4 ms·

I'm always sad that very successful European companies got fully incorporated in the US: datadog, algolia, dataiku, dashlane, etc. Also it seems to be missing

by h1fra 2y ago

I'm always sad that very successful European companies got fully incorporated in the US: datadog, algolia, dataiku, dashlane, etc. Also it seems to be missing some techs company: pigment, aircall, contentsquare (but not sure if it's a mistake)

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
America loves investing in risky ventures, and startups love money so they go to fish where the fish are. If Europe would invest into local startups instead of propping up the real estate bubble, they wouldn't sell themselves to the US for money. Our downfall is by our own design here. Governments don't create startups but they can 100% create the right legal, monetary and tax incentives to steer private capital and workers towards them, but as long as they are steered towards protecting the interests of gentrified land owners and those of 100-year-old companies, nothing will ever change and we'll just stare at how US and Chinese companies are overtaking us.
- kbcool 2y ago
  Or America's advantage is by its own design. Rich people can invest relatively small amounts in hundreds, if not thousands of startups through preferentially treated retirement funds and pay no (or little) tax on the ones that make it big. This is what has made it so easy to secure funding in the US. Should Europe do the same? There's definitely an ethical dilemma in making the rich, richer for the sake of innovation.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    >There's definitely an ethical dilemma in making the rich, richer for the sake of innovation. What do you mean? The European rich have always been getting richer via inheritance regardless of innovation. That's a monetary and legal policy hack that's been in place for decades/centuries here which is how the richest families are centuries old. Investing in innovation instead would be a much needed breath of fresh air and give current generation of youth some skin in the game instead of a defetist mentality that there's no point in working hard because the zero sum game is rigged. So I don't get your point.
TrackerFF 2y ago
The difference between US and Europe: - In Europe, getting funding is literally like pulling teeth. Just to get a measly hundred thousands of € in funding you're expected to provide a comprehensive business plan, financials, etc. that would rival M&A due diligence other places. In Silicon Valley you can get more funding by simply meeting the right angel investor, and providing a good pitch - done deal. - In Europe, the end goal for many startups is to be acquired by some megacorp or market leader, for something like €10m-€50m. In the US you can multiply that number by 10 or 100, or in general have ambitions of developing the startup into a unicorn. That was at least how things used to be. US has a long, long history of (risk willing) VC investments - while European countries have been lagging far behind. Good VC cultures have developed in some European countries for the past 10-15 years, and startups have become more ambitious, but unfortunately there's still a culture of nickel and diming startups. And the places that rob you, will fund you maybe a month or two worth of capital. EDIT: Should be said, that I'm also from Europe. And as someone else have pointed out in this thread, Europeans hate risk.
- mrweasel 2y ago
  Isn't funding at that extreme level pretty much localized to a few areas in the US, like Silicon Valley/Bay Area, Portland/Seattle area, New York and maybe Colorado. It is probably easier than in the EU, but I don't think may start ups in Alabama are getting crazy funding. As for getting acquired, that's the same in the US. Either you goal is total dominance on your own or getting acquired by Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle or Salesforce. You do have a point, start ups doesn't have access to the same level of uncritical funding. The SV model also isn't ideal, but it should be possible to find somewhere in the middle.
  - Galatians4_16 2y ago
    For a while there, funding in US was as simple as putting the right keywords into your proposal, and sending it to the right treasury office, getting it practically auto-approved. I hope they will align closer to the sensible European practices in the future.
deadbabe 2y ago
If they stayed in Europe they wouldn’t have been as successful.
drkrab 2y ago
Unfortunately that’s the case because large US-based companies can leverage their existing global sales / marketing / governance setup to rationalize very high exit valuations. In the EU we don’t have the large software shops that can do that. So for an EU based startup - it’s exit to a US-based company or go all the way to an IPO / profitability.
- carlosjobim 2y ago
  Your comment illustrated the problem: Europeans are very content with making excuses for their failures so they can continue not making an effort. Those Europeans who are not at home with that culture move to America. It's been like this for hundreds of years.

by h1fra 2y ago

FirmwareBurner 2y ago

America loves investing in risky ventures, and startups love money so they go to fish where the fish are. If Europe would invest into local startups instead of propping up the real estate bubble, they wouldn't sell themselves to the US for money. Our downfall is by our own design here. Governments don't create startups but they can 100% create the right legal, monetary and tax incentives to steer private capital and workers towards them, but as long as they are steered towards protecting the interests of gentrified land owners and those of 100-year-old companies, nothing will ever change and we'll just stare at how US and Chinese companies are overtaking us.

kbcool 2y ago
Or America's advantage is by its own design. Rich people can invest relatively small amounts in hundreds, if not thousands of startups through preferentially treated retirement funds and pay no (or little) tax on the ones that make it big. This is what has made it so easy to secure funding in the US. Should Europe do the same? There's definitely an ethical dilemma in making the rich, richer for the sake of innovation.
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  >There's definitely an ethical dilemma in making the rich, richer for the sake of innovation. What do you mean? The European rich have always been getting richer via inheritance regardless of innovation. That's a monetary and legal policy hack that's been in place for decades/centuries here which is how the richest families are centuries old. Investing in innovation instead would be a much needed breath of fresh air and give current generation of youth some skin in the game instead of a defetist mentality that there's no point in working hard because the zero sum game is rigged. So I don't get your point.

TrackerFF 2y ago

The difference between US and Europe: - In Europe, getting funding is literally like pulling teeth. Just to get a measly hundred thousands of € in funding you're expected to provide a comprehensive business plan, financials, etc. that would rival M&A due diligence other places. In Silicon Valley you can get more funding by simply meeting the right angel investor, and providing a good pitch - done deal. - In Europe, the end goal for many startups is to be acquired by some megacorp or market leader, for something like €10m-€50m. In the US you can multiply that number by 10 or 100, or in general have ambitions of developing the startup into a unicorn. That was at least how things used to be. US has a long, long history of (risk willing) VC investments - while European countries have been lagging far behind. Good VC cultures have developed in some European countries for the past 10-15 years, and startups have become more ambitious, but unfortunately there's still a culture of nickel and diming startups. And the places that rob you, will fund you maybe a month or two worth of capital. EDIT: Should be said, that I'm also from Europe. And as someone else have pointed out in this thread, Europeans hate risk.

mrweasel 2y ago
Isn't funding at that extreme level pretty much localized to a few areas in the US, like Silicon Valley/Bay Area, Portland/Seattle area, New York and maybe Colorado. It is probably easier than in the EU, but I don't think may start ups in Alabama are getting crazy funding. As for getting acquired, that's the same in the US. Either you goal is total dominance on your own or getting acquired by Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle or Salesforce. You do have a point, start ups doesn't have access to the same level of uncritical funding. The SV model also isn't ideal, but it should be possible to find somewhere in the middle.
- Galatians4_16 2y ago
  For a while there, funding in US was as simple as putting the right keywords into your proposal, and sending it to the right treasury office, getting it practically auto-approved. I hope they will align closer to the sensible European practices in the future.

deadbabe 2y ago

If they stayed in Europe they wouldn’t have been as successful.

drkrab 2y ago

Unfortunately that’s the case because large US-based companies can leverage their existing global sales / marketing / governance setup to rationalize very high exit valuations. In the EU we don’t have the large software shops that can do that. So for an EU based startup - it’s exit to a US-based company or go all the way to an IPO / profitability.

carlosjobim 2y ago
Your comment illustrated the problem: Europeans are very content with making excuses for their failures so they can continue not making an effort. Those Europeans who are not at home with that culture move to America. It's been like this for hundreds of years.