throwaway12509

Generally it's not you making the decision but some investor who needs to close out a 10y fund and can force the sale through some nasty term in the SHA.

In a unicorn situation, the founder will generally take money off the table early and will be okay regardless. Just look at WeWork.

Neither Airbus nor Boeing has initiated a new aircraft design since the late 90s early 2000s with the A380 and 787 respectively.

The A220, a legitimate clean-sheet and fantastic aircraft, came from Bombardier and only fell into Airbus hands due to regulatory warfare, albeit from the American side this time.

Because high future valuations allow companies to raise capital and do useful work in society.

I believe the EU would be better off if it just deleted its technology funding apparatus and tried to rebuild something like DARPA, while focusing on procurement like the poster suggested.

There is a huge amount of money available, but it's locked behind layers and layers of bureaucracy. It is a huge waste of time on both sides, for some anecdotal I'm procrastinating from an application as I type. I should be coding or doing something otherwise useful.

The situation has devolved to where startups treat public funding as though it were revenue and have dedicated teams to chase it.

The Economist had an article here a few days ago lamenting that Europe fails to produce IPOs, which is where the actual problem lies. If ExpectedValue[European Startup] = ExpectedValue[Startup] | No IPO, then it's no wonder European startups are valued at 10% of their US counterparts.

The EU needs to get out of the way and end its Lots of Little Winners policy, because without winners you just wind up with Lots of Little Losers in a globalised economy.