Insight
Bolt: - Tenders hand the keys to those who lobby hardest
Aug 27, 2025
VP Dmitri Pivovarov pushes hard against the narrative that shared e-scooters require tenders, saying permits and competition is better suited to solve issues in cities around parking and safety.
Rethinking regulation of Micromobility: rules, not tenders
Lars Christian Grødem-Olsen (LCGO): Cities seem to increasingly favour tenders. Why do you push back?
DP: "Tenders hand the keys to the operators who can lobby hardest. We believe that cities really want good parking and low accident rates, not a beauty contest. We therefore argue that cities should regulate behaviour, not pick winners."
He traces the problem back when operators flooded streets with vehicles to grab market share. Big, well-funded operators themselves began lobbying for tenders that limited the amount of suppliers because they couldn’t otherwise compete with cost-efficient smaller operators.
LCGO: So how should a city solve issues without hindering competition?
DP: "Set open licences, then cap the number of vehicles for each zone, as needed. Limit the number of scooters in dense central areas, not how many operators can provide the service in the whole city. New entrants can ask for the fleet cap increase, but they need to prove that they can drive demand first."
His favourite example is Washington DC, where every new entrant starts with a small fleet and can add units only after meeting utilisation targets. “You have to show riders actually use the vehicles before you scale,” he says.
LCGO: What do you think of fleet caps, such as in Oslo?
Pivovarov agrees caps can be useful, but only when they are hyper‑local like in Oslo or Bergen. City‑wide quotas push every operator to dump scooters downtown and ignore outlying districts, whereas zone caps flip the incentive. “Once a hotspot is full, the only way to grow is to go to the outer areas,” he says. Tallinn illustrates the point: with no city‑wide limit, Bolt has expanded service to suburbs 15 kilometres from the centre because demand data justified it.
DP: "Users will not download fifteen apps. Operators with weak end user value proposition will exit naturally; clutter is solved by area caps, not by killing competition."
The open‑licence approach, in his opinion, ensures that residents in low‑density neighbourhoods still get vehicles, while downtown sidewalks are kept clear.
Stockholm, by contrast, shows what he calls the downside of quota politics.
The city issued different fleet caps based solely on how many scooters each operator requested. “They didn’t look at utilisation at all, which is an important factor.” Pivovarov argues. In addition, the current approach doesn’t offer a mechanism for adjusting caps over time, so there is no way to adapt services as demand evolves,” says Pivovarov.
Additionally, there were challenges with how the permits were allocated.
DP: "In Stockholm, we raised concerns that the recent allocation of scooter permits has not followed consistent criteria across operators. As a company committed to long-term investment and innovation in micromobility, we see fair competition as essential.
Our decision to involve the Swedish Competition Authority reflects our broader commitment to ensuring that regulatory frameworks support open markets and create equal opportunities for all qualified providers. We remain fully committed to working with cities in a constructive, collaborative way to build sustainable transport systems."
The EBITDA Clash
Dmitri has been known on LinkedIn for criticizing other operators touting their EBITDA profitability achievements, often causing quite a stir.
LCGO: What’s your take on profitability metrics such as EBITDA or adjusted EBIT, now that operators are extending their depreciation? I’ve heard of several depreciating their vehicles over 6+ years, before knowing their newly acquired vehicles last commercially that long in the streets.
DP: "I’ve just found that EBITDA is not a very relevant metric to tout as an achievement in an asset-heavy business. CAPEX (investment in vehicles) is a significant part of your cost structure and has to be renewed constantly. Positive EBITDA means nothing if it’s not sufficient to sustain or grow the fleet. EBIT, on the other hand, is supposed to show that you have a sustainable business, and that's the metric everyone should be targeting."
"On adjusted EBIT, it’s down to each operator's internal accounting principle. You can easily improve your EBIT, by extending the lifespan and depreciation of the vehicles."
Why Bolt is all-in on Micromobility
Bolt already offers ride‑hailing in more than 45 countries and shared scooters in 29.
DP: "Our vision is to give people every transport option they need in a single place. If almost any trip – taxi, scooter, or car share – can be done in one app, the private car stops looking so attractive."
LCGO: Where do you see the best user acquisition in the different modes? Isn't that where Micromobility really shines?
DP: "We see that micromobility is a powerful entry point for the different modes of shared mobility we offer in the Bolt app. It offers a frictionless onboarding experience: it’s accessible, reliable, affordable and doesn’t require a driver’s license. For first-time customers, scooters and e-bikes can often be the first touchpoint with Bolt. We also know that getting more people to use scooters as part of their local transport mix is key to realising the long-term positive economic, social and environmental impact of shared mobility."
"Still, it depends on the use case. For example, ride-hailing provides a convenient and accessible way to move around a city, and we see most of our customers using this mode for distances up to 13 km. We also know that every fourth Bolt ride globally is shorter than 3 km, so our customers turn to scooters for distances that are less than 4km and e-bikes for trips above 4km."
Rethinking regulation of Micromobility: rules, not tenders
Lars Christian Grødem-Olsen (LCGO): Cities seem to increasingly favour tenders. Why do you push back?
DP: "Tenders hand the keys to the operators who can lobby hardest. We believe that cities really want good parking and low accident rates, not a beauty contest. We therefore argue that cities should regulate behaviour, not pick winners."
He traces the problem back when operators flooded streets with vehicles to grab market share. Big, well-funded operators themselves began lobbying for tenders that limited the amount of suppliers because they couldn’t otherwise compete with cost-efficient smaller operators.
LCGO: So how should a city solve issues without hindering competition?
DP: "Set open licences, then cap the number of vehicles for each zone, as needed. Limit the number of scooters in dense central areas, not how many operators can provide the service in the whole city. New entrants can ask for the fleet cap increase, but they need to prove that they can drive demand first."
His favourite example is Washington DC, where every new entrant starts with a small fleet and can add units only after meeting utilisation targets. “You have to show riders actually use the vehicles before you scale,” he says.
LCGO: What do you think of fleet caps, such as in Oslo?
Pivovarov agrees caps can be useful, but only when they are hyper‑local like in Oslo or Bergen. City‑wide quotas push every operator to dump scooters downtown and ignore outlying districts, whereas zone caps flip the incentive. “Once a hotspot is full, the only way to grow is to go to the outer areas,” he says. Tallinn illustrates the point: with no city‑wide limit, Bolt has expanded service to suburbs 15 kilometres from the centre because demand data justified it.
DP: "Users will not download fifteen apps. Operators with weak end user value proposition will exit naturally; clutter is solved by area caps, not by killing competition."
The open‑licence approach, in his opinion, ensures that residents in low‑density neighbourhoods still get vehicles, while downtown sidewalks are kept clear.
Stockholm, by contrast, shows what he calls the downside of quota politics.
The city issued different fleet caps based solely on how many scooters each operator requested. “They didn’t look at utilisation at all, which is an important factor.” Pivovarov argues. In addition, the current approach doesn’t offer a mechanism for adjusting caps over time, so there is no way to adapt services as demand evolves,” says Pivovarov.
Additionally, there were challenges with how the permits were allocated.
DP: "In Stockholm, we raised concerns that the recent allocation of scooter permits has not followed consistent criteria across operators. As a company committed to long-term investment and innovation in micromobility, we see fair competition as essential.
Our decision to involve the Swedish Competition Authority reflects our broader commitment to ensuring that regulatory frameworks support open markets and create equal opportunities for all qualified providers. We remain fully committed to working with cities in a constructive, collaborative way to build sustainable transport systems."
The EBITDA Clash
Dmitri has been known on LinkedIn for criticizing other operators touting their EBITDA profitability achievements, often causing quite a stir.
LCGO: What’s your take on profitability metrics such as EBITDA or adjusted EBIT, now that operators are extending their depreciation? I’ve heard of several depreciating their vehicles over 6+ years, before knowing their newly acquired vehicles last commercially that long in the streets.
DP: "I’ve just found that EBITDA is not a very relevant metric to tout as an achievement in an asset-heavy business. CAPEX (investment in vehicles) is a significant part of your cost structure and has to be renewed constantly. Positive EBITDA means nothing if it’s not sufficient to sustain or grow the fleet. EBIT, on the other hand, is supposed to show that you have a sustainable business, and that's the metric everyone should be targeting."
"On adjusted EBIT, it’s down to each operator's internal accounting principle. You can easily improve your EBIT, by extending the lifespan and depreciation of the vehicles."
Why Bolt is all-in on Micromobility
Bolt already offers ride‑hailing in more than 45 countries and shared scooters in 29.
DP: "Our vision is to give people every transport option they need in a single place. If almost any trip – taxi, scooter, or car share – can be done in one app, the private car stops looking so attractive."
LCGO: Where do you see the best user acquisition in the different modes? Isn't that where Micromobility really shines?
DP: "We see that micromobility is a powerful entry point for the different modes of shared mobility we offer in the Bolt app. It offers a frictionless onboarding experience: it’s accessible, reliable, affordable and doesn’t require a driver’s license. For first-time customers, scooters and e-bikes can often be the first touchpoint with Bolt. We also know that getting more people to use scooters as part of their local transport mix is key to realising the long-term positive economic, social and environmental impact of shared mobility."
"Still, it depends on the use case. For example, ride-hailing provides a convenient and accessible way to move around a city, and we see most of our customers using this mode for distances up to 13 km. We also know that every fourth Bolt ride globally is shorter than 3 km, so our customers turn to scooters for distances that are less than 4km and e-bikes for trips above 4km."
Rethinking regulation of Micromobility: rules, not tenders
Lars Christian Grødem-Olsen (LCGO): Cities seem to increasingly favour tenders. Why do you push back?
DP: "Tenders hand the keys to the operators who can lobby hardest. We believe that cities really want good parking and low accident rates, not a beauty contest. We therefore argue that cities should regulate behaviour, not pick winners."
He traces the problem back when operators flooded streets with vehicles to grab market share. Big, well-funded operators themselves began lobbying for tenders that limited the amount of suppliers because they couldn’t otherwise compete with cost-efficient smaller operators.
LCGO: So how should a city solve issues without hindering competition?
DP: "Set open licences, then cap the number of vehicles for each zone, as needed. Limit the number of scooters in dense central areas, not how many operators can provide the service in the whole city. New entrants can ask for the fleet cap increase, but they need to prove that they can drive demand first."
His favourite example is Washington DC, where every new entrant starts with a small fleet and can add units only after meeting utilisation targets. “You have to show riders actually use the vehicles before you scale,” he says.
LCGO: What do you think of fleet caps, such as in Oslo?
Pivovarov agrees caps can be useful, but only when they are hyper‑local like in Oslo or Bergen. City‑wide quotas push every operator to dump scooters downtown and ignore outlying districts, whereas zone caps flip the incentive. “Once a hotspot is full, the only way to grow is to go to the outer areas,” he says. Tallinn illustrates the point: with no city‑wide limit, Bolt has expanded service to suburbs 15 kilometres from the centre because demand data justified it.
DP: "Users will not download fifteen apps. Operators with weak end user value proposition will exit naturally; clutter is solved by area caps, not by killing competition."
The open‑licence approach, in his opinion, ensures that residents in low‑density neighbourhoods still get vehicles, while downtown sidewalks are kept clear.
Stockholm, by contrast, shows what he calls the downside of quota politics.
The city issued different fleet caps based solely on how many scooters each operator requested. “They didn’t look at utilisation at all, which is an important factor.” Pivovarov argues. In addition, the current approach doesn’t offer a mechanism for adjusting caps over time, so there is no way to adapt services as demand evolves,” says Pivovarov.
Additionally, there were challenges with how the permits were allocated.
DP: "In Stockholm, we raised concerns that the recent allocation of scooter permits has not followed consistent criteria across operators. As a company committed to long-term investment and innovation in micromobility, we see fair competition as essential.
Our decision to involve the Swedish Competition Authority reflects our broader commitment to ensuring that regulatory frameworks support open markets and create equal opportunities for all qualified providers. We remain fully committed to working with cities in a constructive, collaborative way to build sustainable transport systems."
The EBITDA Clash
Dmitri has been known on LinkedIn for criticizing other operators touting their EBITDA profitability achievements, often causing quite a stir.
LCGO: What’s your take on profitability metrics such as EBITDA or adjusted EBIT, now that operators are extending their depreciation? I’ve heard of several depreciating their vehicles over 6+ years, before knowing their newly acquired vehicles last commercially that long in the streets.
DP: "I’ve just found that EBITDA is not a very relevant metric to tout as an achievement in an asset-heavy business. CAPEX (investment in vehicles) is a significant part of your cost structure and has to be renewed constantly. Positive EBITDA means nothing if it’s not sufficient to sustain or grow the fleet. EBIT, on the other hand, is supposed to show that you have a sustainable business, and that's the metric everyone should be targeting."
"On adjusted EBIT, it’s down to each operator's internal accounting principle. You can easily improve your EBIT, by extending the lifespan and depreciation of the vehicles."
Why Bolt is all-in on Micromobility
Bolt already offers ride‑hailing in more than 45 countries and shared scooters in 29.
DP: "Our vision is to give people every transport option they need in a single place. If almost any trip – taxi, scooter, or car share – can be done in one app, the private car stops looking so attractive."
LCGO: Where do you see the best user acquisition in the different modes? Isn't that where Micromobility really shines?
DP: "We see that micromobility is a powerful entry point for the different modes of shared mobility we offer in the Bolt app. It offers a frictionless onboarding experience: it’s accessible, reliable, affordable and doesn’t require a driver’s license. For first-time customers, scooters and e-bikes can often be the first touchpoint with Bolt. We also know that getting more people to use scooters as part of their local transport mix is key to realising the long-term positive economic, social and environmental impact of shared mobility."
"Still, it depends on the use case. For example, ride-hailing provides a convenient and accessible way to move around a city, and we see most of our customers using this mode for distances up to 13 km. We also know that every fourth Bolt ride globally is shorter than 3 km, so our customers turn to scooters for distances that are less than 4km and e-bikes for trips above 4km."
Rethinking regulation of Micromobility: rules, not tenders
Lars Christian Grødem-Olsen (LCGO): Cities seem to increasingly favour tenders. Why do you push back?
DP: "Tenders hand the keys to the operators who can lobby hardest. We believe that cities really want good parking and low accident rates, not a beauty contest. We therefore argue that cities should regulate behaviour, not pick winners."
He traces the problem back when operators flooded streets with vehicles to grab market share. Big, well-funded operators themselves began lobbying for tenders that limited the amount of suppliers because they couldn’t otherwise compete with cost-efficient smaller operators.
LCGO: So how should a city solve issues without hindering competition?
DP: "Set open licences, then cap the number of vehicles for each zone, as needed. Limit the number of scooters in dense central areas, not how many operators can provide the service in the whole city. New entrants can ask for the fleet cap increase, but they need to prove that they can drive demand first."
His favourite example is Washington DC, where every new entrant starts with a small fleet and can add units only after meeting utilisation targets. “You have to show riders actually use the vehicles before you scale,” he says.
LCGO: What do you think of fleet caps, such as in Oslo?
Pivovarov agrees caps can be useful, but only when they are hyper‑local like in Oslo or Bergen. City‑wide quotas push every operator to dump scooters downtown and ignore outlying districts, whereas zone caps flip the incentive. “Once a hotspot is full, the only way to grow is to go to the outer areas,” he says. Tallinn illustrates the point: with no city‑wide limit, Bolt has expanded service to suburbs 15 kilometres from the centre because demand data justified it.
DP: "Users will not download fifteen apps. Operators with weak end user value proposition will exit naturally; clutter is solved by area caps, not by killing competition."
The open‑licence approach, in his opinion, ensures that residents in low‑density neighbourhoods still get vehicles, while downtown sidewalks are kept clear.
Stockholm, by contrast, shows what he calls the downside of quota politics.
The city issued different fleet caps based solely on how many scooters each operator requested. “They didn’t look at utilisation at all, which is an important factor.” Pivovarov argues. In addition, the current approach doesn’t offer a mechanism for adjusting caps over time, so there is no way to adapt services as demand evolves,” says Pivovarov.
Additionally, there were challenges with how the permits were allocated.
DP: "In Stockholm, we raised concerns that the recent allocation of scooter permits has not followed consistent criteria across operators. As a company committed to long-term investment and innovation in micromobility, we see fair competition as essential.
Our decision to involve the Swedish Competition Authority reflects our broader commitment to ensuring that regulatory frameworks support open markets and create equal opportunities for all qualified providers. We remain fully committed to working with cities in a constructive, collaborative way to build sustainable transport systems."
The EBITDA Clash
Dmitri has been known on LinkedIn for criticizing other operators touting their EBITDA profitability achievements, often causing quite a stir.
LCGO: What’s your take on profitability metrics such as EBITDA or adjusted EBIT, now that operators are extending their depreciation? I’ve heard of several depreciating their vehicles over 6+ years, before knowing their newly acquired vehicles last commercially that long in the streets.
DP: "I’ve just found that EBITDA is not a very relevant metric to tout as an achievement in an asset-heavy business. CAPEX (investment in vehicles) is a significant part of your cost structure and has to be renewed constantly. Positive EBITDA means nothing if it’s not sufficient to sustain or grow the fleet. EBIT, on the other hand, is supposed to show that you have a sustainable business, and that's the metric everyone should be targeting."
"On adjusted EBIT, it’s down to each operator's internal accounting principle. You can easily improve your EBIT, by extending the lifespan and depreciation of the vehicles."
Why Bolt is all-in on Micromobility
Bolt already offers ride‑hailing in more than 45 countries and shared scooters in 29.
DP: "Our vision is to give people every transport option they need in a single place. If almost any trip – taxi, scooter, or car share – can be done in one app, the private car stops looking so attractive."
LCGO: Where do you see the best user acquisition in the different modes? Isn't that where Micromobility really shines?
DP: "We see that micromobility is a powerful entry point for the different modes of shared mobility we offer in the Bolt app. It offers a frictionless onboarding experience: it’s accessible, reliable, affordable and doesn’t require a driver’s license. For first-time customers, scooters and e-bikes can often be the first touchpoint with Bolt. We also know that getting more people to use scooters as part of their local transport mix is key to realising the long-term positive economic, social and environmental impact of shared mobility."
"Still, it depends on the use case. For example, ride-hailing provides a convenient and accessible way to move around a city, and we see most of our customers using this mode for distances up to 13 km. We also know that every fourth Bolt ride globally is shorter than 3 km, so our customers turn to scooters for distances that are less than 4km and e-bikes for trips above 4km."
