EUVC

Moving to the US is not just a question of when to go. It changes how founders sell, hire, network and judge whether they are actually gaining traction.In this episode, Thomas Cuvelier, Partner at RTP Global, shares what he has learned from helping European founders build in the US, with a particular focus on New York.Thomas explains why founders should resist hiring a US sales leader too early, why customer discovery should remain founder-led and how to know when it is time to move rather than keep flying back and forth.He also discusses the cultural differences that can trip founders up, including mistaking enthusiasm for real buying intent, underestimating the importance of local social proof and failing to network aggressively enough.The conversation also covers first hires, visas, specialist advice, what founders should expect from their VCs and why discounting too heavily to win US customers can create problems later.HighlightsWhy European founders are moving to the US earlierWhy New York works particularly well for many B2B companiesWhen to move and when to keep flying back and forthWhy founders should lead US customer discovery themselvesWhy enthusiasm does not always mean buying intentHow local social proof changes the sales processWhat to expect from your VCs when entering the USHow to approach your first US hiresWhy aggressive discounting can backfireTimestamps(00:00) Cold open(01:25) Why European founders are moving to the US earlier(03:10) Who is moving earlier and why(06:45) Why more founders are choosing New York(08:20) The biggest US hiring mistake(10:00) When founders should move to the US(11:20) What early traction should look like(12:45) Why founders need to network more aggressively(14:00) How to build a network in New York(15:30) Visas and the logistics founders underestimate(17:00) Why US enthusiasm does not equal buying intent(18:10) Why local social proof matters(19:20) What founders should expect from their VCs(21:40) How to pressure-test investors during fundraising(23:00) Choosing between US and European VCs(25:00) When specialist advisers are worth it(26:45) Where AI helps and where founders still need experts(28:15) How to approach your first US hires(30:10) Why founders should lead the first sales motion(31:20) When founders move back to Europe(32:45) Why founders should resist discounting in the US(34:00) How underpricing can hurt growth and fundraising

Why should pension funds consider venture, and what does it take to build exposure that can survive multiple cycles?In this EUVC conversation, Anders Strömblad, Senior Adviser Private Investments at AP2, and Joe Schorge, Founder and Managing Partner at Isomer Capital, discuss the institutional case for venture, drawing on decades of experience allocating across the asset class.Anders explains why AP2 began investing after the dot-com crash, why patience and consistent deployment matter and how venture can give pension funds exposure to the companies driving technological shifts before they reach public markets. Anders and Joe also discuss Europe’s maturing venture ecosystem, the challenge of accessing strong managers, the structural difficulty of investing in smaller funds and why conviction is built through long-term relationships as much as historical data.HighlightsWhy venture belongs in the pension fund conversationWhat AP2 learned from more than 20 years of allocationWhy venture is more than a risk factorHow venture provides exposure to disruptionWhy Europe has become more investableWhy access takes years to buildThe challenge of backing smaller fundsHow institutional investors build conviction

Getting a deeptech company from prototype to first commercial factory requires a very different funding model from traditional venture.In this EUVC conversation hosted by Jeppe Høier, Prateek Mahalwar, Founder and CEO of BIOWEG, and Katrien Swerts, Executive Director at Rabo Investments, discuss how founders and investors can finance first-of-a-kind industrial projects, where the biggest risks sit and how different forms of capital can work together.Prateek explains how BIOWEG combined venture funding with non-dilutive capital, why founders should build commercial traction before scaling and why early sales conversations matter even when the technology is still developing.Katrien shares the investor perspective: why cost, functionality and realistic scale-up economics come first, why project finance usually cannot fund first-of-a-kind assets and how equity and venture debt can gradually shift the financing mix as risk comes out of the business.HighlightsWhy first-of-a-kind factories are difficult to financeWhat investors look for in industrial biotechWhy economics matter alongside impactHow BIOWEG structured its funding mixWhy founders should sell before they scaleWhat investors need to believe about pilot economicsWhy project finance says no to first-of-a-kindHow venture debt can support later plantsWhat Europe needs to finance industrial scale-upTimestamps(00:00) Cold open(01:20) Why first-of-a-kind plants are so hard to finance(03:00) How Rabo Ventures invests(05:00) Why patient capital matters in deeptech(07:00) What made BIOWEG investable(08:00) What industrial biotech gets wrong(10:30) From lab science to building BIOWEG(13:10) What BIOWEG actually makes(14:20) How BIOWEG plans to scale production(15:30) Why agriculture could become the bigger market(18:30) Why cost matters as much as compliance(19:00) How Rabo diligenced the scale-up(22:30) How BIOWEG found non-dilutive funding(25:20) How the grant application came together(28:30) Why location and local partners mattered(30:00) How grant reimbursement affects cash flow(32:20) Why founders should use non-dilutive capital(34:10) Why deeptech teams need sales earlier(35:40) Why commercial thinking has to start early(37:20) How BIOWEG built its financing stack(40:00) Why Rabo Ventures joined the round(42:10) What a bank can bring beyond equity(43:50) Why project finance still says no to FOAK(45:00) How equity and venture debt can work together(46:50) How plant two becomes easier to finance

Climate investing is entering a more disciplined phase. Strong narratives are no longer enough if the underlying economics, market demand and path to scale do not hold up.In this EUVC conversation, Peter Platan, Investment Director at Tesi, explains how Finland’s state-owned investment company approaches fund investing, what it looks for in managers and where he sees the biggest gaps in European climate capital.Peter argues that climate, energy transition and resilience should be assessed like any other investment vertical, with a focus on durability, value creation, team quality and evidence of market fit. He shares what Tesi looks for in GP track records, why broad mandates without a clear edge are a concern and why realised performance still matters when assessing managers.The conversation also explores Europe’s scale-up and first-of-a-kind funding gap, particularly for hardware-heavy businesses where technological, market and financing risk converge. Peter explains why these projects often need a blend of equity, debt and public funding rather than traditional venture capital alone.Drawing on his background in development finance, he also discusses patient capital, blended finance and how public investors can help bring private capital into areas where risk is still difficult to price.HighlightsHow Tesi approaches fund investingWhat Tesi looks for when underwriting managersWhy climate funds need more than a strong narrativeWhy green premiums and regulation are no longer enoughWhat makes Tesi pass on a GPWhy home-country investment quotas can create misalignmentWhere Europe’s scale-up and first-of-a-kind funding gap sitsWhy hardware-heavy climate companies need different capitalWhat development finance can teach European investorsHow public capital can help mobilise private funding

Sequoia is leaving London, political resistance to AI infrastructure is growing and Europe’s policy ambitions are once again being tested by execution.In this episode of This Week in European Tech, Mads Jensen and Priyanka Savjani of SuperSeed, Lomax Ward of Outsized Ventures and Andrew J Scott of 7percent Ventures discuss what Sequoia’s London exit means for European venture, why the AI build-out is becoming a political issue and whether Europe’s proposed 28th regime can still make a meaningful difference for founders.They also look at the economics behind AI infrastructure, Revolut’s move to self-host AI models, new cybersecurity risks as more physical infrastructure comes online and where the strongest opportunities in robotics may emerge.The episode closes with Anthropic’s updated IPO filing, the scale of its compute commitments and the week’s standout European deals.Highlights(00:00) Cold open(01:40) Sequoia leaves London(07:30) AI earnings, markets and the infrastructure build-out(10:00) Why data centre restrictions may favour incumbents(13:00) Is the AI sell-off an overreaction?(16:00) The politics of AI infrastructure(18:30) Can Europe’s 28th regime still work?(23:00) Why European founders still face structural barriers(28:30) The UK’s AI strategy and sovereignty debate(33:00) Revolut’s self-hosted AI bet(37:00) Cybersecurity for an increasingly connected world(42:00) Where the money is going in robotics(47:00) Anthropic’s IPO and compute commitments(52:00) Deals of the week

AI-native founders are not just building different products. They are changing how companies test ideas, organise teams, gather feedback and scale.In this EUVC conversation, Laura Modiano, who leads Founder Experience at OpenAI, shares what she is learning from founders building with AI across every stage of the company journey, from inception and pre-seed through to later-stage scale-ups.Laura explains how founders are using AI to pressure-test ideas from the perspective of investors, customers and different functions before entering real conversations. She argues that as building becomes easier, taste, speed and a strong point of view become increasingly important competitive advantages.The conversation also explores why AI-native teams are moving beyond rigid job titles, how centralised company knowledge can improve collaboration and why every function, from engineering to finance and marketing, should increasingly be able to build with AI.In addition, Laura discusses how established companies can become AI-first, the role OpenAI wants to play alongside startups building on its models and why European founders may benefit from being closer to industries such as manufacturing, logistics and healthcare.HighlightsHow founders can pressure-test ideas with AIWhy taste is becoming a startup moatHow AI-native teams organise and collaborateWhy shared company knowledge matters more than everHow small teams can increase their output with AIHow scale-ups can become AI-firstWhere OpenAI sees its role alongside application-layer startupsWhy European founders may have an edge in the real economyTimestamps(00:00) Intro(02:45) OpenAI’s support for startups(05:45) How Laura works with founders(08:40) What AI changes at the inception stage(10:00) Pressure-testing ideas with AI(12:20) Using AI before the first investor meeting(16:00) How founders should use AI at pre-seed(18:10) Why taste is becoming a moat(22:00) How AI-native teams should operate(25:20) Building a centralised knowledge system(28:40) How startups can scale with AI(31:00) Will OpenAI move further into the application layer?(34:00) How non-AI-native companies can become AI-first(38:40) Why everyone in a company should be a builder(40:40) Why European founders have an advantage(42:00) What AI is already changing inside enterprises

Getting pension funds into venture is not simply a question of appetite. The harder part is giving institutions a structure they understand, a risk profile they can assess and a clear path to returns.In this conversation from EUVC Summit 2026, Dario My, Head Venture Hub Switzerland at Deep Tech Nation Switzerland, joins Joe Schorge, Founder and Managing Partner at Isomer Capital, to discuss how Switzerland is trying to make venture more accessible to pension funds.Dario explains what Deep Tech Nation Switzerland has learned from working directly with pension funds, where interest in venture exists but experience with the asset class is still limited. He shares how its roundtables grew from three participating pension funds to around 20 and why performance remains the starting point for any allocation decision.The conversation also explores why early-stage venture is still perceived as highly risky, how education can gradually change that view and why pension fund mobilisation needs to be solved at country level. Dario also discusses the pension fund investment foundation created with pension funds themselves to address practical barriers and provide a more workable route into venture.HighlightsWhy pension fund appetite alone is not enoughWhat Swiss pension funds need before allocating to ventureWhy performance remains the primary requirementHow education can change perceptions of early-stage investingWhat Deep Tech Nation Switzerland learned from pension fund roundtablesWhy pension fund mobilisation needs country-specific solutionsHow a dedicated investment structure can reduce practical barriersWhat Switzerland’s approach could mean for European venture

Owning and operating a business can give family investors access to insights that are difficult to reproduce from the outside. The question is how to turn that knowledge into a genuine advantage for funds and founders.In this conversation from EUVC Summit 2026, ⁠Owen Reynolds⁠, Investment Director VC at ⁠Innotek⁠, shares how an active family business can bring deeper market knowledge, faster diligence and practical operating context into venture investing.Innotek is a single family office investing across venture capital, private equity and direct investments, with roots in industrial, manufacturing and technology. Owen explains how its in-house automation, robotics and engineering expertise can support investment decisions and portfolio companies in ways that go beyond capital.He also discusses why operating companies can sometimes “skip the first five slides” of a pitch deck, how continuous exposure to customers and supply chains creates an information advantage and why specialist investors risk losing some of that edge as they become professional investors.The conversation also covers how family offices can support VCs and portfolio companies more effectively, why that support needs to be specific rather than assumed and where LP expectations and established fund structures may be holding venture back.HighlightsHow operating businesses create an investment edgeWhy active operators can accelerate due diligenceHow in-house technical expertise can support venture investingWhy specialist VCs can gradually lose their specialisationHow family offices can work more effectively with VCsWhy operating support needs to be specific and credibleWhere LP structures may be restricting venture fundsHow family offices can become stronger long-term partners

What does a genuinely useful VC relationship look like, and how much should operating experience matter when investors are advising founders?In this episode of This Week in European Tech, Dan Bowyer and Mads Jensen of SuperSeed discuss what separates strong VC partnerships from weaker ones, why venture outcomes naturally follow power laws and what founders should realistically expect from the investors around their table.They also look at the UK Budget and whether it goes far enough for founders, the wider economic pressures facing younger people and what could encourage more people to build companies.The conversation then turns to AI, including Anthropic’s planned IPO, where inference may happen in the future and the growing question of whether companies can trust the models and agents operating inside their businesses.Dan and Mads also discuss technological sovereignty, the case for stronger European AI infrastructure and what Europe should prioritise rather than trying to recreate every layer of the technology stack.HighlightsWhat founders should expect from a strong VC partnershipHow much operating experience matters for investorsWhy venture capital produces power-law outcomesWhat the UK Budget means for foundersWhy entrepreneurship may have an energy problem as well as a policy problemWhat Anthropic’s planned IPO could tell us about the AI marketWhy more AI inference could move onto personal devicesThe security risks created by AI agents at scaleWhether European companies can trust foreign AI modelsWhere Europe should focus its technology sovereignty efforts

In vertical AI, choosing a narrower market can look like giving up scale, but for Corti it created the focus needed to go much deeper into healthcare and build around the accuracy, compliance and real-world complexity that clinical environments demand.Andreas Cleve, Co-Founder and CEO of Corti, joins us to explain the thinking behind that choice and what it has meant in practice. Andreas describes healthcare not as one market but as many highly specialised ones, each with its own workflows, terminology and requirements. That depth means bigger general-purpose models alone are not enough. Corti has instead had to build further down the stack and take greater control over the technology and infrastructure required to get AI into production.The trade-off becomes especially clear around accuracy. AI can perform well in a demo and still fall short in a clinical environment, where one incorrect word or detail can change the meaning entirely. Andreas explains why clinical-grade performance depends on much more than training better models, from working closely with users to adapting to individual specialties and solving the last-mile problems that appear when technology meets real workflows.The conversation also explores why Corti brought compliance in-house rather than treating regulation as something to outsource. For founders building in healthcare, legal, financial services or other high-stakes domains, the broader question is how to decide which constraints to accept, which capabilities to own and where going deeper can create an advantage that broader competitors struggle to replicate.HighlightsWhy Corti chose vertical AI over a broader horizontal approachWhat founders give up when they deliberately narrow their marketWhy bigger models do not automatically solve regulated-domain problemsWhy 90% accuracy can still fall far short in clinical environmentsHow specialisation pushes vertical AI companies deeper into the stackWhy getting AI into production requires more than model performanceWhy Corti built its compliance capability in-houseHow founders can think differently about regulation and other high-stakes constraintsTimestamps(00:00) Intro(01:45) What Corti is building(03:45) Why healthcare needs specialised AI(05:45) Why bigger models do not solve healthcare(07:40) Healthcare is not one market(09:50) The trade-offs of going vertical(11:50) Funding a capital-intensive AI company from Europe(13:15) Why Corti is doubling down on Copenhagen(16:45) Copenhagen’s talent problem(19:30) Why 90% accuracy is not enough in healthcare(23:00) Solving the last mile of healthcare AI(25:45) Where AI adoption is happening fastest in healthcare(31:20) Why regulation is not the enemy(34:40) How founders should approach compliance(37:40) What founders should understand about venture funding(42:30) Why European VCs need a GPU strategy(46:40) Europe’s growth funding gap(48:00) When should European founders move to the US?