In Cyprus (and Europe-wide if I am not wrong), funding rules often define a startup as a company less than 5 years old. After that, you are considered “established,” expected to co-fund most of your R&D.
But in deep tech sectors (e.g., smart water systems, indoor air quality monitoring, AI-driven analytics) 5 years is practically not enough. It takes years just to understand the domain, to refine prototypes, and to validate solutions. Then more years to convince early adopters, build trust, and start creating a market that barely exists yet.
For small countries like Cyprus, this challenge is even sharper. The local market is tiny, so globalisation is essential, but reaching that stage takes more time and more investment. And without a strong high-tech industry, our highly educated graduates too often leave the country.
The result? Funding programmes unintentionally favour companies in already-established markets. Not those taking the risk, building the advanced disruptive technologies that Europe says it needs most.
This is about designing of the appropriate funding programmes/schemes.
By the time innovation companies reach the point of internationalisation, we are “too old” for startup support and “too small” to afford the co-funding expected from established enterprises.
Shouldn’t innovation programmes recognise the longer maturity cycles of deep tech, especially in smaller ecosystems, and support companies that are creating markets, not just entering them? Shouldn’t public research and innovation funds be especially designed to support those who take the hardest path, i.e. building high-end technologies, training people in new domains, and pushing global innovation forward, even if it takes longer than 5 years?
And to clarify: this is not about seeking private investment. In small markets like Cyprus, private capital is rarely directed to high-risk, long-maturity technologies. Venture investors typically look for quick returns in established markets. Deep-tech market creation requires patience, public support, not just equity. That is why the design of public programmes matters so much.
We have good products. We have evidence of impact and high potential. What we need is the right funding instruments to help us scale what Europe itself says it wants: disruptive innovation.
I believe this is a conversation worth having; not just in Cyprus, but across Europe. Please, feel free to disagree and correct me where I am wrong; it matters more to find the correct road...