How London became the rest of the world’s startup capital

What “startup capital” means in the thread

• Several commenters say the framing is marketing: focusing on VC raised and company registrations, not actual successful outcomes.
• Others argue the raw numbers do show London dominates non‑US fundraising.
• Some note domicile skews metrics: many Indian/Polish/etc. startups incorporate in London (or Delaware/Singapore/Cayman) purely for legal and fundraising convenience, not because the business is “in” London.

London vs Silicon Valley and other hubs

• Near‑unanimous view: Silicon Valley is still in a different league on capital, mentorship, energy and exits; London is “best of the rest,” not a replacement.
• Some see London as where you go if you can’t or won’t raise in SV, often with worse terms and more dilution.
• Berlin, Paris, Lisbon, Bangalore and others are cited as rival or emerging hubs, often cheaper and with healthier work‑life balance.

Capital, exits and “farm system” critique

• A popular framing: London is an efficient farm system for US acquirers—early risk and PMF proven in the UK, then winners get bought by American companies.
• Debate over whether London’s public markets are “shrinking”: one side cites weak IPO volumes and lost programs (e.g. Tech Nation), another points to a rebound in late‑year IPOs and strong FTSE returns.
• General consensus: London is good for seed/early growth but weak for large‑scale growth capital and IPO depth compared with the US.

Legal, tax and institutional advantages

• English contract law, deep financial services, and abundant cross‑border lawyers make London an attractive legal base.
• SEIS and similar schemes are described as extremely generous for angels and friends‑and‑family rounds.
• London’s role as a money hub (including for Gulf and other sovereign wealth funds) is seen as a major asset, though some associate this with “shady” or low‑diligence capital and money‑laundering history.

Culture, communication and work style

• Some praise London startups as having “SV‑like energy but less attitude.”
• Others complain of indirect, subtext‑heavy British communication that can feel evasive compared with US directness.
• Wages: multiple comments say London tech pay is far below US levels; top comp clusters in finance, FAANG and quant, with typical startup salaries much lower.

Cost of living, housing and transport

• High rents and family costs are a recurring concern; London is described as “tax hell” and among the most expensive major hubs, though still cheaper than SF/NY in practice for some.
• Many mitigate cost with flat‑shares or long‑distance commuting; strong public transport and a large commuting radius are repeatedly cited as key enablers.
• There’s a parallel argument that UK transport investment is overly concentrated in London at the expense of other regions.

Europe, alternative models and definitions of “startup”

• Several commenters say metrics ignore a large class of European SMEs and “calm” tech businesses that aim for sustainable profits, not hyper‑growth or IPOs.
• Debate over definitions: some define a startup by pursuit of rapid scaling and huge valuations; others see any new, innovative business as a startup.
• View from continental Europe: ambition isn’t always smaller, but late‑stage capital is; successful European startups often end up moving funding or headquarters to the US.

Geopolitics and long‑term outlook

• Some worry Brexit will limit London’s role if the EU decides it needs its own “strategic” tech champions under EU jurisdiction.
• Others counter that despite decades of “poor policymaking,” London’s natural advantages—language, timezone, finance, universities, diversity—have kept it dominant as a European‑adjacent hub.