1) Moderator's Introduction
Moderator:
Latin America enters 2026 with a larger yet more sober startup ecosystem. In 2025, venture capital funding grew +13.8% to US$4.1B, though a clear pattern has emerged: fewer transactions and larger rounds for companies with proven traction. Meanwhile, the most brutal indicator remains unchanged: only 15% of startups survive beyond three years, due to lack of validation, poor capital management, and absence of clear metrics. The cultural thermometer of the “boom” has also changed: only 2 unicorns emerged in 2025, a far cry from the 22 in 2021.
In this triologue, we will discuss whether the future of the ecosystem leans more towards a hyper-scaled logic funded by VCs or towards the era of the “camels”: companies that prioritize resilience, margins, and survival in volatile markets. We will also consider the corporate role: real innovation versus innovation theater. Cities like São Paulo, Mexico City, and Bogotá are pushing the pace, while generative AI and no-code technologies lower barriers to entry and change who can compete.
---
2) Opening Round
Elena Costa:
I see an ecosystem shifting from euphoria to engineering. In terms of the 6Ds, generative AI and no-code have moved past the stage of “media disappointment” and are entering “demonetization” and “democratization”: the cost to build and operate digital products is decreasing, shifting power towards small and highly skilled teams. The evidence is in the market: US$4.1B in VC in 2025, yes, but concentrated in more mature companies, with fewer rounds and increased selectivity. This is a symptom of transition, not demise.
For me, the dilemma isn't VC versus bootstrapping as tribal identities. It’s about choosing the architecture of scale: when capital accelerates a real advantage and when it only amplifies inefficiencies. In LATAM markets, where political volatility and bureaucracy are still present, efficiency without consciousness leads to missteps: automating without human oversight merely accelerates poor decisions. The future resembles companies that use AI as augmented intelligence and capital as a surgical tool, not as anesthesia.
Simón Arce:
The ecosystem isn’t “tougher,” it’s more honest. The drop in unicorns from 22 in 2021 to 2 in 2025 isn’t just macroeconomics: it’s the end of ego as a strategy. Venture capital today doesn’t reward narrative; it rewards maturity, discipline, and uncomfortable conversations. The statistic that matters most to me is one that nobody wants to face: 85% do not survive beyond three years. That’s not a matter of luck; it’s a shortage of organizational character.
When a startup or corporation chooses VC to “buy time,” it often buys internal silence: avoiding conversations about unit economics, real churn, lagging sales, and mismatched talent. And when it opts for bootstrapping out of “purity,” it may also be evading another conversation: the one about ambition, global competition, and the harshness of building distribution.
For me, the real debate is about the type of leadership needed in 2026: less performance, more unconditional responsibility. Less victimhood regarding the environment and more rigor in commitments, promises, and execution.
Tomás Rivera:
My reading is simple: the ecosystem has moved towards brutal validation. Funds are putting in more money per round, but in fewer startups, because PowerPoint isn’t being paid for anymore: evidence is. And with only 15% surviving the third year, the number one enemy isn’t the lack of VC: it’s building things no one buys.
In 2026, two types of teams will prevail. First: those who bootstrap and use no-code and AI to lower costs, launch minimum experiments, and charge quickly. Second: those who do raise VC, but to scale a proven engine, not to discover the engine. In LATAM, fintech, digital health, and agrotech have real demand, but that doesn’t mean your solution has pricing, a channel, and retention.
As for corporates: if your “innovation” is a lab that doesn’t sell, it’s internal marketing. Useful corporate innovation means co-creating with customers, pricing, iterating, and measuring. The rest is bureaucracy dressed as future.
---
3) Debate Round
Elena Costa:
Tomás, I agree that “PowerPoint isn’t being paid for,” but be careful about turning validation into a short-term obsession. In sectors like digital health or fintech infrastructure, the time-to-trust is long and regulation isn’t optional. If we apply the same rapid experimentation criterion to a consumer app, we’ll strangle deep innovation. Also, selective VC doesn’t necessarily mean “better allocation”; it can also indicate risk aversion at a time when the convergence of AI and no-code is opening opportunities for new, diverse teams outside the traditional circuit. Let’s remember that women receive only 2.3% of global VC: the “market” isn’t neutral. The future demands capital, yes, but also incentive designs that democratize access and reduce structural biases.
Tomás Rivera:
Elena, I'm not advocating for short-termism; I'm asking for evidence. In digital health, validation could mean compliance, clinical adoption rates, measurable outcomes, agreements with payers. That’s also going out of the building, it's just that the building is a hospital. My point is that VC today rewards “maturity” and that’s correct: if in 2025 there were US$4.1B with fewer deals, it’s because the age of financing endless searching is over. And while the bias exists, it isn't solved with blind checks; it should be corrected with processes: committees with real diversity, public metrics, and founders who demonstrate traction. In LATAM, volatility punishes those who burn cash without a clear distribution thesis. Capital without rapid learning is just gasoline on fog.
Simón Arce:
Both of you are describing the same issue from different angles: the problem isn’t the instrument; it’s the psychology of leadership. VC, when it arrives, amplifies the culture that already exists. If there’s ego, it amplifies ego. If there are conversations missing, it enhances silence. Bootstrapping doesn’t save you either: I’ve seen “camel” teams using austerity as an excuse not to invest in commercial talent or to avoid the conflict of raising prices.
The harsh market signal is the 15% survival rate. That figure speaks to broken promises: to customers, the team, and the business model itself. In 2026, the founder who succeeds will be the one who can maintain real conversations about focus, trade-offs, and metrics, without hiding behind the narrative of “the LATAM context” or the myth of “when VC comes, everything will be fine.”
---
4) Closing Round
Elena Costa:
I see LATAM entering a phase where construction will be cheaper, and competition will be tougher. The convergence of AI and no-code pushes the market towards demonetization and democratization, but that doesn’t guarantee fairness or quality: it demands discernment. VC will continue, being more selective and later, while “camels” will emerge that use technology for intelligent efficiency, not for blind cutting. The winner will be the one who treats AI as augmented intelligence and capital as a responsible accelerant for impact and human productivity.
Simón Arce:
The future of the ecosystem isn’t determined by macro forces; it’s decided in the boardroom. With fewer unicorns and more demands, leadership is laid bare. The organization that survives will be the one that turns metrics into commitments and commitments into conversations, without ego. VC or bootstrapping are paths; neither substitutes unconditional responsibility. Real culture is built when there’s courage to name what isn’t working, own it, and act without excuses, even when it hurts.
Tomás Rivera:
In 2026, there will be less patience for “aspirational innovation.” If you’re going for VC, let it be to scale a proven engine. If you’re opting for bootstrapping, let it be to learn quickly and charge promptly. In both scenarios, the standard is evidence: willingness to pay, retention, unit economics, and a distribution channel that doesn’t rely on magic. Technology lowers costs but doesn’t buy market share. Real business growth only occurs when the illusion of a perfect plan is abandoned and constant validation with the actual customer is embraced.
---
5) Moderator's Synthesis
Moderator:
A shared thesis emerged, with useful frictions. First, the ecosystem is larger yet more selective: US$4.1B in 2025 (+13.8%) with fewer transactions and larger rounds, leading towards maturity and evidence. Second, the myth of hyper-growth as the only destination is deflating: 2 unicorns in 2025 versus 22 in 2021. Third, the structural problem remains survival: only 15% survive their first three years, focusing attention on validation, capital management, and metrics.
Elena sees the convergence of AI/no-code as a democratizing force but warns about access biases to capital and the risk of automating without human oversight. Tomás insists that the only reliable compass is market evidence, even in regulated industries, and that capital should scale what is proven. Simón, at the center, translates it into leadership: whether VC or bootstrapping amplifies culture; if there’s ego and unfinished conversations, the money merely accelerates the crash.
2026 is poised to be a year of consolidation: less theater, more product, more discipline, and a corporate innovation that, if it wants to exist, must sell and measure.
