Future technologies do not always get stuck because the ideas are weak or the market is not ready. Sometimes, they get stuck because the rules were written for a different reality.

That was the central theme of Thinking in Billions, Latitude59’s official opening event, where policymakers, founders, investors and international experts explored how innovation can reach the market when regulation has not yet caught up. From Japan’s regulatory sandbox experience and Estonia’s own experimentation framework to examples from mobility, healthcare, food and aviation, the day focused on one practical question: how can governments and companies test new solutions safely without letting outdated rules block progress?

The discussions showed that future technologies need more than ambition and capital. They also need public-sector openness, controlled experimentation and legal frameworks that can learn from real-world data. Regulation does not have to be the end of innovation. If designed well, it can become the bridge from legal uncertainty to scalable impact.

Turning regulatory barriers into testbeds

Takeshi Kito from GFTN Japan opened the day with a keynote on Japan’s Regulatory Sandbox Program, launched in 2018. His message was simple: innovation does not always fail because the technology is not ready. Sometimes, the rules are not ready.

Japan’s sandbox approach has created controlled spaces for testing new technologies and business models that existing rules do not yet fully support. Kito brought examples from areas such as drone operations and telemedicine, where real-world testing has helped generate evidence for better regulation. In this sense, a sandbox is not just a space for experimentation. It is a way to move promising ideas closer to legal, scalable services.

Estonia wants to make regulation easier to navigate

Building on Japan’s experience, Sigrid Rajalo from Estonia’s Ministry of Economic Affairs introduced Estonia’s own approach to regulatory experimentation. The aim is not only to help companies understand existing rules, but to create a structured way to test solutions when the rules themselves may need to change.

Estonia’s planned framework would offer companies one access point, guidance across different regulators, agreed testing conditions and a way to turn experiments into practical data for policymaking. For founders, this could make the public sector easier to navigate, especially when a new product touches several regulatory areas at once.

Rajalo also pointed out one of the biggest challenges: it is difficult to design legal exemptions for technologies that are still emerging. Estonia’s answer is a step-by-step model that combines general principles, sector-specific rules and individual agreements between companies and regulators. The ambition is to remove unnecessary barriers while keeping safety and trust intact.

A sandbox is not only for startups

In the fireside chat with Takeshi Kito, Sigrid Rajalo and moderator Olari Püvi from Accelerate Estonia, one important point stood out: regulatory sandboxes are not only useful for companies. They are also useful for regulators.

Public institutions are not usually trying to hold innovation back. Their job is to keep systems safe, predictable and fair. But when new technologies arrive, existing rules can become too rigid. Sandboxes give regulators a safer way to engage with innovation, understand risks and learn from real-world evidence before changing the rules.

For Estonia, this could also become a competitive advantage. If the framework works as intended, the country could become a more attractive testbed for companies from Estonia and abroad: a place where innovators can work through regulatory barriers in a structured way and where experiments feed into smarter policymaking.

From food delivery to pharmacy access

The panel with Triin Toimetaja from Bolt and Irina Kuzina from Wolt, moderated by Tarmo Virki from Fomo.Observer, brought the topic into everyday life. For platform companies, entering more regulated areas – such as over-the-counter medicine delivery – is not only about finding the next growth vertical. It is also about responding to real accessibility needs.

If people can already order groceries, pet supplies and dinner to their door, the question becomes why basic medicines should remain harder to access, especially for people who are sick, older, living alone or caring for children at home.

At the same time, the speakers made it clear that healthcare-related services cannot be treated like any other platform expansion. Trust, compliance and safeguards matter. Innovation in regulated markets depends on early cooperation with regulators, pharmacists and public-sector partners – and on proving that new services can be built responsibly.

Why Canada is looking to Estonia for digital inspiration

Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand added an international perspective to the day. In her keynote, she described innovation as a core part of foreign policy: a way for countries to build partnerships, strengthen resilience and adapt to a changing world.

Estonia featured strongly in that vision. Anand highlighted Estonia’s reputation as a digital nation and pointed to its experience in digital government as something Canada and others can learn from. She also underlined the human bridge between the two countries, including the Estonian community in Canada and the upcoming KESKUS International Estonian Centre in Toronto.

Her message connected regulation and innovation to a broader geopolitical reality. In a world shaped by security concerns, shifting trade relationships and rapid technological change, countries need trusted partners. Cooperation in AI, cybersecurity, startups and digital governance is becoming part of that strategic foundation.

Why some founders choose the harder market

One of the day’s most interesting discussions brought together Leo Ringer from Form Ventures, Julian Glaab from Bliq.ai and Doron Appelboim from Aerolane, moderated by Ben Brabyn from Amitypath. The panel explored why some founders deliberately choose markets where regulation is complex or unclear.

For companies building in autonomous mobility or aviation, regulation is not a side issue. It affects where they launch, how fast they can move, how much capital they need and whether they can survive long enough to reach the market.

Bliq.ai saw Estonia as a practical route into European autonomous driving: a place where the company could work with regulators, test on public roads and build evidence in a real environment. Aerolane, meanwhile, is working in aviation, where the regulatory path is demanding but the potential impact is significant: reducing fuel use and emissions in a sector where efficiency matters enormously.

From the investor side, Ringer noted that regulatory complexity often makes generalist investors walk away too early. For investors who understand policy, that can create an opportunity. If a startup can navigate the regulatory journey, the approvals, evidence, relationships and trust built along the way can become a real competitive advantage.

The panel closed with practical advice for founders considering such markets:

• Start moving, but go in with your eyes open. 
• Understand what the regulatory journey will require, build it into your funding story and do not pretend that approval will somehow take care of itself. 
• Most importantly, make sure the problem is worth the fight. Regulation is hard enough that it should be reserved for ideas that are not just technologically interesting, but genuinely needed.

Innovation needs safety nets for officials too

The final panel with Takeshi Kito, Tõnis Tänav from Estonia’s Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture, Sandor Liive from Gridio and moderator Mikk Vahtrus from the Ministry of Economic Affairs turned the question back towards the public sector.

If companies need room to test, what do public servants need in order to allow experimentation? Public officials are expected to protect safety, legality and trust. They are rarely rewarded for taking risks, but they can be heavily criticised if something goes wrong. That makes experimentation difficult by design.

Tänav shared an example from novel food tastings, where the first reaction was caution because food safety rules exist for a reason. Through dialogue with companies, however, the ministry found a narrower and safer path: controlled tastings, specific conditions, volunteers and close communication with innovators.

The broader lesson was that public-sector risk can be managed, but not ignored. Officials need leadership, political backing, flexible legal tools and enough evidence to justify why experimentation is in the public interest. Companies, in turn, need to understand the public-sector logic and bring credible evidence to the table.

In regulated markets, innovation moves forward when both sides can share the risk – and when “no” becomes the beginning of a discussion, not the end of one.