I always heard that the issue with startup investment in Europe was the general lack of capital investors willing to take Hail Mary risks on founders with a wild idea and maybe little experience. The market is far too risk-averse for a grassroots early-stage startup scene.

How would this organization address that fundamental psychological block?

> How would this organization address that fundamental psychological block?

It'll make it easier for investors in one country to invest in businesses in another (assuming both are in EU of course). Larger pool of available investors == larger pool of investors who are fine with higher risks.

Currently, when you raise money, you usually end up with just local investors, because others can't be bothered to having to understand your local laws and regulations, and with everything that comes with that.

Personally, that's what's stopping me too. In one case I still went through and invested in a company in another country, but in most cases I don't even bother reading deeper about the company unless it's in the same country, would have to be an exceptional idea and team for it to be worth it.

How is that in the US right now though? Years ago there was a wacky startup of the week on HN raising X amount of funds, nowadays it feels like there's... nothing. Or it's just underreported on HN. Or the billions that funded a hundred startups have all gone down the AI drain.

this is not the only blocker for European startup success. We need to address each blocker separately.

The EU Inc. makes pan-EU operations simpler for businesses. This decreases internal barriers for trade, so it will lead to growth!

I feel like the mentality problem will follow the market realities. If startup founders become rich, they turn into investors and the startup snowball keeps growing.

This is basically just a meme at this point.

I don't think the VC-based start-up system with pure profit in mind and an exit at some point and then who-cares-about-the-product is something I want to see more of.

The incentives change once you get access to the entire EU market, either diminishing the risk or increasing the attractiveness of the the market to the point of that risk becoming acceptable

Not true. I am an LP in a number of Vc funds.

I think a big issue is that Europeans who want to invest in early stage VC do so in the States, because everything is geared towards entrepreneurial success there. Changing the business environment across the EU is necessary but definitely not sufficient to kick start the VC-backed startup scene in the EU.

It wouldn't. I read this as "we gotta try something" but let's be honest, no amount of work on incorporation rules or employee options schemes or whatever they make up next, is going to meaningfully change the culture and attitude of European capital markets.

If the EU really wants to light the fire, they should invest all those suddenly available defense euros in European companies only. Keep that going for a decade and there'll be a whole new generation of angel investors and small funds run by recently exited entrepreneurs with a soft spot for proper innovation. The SV VC culture didn't pop into being magically. It happened because a sufficiently large % of VCs had been entrepreneurs in a previous life (and not bankers), and their attitudes rubbed off on the rest.

> The market is far too risk-averse for a grassroots early-stage startup scene.

Or, in reality: there's literally no expectation for companies to succeed or to turn in profit in the US, and hasn't been for over a decade.

US startups now exist to do one thing hoping for exactly one of two outcomes. Do: spend unlimited investor money. Hope: to be acquired by larger entities, or to engage in VC-subsidized predatory-pricing long enough to try and kill others doing the exact same thing, and become "too big to fail".

UK founder here in cybersecurity. I’ve bootstrapped and exited twice.

For my third venture, I cold emailed a US VC (from their about us page) that specializes in cyber. Within a month I had a term sheet. I didn’t take it because it was contingent on relocating to the US or adding a US based cofounder/senior person ... but they were super proactive, introduced me to senior cyber operators, getting design partners and were clearly willing to underwrite founder risk early.

In contrast, simply changing my LinkedIn status to “stealth” triggered 15+ inbound messages from EU focused investors .. mostly low effort outreach, deal scouts .. It got to the point where I had a template reply along the lines of: “I’m not looking for VC coaching or therapy sessions — I just need fire and forget capital. If that works, happy to talk.” Every single one either went silent or declined.

In my experience, many European investors index heavily on hierarchy, control, validation, and internal consensus and tend to operate from a very rigid playbook of what a “proper” startup is supposed to look like .. whatever "proper" means.