From a person who has dealt with the management of European research projects: these funds will go through the EU bureaucratic maze, don't even think they will be available directly to startups. There will probably be programs and sub-programs, projects and other craps like that to more difficult for people to access the money. It's how the EU works. That's why startups flee to US if they want serious financing.
oh, they are available to startups. Startups having the sole purpose of skimming funds by being the technology partner to some academic.
That's the best case. Then there is outright fraud:
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101092295 - European dynamic provides some project management and a wordpress-page for the lump sum of 800k€ and of course there is always "SOCIAL OPEN AND INCLUSIVE INNOVATION ASTIKI MI KERDOSKOPIKI ETAIREIA" headquartered here: https://inclusinn.com/. Probably still in stealth mode, using the 4M€ to "promote innovation".
> Startups having the sole purpose of skimming funds by being the technology partner to some academic.
Is cynicism about motives necessary?
I believe most people have enough self-deception and denial, that we don't need to assume fraud or theft. Similarly charities often end up being self-serving leeches - but the people seem to believe they are helping. Maybe I'm just naive? It is possible that most people in New Zealand are not so focused on intentional theft and fraud?
In New Zealand I've watched our government burn fucktons of money trying to invest in university "innovation". Academics convince politicians that they have valuable ideas, and politicians want to believe universities produce value. However the government funding is horrifically managed (no business sense) and the startups lack the right genetics and fail (even if matched funding from private investors). New Zealanders lack an entrepreneurial learning environment (maybe EU is the same): founding is difficult and really difficult if you've never watched someone close succeed.
I believe the root cause is that academics are not business/financially oriented, so the startups fail because they are not businesses. Plus the organisations picking investments are academic heavy and are not run by good capitalists. Academics often have good valuable ideas. But academics tend not to be hyper-focused just on business outcomes or they are not money focused. Business founders need to focus on profit (not status hunting, and definitely not looking for academic recognition).
I wondered for a while whether the cause was my own selection bias (startups mostly fail so I saw them fail) but I don't think that was the cause.
Also the government investing organisations love heavy handed shitty governance (and legal overcontrol bullshit). The principals believe their advice and overview is valuable. The investors put in bad CEOs and also force the businesses to make poor decisions. I've seen private VC funding make the same mistakes.
It is really sad to see good ideas get murdered by people with government money: I'm sure they believe they are helping and that they are trying to help (I'm not that cynical about motivations).
Our current government has just announced another 100 million to go towards academic startups. I just fucking wish our government would spend the budget instead by removing unnecessary red tape and to improve tax incentives (in New Zealand the incentives to grow businesses or create export income are fucked in my personal experience).
Doesn't match my experience. I know of plenty of startups that received EU funding with relatively little hassle. It's not that hard. And if you are afraid of some mild levels of bureaucracy, you shouldn't be running a company. And it's not like the US doesn't have bureaucracy.
Both is true: a lot of money is lost to bureaucracy and startups get funding, although it's not that easy imho. And the amounts are laughable in my experience, that's the biggest problem. Yes, it's nice that I get a kickback on research costs or whatever, but the process takes weeks and the returns are dismal. YMMV tho
That's not my experience. I have multiple former colleagues who got got EU money for their startup and were able to leave their day job due to that funding. I only supported a bit as a software engineer but what I was involved in it was pretty straightforward.
I often read that EU is incredibly bureaucratic and risk averse. On the other hand, I also read stories how startups can successfully bootstrap themselves via generous support of the government, like tax deduction for small companies, unemployment benefits for founders, low-interest loans, venture investment, free mentorship by very experienced and connected executives, and etc. The stories about French and Denmark companies are especially impressive. So, I was wondering if there's a difference between the governments of individual countries in EU and the EU government.
> On the other hand, I also read stories how startups can successfully bootstrap themselves via generous support of the government, like tax deduction for small companies, unemployment benefits for founders, low-interest loans, venture investment, free mentorship by very experienced and connected executives, and etc.
I’m not seeing EU grants in that list. In general I’d say anything the bureaucrats can’t ruin with their gatekeeping, friendship corruption and overvaluation of social status is a positive. Anything they can ruin they will.
I know people who've taken money through these routes. The biggest surprise is the paperwork; since it's public money, everything must be fully transparent, and the government needs to justify why funds went to a specific person / entity.
In contrast, private investors have more discretion and fewer stakeholders to answer to.
You could go on unemployment and cost them for a year or two, and they instead subsidize you starting a business for 6-12 months to the same amount. Worst case, you fail, and they spent the same amount they would have nevertheless.
Low-interest loans you won't get without taking on personal liability for your business loan. It's low-cost capital, but it's also low risk.
Tax-delays/exemptions for small companies isn't a big bet, it's risking a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Venture investments by the government is rare (for good reasons, it'd be a huge opportunity for corruption).
Most of the time the money goes to keep big inefficient European companies European CHIPS act mainly divided the money into smaller sub programs, and gave the money to big companies like ST, Infineon, NXP etc.
For start-ups they do a lot of online calls to ask "what do you need" though. When you say money, they are like, yeah but what do you need except money!?
I applied to a few different programs and got funding for industry research a few different times. It was some work, but still not harder than getting academic research funding...
most of the funding will go to incumbents too, not startups. EU values establishment over innovation. So you can think of German automakers, Airbus and others creating new innovation programs and that's where the bulk of many many billions will go to. Startups get the crumbles and are scrutinized more heavily.
I share your sentiment, I'm also very skeptical that this money will be wisely used, a good chunk of it probably sinks into the Treibsand of European bureaucracy. And significant amounts will go to shallow ideas of startups. Europe just doesn't have the right startup spirit. It's over regulated and risk averse. Both fatal for a fruitful development.
One of the primary reasons I quit using reddit was because of the ideological dog piling that turned so many communities into insular echo chambers.
I know you’re just quoting the rules, but I’m noticing the same process happening here. It would be a shame if HN continued this trend while everyone stayed silent.
Do you think the question “why am I getting downvoted” is interesting? And is it interesting enough to warrant a separate comment thread? Now imagine if everyone who got downvotes started asking that question, it would lower the quality of conversations here, people would start justifying their vote and their opinion or attacking the other. And in the end, I doubt the people downvoting would really answer, only the people agreeing/upvoting would post some snarky comment about the downvoters being fools, or the quality of the site going down. That’s the “it never does any good” part (were already in it in this conversation IMO)
In my opinion that comment got downvoted because it’s not interesting. It’s a comment I have heard dozens of times, did not provide any example or source, and plenty other people posted effectively the same in here.
No it wasn’t quote from the original comment, i copy pasted from the guidelines - and the comment “why am I getting downvoted” is off topic in regards to EU and tech funding. The guideline exist precisely to avoid every post devolving into the (boring) conversation we are having now.
I haven't downvoted you, but I understand why some might have because every thread on Hacker News regarding Europe and software attract this exact comment almost as if written from a template. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but it gets a little stale.
Yes we all know this, this is nothing new. But its the movement in right direction, especially now, rather than literal burning money on globally-abandoned green deal. Perfect being enemy of good and all of that
So leave me be very skeptical about this news.