What exactly are LPs buying when they allocate to venture today and do they still believe in it?

In this episode, Andreas sits down with Max Bray and Juliet Bailin, both Venture Partners at Kindred Capital VC to unpack what’s really happening beneath the fundraising headlines.

Max brings the raw perspective of trying to raise a first-time fund in 2025 with unicorn-founder GPs, strong angel track records, and still struggling to secure second meetings.

Juliet brings the sharper counterpoint: LP frustration isn’t always ignorance. Sometimes it’s a rational response to how venture has been practiced, especially around transparency, liquidity discipline, and the unrealistic expectation that a GP should be world-class at everything.

This is a conversation about:

* LP behavior in uncertain cycles

* The myth of the “full-stack investor”

* Why solo GP economics are brutal

* Whether software still needs venture

* And why the fund model is splitting at the extremes

Not hot takes. Not doom.Just honest mechanics.

What’s covered:

* 01:04 Max’s 2025 fundraising reality: even strong “on-paper” stories struggle to get second calls

* 03:46 LP rotation: capital moving toward liquidity, security, and shorter-duration bets

* 05:08 LP frustration: transparency gaps + liquidity decision-making

* 07:09 LPACs as sparring partners, not governance theatre

* 09:31 Europe’s structural issue: too few LPs and GPs have lived full cycles

* 12:47 The “full-stack investor” myth: investing + fund management + compliance + IR

* 14:46 Solo GP economics: why 2/20 breaks at the small end

* 26:08 The barbell thesis: platforms on one end, specialists on the other

* 27:56 Software defensibility compression in the AI era

* 30:24 Will AI decentralize outcomes or centralize them further?

* 33:10 The rise of AI roll-ups and alternative capital models

* 35:19 The “middle-market squeeze” — real or overhyped?

* 39:34 What founders actually care about when choosing a fund

🎧 Listen on Apple or Spotify and if you’re raising, investing, or building a fund, this one is worth sitting with.

LP Conviction: The Real Problem Isn’t Belief

Max’s experience fundraising through 2025 revealed something deeper than “tough market vibes.”

Even strong founding teams with unicorn-building operators and meaningful angel track records struggled to get traction.

Why?

Because in uncertain macro conditions, early-stage venture looks like:

* The longest-duration asset

* The least liquid

* The hardest to underwrite

And many LPs — especially non-dedicated ones — simply rotate toward liquidity.

Public markets. Bonds. Secondaries. Later-stage.

Not because venture “doesn’t work.”But because venture tests patience more than most capital pools are structured to tolerate.

LP Frustration Is Sometimes Rational

Juliet pushes back on the easy narrative that LPs just “don’t get it.”

Two recurring pain points:

1️⃣ Transparency

LPs often lack real visibility into:

* How deals are sourced

* Why are specific pricing decisions made

* Who is driving conviction internally

* How portfolio construction decisions evolve over time

2️⃣ Liquidity Discipline

Many GPs are trained to:

* Pick founders

* Win deals

* Support companies

Fewer are trained to:

* Manage reserves intentionally

* Optimize DPI

* Think structurally about liquidity windows

* Avoid hype-cycle overexposure

That gap creates friction.

Not because venture doesn’t work.But because execution quality varies widely.

The Full-Stack Investor Myth

One of the most important insights in the episode:

We expect VCs to be exceptional at:

* Founder selection

* Portfolio construction

* Governance

* Fund structuring

* Compliance

* Tax

* Investor relations

* Fundraising

* Liquidity management

That’s not a role. That’s multiple careers in one.

Juliet’s argument is clear: we’ve overloaded the GP model. The industry may need to evolve toward systems and structures that allow investors to specialize, rather than forcing everyone to be an octopus.

Solo GPs: Beautiful Model, Brutal Economics

The romantic narrative of solo GPs masks a hard reality:

On smaller funds, 2/20 doesn’t work cleanly.

After:

* Legal costs

* Fund admin

* Compliance

* Travel

* Portfolio support

* GP commit

There isn’t much left.

Many solo GPs are effectively:

* Betting on carry

* Absorbing personal financial risk

* Operating at extreme efficiency

Some are adjusting to 2.5% or blended fee models.LPs are often more flexible here than expected.

But the structural tension remains.

The Barbell: Where Venture Is Headed

Max’s thesis: The industry will likely shrink in number of funds, but not necessarily in AUM.

Why? Because capital is concentrating into:

Large Platforms

* Brand dominance

* Check size flexibility

* Global distribution

* Faster deployment

* Lower price sensitivity

Focused Specialists

* Domain depth

* Taste

* Concentrated portfolios

* Clear positioning

* High-conviction capital

And the middle? The middle doesn’t die, but it must justify itself.

Founders are asking:

“Why you?”

Not “nice deck.”Not “good vibes.”But a clear, credible reason why working with this fund increases their probability of success.

Does Software Still Need Venture?

AI is compressing the cost of building software.

If defensibility weakens, do we see:

* More seed-strapped companies?

* More smaller outcomes?

* Fewer unicorn trajectories?

Or…

Does AI actually accelerate centralization?

Andreas argues the latter may be more plausible.

Even if building is easier:

* Distribution still matters

* Network effects still matter

* Category leadership still matters

The mechanism may change. The power law might not.

The Quiet Shift: Alternative Capital Models

Another emerging thread:

If venture doesn’t perfectly fit every opportunity, we’ll see:

* AI roll-ups

* Search-fund-style strategies

* Blended debt-equity structures

* Capital models tailored to real-world assets

Venture was applied broadly over the last decade.

The next decade may be about matching capital structures more precisely to business reality.

Final Thought

Venture isn’t collapsing, but tolerance for fuzzy positioning is.

* LPs want clarity on outcomes.

* Founders want probability of success.

* The middle must justify itself.

* And the industry is being forced to mature.

This isn’t doom. It’s selection.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

AI can already automate close to 50% of knowledge work. Sahil Patwa believes the real opportunity isn’t building another SaaS tool. It’s acquiring entire industries and transforming them from within.

In this episode, Andreas sits down with Sahil Patwa, General Partner at Tenet — Europe’s first inception-stage investment firm dedicated to AI-powered rollups. Tenet just launched and has already made its first investment in the German tax advisory space.

This conversation dives into the difference between search funds and AI rollups, what makes the model venture-backable, the importance of founder empathy, and why some SMEs might go from 10% margins to 40% margins faster than we think.

The thesis: AI-powered rollups

Tenet calls its strategy AI Pro — AI-powered rollups.

The idea is simple:

* AI can already automate ~50% of knowledge work

* Many white-collar service businesses are low-margin and slow-scaling

* Instead of selling them software, acquire them

* Build an AI-native operating layer

* Transform margins and capacity

* Scale through M&A and organic growth

Sahil describes it as moving from:

“Sleepy service businesses to companies that operate and scale at software-like margins and software-like pace.”

This is not incremental digitization.

It’s structural transformation.

Why not just sell SaaS?

The common approach is obvious: build AI software and sell it to fragmented SMEs.

But Sahil argues that’s often the wrong model.

Many SMEs aren’t under-digitized because they lack tools.They’re under-digitized because implementation and behavior change are hard.

Traditional SaaS requires:

* Changing workflows

* Structuring messy data

* Re-training teams

* Adopting new habits

AI changes that.

If product design is done right, the system adapts to how people already work — instead of forcing them to adapt to software.

In Sahil’s words:

“In the AI world, things can happen based on how you’ve always done them — just better.”

Why this isn’t a search fund

The obvious comparison is ETA (Entrepreneurship Through Acquisition) and search funds.

Buy a business.Improve operations.Sell at a higher EBITDA multiple.

Tenet’s model looks similar on the surface — but the underwriting logic is different.

Search funds optimize.AI rollups transform.

Capital isn’t just used to buy one business and layer on debt.It’s used to:

* Build a proprietary AI platform

* Automate core COGS (often 50–60%)

* Improve margins dramatically

* Create industry-level competitive advantages

Sahil explains:

“We’re not underwriting buying a business and running it slightly better. We’re underwriting fundamentally transforming industries using AI.”

That requires venture-style capital, flexibility, and product building — not just financial engineering.

The founder profile: empathy + AI-native thinking

Tenet typically writes €5M first checks at inception.

What are they looking for?

1. Empathy-driven operators

Change management is the hardest part.

Integrating SMEs, modernizing workflows, and aligning teams requires founders who respect what already exists.

Sahil spent years in digital transformation and emphasizes:

Empathy isn’t optional.It’s the core variable.

2. AI-native builders

Not just ChatGPT power users.

They want:

* Strong AI application engineers

* Builders who know how to combine LLM “Lego blocks”

* People who can drive 4–5x productivity internally

3. M&A capability

Corporate finance and integration experience are a plus.Some founders learn it.Some bring it.But the skill must exist in the team.

Case study: Tax Force (German tax advisory)

Tenet’s first investment is Tax Force, operating in the German tax advisory market.

Why tax?

* 7–8 years to qualify as a tax advisor in Germany

* Severe talent shortage

* Firms actively refusing new business

* 50–70% of current work automatable today

Administrative burden dominates the profession.

If AI can automate even half of that:

* Advisors focus on relationships and judgment

* Capacity expands 3–4x

* Organic growth unlocks instantly

This isn’t theoretical.

Demand already exists.Capacity is the constraint.

Integration: the uncomfortable reality

M&A is notoriously hard.SME integration is even harder.

Sahil’s take is pragmatic:

The key isn’t force.It’s alignment.

Founders must:

* Respect legacy operators

* Understand incentives

* Bring teams along

* Use product design to reduce friction

AI works best when it enhances existing behavior rather than replacing identity.

The real moat isn’t just code.It’s trust.

A bigger shift: services > SaaS?

One of the most interesting ideas from the episode:

In many verticals, it may now be better to sell AI-powered services than AI software.

Instead of:

Selling tools to operators…

The operator becomes the platform.

Margins move from:5–10% → 30–40%

And scale begins to look more like software than traditional services.

If that model proves repeatable, it creates a new category sitting between PE and venture.

What Tenet wants

If you’re:

* Building an AI rollup

* Considering transforming a service vertical

* Deeply AI-native and operationally experienced

Tenet wants to talk.

They believe AI rollups could define Europe’s next decade.

And they’re underwriting that belief from day one.

One-line takeaway

AI rollups aren’t about buying sleepy businesses — they’re about turning fragmented service industries into AI-native platforms with venture-scale upside.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Clinical trials take, on average, 12 years and billions in capital before a drug reaches a pharmacy shelf. Pedro Coelho thinks that the timeline can be cut in half.

In this episode, our very own Andreas talks with Pedro Coelho, founder & CEO of Biorce, fresh off closing a $52M Series A led by DST, with long-time backer Norrsken continuing its support. Pedro is Portuguese, built Biorce out of Barcelona, and is now relocating to the US for the company’s next chapter.

This conversation goes from deeply personal origins to AI-driven operating systems, hiring in the age of automation, and why conviction often means running straight at the wall instead of mapping it first.

What’s covered:

* 00:47 The personal story behind Biorce

* 02:07 What Biorce actually does

* 03:18 AI in clinical trials: from 12 years to 6

* 04:40 The “one-click clinical trial” vision

* 06:04 Would Pedro do it again? (serial founder reflections)

* 08:13 Building pre-AI vs building in the AI era

* 09:08 Build vs buy: why Biorce built its own CRM

* 11:46 Hiring in fast-changing phases

* 13:28 Conviction: gut, data, and running through walls

* 16:03 Moving to Austin: scaling R&D and building a second A-team

* 16:41 TAM vs TAP: what investors often misunderstand

* 17:53 Barcelona ecosystem misconceptions

* 18:15 What’s next for Biorce

The origin: when a clinical trial becomes personal

Biorce wasn’t born out of a whiteboard session.

It started with Pedro’s father being diagnosed with melanoma.

A clinical trial extended his father’s life by ten months. It also exposed Pedro to how complex, slow, and fragmented the clinical trial ecosystem is. After his father passed away, Pedro sold his previous company and turned fully toward fixing the system.

The answer, in his view, wasn’t incremental improvement. It was technology and specifically AI.

What Bios does: compressing the drug development timeline

Before a drug reaches a pharmacy, it typically spends 12 years in development and testing.

Biorce is building what Pedro describes as a clinical trial operating system that allows pharmaceutical and biotech companies to:

* Design trials

* Generate protocols

* Select sites and endpoints

* Execute trial workflows

All in one integrated AI-driven system.

One example: trial protocols with 100+ page documents that used to take three months to write can now be generated in 90 seconds at ~86% accuracy.

The broader goal is bold:

* Reduce development timelines from 12 to 6 years

* Cut development costs by roughly 50%

And eventually reach what Pedro calls the vision:

The one-click clinical trial.

They’re not there yet. Accuracy and consistency still need to reach near perfection. But that’s the trajectory.

Building before AI vs building with AI

Pedro has built companies both pre-AI and now squarely inside the AI wave.

His view is clear: this is the best moment in history to build if you’re a doer.

Instead of relying on off-the-shelf SaaS tools, Biorce builds internal systems from scratch. Pedro even built the company’s first CRM himself over a Christmas break.

The reasoning wasn’t ego. It was alignment.

Their sales playbook was so specific that traditional CRM systems didn’t reflect how they operated. So they built one that mirrored their internal logic.

This is the shift AI enables:

* Faster internal tooling

* Custom systems over generic stacks

* Senior operators who automate low-leverage work

For Pedro, AI doesn’t just change the product. It changes team composition.

Hiring in phases: excellence and velocity

Pedro is blunt about something many founders avoid:

Different phases require different people.

A strong founder must be excellent at hiring and equally disciplined at recognizing when someone no longer fits the company’s stage.

In Biorce’s case:

* The team is lean

* Expectations are high

* Operators are hired as “mini CEOs”

* Ownership is extreme

He frequently changes course as new data emerges. Decisions are dynamic and the team has to be comfortable with that.

The standard isn’t comfort. It’s velocity.

Conviction: data, gut, and running through walls

How do you build conviction at this scale?

Pedro describes a blend:

* Data as foundation

* Gut as accelerator

* Speed as default

He uses a metaphor:

They were a bullet train moving at 1,000 miles per hour. Walls would appear. Either they’d break through or they’d adjust and move again. But they wouldn’t slow down preemptively to study every possible obstacle.

Conviction compounds through motion.

Moving to Austin: global ambitions

Biorce is opening a new office in Austin, growing toward 100 people, and doubling down on R&D.

The move is about:

* Access to talent

* AI research velocity

* Building a second A-team

Pedro sees it not as abandoning Europe but as expanding the company’s international center of gravity.

TAM vs TAP: what investors often miss

Pedro highlights a subtle but important distinction he believes many investors misunderstand:

TAM (Total Addressable Market)vsTAP (Total Addressable Platform potential)

Markets look one way on paper.Platforms that reshape ecosystems expand the pie.

He references Uber as an example — few predicted its scale purely from TAM analysis.

In Biorce’s case, the ambition is not to serve an existing clinical trials market more efficiently. It’s to redefine how that ecosystem operates.

Barcelona misconceptions

One final note Pedro addresses is the stereotype.

Barcelona is sometimes perceived as slow-paced or relaxed.

Biorce ships at extreme speed.They release new product capabilities monthly.Their execution rhythm competes globally.

For Pedro, Europe’s biggest challenge isn’t talent or ambition but perception.

What’s next

The $52M Series A isn’t the finish line. It’s the beginning.

Immediate priorities:

* Hiring across engineering, product, and operator roles

* Expanding US operations

* Accelerating AI research

* Continuing to compress clinical trial timelines

The long-term ambition remains unchanged:

Transform clinical trials so fundamentally that the ecosystem never looks the same again.

One-line takeaway

Biorce isn’t just using AI to optimize clinical trials — it’s trying to rebuild the entire development lifecycle, with the conviction of a founder who has lived through why it matters.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Climate isn’t “over.” But building in climate has entered a new chapter, defined by shifting regulation, politicized narratives, buyer confusion, and a market that funded dozens of overlapping platforms.

In this episode, Andreas and co-host Carmel Rafaeli, Founding Partner at The Table, sit down with Lubomila Jordanova, Co-founder & CEO of Plan A, just weeks after Plan Ajoined forces with Diginex, the NASDAQ-listed sustainability technology company, at the end of 2025.

The conversation is part of Leaders Shaping a Resilient Planet, a series spotlighting exceptional founders in climate tech who happen to be women. The focus is not identity as a theme, but execution as a discipline. These are operators building in some of the most complex and capital-intensive parts of the real economy.

This is not an acquisition recap. It is a clear-eyed discussion about what it takes to build and responsibly exit a climate tech company in a market that is maturing quickly.

What’s covered:

* 00:52 The Table: co-investing community + the Foundation’s recoverable grants model

* 02:05 Introducing Lubomila Jordanova and Plan A

* 02:45 The acquisition: why Plan A chose to lead consolidation

* 04:35 Fundraising logic → acquisition logic: what changed

* 06:40 Founder outcome vs VC outcome: how alignment works in an exit

* 11:30 “The truth is where the real economy sits”: what carbon software actually sells

* 13:30 The uncomfortable line: “glorified consulting with a digital angle”

* 15:05 What VC portfolios get wrong in climate: return distribution, capital stack, secondaries

* 16:55 Why “climate” can’t be one bucket: hardware vs SaaS vs reporting

* 20:00 Managing investor perception: visibility, bias, and boardroom baggage

* 23:15 The broader financial pyramid: VC vs public markets vs real-economy signals

* 27:35 Post-exit reality: why a public-company KPI lens changes the conversation

* 31:10 Three founder learnings (humility, ecosystem, real-world problems)

* 33:55 A rare founder truth: pregnancy during the exit + building with “more hats than one”

🎧 Listen on Apple or Spotify, with chapters ready to explore, and stay tuned for future episodes of Leaders Shaping a Resilient Planet as we continue conversations with the builders shaping a more resilient world.

Show Notes

Choosing Structure Over Momentum

Lubomila describes the decision to join forces with Diginex as strategic rather than reactive. The first wave of climate software produced fragmentation across carbon accounting and ESG tooling. Regulation evolved unevenly across markets. Enterprise buyers demanded deeper integration and longer-term commitments. Cap tables became more crowded as companies layered in new rounds of capital.

Eventually, the core question shifts. It is no longer simply whether another round can be raised, but whether the existing structure is the right one for long-term growth and mission durability.

That shift from fundraising logic to structural logic is central to the conversation. With more than 20 shareholders and growing operational complexity, Plan A had to balance investor expectations with the realities of scaling inside global enterprises. The tension many founders quietly navigate becomes explicit here: an exit does not only have to satisfy venture return narratives. It has to serve the company, the team, customers, and the next chapter of execution.

In climate, consolidation is not necessarily a retreat. Often, it is a sign of category maturity.

The Measurement Gap

A defining thread of the discussion is how climate companies are evaluated.

Carbon accounting and decarbonization platforms are frequently judged through a pure SaaS lens. Yet these businesses sit inside supply chains, logistics systems, procurement processes, and multi-year transformation roadmaps. They influence packaging decisions, supplier relationships, and capital allocation across enterprises. Their impact reaches into the operational core of the companies they serve.

When standard SaaS templates are applied to real-economy transformation, nuance gets lost. Gross margin expectations, sales cycle assumptions, and scaling models can drift away from the structural realities of the domain.

Lubomila argues that climate cannot be treated as a single venture bucket. Hardware companies, ESG reporting platforms, carbon removal infrastructure, workflow software, and deep industrial decarbonization businesses each operate under different economic and technical constraints. They require different capital stacks, time horizons, and definitions of success. Portfolio construction often fails to reflect that diversity, which in turn shapes misaligned expectations downstream.

Capital Shapes What Gets Built

Carmel broadens the discussion by outlining what The Table is building: a global co-investing community backing women-led climate ventures from pre-Seed to Series A, alongside a Foundation that deploys recoverable grants as catalytic capital.

The premise is straightforward. Capital structures influence behavior. If funding mechanisms are not designed for the realities of climate businesses, friction will surface later in the form of strained governance, unrealistic timelines, or forced strategic pivots.

Climate innovation does not only require capital. It requires capital that understands regulatory cycles, enterprise adoption curves, and system-level complexity.

Perception and Narrative Cycles

The episode also explores the human side of scaling.

Visibility can be misinterpreted. Board members bring expectations shaped by other companies and other cycles. Venture capital operates within a broader financial ecosystem where public markets, private equity, and macroeconomic signals ultimately shape what is perceived as durable or bankable.

Narratives can shift quickly. The real economy does not.

Founders operate at the intersection of those shifting narratives and slower-moving operational realities. Navigating that tension is part of the job.

Founder Realities

The conversation closes with grounded reflections rather than celebratory headlines.

Humility matters in a market where someone will always be better funded or better connected. Ecosystem matters more than ego, particularly in a sector that depends on collaboration across supply chains and institutions. And the real economy contains more opportunity than venture mythology sometimes acknowledges. Building something consequential does not require speculative moonshots. It requires disciplined execution on meaningful problems.

In a moment rarely discussed so plainly, Lubomila also shares that she was pregnant during the exit and welcomed her baby seven months ago. The point is not performative. It is a reminder that founders often carry multiple roles simultaneously and that sustainable performance depends on support systems rather than personal mythology.

Why This Series Exists

Leaders Shaping a Resilient Planet exists to spotlight a particular kind of founder: those rebuilding parts of the real economy with discipline, technical depth, and long-term conviction. These are not symbolic leaders or trend-driven stories, but operators working through regulatory complexity, enterprise sales cycles, capital constraints, and system-level change.

Lubomila Jordanova is one of those founders.

Building Plan A required more than vision. It meant navigating evolving regulation, earning enterprise trust, maintaining technical rigor, managing a complex shareholder base, and operating under public scrutiny. The decision to join forces with Diginex marks an important milestone for the company, but it also reflects something broader about where climate tech is headed.

The sector is entering a new phase defined by consolidation, sharper capital discipline, deeper integration into enterprise systems, and more realistic expectations about how value is created. The hype cycle is receding, and in its place is a more grounded era of execution.

Climate tech needs founders who understand both mission and mechanics, who can translate urgency into durable systems and real-world outcomes. Lubomila is one of them.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

In a market where “AI fund” can mean almost anything, Lumo Labs is unusually specific: digital deep tech, deployed early, and anchored in one of Europe’s densest innovation clusters—Eindhoven, home of Philips’ legacy and the High Tech Campus (“smartest square kilometer” energy).

In this EUVC pitch episode, Andreas sits down with Andy Lurling, founder & GP of Lumo Labs, to unpack how an entrepreneur-turned-investor built a fund that’s deliberately more than money: a structured support program, deep technical selection, and a thesis shaped by real-world constraints, health systems under pressure, and cities as the source of most emissions and pollution.

What’s covered:

* 00:59 Why “Labs” and why Eindhoven: origin story + Philips legacy

* 02:31 Andy’s founder journey: EyeOpener, ESA as first investor, and the exit

* 06:15 From angel tickets to a fund: two cornerstone LPs pull them into fund building

* 08:26 Fund I recap: €20m, 23 pre-seed/seed investments

* 08:58 Fund II status: just over €40m raised, targeting €100m final size

* 10:34 The actual thesis: AI + digital deep tech (security, IoT, AR)

* 13:12 SDG focus: health, education, sustainable cities + climate action (urban)

* 15:31 Why these sectors: prevention over curing, and cities as the “source problem”

* 19:22 Where they invest: Netherlands/Belgium/Germany core; Spain/Portugal + Nordics via scouts

* 20:30 “Smart capital” in practice: leadership, market fit, storytelling, follow-on readiness

* 23:30 Track record snapshot: 30 companies; 3 dead; 9 (soon 11) moving into scale-up territory

🎧 Listen on Apple or Spotify, or queue it for later with chapters ready to go.

Show Notes

Why “Lumo Labs”

“Lumo” means light/enlightened (Esperanto + Latin), a nod to Eindhoven and Philips’ roots in lightbulbs. “Labs” is literal: Lumo started in former Philips lab buildings, and their sweet spot is very early-stage tech transfer where a lot of real innovation still begins.

The founder-to-fund arc

Andy built EyeOpener, developing algorithms that combined satellite navigation and gyroscope data to accurately track high-speed objects—first backed by the European Space Agency, with applications across motorsports and safety. The exit was undisclosed, but the point he emphasizes is timing: building through the financial crisis shaped how he thinks about resilience and capital.

From there, he and his co-founder made five angel investments—then got pulled into fund formation by two powerful local anchors:

* the owner of High Tech Campus Eindhoven

* the Brabant Regional Development Agency

Instead of “deciding to start a fund,” the fund emerged because the ecosystem basically demanded it.

Fund strategy: digital deep tech, not hardware-heavy

Lumo is software-first. They can look at companies with a hardware component, but they avoid hardware development and inventory—preferring teams that build hardware-agnostic platforms so they can scale across brands and ecosystems.

Core tech buckets:

* AI-first (the base layer across everything)

* cryptology / digital security

* IoT infrastructure layers

* AR (“display of the future”)Usually it’s “AI + one” of the above.

SDGs as a filter, then focus within the focus

Lumo’s impact framework started early (2016/2017), using the UN SDGs to force focus. Over time, the firm centered on:

* Good health & wellbeing (largest)

* Quality education (smallest)

* Sustainable cities & communities

* Plus climate action, framed as climate tech for the urbanized environment

The important nuance: they avoid being “climate generalists.” They want the problems where people live and work—grid optimization, circular buildings, mobility, water management, citizen participation—rather than, say, an ocean-only thesis.

The wedge in health: cure → prevention

Their health thesis is blunt: costs are rising, workers are scarce, so the system must shift from curing to prevention and early diagnosis. Their example is practical: earlier detection reduces intensity, recovery time, and cost burden across the system.

“Smart capital” = a repeatable support system

Lumo positions itself as more than cheques. They’re not a venture builder or accelerator, but they run a structured program that acts like a “main menu” across four areas:

* Excellent leadership (founder dynamics, gaps, team building)

* Product-market fit (including pilot customer access via network)

* Marketing + storytelling (especially for engineering-heavy teams)

* Follow-on readiness (preparing founders for the very different Series A investor landscape)

They also do a monthly “five-minute digital check-in” to systematize support with ongoing data signals, rather than pure intuition.

Fund II snapshot

* Fund I: €20m, 23 investments, very early

* Fund II: €40m+ raised so far, targeting €100m

* Geography focus: NL/BE/DE core; Spain/Portugal + Nordics via local presence

* Portfolio: 30 companies total, 3 didn’t make it; 9 (soon 11) from Fund I progressing toward “scale-up” stage

One-line takeaway

Lumo is building a deep-tech, AI-first early-stage fund that aims to win on selection and structured founder support, rooted in Eindhoven’s industrial R&D heritage and focused on the biggest system constraints: health capacity and urban sustainability.

Thanks for reading EUVC | The European VC! This post is public, so feel free to share it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Welcome back to another episode of Upside where Dan Bowyer and Mads Jensen of SuperSeed go behind the headlines shaping European tech, capital, and power.

This week we’re joined by Eyal Malinger, co-founder of Resurge Growth Partners, to unpack a genuinely strange week in global tech.

China unveils humanoid robots that look disturbingly battlefield-ready. Anthropic tries to draw moral lines in defence AI. Peter Steinberger leaves Europe almost as fast as he went viral. Munich becomes less “security conference” and more “Europe, wake up.” And in the background, billion-dollar AI seed rounds and quantum mega-funds quietly signal that the frontier is accelerating again.

This isn’t just a tech cycle.

It feels like a systems cycle.

This is Upside, where optimism is earned, not assumed.

What’s covered:

* 02:10 China’s humanoid robot moment: hardware dominance meets AI brains

* 06:20 Battlefield AI and the ethics problem Anthropic can’t avoid

* 14:00 Raspberry Pi, edge AI, and Europe’s accidental meme stock

* 20:30 Anthropic vs Palantir: moral lines vs deterrence logic

* 25:10 Peter Steinberger leaves Europe — ecosystem gravity in action

* 31:00 AI inside venture: workflow automation vs real alpha

* 43:00 Munich Security Conference: defence budgets, sovereignty, and Stark vs Thiel

* 52:10 Psychedelics and glucose monitors: Europe’s quiet biotech strength

* 55:30 Quantum funds and Europe’s billion-dollar AI seed round

🎧 Listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and if you’re building in defence, AI, or deep tech, this one’s worth queueing with chapter markers.

China’s Humanoid Robot Shock

We opened the episode with the Spring Festival footage.

Because once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Rows of humanoid robots moving in sync, smiling faces on national TV, framed not as experimental tech but as a cultural celebration. It wasn’t positioned as “look at this prototype.” It was positioned as normal. Integrated. Ready.

And that’s what stuck with us.

In China, things don’t accidentally end up on prime-time state television. That kind of exposure is deliberate. It signals maturity. Or at least the intention to project it.

What’s happening underneath that surface is even more important.

Humanoid hardware costs are dropping fast. Actuators are cheaper. Supply chains are domestic. Iteration cycles are tighter. China already leads global humanoid shipments by volume, even if the market is still early.

Small numbers. Steep curve.

And then the question that hung in the air:

If this is what they’re comfortable showing on TV… what are they not showing?

The public layer of technology is rarely the cutting edge. It’s the stable layer. The controlled layer. The part that’s ready for mass optics.

Behind closed doors, development tends to run ahead.

And this isn’t just about warehouse labor or elder care robots.

This is deterrence math.

For decades, escalation thresholds have been shaped by human cost. Democracies hesitate when young soldiers are at risk. Public opinion acts as friction.

But autonomous systems change that equation.

If deploying force means deploying machines rather than people, the political barrier shifts. Not disappears but shifts.

That’s destabilizing in subtle ways.

We kept coming back to the split in the stack:

The brain — frontier AI models, chips, research — still largely American-led.

The metal — manufacturing scale, embodied systems, physical robotics — increasingly Chinese.

Software intelligence versus physical leverage.

And Europe?

Watching. Commenting. Regulating.

But not yet moving at the same speed.

Anthropic, Palantir & The Ethics Tension

This part of the conversation got uncomfortable in a good way.

Anthropic has been clear: they don’t want their models used for autonomous kill decisions.

It’s principled. It’s morally coherent. It sounds right.

But deterrence isn’t built on vibes.

Eyal pushed on this: what happens if your adversary doesn’t adopt the same guardrails? What happens if they don’t publish ethical blog posts?

Palantir’s position is almost the opposite tone. Less philosophical. More pragmatic.

Technological superiority prevents war.

Their argument is simple: peace comes from strength. If you hesitate while others advance, you don’t get moral credit — you get strategic vulnerability.

So the real tension becomes:

Can you accept defence contracts, sell into national security infrastructure, take government money and still claim clean separation from military application?

Is that sustainable? Or is it branding gymnastics?

We’re no longer in abstract AI ethics debates.

This is procurement-level real. Budgets are expanding. Contracts are being signed. AI is embedding into defense infrastructure now.

Every frontier model company will have to decide where it stands, not in theory, but in paperwork.

Talent Gravity: Another One Leaves

Then we talked about Peter Steinberger moving to OpenAI.

And it felt symbolic.

Another high-caliber European technical founder pulled almost instantly into the US ecosystem.

This keeps happening.

It’s easy to say “Europe needs more capital.”

But that’s not the full story.

It’s about compute access.It’s about regulatory drag.It’s about ambition density.It’s about proximity to the frontier.

Founders don’t just chase money. They chase velocity.

If you’re building at the edge of AI research, being plugged directly into the most advanced cluster, the most aggressive roadmap, the fastest-moving org — that matters.

The US still offers unmatched scale and optionality.

Until Europe can offer not just funding, but equivalent speed and platform gravity, the talent pull west will continue.

This isn’t emotional. It’s structural.

AI Inside Venture: Hygiene or Edge?

We shifted gears into venture.

David Stark open-sourced his AI-powered VC workflow — automated notes, CRM syncing, meeting summaries.

It’s slick.

And it sparked a bigger debate: is this edge, or just table stakes?

Automation is powerful. It saves time. It reduces admin. It improves organization.

But does it win you the deal?

Probably not.

Competitive deals are still won on brand trust, founder relationships, reputation, niche credibility, physical presence in ecosystems.

AI can summarize a meeting.

It can’t build a decade-long reputation.

What’s happening instead is bifurcation.

On one side: massive platform funds with global brands and billion-dollar war chests.

On the other: hyper-focused micro-VCs with tight theses and strong community roots.

The middle — mid-sized, generalist, not-quite-platform funds — looks squeezed.

AI increases operational hygiene.

It doesn’t manufacture differentiation.

Munich: Sovereignty Gets Real

The Munich Security Conference felt heavier this year.

Less theoretical discussion about “strategic autonomy.” More concrete budget numbers.

Germany’s defense budget potentially hitting €115B. The UK accelerating toward 3% of GDP.

But sovereignty is expanding beyond tanks and jets.

It’s reaching cap tables.

When a German defense startup backed by American capital faces political discomfort, the subtext is clear:

Who ultimately controls strategic infrastructure?

The US has always been strict about foreign ownership in sensitive sectors.

Europe is only now grappling with similar questions.

Strategic autonomy isn’t just about building systems.

It’s about who owns them.

And that’s a much harder conversation.

Europe’s Biotech Bright Spots

We didn’t want the episode to be pure geopolitics.

Because Europe is still delivering.

Compass Pathways’ Phase III psilocybin results are genuinely meaningful. Treatment-resistant depression is one of the hardest problems in psychiatry.

Sano Health’s continuous glucose monitor data is another reminder that European healthtech remains strong.

The science is there.

The research base is there.

The challenge remains scaling and keeping the upside.

Too often, the innovation originates here — but the commercial dominance ends up elsewhere.

Quantum & The Billion-Dollar Seed

Then came the capital story.

QuantoNation launching what looks like Europe’s largest dedicated quantum fund.

And NF4 raising up to $1B at a $4B valuation.

A billion-dollar seed round in Europe.

That would’ve sounded absurd a few years ago.

So yes — the ecosystem is maturing.

But it’s also concentrating.

Capital flows heavily to perceived generational frontier bets. Below that, competition is brutal.

This is what a maturing ecosystem looks like: more capital, but more unevenly distributed.

Closing Reflection

What tied the whole episode together was this:

AI isn’t just another software cycle.

It’s reshaping deterrence.It’s reshaping venture economics.It’s reshaping sovereignty conversations.It’s reshaping where talent flows.

Europe is more aware than before.

Budgets are rising. Funds are larger. Conversations are sharper.

But awareness doesn’t equal execution.

Speed does.

And the open question we kept circling back to:

In a world where power is compounding exponentially, who can actually move fast enough to matter?

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Introduced by Andreas Munk Holm, this EUVC Live at GoWest series spotlights the thought leadership of policymakers, institutional investors, GPs, corporates, and public capital leaders around one defining question:

How does Europe mobilize its own capital to secure its technological future?

Across the sessions, one theme emerges repeatedly:

Europe does not lack talent.It does not lack innovation.It does not lack savings.

It lacks coordination.

For decades, sport was categorized as media.

Content.Broadcast rights.Sponsorship.Merchandise.

But in this conversation, Fergus Bell, Founder and Managing Partner at The Players Fund and Prashant Agarwal, Chairman and Managing Director at Scandian, explore how athletes and rights holders are reshaping early-stage investing and argue that sport has quietly evolved into something far more structural.

It is becoming venture infrastructure. Not adjacent to venture but embedded within it.

Because athletes and rights holders now control three asymmetric assets that traditional investors cannot manufacture:

* Distribution

* Trust

* Scarcity

And those assets compound.

The Athlete VC Evolution

Athlete investing has matured in phases.

Phase 1: Proximity capitalAngel checks driven by Silicon Valley relationships and locker-room introductions.

Phase 2: Social syndicationTeammates pooling capital. Influence is treated as value. Distribution as leverage.

Phase 3: InstitutionalizationAthlete-led funds with structured mandates, governance, and portfolio construction.

This is where The Players Fund operates.

Not as a celebrity syndicate.

As a venture platform.

Its structure signals the shift:

* 200 athlete LPs

* Pre-seed to Series A focus

* Active network value creation

The model is not “post and amplify.” It opens doors, accelerates pilots, unlocks procurement, and de-risks early adoption. Access beats amplification.

Rights Are Financial Instruments

Prashant reframes sports rights entirely.

Most see them as expensive media inventory.

He sees them as asymmetric financial assets.

Because rights combine:

* Built-in demand

* Emotional loyalty

* Recurrent consumption

* Global distribution

In venture terms, they are embedded growth engines.

His OTT example illustrates the leverage:

* $1M investment

* 23% Indian market share in one week

* $60M exit

That curve is not linear.

It is what happens when IP meets distribution at scale.

Smart rights acquisition + scalable platforms = exponential outcomes.

In sport, distribution is native.

Deep Tech Has Entered the Arena

Modern sport is no longer analog. It is a live laboratory for deep tech.

Today’s teams deploy:

* AI-driven talent identification

* Injury prediction algorithms

* Performance optimization platforms

* Advanced biomechanics labs

* Real-time analytics infrastructure

Moneyball was an early signal.

Now it is baseline.

Sport has become a convergence layer for:

* HealthTech

* MedTech

* FinTech

* AI

* Consumer platforms

What makes sport unique is that innovation can be validated in high-pressure, high-visibility environments. If it works on the field, it works in the market.

Global Scale Is Structural

The EU–India trade agreement underscores a larger dynamic:

Sport scales geopolitically.

A 1.5B-person addressable market changes venture math.

With global fan bases:

* Early IRR may appear compressed

* Audience accumulation compounds valuation

* IP multiplies downstream optionality

Unlike most startups, sports-linked platforms do not build audiences from zero.

They inherit them.

A league is a distribution rail.A team is a brand engine.An athlete is a trust layer.

The Core Thesis

Sport is not simply a vertical within consumer investing.

It is evolving into a capital stack:

* Athletes as institutional LPs

* Rights as asymmetric assets

* Teams as distribution networks

* Leagues as platforms

* IP as compounding infrastructure

Entertainment was the surface layer.

Underneath, sport is becoming a venture engine.

And those who understand that shift will not just sponsor the future of sport.

They will finance it.

Thanks for reading EUVC | The European VC! This post is public so feel free to share it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Introduced by Andreas Munk Holm, this EUVC Live at GoWest series spotlights the thought leadership of policymakers, institutional investors, GPs, corporates, and public capital leaders around one defining question:

How does Europe mobilize its own capital to secure its technological future?

Across the sessions, one theme emerges repeatedly:

Europe does not lack talent.It does not lack innovation.It does not lack savings.

It lacks coordination.

Everyone wants to live longer.

But at what cost?

In this keynote, Paolo Pio, Co-founder and General Partner at Exceptional Ventures, reframes longevity from lifespan to healthspan and ultimately to joyspan.

The goal is not lifespan.

It is healthspan.

And ultimately, what he calls joyspan.

Because extending life without extending vitality simply prolongs decline.

Longevity without agency is not progress.

Health Is Moving at the Speed of Technology

For most of human history, life expectancy increased slowly and linearly.

Antibiotics.Vaccines.Sanitation.Modern surgery.

Breakthroughs were rare and incremental.

That model no longer applies.

Health innovation is now moving at tech speed.

Consider the compression of timelines:

* The Human Genome Project: 20 years to sequence one genome → now completed in hours

* mRNA vaccine development: 60 days → soon potentially 60 hours

* Personalized medicine: treatments designed around individual DNA

Technology compounds.

And health is now riding that exponential curve.

The result is not just better medicine.

It is a structural shift in what is possible.

AI Is Rewiring the Health Stack

Capital is following the shift.

Of the 11 AI unicorns created in Q1 last year, 6 were in health.

HealthTech has now surpassed FinTech in capital inflows.

That is not cyclical.

It is directional.

Health is becoming the most capital-intensive frontier in deep tech.

But capital attracts noise.

Longevity has historically been vulnerable to hype — supplements, miracle compounds, biohacking theatrics.

Paolo is explicit:

Innovation without evidence is speculation.

That’s why Exceptional Ventures focuses on:

* Science

* Data

* Evidence

In longevity, separating signal from pseudoscience is not optional.

It is the work.

From Treatment to Prevention

Healthcare systems were designed for intervention.

The next generation will be designed for anticipation.

Exceptional Ventures’ investment framework rests on three pillars:

1. Preventative Health

Intervening before deterioration begins.

2. Early Detection & Diagnostics

Shifting disease detection years earlier through biomarkers, AI models, and molecular screening.

3. Smarter Care Delivery

Using software, automation, and data systems to improve access, reduce cost, and enhance outcomes.

The ambition is not marginal improvement.

It is a structural redesign.

Longevity as Infrastructure

Longevity is often marketed as individual optimization.

Paolo reframes it as systemic capacity.

Longer, healthier lives impact:

* Workforce productivity

* Pension systems

* Healthcare expenditure

* Economic growth

* Intergenerational wealth

Healthspan is an economic infrastructure.

If people remain cognitively and physically capable longer, societies compound differently.

This is not just biotech.

It is macroeconomics.

The Core Thesis

Longevity is no longer science fiction.

It is becoming programmable.

But the frontier is not how long we can extend life.

It is how well we can extend vitality.

Lifespan measures time.

Healthspan measures function.

Joyspan measures meaning.

And that shift from survival to vitality is what makes health the most exciting frontier in deep tech today.

Thanks for reading EUVC | The European VC! This post is public so feel free to share it.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Introduced by Andreas Munk Holm, this EUVC Live at GoWest series spotlights the thought leadership of policymakers, institutional investors, GPs, corporates, and public capital leaders around one defining question:

How does Europe mobilise its own capital to secure its technological future?

Across the sessions, one theme emerges repeatedly:

Europe does not lack talent.It does not lack innovation.It does not lack savings.

It lacks coordination.

Over the past decade, Europe has quietly become one of the most productive regions in frontier technology.

In this episode, Olivier Tonneau, Founding Partner at Quantonation, Jeppe Høier, Co-Host at EUVC Corporate, Paolo Pio, Co-founder and General Partner at Exceptional Ventures, Fergus Bell, Founder and Managing Partner at The Players Fund, and Prashant Agarwal, Chairman and Managing Director at Scandian, explore that question from different angles:

Quantum.Corporate capital.Longevity and health tech.Sports as industrial infrastructure.

Different sectors. Same scaling challenge.

Quantum: Europe Is Already in the Game

In this talk, Olivier Tonneau reframes the European quantum debate with a simple premise: the question is not whether Europe can become a quantum powerhouse, but how it remains one.

Europe’s position is strong. It supplies a meaningful share of deployed quantum systems, supports competitive startups across hardware, communications, and sensing, and anchors world-class research clusters in the Nordics, France, Germany, and the UK. The constraint is not scientific capability but access to scale capital.

The funding gap is widening. European quantum startups historically raised capital at roughly half the level of their US peers (1:2). Over the past 12 months, that gap has expanded to closer to 1:7. US companies are securing large growth rounds, accessing public markets, and beginning to acquire European counterparts. The window for response is likely 12–24 months. The strategic risk is not technological failure but loss of independence through acquisition.

The weakness is structural, not intellectual. Europe consistently produces breakthrough science and ambitious founders but lacks deep, patient late-stage capital to support global scaling while preserving ownership. Existing tools — the European Innovation Council’s blended finance model, EIF-backed larger vehicles, public procurement as anchor demand, and the proposed €5 billion Scale-Up Fund Europe — reflect progress. However, they do not yet match the depth, liquidity, and integration of US capital markets.

Liquidity is not the same as control. A US listing can be a pragmatic financing choice; operational control and R&D can remain European. But when growth capital, consolidation capacity, and acquisition currency concentrate in one geography, strategic gravity follows. Without competitive domestic scale funding, acquisition becomes the default outcome rather than a deliberate choice.

Quantum is moving from research to commercial deployment, and consolidation is already underway. The issue is time-bound and financial. Europe can invent. The question is whether it can finance independence at scale. If not, its quantum sector may continue to innovate — but it may no longer remain European.

Corporate Venture: Europe’s Underused Lever

Our very own Jeppe Høier shifts the discussion from startups to incumbents.

Corporate venture capital accounts for roughly 25% of global venture volume. Corporates are also the most frequent acquirers of startups. In theory, they should be one of Europe’s most powerful scaling mechanisms. In practice, they are often inconsistent.

The average lifespan of a corporate venture unit is just 3.7 years. Many are launched with enthusiasm and shut down when returns do not hockey-stick quickly enough or when strategic integration fails to show immediate impact.

The misunderstanding is structural. Venture does not operate on quarterly timelines. Nor does strategic optionality compound instantly.

Corporate venture must align across three pillars: build, buy, and partner. It cannot be treated as a peripheral experiment. And it must survive multiple CEOs to matter.

If Europe wants stronger domestic exit pathways and acquirers capable of retaining innovation onshore, corporate balance sheets must function as long-term capital allocators rather than short-term evaluators.

Europe’s corporate capital pools are deep. They are simply under-coordinated.

Health Tech: When Biology Meets Compute

Exceptional Ventures’ Paolo Pio highlights longevity and health as one of the most consequential frontiers of the coming decade.

The pace of change is structural. The Human Genome Project required nearly 20 years and billions in funding. Today, genome sequencing can be completed in hours at a fraction of the cost. mRNA platforms demonstrated the ability to move from viral identification to vaccine deployment in approximately 60 days. Artificial intelligence is now embedded across the biomedical value chain — from drug discovery and molecule design to diagnostics, clinical decision support, and personalised medicine.

This is not incremental improvement but exponential convergence.

As biology becomes programmable and compute becomes scalable, development timelines compress, cost curves decline, and platform-based therapeutic models emerge. Entire categories — including gene therapies, precision oncology, and longevity interventions — are becoming commercially viable at scale.

Europe holds meaningful structural advantages: leading academic research centers, strong regulatory credibility, and large healthcare systems capable of functioning as real-world deployment environments.

However, the constraint is not scientific capability. The constraint is scale capital and execution capacity — specifically, the ability to fund late-stage clinical programs, manufacturing scale-up, and global commercialisation without strategic migration.

As AI-biotech convergence accelerates, capital depth and coordination — not research excellence — will determine where long-term value creation and control ultimately reside.

Athlete Capital and Sports as Infrastructure

The Players Fund’s Fergus Bell highlights a structural evolution in venture capital: the maturation of athlete investors into organised, strategic capital allocators.

Athlete participation has progressed beyond occasional angel investments and brand-aligned endorsements. Increasingly, athletes are forming syndicates, backing dedicated funds, and operating with institutional discipline. Capital deployment is becoming thesis-driven, supported by professional advisory teams, and aligned with long-term value creation rather than short-term visibility.

Their differentiation extends beyond financial contribution. Athletes command global audiences, trusted communities, and cross-border networks. When strategically aligned, they can accelerate distribution, drive adoption, and enhance brand credibility for emerging companies. In effect, they combine capital with market access.

Scandian’s Prashant Agarwal broadens the analysis to the institutional layer of sport itself.

Elite sports organisations are evolving into technologically advanced operating environments. They integrate performance analytics, sports science, biometrics, AI systems, and advanced materials into daily operations. These ecosystems generate high-quality data under real-world stress conditions, creating powerful validation environments for emerging technologies.

As a result, sports platforms increasingly serve as early deployment partners for innovation across health technology, performance monitoring, data analytics, and applied artificial intelligence. Technologies refined in elite competition environments often translate into scalable commercial applications in healthcare, enterprise, and consumer markets.

The broader implication is clear: the capital landscape is expanding beyond traditional venture firms. Athletes, corporates, and sports platforms are entering the ecosystem with both capital and strategic utility.

For Europe, the opportunity lies in coordination. If these actors are integrated into a coherent capital architecture, they can strengthen domestic scaling pathways and reinforce ownership. If not, their participation will remain episodic rather than systemic.

The evolution is underway. The question is whether it becomes infrastructure — or remains influence.

The Core Thesis

Across quantum, corporate venture, health technology, and emerging capital actors, the same structural issue surfaces: Europe’s challenge is not generating innovation, but financing it through global scale while retaining control.

The common denominator is structural. Europe performs well at research and early company formation. The system becomes less competitive when companies require large growth rounds, integrated capital markets, and strategic acquirers capable of holding assets domestically.

This is fundamentally an issue of capital architecture. Institutional savings are significant. Corporate liquidity is substantial. Public instruments are expanding.

What remains underdeveloped is alignment — the ability to mobilise these resources into patient, coordinated, late-stage capital.

Over the next 24 months, innovation output will not be Europe’s constraint. The decisive variable will be whether its financial system can support independence at scale and sustain ownership of the technologies it produces.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe

Introduced by Andreas Munk Holm, this EUVC Live at GoWest series spotlights the thought leadership of policymakers, institutional investors, GPs, corporates, and public capital leaders around one defining question:

How does Europe mobilize its own capital to secure its technological future?

Across the sessions, one theme emerges repeatedly:

Europe does not lack talent.It does not lack innovation.It does not lack savings.

It lacks coordination.

Europe builds 40% of the world’s quantum computers.

Yet it risks losing the industry.

In this keynote, Olivier Tonneau, Founder and Partner of Quantonation, argues that Europe has the science, the startups, and the talent to lead in quantum technologies but may lack the capital structure to sustain that leadership.

And the next 12–24 months are decisive.

Quantum Is Sovereign Infrastructure

Quantum technologies are built on three core principles:

* Superposition: particles existing in multiple states simultaneously

* Entanglement: correlated particles across distance

* Measurement collapse: observing a quantum system changes it

These properties unlock capabilities with geopolitical consequences:

* Exponential computing power

* Unhackable communication

* Ultra-precise sensing

The scaling curve is brutal.

When a quantum system moves from 100 to 101 qubits, its computing power doubles.

At scale, quantum machines will surpass classical supercomputers and reshape what is possible in defense, intelligence, industrial design, and cryptography.

This is not just innovation.

It is sovereignty.

Europe Is Competitive For Now

Europe is not behind in science.

It is ahead in multiple layers of the stack:

* ~40% of deployed quantum machines globally come from Europe

* Strong academic ecosystems (e.g., Chalmers University)

* A dense startup base across hardware, software, sensing, and communication

Europe is firmly in the game.

But the industry is no longer decided by research.

It is decided by scaling.

And scaling is being financed elsewhere.

The Funding Shock

For years, global quantum startup funding hovered around ~$2B annually.

Europe consistently raised roughly half what the US raised, not ideal, but survivable.

Then last year, the market shifted.

Suddenly:

* ~$10B flowed into quantum startups

* ~$7B went to US companies

* ~$1.2B went to Europe

* ~$1B went to the UK

The funding ratio moved from roughly 1:2 to nearly 1:7.

That gap changes everything.

Because in frontier industries, capital is not fuel.

Capital is velocity.

The Consequence: Europe Becomes the Lab, the US Becomes the Market

With a 1:7 funding gap:

* US firms scale faster

* Public listings become more feasible

* M&A accelerates

* European companies become acquisition targets

Europe can end up in the worst possible position:

Building the science.Training the talent.Creating the companies.

And exporting the value.

What Must Happen

Olivier outlines levers that are both immediate and structural.

Immediate (Next 12–24 Months)

* Fully deploy European Innovation Council programs

* Expand EIF-backed large-scale venture funds

* Reinforce public procurement as a scaling mechanism

* Launch and scale the €5B Scale-Up Fund Europe

* Remain pragmatic about foreign capital

* Liquidity matters

* US listings may be necessary

Long-Term

* Unified European capital markets

* Pension fund participation

* Larger VC vehicles

* Clearer exit pathways

* European preference in strategic procurement

The Core Thesis

Europe has the research base.

It has the startups.

It has the talent.

The question is whether it has the financial conviction.

Quantum leadership will not be won by publishing papers.

It will be won by building companies that can scale faster than they can be acquired.

And that requires capital architecture.

EUVC | The European VC is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.eu.vc/subscribe