​Ripple Hosts

​Alex Bakir

​GP at Norrsken and part of the team that built space technology company, Planet Labs, to unicorn status. He has sold to defence departments around the world.

​Chris O’Connor

​Formerly a partner at Nato Innovation Fund leading technology adoption companies who see government as a customer, collaborator or competitor.

​TL;DR

​Guns or climate tech? The messaging around “resilience” has been enthusiastically adopted by the VC community - but what does this mean in reality for investment committees, GPs and LPs.

​What can / will European VCs actually invest in?

​Topic overview

​Why is the topic relevant?

​The European venture community is facing a tough choice. Where do we draw the line in investing in technology that supports national defence?

​What tech can (will?) VCs invest in? What are the LPs enforcing? How are internal VC Investment Committees drawing the line? Is this choice even relevant?

​What’s up for discussion?

• ​How are the investment committees at leading European venture capital firms making their choices?

• ​What does selling to a government or defence department even mean?

• ​Where is the line between tech that can support safety, vis-a-vis supports attack capability? Is this relevant?

​Dream outcome

​Venture groups in Europe have an active and open discussion about where they are drawing their red lines in investment decisions.

​Founders gain an understanding of how VCs are looking at technology, including pov on dual-use, and what technologies they looking to fund.

​Who should attend?

​VC and founders building in deep tech / climate tech / dual use tech. GPs wanting to discuss how they are making decisions, and hear how others are drawing the line.