Frequently Asked Questions

It's recommended to use a European company that runs an open-source Large Language Model (LLM) locally. This approach keeps sensitive Intellectual Property (IP) within Europe and avoids sending it to the US or China. Running the LLM on EU servers provides an extra layer of security.

AI should only be fully integrated when it demonstrates higher quality evaluations than human evaluators. Early testing can involve inviting top AI picks that were initially rejected by human evaluators to see if the Jury approves, providing a real-world comparison.

The software backend can use version control via a private repository, making it easy to change providers if needed. This separates the software from the sensitive proposal data, allowing the EIC to retain control over the evaluation process while maintaining flexibility in choosing contractors.

Useful additions could include connecting the AI to patent databases and allowing web searches for market, competitor, science, and IP analysis. Image recognition could also be incorporated if deemed necessary. These features would enhance the AI's ability to assess the viability and potential of submitted projects.

Yes, a hybrid approach is possible. AI outputs could be used as a dashboard that highlights the pros and cons of a project for human evaluators. The AI could act as the initial evaluators, with the human evaluator making the final decision, leveraging the strengths of both AI and human judgment.

AI offers several benefits, including the ability to perform infinite evaluations instantly, refine filtering based on board and jury feedback, and maintain a perfect record of evaluation decisions. This leads to increased Step 3 success rates and decreased Step 1 and 2 rates, improving the overall quality of the evaluation process.

The most important KPI is the interview success rate. A higher success rate indicates that the initial evaluation steps are effectively filtering out weaker projects. AI integration aims to improve this rate, ensuring that only the most promising projects proceed to the interview stage.

The AI system can be set up with instructions saved as plain text, allowing for easy modification. Feedback from the board and jury can be quickly integrated by simply changing these instructions. This approach allows for rapid iteration and refinement of the evaluation process.

Grant+ provides a direct financial benefit to outside investors, acting as a 'VC dowry' and incentivizing them to invest. Unlike equity, grants are non-dilutive, meaning companies don't have to give up ownership. This approach could attract more investors and streamline the funding process.

The concern is that grants, which are a strong incentive for outside investors, are becoming a smaller portion of the budget. This is happening even though most applicants still seek grant funding. Grants are seen as a better way to attract private investment compared to the EIC acting as a co-investor.

Data suggests the EIC Accelerator's budget allocation is shifting towards equity investments, even though grants are awarded to more companies. The equity budget has consistently been larger than the grant budget, indicating a growing focus on VC-type investments.

The EIC could manage the financing process more directly with Grant+, reducing reliance on external entities like the EIB for VC-type investments. The EIB would primarily coordinate the timing of the top-up grants once funding milestones are met, leading to a more streamlined process.

Grant+ is a proposed alternative to blended finance, where companies receive the standard €2.5 million grant with the option for additional 'top-up' grants based on future funding rounds and milestones. These top-up grants, ranging from €1-3 million, would act as a discount for outside investors.

Yes, by shifting the focus from large equity investments to smaller top-up grants, the EIC could fund significantly more companies. The high equity budget could be reallocated to provide more initial grants, expanding the reach of the EIC Accelerator program.

If early revenues are impossible, focus on building customer relationships, conducting early testing with end-users, securing agreements with value chain stakeholders, and obtaining impressive Letters of Intent (LOI) to demonstrate market need and potential.

The EIC will assess how a company has utilized past financing to determine its ability to manage resources effectively and achieve milestones. A history of inefficient spending or failure to demonstrate progress can negatively impact the application.

While early revenues are not always feasible, especially in certain industries, companies should aim to generate revenue as quickly as possible. Even without revenue, demonstrating market need through prototype testing, customer feedback, and strong Letters of Intent is crucial.

Red flags include a lack of customer demand, a focus solely on technology without a clear market strategy, a history of stalled development, and an inability to demonstrate traction through customer engagement or validation activities.

Look for companies with a long history of development but little to no revenue, a lack of customer demand, and a tendency to start and stop development based on funding availability. Their business plans often overemphasize technology and IP while neglecting customer needs and practical market strategies.

The EIC Accelerator program, funded by the European Commission and European Innovation Council, provides grants and equity financing to startups and SMEs. It offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in venture financing per project, supporting innovative companies with high growth potential.

The EIC generally seeks dynamic, young companies (often under 10 years old) that are timely and exhibit high growth potential. They prioritize companies presenting a time-limited opportunity to invest in a promising innovation with significant market potential.

Timing is crucial because it indicates a strong potential for future business opportunity and product-market fit. Factors like regulatory trends, technological breakthroughs, or increased market demand can create a favorable environment for a company's success.

The EIC's binary grading system (GO/NO GO) in Step 2 makes it difficult to rank applicants. This means more companies proceed to the interview stage, diluting the selection rate and potentially impacting the quality of the jury due to increased demand for interviewers.

The current process risks further decreasing interview success rates and jeopardizing the integrity of the interview sessions. The increased number of jury members may reduce their overall quality and introduce more randomness into the selection process.

The EIC moved away from numerical scoring in favor of a binary (GO/NO GO) system in Step 2. This change was driven by a desire for innovation but removed the ability to rank applicants and create thresholds based on budget limitations.

In 2021, the EIC Accelerator budget was high, Horizon Europe launched, and financial markets were favorable. The June 2021 deadline saw unprecedented funding rates, but these rates have since normalized and shifted the focus towards Step 2.

Applicants receive detailed feedback on rejected Step 2 proposals. This transparency allows for targeted improvements in resubmissions, potentially increasing the chances of success by addressing specific evaluator criticisms.

A strong 'Impact' section demonstrates how your product will change the market and the lives of customers. Highlight commercial traction with customer testimonials, LOIs, and early revenues. Provide a detailed market analysis and explain your technology adoption lifecycle (TALC).

The effort required for a resubmission depends on your initial score. Higher scores (e.g., 8/9) require minimal improvements, while lower scores (e.g., 1/9) necessitate substantial changes. Focus on addressing the specific feedback provided in the ESR.

Show that your project is high-risk and high-reward, justifying the need for EIC support. Provide detailed workpackage descriptions to demonstrate a clear implementation plan. Present a balanced view of risks, with well-defined mitigation strategies.

The team section is crucial. Present a comprehensive team with all necessary competencies. Identify any missing skills and explain how you plan to fill those gaps through hiring or partnerships. Include all team members in the application.

You can address unfair or incorrect criticism in your resubmission. Provide a clear and concise response explaining why the initial assessment was flawed. New evaluators will review your rebuttal with a fresh perspective.

No, it's not advisable to include as many risks as possible. The 'Risks' section should be well-balanced, presenting the project as risky but with effective mitigation strategies. Avoid oversharing potential problems and edging on pessimism.

A lacking 'Excellence' section often reflects issues with the technology description, the need for the technology, or its comparison to existing solutions. Focus on clearly explaining the technology's features, use cases, and its unique value proposition within the value chain. Also, clearly contrast your technology with competitors.

The EIC Accelerator provides detailed feedback at each stage of the evaluation process. This helps applicants understand the strengths and weaknesses of their project. This feedback is delivered in the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) after Step 2.

Focus on directly addressing the criticisms in the ESR and highlighting the changes you've made. Evaluators often concentrate on the rebuttal and revised sections. Make sure to clearly explain how you've improved the proposal based on the previous feedback.

The ESR is provided after Step 2 of the EIC Accelerator application process. It contains detailed feedback from evaluators, including GO/NO GO ratings for various criteria. This feedback is crucial for understanding why your proposal was assessed the way it was and forms the basis for resubmission improvements.

Focus on the essential risks related to the commercial, financial, and technical aspects of your project. These are the areas that evaluators will scrutinize most closely, so ensure you address them thoughtfully.

Aim to be just risky enough to pass Steps 1 and 2, demonstrating that your project aligns with the EIC Accelerator's high-risk mandate. However, avoid presenting so much risk that it hinders your chances of success in Step 3.

The EIC Accelerator has freezing periods that limit applicants to two rejections in Step 2. A single critical evaluation can lead to rejection, so it's important to carefully craft your proposal to avoid unnecessary scrutiny.

If you neglect to introduce financial, commercial, or technical risks, your project might be considered out of scope for the EIC Accelerator program. Evaluators may also criticize the application for neglecting obvious risks.

This can happen to better align the project documents with the EIC Accelerator program's high-risk mandate, even after the funding decision has been made. It highlights a potential mismatch between the program's rules and the application incentives.

The Step 3 jury tends to be risk-averse, often making investment decisions that resemble traditional, lower-risk, high-reward scenarios. This means you need to be strategic about the level of risk presented in your application.

The EIC Accelerator targets high-risk projects. Your proposal needs to demonstrate that you understand the potential risks involved (technical, market, financial, regulatory). Failing to identify and address key risks can lead to a poor evaluation score and rejection.

If a risk presented in Step 1 led to overly critical feedback without substantial reasoning, consider removing it when preparing your Step 2 documents. Sometimes, simplifying the risk profile can be beneficial.

No, it's a balancing act. Presenting too many risks can lead evaluators to question your risk management capabilities. Focus on essential risks in commercial, financial, and technical areas, but be conservative in your presentation.

The EIC Accelerator Challenges have largely remained the same compared to the draft work program. The main change is the inclusion of semiconductor technologies within the Challenge for quantum computing technologies.

The EIC offers three main funding programs: EIC Pathfinder, EIC Transition, and EIC Accelerator. Each program targets different stages of innovation, from early-stage research to scaling up businesses.

The EIC Accelerator provides blended financing, which includes both grant funding and equity investment. Companies can receive up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing.

Most EIC Accelerator Challenges have a budget of €65 million each. The Challenges for Energy Storage and Quantum or Semiconductor components each have a budget of €100 million.