Zackes Brustik
Podcast-Host, Moderator
Sessions (14)
Sessions featuring Zackes Brustik at Bits & Pretzels 2026 | Founders Festival in Munich
Welcome to Startup Germany Stage
The opening message of the Startup Germany Stage was that attendees should use this stage as a source of motivation, practical direction, and concrete evidence that Germany’s startup ecosystem has positive momentum despite negative economic headlines. The host welcomed the audience at Bits and Prezels with humor about early mornings, Oktoberfest, coffee, and the fact that people had chosen this stage over the main stage. She framed the room as a place to counter the morning news cycle about German OEM challenges and electric-car competition from China, promising “good numbers and good stories” that Germany can build its future on. The first examples focused on recent proof points and ecosystem data. The host highlighted that, on September 6, a private company from the region, ESA Aerospace, had successfully launched into orbit for the first time in Europe, calling it something Germany does not talk about often enough. She then pointed to the Startup Verbund, the German startup association, which had sneak-peeked numbers from the German Startup Monitor. According to the host, Germany is growing and is on track for a record year in VC money, with 8,000,000,000 already recorded by the half-year mark and more months still to come. On that basis, she said the audience could “confidently say” it would be an awesome year in Germany, with many startups being built and many topics where the market can still be seized. The session then positioned the day’s central question: how Germany can move from leading-edge and cutting-edge research to market-ready companies, not only for the German market but also for the global market. The host connected this agenda to the government’s startup and scale-up strategy, released about two and a half months earlier, which she described as the basis for the day’s stage program. She specified that the strategy contains 152 concrete measures, some already in place and some still being built, across eight important fields. These measures are intended to help bring research out of labs into companies, provide financing for later-stage growth, and make “Startup Germany” happen. The host also acknowledged specific work still to be done, including a decline in startup-corporate partnerships and cooperation from 70% to around 50%. She previewed the day’s flow: ecosystem discussions in the morning, research-to-startup, scale-up, and talent topics later, including talent beyond the hubs and beyond TUM, as well as foreign talent attraction. Finally, she emphasized that the strategy had been developed through consultation and dialogue with the ecosystem, not in isolation, and encouraged founders, VCs, and confused international startups to visit the Startup Germany booth near the merry-go-round to navigate programs, funds, support systems, and connections.
“How can we make sure that we do not only have leading edge, cutting edge research, but we actually use it”
Startup Germany: What's Next?
The core message of the session was that Germany’s next startup agenda is to turn its existing strengths—research, industry, Mittelstand companies, investors, and ambitious founders—into more scalable companies that grow in Germany, Europe, and international markets. Janina Jeng, who heads the Directorate General for SMEs, Future Technologies and Startups in the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, framed the Startup Germany stage at Bits and Pretzels 2026 around a practical question: after recent progress, what must happen next? She pointed to the Deutschland Fund, the rollout of EXIST startup factories, and the federal government’s July adoption of the new Startup and Scaleup strategy as recent milestones.
One Year of Startup Factories
The session’s core message was that Germany’s Startup Factories are intended to turn public funding into a larger, faster, privately backed ecosystem for research-based startups and scaleups. In the opening exchange, Janina framed success over the next two to three years as seeing more startups and scaleups scale in Germany and Europe, supported by more private and institutional capital and completion of the Startup and Scaleup strategy’s 152 measures. The moderator then introduced the Startup Factories as a “sharp new tool” from the Federal Ministry: €100 million for 10 factories across Germany, with the discussion focused on what has already changed after roughly one year and what gaps remain. Arik Willner described Hamburg’s starting point as a comparatively empty ecosystem versus places like Munich, and said the Startup Factory competition created a rallying point that Hamburg had not had before. He highlighted how the Otto family, the Joachim Herz Foundation, politics, and other actors gathered behind the idea of a Hamburg factory, bringing capital that had not previously been attached to the startup ecosystem. Philippa described a similar momentum around BRYCK, the RAG-Stiftung, industry partners, and startups. Her concrete example involved a paying customer seeking faster water analysis: instead of finding a ready-made solution, BRYCK found a very early two-person team whose process could detect metals in a way others could not, leading to trust and a pilot. Janina emphasized that the factories are structured as public-private partnerships: the government provides €100 million over five years, but applicants had to bring equivalent private capital. She argued that this structure forced companies, universities, and startups to work together from the start and build a shared ecosystem vision. Arik added that Impossible Founders had gone beyond matching its public funding, with €40 million in private money alongside €10 million public money, which he linked to speed and power for startups seeking international competitiveness. He also stressed that newer factories need to learn from established ecosystems like UnternehmerTUM because they do not have 25 years to mature. The discussion then shifted to the harder work of making the ecosystem function for early-stage researchers and founders. Philippa argued that Germany has many necessary ingredients but must mix them better, especially by building trust, relatable role models, and greater risk affinity among people leaving research for entrepreneurship. Arik challenged the assumption that every researcher should become a founder, saying excellent researchers should be allowed to remain researchers while professionals and entrepreneurs-in-residence help bring ideas to market. He pointed to the Weizmann Institute in Israel as an example where company development is disentangled from the researcher, while Philippa maintained that Germany still needs a cultural shift away from excessive caution and toward seeing opportunities rather than threats. The provided transcript ends mid-discussion at 14:44, so later portions of the 27:08 session are not available for analysis.
From Lab to Market
The core message of this session was that German research can move from lab results to marketable products faster when scientific impact is treated as the goal and entrepreneurship, team matching, and ecosystem support are used as the route. The moderator framed the problem as a persistent gap: groundbreaking research in Germany often remains between “a great idea” and “an invoice.” Stephanie Pfeil-Coenen’s company, Phaeosynt, was presented as the practical counterexample: a biotech spin-off from Hannover producing diagnostic antibodies in algae instead of animals or animal cell culture, with a product already available in drugstores. Stephanie explained that antibodies are central to diagnostic tests such as COVID and pregnancy tests, because they make the visible test lines possible. Phaeosynt’s specific contribution is a new production system using algae, which enabled the team to develop what she called the world’s first vegan pregnancy test by replacing animal components with plant-based proteins while keeping the same function and accuracy. The product is listed in major drugstores in Germany and Austria, including DM and BIPA, and the team is preparing market entries in the UK and France. The moderator highlighted this as a rare case of research becoming a certified product on shelves in record time. The discussion then turned to what makes spin-offs attractive and possible for researchers. Judit Klein argued that the starting point should be the “why”: researchers want to create impact, and entrepreneurship can amplify that impact by reaching wider audiences and tackling major challenges. Nora Hesse described Lower Saxony’s entrepreneurship audit at universities as one lever for cultural change, aiming for every student and PhD student to learn something about entrepreneurship, whether or not they ultimately become founders. She emphasized that many researchers want to remain researchers, making it important to match them with business-oriented people who can build and manage a company. Stephanie’s founding story illustrated that point directly: Phaeosynt has three founders, two scientists and Stephanie on the commercial and fundraising side. She met her co-founders through the university’s founding service, then spent a long time learning how to bridge scientific and business working styles. Scientists wanted to analyze every scenario, while the business side needed pragmatic decisions and forward motion. Accelerators helped the team become more honest, goal-focused, and faster in decision-making. Judit then described ZOLLHOF’s work with research teams in pre-incubation, stressing that technology alone is not a business model; teams must identify who pays, who uses the solution, and which stakeholders influence decisions. Nora closed by outlining Lower Saxony’s continued policy and platform work, including a renewed Higher Education Act, entrepreneurship education strategy, and the InnoMatch platform with a matching function for startups, partners, and investors.
Beyond the big Startup-Hubs: How Regional Startups Scale
The session’s core message is that startup growth in Bavaria and neighboring regions should not be treated as a Munich-only story: regional founders can become the next generation of “hidden champions” if they receive networks, capital access, and ecosystem support where they are based. The moderator opened by connecting Bavaria’s long tradition of globally active hidden champions in rural areas with the startup economy, asking what is happening beyond large hubs such as Munich and Nuremberg. The first examples were intentionally regional: Neuramancer from Rosenheim, siOPTICA from Jena in Thuringia, and Eye-Able from near Würzburg, each showing a different model of deep tech or mission-driven scale-up outside the largest startup centers. Neuramancer presented a research-based AI security layer focused on detecting whether images are real or fake, targeting disinformation and insurance fraud through statistical traces in image artifacts rather than content analysis. siOPTICA’s Markus Klippstein described a Jena-based optics company with a highly international team, experience in exits, and a strong emphasis on loving the customer, staying close to product needs, and being ready to reposition the company. He explained siOPTICA’s switchable visual privacy technology for screens and its move from hardware licensing toward hardware, software, and services, including a very fast optics innovation tool used for synthetic data generation, digital twins, and planned SaaS/API use cases. Eye-Able’s Eric Braun then grounded digital accessibility in a personal story: a visually impaired friend had to abandon chemistry studies because he could not use an online campus management system. Eye-Able’s mission became making websites, applications, terminals, and other digital interfaces more accessible, especially as European B2C companies now face mandatory accessibility standards. The panel then shifted from founder stories to ecosystem conditions. Bavarian State Secretary Tobias Gotthardt rejected the idea that Bavaria focuses only on Munich or Nuremberg, saying roughly half of new startups are founded outside the greater Munich area and pointing to around 40 startup centers across Bavaria. Carsten Rudolph of BayStartUP echoed that roughly half of the startups they support are not based in Munich and its surroundings, linking regional founders to Bavaria’s strong ranking among European startup hubs. Katja Butzmann of bmt, representing Thuringia, emphasized that growth and capital do not stop at state borders, arguing for cross-border networks, cooperation, exchange of best practices, and trust-based investor relationships.
From Research Lab to Industrial Sales: How ZopaAI, Rohde & Schwarz and DFKI Built the Future of Industrial Selling
The session’s core message was that Germany can still produce strong, commercially relevant AI when research capability is tied directly to a specific industrial business need. The moderator framed the panel around two challenges: moving cutting-edge research faster from the lab into real business applications, and reversing the decline in startup-corporate collaboration from 70% to 50%. Against that backdrop, Alexander from ZopaAI and Sebastian Hirtz from Rohde & Schwarz described a concrete collaboration focused on reliable AI for enterprise B2B sales, rather than another general-purpose AI tool or frontier-model race story from the U.S. or China. Alexander explained that ZopaAI connects internal company data such as controlling, procurement, CRM and ERP with external sources including market data, news and tenders. On top of that combined data layer, the system provides recommendations for pricing, sales arguments, negotiation strategy, negotiation power, forecasting and lead generation. A key differentiator, according to Alexander, is the verification of data and sources and the validation of recommendations. He also emphasized that ZopaAI did not begin by trying to commercialize a pre-existing research asset. Instead, the team first identified what a chief sales officer would pay for, then worked with the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence and CISPA, the Helmholtz Institute for Cybersecurity, to build the needed technology over roughly two years. Sebastian described how Rohde & Schwarz became involved through a cold email from ZopaAI’s CIO during his vacation. The timing worked because Rohde & Schwarz had already been thinking for two months about the problem ZopaAI addressed. For a company active in test and measurement as well as defense and security, the decisive entry point was not simply AI functionality, but trust: ZopaAI and DFKI could offer sovereign data handling in a German data center with a German cloud provider and the certifications Rohde & Schwarz required. That credibility allowed the partnership to move from an initial conversation into practical experimentation with real business relevance. The discussion then focused on why this collaboration progressed further than many pilots. Sebastian said ZopaAI translated large volumes of information into “actionable information” for a global sales force of around 1,800 engineers, who are not classical salespeople but need technically strong support. Both speakers stressed customization, cooperation and patience. Alexander noted that in B2B settings the technology foundation may be stable, but each organization has different processes, products and requirements. Sebastian highlighted reliability, continuous contact without excessive pressure, and willingness to adapt to Rohde & Schwarz’s requirements. Alexander concluded that business value and technology are only hygiene factors; startups also have to win attention and build a relationship strong enough that corporate stakeholders want the solution to succeed.
Powering the Next Phase of Europe’s Energy Transition
The session’s core message is that Europe’s energy transition is moving beyond isolated renewable technologies into system integration, infrastructure change, and multi-sector coordination — and that this complexity can become a strength for Germany if startups learn to navigate it. The host framed the discussion around current pressure points: German companies, especially chemical companies, struggling with energy prices; low gas storage levels contributing to price concerns; and energy’s surprisingly low visibility in Germany’s startup and scale-up strategy compared with AI, biotech, defense, and security. Pia Dorfinger of the German Energy Agency and the Startup Energy Transition Platform, alongside Philipp Herrmann of BRYCK, were introduced as ecosystem builders who support founders rather than simply building energy companies themselves. Pia explained that recent energy startup activity is less about entirely new technologies and more about infrastructure, system integration, and changing a running system. Earlier waves focused on wind, solar, bioenergy, and then hydrogen; now startups increasingly address integrated energy systems across the whole economy. AI has entered this space both as a demand driver, especially through data centers, and as a tool inside energy-transition solutions. Philipp agreed, adding that sectors such as water, real estate, and chemistry now seek energy solutions even if they previously looked only within their own domains. He described energy as becoming “system tech”: a cross-sector opportunity that also creates multi-stakeholder complexity around production, storage, purchasing, regulation, and corporate decision-making. When asked why energy is not explicitly prioritized in the startup and scale-up strategy, both speakers rejected the idea that Germany has given up on it. Philipp argued that energy is a “game changer” and that many international startups want to come to Germany because its complex market can serve as a reference point for piloting and investor confidence. Pia said energy is embedded in deep tech and hardware, and that broader startup-support frameworks can still benefit energy startups by helping public money mobilize private investment. Both nevertheless said explicit mention of energy would help. The discussion then distinguished energy tech from earlier labels such as renewables, clean tech, climate tech, and green tech. Pia said these terms reflect changing frameworks and the legacy of the cleantech bubble, while Philipp argued energy tech now includes new business models built on top of decentralized energy assets, such as decentralized AI data centers in households using rooftop solar. The final section focused on why scaling energy startups differs from scaling SaaS or software startups. Pia emphasized hardware and deep-tech capital needs: battery factories, research-heavy development cycles, piloting, and demonstration phases do not fit neatly into conventional VC timelines. Philipp added that many early startups understand their customers and technical setup but are surprised by the regulatory, contractual, and stakeholder landscape. He called this a “system navigation risk” alongside technical, business, and capital risks. Both speakers positioned organizations such as BRYCK and dena as trust builders that can open doors to utilities, regulatory bodies, mentoring, diligence-like preparation, and potentially more sandboxes, helping risk-averse energy-system actors work with startups more confidently.
Industry Challenges
The session’s core message was that startup-corporate collaboration improves when startups stop treating large companies only as customers and instead identify specific industrial problems where their technology can extend a corporate portfolio. The moderator framed the discussion around the broader challenge of raising startup-corporate collaboration success from the current 50% back toward 70% or beyond. They also connected the topic to wider European scaling issues, mentioning the EU Inc or “twenty eighth Regime” effort to make cross-European market entry easier, and Germany’s work on attracting talent through a digital agency. The session then moved into reverse pitches from Siemens and Dell Technologies on the industry challenges they want startups to help solve. Danijel Grabovac, Head of Siemens for Startups, focused less on listing Siemens’ technology priorities and more on explaining how startups should understand corporate engagement models. He emphasized that “venture” means risk, and that risk is complicated inside corporates because of processes, rules, hierarchies, certifications, cybersecurity requirements, and long-established supplier relationships. Siemens’ startup function exists to mitigate that risk while making the organization more risk-friendly. Grabovac contrasted venture capital with venture clienting: instead of only investing in startups, Siemens wants to act as a pilot customer and help bring startup technologies into Siemens factories, processes, and customer environments. Grabovac then introduced “venture partnering” and “venture sales” as more distinctive opportunities. Because Siemens technologies sit across factories, trains, infrastructure, data centers, automotive, oil and gas, and other verticals, he argued that startups can build on top of Siemens technology and sell jointly to Siemens customers. He contrasted this with hyperscaler-style startup programs such as NVIDIA Inception and Microsoft for Startups, which he described as focusing mostly on giving startups early access to products in the hope they grow. Siemens, by contrast, sees startups as possible portfolio extensions. His key example was Rechu, a German startup from RWTH Aachen that walks through existing factories with a backpack to create point clouds, digitize plants, and deliver data that can be imported directly into Siemens systems. The value, he said, is faster customer ramp-up because the solution is integrated with Siemens software and appears on Siemens’ accelerator marketplace. Janos Kotge from Dell Technologies then described why Dell for Startups was created and what challenges it addresses. After founding his own company during COVID while working at Dell, he found it difficult for his startup to get in touch with Dell Technologies, which led him to push for a more dedicated startup program. Since 2024, Dell for Startups has assigned dedicated account managers to understand each startup’s employee base, six- and twelve-month goals, and target state before discussing technology. Kotge gave an anonymized example of a startup that had outsourced compute to a hyperscaler but needed German data residency for an end user; Dell sized an on-premise solution, migrated the data, and loaned the infrastructure through Dell Try and Buy, enabling the startup to win that project and later others. He summarized Dell’s startup challenges as finance, growth, flexibility, and data residency, including leasing and payment options via Dell Financial Services and a more flexible “company within a company” operating model.
Built with the industry - Co-Innovation in practice
The session’s core message was that successful corporate-startup collaboration is not a shopping exercise where a company selects a ready-made solution and plugs it in. Using the live case of Audi and alloqis, moderated with Campus Founders’ ecosystem perspective, the speakers showed that the real value came from co-innovation: identifying where a startup’s existing technology could be redirected toward a corporate pain point, proving it in a smaller context, and then expanding it into a business-relevant process. Moritz Hoeckner explained that winning Audi as a customer did not mean the hard work was over; it meant the work had just begun, because alloqis first had to make the cooperation successful despite Audi not needing the startup’s standard offering in its usual form.
Investment Landscape Germany
The session’s core message was that Germany’s startup-financing landscape is becoming more capital-rich and more structurally coordinated, but founders still need to understand which instruments fit which stage of their journey. The moderator framed the discussion around where money can be found and what has changed in Germany’s investment environment, then introduced Dominik Steinkhler of KfW and Gregor Haidl of HTGF. Steinkhler highlighted the newly announced second phase of the WIN Initiative, expanding from a €12 billion private-capital mobilization effort to a target of €25 billion, alongside structural measures intended to improve the startup lifecycle from founding through exit. Haidl added that market momentum is visible through more capital, the Scale Up Europe Fund, higher investment volume this year than the entire previous year, and rising interest in deep tech, climate tech, and sovereignty tech. The conversation then turned to the role of HTGF as a central direct-investment vehicle for the German Economic Ministry. Haidl explained that HTGF is evolving beyond early-stage first tickets into a multistage platform, especially after integrating the DeepTech & Climate Fonds, described as a €1 billion fund for climate and deep tech investments from Series A and B onward. On later-stage funding, Steinkhler cautioned that Germany is still not at the level of the U.S., but pointed to several German mega-rounds above €100 million as evidence that larger transaction capacity now exists. Both speakers described the ecosystem as maturing, with larger rounds and the hope of larger exits helping convince the next generation of founders that ambitious company-building is possible in Germany. Steinkhler outlined structural measures aimed at unlocking more institutional capital, especially by creating vehicles that make venture and growth investments easier for large pension-system investors. He described KfW Capital’s fund-of-funds approach, including a vehicle of more than €1 billion and a follow-on structure designed to give institutions a track record and scale they can allocate to. The moderator listed multiple instruments, including Deutschlandfonds, Zukunftsfonds, Scale-up Direct, FOAK first-of-a-kind funding, Solvency II changes, WIN, and Wachstumsfonds. Steinkhler clarified that Deutschlandfonds is a broader programme bracket with €30 billion in guarantees intended to generate €130 billion of economic investment, while FOAK will combine €300 million from KfW with additional private money for first-of-a-kind assets. The final available segment focused on the practical reality for founders, especially in deep tech. Haidl argued that €300 million may not sound large in isolation, but is relevant if it crowds in private capital and targets the difficult first-of-a-kind stage. He stressed that deep tech financing differs from software because companies often face major inflection points before revenue is available for analysis. His main advice was that deep tech founders should not rely only on equity; they must orchestrate equity, debt, and grants, understand which instrument fits which stage, and build the financial education and networks needed to combine them effectively. Compared with two years ago, he said founders now need more substance, capital efficiency, and early market traction, even in hardware.
Can Germany Win the DeepTech Race?
The core message of the session is that Germany has credible scientific strength in DeepTech, but winning globally depends on turning research into scalable companies with the right teams, partnerships, and growth capital. Jannis Gilde frames the discussion by arguing that Germany “missed kind of the digital race” in areas such as cloud and AI, and is now pinning hopes on DeepTech as a driver of economic growth. He notes positive ecosystem signals: newly founded startups are growing in Germany, including in DeepTech, and Germany performs well against the United States on publications in science and engineering per capita and on R&D expenses relative to GDP. The problem, as he presents it, is that this research base has not yet translated into a reliable path for scaling global market leaders. Heike Freund explains Marvel Fusion’s work as commercializing fusion energy: using fusion, the process that powers the sun, to create CO2-free, safe, reliable electricity without long-lived radioactive waste or chain reactions. She challenges the familiar “twenty years away” framing, saying the probability of seeing fusion power plants at work somewhere in the next ten years is higher than not seeing them. Her confidence rests on several specific factors: scientific breakthroughs, including the 2022 U.S. demonstration of more energy out than in using a laser-based approach; technological progress in lasers; urgent electricity demand; early customer contracts in the U.S. from big tech companies; and multiple companies working to commercialize fusion energy. The discussion then moves from the technology to company-building. Gilde highlights that while Germany’s research position is strong, active startups per capita are only about 55% of the U.S. level, and German Startup Monitor data shows 30% of German DeepTech founders come from research, meaning 70% bring experience from corporates, startups, and other environments. Freund says Marvel Fusion’s progress from lab technology to company has depended on three pillars: a diverse 150-person team from over 25 countries, strong academic and industrial partnerships such as its strategic partnership with Siemens Energy, and funding. She says Marvel Fusion has €400 million in private and public funding, but compared with the largest U.S. fusion companies, “there would be a zero missing at the end.” Freund also describes why she left a successful ten-year McKinsey career after meeting Marvel Fusion founder Moritz in spring 2020. She was persuaded by the potential of fusion, the emerging laser breakthroughs, and the chance to help grow a company of fewer than 10 people into a DeepTech venture addressing energy. On investment, she argues that DeepTech investors need to see an execution-capable team, tangible milestones, a plan to de-risk physics and technology, and evidence that the company does what it says. The provided transcript ends as the conversation broadens to the German DeepTech ecosystem, where Freund says early-stage startup culture and early-stage capital have improved, but the remaining challenge is scaling.
What Investors Really Look For
The core message of this investor panel was that founders earn investor conviction less through polished fundraising theater and more through honest clarity: a credible personal motivation, a transparent account of traction and bottlenecks, and evidence that the team can carry a difficult company-building journey. The session opened by positioning the panel as a “reverse pitch” where investors would not pitch their funds but explain what actually makes the difference when they choose a founder. Katja Ruhnke, chair of Business Angels Germany and co-founder of CK Ventures Capital, introduced her perspective as an angel investor investing with her sister Connie. She described their thesis as impact-oriented: they look for companies “who make the world a bit better,” using Hays Circle, a reusable packaging startup, as an example rooted in her own frustration with single-use packaging from online shopping. Katja then shifted from the business idea to the founding team. She said she normally has already reviewed the pitch deck before a conversation, so the meeting is about understanding the founders: whether they can handle the toughness of the startup journey, whether they have passion, and whether someone in the team can be a “people catcher” who can convince customers, employees, partners, and investors despite having little to offer at the start. Her clearest red flag was lying. She accepted that founders may present their company in a brighter light, but said any discovered lie leads to an immediate no. She also argued that founders do not overrate fundraising; instead, they underestimate it, especially the time needed to close a round and the time required to build real relationships with investors. Laura Keilhofer of Alstin Capital explained the Series A perspective for B2B software companies. She said Alstin typically comes in after founders have figured out founder-led sales and need to scale a sales organization. Because Alstin has in-house PR, marketing, and sales experts who help with hiring, CRM playbooks, SDR and AE training, Laura needs to understand not only why the product matters, but who is buying it and why. Her red flag mirrored Katja’s: fluffy answers and lack of transparency. If a founder has pilots but no hard traction numbers, she would rather hear that clearly than hear vague claims that customers love the product. She also advised founders to spend less time polishing a huge market-sizing slide and more time proving they know their ICP and the next customers they should pursue. Gregor Haidl of HTGF framed deep tech investing around the need for new European champions in areas such as robotics, climate tech, and AI. He described HTGF as a multistage platform with over 800 investments, 200 exits, and more than $10 billion attracted for its portfolio, with early-stage first checks of $1 million to $2 million and up to $5 million per company. He also described the integrated DTCF as a public Series A to B fund that can invest up to $10 million in the first round and follow on with up to $50 million per company. For him, the key criteria are ambitious teams combining technical excellence and business acumen, disruptive technologies, and market or first-customer proof points that can become venture cases. His red flag was casted founding teams with no shared history or deep internal motivation, because deep tech can take more than a decade. The discussion closed in the available transcript with the panel probing how investors distinguish gut feeling from observable grit, especially in technically driven founders who spend years committed to highly specialized work.
Global from Day One
The core message of this session was that “global from day one” is not a slogan but an operating design choice: founders must decide where value is created, where customers are served, and how teams and processes work across borders before complexity overwhelms them. The moderator framed the discussion as the inverse of a German company scaling abroad after domestic success: some ventures are international before they even have a conventional German headquarters. Larissa Schneider of Unframe AI and Philipp Kessler of TURN2X illustrated two very different versions of this pattern: enterprise AI software built across the U.S., Germany, and Israel, and renewable gas hardware produced where energy is cheapest but sold where demand and prices are higher. Philipp explained that TURN2X initially looked at Germany, but high electricity prices pushed the team to evaluate Norway, Finland, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Spain became the production location because it offered some of the cheapest renewables in Europe, mainly due to solar. TURN2X produces “e methane,” described as electric methane made from electricity, in low-cost energy locations such as Spain and sells it in high-cost energy locations such as Germany. He emphasized that Europe’s existing gas grid—over 2,000,000 pipeline kilometers—can transport energy across borders and is a heavily overlooked asset for the energy transition and resilience. Larissa described a different route into internationalization: Unframe AI was multinational from the start because its three cofounders were already in different markets. They founded a U.S. company, a German subsidiary for her, and an Israeli subsidiary for her cofounder. The split developed naturally: technical R&D talent in Tel Aviv, operations in Berlin, and go-to-market largely in the U.S. She acknowledged that investors and advisors often warned that distributed cofounding teams would not work, especially if conflict arose, but the founders had worked together before in cybersecurity and relied on a long-standing, trustful relationship. Her fundraising lesson was blunt: the team did not need everyone to agree; they only needed one investor willing to join a “crazy ride.” The conversation then turned to the hard limits of going international too early. Philipp said permits, local lawyers, incorporation rules, and region-specific construction law added major complexity, so TURN2X deliberately narrowed its focus after surveying many markets. The company doubled down on Spain, built one of the largest commercial e-methane plants there, and only later reopened discussions about additional countries. He supported the idea of an EU Inc. or “twenty eighth regime” because one cross-European regime would reduce the need to hire lawyers across jurisdictions. Larissa’s practical advice was to over-document because distributed teams cannot rely on informal coffee-room conversations, bring people together every six months, and hire first-country openers who are true builders rather than people dependent on large-company support structures.
Who Will Build Germany's Next Success Stories?
The session’s core message was that Germany’s next startup success stories will come from a broader, better-supported founder pipeline: younger people need earlier exposure to entrepreneurship, experienced professionals need room to turn domain problems into ventures, and Germany must remove practical friction that makes founding unnecessarily hard. The panel opened by asking how more talent can be attracted into startup careers instead of defaulting to corporates or research. Niclas Jakob, now leading the Digital Competence Center at Vodafone Group after founding Four Channels through Startup Teams, described how his failed startup still gave him entrepreneurial experience he could bring into a corporate environment. Jonas Sommer, an investor in deep tech and climate topics, argued that “hard” companies can be easier to recruit for when the mission is exciting, citing enthusiasm around portfolio companies and the breakthrough of ESA Aerospace’s launch from the European mainland to lower earth orbit. The discussion then shifted to where founder talent should come from. Niclas said he would found again today, especially because agentic AI and “white coding” make it easier to build digital solutions and business models, but emphasized that opportunity is not evenly distributed. Coming from a craftsmanship and plumbing family background, he said founding felt remote until Startup Teams made entrepreneurship tangible. Jonas added that not every promising founder needs to be a teenager or early coder: in space tech and hardware, industry experience can be crucial, as shown by founders who worked at Arianespace and Airbus before starting an exploration company in their forties. Both speakers pushed the audience to look beyond elite universities such as TUM, including former army officers in defense tech and employees inside existing companies who already understand real operational problems. A major theme was that founder readiness is not just about money or technical skills. Niclas argued founders need a combination of technical understanding, leadership, empathy, communication, and sales ability, and said the education system does not sufficiently train people across these combined areas. He stressed that human communication is a critical capability that AI cannot replace, especially when navigating layoffs, co-founder splits, change management, or convincing people to support a vision. Jonas framed this as a mindset issue and pointed to Munich’s Center for Digital Technology and Management as a model that strongly motivates people toward startups, suggesting similar effects should be emulated through startup factories elsewhere in Germany. The final section examined Germany’s attractiveness for international founders and the practical barriers they face. Jonas said the university-to-startup pipeline for highly qualified foreign talent is underserved, even as those people have many global options, and connected this to scholarship paths from master’s programs into founding in Germany. He then argued that the regulatory framework must become simpler: founders currently face burdens such as difficult incorporation, notary processes, and tax filings that often require advisors. The panel was especially critical of notarization requirements for startup financing rounds, contrasting them with buying BMW shares through Trade Republic without a notary. Niclas agreed that bureaucracy creates fear for young founders, even while acknowledging that some rules around privacy and security can make sense.