Europe is home to some of the world’s most brilliant minds, world-class universities, and a rich history of scientific and technological breakthroughs. The birthplace of modern banking in Italy, the World Wide Web at CERN, and some of the most advanced engineering institutions globally, Europe should—by all logical measures—be a dominant force in the startup world.
I write this, knowing that it sounds critical, and that many might not like the realities of it, but I’m frequently asked why Europeans haven’t launched many unicorns, why the EU doesn’t innovative like the U.S., or why Europe doesn’t have a Silicon Valley, so at the risk of criticism, here’s why.
While European startups have produced global successes like Spotify, Klarna, Revolut, and DeepMind, there is no single European city or region that mirrors the all-encompassing, self-sustaining ecosystem that Silicon Valley has become both in California AND intrinsically intertwined with innovation throughout the world. On the surface of it, one factor is simply that Silicon Valley is an economic region roughly 3 times larger than the Paris metropolitan area, while within that region are 3 major cities. There aren’t many places those circumstances can be replicated other than Brussels – Antwerp – Ghent, Amsterdam – Rotterdam – The Hague, Manchester – Liverpool – Leeds, or perhaps in Germany or Italy, but it was in considering Manchester – Liverpool – Leeds that I started to explore further why it isn’t, since I’ve written about Manchester before and noted how it tries to distinguish itself as Manchester, distinct from Liverpool, rather than how Silicon Valley is, well, Silicon Valley and not San Francisco.
But the real question isn’t whether Europe has the potential to match Silicon Valley—it does. The question is: What structural and economic shifts need to happen to unlock that potential?
The answer lies in understanding the complex interplay between venture capital, economic policy, risk-taking culture, and regulatory frameworks. While Europe has made incredible strides in recent years, addressing a few key challenges could accelerate its rise to the global forefront of entrepreneurship.
1. Europe’s Startup Ecosystems Have Incredible Potential—But Need Greater Specialization
Silicon Valley is not just a collection of startups; it is a highly specialized, deeply interconnected system where talent, capital, and institutions reinforce each other in a specific way. Regional startup ecosystems must embrace distinction, the key to a thriving ecosystem is differentiation; the typical cause of misunderstanding this is thinking that Silicon Valley = tech.
European cities have strong and growing startup scenes, but most position themselves as generalist tech hubs rather than focusing on their unique strengths. By contrast, Silicon Valley has one dominant strength: scaling software-driven technology companies. The U.S. startup ecosystem thrives on industry clustering, where specific cities become the best at a particular niche:
- Boston dominates in biotech because of its proximity to Harvard, MIT, and world-leading research hospitals.
- Austin is known for bootstrapped startups, blending a creative, low-cost environment with deep technical expertise.
- Miami has positioned itself as a fintech and crypto hub, capitalizing on Latin American investment.
Europe’s emerging startup capitals need to double down on their own areas of excellence:
- London: Fintech, AI
- Paris: AI, deep tech
- Berlin: SaaS, mobility
- Stockholm: Music tech, gaming
- Amsterdam: Green energy, logistics
- Estonia: Digital identity, e-governance
Academic research supports this clustering approach. According to Harvard’s Michael Porter’s The Competitive Advantage of Nations, industry specialization leads to higher productivity and stronger economic growth by creating network effects that benefit all players in the ecosystem. If European cities fully embrace specialization, they can attract the best talent, investors, and policymakers to support the development of dominant global companies.
2. European Investors Are Increasingly Active — But Need to Embrace Higher Risk (and discourage EU funding)
Europe’s venture capital market is growing rapidly. According to Atomico’s 2023 State of European Tech Report, the continent saw $91 billion in VC funding in 2021 — nearly double the $50 billion invested in 2020. However, there’s a catch: European investors are significantly more conservative than their U.S. counterparts.
The most meaningful angel investors understand that startup investing follows a power-law distribution— meaning one massive success can make up for dozens of failed bets – and that identifying wherein that success might be found, means investing what you know, where you have experience, and where you can help. In Silicon Valley, this fuels a high-risk, high-reward investment culture. European investors, however, tend to demand clear paths to revenue early on, making it harder for radical, disruptive startups to secure early-stage funding.
Consider this: The average Series A round in the U.S. in 2023 was $20 million, while in Europe, it was $10 million (PitchBook, 2023). This funding gap limits the ability of European startups to scale as aggressively as their American counterparts.
The good news? This is changing. More European investors are embracing risk, and alternative funding models such as revenue-based financing and European-focused SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) are emerging. If this trend continues, European startups will have greater access to the capital they need to compete on a global scale.
3. Europe’s Economic Development Model Is Evolving Toward a Startup-Friendly Future
Historically, economic policies in Europe have been designed around established industries — finance, manufacturing, and tourism — rather than the fast-moving world of high-growth startups. Successful startup ecosystems require policies tailored to their unique needs.
The European Union has already implemented several promising initiatives:
- The Digital Single Market Initiative is reducing regulatory fragmentation, making it easier for startups to scale across borders.
- France’s “La French Tech” program has created one of the world’s most attractive startup visa programs.
- Estonia’s e-Residency program has made it a global leader in remote entrepreneurship.
Europe doubles down on this problem by failing to recognize address that while a local focus and programs are critical, they need to work universally; Silicon Valley is a distinct place but the United States shares currency, language, and most laws, enabling it to be meaningful throughout. Hiring in France is a legal nightmare, German tax compliance is an obstacle course, and Spain’s labor laws punish companies that try to scale. Compare that to the U.S., where the states actively compete for startups with tax incentives, favorable incorporation laws (see: Delaware), and business-friendly employment policies because you can be in Chicago but raise capital and easily employ people in California.
Simply put, Europe makes it harder, slower, and more expensive to build a company. That’s why ambitious founders looking to scale globally relocate to the U.S. — America is designed to scale companies to hundreds of millions of consumers
Europe can go further and in doing so, it needs to keep in mind our first point about specialization.
Ironically, in the same breath that I criticized the focused economic policies around finance or tourism, I’m going to point out that that’s precisely what it should be doing, the inherent challenge is that it, like many places, treats “tech” as an industry, hoping to foster innovation in every way conceivable. Doing so distinguishes tech from tourism when what specialization in innovation means is tech in tourism.
Develop initiatives that align this way and appreciate the degree to which this is what makes Silicon Valley work so well. Techstars, thriving there, isn’t really ideal to biotech, agtech, advanced manufacturing; it’s built and operated by, experienced in, distinctly what Silicon Valley does best: SaaS, web services, and software – not “tech” but certain kinds of tech.
4. Europe’s Approach to Business is Becoming More Open to Disruption
One of Silicon Valley’s greatest strengths is its culture of creative destruction—the idea that new companies should replace outdated incumbents.
Europe, historically, has been more protective of its legacy industries. However, this is changing:
- Challenger banks like Revolut and N26 are proving fintech startups can succeed despite strong banking regulations.
- Remote-first companies are growing despite strict labor laws in some countries.
- AI and biotech startups are benefiting from new government-backed R&D initiatives.
As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, Europe is poised to become a leader in responsible innovation, balancing technological advancement with ethical considerations.
5. Implement What Actually Makes a Startup Ecosystem Work
Governments across Europe have embraced the idea that startups drive economic growth however the key isn’t just providing grants and building co-working spaces — it’s fostering an environment where founders have the freedom to experiment, take risks, and scale.
The most successful startup ecosystems emerge when governments act as facilitators rather than central planners. That means ensuring access to capital, streamlining regulations, and creating policies that make it easy for entrepreneurs to hire, expand, and pivot without unnecessary barriers.
Silicon Valley wasn’t built by government initiatives (a catalyst to it, yes, but not policy) — it was built by risk-tolerant investors, ambitious founders, and a deeply ingrained culture of experimentation. While government support can be helpful, it can’t replace the organic growth of an ecosystem driven by market forces.
Europe’s approach often results in sterile “startup zones” that lack the dynamic energy and network effects of real startup hubs. You don’t create a Silicon Valley by handing out government grants—you do it by fostering an environment where entrepreneurs can take massive risks without being criticized, ostracized, or out of work due to failure.
Economic Development of Startups Requires Orchestration
Europe has the talent, the capital, and the market size to build the world’s next great startup hub. But to reach build Europe’s Silicon Valley (if you will), it’s important to appreciate that it requires all of these changes, not just one because one without the others will fall short:
- Embrace specialization—each region should focus on what it does best.
- Encourage risk-taking investment—more high-risk, high-reward venture funding is needed.
- Streamline regulations and focus economic policy —making it easier for startups to scale across borders.
- Foster a culture that embraces disruption—allowing startups to challenge incumbents.
For the European Union:
- Harmonize regulations across the continent. A startup in France should be able to expand to Germany, Spain, or Italy without facing vastly different legal and tax structures. A true single market for startups would allow scale similar to the U.S.
- Stop overregulating new industries. Whether it’s AI, fintech, or biotech, the EU needs to allow innovation to thrive rather than introducing stifling regulations before companies even have a chance to scale.
- Encourage capital mobility. European VC funds should be incentivized to invest across borders, rather than being tied to national-level restrictions.
For Individual Countries:
- Specialize. Instead of trying to be “the next Silicon Valley,” European cities should focus on dominating specific industries. Stockholm already excels in music tech (Spotify), Estonia leads in digital identity, and Switzerland thrives in fintech—lean into these strengths.
- Make hiring easier. Reduce labor law complexity and taxation burdens on startups, so companies can scale without excessive legal overhead.
- Foster a culture of risk-taking. Encourage failure as part of the entrepreneurial journey. Too often, European founders are hesitant to launch ambitious projects due to the stigma of failure.
East coast doesn’t have silicon valley either
Ayse, yep, I’ve explored that a lot too
Texas has potential (Austin / San Antonio / Houston)
The Boston area has potential
Both have cultural differences, just as does Europe, that get in the way.
This is really insightful! Great article
Thanks, Paul O’Brien.
Having spent 16 years in Europe and the rest in Silicon Valley as a native Californian, I see opportunities for both regions to strengthen their innovation capabilities.
While America excels at entrepreneurship, we face two key challenges:
1) We need stronger STEM education at all levels
2) The high cost of higher education limits risk-taking potential
Silicon Valley thrives because it attracts global talent – people who arrive with strong technical foundations and the financial freedom to innovate.
Why not create these same conditions for everyone?
Today, regions that combine educational excellence with entrepreneurial opportunity will lead tomorrow’s innovation.
Let’s focus on building these advantages together.
I couldn’t agree more Tim
Trying to replicate Silicon Valley is kind of a fool’s errand. Why? Turn the clock back sixty years. Would you like to live in what is now Silicon Valley? Weather? Not terribly challenging. Pretty? Well, yeah. Mountains? Yup. Beaches? Uh-huh. And before it became the present with all that entails (traffic, off-the-chart housing costs, all that) it was the *future* — it was the place where a postwar generation was going to do something *new* dammit! Of course the vibe has darkened with the specter of a shift in the nature of success, but the allure remains. The US can’t replicate that series of attributes. It’s been done. Pick a nice spot and folks are already there. Future hubs will be different. In fact one of the things we continually ignore is that one of the necessities of a future hub is the opportunity to fail. For things to not go as planned. That garage where the magic happens is not so interesting when it costs ten grand a month. But if the US suffers from “nah, that neat place is already occupied”, in Europe you have to add on the phrase “for many hundreds of years”. So it would have to be a different model from the start.
For sure, future hubs will be different, they need to be, that’s part of my point. Still, there are characteristics of how things work there, that can be replicated, and we can look at why it works the way it does, and guide cities/countries in that direction.
Paul O’Brien precisely! During an interview, Linda Pizzuti and Google’s Eric Schmidt explored this phenomenon
I wonder how much of that culture finds its way into long-established companies shifting to new tech or business plans instead of the creative destruction that takes place in the US? Nokia being a prime example. NOK has been around for over 100 years. It started as a paper mill, moved into rubber and cable, then into electronics. In the 1970s they began building telephone switchgear and radiotelephones, combining them in the 1980s and 90s with cellphones. Anyone hoping to be the next Nokia better be willing to deal with a company that’s got its roots deep and wide. And the fact that most people, once employed by Nokia, probably aren’t going to storm out after a bad day and start their own competing companies either. Compare this to the evolution of the transistor. Invented at Bell Labs, first mass produced at Shockley Semiconductor. Managers at Shockley got tired of dealing with their (allegedly) psychopathic CEO and became “the Traitorous Eight,” getting backing from Sherman Fairchild to start Fairchild semi. A few managers from Fairchild went on to be founders of a little startup called Intel. The big problem with Silicon Valley these days is the institutional momentum is slowing. Once a company has been around for a generation it becomes an institute. Once enough pension and 401(k) mutual funds hold a stock it gets harder and harder to compete, for lots of reasons.
That’s a fantastic observation, and it highlights a fundamental difference between how legacy companies evolve in Europe versus the U.S. Nokia is a perfect example of long-term adaptability, but its evolution happened within the structure of a dominant, deeply rooted institution—whereas Silicon Valley’s success was largely fueled by exodus-driven innovation.
The “Traitorous Eight” story is the perfect contrast. Fairchild Semiconductor didn’t just birth Intel—it catalyzed an entire ecosystem of spinouts that led to AMD, National Semiconductor, and eventually the broader Valley we know today. That culture of leaving to start something better is a key ingredient in the Valley’s ongoing renewal, whereas in Europe, strong incumbents tend to retain talent rather than encourage entrepreneurial offshoots.
The challenge, as you point out, is that even Silicon Valley isn’t immune to institutional inertia. Once companies get big enough to be major 401(k) holdings, risk tolerance drops, bureaucracy grows, and creative destruction slows. The question for Europe is: Can it build a startup ecosystem that embraces disruption while balancing its legacy of deep institutional strength? That might require more than just better startup policies—it might mean a cultural shift toward rewarding entrepreneurial risk inside and outside of large corporations.
Would love to hear your take—do you think corporate spinouts and talent mobility could be the missing piece in Europe’s startup landscape?
In Berlin last year – built a decent product but spent 70% of our time dealing with different regulations in each EU country.
Meanwhile, our US competitor just… scaled. Sometimes having 27 markets isn’t the advantage we think it is.
Eelke Broersma heard the same story, time and time again, in Ireland, Croatia, Belgium, France…
No one in the U.S. ever says they’re struggling to get into New York because of local regulations.
The EU is not a Union like the U.S.
The U.S. is independent states, united, which is similar but the difference is that the EU wants unity of independent countries whereas the U.S. is one country of independent states.
I’d hazard a guess that European startups are better off building for the U.S. from the start, and having accomplished that from a presence in Europe, work out how to break into the other countries there.
Spotify a good example of that??? I’m not sure. They had to make U.S. copyright law work because of all the labels and most pop music here. Then they can tackle the rest of Europe.
I’m looking for an objective, daily, EU news or EU business news podcast. Any help would be appreciated.
Justin T. been looking for a good one in the U.S. for years, so much so that I’ve been begging *good* news-oriented, radio capable, tech and business people to start one with me. The skill required to be able to talk meaningfully on the spot, weekly, let alone daily, is rare.
As someone who travels often to EU, I definitely see the gap there. I know a few people in Bologna, and Milan that have well attended conferences. If anyone wants to make it happen, I’m game, let’s do this!! ?
There was an interesting Freakonomics podcast episode about why America is more innovative than Europe. One of the points was that America is still a Wild West, every-person-for-themselves, and relatively heartless country. The lack of the safety nets that Europe has drives Americans to innovate more. “Necessity is the mother of invention,” as the adage puts it, could maybe changed to an American-style “Struggle and the existential threat of homelessness and poverty are the parents of innovation.”
Keith Goode yes! Great episode. I would push back on “relatively heartless” though. Opinions about solutions vary wildly and where one country is helping some but failing to manifest solutions, another country is manifesting solutions and helping everyone.
Excellent post.
There are several European challenges:
1. Bankruptcy laws are far more unforgiving in Europe. In the US, an entity can declare bankruptcy, wind up, liquidate, and there is no death mark on the founders. Not so in Europe.
2. Silicon Valley conducts its business in English and the number of persons in tech who are native speakers or who have learned English is gigantic compared to the many languages of Europe.
3. The brightest students in Europe desire an American education and to spend their early years in America. This is a huge power shift and flow of energy that cannot be rivaled in Europe.
4. There are old and unsettled rivalries in Europe — no Ukrainian entrepreneur will serve the Russian market for a long time.
5. There are a great number of differences in Europe v both themselves and the US as it relates to tax laws, rgulation, banking, money movement, mergers, anti-trust, and privacy. The EU makes it harder sometimes.
6. Europe still has a fiercely elitist culture. FFS, they still have royal families.
Just one more example of how blessed we are in the US and now with a more accomodating political environment.
JLM
http://www.themusingsofthebigredcar.com
Jeffrey L Minch, are they barriers to innovation, or could they be reframed as advantages?
Bankruptcy – Failure carries a heavier stigma in Europe, but the U.S. approach isn’t perfect either (ask anyone burned by a leveraged buyout). Could Europe evolve policies that de-risk entrepreneurship without incentivizing recklessness?
English – France links to Africa, Spain to Latin America, and Germany to Central and Eastern Europe. I think cultural exceptionalism often keeps these markets inward.
The U.S. Brain Drain – Many of Europe’s brightest minds seek U.S. opportunities, but a growing number are returning (especially in AI, deep tech, and climate tech). What would make Europe more attractive long-term?
Rivalries – Russia’s aggression has fractured regional markets, but Europe has proven its resilience—Ukraine still produces unicorns under wartime conditions. In Croatia last year, I saw the lingering effects of war firsthand.
Complexity – The EU’s push for unity often creates more regulation, not less, making scaling harder.
Elitism and Cultural Hierarchies – European markets remain shaped by legacy gatekeepers. Rather than dismantling old hierarchies, how can Europe build new ones that foster entrepreneurial mobility?
Nice article, thank you.
I remember having spoken with a journalist long time ago, and he explained me how much has been important the presence of external factors such as the presence of an attractive environment and a nice climate, the perfect law, people attitude, presence of big corporations, excitement (which brings people to talk about business during coffee breaks), the absence of similar places, and as you say much more, for the creation of the Sylicon Valley. And that can’t be replicated all over.
What above brought me to assume that it was possible to create a different model to globalize the “Silicon Valley concept” without trying to reproduce it
Roberto Lazzaro completely agree—Silicon Valley isn’t just about startups; it’s a highly specific convergence of factors, many of which can’t simply be replicated elsewhere. The climate, culture, legal framework, and network effects all played a role in making it what it is.
But I love your idea of globalizing the concept rather than trying to copy-paste the model. Instead of chasing an impossible replication, regions should ask: What are our unique conditions, and how can we create a startup ecosystem that thrives within them?
For example, Tel Aviv has built a tech hub shaped by military innovation and cybersecurity expertise. Singapore’s strength lies in its regulatory efficiency and connectivity to Asian markets. Stockholm has leveraged its engineering talent and early digital infrastructure.
So maybe the goal isn’t a second Silicon Valley—but rather a world of specialized, interconnected startup hubs that play to their strengths. What do you think that model could look like in practice?
Policy makers (governments) should be talking to the Tech Founders to understand their pain points if they want the taxes these businesses should make them. If a Tech Founder hits certain milestones make funding easier.
I firmly believe that as China’s bloom fades the next “workshop of the world” will be Eastern Europe. NATO/EU/US will figure out some sort of resolution to Ukrainian war, likely opening up new pipeline routes to get Russian energy flowing again. Ukraine will become a global hub for autonomous vehicles, leveraging their lessons learned fighting a “guerrilla drone” war with COTS equipment.
For decades Eastern Europeans have been migrating westward for opportunities in service industries. Their children were taught in western style schools and have skills necessary to be competitive. I could see where (for example) a child of Polish immigrants, who is fluent in the languages, could easily move back to “the old country” and work at a startup. The EU will benefit greatly from this move, allowing the industry in the west to continue to build big and control the regulatory environment.
I’m basing a lot of this thesis on German unification, where the west came in after the fall of the USSR and found a lot of cheap labor, cheap land and opportunity to expand. The satellite states behind the Iron Curtain certainly have benefited in a similar way, but now I believe they have the infrastructure in place, without the legacy, to aggressively build their own way.
I’ve been exploring the same thought and want to put more time in
You might appreciate my simple take on Estonia: https://paulobrien.substack.com/p/from-socialist-roots-to-a-free-market
Or my more extensive about Croatia: https://paulobrien.substack.com/p/zagreb-plus-istria-the-economic-development
Paris has Station F, world’s biggest startup campus
Here in New Zealand, we don’t want to be the next Silicon Valley, we want to be the next New Zealand. Have you been to the San Francisco Bay Area recently? They may be generating lots of wealth and cool stuff, but it comes at a very high social cost. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. People are used up by Big Tech and then discarded. Social ills abound. And the tech itself is largely self-serving. They can keep it. Europe, you’re amazing, and have been for centuries. Don’t lose that. Focus on being the next Europe, not the next Silicon Valley.
That’s a compelling perspective, and I completely agree—no one should be trying to become Silicon Valley. Every region has its own unique strengths, values, and economic priorities, and the goal should be to develop a model that works for its people, not just chase wealth creation at all costs.
That said, the challenge isn’t rejecting Silicon Valley’s model—it’s learning from it while avoiding its pitfalls. The concentration of wealth, social inequalities, and hyper-competitive work culture in the Bay Area are real issues. But at its core, what Silicon Valley does offer is a system that allows ambitious ideas to scale globally. The question for New Zealand, Europe, or any aspiring startup hub isn’t “Should we copy Silicon Valley?” but rather, “How do we build an innovation ecosystem that supports prosperity, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability?”
New Zealand, for example, has a strong foundation in sustainability, agritech, and biotech. What if it positioned itself as the global hub for regenerative industries? Europe, with its deep cultural heritage and focus on ethical business practices, could lead the way in human-centered AI or privacy-first technology.
The next step isn’t about rejecting what’s worked elsewhere—it’s about deliberately designing a system that creates innovation while reinforcing the social and economic values that matter most. What do you think that could look like in practice for New Zealand? Would love to hear your thoughts!
Maybe an outside look can help us understanding the truth. Europe needs to start to act like one
Forget about “let’s make Europe great again” nonsense lies m*s*nformation is like cancer we need to solve it.
We need more s6curity, cyb6rs6curity, apply the regulations who protect the users, and invest more in us. Yes, it means changing your habits to buy/invest more on things made in Europe over US for example.
In other words, we need sustainable organized solutions guided by science and/or engineering.
We do not need less regulation. We need more regulations organizations like the USA (only the best ones). For example, a new European cyb6rs6curity center in multiple regions or other ones to make Europe more united.
Everyone is important.
Just plant the seeds, they will grow and Nature will clean the air when it gets greener
Tree do not grow to the sky, if you don’t plant you cannot get the fruits in the long run.
You raise some important points, particularly the need for Europe to act as a more unified economic force and invest in itself. A strong, resilient, and self-sustaining European innovation ecosystem requires both strategic regulation and investment in its own industries, talent, and technologies.
However, the key challenge is not just adding more regulation but ensuring that regulation is smart, innovation-friendly, and harmonized across borders. Some of the EU’s regulations—like GDPR—have set global standards, but others have made scaling startups across European countries more complex than expanding in the U.S. The goal should be to create a framework that protects users without stifling innovation, allowing European companies to compete on the global stage.
Your call for investment in cybersecurity, science, and engineering is spot on. Europe already has world-class research institutions and a strong tradition of technological excellence, but the next step is ensuring that European startups can commercialize that innovation at scale. This means:
More capital staying in Europe—encouraging European investors to back local startups so they don’t have to seek U.S. funding (which often relocates talent overseas).
Stronger cross-border collaboration—a cybersecurity center is a great idea, but expanding that to AI, green tech, and deep tech could further strengthen European leadership in key industries.
A balance between regulation and growth—the best regulations are those that make Europe safer and stronger while also ensuring that companies can scale, compete, and lead globally.
Your analogy about planting seeds is powerful. If Europe plants the right seeds—focusing on specialization, smart regulation, and self-sustaining investment—there’s no doubt it can grow into the leading global hub for ethical and sustainable innovation. What specific changes do you think would most effectively help Europe become more unified in its approach?
Paul O’Brien Thank you.
It looks like Europe is starting to wake up. For my understanding now it looks like it is missing 3 main things:
• Easy regulation for more connectivity across borders.
• Private/public investment in Europe, for example we have too much money globally on the S&P 500 now what is risk for everyone.
• Cybersecurity and misinformation solutions. Even a simple informational AD by the EU can be just the start.
I partly disagree with your first point, mostly for reasons other comments have already pointed out. But I totally agree with your second. EU funds are a different kind of nightmare and, on the other hand, European investors, angels and VCs alike, are VERY conservative. My point being, if you’re like me and want to become an entrepreneur, have the skills, a small team, an early product and some traction, but was born + reside in one of the so-called “lesser” EU countries like Romania, you essentially have little to no chance of getting any kind of funding other than EU funds, at least at seed stage. So you’re more or less doomed to fail even before you begin. I can’t even imagine the situation in European but non-EU countries.
What do you think could be done to change that Cat?
An important cultural difference in Europe vs. SV, and SV vs. most of the U.S., is a comfort with change (innovation) and risk-taking. For Europe, that is harder to change than getting the ‘ecosystem components’ in place, as we’ve seen across the U.S.