Hacker News Reader

Comment by owenversteeg | Hacker News Reader

There is a lot of discussion here trashing EU programs for startups and not a lot of specific details, which is disappointing. I will try to provide a more substantive critique.

My personal experience, having been involved with many startups in both the EU and US, is that EU government funding is completely useless for almost all startups. Why? First of all, you have to be part of the existing networks. If your business does not have university affiliations with people that get existing grants, or connections to EU bureaucracy, then you can forget about getting a dime. Then there is the risk aspect: if you are doing anything even remotely novel, or with any amount of risk, forget about it. This is not just my opinion, Mario Draghi, previous president of the ECB and Italian PM, said that the EU does not take enough risk to produce real innovation. And finally there's the timelines: from researching funding to cash in your bank account is always measured in years.

So, my expectation is that these funds will be distributed to members of the bureaucratic class and their network, for low-risk, low-reward projects, on a timescale too slow for most startups. I hope to be proven wrong, but the results of previous decades of EU funding programs do not make me optimistic.

View on HN

Wow it’s so refreshing to know that other people can see this.

There is simply not enough private capital investment in Europe. The public money is inevitably passed through academic hands or other public sector bureaucrats. And it is simply an ineffective way to allocate capital. The money should be returned to private hands where it belongs and those individuals should be the ones to decide how to invest their own capital.

Why do so few Europeans get this? It’s like they just can’t stand the idea of a wealthy person investing their own money.

Instead of giving it all to a few people to spend buying real estate and mineral rights, you could tell the funding agencies that they're allowed to take risks, or give it to people's retirement accounts and let companies seek public investment.

Looking at what the billionaires are doing in US politics, perhaps there's something to this.

Honestly, in academia you have good hands too, just not every lab. As in business, you also have not so good businesses.

Giving it to academia can 10x the result, but yes research is risky, that's why it's important it is founded externally.

Companies that profited from research in academia are very happy.

Overall I agree, the current European strategy is not optimal, for both Industry and academia.

> The money should be returned to private hands where it belongs and those individuals should be the ones to decide how to invest their own capital

This is not a meaningful statement

‘Returning money in private hands’ does not result in more startup investment, it’s not in the culture to do this.

The money will be put into real estate, bonds, or whatever.

Look at London - it has as much wealth as NewYork or LA but all the money just piles up in real estate or Fintech.

But outside those niches? Good luck getting a farm-tech startup funded, no-one will take a punt.

So it falls to the government to try and kickstart something. As flawed as it may be.

Then they put together a competition for funding that basically feels like a school exam

Bullshit. All the big VC firms in the USA are funded by private investors (rich people). They fund risky tech startups because big, fast gains are possible and the marginal capital gains tax rate is 20%. In the UK it's 39%! But 24% for residential property, hence the focus on real-estate that you mention.

Tax less, and prosperity follows!

Prosperity for whom?

The HDI of European states is on par with that of the United States [0].

The US has issues, but using American issues as an excuse to ignore European issues (which in reality are a result of soverignity tussles) is ridiculous.

[0] - https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/country-insights#/ranks

The US is the place to be for ambitious and highly talented people

For average/unambitious or unfortunate/poor people, places like Europe or Canada are much better standard of living

I've lived in Canada as a kid and have family in Europe - at a macro level the differences in QoL aren't that significant, as HDI (an aggregate benchmark of developmental indicators) highlights.

I guess the question becomes, which "Europe" and which "America" are you comparing. And even then, developmentally, the US isn't much different than Western or Northern Europe.

> For average/unambitious or unfortunate/poor people

I mean, youth and normal unemployment remains significantly higher in much of the Europe compared to the US [0][1] and median income after tax remains roughly on par [2], even factoring for purchasing power parity [3].

As a whole, it appears that the US is roughly on par with much of it's peers in Western and Northern Europe, and American problems appear to be overreported and European ones underreported

I personally think there is a lot of glamorization of Europe because more Americans visit Western and Northern Europe as tourists than the other way around, and attribute their tourism experience as that of a normal European, which is an unrealistic assumption.

And it's not like ambitious risk takers don't exist in Europe - look at the startup and dev scene in Sweden, Czechia, Romania, and Poland. It's clearly an institutional problem.

[0] - https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/youth-unemploym...

[1] - https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/unemployment-ra...

[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/median-income-after-tax-l...

[3] - https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPEX@WEO/USA

These places are so large and diverse it doesn't make much sense comparing them. You really want to be comparing many-to-many American states to European countries. You can't generalize about "The USA" quality of life. Massachusetts is going to be vastly different from Mississippi in terms of basically every quality of life attribute you can possibly measure. I'm not from Europe, but I bet the same is true country-to-country there.

This is a good point. People always point to places like Sweden yet conveniently ignore the Bulgarias. In fact, most EU countries wouldn't even be considered a first world country.

I don't disagree. I also hate playing this card but there's a racialized element to it... snobs on Reddit and HN love to glamorize Nordic countries in particular, despite being tiny, racially homogenous countries with their own bucketload of problems.

In my opinion the only real issue the US has is healthcare. In all other ways even for middle class people it's better. People think Canada is some socialized heaven... yet home ownership is MUCH more realistic in say Michigan than it is just across the border in Ontario.

> All the big VC firms in the USA are funded by private investors (rich people)

They are also funded by large public investors like pension funds (American and European) and sovereign wealth funds.

There is just a lot of capital sloshing around in the US, and it's fairly easy to start a firm here. The same isn't true in much of the EU.

The funny part about this is that lots of the capital comes from European savers.

I don't think your numbers are correct. In the UK capital gains tax rates on shares are 24% for higher rate tax payers.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-allo...

In California those rates go up to 33.3% (20% federal + 13.3% state).

This is incorrect, except possibly at pre seed levels. Most of the money for VC comes from pension funds and insurance companies.

> Good luck getting a farm-tech startup funded, no-one will take a punt.

There are so, so many examples of British agtech companies getting funded:

https://www.lettusgrow.com/blog/2020/1/9/press-release-uk-ag...

https://edinburgh-innovations.ed.ac.uk/news/roslin-technolog...

https://fischerfarms.co.uk/fischer-farms-secures-26m-funding...

https://tropic.bio/tropic-biosciences-raises-28-5-million-se...

That's what I am saying - look at the size of deals in UK fintech - Revolut, $577 million, Monzo $374 million, checkout.com $333 million

Uber's Series C was $361M, that's the kind of money you need to put a company on the global map.

Then you should also look at Wayve (self-driving cars, $1 billion Series C), Lighthouse (travel and rental data, $370 million Series C), Highview Power (novel energy storage, £300 million). Lots more too. I won't deny that the UK specialises in fintech, but there's a lot more going on than that.

> So it falls to the government to try and kickstart something.

why should it fall to the gov't? They're one of the worst funders of startups imho.

In these scenarios, the gov't isn't funding the business via equity, but grants - aka free money. This makes all the wrong incentives. Taxpayers don't feel the loss (not truly, like a private investor would), if the startup fails.

Funny enough, I don't actually think the money is quite the problem that people think it is.

Look at the early days of YC. Single digit millions a year was enough to stimulate the growth of a whole ecosystem of startups! Some startups are inherently capital-intensive but most don't need that much money to get to the point of basic viability. There are plenty of private individuals in Europe who could support a $10M a year incubator by themselves, not to mention the many institutions that could do this. And yet... there is no European YC and there never was.

I think it's cultural. Go talk to the top students at the top universities in the US and Europe and you will notice plenty of talent on both sides of the Atlantic - yet far different levels of ambition. Now run an experiment; pay ten of those students a hundred EUR/USD to tell everyone that they're dropping out and starting a startup. Watch the parents' reaction. Watch the professors' reaction. Watch the reaction from their doctor, their baker, their crush, their garbageman.

You already know the result, of course, it's obvious. That's your problem; and by comparison, the money hardly matters.

The "pioneer spirit" is so core to the American identity and hard to replicate in Europe

Americans just have a borderline delusional self-belief that other cultures really have a hard time matching

The Gulf Arabs are another group with a similar mentality but they don't have the population, freedom or education (yet) to do the same things

>The "pioneer spirit" is so core to the American identity and hard to replicate in Europe

Consider that the European frontier is either

- west: Americas (already done)

- south: Africa (not gonna happen again)

- north/east: drang nach osten (again, not to be repeated)

- up / down? Perhaps Europe needs to focus on space and mining tech?

Russia has a frontier, and they are pretty strong in engineering, but I doubt that a SV style ecosystem is likely to form, given the… ahem… unique cultural aspects.

All said, I disagree that a frontier experience is necessary: the UK, Germany and Austria-Hungary were massive industrial modernizers while the US was still going through its westward colonization.

Is tech an exceptional field, or just the current SotA in industrial development?

There's different frontiers. Good farmland used to be the big thing. And trade routes, like natural harbors or navigable rivers. So in many parts of the world, most of the best places were already taken and the "frontier" was worse land. But not so in Americas, because there was available land for reasons. You could have "fertile frontier".

Over time when farming technology improved, people could live self-sufficiently in worse places. Transportation technology changed as well. Railways, highways. And now remote working and data centers. So there have been frontiers also in the old world in that sense. The king of Sweden in the 1500s declared some eastern frontier areas as tax free for some time, as he wanted people to settle there to control those areas (in accords, some of it might have been Russia...). Many places have waxed and waned over the centuries. When Estonia gained independence for the second time, some Finnish farmers went there as there was excellent farmland that was very underutilized.

With modern knowledge you could even build up a great place to live almost anywhere. Good policies and cheap energy. Maybe fresh water is the hardest physical requirement.

When it comes to tech startup capital, its not America its Silicon Valley and nobody else. Sure there are deals closing in other regions but the structure isnt the same.

Silicon Beach/Alley/Gulf/Islands within America cannot replicate it either

Without a culture of paying it forward as a reckless angel investor sometimes dressed up as a fund, already within the people that made it, none of these ecosystems get off the ground

Notably, Silicon Valley’s earliest winners were from a government funded initiative

> The Gulf Arabs are another group with a similar mentality but they don't have the population, freedom or education (yet) to do the same things

Correction, the Gulf Arabs don't. Their autocratic leadership is though. A frequent point of contention between government and public is the private sector - the government wants them all to join the private sector and even provides locals with seed funding for most kinds of businesses. But the locals are rather risk averse and would rather stay in the cushy public sector. The few who are entrepreneurial tend to be extremely entrepreneurial though, and they have a lot of the risk-enabling capital structure in place in Abu Dhabi and Dubai

Yes you're right. The broader population doesn't have that mentality and are, in fact, I would say on average quite lazy. It's a certain group among the elite (especially those foreign educated) who seem to really want to push the needle.

> I think it's cultural.

Oh yes. Being a failed entrepreneur is a stigma. Being a very successful entrepreneur is a stigma too. Only being a struggling or moderately successful entrepreneur is acceptable.

But if you look to the Hofstede's Six Cultural Dimensions, you can see that European cultures are geared toward Long-Term Orientation (compared to the Short-Term from USA). In long-term thinking, why can you not wait two years before dropping out of university and start a startup afterwards?

Do you believe short-term thinking is essential for successful startups?

> why can you not wait two years before dropping out of university and start a startup afterwards?

because someone else over in the USA dropped out two years earlier than you to do this very same startup, and thus they get a head start.

Unless your novel idea is so completely novel, that nobody else but you could've done it. Most ideas are not this novel, and first mover advantage is real.

Not to mention that to make long term work out, the short term must also work out. It's a stair case - each short term period adds up and turns into long term. It is almost impossible to have a long term plan work out, if the short term is so unsuccessful that you need more funding every year.

> two years earlier than you to do this very same startup, and thus they get a head start.

So work on the next idea?

YC became valuable because of the ecosystem. YC enables so many varieties of exit options and inherently lowers the risk for the investors across various stages in the lifecycle of the startup company. If the only options are such that the companies have to become profitable in isolation or go IPO, starved off private capital otherwise then the risk is much higher. That’s why it may very well be impossible to create another YC that’s successful., unless you can replicate the entire ecosystem along with it.

> The public money is inevitably passed through [...] public sector bureaucrats

I'd phrase it a bit differently -- local (country) regulations, taxes and fees stifle startups in the crib.

I agree with everything except for one thing: I think their risk appetite is "u" shaped: low-risk is funded but they’d also fund insane-risk pie-in-the-sky academia dreams where many experts would immediately say that it will never work.

The stuff in between with sensible risk-reward ratios will indeed be ignored.

> they’d also fund insane-risk pie-in-the-sky academia dreams

Just out of curiosity, can you throw a couple of examples?

Particle accelerators?

Those I think serve a good purpose. We can discover the universe one atom smashed at a time.

It's non-profit and would not exist without external funding.

The discussion is more about businesses I think.

The Human Brain Project comes to mind.

ITER and cold fussion. Its either impossible (my opinion) or far too early. ITER itself will not even produce single watt of electricity. Its PoC for net positive energy gain from cold fussion (we will see...)

ITER has nothing to do with cold fusion. And all cold fusion attempts so far ended up as scams.

I disagree. The pie-in-the-sky academia dreams are not risk, they are safety. ITER and CERN and similar do fascinating research, and I don't mean to throw any shade their way, but they do not represent risk. There's not any possibility of failure. Things could go completely sideways and papers would keep getting written and no bureaucrat would lose their neck.

On the other hand, most startups have the ability to be total failures. If your social network, or your rocket company, or your new type of airplane collapses, it is a total loss. That is risk.

Obviously, I don't know what baxtr meant, but I really hope it's not that. Because this critique of projects like ITER and CERN is really misguided IMO (and honestly just harmful). These are not startups, these are pure science projects, they are pretty much supposed to have negative ROI. It's not even fair to call giving them money an investment, these are grants and donations. Money that you sacrifice to a worthy cause, that supposedly would be the only cause in the fantasy world of communism-utopia, but that absolutely cannot get an investment in the world of pragmatic capitalism, because it is not about making money.

Hmm, perhaps my comment was not clear enough. I am all for large scale science and have nothing negative to say on the subject. I just do not consider that type of project to have serious "risk." Barring extreme cases, a bunch of researchers doing research is not going to produce any career-ending disasters.

I am definitely not talking about basic science projects. That’s an entirely different beast. And I want it to be well funded.

I am talking about projects that should be companies with an intent to make profits.

I think we are talking about the same thing to be honest.

They have turned something that should be high-risk into something safe with no consequences if there is no progress. Thus there is no progress, because why change things even if we are running into the wrong direction?

PS: I am not so much talking about CERN. CERN is basic science and we need that too. I am talking about projects that should be startups, i.e. commercially driven entities with the end-goal of making money.

I cofounded a startup, trying to get innovation funding and I can say this is 100% my experience. Universities don't think a Software for managing dance and culture academies is innovative, but they are in the field.

That was one of the requeriments: to be certified by a university professor. That doesn't make sense: universities are research centers, but not the unique source of innovation (and in our country, not even a source in most fields).

Your comment is pretty on point!

Skimming the comments, this is pretty much what everyone is saying. And I'm sure it's true, but I'd like to also point out the amount of money in question. What was the investment amount for that toy project of Altman? Right.

I don't mean to say 70B is not a lot of money, of course it is. But perhaps that's part of the point: it's a lot of money to feed these technology partners of academia and other friends of friends you are talking about, it's also big enough to make the frontpage on HN, but when it's seen as a sudden huge investment into the whole market, it's kinda telling by itself that startups are not exactly thriving in EU. And also that money is cheap now.

They are also milked by companies, who re-designate pre-existing works (like software projects) as "innovation" and R&D. Its basically a hidden tax-refund with loads of busy-work bureaucracy.

You are right.

Eu has great plans but unable to fulfill them.

I have been waiting for the Capital Markets Union for 11 years.

THe European blockchain infrastructure? Dead because only some universities can use it.

Eu is unable to fund innovation and it's not able to fund risky businesses. No VC culture either.

some Scandinavian countries have a little startup culture and government sponsored grants but the tax system drives startups that serve international audience away.

You are perfectly right!

I would just add this, from my experience with Horizon 2020: we were working on an R&D project at the time. Applied for grant. We got €16,000, peanuts. (We needed a few hundred thousand....) My point is that this type of EC/EU financing is distributed in a somewhat "social-democratic" manner, under the principle of "everyone should get something". Not mentioning the bureaucratic hell we went through to apply and get the funding.

The article addresses some of these points:

> EIB President Nadia Calviño emphasizes the bank's willingness to take more risks, notably speeding up the venture capital financing process, which could be pivotal for startups in a fast-moving market

> The bank aims to process startup financing applications within six months, significantly improving from the current 18-month timespan.

That's part of the problem. 6 months is too long for an early stage venture to get capital unlocked.

And this rightfully causes a lot of us to worry that this foreshadows a significant lack of domain experience in the EIB's proposal (which btw hasn't been made public yet)

There are a lot of grants for universities because a) that's how universities are funded and b) to encourage technology transfer. But pure startup funding does exist, eg the EIC accelerator. If you want to get it there are companies like Inspiralia which specialise in navigating the process.

> will be distributed to members of the bureaucratic class and their network, for low-risk, low-reward projects

a quick search at the comments (so far) yielded zero results on "data prot", "GDPR", "privacy", so let me bring those up.

  GDPR is a _great_ tool for civilians
  GDPR is a _horrible_ tool if you are a business and want to innovate, expand, 'exploit' (positively).
  EU money will come with E(U) DP Supervisor and the many directives. There is no way someone can do a proper DPIA and find it 'clean' if you are honestly appraising processes x GDPR. And these people are fierce nay-sayers.  I've worked in banks, and I've worked in the EU. Those EU folks shit their pants when the DPOs walk in the room. Say "Legal basis" to someone working in the EU and see them cry (ok I exaggerate).
  US has been 'stealing' the talent from all around the planet, for decades (and good for both the US and the talents). Why would someone try hard and have regulations every step of the way, and not work for Google?
  Many years now I've felt that US is 30 years back in "tech" and will never catch up. US companies are dominating the space, and for every 10 steps we do in the EU, they go 10 miles, so every last year was better gap-wise. And I fear it won't change.

> If your business does not have university affiliations with people that get existing grants, or connections to EU bureaucracy, then you can forget about getting a dime.

So, then simply get in contact with your local university. It helps the university to get grants when commercial parties are involved, so this is a win-win.

Hah!

I studied at an excellent Dutch university that's an EU funding darling and had plenty of connections. But because I had "just" a bachelor's degree from a top university, plus substantial relevant experience, nobody would take me seriously. Even with a master's, you will find most people think you are unserious in most "hard" fields. You often need a PhD. And then God help you if you choose to leave the existing ossified structures of academia and industry.

And then you still run up against the issues of risk tolerance (which is zero) and long timelines.

Look, the stated goal of this program is to compete with American venture capital, right? Then look at the founders who got American venture capital money. Look at how many don't even have a bachelor's! Count the number that participated in traditional structures of academia and grant-receiving corporations. Virtually none of those people would have ever gotten a dime of this money, let alone an offer to collaborate from a university.

A lot of founders are uni dropouts in America because the money flows easily and you dont have to study in university to have skills.

Its quite a stupid idea that only the most educated people can get these grants because people who excel at academia might not make it in the world of business.

Why such a crippling policy? Like you said, many successful entrepreneurs are university dropouts. For research grants, sure, go to PhDs. But if you want a tech industry, you need to cast a much wider net than that.

Although there's also NLNet that hands out open source subsidies from the EU. That might be more accessible, although I also get the impression that the money is a lot less. I don't have any experience with it, though.

The American DoD is a bit like this. It is much easier to get R&D contracts if you have PhD next to your name.

I don't know what price you'd pay in your hypothetical scenario, but I would say that European universities often take a larger chunk of equity than US unis where spinouts are concerned [1]. Most US universities take between 0-5% equity, where EU could go to 10%, and UK unis up to 20-30%.

[1] https://www.spinout.fyi/data

If we're talking about existing EU funding mechanisms, the participating universities take no equity in their startup partners whatsoever, they just get paid part of the funding pot to do a bit of related research and publish it, and might be able to generate a bit of their own IP

Dutch universities go for up to 25%, just for the IP rights [1]. With seed funding etc it often goes up to 30-35%.

[1] Dutch Universities spin-off terms: https://www.delftenterprises.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/D...

the feeling that they needed to include a few paragraphs of “look this isn’t the single digit amounts your friends are getting… but… it’s dilutive and we know best for you” language is telling

Exactly. A lot of academics fall for it, thinking these are normal amounts. Then later when they try to raise money they often get into trouble as no invester in their right mind wang to touch them. Having a university as a major share holder with voting seats isn't a great idea!

Ha! You must have never dealt with European universities.

Yeah this, in fact forget local and just write to researchers in your field, or go through dedicated network events. Finding a university researcher with a common interest in a field who'd consider the opportunity to be subsidised for the next 3-4 years working on stuff they're interested in isn't the hardest hurdle deeptech startups will face on their road to commercialization, especially when the alternative people treat like it's some kind of meritocratic sieve is "get warm intros to a VC class so insular some of them write unironic LinkedIn posts about how it's impossible to be successful outside the Bay Area"

(Or just use one of the funding mechanisms that attach little or zero weight to academic collaboration)

Ha! Downvotes for pointing out that if you actually need them, university researchers are actually more willing to chat about getting research funding than VCs are to give the average first time founder money. Never change, HN!

Honestly, I'd love it if the mail in my inbox from universities wanting to do European projects with us was the result of me being some sort of uniquely-valuable well-connected wizard whereas all the founders had to do was flutter their eyelashes and say "Founders Fund are following on" to get term sheets from everyone in the Valley. But that's not the reality...

In reality there's no shortage of bureaucracy and credentialism if you want Federal contracts (and in some industries plenty of bureaucracy just to do your research in the US even if you don't take any money), and the US exceptionalism when it comes to mindset and regulatory looseness is pretty much the same in the backwater states that don't have any notable startups of their own, whilst Bavaria doesn't seem to be doing too badly for VC investment compared with anywhere that's not California despite the extremes of German bureaucracy. And fundamentally VCs and government funders on both sides of the Atlantic are doing different jobs, with different investment targets and different tradeoffs for founders.

There are clearly some frustrated voices in this thread. I try not to take the downvotes personally.

I hope to eventually learn how to engage more constructively with such responses. When someone claims to understand how a system works, yet behaves in a way that contradicts that understanding and then blames the system for not meeting their expectations, I question whether their insight is as deep as they suggest.

When I did that university's cut was 30 to 50% of shares at a top Durch university.

Yes EU is corrupt shithole, this title means they have 70b to steal from

...so it's corruption with extra steps?

It's a weird kind of corruption where the most diligent and patient and boring wins

No, it's the result of the public's/politicians' pathologic risk aversion and swiftness in calling everything corruption

Since it'd be obviously bad (sarcasm) if public money were spent on projects that deliver nothing or the people receiving them used them for anything other than the narrowest interpretation of the goal then you absolutely (sarcasm^2) have to have 50 different layers of checks and plans and assessment to make sure the little money is spent on the entities that lie the best. But at least no opposition politician can complain someone bought a fancier watch than they'd like or didn't deliver enough

Anyway the EIB is a different kind of funding process than EU grants and should be more effective (even just because capital doesn't come out of the EU budget or member states directly), though how much I don't know

Personally I wouldn't call it corruption, at least not all of it. If you were to drill down into the individual grants, you would find a lot of things that are broadly useful but not revolutionary. There's 4M euros to produce a new additive for beeswax and 500k euros to research migratory snails and 6M euros to study some new roads and that sort of thing. There's certainly obvious corruption too, but it isn't the majority of grant money. Most stuff is just very boring and vaguely useful.

I think a more useful description: it is an ossified structure where you have to play by the rules. Much like, say, the Catholic Church. You're not going to get a grant for your startup, or become Archbishop of Salzburg, by having an idea and sending some emails. You're going to have to fully commit yourself to the institution over a period of decades, and then you're in, and you're respected, and you can do some things, as long as they're not too revolutionary. Is that good for innovation? No. But corruption? I think it's something else.

Imagine a committee of 10 people granting funding to a firm to commercialise NFTs of digital fashion where the owner of the company is also a member of the committee. The company isn't even a real company but a general partnership without limited liability. Your inquiries into this affair under the public information act get stonewalled by a obscure law that where voted on as part of the budget of 2018. When members are asked about this incestuous relationship they react in an indigenous fashion saying there can not be a conflict of interest because they abstained from voting on their own project. You make some noice about this and you get ostracised. This is just one example.

A dutch sociologist has coined a term for this calling it network corruption, we had to invent a word for it because it is so prevalent, there isn't even a page about this on the English language Wikipedia: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwerkcorruptie

Reply on news.ycombinator.com