European Tech Alternatives
153 points
2 hours ago
| 14 comments
| eutechmap.com
| HN
phaser
1 hour ago
[-]
Every time I see an idea like this (or a politician talking about tech 'sovereignty') I feel sad for the 20-year-old me who really believed in the declaration of the independence of cyberspace.

> Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence

edit: formatting

reply
andsoitis
52 minutes ago
[-]
> I feel sad for the 20-year-old me who really believed in the declaration of the independence of cyberspace.

Cyberspace depends on physical reality and everything that comes from that. Resource constraints, economics, politics, arms races, warfare, etc.

reply
isodev
36 minutes ago
[-]
Cyberspace promised us we can all work together to create things, like one species coming together to solve problems. Now in 2026, we need to “space” for every little tribe…
reply
ares623
32 minutes ago
[-]
it was true for about 3 years give or take
reply
marssaxman
50 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, all of our 20-year-old selves eventually learned that. No need to rub it in!
reply
21asdffdsa12
16 minutes ago
[-]
Missing on the list, but mostly part of it - human retardation. In politics, in private, everywhere.

The surplus binges of the 90s do not make for an accurate sample of human and politics nature.

reply
stackghost
37 minutes ago
[-]
Indeed. I first encountered the "declaration of independence of cyberspace" a few years after it was written, and at the time I was immediately reminded of the Full Metal Jacket quote that goes something like "you can give your heart to Jesus but your ass belongs to the Marine Corps!"

That is to say the Declaration is pure cringe. The idea that cyberspace could become sovereign unto itself is patently absurd: The user's ass belongs to whichever country they inhabit.

reply
yipbub
36 minutes ago
[-]
Maybe it can be aspirational.
reply
21asdffdsa12
11 minutes ago
[-]
Its most horrifying if you look at what it usually burns down and fizzles out to. Governments in the middle east- one dominant family, extracting, the rest suffering in silence boxed away in silos, with no chance to move and create ever again - well except for unrest and fundamentalist movements.
reply
shiroiuma
25 minutes ago
[-]
Such an idea never made any real sense, and never will until you can figure out how to move IT infrastructure into a separate dimension where governments have no authority. Those servers have to sit somewhere.
reply
RobotToaster
9 minutes ago
[-]
Doesn't have to be a different dimension, international waters or space would do.
reply
XorNot
4 minutes ago
[-]
Both those places are heavily government controlled.

In fact international waters if you're not flagged and registered to a specific country, then it's open season for anyone to board and seize you.

reply
wafflemaker
13 minutes ago
[-]
That's the whole plan with the space servers. As soon as we sort out a few problems, we're good to go.

Problems: Solar flare & radiation resistance. Heat dissipation. Energy (more effective solar panels, for things as close to sun as we).

Partially solved - getting to orbit. And as much as we hate musk, SpaceX might solve it once Starships start flying commercially.

If we would separate energy part out and beam it somehow, we could sit in a body's shadow in some Lagrange point equivalent for a given body system and greatly reduce heat dissipation requirements and suspectibility to solar flares.

reply
pseudony
2 minutes ago
[-]
Look at what he does now, you honestly think a person this greedy would ever exercise less than maximum control?
reply
Towaway69
3 minutes ago
[-]
Wait a one minute, who owns those space Servers? The same guy who runs starlink? The one who uses that power to threaten to cut access to those who refuse to do his bidding?

Come on, pull the other one, surely it can’t be that something so useful can be used as a tool for Mafia style politics.

reply
wald3n
32 minutes ago
[-]
I don’t understand why Mistral gets so little recognition. They consistently have a top model on benchmarks such as LiveBench and their models are open source. Hugging Face is French, Black Forrest Labs (Stable Diffusion) is German, Weaviate is Dutch, Hetzner for IaasS. There’s AI here. Maybe hardware production is the bigger problem?
reply
Tinkeringz
5 minutes ago
[-]
They’re 5th off bottom on livebench

https://livebench.ai/

reply
dwedge
14 minutes ago
[-]
Do they? That's surprising. I saw them come up here twice for their OCR model, I tried using it on a 200 PDF that was just printed text without embedded OCR and it failed miserably - got less than tesseract and I ended up with a $5 bill.

I figured Mistral was a nice idea and liked because it was a European competitor more than because it competes. I'll be happy to be wrong if it has improved

reply
notrealyme123
23 minutes ago
[-]
Iirc: mistral has American investors, black forest labs hq has been moved to silicon valley.
reply
oytis
17 minutes ago
[-]
That's another problem with the idea of tech sovereignity. Anything succesful, even if it started in Europe, will go global, including literally going to the USA
reply
21asdffdsa12
15 minutes ago
[-]
Hub and spoke market model of the world. Some realities can not change. could move back to britain-canada though.
reply
rhubarbtree
3 minutes ago
[-]
If the political regime in the US continues, that will come to an end. You can see it happening already - London has been a big beneficiary of Trump’s agenda.
reply
g-mork
1 hour ago
[-]
Far more usable (and older AFAIK) site: https://european-alternatives.eu/
reply
culi
1 hour ago
[-]
Very different sites with very different goals.

I think this post is useful if you are, say, a European that wants to find a nearby tech company to work for or are curious where the tech "scene" is at in Europe

reply
breppp
1 hour ago
[-]
It took a minute to load the map points here, and I was sitting thinking this is an attempt at a clever joke
reply
Keyframe
20 minutes ago
[-]
not all that useful. for a more useful alternative I'd prefer to see companies up from a certain size (I've noticed some small startups on the map) and if the're (not) using aws/azure/gcp/chinaCloud (whatever the names are).
reply
resonious
2 minutes ago
[-]
Right, the page starts up and shows them in alphabetical order. Didn't recognize a single one.
reply
zabzonk
1 hour ago
[-]
If you are going to post a link to a site like this, please also say what point the link is making.
reply
jamesblonde
1 hour ago
[-]
They need to fix the addresses. In Stockholm, all of the companies are placed in the old town. At Hopsworks, we are in Sodermalm (hipster) - we are not old school money.
reply
mikae1
1 hour ago
[-]
Was just looking at the map thinking: have the all moved to Gamla stan? :)
reply
redrove
1 hour ago
[-]
“Tech alternatives” yet a good portion of the companies I randomly clicked on are software services/outsourcing, especially on the eastern side.

Show me a European iPhone, European Microsoft, European Nvidia, etc. Hell, I’ll take a European one man company that can reach all 27 markets.

Europe needs a single market for capital and the removal of legal barriers to extend across the continent, foremost for the little guy. Von der Failen can only add _more_ regulation. Someone wake me when they actually make something easier.

reply
karambahh
1 hour ago
[-]
Feels like you're addressing two different topics in one comment.

Legally speaking, a one person company can address the whole EEA market. From a marketing/sales standpoint yeah, sure, it's probably hard to address culturally different markets like Portugal, Poland and Sweden.

But it does not have much to do with regulations, especially not ones decided at the EU level.

I'm all for better integration but diverse cultures are here to stay....

Sample size of one, but done business in Italy, Spain, Belgium, France, Switzerland and Germany: main issues were not regulation related...

reply
joshuaisaact
48 minutes ago
[-]
Have you heard of a little company called Arm Holdings?

It was a travesty that the UK government let it be sold, admittedly.

reply
shiroiuma
20 minutes ago
[-]
UK isn't European. They made that clear when they voted for Brexit.
reply
hardlianotion
11 minutes ago
[-]
UK is European. Membership of EU is unnecessary for that criterion to be met.
reply
SkiFire13
15 minutes ago
[-]
The UK is not in the EU, but it is surely european.
reply
domh
13 minutes ago
[-]
The UK is no longer in the EU; The UK is still in Europe and is very much European.
reply
raincole
1 hour ago
[-]
Yeah. Not sure if it's the intention, but what this site really shows is "the lack of European tech alternatives."
reply
puchatek
54 minutes ago
[-]
I believe the EU inc initiative attempts to fix the capital aspect
reply
redrove
50 minutes ago
[-]
It’s just a shortcut for broken Germany to be able to found a company without a notary and 25000EUR.
reply
9dev
45 minutes ago
[-]
That is false. You can absolutely found a company by just getting an entry as a merchant here with neither of the things you listed. If you want to found a limited liability company though, then yes, you need some monetary backing to cover for fuckups (likely the 25k are not fully covering it anyway) and a notary to make it official.
reply
redrove
38 minutes ago
[-]
No, you CANNOT found a company like that. It’s an absolute fabrication.

You also seem to somehow justify spending 25k on an endeavor you don’t know will succeed upfront, when every other country on the planet allows you to open one with orders of magnitude smaller amounts of capital.

You can open a UK LTD in a few days with 12GBP. Similar in DK/NL/CZ… the list goes on.

I’ve learned firsthand that germans will bend over backwards to justify this insanity.

reply
Dacit
12 minutes ago
[-]
You are clearly misinformed. According to German law, you can start a UG (limited) with only 1€ + notary cost. Starting a business with personal liability doesn't cost anything.
reply
coredev_
1 hour ago
[-]
So there are of course a lot of large EU based IT/tech companies but I guess you already know this.

As for leaders, von der Leyen might not be the best but still lightyears better than the orange pedo in the wh.

reply
redrove
48 minutes ago
[-]
There are many many degrees of harm before the extreme. They can both suck at the same time.
reply
cyberax
1 hour ago
[-]
How about European ASML?

> Europe needs a single market for capital and the removal of legal barriers to extend across the continent, foremost for the little guy.

?!?

You can trivially sell your software inside the EU. As for software that I use almost daily: OsmAnd. LanguageTool, which is spell-checking this message, is made in Germany. IntelliJ products are made in Czechia, and I'm using them right now.

reply
redrove
46 minutes ago
[-]
You can sell products anywhere but you’re battling 27 different sets of rules and legislations. Look at how a burger shop becomes a continent wide franchise overnight and you’ll see how that’s impossible in the EU.

We just lack the regulatory freedom and deep financial markets, access to credit, etc.

reply
jimnotgym
23 minutes ago
[-]
A burger shop is a hard example. Software is trivial. Distribution of goods is no harder than the US and its sales tax regime, that is different in all 50 states and can be different in each county inside that state. In EU you can use the One Stop Shop.
reply
cyberax
22 minutes ago
[-]
If you're selling software that needs to _battle_ 27 different rules, then you're doing something seriously wrong.
reply
stackghost
58 minutes ago
[-]
>Show me a European iPhone, European Microsoft, European Nvidia, etc.

The "avoid dependence on the US" movement only really started picking up steam with Trump's accelerating dementia in his second term.

The iPhone, Microsoft, and nVidia all took multiple decades to develop into the behemoths they are today. Famously, the first iPhone was actually expensive trash: no apps, no 3G, couldn't even cut and paste text. It wasn't until the 3G model and the App Store that it became a true success.

reply
jmchuster
50 minutes ago
[-]
> Famously, the first iPhone was actually expensive trash: no apps, no 3G, couldn't even cut and paste text.

Also famously, while the tech elitists complained about all of its shortcomings, the broader consumer market fully embraced it and it single-handedly drove an entirely new generation of consumer electronics.

reply
stackghost
41 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, as I wrote initially: the iPhone is a behemoth today, but its first version was underwhelming to say the least.

My point, which you seem to have overlooked, is that parent poster complaining that a "european iphone" doesn't exist is not realistic, considering how it went for Apple.

reply
shiroiuma
10 minutes ago
[-]
The consumer market embraced it despite its shortcomings because it looked nice and was easy to use; the alternatives were not. Yeah, it didn't do that much, but it did more than a flip phone. The alternatives wanted you to use a stylus just to use your phone, and tried to basically recreate the MS Windows UI on a tiny screen; their UI was terrible.
reply
budududuroiu
1 hour ago
[-]
Realistically, what you're asking for won't happen unless there's a strong push for Federalisation.

Unfortunately, most Eastern Bloc countries are led into the false belief that the EU is encroaching on their ways of life and "making them eat ze bugs", and the Brussels elite is more concerned with using their slim remaining political capital to push restrictions on internet freedoms rather than federalisation.

reply
redrove
48 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, precisely. Going federal is the only viable l, unified, way ahead.
reply
karel-3d
50 minutes ago
[-]
European startups, when they are successful, will eventually end up being bought by Oracle or move to USA. Such is life.
reply
Manheim
25 minutes ago
[-]
The European digital scene isn't a pipeline problem; it's an institutional 'safe harbor' problem. We have world-class publicly funded research and education, and the talent, just look at the startup floor at Vivatech or WebSummit, but European Private Equity and late-stage capital remain structurally locked into 'Old Economy' models.

In Europe, valuation is still largely tied to tangible assets and steady EBITDA. This creates a massive 'Patient Capital' gap. While US investors have evolved to price the long-term unit economics of digital scaling, where high initial burn is the cost of building a global moat, European private equity remains culturally risk-averse. They prefer the predictable, incremental returns of a specialized factory over the 'winner-takes-most' volatility of digital platforms. By prioritizing collateral over code, our domestic capital is effectively subsidizing the past rather than financing the future. That's our problem.

reply
DeathArrow
55 minutes ago
[-]
I tried to find on that website the equivalents of Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, TSMC, Nvidia, OpenAI, Meta, Broadcom, Oracle but didn't succeed.
reply
Heliosmaster
44 minutes ago
[-]
Zoom in Veldhoven and then try to see the equivalent of ASML anywhere else.
reply
vasco
34 minutes ago
[-]
This is not the flex it could be. As far as I know ASML licensed their core tech from US research. Which is why they can dictate who ASML sells to.
reply
m00dy
1 hour ago
[-]
we need european chip makers.
reply
joshuaisaact
46 minutes ago
[-]
ASML is European and is arguably the most strategically important company in the entire semiconductor supply chain.
reply
Manheim
23 seconds ago
[-]
ASML Holding is dominating the chip technology with their machines. It's not the lack of invention or intellectual capability that holds Europe back from the digital industry, it's the lack of willing long term European invenstors. If you want to scale your digital tech startup in Europe the most viable way is to look to the US for investors.
reply
dadoum
1 hour ago
[-]
I think that it would require there to be a European chip demand. Today that demand is almost entirely for cars, so we only get mediocre car infotainment chips (+ a few other similar niches). There was more hope 20 years ago, when there were widely successful European mobile phone makers.
reply
waihtis
49 minutes ago
[-]
Peak EU mindset thinking all we need is a nifty little map application to find alternatives.

Meanwhile, tech companies are continuing to bail into the US the moment they reach significant revenue due to crushing tax and labour costs (see e.g. Oura announcing their departure from Finland yesterday)

Unfortunately the EU and many local governments have chosen to double down on crippling socialism (presumedly to "own Trump") so this continue at an accelerating pace.

reply
jimnotgym
11 minutes ago
[-]
> labour costs

Where in the EU is a software engineer paid SV FAANG rates?

> Oura announcing their departure from Finland yesterday

The article I read said they were moving their HQ domicile to Delaware in preparation for a US stock market listing. A bit like US companies do. It said firmly that roughly half of its staff were already in the US, half in Finland, and that wasn't going to change.

reply
flobanana
1 hour ago
[-]
Using a European solution just because it’s European sounds wrong to me. Sounds like we’ve done this kind of nationalism in the past and failed. There are other reasons why Europe isn’t attractive for bringing these kinds of technologies to life, and investor money is only a small part of it. Especially in a company’s early days. Building a market reserved for mediocre tech solutions sounds like the wrong way to make Europe more independent.

Maybe Europe shouldn’t copy the nationalism, but governments should copy some of the reasons the breeding grounds in the US and China exist. Think about how they got that far, and especially how China caught up so fast.

reply
barrell
1 hour ago
[-]
Two counters:

1. I'm not sure China caught up so quickly due to any lack of nationalism.

2. There's an allure to working with an EU business because it's in the EU because they're less likely to jerk you around. You have no idea how many times I get told their in nothing they can do, then have to drop the 'I live in the EU and this is illegal' card, and magically the problem is resolved by the next email.

reply
jimnotgym
1 hour ago
[-]
> Using a European solution just because it’s European sounds wrong to me.

That depends who you are, and what you are doing. If you have information stored such that having it in US infrastructure is a national security risk, then you might think differently.

>but governments should copy some of the reasons the breeding grounds in the US and China exist.

Which reasons should they copy? Massive government subsidies? Large grants masquerading as defence contracts? Threatening foreign governments to force market access with taxation lower than the native businesses? Are you saying European governments should favour European companies just because they are European?

reply
vjk800
11 minutes ago
[-]
> Which reasons should they copy? Massive government subsidies? Large grants masquerading as defence contracts? Threatening foreign governments to force market access with taxation lower than the native businesses? Are you saying European governments should favour European companies just because they are European?

The US and China pulling all this shit is exactly why the whole European alternatives thing is trending. Before Trump started threatening everyone, we had no problem using US tech.

reply
ArekDymalski
1 hour ago
[-]
>Building a market reserved for mediocre tech solutions sounds like the wrong way to make Europe more independent.

The traction which is proverbial "wind in the sails" for further development must come from somewhere. A new promotional channel might help with it.

Also I don't think it's any kind on nationalism. Just pragmatism for the very unstable times.

reply
culi
1 hour ago
[-]
Europe isn't a nation.

And the whole point here is a more diverse alternative to the extreme dependency on the US tech companies

reply
21asdffdsa12
13 minutes ago
[-]
Nothing is a nation- but something bundled together by hardship. Europe is in for hardship.
reply
blackcatsec
1 hour ago
[-]
I think the depths of the answers here, particularly with China, are far beyond the scope of technical discussion and to be honest likely beyond the scope of European-specific tech needs. Just because the US did one thing a certain way, and China did it another way; doesn't mean Europe must follow either of those to be successful.

However, it is going to require public funds to achieve. A public/private partnership scenario is very likely at least the near to mid term future for European tech development. And the world can only stand to benefit.

Politically, nationalism is absolutely very bad and it's a shame the world is headed in this direction. This global distrust only serves chaos agents and accelerates us into another World War (if we aren't already in the early stages of one). I had hope that people would prefer to come together but it's unfortunately too risky with US politics.

reply
vanviegen
1 hour ago
[-]
> and especially how China caught up so fast.

Isn't that largely nationalism and pressuring companies to use (initially) mediocre local tech solutions though? Once the market is there, quality catches up rapidly.

reply
raincole
1 hour ago
[-]
> especially how China caught up so fast.

Nationalism, but armed with actual law enforcement and economical support instead of good intentions and lip service.

reply
SkiFire13
50 minutes ago
[-]
> There are other reasons why Europe isn’t attractive for bringing these kinds of technologies to life, and investor money is only a small part of it.

And what are these other reasons?

reply
breppp
1 hour ago
[-]
Creating mediocre alternatives sometimes pave the way for real alternatives as you create a talent pool.

China is an example, countries that had become technology independent through sanctions is another

reply
redrove
1 hour ago
[-]
> Building a market reserved for mediocre tech solutions sounds like the wrong way to make Europe more independent.

You can’t foster excellence if you don’t reward it monetarily (enough).

No unified capital markets, no high reward as an investor.

As an employer/employee takes a year to fire people even when they don’t show up, ergo the incentive is to coast.

As a founder you’re buried in bureaucracy and taxes, so the incentive is to stay an employee.

It’s a trifecta of shit.

reply
lefra
29 minutes ago
[-]
> a year to fire people even when they don’t show up

In what country? I just checked, in France it's 15 days. The employer can ask to be paid the notice period, and the employee won't get unemployment benefits.

reply
jimnotgym
37 minutes ago
[-]
> As an employer/employee takes a year to fire people even when they don’t show up, ergo the incentive is to coast.

That is not true in the UK. In the first two years of service you can fire someone without a reason so long as you were not being deliberately discriminatory. Burden of proof on the employee for this

After that you just have to go through a fair process. Your decision is not in question, just whether you followed a fair process. I have worked in a place that routinely fired people for being 1 minute late on three occasions. Late once, verbal warning, late twice, written warning, late three times fired.

> As a founder you’re buried in bureaucracy and taxes, so the incentive is to stay an employee.

As a sole trader in the UK you can set up instantly. You have 3 months to let the tax authority know what you did, but no real threat if you leave it a bit longer. Setting up a corporate entity takes 10 minutes online. You can have that done by your accountant and the annual accounts done for maybe £300. No need for an audit until you have cross 2 out of three of these thresholds

Annual turnover of no more than £15 million

Gross assets of no more than £7.5 million

Average number of employees of no more than 50

Immediately you get a significant tax advantage over employees.

Easy access to capital is harder, unless you went to high-end private school that is. Development capital is not that hard to get, but seed funding is harder.

reply
ph4rsikal
55 minutes ago
[-]
Over the last 20 years, Europe has become irrelevant.

There is not a single European LLM on the same level as US or Chinese models. France's Mistral reached 400M in revenue, but I believe it could have been more relevant if the EU had not slowed everything down with overregulation.

reply
anonymous908213
46 minutes ago
[-]
Why does Europe need to dump hundreds of billions of dollars into developing a chatbot that will never be able to pay off its debts? Mistral seems like a much more practical and sustainable approach to LLM development than centering the entire economy around a pyramid scheme predicated on selling the belief that AGI is always three months away.

China's LLM development relative to resources spent is impressive, but it also happened to be predicated on Chinese miners buying into the previous pyramid scheme and having a lot of GPUs on hand already. I don't think the lack of European commitment to the previous pyramid scheme putting it a bit behind in that regard indicates any kind of grand regional failure, so much as an event of pure circumstance that probably has little lasting meaning 5 or 10 years from now.

reply
ph4rsikal
36 minutes ago
[-]
You lost all your credibility if you see AI as "a chatbot".
reply
anonymous908213
29 minutes ago
[-]
Conversely, every person calling LLMs "agents" never had any credibility to begin with. Despite my many attempts to coerce an example out of people here, I am still waiting for one (1) singular demonstration of "agentic software" that is capable of replacing production-grade software at scale. Software created by agents that solves a real-world problem and is used by tens of thousands or millions of people. Candidates include an OS, a web browser, an IDE, image editing software akin to Photoshop, a fully-featured Discord/Slack/etc. replacement, a non-trivial video game, music production software, enterprise-grade database software etc., really anything that isn't just another AI tool to produce another AI tool to produce another AI tool culminating in complete psychosis and detachment from anything people do in the real world. If you would like to be the first to provide evidence that these things are more capable than chatbots in concrete terms, by all means, go ahead.
reply
ph4rsikal
5 minutes ago
[-]
I build agents for banks for a living and can tell you for sure that you are wrong.
reply
michelb
48 minutes ago
[-]
We have been overly reliant on non-European partners we could trust and rely on. That is now gone. So right now is a good opportunity for Europe to focus inward. Imagine having all the social benefits AND tech. We also need to make sure keep malignant actors like the USA & Russia at bay. One can dream.
reply
ph4rsikal
36 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, I agree. But it was Europe that has become complacent and lazy. "Doing good" is more important than "doing right". As a result, with energy prices high, dependence on Russia only increased, and car manufacturers (Stellantis, Mercedes -50% revenue) are dying as have shipbuilders before them.
reply
isodev
44 minutes ago
[-]
That assumes LLMs are relevant and will be around a year from now. Let’s not forget NFTs.

Your comment is also blind to the absurd amount of research and projects which are born here but later move to look for funding.

So the EU is not irrelevant, on the contrary, we’re just mourning the fall of the US and transitioning to an independent future. Who would’ve though, we’d end up needing to build a copy of everything…

reply
indemnity
26 minutes ago
[-]
> That assumes LLMs are relevant and will be around a year from now. Let’s not forget NFTs.

These two things are not alike. At all.

reply
isodev
22 minutes ago
[-]
I used it as another “there was a strong tech push but ultimately we couldn’t make it work” kind of idea. With NFTs the grift was immediately visible, with LLMs it’s a bit harder, the whole “AI” facade gives people hope - I want to believe and stuff.
reply
ph4rsikal
34 minutes ago
[-]
" we’re just mourning the fall of the US ".

Listen to Rubio's speech again.

The EU is in a managed decline, and no number of migrants will change that.

reply
isodev
25 minutes ago
[-]
Rubio is a mouthpiece for a regime that’s not qualified to discuss Europe, or even his very own US of A. All he meant in his speech is that his government has chosen isolation
reply
telmo
21 minutes ago
[-]
I am old enough to remember variations of this conversation from 20 years ago. If you scratch, you always find ideology underneath: an antipathy for regulation that puts people before money and for sharing the cost of social safety nets. I like living in Europe. It's not perfect (what is), but it's pretty good. Living my life well vs. worrying about my country not buying enough GPUs to keep the markets excited? Choices, choices...
reply
shaky-carrousel
30 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, Europe is not as relevant in the unhealthy toy business as the US, which is a good thing.
reply
perbu
46 minutes ago
[-]
I’ve raised money here and there. Never really had issues with the EU regulations.

But the lack of risk capital and investor brainpower has been a huge problem.

reply