This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Sixteen years ago, I co-founded betahaus in Berlin - when coworking wasn’t a word, “startup” felt more like a gamble than a job title, and Europe’s tech scene was still a quiet murmur. Since then, I’ve had the privilege of helping shape what became one of the continent’s most vibrant startup ecosystems - through betahaus, our pan-European competition betapitch, and countless conversations, collisions, and co-creations with founders across Europe.

So what does it really take to be a founder here? Not in theory - but in the trenches?

Here’s what I’ve learned.

1. Community Before Capital!

When we launched betahaus, we didn’t start with investors. We started with community - a space for curious minds, problem-solvers, creatives, and coders who wanted to work on something that mattered.

That community ended up being more than a backdrop - it became the foundation. Over the years, I’ve watched countless founders build enduring companies not because they chased capital - but because they built relationships rooted in trust, care, and shared risk.

Lesson: In Europe, community is not a nice-to-have. It’s your first investor, your first customer, your lifeline.

2. Complexity Is the Terrain. Not the Obstacle!

Scaling in Europe is not linear. You’re not just building a business - you’re navigating tax codes, languages, hiring laws, and shifting cultural expectations. I’ve seen brilliant startups fumble when they assumed what worked in Berlin would work in Madrid.

But I’ve also seen others embrace that complexity - learning to adapt messaging, build modular structures, and lead with empathy across cultures.

Lesson: In Europe, the game isn’t just “growth.” It’s orchestration. Win by listening better and learning faster.

3. Transparency Starts at the Top. Boards Need to Make Room for Truth!

Alongside my work as a founder, I also serve on the boards of both a large NGO and a small startup. These experiences constantly remind me how fragile honesty can be - especially when pressure builds, cash gets tight, or optics matter more than truth.

In both settings, I’ve seen how transformational it can be when the board creates a safe, non-punitive space where founders and operators can be radically transparent about what’s really going on - whether that’s product delays, team tension, or self-doubt.

Founders don’t need more performance reviews. They need rooms where truth is welcomed, not penalized, and where they can admit uncertainty without fear.

Lesson: If you want to support founders - don’t just ask for metrics. Ask what’s heavy. Ask what’s unclear. Make space for what’s hard to say.

4. You Need a Safe Space. Especially as a Female Founder!

Here’s a truth that still needs saying: being a female founder is harder. The scrutiny is sharper. The access is narrower. The expectations are murkier. And the emotional labor is heavier—whether in the pitch room, on stage, or behind the scenes.

Over the years, I’ve learned that you must build your own circle of safety. A space to ask the hard questions, to cry without shame, to recharge without guilt. Mine has included close friends, a coach, fellow female founders, and spaces where I can drop the armor.

Lesson: Don’t wait until you break to ask for support. Your strength is directly tied to your sense of safety.

5. Resilience Is a Practice, Not a Personality Trait

I used to think resilience meant pushing through. Grinding harder. Being unshakable.

But now I know: resilience is not endurance - it’s regeneration. It’s learning to pause. To soften when needed. To hold space for uncertainty without collapsing into fear.

I've had years where everything felt like it was working - and others where I questioned whether I still had what it takes. What got me through wasn’t willpower. It was having systems of recovery: space to breathe, people who reminded me why I started, and the courage to start again.

Lesson: In Europe’s slower-moving, regulation-heavy, emotionally restrained startup world, resilience is your quiet superpower. And you don’t build it alone.

6. Define Success on Your Own Terms

In the beginning, success felt like scale. Users. Revenue. Funding.

But now? I’ve come to see that real success is building something that reflects your values. It’s creating jobs that feel good to come to. It’s being able to sleep at night knowing you made decisions you’re proud of. It’s showing younger founders - especially women - that there’s more than one way to lead.

Success might look like a 10x return, or it might look like a company that survives the decade and still feels human. Both count. You get to choose.

Lesson: The more authentic your definition of success, the more resilient your company will be.

Final Words: Keep Going, But Keep Checking In

Sixteen years in, what I know for sure is this: European founders are some of the most thoughtful, determined, and quietly brave people I’ve ever met. They don’t just chase hype - they navigate complexity with heart.

The founder path here isn’t flashy. It’s layered, sometimes slow, and often lonely. But when done well, it creates companies that last - and communities that matter.

So wherever you are in the journey: protect your energy. Stay curious. Find your people. Lead on your terms. And remember - resilience isn’t summoned in a crisis. It’s built in the everyday honesty of teams, boards, and spaces that let us be real.

And if you need a place to begin again - or just to breathe - there’s always a chair for you at betahaus.

The EU needs to refocus and develop policies and regulation that give European startups a more open playing field in the region, in order that companies have the space to become big enough to compete worldwide. Culturally, Europe is always going to be more inclined to regulate, but focusing on regulating to win – strengthening European startups rather than overwhelming them with bureaucracy – can be an improvement over the 50-state regulatory scene in the US or a CCP dominated China.

Market-Opening Regulation Empowers Startups

The EU’s financial regulations, particularly PSD2 and SEPA, have played a crucial role in modernizing digital banking across Europe. PSD2’s open banking mandate has enabled fintech startups to build innovative financial products by leveraging banking data, fostering a more competitive ecosystem. SEPA has further streamlined cross-border payments, reducing transaction friction and making financial services more accessible across the EU. These regulations have created a more harmonized, innovation-friendly environment, allowing neo-banks like N26 and Revolut to scale rapidly across multiple countries avoiding the complexity of multiple licensing regimes.

This pro-innovation regulatory landscape has produced numerous European fintech startups (many founded in London prior to Brexit, but still benefitting from the EU-wide regulations. Though none have have yet approached the scale of Stripe, which has a global payment volume of over $1 trillion, a valuation of $65B and net annual revenue of $3.8B, there are many European startups that have thrived under this regulatory regime, such as Klarna, WIse and the above mentioned neo-banks. The success is such that the US monster bank JPMorganChase has opened a consumer bank in the UK and is opening another here in Berlin.

It is the case that the U.S. market is so large that it easier for high-growth startups like Stripe to scale quickly. Other US advantages like a deep capital market with strong venture funding contrast with European fintechs facing smaller, nationally-oriented consumer markets and a more risk-averse investment environment, limiting their ability to scale in the same way. But PSD2 and SEPA have fostered an efficient and modernized banking infrastructure, which has led to the emergence of successful fintech startups able to succeed in Europe and compete in other markets.

But the Commission Wants to be a Nanny

However, the EU’s focus on stability and consumer protection, while beneficial in some aspects, has limited the breakout success of highly scalable and competitive startups. Lacking a more aggressive, investment-driven approach, Europe is falling behind the U.S. and Asia in the race to dominate the next wave of technology innovation.

An example of how Europe regulates with clear benefits but ultimately detrimental results is the the EU AI Act. Notable benefits include legal clarity and standardization, ensuring a harmonized framework across all EU member states and preventing regulatory fragmentation, making it easier for companies to navigate compliance and scale their AI solutions within the region. Furthermore, the introduction of regulatory sandboxes allows startups and SMEs to test AI applications in controlled environments, reducing initial regulatory burdens and encouraging experimentation. These elements can enhance trust in AI technologies in sectors like healthcare and finance, where transparency and accountability are crucial.

However, the stringent compliance requirements of the Act create significant barriers for startups and new entrants, for example the classification of AI risk levels imposes heavy documentation and auditing costs on businesses developing high-risk AI applications such as biometrics, predictive analytics, and automated decision-making systems. This bureaucratic overhead makes it difficult for small AI firms to compete, limiting the diversity and competitiveness of Europe’s AI landscape and ultimately favoring large, well-funded corporations that can afford legal and technical compliance teams. Without clear exemptions or financial support mechanisms, compliance costs alone could deter the next wave of AI startups from launching in the EU. Anecdotally, I have spoken with many European AI startups who benefit from being in Europe at the early stage, but expect to decamp to the US as they are forced to comply with the EU AI Act.

Beyond regulatory burdens, the EU AI Act places European AI companies at a global competitive disadvantage, especially against the U.S. and China, where there is little AI regulation. U.S. tech giants like OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft continue to dominate AI research and commercialization without the same level of restrictions. Meanwhile, China aggressively invests in AI innovation with state-backed funding and strategic policies, allowing domestic firms to scale rapidly. The potentially ground-breaking development of DeepSeek illustrates the sophistication of Chinese AI progress. European companies, constrained by regulatory approvals and compliance requirements, may struggle to keep pace, leading to talent and investment flight to more AI-friendly markets. Even Mistral AI, a clear European winner, is largely financed by Silicon Valley and will no doubt have a US IPO, diluting the story of European success.

As with most European initiatives, the EU AI Act sets an ethical gold standard for responsible AI, but its restrictive framework risks stifling the very innovation it aims to protect. Europe’s focus on risk mitigation over AI acceleration will lead to fewer startups and slower commercialization, making it harder to compete in the global AI economy. Like most other technological breakthroughs, Europe will become a consumer of AI technologies rather than a leader in their development, ceding ground to the U.S. and China in a race that will increasingly define technological and economic supremacy.

Get Over Yourself, Europe

Europe’s response to becoming an also-ran in the technology race has been to try and impede successful companies, particularly American ones, through extra-territorial regulation. Europe's regulatory self-regard might be relevant in a world where it was a serious technological competitor or where technological development was regional and not global.

This is not our world. The European Commission will experience serious pushback from the Trump administration regarding regulatory overreach and digital taxes targeted at American tech giants. The idea that the EU can impose fines on American companies worldwide income when its market only accounts for a small fraction of that income is arrogant and counter-productive in an increasingly mercantilist world, a world where European technology companies are second and third tier.

Europe’s attempt to control and punish foreign companies through regulation in industries in which it doesn’t compete risks becoming a double-edged sword. If the technologies Europe is determined to regulate are developed elsewhere, in markets that are large enough to make the European market an afterthought, all the meticulously thought out regulatory planning and its implementation will be mere posturing with no practical effect since the tech giants can abandon the European market with little cost. And for cutting-edge industries like AI, the prospect of being a target for American counter-penalties will force European startups to relocate elsewhere.

Fortunately, the replacement of Margrethe Vestager and the realization of bigwigs like Mario Draghi that the only path forward for Europe is to become competitive rather than obstructive points to a more hopeful future for the European Commission regulation. Moreover, intelligent market-opening regulation can be an advantage to European companies gaining scale and strength in the common European market.

Conclusion

When it comes to regulation, Europe must regulate to win. While incorporating European values such as responsibility, sustainability, and cultural risk-aversion, European regulators can balance these with increased focus on competition, startup flexibility and an eye to ensuring a level and obstacle-free playing field for early-stage startups. EU financial regulation is a good example of balancing values with practical concerns which has accelerated development of strong global competitors. Conversely, by creating an expensive, time-consuming bureaucratic regulatory maze in the AI space, regulators are hobbling development of a crucial technology where Europe has traditionally excelled. European regulators need to remember they exist in a competitive world where internal regulation can empower European startups but their power to impede other global competitors will be shown to be counter-productive and limited.

The reality is: Americans Can Risk…

In the U.S., founders are given the freedom to test bold and unproven ideas, fostering breakthroughs in emerging fields. The stereotype of Americans is that they "move fast and break things" – speed and scale outweighing concerns about potential legal and regulatory issues. This has worked because (a) the legal and regulatory framework in the United States is fragmented between multiple jurisdictions, (b) governments tend to be more innovation-friendly, (c) the cost of waiting is greater than the cost of potential fines, and (d) VCs threw unlimited money at companies that could potentially scale so fast that they could monopolize a market.

US companies such as Uber, AirBnB and OpenAI benefitted from this combination of factors and are dominant in their markets. But the real advantage of the US system is that founders rarely are personally faced with the consequences of failure. Bankruptcy laws are far more personally forgiving in the US, and far more personally punitive in Europe, particularly if you have accepted public money, which many, if not most, startups have. Furthermore, corporate violations of law or regulations do not lead to personal criminal charges, rather companies pay disproportionately small fines and move on.

…And Europeans Don’t Have the Luxury

I’ve been involved with a company that had a cash flow crisis at the end of last year. A security issue delayed payment from a key customer, and as a result the company needed to temporarily slash costs, in a very short timeframe. In the US, this would have resulted in everyone missing partial paychecks, suppliers being held off for a month or two, and the company would have resolved the issue and moved on.

In Germany, where this occurred, the moment the founders knew they would be technically insolvent, they had to declare bankruptcy. Otherwise, they would have been personally liable for the debts of the company and could face criminal charges. Complicating matters, they had accepted a government grant to hire additional employees in anticipation of growth. When informed of the cash shortfall, the government agency turned the grant into a loan, and informed them that if they laid anyone off the loan would come immediately due. Ironically, the only major creditor is the government agency, which forced them into bankruptcy, getting everyone fired instead of just a portion of the team.

Obviously savvy founders are able to maneuver crises and succeed, that’s the job. And European founders are aware of the environment they exist in. However, an environment that generates unnecessary obstacles increases founder risk, and diminishes the number of potential entrepreneurs and serial entrepreneurs, including making it even less likely women and underrepresented groups will take the risk. But criminal prosecution and personal bankruptcy, while the most dramatic downsides, are less onerous than the day-to-day petty and unnecessary burdens added by local, national and EU governments.

One key example is the bureaucracy surrounding government registration of businesses. In the US, one incorporates with the state, pays a small fee, and all governance is conducted internally via board and shareholder resolutions. Only the initial Articles of Incorporation need be filed with the government. In Europe, governments maintain a registry of corporations, and even small, non-public corporations must register internal corporate governance events with the registry, via notaries which are equivalent to super-lawyers, often requiring signature in person and certifications, with consequent delays and costs. It can be mind-boggling how much more bureaucratic the system is here as opposed to the US.

Public Capital is Smothering, but What Can a European Do?

One key difference between the US and Europe is the role of public money. In the US, early stage money (after friends and family) is private equity: VCs, microfunds, accelerators, incubators, angel groups and syndicates, etc. These all exist here, but in far fewer numbers and with much greater risk aversion. And so government funding plays a significant role in Europe, often being tapped by founders to address market gaps.

But these have significant downsides. Banks like BPIFrance, a French public investment bank, provide significant funding to startups, but with strict conditions, conditions that require reporting and time-sucking compliance that take time away from private fundraising and building the business and, in fact might literally limit the use of funds to government approved purposes. Another downside is local government investment, which is often done by regions, requires companies to hire locally, ending up having part of your company in one city and the rest in another to optimize grant funding. Terms, like these, create inefficiency and can prevent the flexibility startups need to pivot and survive crises.

Compare this to the U.S. Companies like **OpenAI,** Palantir and Databricks thrive because from the early-stage through growth-stage funding they have had access to private capital ****that encouraged risk-taking. The reality in Europe is that there is no vast pool of VC money that enables the kind of market monopolizing spending that was and generally is available in the US, particularly at the early stages.

When private investors are willing to fund the risk, companies have far more runway to experiment, pivot and test. In Europe, VCs hesitate to lead at the early stages, and use metrics to avoid early stage investments that do not meet, what, in my opinion, are artificially high revenue and growth targets. Without private funding, European founders gamble they can escape the government vise before it squeezes, and devote time and energy unproductively in managing the government regulations and reporting required by the public investment.

Conclusion

I have described the reality of the startup ecosystems in the US and Europe. Understanding the reality points us to a deeper truth: risk aversion and acceptance reflect deeper societal values. While Americans can and do prioritize flexibility and experimentation, Europeans emphasize responsibility and sustainability. Americans can afford this because institutional investors are willing to take on some of the risk for the enormous potential rewards. However, European culture is not going to change, so understanding what European founders need to do to compete effectively means leaning into their strengths – rewriting the playbook inherited from Silicon Valley and capturing value through responsibility and sustainability. This will be addressed in subsequent articles in the series.

Subscribe now