Yoevan Khemlani had already begun building his AI company in Singapore when he realized that all his customers were looking somewhere else.
Khemlani had started Interfaze, a startup offering a specialized AI model for backend tasks like web scraping, with a team of four in 2025. “As we were training the model, a lot of our customers who were exploring or trying the product were moving to the U.S., already based in the U.S. or selling to the U.S.,” Khemlani tells Fortune.
And so Khemlani moved to the San Francisco Bay Area last May, drawn by the U.S.’s huge customer base. “We saw the market was there and decided to move,” he says.
Asia once drew tech founders with its underpenetrated markets, lower costs, and rising wealth. Several cities, like Singapore, Tokyo and Kuala Lumpur, tried to position themselves as up-and-coming tech hubs, potentially challenging San Francisco’s longtime dominance in tech.
But founders are now taking a second look at the U.S., both pulled by its massive market and easy access to capital, and pushed by regulatory scrutiny and fragmented markets in Asia.
Since 2025, global venture capital firm Antler has helped more than 30 Asian founding teams relocate to the U.S.
“Most of the founders we see in Asia these days want to build global businesses, and the attraction of being in the U.S. is unmistakable for that purpose,” Jussi Salovaara, Antler’s co-founder and managing partner of Asia, told Fortune. “Customers, talent and capital are all found in abundance there.”
The U.S. attracted roughly 68% of all startup funding last year, according to KPMG. Asia only attracted 12% over the same period. The difference is even starker in the first quarter of 2026, with the U.S. winning 80% of all startup funding, due to massive fundraising rounds for developers like OpenAI and Anthropic. Asia’s share dropped to 9.6% (even if funds were stable in absolute terms).
Push and pull
Asia’s, and particularly Southeast Asia’s, venture capital space is in a protracted slump. Venture funding to Southeast Asian tech firms fell by almost 80% between 2022 and 2024, from approximately $10.1 billion to $2.2 billion. The region currently accounts for roughly 0.5% to 2% of global VC investment; most APAC investment is concentrated in India and China.
The region also hasn’t offered lucrative exit opportunities for investors. “There’s been some large IPOs in Southeast Asia, but not as many as the ecosystem needed,” explains Salovaara. “That’s definitely impacting investor confidence.”
Southeast Asian IPOs raised $6.5 billion last year, a 76% jump, according to Deloitte. That’s still a sliver compared to IPO proceeds in the Chinese city of Hong Kong, at $37 billion.
Several Southeast Asian companies are trading below their offer price. JustCo, a Singaporean flexible work company, is already trading below the IPO price just weeks after its June debut. Foundation Healthcare, the first healthcare business to list on the Singapore Exchange in four years, also closed 7.9% below IPO price on its first day of trading on July 8.
In addition, Southeast Asia is actually a collection of several very different markets, meaning firms can’t rely on a single blueprint for the region. “When you invest in the U.S., you’re investing in the whole country, which is a huge market,” says Khemlani. “But when you invest in Southeast Asia, you have to pick which country you want to invest in. The go-to-market strategy in each Southeast Asian nation is very different.”
And though more capital is flowing into China and India, companies there still face less patient private capital, stricter listing requirements and lower valuation multiples than their U.S. counterparts.
For IndustrialMind.AI founder Justin Li, unfavorable market conditions back home was a push factor to move to the U.S. “B2B start-ups don’t have the best market access in China, as we’re mostly able to serve only Chinese customers and the local market.”
Li, an ex-Tesla engineer, built an AI engineer that can monitor production lines to detect anomalies and suggest fixes. Most of his customers are auto manufacturers from the U.S. and Europe.
Geopolitics might also be playing a role. Western firms may be uncomfortable with working with a firm based in China, particularly regarding business models that rely on sharing data. Even if executives are comfortable working with a Chinese startup, they’d need to navigate an increasingly complex web of restrictions and politics in both the U.S. and China, particularly as AI begins to be seen more as a strategic technology than just a product.
Others tout Silicon Valley’s vibrant founder community. “These whisper networks aren’t anywhere else,” Sanjil Jain, an Indian founder who relocated to the U.S. in April to build Drift, an AI-powered platform for robotics engineering, says. “You get to meet people, gain access to new technologies, and integrate them into your solution so you can offer something new.”
Jain has hired three Americans to join his team of five since the move. “If we were to look for the same talent in India, it would have taken us a lot of time to sieve out the exact profile or the craziness in a person who would want to build with us,” he says.
“But here, pretty much everyone is crazy about building new technologies.”
When does Asia make sense?
Despite Silicon Valley’s allure, Salovaara stresses that a U.S. relocation isn’t straightforward.
Last September, Trump raised H-1B visa fees from $5,000 to $100,000, sending shockwaves through corporate America. “Being Indian citizens, it’s not easy for us to get visas—we’re looking at year-long waits,” Jain tells Fortune. (Last month, a U.S. federal court blocked the administration’s highly controversial visa fee hike, ruling it an unauthorized tax.)
“What’s also challenging is achieving proper U.S. growth,” Salovaara adds. “Founders need to make some cultural transitions: In Asia, investors are very focused on revenue growth and profitability relatively early, while in the U.S., they pay more attention to your vision and the problem you’re looking to solve.”
He also suggests that some businesses are better suited to Southeast Asian markets, which tend to offer more investment opportunities around infrastructure and energy. He points to one Antler-backed example: Alternō, a Singapore-incorporated Vietnamese startup that has developed low-cost renewable energy storage using sand-based thermal batteries.
“If you’re building in Vietnam, it’s obviously going to be a lot more cost-effective compared to the U.S,” Salovaara says.
Antler’s guiding philosophy is that it should be possible for founders to build successful startups from anywhere in the world. “People can innovate from almost anywhere, and at a level they weren’t able to before,” CEO Magnus Grimeland told Fortune earlier this year. (Antler only opened its first office in Silicon Valley in 2025, eight years after its founding).
Salovaara is hopeful that more Asian founders will opt to build within the region. “In time, capital will become more evenly distributed between the different markets,” he concludes. “As ecosystems mature, they’ll also capture more talent and capital, so I hope we’ll begin to see more founders building from Asia for the world.” (On June 26, Antler announced it would be expanding its focus on China-outbound founders, and adding Japanese and South Korean founders into the mix.)
In the short term, however, Asian hubs still have a long way to go before they can compete with Silicon Valley.
“You can build from anywhere today, be it Singapore or the UK, but from a sales standpoint, it’s difficult to reach a global customer base from those countries,” Khemlani says. “From a venture perspective, it’s also very hard to raise capital in San Francisco if you’re still in Singapore.”
Facts Only
* Yoevan Khemlani started Interfaze, a startup offering an AI model for backend tasks like web scraping, with four team members in 2025.
* Customers exploring the product were moving to the U.S., already based or selling to the U.S., when Khemlani sought relocation.
* Khemlani moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in May, drawn by the U.S.'s customer base.
* Global venture capital firm Antler helped more than 30 Asian founding teams relocate to the U.S. since 2025.
* Jussi Salovaara stated that founders in Asia seek the U.S. for customers, talent, and capital abundance for global businesses.
* The U.S. attracted approximately 68% of all startup funding last year, while Asia attracted 12%.
* In the first quarter of 2026, the U.S. won 80% of all startup funding, compared to Asia's 9.6%.
* Venture funding to Southeast Asian tech firms fell by almost 80% between 2022 and 2024, from $10.1 billion to $2.2 billion.
* Southeast Asian IPOs raised $6.5 billion last year, a 76% jump according to Deloitte.
* JustCo, a Singaporean company, was trading below its IPO price shortly after debut.
* IndustrialMind.AI founder Justin Li moved to the U.S. due to unfavorable market conditions in China for B2B start-ups serving Chinese customers and the local market.
* Sanjil Jain relocated to the U.S. to build Drift, an AI-powered platform for robotics engineering.
* A U.S. federal court blocked a proposed H-1B visa fee hike in September, which increased fees from $5,000 to $100,000 for Indian citizens.
Executive Summary
A founder, Yoevan Khemlani, relocated to the San Francisco Bay Area after realizing his customers were primarily located in the U.S., leading him to move to capitalize on the larger market. This migration reflects a broader trend where founders are considering the U.S. due to its massive customer base and access to capital, contrasting with emerging tech hubs in Asia that sought to challenge Silicon Valley's dominance through lower costs and growing wealth. Global venture capital firms have facilitated the relocation of Asian founding teams to the U.S., pointing to the abundance of customers, talent, and capital there for building global businesses.
The analysis highlights a divergence between the appeal of the U.S. ecosystem and the specific realities facing founders in Asia. While some founders view the U.S. as an obvious choice for global scaling, others assess market conditions regionally. Southeast Asian venture capital is experiencing a slump, with funding falling significantly, and exit opportunities are less abundant compared to markets like China or Hong Kong. Furthermore, regional markets exhibit heterogeneity, meaning there is no single blueprint for investment strategy across different Southeast Asian nations.
The decision to relocate involves trade-offs between market access, capital availability, regulatory environments, and cultural/investment priorities. While the U.S. offers scale, Asian hubs present opportunities related to specific infrastructure investments, such as in Southeast Asia where energy and infrastructure focus might be more advantageous. The movement of talent is also influenced by geopolitical considerations regarding data sharing and a founder's ability to access specialized talent pools, suggesting that the optimal location depends heavily on the specific business model and geographic context.
Full Take
The narrative presents a tension between the established gravitational pull of the U.S. ecosystem—characterized by unparalleled market size and capital access—and the shifting attractiveness of Asian hubs that offer alternative growth paths. The data starkly illustrates a global allocation imbalance in venture funding, with the U.S. capturing disproportionately more investment, yet this does not necessarily equate to superior long-term viability for all founders.
A critical pattern emerges regarding the structural fragmentation of the Asian market. The argument against a singular "Asia" strategy is powerfully supported by the caveat that Southeast Asia is composed of vastly different markets requiring bespoke go-to-market strategies, and the differing conditions in China versus India (less patient capital, stricter listing rules). This suggests that any appeal to Asian founders seeking U.S. opportunity must account for internal regional variability rather than treating Asia as a monolithic entity.
The discussion surrounding relocation is framed by systemic constraints: visa hurdles, cultural shifts in investor focus (revenue vs. vision), and geopolitical friction impacting data-sharing models. The contrast between the perceived ease of building globally from the U.S. versus navigating specific regional complexities forces a reevaluation of what "success" means for founders moving from Asia. The implication is that while global ambition is shared, the practical execution requires acknowledging disparate economic realities; relocation choices must be mapped against both macro-level capital flows and micro-level operational constraints within specific national contexts.
Bridge Questions: If investment capital eventually becomes more evenly distributed, how will this affect the divergence in talent attraction between Silicon Valley and emerging Asian tech hubs? What mechanisms need to develop for regional bodies to harmonize market blueprints, especially in Southeast Asia, without sacrificing local context? How can founders effectively navigate the tension between pursuing global scale and accommodating localized regulatory and investment realities?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like well-researched feature journalism that synthesizes economic trends, founder experiences, and geopolitical considerations into a balanced narrative.
