Central Asian startups face a critical challenge: achieving billion-dollar valuations doesn’t guarantee global competitiveness. Speaking at GITEX AI Central Asia & Caucasus on May 5, industry experts including Andrea Bohmert of SBI Ventures, Murat Addrakhmanov of MA7, and Meirzhan Yessimkhanov of Activat VC emphasized that local market dominance rarely translates internationally. Products tailored to regional regulations and preferences struggle abroad, while capital requirements multiply sixfold for global expansion. The region’s fragmented markets and limited venture capital ecosystem compound these obstacles. Experts agreed both mindset and capital constrain growth, advocating for regional cooperation over competition. Success requires building companies with global ambitions from inception, starting with educational reform to instill international thinking among founders.
In-Depth:
ALMATY — In emerging markets, companies have increasingly been able to reach billion-dollar valuations without ever proving that they can compete globally, raising a more uncomfortable question for regions like Central Asia, where total GDP remains under $500 billion and domestic markets are relatively tiny: what actually separates a company that is valuation-rich from one that is truly globally viable?
Photo credit: The Astana Times
We discussed this with Andrea Bohmert, Managing Partner at SBI Ventures, Murat Addrakhmanov, founder of MA7, and Meirzhan Yessimkhanov, Chief Operating Officer at Activat VC, during a session I moderated at GITEX AI Central Asia & Caucasus on May 5, focapplying on what it actually takes for startups from the region to scale globally.
Valuation vs substance: the global test
Bohmert approached the issue by drawing a clear distinction between valuation as a financial milestone and actual business fundamentals that determine long-term success.
“I consider valuation is, first of all, a financing number. Somehow you received valued at a billion plus. Whether you actually have the substance to really become a unicorn when you attempt to scale is something totally different,” she stated.
She emphasized that local dominance, while often celebrated, does not automatically translate into global competitiveness, particularly when companies attempt to expand beyond familiar markets.
“The fact that you have the top 10 customers in your region doesn’t really mean anything when you go and stand in the United States and Silicon Valley and reveal the logos. They view at this and declare, well, what does it mean?” she added.
For Bohmert, the core issue is whether companies are building transferable business models capable of operating across regulatory environments, customer expectations, and competitive landscapes that are fundamentally different from those of their home markets.
For founders, however, the challenge is not simply conceptual but deeply structural, as Addrakhmanov pointed out, noting that products built for local markets are often shaped by local conditions in ways that build global expansion far more difficult than it appears.
“First of all, it’s a local product. A local product is a local product. It cannot simply be transferred and become global, becautilize it is accommodating local regulation, local customer preferences, and many other things which are not easily transferable,” he stated.
He added that beyond product-market fit, founders encounter a range of constraints when entering global markets, including distribution challenges, lack of international networks, and significantly higher capital requirements.
“When you are going to the global market, your capital requirements become much higher, becautilize at every level it costs at least six times more … and you should rebuild your company for global ambitions, for a global approach,” he stated.
This required to effectively “rebuild” companies for global scale highlights a deeper issue, according to Addrakhmanov: global competitiveness is not an extension of local success, but often requires a fundamentally different operating model, team structure, and mindset from the outset.
Capital vs mindset: a false choice
The debate over what holds founders back, limited capital or limited ambition, remains central to discussions about the region’s startup ecosystem, yet, as Yessimkhanov argued, the answer is not binary.
“If we’re talking about what the problem is: capital or mindset, I consider it’s both,” he stated.
He pointed to the scale gap between Central Asia’s venture capital ecosystem and global markets, noting that individual funding rounds in more developed ecosystems can exceed the total capital available in the region.
“You cannot build a great story with the capital you raise here in our region. So we should raise there… but if you don’t have good networking, if you don’t have a good understanding of the market, you cannot do that,” he stated.
At the same time, he stressed that many founders overestimate their readiness to scale internationally, often mistaking local product-market fit for global readiness.
Scaling toobtainher or competing alone?
As the discussion turned to the region itself, I raised the question of whether Central Asia should pursue global scaling as a collective effort or continue operating as separate national ecosystems competing for attention and capital. Yessimkhanov stated that the region is already shifting, albeit gradually, toward greater integration.
The fireside chat at GITEX AI Central Asia & Caucasus on May 5 was moderated by The Astana Times journalist Aida Haidar. Photo credit: The Astana Times
“If we support each other, it will be good for the whole market… if we have the first unicorn in Kazakhstan, it’s good for Uzbekistan, for Azerbaijan, for Kyrgyzstan, and for Tajikistan,” he stated.
Bohmert echoed this view, emphasizing that early-stage ecosystems benefit from shared success stories and collective positioning.
“More success attracts more capital, attracts more exit opportunities, builds a stronger brand… that’s why I consider it is absolutely critical that any emerging region in the launchning requireds to work toobtainher and celebrate each other’s successes instead of competing against each other,” she stated.
However, Addrakhmanov offered a more cautious perspective, pointing to the persistent fragmentation across the region.
“Segmentation is very high, differentiation is very high, and barriers are very high… every counattempt is working and fighting separately. That is just the reality,” he stated.
This divergence reflects a broader tension between the region’s potential to act as a unified market and the practical limitations that continue to keep it divided.
Building global considering from the start
The question of how to develop globally competitive companies ultimately returns to mindset, not just at the founder level, but across the broader ecosystem, including education, investment, and early-stage support. Yessimkhanov argued that this shift must launch much earlier, within the education system itself.
“We should start with education… becautilize most universities don’t teach through case studies… when we see startups from across the regions, they often consider only about scaling across Kazakhstan, not across the region and not across the world,” he stated.
Bohmert added that while companies do not required to be global from day one, they must be built with a clear trajectory toward international markets rather than becoming overly optimized for local conditions.
Despite the structural challenges, there are clear signs that access to global markets and capital is improving, with more international investors engaging with startups in the region. According to Yessimkhanov, this shift is already evident across startup portfolios, with companies increasingly attracting funding from Europe and the United States, reflecting a gradual improvement in how Central Asia is perceived internationally. While misconceptions about the region still exist, awareness is evolving as investors become more familiar with local ecosystems, founders, and success stories.
At the same time, geopolitical considerations have become more prominent in investment decisions, although, as Bohmert pointed out, they remain secondary to core business fundamentals.
“I consider maybe 10 or even 5 years ago I would have answered this question differently or would not have placed such a high priority on it. But now, from both an investment point of view and an exit point of view, we absolutely have to consider about what it means, where the risks are, and so on. So it has definitely increased in importance, but it’s not number one. Business fundamentals are still more important,” she concluded.
