Alberto Forchielli in giuria! Ascensore EP.6

So much. Watzw. Sometimes it seems like a load of bullshit. I didn't understand anything. >> No, I'm gentler. You did the best you could in the time you had. >> You're not getting to the point. >> Bye. >> You didn't say anything about the Go to Market. >> I don't know. It seems like a very marketing-driven pitch, not the nerdy one I'd expect from a physics department. >> I disagree. >> No, exactly. >> I feel Africa. Thank goodness. >> Special thanks for the production of this episode go to Fisco Zen, a service for those who have or want to open a VAT number. In the description, you'll find a link to book a free tax consultation. Hello guys and welcome to this new episode of Ascensore, the format where startups pitch and judges judge. Sometimes they blast, sometimes they invest. There will be three startups where they will first pitch for 5 minutes, then we will ask questions, and then we will give feedback. We will vote on each startup, and the winner of this episode will go straight to the live episode with all the other winners to battle it out to the death. As today, we have excellent judges who will bring a lot of value to this episode. This time too, I'll let them introduce themselves. Mister Rip, passive-aggressive investor. >> Alberto Dalmasso, CEO CFer of Satispay, Angel Investor, and dad. Tommaso Di Stefano, I've been working in marketing in startups for a while, I've invested in some. I am Alberto Forchielli, Jack of All Trades. At the moment, I manage a private equity fund, but I've done a bit of everything in my life. I'm not exactly a startup expert, but I hope my instinct will support me. >> How do you feel? >> Good. >> What are you afraid of? >> The heat. >> Ideal scenario? Leaving here with a briefcase full of money. >> How much money are you looking for? >> 4 million. >> I'd say without further ado, let's call the first startup on stage, Sat and Light. Sat and Light, I imagine. Sat and Light. Wow, what elegance. Welcome, welcome. >> Thank you, thank you. >> You have 5 minutes to pitch, starting now. >> Good morning, everyone. My name is Matteo Vismara, I'm a physicist, and I'm the CIO and co-founder of Satlight. What you see here is not just the prototype of our innovative receiver for optical communications, but it's the key to unlocking the new generation of space communications, and this brings us directly to the problem we all face, perhaps a bit unknowingly. We have entered an era where everything produces more and more data, Earth observation, in-orbit processing, and recently data centers in space. Everything produces more data. But here's the problem, we don't have the infrastructure to support all of this. It's like tomorrow we wake up and suddenly discover that our mobile phone no longer has a signal, our GPS doesn't work, and our bank transactions have been spied on and jammed. This is not a dystopia, this is a structural vulnerability of our communication system. The radio frequencies we rely on today have reached their physical limit. The communication network is now saturated, and optical communication, which could be the solution to this problem, has been around for 20 years, but no one is really winning, and this is why we founded Satenlight. We don't use the classic laser dot, but we use optical vortices, which is light with orbital angular momentum, meaning light that generates a helix as it propagates. Why do we do this? Because different optical vortices are orthogonal to each other. So, in principle, it's possible to mount two or more sources of two or more different optical vortices on the same satellite, encode independent information on each of them, and send them through the same channel. Because they are orthogonal, they will propagate without mixing, and during reception, with our patented receiver, we can distinguish the different optical vortices and decode the information encoded on each of them, enabling multichannel communication that allows us to break bottlenecks and increase security. So, the advantages are higher data rates, inherent security because without our receiver, it's impossible to distinguish one vortex from another, and integrability with existing optical communication solutions. Every existing optical system is enabled for higher data rates and inherent security. The heart of our innovation is our receiver, protected by two patents, which you see at the top, that performs an interferometric measurement with which we can distinguish optical vortices and decode the information. The technology is at TRL4, by the end of this year we will bring it to TRL7, and as you can see, we are already performing tests at kilometer distances in the city of Milan. Regarding traction, we have already registered considerable interest from the market, evidenced by three letters of intent from three companies operating in this market, specifically Spyre, Astrolite, and Genesis Code. We have been selected for the ExaSky Officina Stellare, managed by Officina Stellare in Padua, with whom we are about to conduct a 10 km test by the end of the summer. We are part of the ESA working group for the definition of optical communication standards. We won an award from Tale Salenia Space with whom we are about to conduct joint tests, and we have also won other grants and awards. In particular, we operate in the New Space economy vertical, which is growing the fastest, that of satellite communication, and specifically that of optical communication, which is seen as, let's say, the key enabler for the new generation of communications. Regarding the roadmap, we expect to reach TRL7 by the end of this year with the money we have obtained, with a round we closed last December of 1 million euros, and then move towards an in-orbit demonstration for which we are seeking 4 million euros by mid-to-late 2028. I am not alone in this adventure, but I am accompanied by CTO and Co-Founder Matteo Mirliano, by two new people we have just hired with the round of 1 million we just concluded, Umberto Seregni and Francesco Codazzi, formerly of Leonardo and KPMG respectively, who help us on the technological side, Umberto Sergni, Matteo Miriano, and on the customer interface side, Francesco Cotazzi, and myself, and an international advisory board of professors who helped us patent the technology together with us and who help us develop our activities day by day. Thank you for your attention, I remain available for any questions. Uh, this is one of those times when we don't understand anything about the market this startup operates in. >> Hey, speak for yourself. >> So, let's start with the questions. In what order do we want to start? Do you want to start to break the ice? RIP. >> Ah, okay. M interesting was, since this is something that has, let's say, a global reach, why don't the TAM and SAM coincide in your case? What problems do you have in opening up to the entire total market? >> Well, that's an excellent question. There's a fundamental point that is a trend we are increasingly seeing. The satellite communication field is now a strategic asset of individual countries and in particular of various continents. If I were to go to America tomorrow, it's not guaranteed that I could be a supplier of communication systems at the ESA level, so there's a choice a startup has to make at a certain point in its life. >> What I didn't understand, however, is what you have today, if you have revenue, what stage you are in, if you are asking for money, the business part is missing a bit. >> Yes. So, as I said, the technology is TRL4, we are approaching TRL5. Last week we were at Palazzo Lombardia doing tests at 3.5 km between Palazzo Lombardia and the Physics Department where the technology. What does TRL5 mean? That we are now planning 10 km tests with Officina Stellare and other stakeholders to reach TRL7 by December 2020. Excuse me, excuse me. Uh, indeed, this is a problem. I'm used to talking with ESA, NASA, etc. TRL7 means Technology Readiness Level, which is the level of readiness the technology has to reach the market. TRL9 is when you have validated the technology, tested it in a relevant environment, and are therefore ready to sell the product. We aim to reach TRL7, which is to demonstrate the technology in a relevant environment that is not the intended use environment. Why are we doing the 10 km ground-to-ground test between buildings in an urban area? Because the thickness of the troposphere is about 10 km. So, when you want to do satellite-to-ground communication, what you need to overcome as a potential source of noise is the atmosphere, which is, let's say, a turbulent medium that disturbs the propagating signal. What is the thickness of the troposphere? About 10 km. So, our goal is to perform communication over these distances to say, "Hey, we have validated the technology at these distances, which are the same as what we will find in the actual use environment." But to truly reach the market, that's why we are asking for 4 million in the next round, which we expect to close by March of next year for valuation? at a valuation that we are generally aiming for between 15 and 20 million to be able to effectively compete with other optical communication startups, even at the European level. 4 million with which we will do the in-orbit demonstration, meaning we take our hardware that I showed you, put it on a satellite, and do the communication from satellite to ground. Alberto, >> excuse me, if I may, I'll finish answering because this question allows me to add a fact. We don't have revenue yet. However, the goal is to proceed with this in-orbit demonstration, trying to increase our valuation a bit more if possible. The 10 km ground-to-ground test actually enables two other potential scenarios: communication for telcos, meaning simply communication like we do today with antennas in RF, but also everything we do with fiber, for example, laying cables and so on, can also be done in free space through our system. This also potentially opens us up to markets that are not just satellite markets, markets that are much closer and therefore don't require us to go into orbit to demonstrate and go to market. This is to answer and complete, let's say. >> And if you are also entrepreneurs or freelancers, there's one thing you need to do the moment you receive your first euro, and that is to open a VAT number. As we know, bureaucracy in Italy can be very tough, but fortunately, for the VAT number, we have an unparalleled ally, Fisco Zen. If you already have a VAT number or are thinking of opening one, Fisco Zen is an online service that provides you with a dedicated accountant specialized in your profession, so they know exactly what you do. You can contact them by phone, by email, and you also have an online dashboard to manage your entire VAT number in a much simpler way. For example, you can issue electronic invoices, check deadlines, and see real-time tax calculations on what you earn. Plus, it also includes income tax returns and opening a VAT number. Furthermore, guys, I remind you that if you already have a VAT number or are thinking of opening one, in the description you will find a link to book a free tax consultation, and if you then decide to use Fisco Zen, you will get a €50 voucher for the first year. >> And this is one of those technologies for which, as you said, we compete with other startups because then that choice becomes the dominant standard, and all the others die. >> You've asked me a perfect question because it allows me to say something that is fundamental. Optical communication has been on everyone's lips, within academia, within the satellite field, on everyone's lips for about 20 years. Starlink, for example, already implements it at the inter-satellite level, well, there's simply vacuum, so light propagates without any problem, and they already achieve about 100 Gbps data rates. The real problem is that we generate a gigantic amount of data in orbit, but we only download about 20%. Optical communication, therefore, is actually something that needs to enter the market, so to speak, because the market really needs it. Now, what we want to do is not to be yet another optical communication startup, but to try to set the new standard. >> But who defines the standard? Who will choose the standard? Who is your? Because I want to understand if an entity decides, chooses you, you've won, chooses others, you've lost, you have no more chances, >> no? >> Or, >> commercial diffusion, or if you play two games, the entity chooses us, we've won everything. The entity doesn't choose us, I go to the telcos, I go to the private world and find my way. So, without getting too technical, there are two potential entities, at the American level, the SDA, Standards Association, while at the European level, ESTOL, which is the ESA working group for standard definition. It consists of 44 companies, of which we are the 44th, and we joined last June. This is what we say, >> but they will choose one, right? That's what I don't get. >> Yes. Fundamentally, yes, but the optical vortex is something that is mounted on top of what already exists, and which we want, apart from your receiver that you said is what then >> makes you defensible. >> Yes, yes. And from, but the security concept is like saying something you put on top, but it's actually not very relevant because interoperability, the fact of working on existing infrastructure is the real thing, because if it's secure only if there's your receiver because there are patents, but I say whoever wants to enter and take data illegally, they don't care about respecting patents, so that security aspect is true. M >> you say that because maybe investors care about that, but in reality, it's not that relevant. The relevant thing is that you manage to communicate. >> I don't say it so much for the investors, but rather for the potential applications, which are often sovereign, which are often linked to the defense sectors of various countries. Having different vortices that overlap in the same channel, that propagate through the same channel, or you have our receiver that allows you to distinguish them from each other and therefore read the information encoded on each channel, or you can't read the information. >> But what allows you to distinguish it? It's the interferometric measurement we perform. >> And can your receiver not be replicated? Uh, well, if you do reverse engineering, you get it, you potentially can, it's not just a layer, let's say, >> it's not a key issue, >> it's not a key issue, it's not a software issue, at least not entirely, in the sense that obviously to make it work we have our software, but it's mainly a hardware issue. It's how we perform the measurement, and the patents are related precisely to how. Focio, a quick question, because you >> Yes, I wanted to ask the same question. Since we don't know this technology, >> it's difficult for us to say, "Ah, well, obviously the spiral is better than the others." Leaving aside the technology, which we don't know anyway, why is yours superior to the others, no? In your opinion? >> Yes, well, there's an aspect. We are doing something that no one else in the world is doing. We've been involved since 2024. No one uses optical vortices for communication, and that's a first fact. The second fact is that we have been working in this field, in optics, particularly in instrumental optics, for many years now. The professors we have behind us are professors who have been working on this for 30 years, including space missions and telecommunications. So, we have the expertise to understand the needs of this market and to enable the infrastructure to respond to these needs. Alberto, >> I have no questions. >> So, I wasn't good. Not even one question. >> What is the first year of revenues? The first year of revenue we expect in 2028. >> Okay. >> Do you want to start, RIP, who is rubbing his face? >> My fear is that if no one is using this technology, there will be a reason, and that we might be here discussing things that the technology is not suitable for solving this problem. That's my fear. The second fear is that there is no pain, meaning that Starlink already knows how to download data from space, and perhaps it doesn't have all this appeal as a solution. I don't know, it seems like a very marketing-driven pitch, not a nerdy one, which I would expect from a physics department. It seems like bullshit. >> No, exactly. >> Okay, I don't have much else to add. >> Well, the sector can certainly be interesting. Uh, as feedback, I'd say you're not getting to the point. I still haven't understood if there will be a winner among all of them, meaning if out of these 44 they will choose one, and if there's nothing for the others. It shouldn't be a tech pitch, so it's okay if you don't understand, that's fine. Actually, if, as I think, it's about setting a new standard, winning over the others, you, in your role, need to make it usable and understandable, >> a bit more than you did. It seems like two or three key pieces of information were missed. Of course, >> which in my opinion, if you could say in three words, might completely change the opinion. Right now, I'm struggling to give a judgment because I believe some clear information wasn't given to me. >> That's fair, that's fair. >> Yes. No, very much in line with what Alberto said. Perhaps having the key to the problem, no, the fact that, okay, communications are overused, but then it's almost like you set up the whole thing, but there wasn't the punchline, no? To say if we continue like this for 5 years, everything will collapse, and therefore we need to start using this new technology. Our new, our version of this new technology is this. So, yes, I'm quite in agreement with that and with the fact that >> many answers were a bit long, perhaps we would have had more time to ask you other things, to go into more detail if you had answered more directly. But otherwise, at least, it's a pitch that makes me say, "Maybe it's worth exploring and understanding in more detail and staying in touch." >> Alberto, >> no, I'm gentler. You did the best you could in the time you had, explaining complex problems that we weren't exposed to, so I don't feel like giving even a minimally negative judgment. I'm very impressed with what you're doing. You answered everything. You didn't say anything about the go-to-market, but I realize we would need more time. >> In my opinion, you actually did well in the pitch in terms of clarity and the things you presented, if we want to say the positive things, and also clarity in speaking. My favorite slide was clearly the one about traction, and then the one about the team because they were the only things I could understand. Okay, a tech startup. Okay, it has LOIs, okay, it has these entities that I know, professors, I can look them up, as Tommy says, maybe if there had been more back-and-forth between the questions, we would have had more information, but now I'm super curious, I want to explore, I struggle to give a judgment now, but >> clear, but here are the business cards specifically so that we can hear from each other. >> And see, this was >> Thank you again for the. I hope to understand these light vortices, I was looking them up on Google. >> Anyway, congratulations because it seems like a titanic undertaking, and thank you very much. >> Bye. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> How did it go? >> I thought better. >> Were there any unforeseen events? >> No, no unforeseen events. >> Uh, no, no unforeseen events. >> Is there anything you wanted to say but didn't? There's a lot to say about our technology, but I didn't get to it. >> Did you vote? >> But how do the votes work? The judges will evaluate each startup on five criteria. The team weighs 25%, skills, complementarity, and execution capability. Then the problem and market are worth 20%. How real and urgent is this pain, and how big an opportunity is it? The solution is worth another 20%. Clarity of the value proposition and how disruptive it is compared to alternatives. Then go-to-market, traction, and moat weigh 25%, a credible plan to acquire customers, and a competitive advantage that is difficult to replicate. Finally, the quality of the pitch is worth 10%. Structure, clarity, no fluff. And if you also want to vote for your favorite startup, you can now do so via the link in the description or the one you see on screen. The finalist startups will compete live during an amazing event. It didn't seem to me like he was bullshitting, but it seemed clear enough, it seemed like he was competent in what he was studying. >> I'd love to. Yes, >> the only thing that mattered a lot was the traction. At these levels, I don't know anything about the technology, only how many LOIs are signed, how much >> Yes, but how much are you worth? How much are you asking for? I had to ask him afterwards, eh. Uh, 4 million at what valuation. Uh. >> Well, but that's because he's raising, he said the round will open in a year, so it's understandable that he doesn't know. The only real mistake, in my opinion, was during the Q&A phase, bullshitting us. >> Uh, it really sounds like a politician talking, but not a politician. The presentation could have been completed with three questions, three clear answers. >> How do you feel? >> A little anxious. >> What are you afraid of? Well, of the roasting, people with much more experience than me telling me something that scares me, let's say. >> Ideal scenario? >> No, learning something and getting some new insights on how to grow the company. >> How much money are you looking for? Not immediately, but we'd like to do a round in about 6-9 months for 15-20 million. >> It's time to call Sillo Tips on stage. Welcome. You have 5 minutes starting now to pitch. >> Hello everyone, I'm Giorgio Barnaboccia, co-founder of Sillotips, accelerated at Texas in 2024 and with over 5 million in funds raised between Pre-seed and Seed, we are one of the fastest-growing startups in the AI for the Enterprise world. We have developed a software that allows us to bring the accuracy of agents beyond 90% through the involvement of domain experts within the company, and we are working to become a category-defining company in the high continuous improvement space. In 2026, we will reach approximately 2.5 million in annual recurring revenue, working with some of the largest Italian companies in strategic and highly regulated sectors, particularly Financial Services, Energy, New Utilities, and Telco. In the last 18 months, most of the world's large companies have started to equip themselves with a constellation of agents for process automation and efficiency. These agents are usually developed either custom or with low-code platforms like Copilot or Agent Force. Unlike AI for individual productivity or consumer AI, the integration of AI into processes is proving much more complex than expected. For example, RAG systems respond poorly or not at all, or fail in multistep scenarios 50% of the time, even in very simple scenarios. For this reason, all the world's CEOs are trying to figure out how to recover the ROI of all the investments made so far. Science and industry are converging on a principle, namely the lack of a continuous improvement layer that allows people with specific micro-expertise within the company to transfer this knowledge to agents, who are initially like interns. We can say that agents need a learning and development center. Silloips was born precisely for this: software that allows us to understand where agents make mistakes, transform these errors into sub-tasks that can be completed in natural language, and these contributions are consolidated in a common memory which, once created, is reused at runtime by the agents to improve their performance. With our first clients, we have managed to bring their EAGs in areas like customer service, field service, and sales enablement to over 90% in 3 months. And the quality of our approach is verified by the fact that 72% of agent runs reuse knowledge collected from these sub-tasks. It's a perfect time to build this type of company because the hype around agentics is cooling down due to the complications in actually putting these systems into production. Gartner indicates that a new category, Guardian Agents, is emerging, which will occupy 15% of the budget by 2030, meaning software that allows for monitoring and supervision of these agents. Companies are already doing this work manually; it needs to be industrialized. We are in a space that is still nascent. There are AI agents to which we want to be affiliated, and then there are three emerging players, particularly Wefo Found, Interlum, and Edra. They are three startups, two in America and one in Germany, trying to achieve more or less the same goal. We differentiate ourselves because we have very effective algorithms for detecting agent reliability. We can transform these points of failure into tasks that can be completed in natural language by non-technical people, and we also have a strong partnership with Microsoft in terms of both distribution and product, which makes us credible to companies that usually don't buy from startups. We are a team of tech and science professionals, with five former PhDs on the team. We are 16 in total. I'm ex-Amazon Alexa, my CTO is ex-Harvard, and our CPO is ex-Ericsson. We have our advisor who is ex-Google Zurich, and on our board, we have prominent figures representing this enterprise vocation: Vincenzo Esposito, CIO of Microsoft Italy, Nicoletta Mastropeto, former CIO of A2A, Leonardo, and Vodafone, and Maurizio Bobbio, former EMEA and APAC Vice President of Oracle. We are, let's say, on a path towards a Series A round that we aim to close around the first or second quarter of 2027 for between 15 and 20 million to essentially finance our US expansion, which is the next market we want to enter. We have already started taking the first steps by interacting with some of the largest companies, primarily in the insurance sector for now. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Context. I just returned from San Francisco and I have a huge FOMO because I don't have any autonomous agents that are currently fixing my code for something while I sleep. So >> I know this world partly, I know that when you try to build agents, it's not like they sell it to you. They often mess up, they are generic, etc., etc. I don't know everything else you talked about, but this is the context we're in. Um, one question. So, is Vincenzo Esposito on the board, by any chance? >> Ah, cool. So you come here often, actually. >> Yes. >> You talked about revenues? Excuse me, maybe I missed it because there are >> We are reaching 2.5 million ARR. >> Exactly. And from 450 last year to 26 this year. >> Exactly. Typically from Enterprise Sales Motion, so let's say the sales cycle can last up to 2 years. When we say adding 1.5 million ARR, do you mean that in 2026 you will bill 2.5 million, or that by December you will have contracts, typically enterprises have two windows, Q2 and Q4. >> So, we are scaling now, we will reach 1.2 million by the end of Q2. >> Okay. >> I will bring the maturation of the other large deals we have in the pipeline in Q3 and convert them in Q4. >> Sure, question. Um, great partnership with Microsoft, fantastic, isn't it limiting for this purpose, given that it's not exactly the top environment? >> The software is Cloud Agnostic, Elastic, Platform Agnostic. >> Okay? >> Microsoft for us is, in a sense, a distribution channel, and it's the partner with whom we take the first steps. Obviously, in the long term, you need to have this type of partnership with all hyperscalers, so >> for ServiceNow and Google. >> So, when you sell, what happens in practice? Uh, you convince me to sign a project with you where I tell you I want to create these agents to do these things, and you have a person who handles the implementation. There are two scenarios that can occur. We have software composed of two modules: an agent and a continuous improvement layer. The first scenario is a company that has done little on AI agents so far, and we can deploy our agents with the continuous improvement layer for very common use cases, such as customer service, field service, sales enablement in financial services, or the increasingly common case where companies have already invested in the development or implementation of agents that are only working halfway, and you attach this sort of continuous improvement engine. >> What technologies do your clients use for the agents? Open Cloud. >> Well, well, in Italy and generally, it's a broader trend in the enterprise world, in Europe and the US, it's very custom for many reasons. The first is a reluctance of CIOs to create a single dependency with a single AI Stack provider, and the second is the objective unscalability of the costs of these platforms, so they do the math and say, "Okay, at this stage, I'll implement everything myself." I know many large companies, the largest Italian companies, have developed everything in-house. >> Developed in-house, what does that mean? >> Meaning, they've built their own agent stack, their own platform, and built the agents. >> That's fair. >> And it's a very common thing, much more than you'd think. I've noticed the same approach in the US. >> But are the subject matter experts >> where are they? Who are they? Are they yours? Does the company create its own, and you give them a way to feed it? >> They are people within the company, you know, the client company. >> Client. Yes, yes, they are business people, generally. For example, you have a large call center, a contact center, you want to optimize it with agents, both internal ones used by call center operators, and customer-facing ones. To improve these agents, they need to be trained in a sense, and you put in the subject matter expert figures, the classic figures from the call center, for example, supervisors and trainers. In other areas, in sales, they are the people who support large sales networks, so they are figures who already have that role in the company and who need to be integrated into a process of industrialization, in a sense, of this. >> Do you think this layer will never become something that the LLMs themselves will make available? Well, yes, it's possible. >> So there's a thing >> there's an adventurous aspect. Obviously, the interesting thing is when you talk to insiders, like CIOs, how a CIO thinks, a CIO doesn't think in terms of architecture. For example, AI is perceived by many CIOs as a new layer, so there's also a reluctance to put all their eggs in the same basket. They want to differentiate, they want the stack and the various modules that make up the agent stack to be separate from the SaaS providers, for example, even Microsoft itself. It's still a Wild West situation, adventurous, where the bet, we are entrepreneurs, so we are risk-takers, the bet is that, as has always happened in new technological waves, a new layer will develop that will rely on these incumbents who actually have the potential to do anything. Obviously. >> You were talking about long sales cycles, so for now, your client is only Enterprise. >> Yes. And it will remain only Enterprise for a while. >> And don't you think there's a shift towards SMEs? I think companies that are born Enterprise die Enterprise. I've seen very few companies that have truly made the leap from Mid-Market to Enterprise or vice versa in practice. >> No, I think he means if you open up to some SMEs. >> No, no, I understood the question. I'm saying that looking at history, companies that were born Enterprise, Salesforce, ServiceNow, SAP, have never done Mid-Market because they are completely different animals you work with. Ah, okay. >> They've never sold to the Mid-Market. Ah, no, if you say that >> Yes, yes. No, exactly. No, no, it's also >> that you can adapt to selling, but you leave that, >> but you also have to see if it's sustainable because >> clear, clear, scalable. Yes, last one because I've already asked too many questions. How much do you still have, given that you've already done two rounds? Do you want to do a third? No, of equity, how much of the company is still yours, founders? We have 60%. >> Okay. >> That's not much. Last question, the last question. >> Alber, maybe Alberto, any questions by chance? No, I have no questions. Of course, you've made an improvement compared to a year and a half ago, when Benni was there that time, and the level of Yes. >> Well, but it's his merit. It's his merit. >> There has been an improvement that is also, I hope, an overall improvement of the system. >> You can see serious startups. >> Did you have any questions? >> Yes, the question was about the average ticket and how many customers? Because we saw, to understand. >> Well, let's say, we started at the beginning with a certain promiscuity, let's say, as is normal, a bit of a mess, as we say in Rome. No, I'm kidding, obviously there's a plan, but now we have about ten clients, the average ticket is around 100, but the deals that are coming in will bring it to over 150 on average. Okay, so few clients, high spenders. Yes. >> Yes, in fact, my question was, are you raising as a venture-backed business, because why should you give us venture-backed money? No, I mean, and to me this seems like maybe super high growth, super scalable, super trendy, but almost like consultancy or ongoing consulting service. >> It's really a product, in all respects, a product, like all enterprise software, there's a relevant system integration part, but we don't do customization, very little, more like integration force, which is a product, but it's an agency. >> Yes, yes, yes. No, clear. In fact, I wanted to understand the question arises precisely to understand what the split is between product, implementation, customization in terms of revenue, in terms of time, let's say, of value for. Exactly. Look, I'd say 90% product, 10% system integration, and anyway, you usually outsource system integration. Uh, perhaps I would have liked to see more of the product itself, because we leave this pitch, I don't know if I'm the only one, but without an idea of the interface, of anything, of understanding what it's like, maybe it would have helped to simplify things a bit, but >> When do you plan to go to America? I'm already going, in practice, I'm setting it up. >> Yes, because in Italy the market is what it is. >> It's very small. Yes. >> It's very small. >> It's a good training ground, in my opinion, because there are large companies. Companies, enterprises, work more or less the same way all over the world, they have the same problems. In practice, my goal as CEO, while consolidating our position here in Italy, is to close the first two or three clients in the US by the end of this year. Very difficult. >> Have you already chosen the location? >> New York. >> Why not San Francisco? For practical reasons. First, because the Enterprise Corporate world is very much in New York, especially in financial services. Energy and utilities are everywhere because they are regional businesses, in a sense. Telcos are elsewhere. M but San Francisco is more of a tech hub, obviously very attractive. The problem is that there's also a, you know, we have this competitive advantage of having a very strong product team in Italy, and we want to grow it in Italy. The sales team cannot be, at least in the first phase, 12 hours away, meaning there's a management issue. >> In my opinion, San Francisco companies are also more inclined to internalize more, I don't know, but it almost occurs to me that Italy has, not for clients in San Francisco, but for the ecosystem. >> Yes, yes, yes, but as I said, I don't know, there are more young people there who want to do everything. >> Anyway, there's a lot, in my opinion, I spoke with top executives from some of the largest tech companies. I thought I'd get some cold showers there. I saw the Enterprise world, which is a specific world, still a certain slowness in AI adoption, honestly, very difficult, very difficult, but the most interesting plate, in my opinion. >> Last question before moving on to feedback, and the world of agents changes extremely rapidly. I go to San Francisco every 6 months, every time I go, the previous time, the things I learned the previous time are no longer useful. >> It's clear that for me this stuff makes a lot of sense now. How is the plan to adapt to the fact that maybe agents will be super precise in 6 months? Maybe who knows. >> There's an answer from an entrepreneur and an answer from a scientist. The entrepreneur's answer is I have a son, and then I have a wife. In the long term, we are all dead. Now, business is done at a specific moment, then it changes, evolves, we'll see. Someone with much more experience than me told me that SaaS startups, now it's no longer SaaS, we can call it that, but that software changes skin every 6 months, so you evolve, it's a sinuous rhythm with the market. The scientist's answer is that we are actually solving a deep problem of technology, meaning these large language models are machines, stochastic parrots that eat data, and common knowledge, meaning knowledge that is present on the web and so on. There's a whole hard core of hyper-contextual, hyper-specific knowledge within companies that, if you want to make agents work at scale, you need to capture. So, you are actually solving a non-technological but anthropological problem. How do you do it? You do it with technology, you succeed, you don't know because it's complicated, but it's an anthropological problem, otherwise, it wouldn't even fascinate me because technology is now a commodity. >> I can say that I'm leaning towards this being the seventh episode of Ascensore plus 10 previous homemade ones. He is the startup founder who, if I had to draw him perfectly, I would do it. And so >> if he were from Cocelle, he would be absolutely perfect, perfect, perfect. >> A bit more. Yes, a bit more like a croissant zone. But >> so you see, do you feel Africa? >> I feel Africa. I feel bad. I was terrified of Pomezia, >> but no, the river is not. Uh, it's that it seems like an idea, even if the

There is something that I don't fully understand, and there is the risk of being overwhelmed by the market that things change so quickly, but it seems to me the whole infrastructure to succeed. I have, I think, zero feedback, absolutely only positive. It is perhaps the STP that I liked the most in all editions of the Grande Fra Frappè. Well, congratulations from me too, especially for the maturity, it seems like you've been deep in these things and in entrepreneurship in general for much longer. Even the comment "you do business now with the market that exists now" truly shows so much clarity, so much ability to look at reality. It's something I would invest in, and if you let us know then how and when you open the round, because above all else, I'm the one who asked the question, I can't do the LM, I believe you represent a team that faces reality and reacts and has the elements to react. And then in reality, being in a phase of profound integration, implementation, I believe that we in the company are doing quite well, but it's not trivial and I see that almost no one is succeeding in doing it, so the need is definitely there. Then the enterprises here are not that many, maybe they are utilities and banks. Yes, mainly, >> but US certainly, as Alberto said, makes sense, but the rest of Europe can also make sense. Well done, >> thank you very much. Right market, right moment, right approach. Eh, let's also reveal a behind-the-scenes detail, we sometimes ask questions that might be a bit more pointed than they should be to see how you respond. And you have always responded in a super clear, composed manner, and therefore you also seem like the right person to carry the project forward. Obviously, then, the trajectory is already set, it's not up to us to validate you on the traction part, but it's very positive and it seems clear to me that now you need to validate this idea in the US to be able to do a Series A, right? Well, that, in my opinion, is what can get you that round of 15-20 million, otherwise it might >> become more difficult because being a local champion in Italy with AI Agents is a somewhat uncomfortable position to conquer, but yes, it's absolutely interesting. Feedback on the pitch. I realize that for someone who isn't deeply involved in this system, you use a lot of buzzwords, >> it's incomprehensible for someone who doesn't know. Sometimes it seems like a load of nonsense, if you have the context, you know it's not, and yet it can become complicated when you cite four different types of AI agents, rag systems, all that stuff, and then clearly you adapt to your audience, but for this audience here, it's perhaps a bit borderline, because many people watching at home don't even know this topic that well. >> Alberto, >> no, no, you're doing fine, you're doing fine. You have the market, you have the biggest companies in the reference market. Now you've understood that you need to move, you're clear on how to move, you've already raised money, you already have revenue, what more do you want? >> Obviously you've been promoted, as Domi said, it's not like we were needed. If you do 2.5 million in ARR, let's say you've promoted yourself. I always say the same thing, now in all episodes, and I returned from America, I saw Wemo Day and all the startups had a minimum of traction. The only startup that had more than 1 million in ARR, had 2 million something, raised 30 million at a valuation of 150 million. >> And that's why I say San Francisco, because the numbers you have there and what you specifically do there, I've met all the 20-year-olds who are somehow white-labeling agents. I just invested in a startup by a guy who does white-labeling for enterprise agents on open claw, and they're raising at your valuations with a fraction of your revenue, traction, so maybe for the next round if you do it. >> Yes, but there it also depends a bit on the market, in the sense that, as it is today, you don't become ten, maybe you reach 10 billion, but you have to truly become the top, right? And instead, if the market limit is a trillion, it's already different. That changes a lot. I see that, no, what I saw. Then I don't know if it's rational or not. >> I'd be curious to see if they don't get hurt later because they raised too much. >> They will definitely get hurt. Yes, yes, they will definitely get hurt. >> Where, well, then if someone has the right temperament, they can handle the pressure of the mega fundraise. Others >> Thank you very much. Thank you very much. See you next time. You too, guy. >> Thanks. How did it go? >> Good, I'm happy. Eh, they also gave me some interesting insights. >> Were there any unforeseen events? >> Yes, the slides weren't what I had sent last minute, but I was also a bit late, so that's the beauty of live. >> Is there anything you wanted to say but didn't? >> No, perhaps thank you for the opportunity. >> Before presenting the third startup, I remind you that if you follow us on LinkedIn and other social media, that's where we publish updates on the startups. Sometimes the startups that come here raise money, get clients, make deals, partnerships, meet with the judges again, and sometimes we tell a bit about the behind-the-scenes on our social media, so keep following us, and especially if you are a startup and want to apply, you'll find the link in the description. >> How do you feel? >> Well, I'm quite used to being in front of the camera, but there's always that little pre-performance tension, so but hey, I'm charged up, I can't wait, honestly. >> What are you afraid of? Fear. I don't have any major fears, hey, I'm quite confident, let's say. >> Ideal scenario? >> The ideal scenario, obviously, is to receive a lot of feedback that can help me improve the startup we are building. This, um, I'm here also because I created this thing, but I'm new to the startup world, so I really need feedback, advice. So this is the ideal scenario more than fundraising in the end. Um, then we'll see what happens. Obviously, if we manage to close something, all the better. >> How much money are you looking for? >> We're asking for 2 million for 20%. >> I call the guys from Clippify to the stage. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> welcome. >> Hi Marc. >> Hi. >> Hi Marc. Pleasure. No, Simone. >> This time will be deducted from >> No, to some viewers the face might seem familiar, but it's just a resemblance. It's just a resemblance. So, you have 5 minutes from now. Yes. So, I present Clireify. >> How did Clireify come about? Clipify was born from my podcast Gurulandia. Um, Gurulandia was born in 2022 and shortly after it became one of the most followed podcasts in Italy, and how this happened is we implemented a well-defined strategy. Essentially, we created a whole series of secondary social pages that every day published content on TikTok, YouTube, Instagram about our podcast, precisely. And this allowed us to reach millions of users and truly millions of views. Now, what is the current problem, in our opinion? Every year, globally, brands spend 740 billion on advertising. Now, the problem isn't the spending, the problem, in my opinion, is that brands pay, when you do advertising, you pay Google, you pay Meta, but you pay upfront without any guarantee of results. So what would happen if there was finally a platform capable of doing organic advertising by paying per performance? This is what we are doing. On the other hand, there are creators, clippers, faceless pages who know very well how to make content go viral, how to make it work, but they don't have an infrastructure where they can monetize this skill. So we created Clipify. What does Clipify do? Essentially, every brand can launch a campaign and say how much to pay, like I pay €0.50 per 1000 views, set their target market, set their goals, whatever they want. On the other hand, all these creators, these clippers, join these campaigns and start publishing content about that brand on their accounts. Clipify verifies everything, and the brand will only pay after the performance is achieved. In Clipify, we have developed different artificial intelligence models for content validation, and we do it mainly in two ways. In the first way, when the brand creates the campaign, it sets the guidelines, content duration, faces that must be present, any logos, calls to action, hashtags, etc. Our AI model checks frame by frame all the content uploaded and classifies it as approved if it respects the guidelines, or rejects it if it doesn't. It's very important that when the campaign is created, you can set the exact geolocation of the views. The other way is the model trained for fraud detection, where basically from the content we take all the analytics, views, comments, attention curves, etc. We have trained a binary classifier to classify the content as ok, meaning organic, or bot if it's an anomaly. Once the content passes these two AI models, it's ready for counting and therefore for automatic payment. >> So, we have already launched Clipify about 20 days ago without spending €1 on marketing, so what you see are totally organic results. We have already generated over $45,000 in revenue, 17,000 are the active users on the platform right now, 131 active campaigns, we have generated over 50 million views with an engagement rate of 4.11%. There has never been a marketing service that allows you to generate 100 million views by spending $10,000 with certainty, it doesn't exist. So, in our opinion, clipping is truly not just a trend, but the future of marketing as we know it. The business model is very simple, we take 30%, 10% from the total budget of the campaigns carried out on the platform, and 20% from the creators' payout. The team is a fairly large team, we are already nine people. I am the founder and CEO, I created Clipify, I am the founder of Gurulandia, and I have been working in digital marketing and the e-commerce sector for years. We also have international members, Shueng, who is our Senior Full Stack Engineer, worked for 7 years as a Huawei engineer and left Huawei to join Clipify. And CO Inchu, who is a former Meta engineer, also became passionate about the project and is now with us. And then, of course, there's Simone. >> My name is Simone Rizzo. At Clipify, I am the Head of AI. I have an academic background where I have a master's degree in artificial intelligence. I have also done research in this field. I am a contract professor at the University of Bologna and a scientific communicator on all social media. We are here to ask for 2 million for 20% with a pre-money valuation of 8 million. The funds will be used 60% for the team, 25% for marketing and sales, and 15% for operations and infrastructure. >> Thank you. >> Since it's somewhat in my area, I'll ask two questions before starting with your questions. And the traction data you showed without marketing budget, right? But perhaps showing on your channels, I imagine. >> I did a live on YouTube leveraging my personal brand. >> Ok, so I imagine that at this moment your community has onboarded, and they are all people from your community. >> Yes, to tell the truth, not just on the Clipper side, many from my community, but 17,000 is a lot, so not just on the brand side, to tell the truth. We already have very famous YouTubers that you surely know who are already using Clipify, and also some international brands that have heard of Clipify and are using it. >> How much is the CPM? I said surely. So, what is the CPM you promise the client? >> We don't promise anything. The brand chooses its own CPM, that's the cool part. The brand chooses how much to pay per social media. For example, you can choose, look, for this campaign I pay 50 cents per 1000 views on Instagram and €1 per 1000 views on TikTok or whatever you want. Then it's up to the Clipper to decide whether to participate in your campaign or not. >> What's the average, let's say? >> And at this moment we are around one, $1000 views. >> Ah, ok. on Instagram, cents per 1000 views on TikTok, which is very high, and I'm being honest, higher than we expected. >> Ok, last question, and I know very well, you girls from WOP know them too, the American ones. >> Yes, happy you. >> They do something similar to yours, right? How do you differentiate yourselves, or if you don't differentiate yourselves, perhaps you used them as a model? >> Well, there's all the difference in the world, in my opinion. WOP, I must say, in the last 8 months has paid out 10 million, so they've already shown us that the market works, but they have very important critical issues that we have resolved first and foremost. And they don't have bot detection. What does that mean? That all clippers bot the views, and brands are furious about this, because obviously they bring all the views from India, etc., etc. It's a disaster. We, on the other hand, have the insights and the API of each individual post and the geolocation. So if you, like Marcello Ascani for example, want to create a campaign and say "I only want Italian views and I'll pay one dollar per 1000 for those views." We, obviously, in the post, if a clip gets 10,000 views, but 80% of those views are Italian, you will only pay for 80% of those views. And this, obviously, then we have all the fraud detection from Simone, and then, excuse me, the last thing if I may, difference from WOP, on WOP brands have to do manual payouts to clippers, which is madness, so many times they don't pay, disasters happen, here it's all automated. >> Ok, perfect. Thank you very much. >> Who wants to start with a question? Let's start with Alberto, so in reverse. >> What doubts could I have? Eh, I imagine it's not your market. >> No, it's not my market. I'm very, very impressed, but it's not my market. >> The, let's say, Alberto's equity fund owns one of the largest ceramic companies in Italy, perhaps the largest, right? >> Yes, yes. >> So it's not exactly clipping, but perhaps some doubts to ask him, >> no? I find it very interesting, a very brilliant idea. How did you arrive at the valuation? The valuation is what we deem right to get where we want to go. We see Clipify immediately as global, okay? And so obviously we did an internal calculation for what we need to reach a very important audience immediately. Obviously, the more brands grow and the more clippers grow, the more an important infrastructure will be needed, and obviously we have to work a lot on marketing because, I repeat, the initial traction, and I'm telling you this in total transparency, was achieved with my personal brand, which obviously has a limit. We, on the other hand, need to start working on important marketing strategies right away because timing is everything, we know that. So the thing I wanted to understand better about the basis of the name, your experience in the podcast world seemed to me something super focused on re-publishing clips from longer content, but then in reality, in this pitch, I didn't see that part much. So how does it work? As a brand, I say I want to do this campaign, but then do people create the content from scratch, or do I have to provide a podcast from which to make clips afterwards? How does it work? Well, what we want to do with Clipify is a free market, so essentially every brand can provide its guidelines and choose what to do. It can choose whether to let clippers use them or not, it can choose whether to use only the clips I provide or not, or create them yourself. It's a choice. Then, as always, the clipper will decide, ok, these are the guidelines that I like, do I participate or not? Ok, so >> and the other thing, and you talk about upfront results, as far as I'm concerned, views are zero, meaning if you tell me you have certain results, I expect you to then tell me you pay for conversion, you pay for leads, because as you know, there are YouTubers who get 500,000 views and get you two conversions, YouTubers who get 500,000 views and get you 2000. >> So >> is there that mechanism or >> no? Respectfully, to provide context, >> for example, Marcello gets you 2000 conversions with 4000 views, more or less, any product then. >> Of course, yes, let's tell all brands, even cars and houses. >> But here we're talking about mass distribution, brand awareness, virality, authority, consider that it's advertising on organic, so think about Ascensore, Ascensore, you're watching, beautiful, but you're publishing a series of shorts on your page, right? Imagine if from tomorrow there were 10,000 social pages republishing clips from Ascensore. The growth >> shut up and take my money. >> Eh, you see? The growth would be truly exponential and almost instantaneous, right? >> Yes, yes, yes. It's almost designed for media products more than, well, it works for brands too, but there's this thing more about media. Ok, clear. Thanks. Yes, I also saw it. I wasn't entirely in agreement with the fact that Meta and Google aren't performance-based because then you can. Yes, you spend €50 and you already know >> to pay for the precise action you want to achieve, and you even make the algorithm work for them. But I wonder if I understood the AI fraud issue, it almost gives me a guarantee of quality. So here it's brand, we help the brand, we get the views. The risk is having too many clippers and perhaps not enough quality. Is the targeting only geographical, or can it be a bit more about the end-user you want to reach? And I'll add if you have any more info on fraud detection, if you have any data on that. >> On that. Then I'll leave the floor to him, perhaps for targeting, and we have a whole series of things when creating a campaign, you can choose truly anything. So there's no specific interest targeting, obviously, but you choose the language, the country where you want to appear. Then you choose, look, I want my face to be present for at least 15 seconds, I want this logo, I want these subtitles. You give a series of indications that our AI then checks frame by frame for every video and actually evaluates whether they have been respected or not. But is there an evaluation of the clipper? Perhaps my brand has little to do with the audience of that clipper who gets 1 million views, but then their >> it's a free market, so they choose the brand and republish it, but if it performs poorly and gets few views, they earn little, while another who is a good clipper, a good clipper who manages to make viral clips, will earn more, so the brand will have more visibility from clippers who are also with a temporal component, meaning if it skips >> until the budget runs out. In fact, that's also an interesting thing because you as a brand put $10,000, obviously every 2 hours our platform calculates all the views of thousands of clips that have been published, and obviously the budget keeps decreasing until the budget expires. So then the clipper will decide whether to participate or not depending on how much budget is left. >> And whether to pay even if the view of the video is beyond x seconds or things like that. >> Everything is controlled. Absolutely. >> But the issue of reputation can be important for you. Perhaps I want to say certain creators, I want to be able to block them regardless because maybe they are profiles that are not >> Well, we have two types of approval. The brand can choose whether to do automatic approval or manual approval. When you do automatic approval, it's our internal AI that checks frame by frame every video. If you do manual, you as a brand will decide whether that content can be published or not. Obviously, we offer both, but it's clear that in that case >> it would be much slower. >> If the clipper on their account has previously published clips of a terrible Fuffaguru, and I perhaps don't want to associate myself with them, but maybe they can't know because maybe it's all random, is there a way to manage that part? No, there isn't a precise way. The only way you can say as a brand is you have to create a new page that talks only about me. >> Ok, >> this is a rule you can give. >> But could you develop it in the guidelines, could it be an evolution where in the guidelines I can exclude, make it so that it cannot be taken by certain creators? >> Absolutely not. There is already this option. >> So if you know the creator you don't want to use, you can >> you can Yes, absolutely. But then to become a clipper, I'll add something, you don't have to be an influencer, have thousands of views. Even with zero followers, you can already upload clips and organically on TikTok you could already get tens of thousands of views and be paid for the performance. >> So it's also meritocratic. >> I didn't understand anything. >> Damn. >> So I ask for a quick explain like five, but very fast, meaning I'm a brand and I want to do my campaign of blah blah blah. I'm a Clipper, what do I do? I didn't quite understand what the Clipper does. >> It's a marketplace, so the brand uploads its long content, puts in the money, and says "I pay €1 per 1000 views". >> Here you tell me, content creator, to upload content from the brand with a CPM of one, which is a tenth of what YouTube gives me to put ads in my videos. So, which clipper would do that? Well, it's easy work because I take that content, I break it down, I throw it out, I hope for the best, >> as if we didn't have a reputation, >> because you're thinking of the YouTuber, right, but these are people who maybe even if they are, they have the page, and the page is >> the best clips of entrepreneurs >> which I imagine is only short content, for only short content, yes, on TikTok, I have the channel that, well, apart from an ad, literally just ads from the brand because there's nothing else. >> Yes, but it's not advertising, it's organic content reposted by someone else. Do you ever happen to scroll through TikTok? And there's a clip from Gurulandia. No >> do you scroll? >> Ok, that's the problem. You don't scroll short content, >> eh. R >> only NBA. He watches >> only NBA. Only NBA YouTube shorts. >> Exactly. And well, the NBA shorts are clips. They are clipping too, aren't they? So imagine that the official NBA account probably pays strangers on their personal pages to publish clips of the best games. >> Perfect. I only imagined advertising, I imagined that the clip was >> No, organic. I would say that the time for questions is over, and let's give the feedback. If I can start, well done. Um, well, it's clear you've already done some, and you know how to present, and I see it close to a need of yours, so, it probably reinforces the idea that there's a market, I don't think you'll have problems raising. I liked the answer about why that valuation, in the sense that we'll need to raise a lot later, so by force of circumstance, a minimum valuation is necessary to have a reasonable dilution. It falls a bit on that Google and Meta aren't performance-based. Um, the pitch is still valid, even without that thing thrown in that if someone is doing it and investing a lot, in reality >> I understand that the feeling of throwing money away on these platforms is often there, but then when you get into those real budgets, they actually work well. So, in my opinion, it does something else. I wouldn't go around saying that performance doesn't work there because in reality it's >> on that they've arrived at a truly excellent level. I strongly agree on this point, but no, for the rest, it was one of those solid pitches where everything is in line, everything makes sense, and the traction numbers are interesting. Clearly, it would be nice to understand a bit more how many brands are currently paying, what type of brands they are, because I'd also like to understand if this is actually for companies or if it's more for creators. >> RIP. Eh, maybe it's because, I don't know, maybe it's because I have a different concept of content creation, I can't fully appreciate the value of this idea, which will surely be an excellent realization, but I can't conceive it, I can't see a world with this thing as a better world, but for the rest, surely the traction that the social presence of both can generate helps a lot, and from the numbers you've shown, it seems to be something that interests someone. My fear is a bit like when we talked about a startup in a previous episode about how brands want a different relationship with creators. This form of impersonality and marketplace, I don't know if it will take off. There's no Ricco. >> Ah, it's true that earlier we were talking about a different type of brand-creator relationship, here we're talking about republishing content, let's say, paid virality. Um, I don't know. >> Investing in this startup certainly means accepting the dystopia of the short form, but it's real, so >> you see? But short content is fine, but at least it's yours. >> Yes, >> yours. Alberto, >> not having understood, not knowing anything about this market, you were good because you made me understand a lot starting from scratch. My only concern is how many people in the world are thinking of doing something like this. >> True, valid, valid point, >> no? And >> eh, no, in reality, it's not, you see that he watches Ascensore, but because he stopped at the beginning, he was about to start, then he stopped, then he said >> no, valid point. And I would say that we conclude the feedback like this. You were very good, congratulations. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Thanks guys. >> Now if you find millions of clips of Ascensore, you'll know why. I tell the audience. >> Where does it come from? >> By the way >> and no, let's do it, let's do it. >> All right, thank you very much everyone. Thank you. Thank you. >> Bye. >> How did it go? >> Good, good, I think good. I had fun. I got some interesting feedback, mostly regarding the deck, so top. Mister RIP, I knew he had a prejudice against me, we saw it, but anyway, hey, I managed. >> Were there any unforeseen events? >> Eh, no, absolutely not. Everything went smoothly, cleanly, even intelligent questions, good questions. No, everything's fine, I'm satisfied. >> Is there anything you wanted to say but didn't? Yes, I'd like to launch a campaign on Clipify about this pitch I made here at Ascensore, so maybe all the people watching this episode can go to Clipify, try to republish the content of the Ascensore Podcast episode and earn through it. >> Now the audience will massacre us because they wanted a fight, they wanted blood, they wanted everything. This episode is >> Damn, I forgot to be mean. This episode is very peaceful because everyone was at a high level compared to the average >> and so we'll have to invent something. Guys, distribute them better. >> I'm about to announce the winner, even though you've all been very good. The winner will have access not only to come live next episode with all the other winners and excellent guests, but also to discounts for business services like Notion, Cloud Vari, and up to hundreds of thousands of euros, so a real advantage. The startup that won this episode is Fillo Tips. Uh! And now there's the fundraising. >> This is the fundraising. >> Exactly. It was a very close vote, and write to us in the comments if you agree. You can also express your preferences. Go to the description where you'll find the Ascensore link. What's on our site, Tommy? >> They can create a profile for their company, they can announce that they've opened a fundraising round on the site so that investors can see it. >> Lots of things. Navigate, navigate because we have an Autonomous Agent that's doing everything for us. See you in the next episode. Bye. >> Bye bye. >> Bye. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. >> It's time to discover the ranking of this episode of Ascensore. First place with 80.5 points, Sillotips. Second with 61.2 points, Sat Light. Third place with 61 points, Clipify. The ranking has spoken. What do you think of these startups? Do you think they are valid? Write it in a comment. >> Hi Mom. When she said you didn't feel Africa, you flew. >> Yes, but it was already already already bought. It was really the final slap. >> Just that we have to collect them.