> What is unfair about the playing field? I'm not arguing that it's unfair, I'm arguing that the EU is not doing enough to encourage development within its bor

> What is unfair about the playing field? I'm not arguing that it's unfair, I'm arguing that the EU is not doing enough to encourage development within its borders. > Why aren’t European innovators creating YouTube alternatives? I have unsourced beliefs in this matter, that a lot of innovators follow capital outside of EU. There is not a single start-up that I worked with locally, that didn't end up incorporating in US for the capital and the market. Recently, the EU start-up scene is picking up, so I hope we can see more and more successful companies springing up here. But we're very far from competing with the US and China. > If they are, what specifically is it about EU law that prevents them from being successful? I'm not an expert, so I couldn't really say this, however, I know one major issue is the cultural and language barrier. There must be solutions to it, and there must be money in the EU to finance looking for such solutions. > I keep hearing about how European VCs are much more conservative, and European banks/investors in general just don’t want to invest in software like they do in the US This is also true; changing recently. I also agree with everything that you posted after this, with the mention that it should be a market-led choice, which type of engagement you want with whichever company you choose. > I understand the European solution is to have national champions that are heavily subsidized (the US does this to some degree, too, at its peril) - but should that be the first choice? I believe that, in general, investing smaller sums in more companies across multiple industries is the best solution in terms of government intervention. Then specialized programs for more capital infusion to companies in various stages of development, based on proper due diligence. But again, I'm not an expert.