European Investment Bank to inject €70B in European tech

Skepticism about EU-led tech funding

• Many expect the €70B to be captured by incumbents: large corporates, consultancies, and academic networks that know how to work EU programs, not genuinely risky startups.
• Prior EU research/innovation schemes are described as: fragmented into sub‑programs, grant sizes too small, timelines measured in years, and heavily driven by who is “in the network”.
• Several examples are given of grants going to low‑impact or obviously weak projects, or to “innovation partners” that mainly provide slideware and WordPress sites.
• There are accusations of “network corruption”: insiders designing calls for their own labs/companies, universities taking large equity stakes, and startups formed primarily to skim funds.

Bureaucracy, risk aversion, and culture

• A common view is that European political culture is deeply risk‑averse: intense fear of “wasting public money” leads to heavy checks, legal constraints, and ultra‑conservative project selection.
• Six‑ to eighteen‑month decision cycles are seen as incompatible with fast‑moving tech and AI; only slow, grant‑oriented entities can realistically participate.
• Labor law, small wage differentials between startups/corporates/public sector, and stigma around both failure and great wealth are cited as structural dampers on entrepreneurial drive.

State vs market, and comparison to the US

• One camp argues the EU should copy US ingredients: deregulation, lower taxes, streamlined rules, and more room for private VC and monopoly-scale winners.
• Another camp counters that US tech success has always been heavily state‑backed (DoD, grants, procurement) and points to US inequality, “enshittified” platforms, and weaker social safety nets as cautionary rather than aspirational.
• Some suggest the EIB should mostly match private investment or act as an LP in VC funds rather than directly pick winners, to harness market selection while providing scale.

Is Europe actually “behind” in tech?

• Several commenters stress Europe’s strength in “boring” but advanced tech: aerospace, autos, machinery, pharmaceuticals, rail, energy—arguing “tech” ≠ just Silicon Valley‑style consumer software.
• Others reply that in the domains this initiative implicitly targets—AI, software platforms, high‑growth startups—the EU still lags badly behind the US and China.

Minority and nuanced views

• A few report positive experiences with EU or national programs: manageable bureaucracy, meaningful early funding, especially when tied to universities.
• Some see promise in smaller, targeted schemes like NLnet/NGI that fund open, commons‑oriented infrastructure rather than chasing hyperscaler‑style giants.