founders of breakout European unicorn letgo, and Oriol Juncosa, a veteran of the Barcelona VC scene. While Plus Partners hasn’t released a figure for the launch of their new fund, the rumor I’m hearing is it will be in the $30 million-$50 million range.

Looking at the fund’s co-founders, Linares led letgo, a used goods marketplace, to become the first Spanish startup to achieve unicorn status, attracting investment from Accel, Insight Partners and Prosus, among others. Prior to letgo, he co-founded Captalis, a fintech company with a significant presence in LatAm.

Juncosa started his VC career at Nauta Capital in Barcelona and went on to co-found the early-stage VC firm Encomenda Smart Capital. He then become CFO of Carto, a data visualization SaaS company based in the U.S. and Spain, which has raised more than $100 million. As an investor/shareholder he’s invested in more than 75 startups — such as Carto, Cobee (which exited to Pluxee), Holded and Housfy, among others. 

So what’s the Plus Partners thesis? It will concentrate on “health and nutrition,” “finance and property” and “future of work and productivity,” per Juncosa. The fund will focus on pre-seed and seed-stage startups in Southern Europe with a significant percentage of them coming from Spain. 

Juncosa told me the fund is backed by founders and former C-Level execs drawn from companies including Carto, Luzia, Kantox, Red Points and Typeform, among others.

He said he thinks Spain and Portugal sorely need more professionally run VC funds because too many early-stage investors, especially non-professional angels and family offices, tend to “do more harm than good” in the nascent tech scene there, because they either blow up valuations excessively or enter rounds on punitive terms to the founders.

“The big news in Spain for me is that we have role models. Also the tech community in Spain and Portugal is extremely open, everybody’s happy to support everybody,” he told TechCrunch over a call. 

Which country does the new fund think is “hotter” in terms of startups? “I would say, overall, we have three great entrepreneurial cities in Barcelona, Madrid and Lisbon. If you went back 10 years, Barcelona was the biggest tech city. But Lisbon and Madrid have played catch-up very well. Now, entrepreneurs have a choice of where they want to set up their company.”

Linares reiterated that Southern Europe is now “packed” with entrepreneurs who are role models for new startup founders, emphasizing: “We have a lot of talent and founders can internationalize very successful startups from here.”

“Barcelona and Madrid are on a par with each other as ecosystems, but Valencia is growing,” he added. “There is a summit in October that is called Valencia Digital Summit. We were speakers last a year and it was fantastic. I was very surprised. It was my first time there.” 

The fund will also look at startups coming out of Italy, completing its “Southern Europe” thesis. 

“We’ll have a significant share of our investments in Spain, but, within [Southern Europe], Italy is greatly overlooked. Rome and Milan are catching up. We’re very excited about it,” said Linares.

Plus Partners arrives at a time when VCs are dialing up their attention on Southern Europe. 

Yellow, a new VC firm created by Oscar Pierre, Sacha Michaud (the founders of Glovo) and Adam Lasri (a former investor for VC giant Atomico), recently put their bets on the region, with a €30 million fund raised in less than five months.

Furthermore, Spanish VC Kfund raised $75 million to fund tech projects earlier this year. 

According to a Dealroom report on the Spanish tech ecosystem, the combined enterprise value of Spanish startups surpassed €100 billion in 2023. It also found venture investment into Spanish startups held up last year, with €2.2 billion raised across some 850 funding rounds. 

The annual “State of European Tech” report for 2023 found Spain’s ecosystem to be in fourth place overall and had the highest number of startup fundings last year.

Lastly, the European Investment Bank’s venture capital arm also backed a new fund in Spain this year which aims to invest €1 billion ($1.1 billion) in growth-stage tech startups. 

Senators urge owners, partners and VC backers of fintech Synapse to restore customers' access to their money

Gavel On Laptop

Image Credits: Sirinarth Mekvorawuth / EyeEm / Getty Images

A group of senators has banded together to urge Synapse’s owners and bank and fintech partners to “immediately restore customers’ access to their money.” As part of their demands, the senators implicated both the partners and investors of the company as being responsible for missing customer funds.

In a letter shared publicly on Monday, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, along with Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and John Fetterman (D-PA) pointed out that customers of companies that partnered with banking-as-a-service startup Synapse have not been able to access their money since mid-May. 

The letter was addressed to W. Scott Stafford, president and CEO of Evolve Bank & Trust, but was also sent to major investors in Synapse, as well as to the company’s principal bank and fintech partners. Recipients include former Synapse CEO Sankaet Pathak; venture firms Andreessen Horowitz, Core Innovation Capital and Trinity Ventures; American Bank; AMG National Trust; Trust and Lineage Bank; and fintech companies Copper, Juno, Mercury, Yieldstreet and Yotta.

San Francisco-based Synapse operated a service that allowed others (mainly fintechs) to embed banking services into their offerings. For instance, a software provider that specialized in payroll for 1099 contractor-heavy businesses used Synapse to provide an instant payment feature; others used it to offer specialized credit/debit cards. Until last year, it was providing those types of services as an intermediary between banking partner Evolve Bank & Trust and business banking startup Mercury until Evolve and Mercury decided to work directly with each other and cut out Synapse as a middleman.

Synapse raised a total of just over $50 million in venture capital in its lifetime, including a 2019 $33 million Series B raise led by Andreessen Horowitz’s Angela Strange. The startup wobbled in 2023 with layoffs and filed for Chapter 11 in April of this year, hoping to sell its assets in a $9.7 million fire sale to another fintech, TabaPay. But TabaPay walked. It’s not entirely clear why. Synapse threw a lot of blame at Evolve and at Mercury, both of whom raised their hands and told TechCrunch they were not responsible. Synapse CEO and co-founder Sankaet Pathak is no longer responding to our requests for comment.

As a result, a U.S. Trustee began pressuring for Synapse’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy to be converted to Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May, citing “gross mismanagement” of its estate. Customers have been frozen out ever since. 

Government officials weren’t letting fintech partners off easily, citing them for their role in the situation. 

In their letter, the senators said that it was the responsibility of all the various players — including the VCs who had backed them — “to ensure the safety and accessibility of end user funds.”

They urged them all to collectively work together to immediately make available all customer deposits currently frozen by the Synapse bankruptcy.

Specifically, they wrote: “Each of you is responsible for the customers who have been frozen out of their accounts. Consumer-facing fintech firms marketed their products to the public as safe, reliable alternatives to banks. Because of those promises, consumers adopted their products and made deposits through their apps and websites. Venture capital firms funded Synapse without insisting on adequate controls to protect consumers. They stood to profit while Synapse billed itself as a trustworthy financial infrastructure provider. But they failed to make sure that Synapse could follow through on its commitments. Banks joined with Synapse in an effort to find new revenue streams. These partnerships further made it possible for Synapse to market services ultimately provided by the banks.”

The Senators also expressed concern and being disturbed by “the potential shortfall of $65 to $96 million between what consumers are owed and the funds held on their behalf by Synapse’s partner banks,” calling it “both deeply troubling and completely unacceptable.”

They added: “In due time we will find out who is ultimately responsible for this mess, but in the interim, the priority must be to restore consumers’ access to all of their money.”

In their letter, the senators also took a stab at the banking-as-a-service model as a whole, saying the Synapse bankruptcy “has exposed the inherent weaknesses of this tri-party business model and caused hardworking Americans and small businesses to be deprived access to their own money.”

This past week has been full of drama in the banking-as-a-service world. On June 26, Evolve Bank announced that it had been victim of a cyberattack and data breach that could have affected its partner companies as well. The incident, according to the company, involved “the data and personal information of some Evolve retail bank customers and financial technology partners’ customers” such as Affirm, Mercury, Bilt, Alloy and Stripe. On June 29, fintech company Wise announced that some of its customers’ personal data may have been stolen in the data breach. Also last week, Thread Bank — a popular partner to BaaS startups such as Unit — got hit with enforcement action from the FDIC. Notably, the order issued to Thread, as the publication Paymnts pointed out, “is unique in that it explicitly calls out the bank’s Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) and Loan-as-a-Service (LaaS) programs.”

TechCrunch has reached out to both Evolve Bank and former Synapse CEO Sankaet Pathak for comment. Evolve declined to comment.

This story was updated post-publication to reflect that the company had not yet been liquidated via Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Want more fintech news in your inbox? Sign up for TechCrunch Fintech here.

Want to reach out with a tip? Email me at [email protected] or send me a message on Signal at 408.204.3036. You can also send a note to the whole TechCrunch crew at [email protected]. For more secure communications, click here to contact us, which includes SecureDrop (instructions here) and links to encrypted messaging apps.

Why deep tech VC Driving Forces is shutting down

Sidney Scott, deep tech, venture capital, Driving Forces

Image Credits: Sidney Scott / Sidney Scott, solo general partner, Driving Forces

Sidney Scott decided to take himself out of the venture capital rat race and is now jokingly auctioning off his vests — starting at $500,000. 

The Driving Forces solo general partner announced on LinkedIn this week that he was shutting down his $5 million fintech and deep tech VC fund that he started in 2020, calling the past four years “a wild ride.”

A healthy performance of his first, small fund wasn’t enough. He told TechCrunch that with increasing competition for what is, essentially, still a small number of hard tech and deep tech deals, he realized it would be a challenge for smaller funds like his. 

“This wasn’t easy, but it’s the right choice for the current market,” he said.

Scott also thanked people, like entrepreneur Julian Shapiro, neuroscientist Milad Alucozai, Intel Capital’s Aravind Bharadwaj, 500 Global’s Iris Sun and UpdateAI CEO Josh Schachter, who stood by him. 

During that time, he was also involved in building the first AI and deep tech investor network with Handwave, collaborating with investors at companies such as Nvidia, M12, Microsoft’s Venture Fund, Intel Capital and First Round Capital.

That ride included about two dozen investments into companies like SpaceX, Rain AI, xAI and Atomic Semi. The total portfolio yielded over 30% net internal rate of return, a metric measuring the annual rate of growth an investment or fund will generate, Scott told TechCrunch. Thirty percent for a seed fund like this is considered solid IRR performance and it outpaces total average deep tech IRR, which is about 26%, according to Boston Consulting Group. 

Five years ago, when Scott had the thesis for the fund, it was a different world. Back then most investors avoided hard tech and deep tech in favor of software-as-a-service and fintech, he said. 

That was for various reasons. VCs can have a follow-the-crowd mentality and SaaS was considered more of a moneymaking sure bet at the time. But VCs also avoided deep tech because investors believed — perhaps rightly so — that it required extensive capital, longer development cycles and specialized expertise. Deep tech often involves new hardware but always involves building tech products around scientific advances.  

“Shockingly enough, those same reasons are the exact reasons why a lot of companies are now directly investing into deep tech, which is very ironic, but it comes with the territory,” Scott said. “Everyone was investing in scale-fast, launch-fast and get-into-the-market. They were going to invest in these extremely smart people who would eventually turn the science project into an operating business one day.” 

He is now seeing fintech investors, who previously would turn him down on deals a year ago, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in funds specifically targeting deep tech. 

While he didn’t name names, a few VCs that are big into deep tech include Alumni Ventures, which closed its fourth deep tech dedicated fund in 2023; Lux Capital, which raised a $1.15 billion deep tech fund in 2023; Playground Global, which raised over $400 million for deep tech in 2023; and Two Sigma Ventures, which raised $400 million for deep tech in 2022. 

Deep tech now accounts for about 20% of all venture capital funding these days, up from about 10% a decade ago. And over the past five years specifically, it has “become a mainstream destination for corporate, venture capital, sovereign wealth, and private equity funds,” according to a recent Boston Consulting Group report.

Scott also believes that many of these newcomers to the area are setting themselves up for “a massive eye-opener within three years” and the rush into deep tech investing was too fast. 

Playground Global closes Fund III with $410M for early-stage deep tech investments

When money pours into a limited number of deals, a typical VC inflation cycle begins, where VCs bid up the prices they are willing to pay for stakes, sending valuations higher and making the area more expensive for everyone — prohibitively so for a solo fund like his. 

In a time when big exits for startups have been limited — thanks to the closed IPO market and the death of interest in SPACs — deep tech has still had its successes in areas like robotics or quantum computing. 

He said he isn’t bearish on venture capital, in general, or hard tech companies but does expect there to be a “bullwhip effect” in deep tech investing where early-stage investors and VCs will rush to repeat prior breakthroughs or high-profile successes, Scott said.

As is the way with venture, he predicts that more capital will attract more investors, including those with less expertise, and he said that will then lead to a surge in deep tech startups. However, that could then create unrealistic expectations and significant pressure on startups to perform, he said. And since cycles happen often in venture capital, he believes investor sentiment could quickly turn negative should market conditions shift. 

“Given the ultra-small pool of experts and builders, along with the capital-intensive nature of hard tech, the phase of valuation inflation can be sped up, driving up startup valuations rapidly,” Scott said. “This impacts the entire ecosystem, causing funding struggles, slower development, and potential shutdowns, which can further dampen investor confidence and create a negative feedback loop.”

Iceland is dodging the VC doldrums as Frumtak Ventures lands $87M for its fourth fund

Image Credits: Silla Pals (opens in a new window)

Iceland’s startup scene is punching above its weight. That’s perhaps in part because it kept the 2021 hype in check, but mostly because its tech ecosystem is coming of age. Iceland attracted the most venture capital per capita of all Nordic countries in 2023, but that stat is somewhat skewed by its relatively small population of fewer than 400,000 inhabitants. More tellingly, foreign co-investments in Icelandic startups reached a record in 2023. In this context, it makes sense to see VC firms raise more funding.

Frumtak Ventures is a perfect example. The firm just closed an $87 million fourth fund that was oversubscribed — and significantly larger than its third $57 million fund.

It helps that Frumtak has a solid track record. The firm isn’t disclosing returns, and its third fund is too recent for that, but general partner Andri Heiðar Kristinsson told TechCrunch that “the second fund performed really, really well.” Since there are only a handful of VC firms in Iceland, they often co-invest, but Frumtak is more focused on working with global firms investing at the Series A, B or C stage. However, it also gets deal flow from local acceleration programs such as the ones led by KLAK, which Kristinsson co-founded.

Most of Frumtak’s limited partners are Icelandic pension funds. “We were in a very good position that all our existing LPs were happy to back us again,” Kristinsson said. As for geographic scope, he added, Frumtak will back Icelandic founders but “focus on local innovation with global potential.”

Because of the country’s small population and cultural factors, Icelandic startups tend to look abroad early on. For instance, Frumtak portfolio company Sidekick Health went global with its gamified digital care platform, with partners such as U.S.-based Anthem.

Frumtak is also willing to invest in companies based abroad but run by Icelandic entrepreneurs, such as U.S.-based Activity Stream, a data platform for the live entertainment industry. “If any of [Frumtak’s] portfolio companies is going to be successful, they’re gonna have to be thinking outside of Iceland,” the company’s CEO Einar Saevarsson told TechCrunch.

As for sectors, Frumtak says it will invest “at the intersection of software, AI, and deep tech in industries playing on Iceland’s historical strengths in areas such as ocean tech and logistics, healthcare, travel, energy, climate, and gender equality.”

Iceland’s startup scene is all about making the most of the country’s resources

While sector-agnostic, Frumtak placed most of its bets over the last 15 years into B2B SaaS startups at the seed or Series A stage. Now its focus will be more diverse.

One thing that won’t change: Frumtak will remain “super hands-on,” Kristinsson said. “We always take a board seat, we work relentlessly with our companies, we always say that we want to be the first call for founders, both in good times and in bad times.”

In a country where venture capital itself is relatively new, Frumtak’s positioning is to be run “by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs,” in the words of its managing partner Svana Gunnarsdóttir, a former founder herself, like Kristinsson. Their third partner, Ásthildur Otharsdóttir, adds a corporate operator background.

Iceland’s tech scene skews toward early-stage startups, as does Frumtak, whose name roughly translates to “early catch.” But Kristinsson is confident that as the scene matures, more exits will follow. “Looking 10 or 20 years forward, my vision is that we will have fueled some of the biggest listed companies in Iceland in the next decades,” he said.

“It may sound like a cliché, but we’re an isolated island that had to go through really tough challenges, some harsh conditions through the centuries. And we honestly believe that there’s some sort of entrepreneurial spark. … Even if obviously, we’re very small, but there’s something in the DNA that’s perseverance, dedication, and we’ve seen that play out pretty well,” Kristinsson said.

Legal tech, VC brawls and saying no to big offers

Image Credits: Getty Images / Kontrec

Welcome to Startups Weekly — your weekly recap of everything you can’t miss from the world of startups. To get Startups Weekly in your inbox every Friday, sign up here.

This week we are talking about Wiz’s bold decision, VC’s public feud, legal tech’s new capital and a16z’s close call. Let’s go!

Most interesting startup stories from the week

Wiz Founders
Image Credits: Avishag Shaar-Yashuv / Wiz (opens in a new window) under a CC BY 2.0 (opens in a new window) license.

Wiz says no to Google: Walking away from the search giant’s $23 billion takeover proposal wasn’t an easy decision for the fast-growing, four-year-old cybersecurity startup that was valued in May at $12 billion. “Saying no to such humbling offers is tough, but with our exceptional team, I feel confident in making that choice,” Wiz’s CEO Assaf Rappaport wrote in a letter to his staff. The company is now aiming to reach a milestone of $1 billion in ARR by 2025, and an IPO, though Rappaport didn’t provide a timeframe for potential listing. Read more

Cohere beats back generative AI rivals: Cohere, a Canadian startup that builds language models for specific businesses rather than consumer applications, has raised $500 million at a $5.5 billion valuation. At the end of March, the company was generating $35 million in annualized revenue, up from around $13 million at the end of 2023, according to Bloomberg. Cohere may be growing fast, and investors are clearly willing to pay up for that growth — valuation stands at 157 times ARR, to be exact. Read more

VCs see opportunity after CrowdStrike outage: In 2024, one buggy software update should probably not be allowed to take down so many of the globe’s most important computer systems. But some VCs say that a crop of new startups could be the way to prevent such a thing from ever happening again. Read more

Reigniting decade-old drama: VC David Sacks and Rippling founder Parker Conrad had a public spat on X with many among the Silicon Valley elite taking sides. Accusations flew and sides were chosen. VCs are generally trying to be founder friendly, but such public feuds could be damaging to the industry’s reputation. Read more

Most interesting fundraises this week

Woman at a desk with a laptop, brass scales and gavel representing the legal system
Image Credits: ARMMY PICCA (opens in a new window) / Getty Images

Until recently, startups weren’t especially successful selling tech to the legal profession. But times may be changing. We saw two legal tech deals this week.

Legal growth and profitability: Clio, a Canadian software company that helps law practices run more efficiently with its cloud-based tech, was founded 16 years ago. It seems like the company is finally reaching its stride. This week it raised a $900 million Series F at a $3 billion valuation, nearly doubling the value it achieved in 2021. The profitable company has also increased its ARR to $200 million, up from $100 million two years ago. Clio’s growth has increased thanks to its embedded payments and AI offerings. Read more

Harvey’s case: The two-year-old legal AI co-pilot Harvey has nabbed a $100 million Series C led by GV at a $1.5 billion valuation, up from $715 million in December of last year. While investors are betting big on Harvey’s future, lawyers may be reluctant to use it widely, given “language models’ proclivity to spout toxicity and made-up facts,” writes TechCrunch’s Kyle Wiggers. Read more

Staying on top of things: Vanta, a company that helps businesses stay secure and compliant, just raised a $150 million Series C at a $2.45 billion valuation. Six-year-old Vanta started by helping small businesses get certified but now wants to be the go-to security partner for big companies too. Read more

Preventing tricky prompts: Lakera, a Swiss startup that protects generative AI applications from malicious prompts and other threats, has raised a $20 million Series A. The company’s software safeguards against prompts that could force language models to divulge private information. Read more

Most interesting VC and fund news this week 

Marc Andreessen, co-founder and general partner of Andreessen Horowitz, speaks during the TechCrunch Disrupt San Francisco 2016 Summit in San Francisco, California, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2016.
Image Credits: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg / Getty Images

a16z’s close call: A security researcher exposed a major flaw in a16z’s website that could have leaked sensitive company data. The bug gave access to emails and passwords, the researcher discovered. Luckily for the prominent VC firm, the flaw was patched quickly and no data breach occurred. Read more

VCs are still pouring capital into AI: New data from Crunchbase shows that generative AI startups are on pace to shatter their last year’s already impressive $21.8 billion funding haul. Read more

Last but not least

Eric Zhu, Aviato, venture capital, startups
Harrison Kessel (left), Eric Zhu (middle) and David Razavi (right) are building Aviato.
Image Credits: Aviato / Eric Zhu

From his high school bathroom, 17-year-old Eric Zhu has launched Aviato, a platform that analyzes private market data and aims to compete with heavyweights in private market intelligence: PitchBook and Crunchbase. Read more

Iceland is dodging the VC doldrums as Frumtak Ventures lands $87 million for its fourth fund

Image Credits: Silla Pals (opens in a new window)

Iceland’s startup scene is punching above its weight. That’s perhaps in part because it kept the 2021 hype in check, but mostly because its tech ecosystem is coming of age. Iceland attracted the most venture capital per capita of all Nordic countries in 2023, but that stat is somewhat skewed by its relatively small population of fewer than 400,000 inhabitants. More tellingly, foreign co-investments in Icelandic startups reached a record in 2023. In this context, it makes sense to see VC firms raise more funding.

Frumtak Ventures is a perfect example. The firm just closed an $87 million fourth fund that was oversubscribed — and significantly larger than its third $57 million fund.

It helps that Frumtak has a solid track record. The firm isn’t disclosing returns, and its third fund is too recent for that, but general partner Andri Heiðar Kristinsson told TechCrunch that “the second fund performed really, really well.” Since there are only a handful of VC firms in Iceland, they often coinvest, but Frumtak is more focused on working with global firms investing at the Series A, B or C stage. However, it also gets deal flow from local acceleration programs such as the ones led by KLAK, which Kristinsson cofounded.

Most of Frumtak’s limited partners are Icelandic pension funds. “We were in a very good position that all our existing LPs were happy to back us again,” Kristinsson said. As for geographic scope, he added, Frumtak will back Icelandic founders, but “focus on local innovation with global potential.”

Because of the country’s small population and cultural factors, Icelandic startups tend to look abroad early on. For instance, Frumtak portfolio company Sidekick Health went global with its gamified digital care platform, with partners such as U.S.-based Anthem.

Frumtak is also willing to invest in companies based abroad but run by Icelandic entrepreneurs, such as U.S.-based Activity Stream, a data platform for the live entertainment industry. “If any of [Frumtak’s] portfolio companies is going to be successful, they’re gonna have to be thinking outside of Iceland,” the company’s CEO Einar Saevarsson told TechCrunch.

As for sectors, Frumtak says it will invest “at the intersection of software, AI, and deeptech in industries playing on Iceland’s historical strengths in areas such as ocean tech and logistics, healthcare, travel, energy, climate, and gender equality.”

Iceland’s startup scene is all about making the most of the country’s resources

While sector-agnostic, Frumtak placed most of its bets over the last 15 years into B2B SaaS startups at the seed or Series A stage. Now, its focus will be more diverse.

One thing that won’t change: Frumtak will remain “super hands-on,” Kristinsson said. “We always take a board seat, we work relentlessly with our companies, we always say that we want to be the first call for founders, both in good times and in bad times.”

In a country where venture capital itself is relatively new, Frumtak’s positioning is to be run “by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs,” in the words of its managing partner Svana Gunnarsdóttir, a former founder herself, like Kristinsson. Their third partner, Ásthildur Otharsdóttir, adds a corporate operator background.

Iceland’s tech scene skews toward early-stage startups, as does Frumtak, whose name roughly translates to “early catch.” But Kristinsson is confident that as the scene matures, more exits will follow. “Looking 10 or 20 years forward, my vision is that we will have fueled some of the biggest listed companies in Iceland in the next decades,” he said.

“It may sound like a cliche, but we’re an isolated island that had to go through really tough challenges, some harsh conditions through the centuries. And we honestly believe that there’s some sort of entrepreneurial spark….Even if obviously, we’re very small, but there’s something in the DNA that’s perseverance, dedication, and we’ve seen that play out pretty well,” Kristinsson said.

Why deep tech VC Driving Forces is shutting down

Sidney Scott, deep tech, venture capital, Driving Forces

Image Credits: Sidney Scott / Sidney Scott, solo general partner, Driving Forces

Sidney Scott decided to take himself out of the venture capital rat race and is now jokingly auctioning off his vests — starting at $500,000. 

The Driving Forces solo general partner announced on LinkedIn this week that he was shutting down his $5 million fintech and deep tech VC fund that he started in 2020, calling the past four years “a wild ride.”

However, a healthy performance of his first, small fund wasn’t enough. He told TechCrunch that with increasing competition for what is, essentially, still a small number of hard tech and deep tech deals, he realized it would be a challenge for smaller funds like his. 

“This wasn’t easy, but it’s the right choice for the current market,” he said.

Scott also thanked people, like entrepreneur Julian Shapiro, neuroscientist Milad Alucozai, Intel Capital’s Aravind Bharadwaj, 500 Global’s Iris Sun and UpdateAI CEO Josh Schachter, who stood by him. 

During that time, he was also involved in building the first AI and deep tech investor network with Handwave, collaborating with investors at companies such as Nvidia, M12, Microsoft’s Venture Fund, Intel Capital and First Round Capital.

That ride included about two dozen investments into companies like SpaceX, Rain AI, xAI and Atomic Semi. The total portfolio yielded over 30% net internal rate of return, a metric measuring the annual rate of growth an investment or fund will generate, Scott told TechCrunch. Thirty percent for a seed fund like this is considered solid IRR performance and it outpaces total average deep tech IRR, which is about 26%, according to Boston Consulting Group. 

Five years ago, when Scott had the thesis for the fund, it was a different world. Back then most investors avoided hard tech and deep tech in favor of software-as-a-service and fintech, he said. 

That was for various reasons. VCs can have a follow-the-crowd mentality and SaaS was considered more of a moneymaking sure bet at the time. But VCs also avoided deep tech because investors believed — perhaps rightly so — that it required extensive capital, longer development cycles and specialized expertise. Deep tech often involves new hardware but always involves building tech products around scientific advances.  

“Shockingly enough, those same reasons are the exact reasons why a lot of companies are now directly investing into deep tech, which is very ironic, but it comes with the territory,” Scott said. “Everyone was investing in scale-fast, launch-fast and get-into-the-market. They were going to invest in these extremely smart people who would eventually turn the science project into an operating business one day.” 

He is now seeing fintech investors, who previously would turn him down on deals a year ago, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in funds specifically targeting deep tech. 

While he didn’t name names, a few VCs that are big into deep tech include Alumni Ventures, which closed its fourth deep tech dedicated fund in 2023; Lux Capital, which raised a $1.15 billion deep tech fund in 2023; Playground Global, which raised over $400 million for deep tech in 2023; and Two Sigma Ventures, which raised $400 million for deep tech in 2022 (and SEC records show in 2024, it raised another $500 million fund). 

Deep tech now accounts for about 20% of all venture capital funding these days, up from about 10% a decade ago. And over the past five years specifically, it has “become a mainstream destination for corporate, venture capital, sovereign wealth, and private equity funds,” according to a recent Boston Consulting Group report.

Scott also believes that many of these newcomers to the area are setting themselves up for “a massive eye-opener within three years” and the rush into deep tech investing was too fast. 

Playground Global closes Fund III with $410M for early-stage deep tech investments

When money pours into a limited number of deals, a typical VC inflation cycle begins, where VCs bid up the prices they are willing to pay for stakes, sending valuations higher and making the area more expensive for everyone — prohibitively so for a solo fund like his. 

In a time when big exits for startups have been limited — thanks to the closed IPO market and the death of interest in SPACs — deep tech has still had its successes in areas like robotics or quantum computing. 

He said he isn’t bearish on venture capital, in general, or hard tech companies but does expect there to be a “bullwhip effect” in deep tech investing where early-stage investors and VCs will rush to repeat prior breakthroughs or high-profile successes, Scott said.

As is the way with venture, he predicts that more capital will attract more investors, including those with less expertise, and he said that will then lead to a surge in deep tech startups. However, that could then create unrealistic expectations and significant pressure on startups to perform, he said. And since cycles happen often in venture capital, he believes investor sentiment could quickly turn negative should market conditions shift. 

“Given the ultra-small pool of experts and builders, along with the capital-intensive nature of hard tech, the phase of valuation inflation can be sped up, driving up startup valuations rapidly,” Scott said. “This impacts the entire ecosystem, causing funding struggles, slower development, and potential shutdowns, which can further dampen investor confidence and create a negative feedback loop.”

Senators urge owners, partners, and VC backers of fintech Synapse to restore customers' access to their money

Image Credits: Sirinarth Mekvorawuth / EyeEm / Getty Images

A group of senators has banded together to urge Synapse’s owners and bank and fintech partners to “immediately restore customers’ access to their money.” As part of their demands, the senators implicated both the partners and investors of the company as being responsible for missing customer funds.

In a letter shared publicly on Monday, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, along with Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and John Fetterman (D-PA) pointed out that customers of companies that partnered with banking-as-a-service startup Synapse have not been able to access their money since mid-May. 

The letter was addressed to  W. Scott Stafford, president and CEO of Evolve Bank & Trust, but was also sent to major investors in Synapse, as well as to the company’s principal bank and fintech partners. Recipients include former Synapse CEO Sankaet Pathak; venture firms Andreessen Horowitz, Core Innovation Capital, and Trinity Ventures; American Bank; AMG National Trust; Trust and Lineage Bank; and fintech companies Copper, Juno, Mercury, Yieldstreet and Yotta.

San Francisco-based Synapse operated a service that allowed others (mainly fintechs) to embed banking services into their offerings. For instance, a software provider that specialized in payroll for 1099 contractor-heavy businesses used Synapse to provide an instant payment feature; others used it to offer specialized credit/debit cards. Until last year, it was providing those types of services as an intermediary between banking partner Evolve Bank & Trust and business banking startup Mercury until Evolve and Mercury decided to work directly with each other and cut out Synapse as a middleman.

Synapse raised a total of just over $50 million in venture capital in its lifetime, including a 2019 $33 million Series B raise led by Andreessen Horowitz’s Angela Strange. The startup wobbled in 2023 with layoffs and filed for Chapter 11 in April of this year, hoping to sell its assets in a $9.7 million fire sale to another fintech, TabaPay. But TabaPay walked. It’s not entirely clear why. Synapse threw a lot of blame at Evolve and at Mercury, both of whom raised their hands and told TechCrunch they were not responsible. Synapse CEO and co-founder Sankaet Pathak is no longer responding to our requests for comment.

As a result, Synapse was pressured to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May, liquidating its business entirely. Customers have been frozen out ever since. 

Government officials weren’t letting fintech partners off easily, citing them for their role in the situation. 

In their letter, the senators said that it was the responsibility of all the various players – including the VCs who had backed them – “to ensure the safety and accessibility of end user funds.”

They urged them all to collectively work together to immediately make available all customer deposits currently frozen by the Synapse bankruptcy.

Specifically, they wrote: “Each of you is responsible for the customers who have been frozen out of their accounts. Consumer-facing fintech firms marketed their products to the public as safe, reliable alternatives to banks. Because of those promises, consumers adopted their products and made deposits through their apps and websites. Venture capital firms funded Synapse without insisting on adequate controls to protect consumers. They stood to profit while Synapse billed itself as a trustworthy financial infrastructure provider. But they failed to make sure that Synapse could follow through on its commitments. Banks joined with Synapse in an effort to find new revenue streams. These partnerships further made it possible for Synapse to market services ultimately provided by the banks.”

The Senators also expressed concern and being disturbed by “the potential shortfall of $65 to $96 million between what consumers are owed and the funds held on their behalf by Synapse’s partner banks,” calling it “both deeply troubling and completely unacceptable.”

They added: “In due time we will find out who is ultimately responsible for this mess, but in the interim, the priority must be to restore consumers’ access to all of their money.”

In their letter, the Senators also took a stab at the banking-as-a-service model as a whole, saying the Synapse bankruptcy “has exposed the inherent weaknesses of this tri-party business model and caused hardworking Americans and small businesses to be deprived access to their own money.”

This past week has been full of drama in the banking-as-a-service world. On June 26, Evolve Bank announced that it had been victim of a cyberattack and data breach that could have affected its partner companies as well. The incident, according to the company, involved “the data and personal information of some Evolve retail bank customers and financial technology partners’ customers” such as Affirm, Mercury, Bilt, Alloy and Stripe. On June 29, fintech company Wise announced that some of its customers’ personal data may have been stolen in the data breach. Also last week, Thread Bank – a popular partner to BaaS startups such as Unit – got hit with enforcement action from the FDIC. Notably, the order issued to Thread, as the publication Paymnts pointed out, “is unique in that it explicitly calls out the bank’s Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) and Loan-as-a-Service (LaaS) programs.”

TechCrunch has reached out to both Evolve Bank and former Synapse CEO Sankaet Pathak for comment. Evolve declined to comment.

Want more fintech news in your inbox? Sign up for TechCrunch Fintech here.

Want to reach out with a tip? Email me at [email protected] or send me a message on Signal at 408.204.3036. You can also send a note to the whole TechCrunch crew at [email protected]. For more secure communications, click here to contact us, which includes SecureDrop (instructions here) and links to encrypted messaging apps.