Tag: Startup

Tech News : Hotels on the Moon by the Early 2030s

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A US startup claims the first hotel on the Moon could be deployed by the early 2030s, as space agencies return to lunar missions and private companies search for commercially viable ways to support long-term human presence beyond Earth.

Who Is GRU?

The proposal comes from Galactic Resource Utilization Space, better known as GRU Space, a US startup founded in 2025 by Skyler Chan, a former University of California, Berkeley graduate with a background in space systems and off-world habitation research. Chan has previously spoken publicly about his interest in lunar and Martian settlement while studying engineering and space technology.

GRU has attracted early backing from investors linked to the US space and defence ecosystem, including individuals who have invested in SpaceX and Anduril, and has been supported by startup programmes such as Y Combinator and Nvidia’s Inception initiative for technology startups. The company positions itself as a space infrastructure business rather than a tourism brand.

GRU argues that human expansion beyond Earth has not stalled because of launch capability, but because of the lack of scalable, safe habitation systems once astronauts arrive on the lunar surface. In its January 2026 white paper, the company states that “humans cannot expand beyond Earth until we solve off-world surface habitation”, describing this as the critical step that enables everything else, from research bases to industrial activity.

A Commercial Prospect

The lunar hotel is presented as a commercial starting point rather than a novelty. For example, GRU says revenue-generating habitation could help fund and validate the technologies required for permanent lunar infrastructure, including life support systems, surface construction methods, and long-duration operations away from Earth.

While the idea may sound pretty futuristic, GRU argues it is actually rooted in current lunar exploration plans, emerging habitat technologies, and a belief that off-world living space, not rockets, is now the main limiting factor.

Why Now?

The timing of GRU’s proposal aligns closely with renewed US government activity around the Moon. For example, NASA’s Artemis programme is preparing to fly its first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years, with Artemis II expected to carry four astronauts on a ten-day journey around the Moon and back to Earth in early 2026.

Artemis III, which aims to land astronauts near the Moon’s south pole, is currently planned for no earlier than 2027 or 2028. Together, these missions signal a long-term commitment to lunar operations, rather than short symbolic visits.

GRU argues that once regular crewed missions resume, the next question becomes where people stay, work, and shelter on the lunar surface. The company, therefore, believes that a destination built specifically for human habitation, rather than temporary lander modules, is a necessary next step.

How Could a Moon Hotel Be Built?

GRU’s plan relies on a staged approach designed to reduce technical and financial risk. For example, rather than attempting large-scale construction immediately, the company proposes testing smaller systems before deploying a full hotel.

The first mission, planned for 2029, would deliver a small pressurised test payload to the Moon using a commercial lunar payload service provider. This mission would test inflatable habitat deployment and early construction experiments using lunar regolith, the fine dust and rock that covers the Moon’s surface.

A second mission, targeted for 2031, would then deliver a larger payload near a lunar pit or cave. GRU argues that these natural features offer shielding from radiation, micrometeoroids, and extreme temperature swings. An inflatable habitat would be deployed inside or near the pit, alongside more advanced construction trials.

The third mission, planned for 2032, is when GRU says the first hotel would be landed. This version would be built on Earth, transported by a heavy lander, and robotically deployed on the lunar surface before being inflated to create a pressurised living environment.

Why Inflatable Habitats Matter

A central part of GRU’s approach is the use of inflatable structures. This is because traditional rigid modules are heavy and expensive to transport, whereas inflatables can offer far more internal volume per kilogram of launch mass.

GRU has pointed to earlier inflatable habitat demonstrations in orbit as evidence that the technology is viable. The company argues that inflatables are the most practical way to maximise living space during the early stages of lunar settlement, before large-scale construction becomes possible.

Once deployed, these inflatable habitats would be partially enclosed or shielded using locally sourced material. GRU proposes using geopolymer techniques to bind lunar regolith into protective structures around the habitat, reducing radiation exposure and impact risk.

What Happens If a Lunar Hotel Deflates?

Inflatable lunar habitats are built with multiple layers and internal compartments, not as a single pressurised shell. Therefore, it seems that GRU may be banking on the fact that a small puncture would cause a slow pressure leak rather than sudden collapse, giving time for systems to respond.

It is likely that pressure sensors in the structure could detect the leak immediately and onboard life support systems could release stored gas to stabilise conditions, while the affected area could be sealed off internally. The air used to maintain pressure could come from onboard reserves and oxygen generation systems, not from outside the habitat, i.e., the vacuum of space.

Over time, the intention is likely to be to enclose or shield parts of the inflatable structure using lunar material, which could reduce exposure to micrometeoroids and temperature extremes. Even so, any loss of pressure would still be a serious safety issue, with designs assuming faults can occur and focusing on containment, redundancy, and time to respond rather than eliminating risk entirely.

How Could The Hotel Support Healthy Human Life?

The proposed hotel is designed primarily as a life support system rather than a conventional hospitality venue. For example, GRU states that the initial hotel would include a full environmental control and life support system, covering oxygen generation, carbon dioxide removal, water recycling, temperature regulation, and air filtration.

Emergency systems would also be required. These include protection against solar radiation storms, rapid depressurisation response, and contingency plans for evacuation or sheltering in place.

GRU says the hotel would be designed for multi-day stays, with guests able to observe the lunar surface and Earth from within the habitat, and to participate in surface activities under controlled conditions.

Who Would Stay There, and Would You Have to Be Rich?

It seems that, in the near term, access to any lunar hotel would certainly be limited to a very small and extremely wealthy group of travellers. GRU openly acknowledges that early stays on the Moon would be accessible only to the ultra-wealthy, drawing comparisons with the early days of commercial aviation and high-altitude mountaineering, when costs were prohibitive before wider scale and improved technology gradually brought prices down.

The white paper models a first-generation hotel capable of hosting four guests at a time, with five-night stays and an operational life of ten years. GRU estimates an internal cost per person per night of over $400,000 for this version, falling significantly only once larger, more permanent structures are built using lunar materials.

Could Cost Several Million Pounds To Say There!

Public ticket prices would likely exceed internal costs, meaning early visitors would need to commit several million pounds for a single trip. This mirrors the first wave of commercial space tourism, where privately funded rocket flights operated by Blue Origin carried high-profile passengers, including the company’s founder Jeff Bezos, at prices far beyond the reach of most people. GRU argues that lunar travel could follow a similar trajectory, with costs falling over time as launch cadence increases and payload prices drop, although this would depend heavily on wider industry progress rather than the company alone.

Why Launch Costs Are Central to the Plan

A central assumption behind GRU’s lunar hotel timeline seems to be that the cost of delivering people and equipment to the Moon will fall sharply over the next decade. GRU’s plan depends on a significant reduction in the cost of transporting payloads to the lunar surface, with the company citing projected future pricing from heavy lift vehicles that could see costs fall from around $1 million per kilogram to closer to $100,000 per kilogram later in the decade.

However, these figures are not guaranteed and should be treated as projections rather than confirmed market prices. Even so, the broader trend towards reusable launch systems and increased competition is widely expected to put downward pressure on costs over time.

NASA’s use of commercial providers through its lunar payload programmes also supports this assumption, as more companies compete to deliver cargo and infrastructure to the Moon.

What This Would Mean for GRU

GRU frames the hotel as a stepping stone rather than an end goal. In its white paper, the company describes the hotel as “the first economically rational module of a permanent lunar base”, arguing that revenue-generating infrastructure could accelerate wider lunar development.

Successfully deploying and operating a habitat would require GRU to master power generation, communications, surface robotics, life support maintenance, and remote operations. These capabilities would be valuable well beyond tourism, potentially positioning the company as a supplier or partner for future lunar bases.

The approach also appears to shift risk, i.e., instead of relying entirely on government funding, GRU is attempting to combine private capital with commercial demand to justify infrastructure investment.

Are Other Countries or Companies Planning Similar Projects?

Few organisations are publicly marketing lunar hotels with a specific date, but the underlying concepts are being widely explored. For example, space agencies in Europe and Asia have published habitat studies examining inflatable modules, regolith shielding, and long-term surface living.

Also, China and Russia have jointly announced plans for an International Lunar Research Station, aiming to establish a permanent presence on the Moon in the 2030s. These efforts are not tourism-focused, but they rely on many of the same technologies GRU proposes to use.

Private companies working on space stations in low Earth orbit have also explored inflatable habitats, suggesting cross-over between orbital and lunar living systems over time.

Benefits, Challenges, and Criticisms

Supporters argue that a functioning commercial habitat could accelerate innovation in life support systems, construction robotics, power generation, and radiation protection. These technologies would be useful not only on the Moon, but for Mars missions and remote operations on Earth.

However, critics point to safety as the most serious concern. For example, rescue options on the Moon are extremely limited, and even minor system failures could become life-threatening. Regulatory frameworks for commercial human spaceflight remain underdeveloped for surface operations beyond Earth orbit.

Legal questions also remain unresolved. For example, international space law prohibits national sovereignty over the Moon, raising complex issues around property rights, exclusion zones, and commercial activity. While resource utilisation is permitted under current interpretations, long-term habitation will test existing agreements.

That said, GRU’s own roadmap acknowledges significant unknowns, including reliance on regular crewed lunar transport, regulatory approval, and the successful integration of multiple unproven systems. The company describes its plan as ambitious and openly states that many technical and operational challenges remain unsolved.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

GRU’s proposal seems to sit somewhere between credible engineering ambition and unresolved risk. The company is not claiming the Moon will suddenly become accessible or safe, but it is arguing that habitation has now become the limiting factor in lunar exploration, rather than launch alone. Its hotel concept is, therefore, best understood as an attempt to turn a long-standing research challenge into a commercially funded infrastructure project, using tourism as an early revenue stream rather than the final objective.

Whether that approach succeeds will depend less on marketing and more on execution. Regular crewed access to the lunar surface, falling launch costs, robust life support systems, and clear regulatory frameworks all have to mature in parallel. Any delay or failure in one area would quickly undermine the wider plan. At the same time, the staged nature of GRU’s roadmap reflects a growing realism in the space sector, where incremental demonstrations are increasingly favoured over grand, one-shot visions.

For UK businesses and other stakeholders, the significance is less about lunar tourism itself and more about what such projects demand behind the scenes. Advanced materials, robotics, life support components, power systems, remote monitoring, insurance, legal services, and cyber resilience are all essential to off-world habitation and already sit within areas where UK firms have relevant expertise. Even if hotels on the Moon remain limited to a handful of ultra-wealthy visitors in the 2030s, the technologies, supply chains, and commercial models being tested could shape how space infrastructure develops more broadly, with implications that extend well beyond the lunar surface.

Sustainability-In-Tech : Desktop Fusion Reactor Breakthrough

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A Seattle startup has taken a significant step toward creating a portable nuclear fusion device, operating its compact reactor at 300,000 volts for extended periods, a key technical breakthrough that could transform the clean energy landscape.

Who Is Avalanche Energy?

Avalanche Energy is a privately held company based in Seattle, Washington, founded in 2018 by Robin Langtry and Brian Riordan. The firm is focused on developing compact nuclear fusion reactors (small enough to fit on a desk!) under the product name “Orbitron.” Their long-term aim is to deliver clean, scalable energy solutions for everything from remote infrastructure to spacecraft.

While nuclear fusion has traditionally involved massive, multi-billion-dollar machines like ITER in France or laser-powered systems at the US National Ignition Facility, Avalanche is taking a radically different approach. Its system is designed to be low-cost, lightweight, and modular, using high-voltage electric fields instead of complex magnets or lasers to trigger the fusion process.

Milestone

The company’s latest milestone, sustaining 300,000 volts in a desktop-scale prototype, represents one of the highest voltage densities achieved in a fusion device of its size. This could prove a critical enabler in the race to demonstrate net energy gain from fusion, a feat that would mean the reactor produces more energy than it consumes.

Why A (Desktop) Fusion Reactor?

The global energy sector remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and while wind, solar, and battery technologies are progressing, they all face scalability, intermittency, and storage challenges. Fusion, which mimics the process that powers the sun, offers the potential for a virtually limitless source of clean energy without the long-lived radioactive waste or meltdown risks associated with conventional nuclear fission.

“Fusion offers the highest energy density possible,” Avalanche states on its website. “It’s clean, abundant, and sustainable—exactly what humanity needs as we scale into the future.”

However, making fusion practical has proven notoriously difficult. Traditional approaches require either extreme temperatures or massive magnetic fields to confine plasma. These methods are energy-intensive and require huge, expensive infrastructure, which has kept fusion perpetually 20 years away from commercial reality.

Avalanche believes that its ultra-compact Orbitron reactor, combined with recent advances in high-voltage electronics and materials science, could finally break the cycle.

How the Orbitron Works

Unlike tokamaks or laser-based fusion systems, the Orbitron uses a technique called electrostatic confinement. In simple terms, high-speed charged particles (ions) are trapped inside a vacuum chamber and guided into elliptical orbits around a central, negatively charged cathode.

As these ions accelerate and become more densely packed, they begin to collide with enough force to fuse, releasing energy in the process. The prototype achieved a voltage gradient of 6 million volts per metre, which is a level far beyond typical industrial equipment, and one that Avalanche says is “the real unlock.”

This compact design allows the entire system to operate without massive magnets or complex cryogenics. According to Avalanche, the key breakthrough lies in reaching ultra-high voltages in a small footprint, thereby enabling fast-moving ions to be packed into tight orbits with enough energy to spark fusion. The team says this is what allows the machine to remain physically small while delivering the energy densities required for meaningful power output.

The system is modular and scalable. Individual units ranging from 5 kilowatts (kW) to several hundred kW can be grouped together to create higher-capacity solutions, including mobile power sources, micro-grids, or even space-based applications.

What Makes Avalanche’s Approach Different?

Avalanche is part of a new wave of private fusion startups rethinking the architecture of fusion reactors. For example, rather than pursuing billion-dollar mega-projects, these companies are focusing on speed, agility, and commercial viability. Avalanche’s advantage lies in its compact, electrostatic design, which enables rapid iteration and prototyping.

The company says it can produce and test new components in days, rather than years, and expects this to dramatically reduce the cost of development. It also avoids the need for giant facilities or huge teams, which has historically slowed progress in the fusion field.

Another key difference is its target market. While most fusion developers are aiming to power grids, Avalanche is looking at decentralised applications, such as off-grid infrastructure, maritime systems, and lunar or planetary missions. These use cases demand small form factors, rapid deployment, and minimal support infrastructure, which are the criteria that Avalanche is specifically engineering for.

The Orbitron is also being designed to accommodate a range of fusion fuels, including deuterium-tritium and proton-boron-11. The latter has the potential to minimise neutron production, reducing shielding requirements and extending reactor life.

What Does the 300,000-Volt Breakthrough Mean?

Reaching and maintaining 300,000 volts in a compact machine is actually a pivotal achievement. It demonstrates that the Orbitron can sustain the extreme conditions required for meaningful fusion activity while remaining small, efficient, and robust.

Avalanche is now on track to use this capability to build FusionWERX, a planned neutron-production and testing facility in Richland, Washington. The company recently secured a $10 million Green Jobs Grant from the Washington State Department of Commerce to develop the site, which will allow third-party researchers and companies to test fusion components under realistic conditions.

FusionWERX

FusionWERX is intended to be a commercial facility, generating income through neutron production for radioisotope creation, materials testing, and IP-secure research. Langtry estimates Avalanche could become profitable by 2028, with projected revenues of $30–50 million in 2029.

Avalanche now aims to secure the remaining funding needed to match the 50 per cent cost-share requirement tied to its $10 million grant from Washington State. The company is actively preparing a Series B fundraising round to support the FusionWERX project and scale up its reactor development work. According to Avalanche, a significant portion of the matching funds is already committed, with further investment expected to follow as hardware milestones are met.

What Are the Broader Implications?

If successful, Avalanche’s technology could dramatically lower the barriers to fusion adoption. Rather than relying on centralised mega-projects, future fusion could emerge through a more distributed model, with small-scale reactors tailored to specific use cases and markets.

This could have particular relevance for UK businesses, especially those in energy-intensive sectors, remote infrastructure, or off-grid operations. For example, the potential to access compact, safe, and zero-emissions energy on demand would radically change planning and cost structures.

It could also disrupt parts of the existing nuclear sector. For example, traditional fission reactors are heavily regulated, expensive to build, and politically controversial. Fusion, especially in compact form, offers a way around many of these constraints. That said, whether governments will be prepared to adapt regulations quickly enough remains an open question.

For competitors, Avalanche’s milestone puts pressure on other private fusion firms to accelerate their own timelines. Notable players in the field include:

– TAE Technologies (California), which is pursuing proton-boron fusion using beam-driven plasma devices.

– Zap Energy (Seattle), developing a sheared-flow Z-pinch system with no magnets.

– Helion Energy (also based in Washington), which recently signed a deal with Microsoft to supply fusion-generated power by 2028.

– First Light Fusion (UK), using high-velocity impact fusion derived from research at Oxford University.

Each of these companies is using a different approach, but all share the goal of making fusion commercially viable in the near term. Avalanche’s unique angle, targeting small-scale, rapidly deployable systems, helps distinguish it in an increasingly crowded field.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite the recent progress, fusion remains a tough nut to crack. While Avalanche’s voltage milestone is impressive, it has yet to demonstrate net energy gain, where the energy produced by the fusion reactions exceeds the energy required to initiate and sustain them.

Electrostatic confinement approaches like Avalanche’s have faced scepticism in the past. Earlier systems such as fusors and polywells showed promise but were ultimately unable to scale to net energy production. Whether Avalanche’s novel design can overcome those physics constraints remains to be seen.

There are also engineering hurdles ahead, including scaling up power extraction systems, managing heat loads, and extending component life under repeated bombardment by high-energy particles.

Some experts have also raised concerns about overpromising. With many fusion startups now forecasting delivery within five years, expectations are high, but public trust could suffer if those timelines slip. A measured, evidence-led approach will be key to sustaining momentum.

That said, the combination of technological progress, public funding, and early commercial pathways is helping to shift fusion from long-term aspiration to near-term opportunity. Avalanche Energy’s latest milestone brings that vision one step closer to reality.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Avalanche’s 300,000-volt achievement puts it ahead of many peers in demonstrating that fusion conditions can be created and sustained using a radically smaller and simpler system. While it does not yet mean net energy gain has been reached, the ability to operate a high-voltage, compact reactor continuously is a crucial step toward proving that desktop fusion is more than theoretical. This isn’t just a technical milestone, it’s a signal that fusion innovation is no longer confined to large institutions or national labs.

For investors, the company’s path to near-term revenue through neutron generation, radioisotope production and facility rentals helps to de-risk the commercial model. This gives Avalanche a clearer route to financial sustainability than most early-stage fusion firms, even before full-scale energy production is realised. That clarity may also allow it to attract more patient capital in a sector known for long development timelines.

For UK businesses, especially those in manufacturing, defence, remote operations and advanced research, the potential applications are considerable. Modular fusion systems that require little maintenance and produce no direct emissions could offer a stable and long-term energy alternative at a time when electricity prices and carbon pressures remain unpredictable. In high-value, energy-intensive environments where resilience and clean credentials matter, compact fusion could eventually shift how organisations plan infrastructure, supply chains and investment.

At the same time, regulators, utilities and energy planners will need to consider how small-scale fusion fits into existing frameworks. Questions about safety certification, licensing, integration with grid systems, and waste handling (even if minimal) will all need answering well ahead of any widescale deployment.

For the broader energy sector, Avalanche’s progress underscores a growing shift from slow, centralised fusion development toward smaller, faster, and more commercially agile models. This shift introduces competition and experimentation into a field once dominated by public-sector science programmes. But it also brings new scrutiny. Claims will need to be backed by results. Startups like Avalanche will be measured not just on vision, but on engineering performance, cost, scalability and real-world deliverables.

Avalanche’s milestone, therefore, offers a glimpse of what fusion could look like in practice, i.e., not vast tokamaks on government sites, but flexible machines that power remote labs, isolated communities or advanced industries. If the next set of milestones are met, and if the technology scales as claimed, fusion could become something businesses use, not just something scientists pursue. That would be a real shift, and this breakthrough brings that future closer than it has ever been.

Company Check – New High-Speed Hybrid AI Law Firm

Posted on by Paul Stradling

A new AI-powered legal startup backed by Sequoia Capital is rewriting how contracts are reviewed, by building a law firm around the software itself.

Lawyers Using AI To Deliver Services To Clients

Most legal tech startups position themselves as tools for traditional firms to use. It seems, however, that Crosby has taken a radically different approach. Rather than offering AI software to outside lawyers, Crosby has built its own law firm, staffed with lawyers who use its proprietary legal AI systems to deliver services directly to clients.

Launched in early 2025 and already out of stealth with a $5.8 million seed round led by Sequoia Capital, Crosby is a hybrid legal provider combining full legal oversight with rapid AI-powered contract processing. In doing so, it positions itself not just as a legal technology provider, but as a legal services business with a completely different operating model.

“Our goal was never to just automate tasks for law firms,” said Ryan Daniels, Crosby’s co-founder and CEO, in a launch statement. “To really fix how slow legal work is, we had to control the entire process—so we became the law firm ourselves.”

Built for Speed, Designed for Growth

The problem Crosby says it set out to solve is a familiar one in fast-moving industries, i.e. contract delays.

Daniels, who previously served as general counsel for several startups and worked at elite tech law firm Cooley, experienced the issue first-hand. “Most of the time I was spending on legal was for our contracts, sales agreements, MSAs,” he said. “It was the reason we weren’t growing as fast as we wanted to.”

Agentic

Crosby’s solution is what it calls an “agentic” law firm using a “hybrid” model where every contract is reviewed by proprietary AI agents, then verified by experienced lawyers. This human-in-the-loop setup enables clients to get back a reviewed contract within three hours, with many returned in under 60 minutes. Daniels claims the company’s fastest reviews take just minutes.

High-Volume, Sales-Related Agreements

The startup focuses on high-volume, sales-related agreements such as master service agreements (MSAs), data processing agreements (DPAs), and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). This is because these are the kind of documents that tend to clog deal pipelines for sales teams in growing firms. Crosby’s promise is, therefore, to get contracts reviewed quickly and accurately, so deals close faster.

Who’s Behind Crosby?

Crosby was founded by Daniels and John Sarihan, who serves as CTO. Sarihan previously worked at Ramp, a fintech unicorn, and brought with him engineering talent from companies like Meta, Google, and Vanta. Daniels, a second-generation lawyer whose parents are both law professors, focused on building the legal team, which includes alumni from Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia Law.

The company is headquartered in New York and operates as both a legal technology company and a law firm. Formally, Crosby Legal, Inc. provides the technology, while Crosby Legal PLLC is the law firm offering legal services.

Their Sequoia-led funding round also included participation from Bain Capital Ventures and notable angel investors such as Ramp co-founders Eric Glyman and Karim Atiyeh, Instacart co-founder Max Mullen, Opendoor’s Eric Wu, and Flatiron Health founders Zach Weinberg and Gil Shklarski.

Josephine Chen from Sequoia, who previously backed AI procurement startup Venue (later acquired by Ramp), led the deal. “Legal is a bull’s-eye case for the use of LLMs,” she said. “Contract negotiations can be a real bottleneck for growth.”

AI Meets Legal Expertise

Crosby’s approach blends the rapid processing power of AI with legal precision. For example, clients can send documents or queries via Slack, email, or through a CRM trigger. The system’s legal AI agents, trained on thousands of contracts and guided by firm-developed benchmarks, then analyse the documents, make suggestions, and insert relevant market terms.

Lawyers then step in to review, interpret tricky clauses, and validate any automated changes. The final contract is returned to the client with a fixed price tag (no hourly billing), and no redline confusion (no back-and-forth edits on contracts). For example, “AI never sleeps,” says the firm’s website. “Crosby never gets backlogged.”

Learns About Clients’ Businesses

Crosby’s AI systems are also designed to learn each client’s business over time. This includes storing preferences, preferred clause variations, and common fallback terms. The company claims its software can answer routine contract questions without client input once it’s sufficiently trained.

Targeting Startups That Need to Move Fast

So far, Crosby appears to have aimed its services at venture-backed startups, particularly those with aggressive go-to-market (GTM) strategies. Early clients include Cursor, UnifyGTM, and Clay, all startups known for rapid growth and high sales velocity.

By focusing on sales contracts and offering legal reviews as fast as the sales cycle itself, Crosby is positioning itself as a growth enabler rather than just a legal resource. GTM teams reportedly call it a “secret weapon” for getting contracts over the line.

Crosby’s upfront pricing is also designed to appeal to startups used to controlling costs. For example, clients pay per document, not per hour, which is a sharp contrast with traditional legal billing models.

Why This Matters for the Legal Industry

Crosby’s emergence poses direct questions to the traditional legal services model. For example, most law firms are structured around bespoke work, hourly billing, and long timelines. By contrast, Crosby is productising contract review, treating it as a repeatable, scalable service.

Not The First Legal Firm To Apply AI

It’s worth noting here that Crosby is not the first to apply AI to legal work. For example, companies like Harvey (which recently raised $80m), Ironclad, and Spellbook are building AI tools to support lawyers. However, Crosby is unusual in that it delivers end-to-end legal service directly to clients, with its own regulated legal team and a law firm structure.

This allows Crosby to sidestep law firm conservatism and scale more like a tech startup. “We didn’t want to wait for firms to catch up,” Daniels said. “We wanted to prove it could be done.”

Potential Risks and Criticisms

Crosby’s model is not without its critics. Legal work carries significant liability, and while its lawyers remain in the loop, the firm must prove that its AI systems are reliable, auditable, and ethically sound. The startup says all outputs are lawyer-reviewed, but how clients interpret that balance between machine and human may vary.

There’s also the regulatory question. In most US states, legal services must be delivered by licensed professionals. Crosby’s dual-entity structure is designed to comply with those rules, but regulatory scrutiny may increase as it scales.

UK firms will also need to watch this space closely. For example, while firms like Allen & Overy and Mischon de Reya are experimenting with AI copilots, none have yet adopted a Crosby-style hybrid structure. If Crosby proves successful in the US, it may set a precedent for how AI-led legal services could evolve in other jurisdictions.

Are There Any Competitors Doing the Same?

There are firms inching toward similar models. Atrium (now defunct) once tried to integrate software with legal service delivery, though without the speed or AI emphasis Crosby offers. More recently, firms like Lawtrades and Axiom Legal blend tech-enabled platforms with lawyer marketplaces, but again, they stop short of Crosby’s embedded, AI-first, regulated law firm model.

In the UK, companies like Luminance and Robin AI provide AI tools to assist legal teams but do not operate as regulated firms themselves. Crosby’s core differentiator is that it is both the software company and the law firm, acting as one unified entity with aligned incentives to deliver speed and accuracy at scale.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For law firms, Crosby represents a direct challenge to long-established business models built around hourly billing and drawn-out negotiations. Its hybrid setup shows that legal services can be fast, fixed-price, and scalable, without sacrificing human oversight. If the model proves durable, it could force traditional firms to rethink both their pricing structures and the level of tech integration in their workflows.

For UK businesses, the implications could be equally significant. If models like Crosby’s reach the UK market, startups and scaleups would most likely be able to close deals more quickly, reduce legal overheads, and compete more effectively. The demand for faster legal execution is not limited to Silicon Valley. UK firms under pressure to accelerate growth and reduce friction in sales cycles may soon expect legal services to move at the same pace as their CRM or procurement systems. Legal firms serving these clients will need to respond accordingly.

Regulators and legal educators may also come under pressure to modernise. Crosby’s model blurs the line between legal practitioner and product developer. That raises questions not just about compliance, but also about professional training, ethical oversight, and the future identity of the legal profession. As AI models evolve, the challenge will be to strike a balance between innovation and accountability.

The legal industry has long been insulated from the kind of disruption seen in finance or logistics. Crosby’s approach suggests that insulation may be starting to wear thin. Whether it becomes the norm or remains an outlier, it has already expanded the conversation around what legal services can look like, and who is best placed to deliver them.

Sustainability-In-Tech : New Clean Energy Materials In 2 Years (Not 20)

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Danish startup PhaseTree says its combined use of multi-scale modelling techniques means it can create new materials for clean energy technologies in just 2 years (instead of the usual 20), i.e., a speed 10 times faster than traditional methods.

Who is PhaseTree and What Do They Do?

Copenhagen-based startup, PhaseTree, was founded in 2021 as a spin-off from the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). Their mission is to reinvent the material discovery process, using a unique combination of computer simulations, lab automation, and artificial intelligence (AI) to drastically shorten the time it takes to find and develop new materials.

Slow, Up Until Now

At the moment, creating new materials for clean energy technologies is an incredibly slow and expensive process. For example, the industry norm can take up to 20 years due to time-consuming lab testing and trial-and-error experiments. However, PhaseTree’s solution (based on advanced multi-scale modelling techniques) reduces this to just two years, thereby transforming the way sustainable materials are discovered.

Could Help the Move Away From Fossil Fuels

This speed-up could have major implications for (mostly clean energy) technology industries that rely on scarce or expensive raw materials, such as the battery, automobile, and steel sectors. By identifying alternative materials that are cheaper, more sustainable, and easier to produce, PhaseTree aims to help companies move away from their reliance on rare earth metals and fossil fuels.

How Does PhaseTree’s Technology Work?

Unlike many AI-driven material discovery tools that rely purely on data correlations, PhaseTree takes a different approach, i.e. a “physics-first, AI-on-top” approach. Their platform starts with well-established scientific principles, then layers AI on top to refine predictions. This ensures that the materials they identify are not only promising on paper but actually viable in the real world.

PhaseTree’s three-pronged approach includes:

– Physics-based modelling. This involves analysing fundamental material properties like composition, atomic structure, defects, and microstructures.

– AI refinement. Once strong candidates are identified using scientific principles, AI is applied to optimise their properties and manufacturing potential.

– Lab automation. Cutting down on manual testing time by integrating automated lab experiments that validate material performance faster than traditional methods.

As Jin Hyun Chang, co-founder and CTO of PhaseTree, explains: “Our approach accelerates discovery by combining physics-based modelling with AI, allowing us to rapidly identify and refine promising candidates that would traditionally take decades to develop.”

This “physics-first, AI-on-top” method is what makes PhaseTree stand out in an increasingly crowded sector. In 2024 alone, AI-powered material discovery startups raised over $260 million, with 10 out of 17 funding rounds going to European companies, including ExoMatter, Dunia, and Orbital. However, while many of these companies depend heavily on AI-driven correlations, PhaseTree tries to focus more on real-world scientific accuracy.

Why PhaseTree’s Work Could Be More Important Than Ever

The race to discover new materials is not just about efficiency and innovation. It’s about economic and environmental survival. Therefore, some of the key reasons why PhaseTree’s work could be of particular importance now include:

– The rare earth crisis. With China controlling the majority of the rare earth supply chain, industries are facing soaring costs, limited access, and increasing geopolitical risks.

– Environmental impact. Many existing materials, such as those used in lithium-ion batteries and steel production, have significant environmental drawbacks, including heavy reliance on fossil fuels and high CO₂ emissions.

– Manufacturing challenges. A material may work in a research lab, but that doesn’t mean it can be produced at scale.

PhaseTree’s CEO, Amit Luthra, has highlighted how its work directly addresses these challenges, saying: “From the outset, we design materials with manufacturability in mind, ensuring they can be synthesised at scale rather than remaining a theoretical concept or lab-scale prototype.”

Also, as Christian Lindegaard Jepsen, Partner at Heartcore Capital (a source of PhaseTree’s funding), explains: “Materials play a crucial role in developing clean energy and sustainable technologies. PhaseTree makes it easier and faster to find better alternatives that can help reduce environmental impact and improve efficiency.”

By focusing on low-cost, abundant materials with straightforward synthesis routes, PhaseTree is hoping to maximise the likelihood of real-world adoption by major industrial players.

€3 Million Funding to Drive Expansion

To take their work to the next level, PhaseTree has just secured €3 million from Denmark-based venture capital firm Heartcore Capital. It’s understood that this funding will be used to:

– Expand R&D efforts, enhancing their material discovery platform.

– Grow the PhaseTree team, bringing in more scientists, engineers, and AI specialists.

– Scale up collaborations with some of the world’s largest battery, automotive, and steel manufacturers.

What This Could Mean for the Future

If PhaseTree succeeds in scaling up its technology, it could change the way industries develop materials for the better by reducing their dependence on scarce, expensive, and environmentally damaging resources.

– Some of the potential impacts include:

– Cheaper, more efficient batteries that rely on readily available materials rather than rare earth metals.

– Stronger, lighter alloys for the automotive and aerospace industries, reducing fuel consumption and emissions.

– Faster breakthroughs in renewable energy technology, making solar panels and wind turbines more efficient and cost-effective.

With the clean energy sector desperate for innovation, and supply chain disruptions making material discovery more urgent than ever, PhaseTree may well be in the right place at the right time.

What Does This Mean for Your Organisation?

By combining the accuracy of scientific modelling with the speed and efficiency of AI, they are setting a precedent for how next-generation materials can be developed. The fact that PhaseTree’s approach can significantly reduce development timelines and costs could reshape entire supply chains. This could make sustainable materials more accessible for businesses that have historically struggled with long and expensive R&D cycles. With global demand for cleaner, more efficient materials growing rapidly, this innovation could arrive at a crucial turning point for industries that are under mounting pressure to reduce their environmental impact.

For UK businesses, this development could open up significant opportunities. For example, as industries face increasing regulation on carbon emissions and sustainability, the ability to source materials that are not only greener but also cost-effective could provide a real competitive advantage. British manufacturers, particularly in sectors such as automotive, aerospace, and energy, could benefit from greater access to advanced materials that reduce reliance on imports and offer more stable supply chains. With the UK aiming to become a leader in green technology and advanced manufacturing, partnerships with companies like PhaseTree could support efforts to drive innovation domestically while reducing exposure to global market volatility.

Beyond the business world, the impact of faster, more sustainable material discovery could help society as a whole. For example, the widespread availability of new, more efficient materials could lower the cost of renewable energy infrastructure, making technologies like solar power and wind energy more affordable for consumers. Also, the battery industry, which is crucial to the success of electric vehicles and energy storage, could see faster progress towards alternatives that reduce reliance on scarce or ethically problematic resources. In turn, this could help accelerate the transition to low-carbon transport and cleaner energy grids, benefiting both the environment and consumers.

That said, while PhaseTree’s approach is promising, it remains to be seen how quickly industries can actually integrate these materials into large-scale production. The challenge isn’t only about discovery but also ensuring that new materials can be manufactured at scale, meet regulatory requirements, and gain industry-wide adoption. Although PhaseTree’s focus on manufacturability from the outset is a positive step, real-world implementation will be the true test of its success.

Featured Article : Altman Rejects Musk’s $97 Billion Offer

Posted on by Paul Stradling

In a striking rebuke to Elon Musk, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently rejected a $97.4 billion acquisition bid led by Musk and his AI startup, xAI.

Long-Running Tech Feud

Altman’s decision has intensified the long-running feud between the two tech giants, bringing into focus their starkly different visions for the future of artificial intelligence (AI). With Musk levelling accusations of self-dealing and Altman responding with sharp jabs, the saga has left the tech industry and AI users questioning what comes next.

What Happened?

Musk’s unsolicited bid for OpenAI (revealed through legal filings and media reports) was supported by private equity firms Baron Capital Group and Valor Management. The proposal sought to acquire the non-profit entity that controls OpenAI, with Musk’s legal team arguing that OpenAI’s shift towards a for-profit structure contradicted its original mission.

As Musk’s attorney, Marc Toberoff, put it: “If Sam Altman and the present OpenAI board of directors are intent on becoming a fully for-profit corporation, it is vital that the charity be fairly compensated for what its leadership is taking away from it: control over the most transformative technology of our time.”

However, OpenAI swiftly dismissed the offer. In fact, Altman took to Musk’s own platform, X (formerly Twitter), to publicly rebuff the bid with a characteristically cheeky retort, saying: “No thank you, but we will buy Twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.” OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor reinforced the company’s stance, stating, “OpenAI is not for sale.”

Musk then fired back with some accusations, branding Altman as a “swindler” and claiming OpenAI had abandoned its founding principles in favour of corporate profit.

Musk’s Motivation and the OpenAI Backstory

The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, who co-founded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Altman, was one of its earliest financial backers. However, he left the board in 2018 following disagreements over the company’s direction and later launched his own AI startup, xAI, in 2023. Since then, he has been an outspoken critic of OpenAI, particularly regarding its partnership with Microsoft.

Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI, first filed in February 2024 and later revived in August, accuses the company of prioritising profit over safety and betraying its original commitment to open-source AI development. The lawsuit argues that OpenAI has become a “closed-source de facto subsidiary” of Microsoft, which has invested over $13 billion in the company.

Musk said in a statement explaining his bid: “It’s time for OpenAI to return to the open-source, safety-focused force for good it once was. We will make sure that happens.”

OpenAI Says It Was Necessary

OpenAI, however, contends that its evolution into a public benefit corporation was necessary to secure the capital needed to develop cutting-edge AI models. Interestingly, internal emails published by OpenAI last year revealed Musk had previously acknowledged the necessity of attracting significant investment to fund AI infrastructure.

Musk’s Growing Problems in Business and Politics

The rejection of Musk’s bid comes at a time of mounting challenges for the billionaire across his now sprawling empire. For example, Tesla, his most well-known EV venture, has seen its stock plummet by over 31 per cent since December 2024, amid declining sales and growing criticism of what many see as Musk’s divisive political interventions. Analysts have attributed Tesla’s downturn in part to Musk’s polarising behaviour (e.g. ‘that’ salute, which alienated not just his environmentally conscious consumers, who were once the company’s core supporters).

Also, his social media platform, X, continues to struggle, with its valuation reportedly falling by over 50 per cent since he purchased it for $44 billion in 2022. A combination of mass layoffs (reducing staff by 80 per cent) and controversial content moderation policies has driven advertisers away, with Bluesky and Threads, contributing to X’s financial woes.

Musk’s huge $227 million spend on Trump’s election campaign (and his wealth increasing by a reported $170 billion since) plus his increasing entanglement with the US government have also sparked concerns about conflicts of interest. Also, as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Trump’s administration, Musk has been widely criticised over his wielding of influence over federal agencies that regulate his businesses (including those that could investigate him). In fact, Musk’s DOGE team is now being investigated by the US government watchdog over its access to the Treasury’s payments system, which has been described as unconstitutional. In recent months, investigations into Tesla and SpaceX have been quietly shelved following the departure of key regulators, raising eyebrows in Washington and beyond.

Adding to the controversy, Musk recently conducted a White House interview alongside his son and President Trump, an appearance that critics claim blurred the lines between political advocacy and personal business interests. The interview, perceived by many as an attempt to shore up support for his ventures, has drawn scrutiny over whether Musk’s access to political power gives him an unfair advantage over his competitors.

What It All Means for OpenAI, Musk, and AI Users

For OpenAI, turning down Musk’s offer signals a firm commitment to its current trajectory. Despite Musk’s claims that OpenAI has lost sight of its original mission, the company maintains that its hybrid non-profit and for-profit model allows it to raise the funding necessary to develop safe and powerful AI. This decision also ensures OpenAI retains its independence from Musk’s influence, allowing it to continue its deep partnerships with Microsoft and other investors.

For Musk, the somewhat humiliating public rejection represents a significant setback in his efforts to steer the direction of AI development. With OpenAI remaining out of reach, Musk’s xAI faces more of an uphill battle in competing with OpenAI’s dominant ChatGPT and the backing of Microsoft. His mounting legal battles, combined with declining public confidence in his leadership, may further strain his ability to expand xAI’s influence in the AI sector.

As for users, the outcome of this feud will have lasting implications. OpenAI’s continued autonomy ensures stability in its AI offerings, but Musk’s persistent attacks raise questions about regulatory oversight and ethical AI governance. Meanwhile, the turbulence surrounding Musk’s ventures, from Tesla to X, may further shape consumer trust and industry dynamics in the coming months.

What Does This Mean for Your Business?

Sam Altman’s rejection of Elon Musk’s audacious $97 billion bid marks yet another defining moment in what is an ongoing power struggle over the future of artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s decision to remain independent reinforces its commitment to a hybrid model that balances innovation with commercial viability, even as Musk continues to frame this approach as a betrayal of the organisation’s original mission. While the tech world is no stranger to high-profile disputes, this particular clash holds deeper implications, not just for AI development but also for the regulatory and ethical landscape surrounding it.

For Musk, the rejection highlights the mounting challenges he faces in both the business and political spheres. His attempt to bring OpenAI under his control appears to have been a strategic move to counteract the growing influence of Microsoft and reassert his own role in shaping AI’s future. However, his declining public perception, ongoing legal battles, and the struggles of his various ventures suggest that he is facing headwinds unlike any before. While xAI may still emerge as a formidable competitor, OpenAI’s ability to operate without Musk’s intervention has, for now, reinforced its market dominance.

For business users, this standoff between two of the most influential figures in AI raises significant considerations. OpenAI’s continued partnership with Microsoft should ensure stability in its product offerings, giving enterprises confidence that ChatGPT and other AI models will continue to develop without abrupt strategic shifts. This means businesses relying on OpenAI’s technology can probably expect further refinements, better integration with Microsoft products, and sustained investment in safety and governance frameworks. However, Musk’s criticisms of OpenAI’s closed-source nature may also fuel discussions about transparency and accessibility, potentially pushing regulators and competitors to advocate for more open AI ecosystems.

While this latest chapter in the Musk-Altman rivalry has made headlines, the broader impact will be felt in how AI is shaped moving forward. OpenAI’s stance suggests that it remains committed to its vision, even as Musk continues to challenge its direction. Whether this leads to a more competitive AI marketplace or a further entrenchment of power among a select few remains to be seen, but for now, OpenAI has made its position clear, i.e. that it’s not for sale, not even to one of the world’s richest and most controversial figures.

Sustainability-in-Tech : UK Startup Makes ‘Lab’ Leather

Posted on by Paul Stradling

Cambridge-based startup ‘Pact’ has raised £9 million in (seed round) funding to expand its factory space and scale-up production of its “world-first” biomaterial – a skin made from collagen that’s a convincing alternative to leather.

Oval 

Oval, developed by Pact, is a pioneering biomaterial made from natural collagen, designed to be a sustainable and scalable alternative to traditional materials like leather. For example, with Oval Pact says it is “Capturing the strength, feel, stretch and durability of heritage materials through upcycled collagen.” 

The collagen used in Oval is sourced from ethical and environmentally friendly suppliers, often from surplus or recycled materials such as those used in cosmetics.

Oval not only looks like leather, but it also behaves like leather, i.e. it responds to scratches, water, and sunlight in a very similar way.

What’s Collagen? 

Natural collagen, the biomaterial that Oval is made from, is a protein, found in the skin, bones, and connective tissues of animals, providing structural support and elasticity. It is often used in cosmetics for its ability to promote skin hydration, elasticity, and repair, making it popular in anti-aging products. Collagen’s biocompatibility and strength make it an ideal material for sustainable biomaterials like Oval, which mimics leather while reducing environmental impact. The Collagen used to make Oval is recycled collagen from old cosmetics with some herbal extracts, oils, and minerals added. Pact says: “Our collagen is a natural byproduct used in high-end cosmetics, skincare and pharmaceuticals”. 

Customisable 

Oval is versatile and customisable, allowing designers to create a wide range of textures, patterns, and colours. The material is finished using techniques traditionally applied to leather, making it ideal for luxury fashion, footwear, interiors, and more.

Chemical-Free + Reduced CO2

Its production is chemical-free, requires less water, and has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to traditional leather production. Pact estimates that incorporating Oval in place of leather and synthetic alternatives could prevent 4.8 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually!

Patented 

Pact says that in the production of Oval, a patented process is used to transform cosmetic-grade collagen into collagen skins. Pact says the skins are then “enriched with all-natural ingredients, then enhanced using time-honoured finishing techniques”. Pact sums up the key benefits of Oval, saying “Oval radically reduces environmental impact and inspires unlimited design possibilities”. 

Who’s It For? 

Pact CEO, Yudí Ding, highlights how the company has already partnered with Luxury Maisons and how the new biomaterial has been embraced by leading fashion houses and groups globally. For example, investors in this seed investment round included Hoxton Ventures, ReGen Ventures, Celsius Industries (formerly Untitled) and Polytechnique Ventures.

Pact has also developed “drop in” manufacturing technology, enabling clients to produce Oval directly in their own supply chains.

Funding To Scale-Up

The £9 million of funding raised in this seed round has enabled Pact to invest in a new 13,820 sqft headquarters in Cambridge, which includes a laboratory and pilot production facility. This will put Pact in a better position to push into the commercialisation phase and expand and scale-up production to meet demand (which is anticipated to be global).

What Does This Mean For Your Organisation? 

The success of Pact and its innovative biomaterial, Oval, marks a significant shift towards sustainable alternatives in industries traditionally dependent on leather. As environmental concerns become paramount, Oval’s ability to mimic leather while drastically reducing water usage and CO2 emissions could position it as a game-changer across fashion, interiors, and even automotive design. By offering a material that combines durability, versatility, and sustainability, Pact is responding to the increasing demand for eco-friendly solutions without compromising on quality or creativity.

This advancement doesn’t just affect consumers and brands, but it also sends a clear message to competitors in the materials industry. As Pact scales up production and solidifies partnerships with luxury brands, traditional leather manufacturers and other synthetic alternatives may feel the pressure to innovate or risk becoming obsolete. Oval’s ability to slot seamlessly into existing supply chains, thanks to Pact’s “drop-in” manufacturing technology, may give it an edge that could force competitors to reassess their production models and environmental footprints.

As more companies adopt sustainable practices, Pact’s Oval appears to be setting a new benchmark that competitors will likely need to meet. This biomaterial’s potential to reduce millions of tonnes of CO2 emissions annually makes it not just an alternative but possibly a necessary evolution for the industry. Ultimately, Pact’s breakthrough may not only disrupt the materials market but also challenge the entire ecosystem to raise its sustainability standards and embrace innovation.

All that said, however, Pact’s Oval is still at the beginning of its journey and has yet to live up to its considerable promise when it goes fully into the commercialistaion phase, although it appears that the signs are good so far.