So leave me be very skeptical about this news.
That's the best case. Then there is outright fraud:
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101092295 - European dynamic provides some project management and a wordpress-page for the lump sum of 800k€ and of course there is always "SOCIAL OPEN AND INCLUSIVE INNOVATION ASTIKI MI KERDOSKOPIKI ETAIREIA" headquartered here: https://inclusinn.com/. Probably still in stealth mode, using the 4M€ to "promote innovation".
Is cynicism about motives necessary?
I believe most people have enough self-deception and denial, that we don't need to assume fraud or theft. Similarly charities often end up being self-serving leeches - but the people seem to believe they are helping. Maybe I'm just naive? It is possible that most people in New Zealand are not so focused on intentional theft and fraud?
In New Zealand I've watched our government burn fucktons of money trying to invest in university "innovation". Academics convince politicians that they have valuable ideas, and politicians want to believe universities produce value. However the government funding is horrifically managed (no business sense) and the startups lack the right genetics and fail (even if matched funding from private investors). New Zealanders lack an entrepreneurial learning environment (maybe EU is the same): founding is difficult and really difficult if you've never watched someone close succeed.
I believe the root cause is that academics are not business/financially oriented, so the startups fail because they are not businesses. Plus the organisations picking investments are academic heavy and are not run by good capitalists. Academics often have good valuable ideas. But academics tend not to be hyper-focused just on business outcomes or they are not money focused. Business founders need to focus on profit (not status hunting, and definitely not looking for academic recognition).
I wondered for a while whether the cause was my own selection bias (startups mostly fail so I saw them fail) but I don't think that was the cause.
Also the government investing organisations love heavy handed shitty governance (and legal overcontrol bullshit). The principals believe their advice and overview is valuable. The investors put in bad CEOs and also force the businesses to make poor decisions. I've seen private VC funding make the same mistakes.
It is really sad to see good ideas get murdered by people with government money: I'm sure they believe they are helping and that they are trying to help (I'm not that cynical about motivations).
Our current government has just announced another 100 million to go towards academic startups. I just fucking wish our government would spend the budget instead by removing unnecessary red tape and to improve tax incentives (in New Zealand the incentives to grow businesses or create export income are fucked in my personal experience).
I’m not seeing EU grants in that list. In general I’d say anything the bureaucrats can’t ruin with their gatekeeping, friendship corruption and overvaluation of social status is a positive. Anything they can ruin they will.
* If the result is good and useful, the credit goes to the member state.
* If the result isn't good, it's the fault of the EU.
Similarly how good Champaigne can only come from one place ;)
In contrast, private investors have more discretion and fewer stakeholders to answer to.
You could go on unemployment and cost them for a year or two, and they instead subsidize you starting a business for 6-12 months to the same amount. Worst case, you fail, and they spent the same amount they would have nevertheless.
Low-interest loans you won't get without taking on personal liability for your business loan. It's low-cost capital, but it's also low risk.
Tax-delays/exemptions for small companies isn't a big bet, it's risking a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Venture investments by the government is rare (for good reasons, it'd be a huge opportunity for corruption).
For start-ups they do a lot of online calls to ask "what do you need" though. When you say money, they are like, yeah but what do you need except money!?
My cynical side says that it will just be politicized, so some factions can say EU/state bad, while others jump through hoops to defend it.
I know you’re just quoting the rules, but I’m noticing the same process happening here. It would be a shame if HN continued this trend while everyone stayed silent.
In my opinion that comment got downvoted because it’s not interesting. It’s a comment I have heard dozens of times, did not provide any example or source, and plenty other people posted effectively the same in here.
It, in turn, appears to be a promotion of one of the site guidelines. In turn I would promote the official guideline:
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting"
as well as the not-official personal guideline:
"Guideline-lawering is boring, and uninteresting to any good hacker, or true codesman."
> is off topic in regards to EU and tech funding
cool, then it's a tangent to the original topic, as is your own comment policing. Who made you the voice of HN?
The fact that I read and understood the guidelines? If I had not said that someone else would have.
BTW "On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting" refers to submissions, not comments.