Venture Capital In Technology

𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲’𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗥&𝗗: 𝗠𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗰𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 ‼️ Last week the International Monetary Fund published a very interesting and comprehensive paper about the need for more venture capital in Europe to tackle our continents challenges. To name a few: ✔️productivity per hour worked is app 30% lower in 🇪🇺compared to the 🇺🇸 ✔️R&D investments are still way below the target of 3% per annum ✔️Within the top 100 tech companies worldwide merely a handful are European Is it all about 💶 I here you say? No it is about keeping up our welfare for future generations. And about a liveable planet. And increasing our innovation and competitiveness are crucial to do so. Which is also the key message of Mr. Draghi’s report I hope. The IMF report takes a deeper dive into the underlying issues: ✔️ VC investments are only 0,4% of GDP. In the US it is 3x as much ✔️Europeans park their savings in bank accounts. And banks are very risk aversie when it comes to financing hightech startups. ✔️Long term savings go primarily via pension funds, who hardly invest in VC in Europe (despite some positive signs recently) ✔️The EU has fewer and smaller VC funds leading to smaller rounds, less opportunities for scale-up financing and limited exit options ✔️ European scale-ups end up listing in the US instead of Europe itself ✔️ National fragmentation within the EU leads to a lot of barriers for scaling What has to be done? ✅ Increase efforts on a real single European market, for example by consolidating stock market exchanges and diminishing cross border red tape ✅ Make it more attractive for pension funds and insurers to step into VC ✅ Enhance the capacity of European Investment Bank (EIB), European Investment Fund (EIF) and national promotional institutes, like Invest-NL ✅ Implement preferential tax treatments for equity investments in startups and VC funds ✅ Encourage more funds-of-funds And I would like to ad to the findings in the report two things: 1️⃣ We need a cultural mind shift, more urgency and embracing true entrepreneurship 2️⃣ We have to step up our game when it comes to tech transfer. Transforming our high quality academic knowledge into economic and societal impact via startups.

Europe is losing a generation of founders. And it's 100% self-inflicted. I've invested in US startups from my laptop in 48 hours. I've also sworn never to invest in certain European countries again. Not because of bad founders or startups. Because the legal complexity makes it impossible. That's not just sad. It's a tragedy. Here's the brutal reality: 🚨 Delaware works: → 48-hour digital incorporation → Standardized investment docs (SAFE notes) → No notary fees eating chunks of small investments → One system. Done. It's not what fuels Silicon Valley. It's the oil that keeps it running. Europe's mess: → 27 different legal systems → Deals taking MONTHS because of cross-border complexity → €800 billion annual investment gap → Klarna, Revolut, and countless others forced to list in New York Some angel investors face notary fees consuming 30% of a €10K investment. Others simply can't make micro-fund economics work because fixed costs and fragmented regulations make it uneconomical. The solution we need: EU–INC One unified European corporate form. Digital-first. Standardized stock options. EU-wide registry. Think "Delaware meets Stripe Atlas" but for all of Europe. Why this matters: As I build Vota and invest across Europe, I see brilliant founders relocating to Delaware not because they want to, but because they have no choice. Every startup that flips to the US is a loss for European innovation, jobs, and competitiveness. The infrastructure EXISTS in the US. Europe needs to build its version. Not in 10 years. Now. Are you supporting EU-Inc? This isn't just policy. It's infrastructure that determines whether Europe produces trillion-euro tech companies or keeps watching them leave. #euinc #europe #startups #venturecapital #innovation #entrepreneurship

The Army Just Launched FUZE. A $750M Annual VC Fund for Defense Startups. Secretary Dan Driscoll unveiled the Army's new venture capital model at the Demand Signal Forum in Arlington. Former private equity exec turned Army Secretary just flipped the acquisition playbook. FUZE channels $750M annually into nontraditional contractors. The man behind it? Driscoll ran a $200M VC fund before taking office. Iraq veteran with 10th Mountain Division. Yale Law grad. Sworn in by VP Vance in February. He calls traditional acquisition a "calcified bureaucracy" and he's not wrong. How it works. • Scout external tech, not internal solutions • Live pitch events starting October at AUSA • Other Transactional Authorities for rapid contracts • "Colorless money" flexible funding across programs First targets. • Counter-drone systems (interceptors, jammers) • Electronic warfare for spectrum dominance • Energy resilience (batteries for -40°F operations) • AI-driven autonomy and command systems Two prizes already announced. • $500K for emerging tech (October 2025) • $2.5M for counterstrike capabilities with U.S. Army Europe The shift is stark. Traditional acquisition takes 10+ years. FUZE promises prototypes to programs of record in months. Army labs and 75th Innovation Command vet the tech. Winners scale to production. Critics worry about over-focusing on tech while recruiting struggles. But Ukraine proved agile beats legacy. When commercial drones outpace billion-dollar programs, the model needs disruption. Three ways in. • SBIR/STTR grants for early stage • xTech challenges for specific problems • Direct pitches at AUSA mid-October Startups like Anduril benefit. Legacy primes lose their moat. The Army's telling innovators "we're open for business." Is your tech ready for a VC-style pitch to the Pentagon?

Europe has no shortage of talent, ambition, or ideas but it still lacks a functional Single Market for startups to scale. Regulatory fragmentation and administrative burdens remain some of the biggest barriers to building global tech companies in Europe. 27 legal systems, conflicting rules, and incompatible digital infrastructures mean high costs and high friction. This model isn’t competitive. It slows growth, deters investment, and pushes innovation out of Europe. That’s why at Atomico we support the ambition behind the proposed 28th regime but with the clear message that we consistently hear from our founders: “Europe must get this right or risk it being ignored entirely.” To succeed, the regime must be credibly faster, simpler, and more scalable than the status quo - a successful 28th regime should deliver: ➡️ One EU-wide legal identity: one new pan-European legal entity with harmonised rules and digital credentials, portable across all Member States. ➡️ Faster, full-digital setup: 100% digital formation and operations via a single EU-wide company registry. ➡️ Credible investment-readiness: standardised investment documents for simpler, faster fundraising. ➡️ Harmonised employee stock options: to better attract and reward talent and improve global talent competitiveness.  ➡️ Simple rules for local taxes and employment. This can’t be symbolic or driven by legacy voices. It must be co-created with the founders building Europe’s tech future. I’d encourage everyone who supports this vision to fill out the EU consultation before *Sept 30* (Link in comments) EU–INC. Let’s make this a defining moment, not another missed opportunity. Let’s build an ecosystem that rewards bold bets and unlocks scale. Andreas Klinger

The AI boom runs on a loop. Each deal fuels the next and the same few companies buy, build and invest in one another. Here’s how it works. These are only some of the latest deals: • Nvidia → OpenAI: Up to $100B phased commitment for new AI data centers using Nvidia chips. • OpenAI → Oracle: $300B cloud deal — mostly powered by Nvidia chips. • OpenAI → AMD: Deploying tens of billions in GPUs with an option to buy up to 10% of AMD shares. • Nvidia → CoreWeave: Buying $6.3B in cloud services. • OpenAI → CoreWeave: Paying up to $22.4B for compute capacity. • Nvidia → Intel: $5B investment and chip co-development plans. • U.S. → Intel: 10% stake via CHIPS Act funding. • U.S. → Nvidia & AMD: 15% cut from China chip sales. It’s a self-reinforcing system powered by capital, compute, and demand: 𝟭. Investors, Big Tech, and sovereign funds pour billions into AI players and infrastructure builders (OpenAI, xAI, CoreWeave, Anthropic, Oracle, Microsoft, Nvidia). 𝟮. That funding flows to chipmakers and cloud providers (GPUs from Nvidia and AMD, infrastructure from Oracle and CoreWeave). 𝟯. AI platforms and application firms (OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Anthropic) launch new models and tools, accelerating demand for compute. 𝟰. Rising demand boosts revenues and valuations, attracting fresh capital back into the loop. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱: • The loop circles around the same players because only a few control the capital, chips, and cloud power the AI ecosystem depends on. • The scale of investment is immense: trillions are being poured into the backbone of AI — from semiconductors and hyperscale data centres to energy infrastructure powering them. • OpenAI and its peers are growing revenue but rapid revenue growth is outpaced by astronomical infrastructure costs—from GPUs and data centres to energy. • OpenAI alone has reached an annualized revenue of about $12B — impressive, yet a fraction of what’s being spent to sustain the build-out. 𝗜𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗽 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲? The short answer: only if the economics catch up with ambition. The AI boom still runs on investment, not profit — but to justify the trillions deployed, it must start producing real returns: • AI platforms and developers must shift from user growth to profitability at scale. • Enterprises need to integrate AI deeply enough to justify spending on compute and models. • Infrastructure providers require sustained, predictable demand beyond the hype cycle. • Investors need real exits — IPOs, acquisitions, or profits that turn valuations into returns. Until then, the AI economy remains a closed loop of trapped capital. Opinions: my own, Graphic source: Bloomberg Subscribe to my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

OpenAI is laying the groundwork to go public, with chatter around a $1T valuation. It was valued around $500B privately earlier this year, so it’s “only” a 2x from here. The real question: will public markets see it the same way? Private markets run on narrative and scarcity - few breakout names, too much capital chasing them. Public markets run on cash flow and comparables. We’ve seen what happens when the two collide: WeWork was a Silicon Valley dream until Wall Street opened the S-1. To be clear, OpenAI’s importance isn’t up for debate. It has created immense value and accelerated an entire technological epoch. The open question is how that value translates into valuation once SEC filings replace mystique. Only 10 companies trade above $1T. They share a few traits: - broad diversification, - durable cash flows and fortress balance-sheets, - high operating leverage, - moats deeper than first-mover advantage. OpenAI, by contrast, is a single-category rocket with platform aspirations and a very expensive capex habit. Yes, revenue is blistering, but so is burn. It battling incumbents that already own the distribution (Microsoft, Google) and faces open-source competitors closing the quality gap. This is not an asset-light, high margin business, it is an energy-and-fabs industry strategy with an AI app layer on top. Public investors will ask 2 boring questions: Who funds that, and where do the unit economics land when your rivals are also scaling? Add to that key-man risk and management volatility - including Ilya Sutskever’s deposition surfacing this weekend - and you see why the public markets may hesitate to price perfection. OpenAI’s product lead is real, but the distribution math is unromantic. Slack vs. Teams is the parable: a better product capped by distribution physics. Gemini, Anthropic, and a fast-advancing open-source ecosystem may not dethrone OpenAI, but they cap its pricing power and flatten its growth curve. This isn’t fatal; it’s just a multiple governor. Toll roads price differently than racetracks. The only trillion-dollar anomaly is Tesla: a company suspended above fundamentals by force of story, founder wattage, and retail fervor. Could OpenAI achieve a similar legend premium? Possibly. ChatGPT is shorthand for the AI era. If OpenAI lists into that kind of bid, rational valuation models become spectator sport. But Sam Altman isn’t Elon Musk, and this weekend’s BG2 podcast moment showed the fine line between conviction and defensiveness. Asked how OpenAI would finance $1.4T in compute on $13B in revenue, he snapped: “Feel free to sell your stock.” Some heard confidence; others heard hubris. Markets rarely reward the latter for long. A $1 trillion listing could work if the market decides OpenAI is the AI future itself. But if it doesn’t, the comedown could be swift. Because public markets rarely reward “trust us” stories … unless you’re Elon.

Europe produces world-class research and talent in biotech and AI. But when it comes to turning that science into real-world (and commercial) impact, the path of least resistance often leads to America. Let me give you a concrete example: We tried to collaborate with a top European university. The science was excellent. The researchers were excited. Then their tech transfer office stepped in with an absurd demand: "Bi-directional transfer of intellectual property rights." Translation: They wanted rights to all of Cradle's IP in exchange for working with them. That's a no-go! We now work with many American institutions like the University of California, Berkeley instead. This is why we need to rethink how European institutions approach industry collaboration. In The United States collaboration is easy and people move between academia and industry all the time. They collaborate and build ecosystems. In Europe the bureaucrats make it really hard for leading deep tech companies to actually collaborate. The goal shouldn't be to maximize IP rights - it should be to maximize impact. Curious if others have made similar experiences and how you overcame them.

Only 2.2% of VC funding went to women founders in 2024. Black founders? 0.48%. LGBTQ+ founders? 0.5%. If VCs actually want to improve these numbers (big if), here are 5 things they could start doing: 1. Ban the warm intro You can't get warm intros without social capital. And underrepresented founders often lack the networks that make this possible. As long as access to capital requires social capital, diverse founders are going to take an L. 2. Be direct with your "no" - "Let me know when you have a lead investor" - "You're too early for us" - "Keep us updated on your progress" These are all indirect ways of saying no. So instead of beating around the bush, just say you’re not interested so founders can pursue investors who are genuinely interested. 3. Give real feedback Don't say that the "metrics aren't there." Tell us which metrics matter and what benchmarks you're looking for. Specific feedback helps founders improve and better understand what investors want. 4. Look beyond SF and NYC When you only invest in major tech hubs, you're saying you only want founders who can afford $4K/month rent. Remember: Mailchimp ($12B), Calendly ($3B), and Duo Security ($2.35B) weren't built in SF. 5. Diversify LP bases It makes sense that diverse LPs would lead to diverse founders. They bring different networks, understand overlooked markets, and can better evaluate opportunities in their communities. Will any of this happen? Probably not. These changes would mean disrupting systems that work really well for VCs and their existing networks. It would cost them traditional deal flow and require more work. But maybe in 2025, we'll see some brave firms try something different. Until then, we’ll keep building, growing, and finding ways to succeed despite the barriers. Founders: What other changes could help improve funding access for underrepresented founders? Share your ideas below 👇🏾 - - - If you found this insightful, follow me Toby Egbuna for more real talk about startup building and funding 🤝🏾

NVIDIA isn’t just winning the AI era on performance. It’s winning on relationships. Over the last three years, NVIDIA has built one of the densest and fastest-growing ecosystems in tech; spanning hyperscalers, OEMs, software vendors, cloud providers, and AI-native startups. Since 2023, the pace of new relationships has accelerated sharply, revealing where NVIDIA is embedding itself deepest in the AI stack. This relationship-first strategy compounds. Each new partnership increases switching costs, expands distribution, and pulls in the next wave of developers and customers. By the time revenue or market share shifts become obvious, the ecosystem advantage is already locked in. That dynamic is reshaping the semiconductor landscape. From 2020 to 2025, NVIDIA doubled its share of new business relationships, while Intel’s collapsed. Analysis of 2,772 chip-related partnerships shows how the AI semiconductor market is shifting: → Multi-provider adoption doubled YoY to 12%. Companies are moving away from single-vendor bets to hedge supply risk and optimize workloads across training, inference, and edge. → AMD grew new partnerships 72% YoY in 2025, landing OpenAI, Microsoft, Oracle, and Meta. This is not replacement. It is the early formation of a credible #2 merchant silicon challenger. → Qualcomm’s edge advantage is eroding as NVIDIA expands into edge faster than Qualcomm captures datacenter AI workloads. → Custom silicon is NVIDIA’s largest long-term risk. The companies building in-house accelerators are also NVIDIA’s biggest customers. While internal chips remain workload-specific today, each successful deployment displaces NVIDIA at the margin and weakens long-term pricing power. The Chip Wars battleground for business relationships doesn’t just explain who is winning today. It shows where momentum is building, where strategies are hardening, and where competitors may still find inroads through innovation, partnerships, and acquisitions.

Venture studios are emerging as a legitimate asset class. It's an interesting way of thinking about it, because it warrants further clarity and definitions, without being overly prescriptive. 👉 We need innovation in terms of how startups are built & funded -- venture studios provide that. So I encourage variability and creativity in venture studio models; the last thing we need is a restrictive, cookie-cutter definition and approach to "how venture studios should be" -- that's when I'll know the industry / asset class is dead. Having said that, if you're thinking about designing, building & launching a venture studio you should not go in blind. It's complex. There's lots to think about. There are many moving pieces. I'm excited about the rallying of the venture studio ecosystem. We're seeing more quality content, events, groups, etc. emerge from people including Max Pog, Alper Celen, Jake Hurwitz, Dianna Lesage, James Moran, Pat Riley and others. This is big. It means more transparency, learning & progress for everyone. ✅ With that in mind, I've put together what I'm calling the Venture Studio Checklist (link in comments). It's a comprehensive, 60+ variable/question guide for creating your own venture studio. It's a living, breathing document, I'll update it with more details over time, but I think it's a strong start for someone trying to think through all the components of a studio. There are 4 major sections: 1. Internal Company Structure and Methodology: This covers how you’ll structure your studio, how you’ll work (including the framework/playbook/process you’ll use for validating startups) and the makeup of your team. 2. The Founders: Next, you deep dive into the founders you’ll recruit: who they are, how you find them, compensation, etc. 3. Startup Structures: This section focuses on how you’ll structure new startups emerging from your venture studio. This is a complicated section because it focuses on investment and equity, two hot button topics. 4. Venture Studio Business Model: The final section covers the studio’s finances and business model, with different options for raising capital into the studio entity or a fund (or both). This is also complicated because studios don’t survive on management fees alone (or at all). The Venture Studio Checklist is free to use -- just make a copy (it's a Google Sheet) and start filling it in. I hope it helps people understand all the components of designing, building & launching a studio.