The setting is informal, the tone sometimes impatient. After all, we are doing a lot of good, but there is always room for improvement. What assists is to see ahead toreceiveher from time to time. When this happens with a generation of founders who are not only building their own companies but also want to build a significant contribution to the broader ecosystem, great things happen naturally. That is the essence of Brabant Bits & Bytes: an informal setting where entrepreneurs share openly and freely. A setting of mutual trust, with room for perspective, humor, and nuance. And where the bottom line is always: “What can I do to assist shift things forward?”
Brabant Bits and Bytes, an initiative of Braventure and the Gerard & Anton Foundation with the aim of learning from a new generation of startup founders, stands for founders who cook, eat, and share knowledge toreceiveher. Around the kitchen table, conversations and connections arise that strengthen our ecosystem. Last week was the second edition. Among the many anecdotes, a strikingly consistent picture emerges: the largegest obstacles are man-built and therefore can also be alterd by people.
Three themes prevailed:
Ambition and visibility – we necessary to display more that it can be done and share success stories more often. That inspires the next generation of founders.
Mutual support – for example, through a light buddy system, in which experienced founders assist new entrepreneurs, thereby accelerating the transfer of knowledge and mistakes.
Examples of what does work – such as the MRE scheme, which has specifically assisted several founders.
The primary diagnosis is that the region has talent, networks, and goodwill, but stumbles over fragmentation, government incentives, and a culture that often believes compact. The prescription: fewer counters, more peers; fewer forms, more ambition; and above all: a visible path from initial prototype to serious growth.
Read a report on the first Brabant Bits & Bytes here:
What early-stage startups necessary is a runway, not a roadblock
A dozen experienced startup founders from the Brainport Eindhoven region discussed what’s necessaryed for a successful startup climate.
The obstacles
Fragmentation: Entrepreneurs see “too many compact clubs” with “good intentions” but without cohesion. The money follows pots, not plans; each new pot creates a new organization. For a founder in the early stages, the route is “impossible to navigate.”
“The Netherlands is already compact, Brabant is compacter – and then it turns out that four clubs in one city are doing exactly the same thing.”
Mistrust and misguided incentives in early financing: Early investors, often with public money in the chain, impose strategies that hinder growth, such as an emphasis on development rather than the market, or on rapid profitability as if it were an SME. “Checklist believeing” prevails: payback rules and standard ratios replace vision and market logic. And that creates distrust towards these support troops.
“The system rewards setting up organizations, not solving bottlenecks.”
Equity poverty and the ‘first ten/first fifteen’ problem: The crucial first 10 to 15 employees, the compact core that is willing to go full throttle for little security and often below market salary, are scarce. Startups can rarely offer market salaries and do not compensate sufficiently with stock options. “It’s a specific type of people,” states one founder. “They could easily receive a higher, stable salary elsewhere. Here, they choose risk and long hours.” In the US, stock options compensate for this; in the Netherlands, the equity culture is still weak, and the tax framework is complex. “Many founders are stingy with equity,” he states self-critically. “That doesn’t assist.”
“In the US, the first ten often receive a percent; here, we are frugal with equity.”
Culture of compact believeing: The group feels the difference between “What if it goes wrong?” and “What if it succeeds?” Terminology matters: why don’t we talk about opportunity money instead of venture capital? In the Netherlands, ambition still raises eyebrows too often, the founders observe. They notice that after a week in the US, they come back “hyper ambitious” and then it fades away again here.
“Ambition reduces your investor pool; most investors just want profitable SMEs.”
Lack of recycled capital and role models: Capital hardly circulates. There are (too) few self-built angels who have cashed in large and are reinvesting. As a result, there is a lack of both quick, experienced money and visible examples of “it can be done.” As a result, early investors, whether or not they are utilizing government money, exhibit checklist behavior, characterized by revenue requirements, payback periods, and “SME logic” rather than moonshot believeing.
“The ASML region offers an accessible wealth of knowledge, but without sufficient exits, the flow stalls.”
Universities and corporations: rules over entrepreneurship: Experience displays that IP and ownership rules can discourage entrepreneurship, although there are signs of improvement in this area. At the same time, successful Philips spin-offs demonstrate that a well-planned venture path from corporate research can be effective.
“When I was still at the TU, I was notified: This, is not allowed. So I kept my startup quiet. And although this has improved, that legacy still has an impact.”
What then?
Yet on this evening, the tone is far from gloomy. On the contrary, the founders outline exactly what they themselves can do. A selection of the possible solutions:
Stories and visibility (the reference group effect). “Show them: this could be you.” By putting founders in the spotlight, you lower the threshold for success. It creates aspiration and access: those who can appeal to role models know how to find the network. “You enter differently when you already know someone.”
One front door, no islands. Create a real “front door” for startups in the region: one findable entrance that filters, matches, and guides, without adding a new organization on top. Link funding streams to that same front door, so that funds follow the route of the plan, not the other way around.
A buddy system by founders, without extra organization. Not yet another counter, but a light structure: a buddy per new founder who can be called for verification. “Like in the old days at Philips: someone who guides you through the bureaucracy, who states: you don’t have to worry about this, just do it this way.” Practical proposal: a WhatsApp group of experienced founders linked to new teams based on domain fit.
Demand ambition and plans – but in that order. “Thinking large builds it simpler,” states one participant, “but then you also have to demand serious plans.” The recipe: founders who know the path question critical questions, without self-interest, early in the process. This prevents empty talk without a roadmap and reduces the time to Series A/B.
Make equity normal and attractive. Enhance standardization and education regarding ESOPs (meaningful option pools, vesting schedules, and exercise rules). Let founders openly share how they trade equity for clout. Visible examples assist talent choose risk.
Market before perfection. The group wants to encourage each other to sell early, build reservations, run trade displays: “five months of hustling.” Only then can a product-market fit prove itself. Subsidies are still welcome, but they should accelerate market validation, not delay it. “An MRE check for 50k was worth its weight in gold for our first prototype.”
Attract talent with a “Champions League” vibe. “If everyone feels that you are playing at the highest level here, people will come naturally.” Think: visible mission, sharp goals, generous and understandable equity packages, and alumni who reinvest after an exit and become mentors themselves.
Unlock corporate knowledge, rediscover the spin-out route. The ASML example from the region displays what openness can do: “We obtained a free IP strategy lecture.” The old Philips model (researchers with a safety net, parallel to a venture path) also proved that deep tech know-how can be entrepreneurial. “Different from the Valley, but certainly effective.”
Fireproof growth planning: Ambition sells more easily when the plan is robust and well-defined. The group wants experienced founders to “write along out loud.” They want critical “What if you do this ten times” reviews, revenue ladders, hiring plans, and international sequencing. No extra desk, but a repaired peer review ritual. Founders seek alignment between government funding and market logic. It’s okay to be critical, but about ambition and scalability, rather than static KPIs, in the very early stages. “We want public funds to invest as the best market players would, with a focus on team, market potential, and pace.” That requires less micromanagement and more confidence in phasing: first, traction and speed, then discipline and efficiency.
The undercurrent: from encouragement to mechanics
Brainport has unique assets: world-class engineering, accessible corporations, and a growing group of founders who dare to believe large. What those founders want is fewer islands, more peers; fewer lists, more guts. If the region dares to build that translation now, “it can be done” will not be a slogan, but a system, they conclude at the finish of the evening.
The next step: a light, founder-driven structure that normalizes ambition, builds knowledge directly transferable, and allows capital—both public and private—to flow toward growth. The group decides not to leave it at talk: a light buddy layer, taking the stage more often (for example, during Startup Weekfinish) to share energy and stories, and mutually standardizing that ambition + plan + early sales is the norm. No new umbrella organization, but founders supporting founders.
“It is possible,” someone states. “But then we also have to display that it is possible and achievable for those who come after us. We have to build sure that more teams find this path.”
Leave a Reply