"We chose healthtech because it combines a significant business opportunity with the possibility of meaningful impact."
Latin America has produced globally relevant technology companies, but the institutions that prepare founders for institutional capital remain uneven. In Argentina, Javier Cuesta argues, the bottleneck is not talent or ideas. It is the difficult economics of running a high-quality accelerator in a market with limited local liquidity and inconsistent public support.
Koi Ventures was built around that constraint. The Buenos Aires-based platform combines technology development with acceleration, angel education, and investment. It has accelerated more than 50 startups and, after operating with a broader impact mandate, has narrowed its focus toward healthtech. Koi is now raising a venture capital fund to back pre-seed and seed healthtech companies across Latin America.
Startup Researcher spoke with Cuesta, Operating Partner at Koi Ventures, about why standalone accelerators struggle, what universities and government can do, how Argentina's volatility creates both obstacles and capital-efficiency advantages, and why he believes healthtech could follow fintech as the region's next major venture wave.
Building an accelerator that can survive
Koi combines a technology business, acceleration, investor education, and venture investment. Why not operate as a focused standalone accelerator?
Being an accelerator in Latin America is not easy because generating revenue and liquidity from the model is very difficult. I believe that is one of the main reasons there are so few active accelerators in the region. You can do valuable work with founders for years, but the accelerator itself still needs resources to maintain the team and network.
Koi was built with two main operating engines. One is the technology business, which develops products for large corporations and startups. The other is the acceleration and investment activity in which I am more involved. The technology side has a greater ability to generate recurring revenue, and that helps the broader group keep operating. We also run courses for prospective angel investors because the ecosystem needs more people who understand how to invest at the earliest stages.
Koi initially accelerated impact-driven startups across sectors. Why did healthtech specialization improve the model?
The most valuable asset an accelerator can bring is its network. Advice on product, commercial strategy, and fundraising matters, but founders also need access to potential customers, sector experts, and investors. We realized we could not build equally deep and credible networks across many verticals at the same time.
Once we concentrated on healthtech, we could build a stronger community around the startups. Founders were more interested because the network was relevant to their market, and investors and industry stakeholders were more interested because the deal flow was easier to understand. We found better product-market fit as an accelerator.
We chose healthtech because it combines a significant business opportunity with the possibility of meaningful impact. Healthcare across Latin America is still far behind other industries in technology adoption, particularly in Spanish-speaking markets. Brazil has a more developed healthtech ecosystem, but across the region there are still very few active accelerators and specialist investors in the sector.
Keeping acceleration and investment separate
Koi is raising a healthtech fund. Will companies that complete the accelerator automatically receive investment?
No. The fund will be separate from the accelerator. The strongest graduates can become a source of deal flow, and we would like to invest when one is performing well and fits the thesis, but this is not a Y Combinator model in which every participant receives a check.
We also see opportunities that have not gone through our program, including companies that are already beyond the acceleration stage. The reverse is also true: a company can graduate from the accelerator and still not be ready for venture capital. Part of our work is helping founders become investable, but acceleration and investment need different decisions.
The two activities are complementary. The accelerator gives us proximity to founders and the ecosystem; the fund would give us the capital to act when we find a compelling entry point.
What is the fund's investment focus, and which LPs are most aligned with the strategy?
We recently started raising a venture capital fund focused on pre-seed and seed healthtech startups across Latin America.
The most aligned LPs are not simply those looking for generic venture exposure. We are speaking to people who want to improve health outcomes in Latin America, families and businesses connected to the healthcare industry that want proximity to innovation, and family offices entering venture capital. The financial case matters, but so does the ability to understand how the technology can improve people's lives. For strategic LPs, the fund can also create a closer view of the new technologies likely to affect their own industry.
Argentina's missing early-stage layer
How effective is Argentina's incubation and acceleration infrastructure before startups reach institutional investors?
Argentina has a good but relatively small venture ecosystem. ARCAP brings together venture capital firms, seed investors, accelerators, incubators, and other actors, and most of us know one another. There is strong entrepreneurial talent and a culture of resilience, but there are not many local funds and there are even fewer organizations doing high-quality incubation and acceleration.
That early-stage gap is closely connected to the economics of the model. Accelerators often do not have the revenue or liquidity needed to build a strong team and support companies over time. The work can create enormous value for the ecosystem without creating a sustainable business for the organization doing it.
Universities are among the institutions doing the strongest work. Universidad de San Andres, through SparkLab, ITBA, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, and UCA have all helped build that first layer of entrepreneurs. The awareness and quality of university-linked programs can still improve, but they are important sources of founders.
Chile's Start-Up Chile is often cited as a regional model. What has Argentina lacked on the public side?
Public support is currently not a priority in Argentina. In a previous period, a government matching vehicle could invest alongside funds and effectively increase the capital available to startups. But programs like that have not survived political changes. When governments move in different directions, support can disappear from one day to the next.
Chile has been much more consistent. CORFO and Start-Up Chile helped establish a publicly backed accelerator and support system that became a regional reference. The comparison is not that government should choose every winner. It is that continuity allows private actors, founders, and capital providers to build around stable infrastructure. Argentina's ecosystem is largely bootstrapped by its own participants.
Turning volatility into a founder advantage
Argentina's macro environment remains difficult. How can a startup turn volatility into an operating advantage rather than an excuse?
It is hard for everyone to live and operate in an environment that changes constantly. We have had periods in which costs rose dramatically while salaries lost purchasing power. I do not want to minimize that.
At the same time, a venture-backed startup that sells regionally and raises in dollars can be less tied to the domestic cycle than a conventional local business. I do not like macro conditions becoming a blanket excuse for not executing. Argentina should be a place to validate the product, value proposition, and business model, not the only market the company plans to serve. The next step should be expansion into larger markets such as Brazil, Mexico, the United States, or Europe.
The cost base can also create capital efficiency. A relatively small amount of dollars can finance a capable technical team and a longer runway than in many other markets. Founders can build an MVP, test demand, fail quickly, and iterate without the same burn rate. That is one reason Argentina can be an excellent starting point despite the volatility.
Why has that founder advantage not translated into more international capital, and can diaspora investors help close the gap?
Argentina offers strong talent and, in my view, much more attractive entry valuations than comparable companies in the United States. Founders are used to adapting to adverse conditions, and the country has produced a significant number of globally relevant technology companies relative to its size. The model is often to validate locally and then scale into larger markets.
The missing piece is attention. Argentina is geographically distant from many capital centers and is often absent from foreign investment theses. Miami is a natural gateway because of its large Argentine and Latin American community; Silicon Valley and Spain should also be stronger bridges. But the diaspora is still not systematically connected to the local ecosystem.
Guillermo Rauch is a useful example. After building Vercel, he has become an active angel investor in Argentine founders and a bridge into the United States ecosystem. There are other successful Argentines abroad, but too many become disconnected from local opportunities. Building trusted channels for them to invest, mentor, and introduce founders would be valuable.
Why healthtech could follow fintech
Fintech still dominates Latin American venture funding. What makes you believe healthtech could become the next major wave?
Fintech expanded because a huge industry was moving a great deal of money through infrastructure that was far behind technologically. Consumers still relied heavily on cash, banks had outdated systems, and entrepreneurs saw clear opportunities. Venture capital followed that gap.
I see a similar combination in health. It is one of the largest parts of the economy, with major laboratories, pharmacies, clinics, insurers, and healthcare groups. Yet many processes remain manual, fragmented, and inefficient. The industry has capital and urgent problems, but its technology adoption is still limited.
There is also a generational change underway. Many decision-makers came from a period when they were not exposed to startups or modern software. As responsibility moves to a younger, more technology-literate generation, hospitals and other institutions will be more open to tools that reduce costs, improve operations, and change how care is delivered.
The opportunity spans AI tools for clinics and hospitals, mental health, longevity, femtech, and other areas. I am already seeing strong companies emerge, but they are usually funded by generalist venture firms rather than specialist healthtech investors. The lack of dedicated investors does not mean the deal flow is weak; it means the market has not yet organized around the vertical.
How quickly could that shift happen, and what evidence would convince you the thesis is playing out?
It is hard to set an exact timetable because changes in healthcare take time. But I believe the ingredients are already present. If I had to put a window on it, I would say three to five years.
We are already seeing more US$50 million and US$100 million healthtech rounds in the United States and Europe. I expect large rounds to become more common in Latin America as adoption increases and investors pay closer attention. The proof will be stronger founder pipelines, more healthcare institutions adopting startup technology, and more dedicated capital for the sector.
Fintech will remain important. The argument is not that healthtech will replace it. It is that the same ingredients that created the fintech wave, a large industry, outdated infrastructure, changing behavior, and abundant opportunities for efficiency, are becoming visible in health.
The test for Koi Ventures
If we speak again in three years, what would show that Koi's model worked, and what would you want international investors to have done differently?
The main ambition is for Koi to become a reference for healthtech acceleration and investment in Latin America. I cannot currently name a single venture firm that clearly holds that position across the region. We want to help build that category.
Success would not mean only writing checks. Healthtech is regulated and relationship-driven, so founders need access to institutions, commercial partners, and people who understand how the sector works. We want to be smart money that opens those doors and helps attract more capital into markets such as Argentina.
For international investors, the missing piece is often knowledge rather than opportunity. Better research, ecosystem mappings, and repeated cross-border relationships can help identify the people doing credible work in each market. More collaboration between Latin America, Africa, Europe, and the United States would create opportunities that are currently being missed.