Sand Battery Saga: Antler Vietnam and silent enablers (SAND - Part 9)

In the unfolding story of the Sand Battery saga, I've shared with you the journey from concept to creation, the technical innovations, the challenges, and most recently, the discovery of our USPTO patent approval — news that came to me not through proper channels, but through my own investigation, months after the fact.

Today, I want to address a critical aspect of this story that has remained largely in the shadows: the role of the enablers and silent accomplices who allowed, and perhaps even facilitated, the series of events that led to my separation from my own creation. In particular, I believe it's time to examine the role of Antler Vietnam "matchmaking" program, the venture builder that brought the initial team together and remained conspicuously silent throughout the subsequent controversies.

The Matchmaker's Responsibility

Venture builders and accelerators hold a unique position in the startup ecosystem. They don't just provide the money; they actively shape companies by selecting founders, facilitating matches between co-founders, and influencing early company culture and governance. With this power comes significant responsibility. But a responsibility that I've come to believe was not adequately fulfilled in our case.

Antler Vietnam's role in this story began in late 2022, when Hai Ho and I were admitted to their VN3 program. We entered with my Sand Battery concept already in development, as documented in my previous posts. It was during the initial session of this program that we were matched with Nam Nguyen, forming what would become the Alternō team.

What I didn't know then — but have strong reasons to believe now — is that Antler may have possessed critical information that was never shared with me. Information about backgrounds, potential conflicts of interest, and perhaps even early warning signs that could have prevented the painful journey that followed, see it as being a responsible "match-maker" if you will.

Fundamental Gaps in Founder Preparation

As a veteran entrepreneur who had built and run multiple companies before joining Antler's program (11 to be exact), I noticed concerning gaps in their founder preparation process. Most notably, there was a complete absence of training or guidance on cashflow management especially in the zero-to-one phase.

I raised this issue directly with Antler Vietnam on at least two separate occasions. Once in a face-to-face conversation in a regular catch-up, and again through their formal feedback form. My concern was straightforward: how could first-time founders be expected to responsibly manage the investment they received without proper financial guidance?

The response was either indifference or dismissal was the essence of their reply. At the time, I was focused on building the technology and team, so I didn't press the issue further, didn't affect me either way. In retrospect, this oversight seems less like an innocent omission and more like a systemic flaw with predictable consequences.

Without proper training on cashflow management and financial accountability, what happens? Exactly what we've seen play out across multiple Antler VN batches, including our own: founders taking salaries without delivering proportionate value, burning through capital without appropriate governance, and in some cases, essentially "taking the money and running" after a few months.

This pattern raises uncomfortable questions: Was this lack of financial training merely an oversight? Or was it a convenient gap that allowed for less accountability in how founders used their investments? Either way, the result is the same: a disservice to the startups, the investors, and the broader ecosystem.

The Vietnamese startup community whispers 💬

I'm not alone in questioning Antler Vietnam's role in this situation. Since sharing my story, I've received numerous messages from fellow entrepreneurs and ecosystem members expressing similar concerns about Antler's practices. The feedback has been troublingly consistent:

‣ "They're not known for matching the right people together."
‣ "Their management team lacks real-world experience and shows concerning biases."
‣ "They prioritize quick wins over sustainable founder relationships."

Some have even shared experiences of cultural insensitivity and favoritism within the program that created toxic team dynamics from the start.

I've hesitated to share these perspectives publicly, as I believe in focusing on facts rather than hearsay. However, when the same patterns emerge from multiple independent sources, they become impossible to ignore. These aren't isolated incidents but potential indicators of systemic issues that deserve examination.

The Deafening Silence 🤫

Perhaps most telling has been Antler Vietnam's & Antler global team complete silence throughout this entire ordeal. As the entity that brought the founding team together, that held equity in the venture, and that presumably had ongoing relationships with all parties involved, one might expect them to play some role in addressing or mediating the situation.

Instead, there has been nothing. No acknowledgment of the issues raised. No attempt to facilitate resolution. No public statement on governance concerns that should be relevant to all their portfolio companies.

There is an interesting event happened between Antler Vietnam team and Alterno Vietnam management team (minus me) on the 10th July, 2024. While I can't reveal what really happened but what I can say is I only knew about the existence of this important meeting when I asked Antler Vietnam team in-person at Sentry office, almost 2 months later. This is after my busy wedding 22nd July and the AGM fiasco on 8th August. Someone just "forgot" to mention it, seems legit.

This silence raises profound questions: What did Antler Vietnam team know, and when did they know it? Were they aware of the USPTO patent approval before I was? Did they have knowledge of the communications being sent from my terminated email account? Were they informed of the decisions that led to my abrupt removal?

Most importantly: If they were aware of these actions, why did they choose to remain silent? And if they weren't aware, what does that say about their oversight of their portfolio companies and protection of all founders' interests?

Hard Evidence Emerged 🕵🏻‍♀️

My questions aren't merely speculative. Over time, I've gathered concerning evidence of unethical and potentially illegal activities:

• Documents exchanged in private groups that reveal coordinated actions against my interests.
• Materials that impersonate me and contain insulting characterizations.
• Communications that demonstrate knowledge of events that were deliberately kept from me.
• Antler continue to promote the incoming investment despite knowing the pending legal issues.
• Alterno Vietnam refused to show up in court on 15/04/2025.

These materials paint a troubling picture of behind-the-scenes manipulation that no founder should experience, especially in a program designed to support entrepreneurial success.

On top of that how would the team's long-term image be if the leadership team is behaving unethically this way. Forcing my hands to reveal these materials publicly. Things could have been easier if they play by the law at the very least.

Why Speak Now?

Some might question why I continue to share these experiences publicly. The answer is simple: because too few dare to speak up. The startup ecosystem thrives on positive narratives and success stories. Founders who experience ethical breaches or governance failures often stay silent, fearing reputation damage or legal repercussions.

This silence enables bad actors and prevents necessary improvements to the ecosystem. Someone needs to speak truth to power, even when it's uncomfortable. If my experience can help other founders avoid similar situations or encourage accelerators and venture builders to strengthen their ethical frameworks, then sharing it serves a purpose beyond my personal vindication.

If you have not heard about the eFishery fiasco, you should probably check it out too. What I'm baffled about: isn't it common sense (and responsibility) of Accelerators and Venture Builders to create environments where expertise is respected, where proper governance is established, and where all founders are protected from unethical practices.

The Path Forward 🫡

I remain committed to pursuing proper legal channels to address these issues. The legal system moves slowly, requiring patience and diligence. I'm prepared for this journey, however long it takes. I do need support from time to time from community since this is much bigger than myself and not a one-time thing.

In the meantime, I continue to focus on innovation and building new ventures that reflect my values of transparency, ethical leadership, and genuine innovation (check out I.C.E Battery saga 🧊). The Sand Battery technology remains a breakthrough with tremendous potential for sustainable energy solutions, regardless of the corporate challenges surrounding it.

To the broader startup community: I encourage you to demand higher standards from all ecosystem players, including accelerators and venture builders. Ask tough questions about governance structures, founder protections, and conflict resolution mechanisms before entering programs. Your diligence today may prevent painful situations tomorrow.

And to those who have shared their own experiences and supported my journey: thank you!

While innovation may be technical, entrepreneurship is fundamentally human; with all the complexity, challenges, and ultimately, hope that entails.

You are not reading a freaking science fiction novel, these are my life stories with evidences admissible in court. FML 🙃

Should the Sand Battery saga continues ...? Leave your comments, show some support ;)