“Is there hope for Europe?” might sound like the beginning of a grim political debate, but at Startups Stage of Infobip Shift conference in Croatia this week, the question was aimed squarely at startups, investors, and the elusive dream of scaling beyond borders.
If you think this was unusual topic for developers conference, you need to be updated on Shift’s agenda. Their Startup Tribe over the years delivered more great program, bigger expo and networking for the startup and investor community. This 2025 didn’t dissapoint.
To discuss the aformentioned question, moderator Ivan Brezak Brkan, founder of Croatia’s Netokracija and now Developer Experience Director at Infobip, invited to the stage four quite different, yet outspoken and insightful voices. Olya Grovel (Vyvra), an operator-turned-founder who has helped startups across continents; Vedran Blagus, Managing Partner at Feelsgood VC; Bozidar Pavlovic, Partner at AYMO Ventures and Toomas Bergmann, Partner at Peaksjah.
What followed was part therapy session, part reality check: Why anything from U.S. always seems more shiny? Why do Europeans obsess over risks while Americans chase unicorns? Is Europe’s fragmentation an unsolvable curse, or is predictability actually our hidden strength? Between “reverse Napoleon” jokes, and sobering reminders about liquidity, the panel wrestled with whether European startups can thrive and if “hope for Europe” is even the right question.
Europe vs. the U.S.
However we look at it, the comparison is unavoidable. Silicon Valley casts a long shadow, and American startups dominate global headlines. “As a dual citizen, I can say this: the U.S. is just a lot louder,” Grovel said. “So Europe seems a lot smaller because of that.”
Others agreed: Europe’s startup ecosystem is not inherently weaker, just less amplified. U.S. founders are masters of hype, pitching investors on billion-dollar dreams. Europeans, by contrast, tend to be cautious, pragmatic, and self-critical.
“U.S. founders ask me: how big can this get? European ask: what could go wrong, how can I derisk it?” Grovel noted, drawing a lot of dry laughs.
On top of that, the funding gap is real. American startups attract bigger rounds earlier, but Europe’s approach has its upsides. Many European startups are cash-positive earlier and less dependent on continuous VC injections. “The mortality rate of U.S. startups is much higher,” Grovel added.
Blagus followed up with a note that Europe is very predictable, contrary to the US. “That might actually be our biggest strength in the coming years.” In a world where volatility dominates headlines, Europe’s measured, careful approach might yet prove an asset.
But predictability comes at a price: it doesn’t make headlines, and it doesn’t fuel unicorn ambitions at the same pace as the U.S. The trade-off between sustainability and scale was the first of many paradoxes debated that day.
The capital ceiling and fragmented markets
For early rounds, Europe looks healthy enough. Raising €2–3 million locally is not the bottleneck. The trouble begins when founders need to scale.
“Europe is not Europe, Europe is 28 countries, ” Bergmann reminded the room. “And capital, weirdly enough, even though everybody has been telling you that capital doesn’t have a nationality, it comes into a play. Germans invest in Germans, French in French. Even if there is will to do otherwise, their LPs are local, and they want their money deployed locally, to fuel innovation in their home ecosystem.” That fragmentation makes it harder to pull together the bigger rounds that U.S. startups take for granted.
This “capital nationalism” creates a ceiling that ambitious European founders constantly hit. Unlike the U.S., where New York investors happily back Silicon Valley startups (and vice versa), Europe’s money flows are balkanized (pun intended). The silver lining, Blagus notes: U.S. investors have started dipping into Europe more often than a decade ago. The catch? Many U.S. funds still demand a U.S. footprint before writing a check.
The irony isn’t lost on European founders: to raise capital for conquering Europe, they often first need a Delaware C-corp. And is if that is not enough, trying to sell from Estonia into France, or from Zagreb into Sweden, is often doomed without local allies.
Where do all the exists go?
Could systemic fixes close Europe’s gaps? The EU Inc. initiative, which aims to harmonize company incorporation and legal frameworks, sparked some hope. It might simplify paperwork, although panelists were skeptical it could fix deeper issues, pointing to indecisive divide Europe has. “If we decide to fully mitigate fragmentation, every other guy in the audience would scream, oh my God, oh my God, that’s federalization, this cannot happen. So you cannot have the sandwich, keep the sandwich, and also eat it. It’s one, you have to pick one side,” concluded Bergmann.
The another elephant in the room was liquidity. “There is no liquidity in Europe, period,” he declared. The statement hung heavy. Without functioning exit markets, venture capital lacks oxygen. That explains why Europe’s most successful startups still flock to New York’s Nasdaq or the NYSE for IPOs.
This also affects the ecosystem maturity, Pavlovic noted. Exists enable distribution of the money to employees that helped build the company, and who might invest or fund something of their own. Pavlovic concluded Croats are waiting for Infobip IPO to channel the same reaction in their country.
Then the thoughful silence ensued as one audience member asked whether Europe’s obsession with extending runway breeds resilience or just “zombie startups.
It really depends on the country, and its mindset, panelists agreed, as attitudes toward risk differ across different European cultures. “European money is old money,” Bergmann added as well. “It’s very risk-averse. The mindset is about perseverance, not scaling fast. That’s changing, but very very slowly.” The cautious, longevity-focused capital that defines Europe produces resilient companies, but can also stall ambition.
A model of its own
Fragmentation once again reared its head on the talent question. While American talent is fluid across coasts, in Europe, cultural and linguistic borders make mobility harder. A star product manager in Sweden won’t easily relocate to the Balkans, and vice versa, pointed Grovel. Luckily, remote work played a significant role in changing that. Panelists also highlighted that, while our region has great pool of engineers, it is still hard to find product, growth and sales experts.
Still, optimism flickered. Success stories like Skype, UiPath, and Klarna have created alumni networks that spread knowledge and ambition across borders. And a growing number of Europeans with U.S. experience are moving back, bringing global know-how with them. The challenge really isn’t talent shortage, it’s unlocking and aligning what’s already here.
The systemic hurdles are clear: fragmented capital, cautious investors, limited liquidity. But so too is the opportunity: if Europe can turn its predictability, engineering talent, and growing international connections into a cohesive ecosystem, the story could change. The “hope for Europe” may not be to imitate Silicon Valley, but to carve out a model of its own.
