Frequently Asked Questions

The EIC Accelerator is a European Commission funding program for startups and SMEs, offering up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in equity financing. It aims to support DeepTech companies in crossing the 'valley of death' and attracting private investment.

While equity investments are sometimes seen as a way to protect European interests in sensitive technologies, the EU can also set terms and request board seats even with grant funding. There's no inherent requirement for the EIC to become a VC to ensure oversight.

Grant+ is a proposed alternative to blended finance, focusing on providing larger grant amounts with top-up grants tied to future funding rounds and milestones. Unlike blended finance, which includes equity, Grant+ aims to provide non-dilutive funding to incentivize private investors.

The increasing focus on equity investments means a larger portion of the EIC Accelerator budget is allocated to fewer companies. This can overshadow the grant incentive, which is arguably more effective at attracting outside investors and supporting a wider range of DeepTech startups.

The EIC Accelerator should consider prioritizing pure grants and the Grant+ model over equity investments. This approach could be more effective at crowding in private investors, supporting more DeepTech companies, and achieving the program's core mission of bridging the valley of death.

One concern is that the EIC might be seeking control or influence through equity stakes. Another is that budget limitations might be driving the focus on equity. Finally, the long-term vision of self-funding through investment returns could create a zero-sum game if public funding is reduced as a result.

The EIC views equity investments as a way to de-risk DeepTech companies, making them more attractive to private investors. The goal is to bridge the funding gap and encourage private sector investment, not to control companies or become a central authority.

Traction refers to the progress a company makes in gaining market acceptance and demonstrating commercial viability. It's crucial because it validates the product-market fit and shows investors that there is real demand for the company's solution, making it a worthwhile investment.

If a company has a finished prototype that can be commercialized to some degree, they should aim to generate revenues as quickly as possible. This helps validate the product-market fit and demonstrates that customers are willing to pay for the solution.

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

A 'Zombie Innovator' is a company that has been developing a technology for a long time without achieving clear product-market fit or generating significant revenue. They often lack a clear market need and struggle to demonstrate commercial viability, despite extensive patent filings and R&D efforts.

Zombie Innovators often focus heavily on their technology, intellectual property, and related benefits (like sustainability) but rarely mention customer demand or pilot customer negotiations. Their commercial plans tend to rely on inflated market sizes without a practical plan to reach the market or evidence of customer interest.

Even without early revenues, a company can demonstrate traction through customer relationships, early testing with end-users, agreements with value chain stakeholders, and impressive Letters of Intent (LOI). These demonstrate market need and usability, showing potential for future commercial success.

The EIC places significant emphasis on timing. They look for companies that are addressing a timely market need or opportunity, often driven by factors like regulatory changes, technological breakthroughs, or increasing consumer demand. Good timing suggests a strong potential for product-market fit.

Identifying 'Zombie Innovators' is crucial for consultants, writers, and freelancers, especially when targeting programs like the EIC Accelerator. These companies are unlikely to attract investment or EIC funding due to their lack of traction and commercial viability, making them poor prospects.

While prototype testing with customers is valuable, giving away a product for free can be misleading. It doesn't validate whether customers would actually purchase the product, which is a critical indicator of market demand and investment potential.

The EIC will assess how a company has utilized past financing. A history of starting and stopping developments based on funding status, without achieving significant progress or market traction, can be a red flag and decrease the chances of receiving EIC funding.

The EIC Jury is a panel of commercially-oriented experts who conduct the interviews in Step 3 of the EIC Accelerator process. They make the final funding decisions based on the applicant's pitch and their assessment of the business's potential for success.

The decrease in interview success rates is likely due to the EIC's binary grading system (GO/NO GO) in earlier stages. This system doesn't allow for ranking applicants, leading to more companies being invited to the interview stage than can be funded, thus lowering the selection rate.

Pay close attention to the feedback received after Step 2 if you are rejected. Address the evaluator's criticisms directly and logically in your resubmission. Since evaluators may focus on the conversation history, a well-addressed rebuttal can significantly improve your chances.

The EIC should consider reintroducing a ranking system to differentiate between applicants and better manage the number of companies invited to the interview stage. Additionally, they should gather statistics on rejection reasons in Step 3 and use them to filter applicants more effectively in Step 1.

While the 3-step evaluation process (short application, long application, interview) remains the same, the selection rates have shifted. Step 2 (long application) success rates have increased, while Step 3 (interview) success rates have decreased. This indicates a greater reliance on the EIC Jury during the interview stage.

The EIC's own reports indicate a high degree of randomness in interview outcomes. This is exacerbated by the increasing number of jury members, potentially diluting the quality of the jury and introducing more variability based on interpersonal skills and subjective assessments.

Companies with very small teams, those with excessively large previous funding rounds, or those operating in industries not currently favored by the EIC should reconsider applying. It's crucial to assess your fit with the EIC's strategic priorities and funding criteria before investing time in the application process.

The current EIC Accelerator uses a binary grading system (GO/NO GO) in the initial evaluation stages, unlike the previous system that used numerical scores. This change has removed the ability to rank applicants, impacting the selection rates and the interview process.

The EIC should consider using numerical criteria such as the number of Full-Time Employees (FTE), current fundraising status, burn rate, customer traction, and revenue to filter companies in Step 1. This would help ensure that only the most promising applicants proceed to later stages.

The EIC Accelerator supports startups and SMEs with grant and equity financing. You can receive up to €2.5 million in grant funding and €15 million in equity financing, totaling a potential €17.5 million per project. This funding aims to help innovative companies scale up and bring their ideas to market.

If the ESR claims that the project is “too risky,” either the mitigation strategies were lacking, or the applicant was oversharing potential problems. Strengthen your risk mitigation strategies and present a more balanced perspective on the project's challenges.

The team section is crucial. Present a comprehensive team with all necessary competencies. Even if it seems tedious, individually add each team member with their relevant experience to showcase the team's strength and capabilities.

Address the feedback in the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR) directly. Evaluators will likely focus on your rebuttal and the changes you've made, so clearly explain how you've improved the proposal based on their comments. A well-crafted response can significantly influence the perception of your project.

You have the opportunity to address unfair or incorrect criticisms in your resubmission. Provide a clear and concise response explaining why you believe the initial assessment was flawed. Remember that new evaluators will review your resubmission with a fresh perspective.

Present detailed work package descriptions that align with your team's competencies and project goals. Balance the presentation of risks with well-defined mitigation strategies. Clearly articulate why EIC support is essential for your project's success.

Demonstrate commercial traction with evidence like Letters of Intent, existing customers, and early revenues. Provide a detailed market analysis that supports large-scale customer deployment. Clearly explain your technology adoption lifecycle (TALC) and commercialization strategy.

If the ESR notes that the project is “not risky enough,” it generally means that the financial, commercial, and technological risks were not well-presented. Elaborate on these risks in your resubmission to highlight the high-risk, high-reward nature of your project.

Focus on clearly explaining the technology's features, use cases, and value chain. Highlight the innovation's uniqueness and how it solves customer pain points. Also, ensure a strong competitor analysis that clearly differentiates your technology from existing solutions.

The effort required for a resubmission depends on your initial score. A high score (e.g., 8/9) requires minimal improvements, while a low score (e.g., 1/9) necessitates substantial changes. Prioritize areas where you received negative feedback.

Don't include every possible risk. Focus on the most significant risks and provide extensive mitigation strategies for each. A balanced approach is key – demonstrate that the project is risky but well-managed.

It means presenting sufficient risk to align with the EIC Accelerator's high-risk mandate in Steps 1 and 2, but not so much risk that it deters the more risk-averse Step 3 jury, particularly regarding commercial and financial aspects.

The EIC Accelerator offers up to €2.5 million in grant funding and up to €15 million in equity financing, totaling a potential €17.5 million per project. This blended finance approach is designed to support high-risk, high-impact innovations.

If you fail to present sufficient financial, commercial, or technical risks, your project may be deemed out of scope for the EIC Accelerator. Evaluators might also criticize your application for neglecting obvious risks, leading to a lower score.

It's best to be conservative when presenting risks. Include essential risks for commercial, financial, and technical aspects, but avoid maximizing the presentation of possible risks. This minimizes the potential for negative criticism during evaluation.

The EIC Accelerator Step 3 jury tends to be risk-averse, favoring traditional investment decisions with lower risk and higher reward. This contrasts with the high-risk focus of Steps 1 and 2, creating a potential conflict in evaluation criteria.

Due to the unanimous approval process in Step 2, a single critical evaluation can lead to rejection. Given the use of numerous remote evaluators with varying expertise, the risk section can be a point of unwanted scrutiny.

Yes, if certain risks presented in Step 1 led to overly critical feedback without substantial justification, it can be advisable to remove them when preparing your Step 2 documents. These changes often go unnoticed by evaluators.

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

Yes, presenting too many risks, even with mitigation strategies, can be detrimental. Evaluators might question your risk management capabilities and the overall viability of your project, potentially leading to rejection.

The EIC Accelerator specifically targets high-risk projects. Your proposal must identify and address key risks (technical, market, financial, regulatory) and outline mitigation strategies. Evaluators assess this section to determine if your project aligns with the program's high-risk mandate.

The inclusion of semiconductor technologies in the quantum computing challenge likely stems from the EU's need to strengthen its semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. This addresses the impact on technology development and climate goals.

The EIC Accelerator Challenges for 2023 include areas like biomarker-based cancer treatments, pandemic decontamination, energy storage, the New European Bauhaus, quantum and semiconductor technologies, resilient agriculture, and innovative space technologies.

The budget allocated for the 'Energy Storage' EIC Accelerator Challenge is €100 million. This signifies the importance of energy storage solutions in the EU's innovation priorities.