After years of chasing user growth, Bumble founder and CEO Whitney Wolfe Herd now wants low-quality users off her service. Soon, people with grainy profile pictures or lacking a bio may be forced to leave the app unless they improve.
Our product is people. The quality of someone’s experience, how they engage, find what they’re looking for, and monetize depends on the quality of who and what they encounter on the platform, Wolfe Herd explained on the companys earnings call on August 6. She outlined a strategy to create a healthier app ecosystem that involves categorizing users based on the quality of their profiles and pushing out people who are degrading the experience of Bumble.
The almost 10-year-old-app has struggled in recent years to regain the momentum it had during the pandemic. In March, Wolfe Herd stepped back into the role as CEO, after ceding it to former Slack executive Lidiane Jones just over a year earlier. Wolfe Herd is now overhauling the app, reorienting it away from a growth-at-all-costs strategy and toward one that prioritizes a higher-quality user base and real connections. As part of that, Bumble is starting to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Approve, Improve, and Remove
On the earnings call, Wolfe Herd said the app will use AI and human moderators to sort users into three categories: Approve, Improve, and Remove. Approve users, according to Wolfe Herd, are ones who have adequately filled out their profiles, complete with multiple photos, and offer a clear picture of who they are. Improve users have incomplete profiles that could be refined to get more matches.
Remove users are bots, scammers, people with multiple profiles, and those who have violated user agreement terms. Theyre also people whose profiles are inadequately filled out and who refuse to improve them. Roughly 10% of Bumble users fall into the Remove category, while the majority fall under the Improve category.
“They’re not bad people,” Wolfe Herd said of the Improve members. “They’re not nefarious members. They have no clue how to build a profile. These could be extraordinary people that when you meet them in real life you’re like, How are you single? But when you look at their Bumble profile, they have one photo, they’re wearing a ski mask, and they have no bio. There’s no chance for them on our product in that construct.”
Bumble is launching new features to help. The company recently introduced a dating app concierge that offers AI and human advice to help users fill out their profiles. This month, it plans to unveil an AI-powered coaching hub that will give users tips and actionable steps to make their profile more attractive and engaging. If they follow those tips, they may end up in the Approve category. If not, they could get the boot. (The app is also improving its identity verification tools to get bad actors off the platform.)
A return to quality
Fewer better is always going to win when it comes to connection and relationships, Wolfe Herd explained while laying out the strategy. If you were to swipe through 100 people [who] you never wanted to meet, you would walk away feeling very, very disappointed. But if you were to go through even just 5 or 10 or 15 . . . very high-quality profiles, and everyone was actually quite interesting to you, you would feel very, very compelled to return.
Wolfe Herd is banking that getting more users into the Approve category will eventually help the company make money. She noted that Approve users monetize at approximately double the rates of people in the Improve category. The average revenue per user on Bumble has dropped 15% since 2021. For the second quarter of 2025, total revenue decreased 8% year over year, and paying users decreased 11% compared to the same period last year.
Everything we build is grounded in real-world outcomes, not endless engagement, Wolfe Herd said on the companys Q2 earnings call. As part of this, the company is winding down the digital marketing that it began during the pandemic. That practice attracted a slew of new users who diluted the apps dating pool and diminished the user experience, according to Wolfe Herd.
The Hinge playbook
In this regard, Bumbles approach mirrors Hinges playbook. Though parent company Match Groups second-quarter revenue was flat overall, Hinges revenue jumped 25% to $167.5 million, beating analysts expectations. Match Group CEO Spencer Rascoff said the company plans on investing $50 million in part to fund Hinges geographic expansion to Latin America and Europe.
Hinge has succeeded largely by creating an experience that focuses on showing users quality matches and getting them off the app to form lasting connections. To do this, the app has introduced friction in its user experience, putting limits on swipes and implementing penalties for ghosting to improve user behavior. Hinge is also using AI to refine its matching algorithm and launch new features like notifications to encourage users to keep up conversations with matches they are interested in. Hinges monthly active users rose nearly 20% in the first half of 2025.
In getting users to improve their profiles, Bumble is taking another cue from Hinge, which has a more extensive sign-up process than other dating apps. It requires users to answer a series of questions and sets a minimum requirement for the number of photos uploaded to their profile before theyre able to swipe.
In their Q2 earnings calls, both Rascoff and Wolfe Herd suggested that building algorithms and features that foster lasting connections is key to attracting younger users. Tinder has launched double-date options and college-specific features to help foster connections in lower-pressure environments. Bumble is doubling down on Bumble BFFa separate app to help users find new friendsand plans to launch more off-platform experiences to increase serendipitous connections.
A lot of the exact product solves that we are so maniacally focused on right now are specifically the issues Gen Z has with online dating, Wolfe Herd said on Bumbles earnings call. For example, they don’t want to feel like they swipe endlessly through people they’re not interested in. They don’t want to feel judged. They don’t want to feel rejected. They don’t want to feel like they’re talking to someone that is not actually who they say they are.
All sorts of consumer-facing companies seem excited about the potential to use artificial intelligence to set prices. There’s only one problemconsumers hate it.
So-called dynamic-pricing strategies offer the possibility of tweaking prices according to changing external circumstances, shifting demand, even individual consumer situations. If combining the practice with cutting-edge technology sounds alarming, youve identified the problem companies are facing: how to talk about their AI-driven pricing plans without scaring customers, sparking backlash, and drawing terrible press and even legislative scrutiny.
As soon as you talk about dynamic pricing, there is immediately repulsion by consumers, says Stephan Liozu, chief value officer at Zilliant, a pricing management and optimization software firm. There’s no positive first impression in the consumer.
This has long held true for examples like simple price gouging (jacking up prices when consumers have limited options, such as for gas or ice after a natural disaster), but sophisticated tech-driven iterations are just as reviled. Theres a lack of understanding of why this is done, so the consumer thinks its all about profit, Liozu says. And in a way, it is.
In a world where backlash can be spread rapidly on social media and amplified by the traditional press, thats a dynamic brands cant shrug off.
The latest example involves an industry already known for opaque pricing strategies. In an earnings call in July, the president of Delta Air Lines noted that the carrier is experimenting with ways to use AI to generate a price thats available on that flight, on that time, to you, the individual. Delta already uses AI to drive personalized pricing on 3% of its flights, he added, and aims to bump that to 20% by the end of the year.
When this was reported, it sparked a rush of criticism from consumer advocates and politicians. Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego called it predatory pricing. Admittedly, the critics had little if any specific knowledge of the factors Deltas AI pricing procedure actually entails, but thats sort of the point of the criticism. In the absence of transparency, its easy to invent Black Mirror-like scenarios.
Think about one popular hypothetical: AI deduces youre going to a funeral and will pay more than usual for a flight. Delta has denied that anything like this has happened or is planned, and insists its pricing is based on interpreting market conditions, not individual data.
Dynamic pricing isn’t new
Dynamic pricing isnt exactly new; youve experienced it if youve ever purchased off-season theme park tickets or traveled in peak holiday windows. That doesnt always mean outright price gouging or unfair price manipulation. But the idea of turning to sophisticated and inscrutable technology to bolster the practice can feel unnerving, perhaps especially as it works its way into everyday categories from fast food to retail.
Liozu, the pricing expert, has argued that ultimately dynamic pricing is just a tool, and its impact is shaped by human decisions: People decide what data goes into the algorithm. People choose what variables it prioritizes. People determine the thresholds for price changes and approve the pricing strategies the algorithm supports. But AI critics and enthusiasts alike tend to focus more on the power of the algorithms.
Theres a bigger fear (and likelihood, Liozu suggests) that the practice will spread across all sorts of categories, especially online. A January Federal Trade Commission report on what the agency termed surveillance pricing found that details like a persons precise location or browser history can be frequently used to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services.
That would be a big change: Set prices have been routine since they replaced individual bargaining in retail scenarios in the late 19th century. And Delta is not the first to face a backlash in response to disclosing pricing experiments.
Last year, Wendys endured a wave of criticism after its CEO mentioned during an earnings call that the burger chains new digital menu boards might enable dynamic pricing and day-part offerings along with AI-enabled menu changes and suggestive selling. He did not use the term surge pricingassociated with ride-share servicesbut much of the news coverage of his statements did. Eventually Wendys explicitly said it had no plans to raise prices at busy times.
The Delta incident brought even more critical scrutiny, and that may be because the airline industry is already associated with highly variable pricing that can seem to consumers like a black box. Add AI to the mix, and its like tossing a heavy blanket over the black box, leaving customers feeling powerless.
As Gallego and other senators argued in a statement, AI-fueled pricing will likely mean fare price increases up to each individual consumers personal pain point. Delta denied that, too, in a statement reported by Reuters assuring the senators (and fliers): There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized prices based on personal data.
It’s not clear how much scrutiny will continue from the FTC under the Trump administration, which has signaled a light regulatory touch on AI. But that is unlikely to resolve the fears and pushback of many consumers.
Liozu argues that companies moving toward AI-driven dynamic pricing need to operate with more transparency and communication, thinking in terms of explainable AI. That means they also need to tweak their actual beavior: Do pricing research around what is too much for consumers, right? How frequently do you change your prices? We need to figure out in dynamic pricing what’s the floor and what’s the ceiling after which its considered unfair, he says.
Most important, Liozu adds, companies need to communicate that to consumers. Gallego complained that Delta is telling their investors one thing, and then turning around and telling the public another. Companies dont seem to have figured out how to talk to consumers about AI-guided pricing strategies in ways that show they care about the consumer impact. As Liozu puts it: You need to be able to tame your algorithms.
AI skeptics have found a new way to express their disdain for the creeping presence of artificial intelligence: through slurs.
Out on the streets and in stores, people have begun harassing robots they encounter in the wild. (Anyone else feel a bit sorry for the robot?) Online, the internet has revived a Star Warsinspired insult, clanker, with Google Trends data showing a spike in searches for the term in early June.
@semdenpriv original sound – semdenpriv
POV: Me at the clanker rally in 2088, one TikTok user joked. Keep your oily soulless clanker hands away from my delicious human food, another X user wrote in response to a clip of Elon Musks Optimus robot dishing out popcorn at the Tesla Diner (not a sentence I ever thought Id write).
Keep your oily soulless clanker hands away from my delicious human food https://t.co/DXF7JNKD0W— EckhartsLadder (@EckhartsLadder) July 20, 2025
The term has also been picked up by politicians. Sick of yelling ‘REPRESENTATIVE’ into the phone 10 times just to talk to a human being? Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) posted on X last month. My new bill makes sure you dont have to talk to a clanker if you dont want to.
Sick of yelling REPRESENTATIVE into the phone 10 times just to talk to a human being? My new bill makes sure you dont have to talk to a clanker if you dont want to. pic.twitter.com/9aUv478gSP— Ruben Gallego (@RubenGallego) July 30, 2025
While some direct their insults at the technology itself, others target those using AI systems. On one thread, suggestions for users of the xAI chatbot Grok included Grokkers, Groklins, and Grocksuckers. Meanwhile, on TikTok, someone coined sloppers for people becoming increasingly overreliant on ChatGPT.
@intrnetbf shoutout to Monica. Incredible command over the English language original sound – intrnetbf
The trend reflects a broader mood. Concerns about AI among U.S. adults have grown since 2021, according to the Pew Research Center. More than half (51%) say they are more concerned than excited about the technologys rise, with worries ranging from AI taking away jobs to chatbot addiction.
Still, some see embracing new slurseven those aimed at robotsas problematic, especially when they echo existing racial slurs or stereotypes.
@thebrookboys This bout to be the biggest fear for all Dads in year 2050 #meme #clanker #robo Bell Sound/Temple/Gone/About 10 minutes(846892) – yulu-ism project
Others simply fear theyll regret their words later. As one X user wrote: I dont want to have to look a robot in the eye in fifty years and be like, you dont understand it was a different time
star wars did give us a slur for robots (clankers) but i dont use it bc i dont want to have to look a robot in the eye in fifty years and be like you dont understand it was a different time— anna !!! (@frogs4girls) July 20, 2025
In the late 2010s, cultured meat was everywhereand yet nowhere. From Reddit to major magazine covers, articles touted the latest advances in “lab-grown meat,” promising cruelty-free, environmentally friendly steaks at your local supermarket. The hype was palpable.
One 2019 report predicted cultured meats would halve the number of cows on the planet by 2030, disrupting the world’s oldest industry by delivering ethical meat with negligible environmental impact that tasted identical to traditional meatand at a fraction of the price.
[Photo: Vow]
That promise of rapid disruption terrified conventional animal agriculture stakeholders. Under pressure from these livestock constituents, lawmakers in multiple states have banned this new protein source entirely. Florida and Alabama passed bans in 2024, with more states following. Indiana imposed a manufacturing moratorium with steep fines, Nebraska prohibited its production and sale, and Montanas governor signed legislation to ensure consumers could “continue to enjoy authentic meat.”
In June, a Texas ban became law, with the state’s agriculture commissioner touting the “God-given right” to pasture-raised meateven though the vast majority of what Americans eat comes from industrial feedlots.
But here’s the irony: Lawmakers are fighting a version of cultured meat that never materialized. Today, while you can eat cultured meat at more than 60 venues in Singapore and Australia, and cultured seafood at two restaurants in the U.S. at the time of this writing, it’s far from the rapid disruption that was forecasted. More than a decade after the world’s first cultured hamburger was announced, the hype has virtually disappeared.The reality of how and why this all transpired is complicated. However, we would argue that what we’re witnessing isn’t industry failure, but the natural evolution of a transformative invention finding its true market fit. Cultured meat technology works; what needed adjustment were the timelines and business models that promised too much, too quickly, and to replicate conventional meats that people already enjoy en masse.Rather than viewing this as a setback, some in the industry are discovering something potentially more valuable: sustainable, scalable pathways to market that don’t require displacing existing agriculture but can grow alongside it. As the industry turns the page to a new chapter, once uncertain regulatory pathways are now established in multiple countries.
[Photo: Vow]
The technology itself continues to advance. Production yields are improving, costs are declining, and new species beyond traditional livestock are proving viable for cultivation.More importantly, early market success demonstrates genuine consumer appetite. In Singapore, where cultured meat has been available the longest, restaurants report strong repeat customers and growing demand. In Australia, where cultured meat became available at dozens of restaurants in recent weeks, initial sales and demand for the items are taking off.
Forged Cultured Japanese Quail Whipped Pate [Photo: Vow]
This suggests cultured meat purveyors arent just scratching a theoretical itch, but delivering real value and excitement that consumers recognize and seek out.This reality is leading to a strategic pivot that may actually benefit both the industry and consumers: innovation over imitation. Rather than trying to perfectly replicate a chicken wing or rib-eye steakproducts that traditional animal agriculture already produces and consumers are accustomed tocompanies that are finding success are creating entirely new culinary experiences that excite chefs and diners alike.
Forged Cultured Japanese Quail Foie Gras [Photo: Vow]
Take Japanese quail, a species that demonstrates cultivated meat’s unique advantages. Traditional quail foie gras is impossible to produce commerciallythe birds are so petite that conventional methods are prohibitively labor-intensive, and the production process itself remains controversial.
Japanese quail, however, proves remarkably well-suited for cultivation technology, enabling the creation of previously undoable delicacies like foie gras, whipped pâté, and even edible tallow candles.
Forged Cultured Japanese Quail Tallow Candle [Photo: Vow]
And Vow can make a lot of it. The company recently completed the largest cultured meat harvest in history: more than one metric ton of quail. And it projects it will have the capacity, by the end of 2025, to harvest up to 130 metric tons annually.
While that’s still minimal compared with the 12.29 million metric tons of beef American farmers produced in 2023 and 2024, it is proof that cultured meat can offer consumers genuinely new choices and advance consumer acceptance. Its an illustration of how the industry can position itself as expanding culinary possibilities while avoiding potential conflicts with traditional agriculture.Rather than letting politicians dictate what should be on our plates in order to protect incumbent industries, we should trust consumers to decide for themselves. When given the freedom to choose, consumers are embracing these innovations as exciting additions to culinary experiences, the evidence suggests. Thats a decision best left to diners, not lawmakers.
As a partner at Theory Ventures, a VC firm built around deep technology and market research, I spend my days swimming in information: academic papers, market reports, interview notes, and written analyses. Our job is to synthesize these data points into a nuanced perspective to inform our investment decisions.
Reading the hype online, its tempting to think you can just delegate anything to AI. But for something so critical to our job, we dont just want it done, we need it to be excellent. How much can AI really do for us?
In this piece, I will share:
How we structure instructions to get the best analysis out of an AI model
Where I critically intervene and rely on my own thoughts
How you can get an AI to mirror the way you write
When relying on an LLM you often get something that only seems good at first glance: often the AI has missed details, or an important nuance. And for this core part of my job, decent isnt enoughI need output to be excellent.
This AI accuracy gap creates a painful cycle where you spin in circles, trying to re-prompt the system to get what you want until youre essentially left rewriting the entire output on your own. In the end, its unclear if AI actually helped at all. The more effective approach is understanding how you (the human) do the thinking and leave writing (i.e., formatting and synthesis) to the LLM. This simple separation is what elevates AI-augmented workflows from decent to exceptional.
Heres an example of how we build those kinds of workflows at Theory Ventures, and how you can too. Well illustrate an example with the automation of our internal market research reports.
Step 1: Define the thinking process
Prepare a document with very detailed instructions on the underlying analysis/construction you seek to achieveclearly outline the context & goals, then dive into all of the details on how you deconstruct a broad analysis: the specific questions you would ask, follow-up sub-questions, how they should be answered with data, and key callouts or exceptions.
You can use an AI assistant to help you generate a first draft of this, sharing completed documents and asking it to deconstruct the analysis. But these instructions are critical, so its important to finish writing it by hand and continue to update it over time when you tweak your analysis.
Example analysis instructions included in the prompt (note: the full instructions will typically be 2 to 10 or more pages long)
Analyze the underlying market structure: Is it fragmented or consolidated? Why? (e.g., high specialization needs, regulatory barriers, network effects, legacy tech debt). How is fragmentation changing over time, and is it different across market segments?
Use the following data sources and analyses: . . .
Evaluate key market dynamics: What are the typical switching costs? How prevalent is tech debt? What are the typical sales cycles and buyer behaviors? How do incumbents maintain their position (moats)?
Use the following data sources and analyses: . . .
Step 2: Lay out your human-led analysis
Provide your primary analysis, along with raw notes and instructions to the AI. We set our systems up so they require the user to provide their key takeaways and analysis to guide the system towards whats most importanthighlighting areas to focus on, key opportunities, and potential concerns. These are typically four to five detailed bullet points of two to four sentences each. This is the crux of the analysis and should therefore never be AI-generated.
Example key takeaways provided to the system:
This market has historically been small and fragmented without major software providers. We expect it will grow dramatically, primarily through currently automating labor spend and consolidating a set of point solutions. The underlying demand for this capability will also increase with XYZ challenges. We feel very confident in these two growth levers.
Theres substantial concentration at the upper end of the market. Major platforms control around X% of the market and have all invested heavily in their own technology. But below the top-n largest players, there is a healthy cohort of medium-large buyers that have the scale to need this solution but dont want to build it. We think this is sufficient to build a sizeable company, although market concentration and build versus buy remains a key long-term risk.
Step 3: Run an interactive Q&A to hone the analysis
This dialogue is the most interesting and fun step: Have the system generate questions to clarify the contours of your analysis. Based on the primary analysis, along with the notes and general instructions, the system asks questions about things that either werent clear or had conflicting information/instructions. This helps sharpen the analysis and gives the user the opportunity to share more of their thought process and guidance.
Example Q&A:
Q from the AI: You said that major platforms have invested heavily in this technology, but conversations with some of those companies indicated an excitement to buy. Do you think that will be common, or were they exceptions?
A from the human: Good point. I do think that many of them will buy eventually, but because theyve built a lot of technology internally they are more likely to need a new platform only for certain components, versus buying an end-to-end system. And the very largest companies (top three to five) will build everything in-house.
Step 4: Share past work to match tone, not ideas
Use previous examples of your work to replicate tone and style only after the scaffolding work is done. Most people skip immediately to this step, but we found (and research shows) that providing finished examples is most useful just to match tone and writing style, as opposed to shaping the analysis itself.
In researching the best AI-native products, weve seen that practically all of the work goes into defining the thinking and analysis portion of the problemdetailed instructions, guidelines, orchestration, and toolingso the AI system knows what it should do and just executes on it.
At Theory Ventures, weve started to mirror the same system by developing highly-constrained, human-in-the-loop workflows that direct the analysis, leaving the LLM to execute basic information extraction and synthesis. Thats how weand our AI systemshave started working smarter. Not by asking AI to think for us, but by helping it think better.
For decades, the plastic crisis has always felt far away, whether through time or across distance. But unfortunately, were no longer talking about environmental pollution out there in the ocean. Microplastics, tiny fragments that come from the breakdown of everyday plastic items, are now inside all of us, turning this from a theoretical risk into a shockingand deeply personal (physically) reality.
Despite this fact, most Americans remain unaware of just how prevalent microplastics are in our lives. New national research that we conducted with our partners at The 5 Gyres Institute paints a troubling picture: while 77% of Americans say theyve heard the term microplastics, only 49% actually understand what it means. Even about half of people51%know its often a result of larger plastic breaking down.
The knowledge gap
That knowledge gap is more than an academic concern. Its a public health crisis, especially when you consider that, after the term is defined for survey respondents, 90% of Americans state that theyre worried about microplastics in the human bodyand theyre right to be. Science confirms that these particles have been found in breast milk, placental tissue, lungs, brains, blood, and more. And studies are increasingly linking microplastics to serious health impacts, including cancer, heart disease, hormone disruption, and infertility.
But even when you close that knowledge gap, people who care often feel stuck. Our research shows that 70% of Americans dont know how to reduce their exposure to microplastics and 67% cant name a single company actively working on the problem (were hoping to change that!). That sense of powerlessness is as dangerous as the plastic itself, because people want better. They just dont know where to turn.
At Grove, weve seen firsthand that Americans are searching for answers and theyre looking to us: to companies, brands, and private-sector leaders. They want healthier homes, safer products, and more sustainable choices. They want corporations to leadnot with vague promises, but with bold, measurable action.
This is our collective moment.
A solution
Consumers didnt create the plastic crisis. We, the private sector, did. For decades, our industries have driven plastic adoption in product design, packaging, and sourcing. And we were lied to and manipulated by the petrochemical and plastics industry that shaped this system. Now, we, the private sector in 2025, must dismantle it.
That means going beyond plastic. It means rejecting outdated systems that rely on single-use packaging, microbeads, and petrochemical-based materials. It means investing in compostable and refillable formats, shifting supply chains, being transparent about ingredients and sourcing, and leaning into the circular economy. It means learning and being aware of the impact plastics are having in our bodies and environments. It means supporting legislation, like the newly introduced bipartisan Microplastics Safety Act, which calls on the FDA and HHS to investigate and report on the health impacts of microplastics.
Most importantly, it means refusing to offload responsibility onto consumers and admitting that recycling, long touted as a solution, simply isnt enough. Only 5% of plastic is recycled and the rest ends up in landfills, incinerators, or breaks down into microplastic particles that pollute our air, food, water, and (if not abundantly clear by now) our bodies.
At Grove, we remain unwavering in our commitment to eliminate plastic from the products we make and selland to empower others to do the same. But we cant do it alone.
The cost of inaction
Consumers are demanding accountability. Our research shows that 79% of Americans believe microplastics represent a human and environmental emergency; 82% believe companies should be doing more. But only half (54%) believe that businesses are actually stepping up. That gap is where trust and long-term relevance will be won or lost.
The cost of inaction is rising. Not just in terms of public health, but in trust, consumer confidence, and regulatory risk. There will come a time soon when inaction on microplastics will be seen for what it is: negligent at best, and reckless at worst.
Companies that continue to delay action on plastic pollution arent just making a business decision. Theyre making a decision that directly impacts human health. Brands that cling to plastic-heavy models are effectively choosing profits over people, and theyll have to live with the consequences.
But brands that choose to lead? Theyll be rewarded with consumer loyalty, resilience, and relevance in a world thats rapidly waking up to this crisis. The science is clear. The public is paying attention. The future will not be plastic. And the time for action is now.
Jeff Yurcisin is CEO of Grove Collaborative.
As U.S. climate policy was noisily dismantled in Washington over the spring and summer, another climate story unfoldedquieter, faster, and broadcast to millions.
It unfolded in the streets of Monaco. So Paulo. Shanghai. In the form of all-electric race cars tearing through city centerscheered on by fans living the transition to a low-carbon world, not waiting for it.
Formula E: A global entertainment platform
Launched just over a decade ago, Formula E now reaches half a billion fansmany of whom are new to motorsports. Not because it promised sustainability. But because it delivered a better product: short, high-drama races. Urban venues. A streaming-ready format. Cultural relevance in an EV-first world.
Its a playbook worth studying for any company trying to bring climate innovation to the mainstream.
This isnt about messaging. Its about strategy.
From clunky to cutting edge
When Roger Griffiths first saw a Formula E car in 2014, he wasnt impressed.
A veteran of IndyCar, Le Mans, and Formula 1, he knew a lot about going fast. And this wasnt it. The battery was huge, heavy, and underpowered. The performance? Underwhelming.
But Formula E wasnt starting from scratch. It was pulling from the top shelf of global motorsport.
What struck him wasnt the hardware. It was the names showing up anyway: Michael Andretti, Alain Prost, and Frank Williamslegends who had built dynasties in IndyCar and Formula 1. Even Richard Branson had joined the grid.
We cant afford (for) this to fail, Griffiths recalled on the Supercool podcast. Too many people have too much invested.
Formula E didnt begin with speed or range. It started with credibility. And in the early days of climate tech, that buys you time to iterate toward something better. So they did.
Designed for a new kind of fan
Formula E didnt mimic Formula 1. It built a motorsport tuned to a new era.
Races last just 45 minutestight enough for modern attention spans, long enough to create drama. The circuits run through the hearts of global cities, not remote tracks. Fans take public transit or Uber to races. The vibe? Less pilgrimage, more pop-up festival.
The audience is younger, urban, and digitally native. Many arent interested in owning a car at all.
Young people today dont necessarily want to own cars, said Griffiths. Were catering to a crowd that thinks differently about mobility. Formula E recognizes that.
Meanwhile, the technology caught upfast. Jaguar used race-day insights to improve the range of its I-PACE SUV. BMW co-developed systems between i3 engineers and race teams.
Formula E became a proving groundnot just for fans, but for the EV industry.
Built to evolve
Unlike legacy motorsports, Formula E gave itself permission to break with tradition.
It experimented early and often: Fan Boost. Attack Mode. Interactive features lifted from gaming culture. Some flopped. Others stuck. But the league kept shipping, learning, and moving forward.
The old me wouldve said, What a stupid idea, Griffiths said of Attack Mode, which gives drivers a temporary power boost if they hit a marked zone on the track. The new me said, Im not surebut Ill give it a go.
Formula E doesnt wait for perfect. It tests ideas in publicon race day, with millions watching. Either way, the race goes on. The sport gets better.
That mindset isnt just tolerated, its structural. Formula Es governance enables change. Its culture rewards it.
5 lessons for climate innovators
Innovators can learn these five lessons from Formula E.
1. Turn constraints into strengths.Early EVs couldnt finish a full race. Formula E shortened them to 45 minutes, creating tighter, more intense competition perfectly tuned for social media highlight reels and streaming.
2. Design for urban lifestyles.Electric cars are quiet enough to race in city centers. Fans dont need to drive. They grab an Uber and plug into the experience as part of modern life.
3. Iterate in public.Formula E doesnt hide experiments. It ships them in real time, where fans become part of the process. Innovation is part of the show.
4. Let climate be the platform, not the pitch.Sustainability underpins the whole thing. Sponsors dont need convincing. Fans dont feel preached to. Thats what makes it scale.
5. Design for whats emerging.Formula E didnt retrofit old formats for electric race cars. It aligned with a modern, urban culture: streaming-first viewing and shared mobility. These behaviors define where were heading.
A better future, built for speed
Formula E didnt scale by talking about emissions. It scaled by delivering an incredible fan experience.
It understood how younger audiences live, move, and engageand built a sport around that.
It made the low-carbon future feel inevitable, not through fear, but through energy and excitement.
And it proved something essential: Climate innovation doesnt have to trade performance for principle.
It doesnt have to trade anything at all.
Josh Dorfman is CEO and host of Supercool.
For years, crypto headlines have fixated on trust issues: fraud, volatility, and the few bad actors whove given crypto a Wild West reputation. But the National Cryptocurrency Associations new 2025 Crypto Confidence Pulsea Harris Poll survey of Americans who dont currently hold any cryptoreveals something more fundamental is holding people back: a knowledge gap.
Almost 90% of non-holders said they dont feel knowledgeable about buying, trading, selling, or even using crypto. And 49% cited a lack of understanding as the main reason theyre unlikely to engage with the technology in the future.
Despite cryptos increased visibility in popular culture, media, and markets, confusion still reigns. Perhaps the clearest sign of confusion among non-holders is this: About 41% say they dont know who or what is backing cryptodespite the fact that its core feature is that it has no central backer at all, and 55% admit that researching the space simply feels overwhelming.
Non-holders arent rejecting crypto outright; many are simply unsure what to thinkoverwhelmed by jargon, unclear about practical uses and cryptos capabilities. In fact, nearly a quarter of non-holders said they would consider using crypto if they could pay for goods and services with itsomething thats already possible today.
The barrier to entry can be overcome through education.
Confusion is the real risk
That lack of understanding creates space for fear to grow. When people cant easily grasp how something works, trust becomes harder to build, no matter how good the underlying technology might be.
Security concerns (43%), distrust of platforms (36%), and persistent misperceptions around scams and hacks continue to cloud public opinion. Even for those who are interested in crypto, nearly one-third still say theyre unsure where to begin, according to our study.
For crypto to fulfill its promise as a more inclusive, accessible, and innovative tool, the industry must provide clarity, not just code. That means education that is simple, transparent, and tied to the real-world benefits crypto can offertoday.
But heres where the data gets especially insightful: Non-crypto holders are not a monolith. The survey identifies five distinct personas, each with unique motivations, anxieties, and opportunities for engagement:
The Curious: Already talking about crypto with friends; almost half (42%) of this group is likely to acquire crypto this year
The Trendwatchers: Watching from the sidelines and intrigued, but need more real-world examples of crypto in action
The Skeptics: Seeking proof, safety, and oversight, this cohort is most concerned about security, scams, and the perceived instability of the space
The Traditionalists: Prefer legacy systems like banks and credit cards and need clear reasons why crypto matters to their day-to-day
The Cautious: Unsure where to start and worried theyve already missed the boat, but open to learning more from trusted sources
A one-size-fits-all approach to crypto education wont cut it: Each group needs a different message. The Curious may benefit from more practical guidance around how to set up a wallet or navigate different types of tokens. Trendwatchers may be most influenced by seeing more retailers they know and love starting to accept crypto payments. Skeptics need assurance, which will likely come in the form of policy decisions. Traditionalists need to understand how crypto and traditional finance work together. The Cautious will likely need help cutting through the hype and jargon.
If we want to close the knowledge gap, we need to start by knowing our audience.
Advance regulation without stifling innovation
We also cant ignore the role of regulation. This isnt just a policy matterits a consumer protection issue.
Clear, smart rules can help demystify the landscape and signal that this is a legitimate, secure space to engage. Until policymakers and industry leaders work together to provide consistent guardrails, uncertainty will continue to cloud perception.
Crypto has long been misperceived as a trustless system. But in reality, its adoption hinges on trust: People need to understand the technology before they can trust itand they need someone they trust to help educate them.
Education is the infrastructure. And if the crypto industry wants to build for tomorrow, its time to lay that foundation today.
Stu Alderoty is president of the National Cryptocurrency Association.
Most of us are failingat AI.
While nearly 90% of CEOs expect AI to transform their organizations, only 16-23% report seeing meaningful value today.
As a result, employers and employees are losing out. Employees are significantly undertrained in AI. Yet, they feel the pressure to keep up. Only about one-third of workers report receiving employer-provided AI training, and of those who arent receiving training, 34% of them want their employers to provide it.
Meanwhile, employers face unprecedented pressure to innovate fasterall while navigating rapid changes in technology and the economy. Boards and investors are urging fast adoption of AI, but many companies dont know how, given high expectations, questionable results, and a wildly uncertain future.
The companies that will succeed are the ones that can integrate AI into their workflow. The rest will be left behind.
By investing in training for their employees, employers can reap the benefits of AI almost immediately, while better preparing its teams, businesses, and communities for whatever the future holds. Here are three ways companies can harness the value of AI.
1. Use AI to unlock your talent pool
Because Amanda, a Duckbill employee, lives with chronic pain, traditional job roles were unsustainable, and freelance work didnt offer reliable pathways to upskilling. Through structured training with Duckbills technology, Amanda was able to transition into a flexible, AI-integrated role.
The result: Shes trained to take on future roles in tech that are accessible and flexible enough for her. As are all our other employees.
2. Invest in human-AI partnerships
Elizabeth stepped back from her career to start a very difficult job: parenthood. She re-entered the workforce with a role at Duckbill, where she received tech training. As a Duckbill copilot, Elizabeth completes life administrative tasks for Duckbill members, using her knowledge to create real value for clients by combining AI-generated information and adding her lived experience and empathetic listening. For example, when a customer and fellow mother asked a parenting question, Elizabeth used AI to generate a research-backed foundation for an answer, then layered her own story, creating a richer, more meaningful connection while completing the members task.
The result: When leadership prioritizes human-AI workflows, it delivers both efficiency and emotional intelligence.
3. Embed AI training in career development
Amanda is teaching both humans and AI at Duckbill. As a team leader, she onboards new copilots, teaching them how to use Duckbills proprietary AI technology, and in the process working with engineers to help develop better tools that serve both copilots and members efficiently. Amandas progression is part of a larger, employer-built framework: Every role is paired with built-in AI fluency milestones, career development paths, and mentorship programs.
Embedding AI literacy into Duckbills career development, rather than treating it as a nice-to-have, turns training into infrastructure.
The result: Adaptability isnt dependent on a few tech-savvy individuals; its systemic and sustainable, even in an uncertain economy.
Its time to sink or swim
AI skilling for non-technical employees benefits employers and drives immediate-term efficiency, efficacy, and engagement. AI skilling gives employees the best possible chance to keep up with the demands of an AI economy and helps to build tech that brings out the best in our human teams.
The choice is yours: Reap the benefits of AI or get left behind like the other 84%.
Meghan Joyce is cofounder and CEO of Duckbill.
Remember when the internet cried actual tears for an anglerfish earlier this year? Now, TikTok has a new deep-sea obsession.
Brought to light by creator and wildlife biologist Josh Allyn, TikTok has recently discovered Octopolis and Octlantistwo real underwater sites off the coast of Australia where gloomy octopuses have been quietly building their own cities and complex societies.
Im kinda pissed right now. Was nobody going to tell me that octopuses are creating their own underwater cities? he said in a video posted last week. It has since gone viral with 13 million views at the time of this writing. I had to find out through Instagram Reels. What the hell.
@joshallyn I feel betrayed original sound – Basement Biology
This isnt a new discovery. Once thought to be solitary creatures, gloomy octopuses (named for their downcast eyes rather than their mood) were first seen living communally in 2009, when diver Matthew Lawrence discovered the original octopus city in Jervis Bay, Australia. Home to 16 octopuses, it was dubbed Octopolis.
Then, in 2017, Lawrence and a group of researchers discovered another site with a similar social arrangement of gloomy octopuses that was located only a few hundred meters from Octopolis. They dubbed it Octlantis.
At both sites, octopuses were observed sculpting dens from piles of clam and scallop shells, socializing, bickering, and even evicting one another. As one Reddit user joked in a 2022 thread about the phenomenon: Octopus landlords? Octopus rent? Octopus homeowner associations? I swear, if octopi reinvent capitalism, I’ll be so disappointed.
Now that TikTok has discovered these octopus cities, the content writes itself. As well as being fodder for AI slop, some have turned the cephalopods society into viral skits. Youre soooo early. We just learned about Octopolis, one user commented under comedian Vinny Thomass post. I cant wait to understand this in 30 minutes.”
@vinn_ayy an octopus landlord in an octopus city (which are real) original sound – Vinny Thomas
So why is something discovered over a decade ago trending again now? Thomas has a theory: Were all in this moment fixating on it because were so desperate. Were so desperate to imagine that there’s a society somewhere where theyve got it all figured out, he explained in another post. The octopuses are just down there butt-ass naked, eating crabs, living it up. Meanwhile, we are not doing great. I think we are just desperate for that little ounce of hope. He added: Maybe its alright with the octopuses.
@vinn_ayy Replying to @ Sara wait lets discuss Very Sad – Enchan
Still, in the era of generative AI and AI slop, some viewersscarred by past hoaxes like Trampoline Bunny-gatewant hard evidence before getting emotionally attached to Octopolis and Octlantis.
Good news: This time, the octopus cities are very real.
