Frequently Asked Questions

Non-bankability refers to companies that cannot secure funding from traditional private sources like banks or institutional investors due to the high risk associated with their projects. While the term has been officially removed, the application still asks why EIC funding is needed.

Delays in equity investments are primarily due to structural difficulties and the EIC's inexperience with managing the fund, rather than issues caused by the beneficiaries themselves. While grant payments have been processed relatively smoothly, the equity component has faced significant hurdles.

The EIC Accelerator offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity investment per project, potentially totaling €17.5 million. This blended finance approach aims to support high-risk, high-impact innovations from startups and SMEs.

The EIC has set mandatory targets for female participation and has adjusted its definition of 'female-led' companies to include CTO and CSO positions, not just CEOs. However, there are concerns that changing the definition of the goal isn't the same as achieving true gender balance.

Yes, the evaluation process can be unpredictable, and some applicants report a sense of randomness in project selection. Resubmitted proposals with minimal changes sometimes succeed, undermining the credibility of the evaluation process.

In the past, many successful projects required 3 to 5 submissions. While resubmissions are now restricted, persistence can still be beneficial. Understand that the process can be random, and eligible projects may be rejected due to evaluator or jury selection.

Over 70% of applicants hire consultants due to the complexity and time-consuming nature of the application process. While consultants can be helpful, be aware that some may exploit the perceived obscurity of the guidelines.

Around 60% of high-scoring rejected proposals are implemented at a smaller scale, often relying on private financing or a combination of private and public funds. The absence of alternative funding is a major reason why some rejected proposals are never implemented.

Writing time refers to the estimated number of days required to complete your project. This timeframe can vary depending on the complexity and scope of the work.

If you don't have a company website, you can skip that field. However, providing as much relevant information as possible about your project is still important.

Please indicate your specific area of interest, such as grant writing, in your message or by selecting the appropriate option if a checkbox is provided. This helps me prioritize your request.

Clearly and concisely describe the type of writing services you are seeking. Be specific about your project goals, target audience, and any relevant deadlines.

At a minimum, include your name, email address, company (if applicable), and a brief message outlining your needs. Providing your website and industry can also help me understand your request better.

Please include your company name, industry, and website. This information allows me to quickly research your company and understand your specific needs and goals.

My fees are typically discussed after I understand the scope of your project. Please provide as much detail as possible in your initial contact so I can provide an accurate estimate.

Yes, including your LinkedIn profile can provide additional context about your professional background and experience, which can be helpful for me to assess your needs.

Yes, providing examples of past projects or references can be extremely helpful in understanding your expectations and ensuring I'm a good fit for your needs.

Knowing your location or country helps me understand potential time zone differences and tailor my services to your specific region or industry standards.

The rebuttal system allowed applicants to respond to the evaluators' initial comments and address their concerns. It was removed in 2023 after the AI platform collapse. The removal means evaluators now assess proposals without access to previous feedback, potentially leading to new and inconsistent criticisms.

From a consultant's perspective, a good EIC evaluator is one who doesn't focus on minor flaws, and a good jury member is impressed by the team. This highlights the subjective nature of the evaluation and the importance of making a strong overall impression.

Yes, every successful EIC Accelerator project has flaws. The key is to minimize the number of flaws and ensure they don't become critical issues in the eyes of the evaluators. Successful applicants manage to avoid the 'cuts' by presenting a compelling overall case.

The EIC Accelerator program, funded by the European Commission and European Innovation Council, offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €10 million in equity financing to startups and SMEs. It's designed to support companies with highly innovative technologies and significant growth potential. The program is known for its competitive and complex application process.

Flaws can be minor details, such as a missing chemical in the process description or inconsistencies in market report years. These aren't necessarily mistakes but points that lack detail and can be subject to the evaluator's interpretation. Addressing these potential points of concern is crucial.

The evaluation process involves subjective assessments by different evaluators, each with their own biases and perspectives. This means that the same proposal can receive varying feedback and criticisms depending on who reviews it. The selection of evaluators is also random, contributing to the unpredictable nature of the process.

The 75% certainty ratio in Step 1 means that at least three out of the four evaluators must be convinced that the project is good enough to proceed. This indicates that the EIC aims for a high level of confidence in the project's potential before moving it to the next stage.

Despite the randomness of the evaluation process, it's crucial to apply and give it your best shot. The potential impact of up to €12.5 million in funding is significant, so persistence and a well-prepared proposal are essential. Don't be discouraged by the challenges and seek expert help if needed.

'Death by a single cut' refers to the fact that failing in just one evaluation criterion is enough to get your EIC Accelerator proposal rejected. Even if your proposal excels in other areas, a single critical flaw can prevent you from receiving funding. This highlights the importance of addressing all potential weaknesses.

In Step 1, four evaluators assess the proposal, with at least three needing to approve it. In Step 2, three evaluators are involved, and all three must approve the project. A fourth evaluator may be added in Step 2 if there's a close rejection to provide an additional opinion.

A better approach would focus on removing generic content and streamlining the process to focus on essential information. AI could be used to identify key data points and assess the overall potential of the company, rather than grading the proposal as an essay.

Evaluators often focus on minor details and adherence to a specific format rather than assessing the overall potential of the company and technology. This can lead to strong proposals from weaker companies succeeding while innovative companies with less polished writing fail.

Evaluators sometimes overlook significant indicators of success, such as letters of intent from major companies, in favor of nitpicking minor details. They may also fail to recognize the value of a company's overall potential, focusing instead on strict adherence to evaluation criteria.

Generic sections, like those on gender diversity or the need for EIC funding, often contain information that doesn't reflect the company's unique perspective. If an AI can write these sections without specific input, it signals that they're unnecessary and should be removed to streamline the evaluation process.

The EIC has removed rebuttal functions, preventing applicants from responding to evaluator comments and addressing inconsistencies. This shields the evaluation process from criticism and reinforces potentially flawed assessments.

If both applicants and EIC evaluators use AI to process the same information, it creates a redundant cycle. Applicants use AI to bloat concise data into a narrative, and evaluators might use AI to distill it back down, wasting time and potentially degrading the original information.

AI could be integrated into the evaluation process, but this may complicate and randomize the process further if not implemented effectively. Increased AI usage by applicants could also lead to a surge in submissions, straining resources and potentially diluting the quality of the evaluation.

The 'intelligence test' involves using the correct terminology (e.g., 'de-risk,' 'crowd-in'), understanding bureaucratic rules (e.g., TRL levels, budget requirements), and navigating potentially inconsistent feedback from evaluators.

The current process is bureaucratic and time-consuming, often taking 8-15 months with a low success rate. It prioritizes adherence to rules and buzzwords over genuine innovation, making it a poor use of resources for companies needing urgent funding.

Evaluators should prioritize assessing whether a company is impressive and a good fit for the EIC portfolio. This requires a more subjective approach, acknowledging that every company has flaws and focusing on overall potential rather than minor imperfections.

Using AI isn't technically plagiarism since it generates content from scratch, not by copying. However, AI learns from vast datasets, so the content isn't entirely original. It's a gray area, but currently, it's not considered plagiarism.

There are indications that the EIC might be experimenting with AI in Step 1 evaluations. Changes like typo-free reports and duplicate sentences suggest some level of automation in the evaluation process.

The EIC Accelerator offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €10 million in equity financing per project. This blended financing option can provide a total of up to €12.5 million to support innovative startups and SMEs.

The EIC hasn't established clear guidelines or verification mechanisms regarding AI usage, so ethical considerations are currently sidelined. Applicants are free to use AI tools without penalty, especially since the evaluation process can be subjective.

The EU should prioritize supporting scalable and disruptive business models, including IT, marketplaces, and B2C consumer apps. These types of companies can grow into industry giants, unlike smaller DeepTech companies that are often acquired or relocated.

The EIC initially launched an EIC Accelerator challenge focused on foundation models and LLMs. However, it was later downgraded to a generative AI challenge, likely due to the limited availability of advanced LLM development in Europe.

Europeans need to learn to adapt to the changes brought about by AI developed in the US and China. Focusing on scalable business models and avoiding excessive regulation are crucial steps in responding effectively to the AI revolution.

The EU faces challenges in AI development due to regulations, complex legal frameworks, and a lack of investment. These factors can hinder capital-intensive innovations, making it difficult for European companies to compete with US and Chinese AI developers.

Yes, the use of AI in EIC Accelerator grant writing is already prevalent, especially among applicants who don't use consultancies. The lengthy application process and specific content requirements make AI a valuable tool for generating high-quality content.

Yes, the EIC launched an 'AI platform' in 2021, but it was shut down abruptly after two years due to a contract dispute with the IT service provider. This left many applicants in a difficult position right before a deadline.

For each patent, list relevant metadata like the inventor, assignee, filing status, and territories. Then, explain how the patent differs from your innovation and why it doesn't pose an IP or commercial risk to your company.

Include any IP information relevant to your company, such as a list of IP assets (patents, trademarks, domain names), technical graphics of discussed patents, legal analyses, patent applications, scientific publications, and other relevant IP documents.