TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsIndonesia’s start-up boom and what we refuse to measure
As prosecution of digital pioneers has become commonplace, a deeper crisis emerges: a nation that enthusiastically celebrates start-up hypergrowth but lacks the analytical tools to distinguish strategic risk from structural failure.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Employees arrange fruit and vegetables at the TaniHub distribution center in Kedung Halang, Bogor, West Java, on Aug. 16, 2019. Tanihub recently laid off a number of workers amid global woes in the digital economy. (TaniGroup/Bhisma Adinaya)
F
or the past decade, Indonesia has celebrated start-up founders, venture capitalists and billion-dollar valuations as definitive evidence of digital progress. Failure, when it inevitably arrived, was treated either as a scandal or a surprise. On May 21, this dynamic reached a critical juncture when prosecutors demanded an 11-year prison sentence for former BRI Venture Investment president director Nicko Widjaja in connection with the TaniHub case.
While the specific legal issues are for the judges to decide, the episode exposes a broader institutional blind spot: Indonesia has embraced digital business creation without developing the analytical tools to distinguish strategic risk-taking from structural fragility. The question extends far beyond one individual: Do we fundamentally misunderstand digital business risk?
Nicko represented the type of young, globally trained Indonesian venture leader often celebrated as a bridge between international expertise and domestic transformation. He was not merely an entrepreneur; he was a capital allocator and venture architect, helping determine which start-ups received institutional backing, which business models scaled and which visions of Indonesia’s digital future attracted capital.
Yet, as Indonesia enthusiastically celebrated this ecosystem, turning funding rounds into headlines, unicorn valuations into symbols of national pride and founders into public celebrities, we remained remarkably poor at building the statistical infrastructure necessary to analyze whether these businesses were structurally healthy in the first place. Without robust longitudinal data, distinguishing between hypergrowth and fundamental fragility becomes guesswork.
Consider the long list of digital ventures, from fintech platforms to alternative start-up models, that once enjoyed immense public optimism despite carrying fundamentally volatile business economics: KoinWorks, Investree, Modalku, iGrow, TaniFund, Akulaku, AdaKami and Easycash, among others. Some remain operational; some are restructuring; others face significant pressure or regulatory scrutiny. Their trajectories and internal realities differ, but the broader macro pattern is identical: rapid celebration at birth, followed by collective confusion when structural fragility emerges.
Digital businesses are not ordinary firms. Their economics are structurally unique, often operating under network effects where early scale matters disproportionately and user acquisition precedes profitability. In these environments, customer subsidies can be rational strategies to build durable competitive advantages rather than reckless spending. Consequently, market leaders can look financially irrational in their early stages while still following economically coherent paths. But the reverse is equally true: what appears to be hypergrowth may simply be a fragile expansion financed by temporary capital abundance.
Even Indonesia’s flagship digital success story illustrates this ambiguity. GoTo’s stock has lost more than 80 percent of its value from its peak, collapsing to around Rp 50 (less than 0.3 US cents) per share. This free fall reflects not necessarily a fatal business failure, but a brutal market correction from inflated expectations. Investors once priced GoTo as if monopoly-scale profits were inevitable; reality delivered intense competition, margin pressure, heavy restructuring and the sudden end of cheap global capital.
