What Brainport founders need and how they plan to make it happen

The setting is informal, the tone sometimes impatient. After all, we are doing a lot of good, but there is always room for improvement. What helps is to look ahead together from time to time. When this happens with a generation of founders who are not only building their own companies but also want to make a significant contribution to the broader ecosystem, great things happen naturally. That is the essence of Brabant Bits & Bytes: an informal setting where entrepreneurs share openly and freely. A setting of mutual trust, with room for perspective, humor, and nuance. And where the bottom line is always: “What can I do to help move things forward?”

Brabant Bits and Bytes, an initiative of Braventure and the Gerard & Anton Foundation with the aim of learning from a new generation of startup founders, stands for founders who cook, eat, and share knowledge together. Around the kitchen table, conversations and connections arise that strengthen our ecosystem. Last week was the second edition. Among the many anecdotes, a strikingly consistent picture emerges: the biggest obstacles are man-made and therefore can also be changed by people.

Three themes prevailed:

Ambition and visibility – we need to show more that it can be done and share success stories more often. That inspires the next generation of founders.

Mutual support – for example, through a light buddy system, in which experienced founders help new entrepreneurs, thereby accelerating the transfer of knowledge and mistakes.

Examples of what does work – such as the MRE scheme, which has specifically helped several founders.

The primary diagnosis is that the region has talent, networks, and goodwill, but stumbles over fragmentation, government incentives, and a culture that often thinks small. The prescription: fewer counters, more peers; fewer forms, more ambition; and above all: a visible path from initial prototype to serious growth.

Read a report on the first Brabant Bits & Bytes here:

What early-stage startups need is a runway, not a roadblock

A dozen experienced startup founders from the Brainport Eindhoven region discussed what’s needed for a successful startup climate.

Read More

The obstacles

Fragmentation: Entrepreneurs see “too many small clubs” with “good intentions” but without cohesion. The money follows pots, not plans; each new pot creates a new organization. For a founder in the early stages, the route is “impossible to navigate.”

“The Netherlands is already small, Brabant is smaller - and then it turns out that four clubs in one city are doing exactly the same thing.”

Mistrust and misguided incentives in early financing: Early investors, often with public money in the chain, impose strategies that hinder growth, such as an emphasis on development rather than the market, or on rapid profitability as if it were an SME. “Checklist thinking” prevails: payback rules and standard ratios replace vision and market logic. And that creates distrust towards these support troops.

“The system rewards setting up organizations, not solving bottlenecks.”

Equity poverty and the ‘first ten/first fifteen’ problem: The crucial first 10 to 15 employees, the small core that is willing to go full throttle for little security and often below market salary, are scarce. Startups can rarely offer market salaries and do not compensate sufficiently with stock options. “It's a specific type of people,” says one founder. “They could easily get a higher, stable salary elsewhere. Here, they choose risk and long hours.” In the US, stock options compensate for this; in the Netherlands, the equity culture is still weak, and the tax framework is complex. “Many founders are stingy with equity,” he says self-critically. “That doesn't help.”

“In the US, the first ten often get a percent; here, we are frugal with equity.”

Culture of small thinking: The group feels the difference between “What if it goes wrong?” and “What if it succeeds?” Terminology matters: why don't we talk about opportunity money instead of venture capital? In the Netherlands, ambition still raises eyebrows too often, the founders observe. They notice that after a week in the US, they come back “hyper ambitious” and then it fades away again here.

“Ambition reduces your investor pool; most investors just want profitable SMEs.”

Lack of recycled capital and role models: Capital hardly circulates. There are (too) few self-made angels who have cashed in big and are reinvesting. As a result, there is a lack of both fast, experienced money and visible examples of “it can be done.” As a result, early investors, whether or not they are using government money, exhibit checklist behavior, characterized by revenue requirements, payback periods, and “SME logic” rather than moonshot thinking.

“The ASML region offers an accessible wealth of knowledge, but without sufficient exits, the flow stalls.”

Universities and corporations: rules over entrepreneurship: Experience shows that IP and ownership rules can discourage entrepreneurship, although there are signs of improvement in this area. At the same time, successful Philips spin-offs demonstrate that a well-planned venture path from corporate research can be effective.

“When I was still at the TU, I was told: This, is not allowed. So I kept my startup quiet. And although this has improved, that legacy still has an impact.”

What then?

Yet on this evening, the tone is far from gloomy. On the contrary, the founders outline exactly what they themselves can do. A selection of the possible solutions:

Stories and visibility (the reference group effect). “Show them: this could be you.” By putting founders in the spotlight, you lower the threshold for success. It creates aspiration and access: those who can appeal to role models know how to find the network. “You enter differently when you already know someone.”

One front door, no islands. Create a real “front door” for startups in the region: one findable entrance that filters, matches, and guides, without adding a new organization on top. Link funding streams to that same front door, so that funds follow the route of the plan, not the other way around.

A buddy system by founders, without extra organization. Not yet another counter, but a light structure: a buddy per new founder who can be called for verification. “Like in the old days at Philips: someone who guides you through the bureaucracy, who says: you don't have to worry about this, just do it this way.” Practical proposal: a WhatsApp group of experienced founders linked to new teams based on domain fit.

Demand ambition and plans – but in that order. “Thinking big makes it easier,” says one participant, “but then you also have to demand serious plans.” The recipe: founders who know the path ask critical questions, without self-interest, early in the process. This prevents empty talk without a roadmap and reduces the time to Series A/B.

Make equity normal and attractive. Enhance standardization and education regarding ESOPs (meaningful option pools, vesting schedules, and exercise rules). Let founders openly share how they trade equity for clout. Visible examples help talent choose risk.

Market before perfection. The group wants to encourage each other to sell early, make reservations, run trade shows: “five months of hustling.” Only then can a product-market fit prove itself. Subsidies are still welcome, but they should accelerate market validation, not delay it. “An MRE check for 50k was worth its weight in gold for our first prototype.”

Attract talent with a “Champions League” vibe. “If everyone feels that you are playing at the highest level here, people will come naturally.” Think: visible mission, sharp goals, generous and understandable equity packages, and alumni who reinvest after an exit and become mentors themselves.

Unlock corporate knowledge, rediscover the spin-out route. The ASML example from the region shows what openness can do: “We got a free IP strategy lecture.” The old Philips model (researchers with a safety net, parallel to a venture path) also proved that deep tech know-how can be entrepreneurial. “Different from the Valley, but certainly effective.”

Fireproof growth planning: Ambition sells more easily when the plan is robust and well-defined. The group wants experienced founders to “write along out loud.” They want critical “What if you do this ten times” reviews, revenue ladders, hiring plans, and international sequencing. No extra desk, but a fixed peer review ritual. Founders seek alignment between government funding and market logic. It's okay to be critical, but about ambition and scalability, rather than static KPIs, in the very early stages. “We want public funds to invest as the best market players would, with a focus on team, market potential, and pace.” That requires less micromanagement and more confidence in phasing: first, traction and speed, then discipline and efficiency.

The undercurrent: from encouragement to mechanics

Brainport has unique assets: world-class engineering, accessible corporations, and a growing group of founders who dare to think big. What those founders want is fewer islands, more peers; fewer lists, more guts. If the region dares to make that translation now, “it can be done” will not be a slogan, but a system, they conclude at the end of the evening.

The next step: a light, founder-driven structure that normalizes ambition, makes knowledge directly transferable, and allows capital—both public and private—to flow toward growth. The group decides not to leave it at talk: a light buddy layer, taking the stage more often (for example, during Startup Weekend) to share energy and stories, and mutually standardizing that ambition + plan + early sales is the norm. No new umbrella organization, but founders supporting founders.

“It is possible,” someone says. “But then we also have to show that it is possible and achievable for those who come after us. We have to make sure that more teams find this path.”