Nicola Redi — Why Europe’s Deep Tech Moment Is Just Beginning | Future Ventures Podcast Ep. 40

Italy is known for sun, food, and culture. What it isn't known for — and should be — is being one of the top research nations on the planet. Nicola Redi has built his career on closing that gap. As Managing Partner at Obloo Ventures, one of Italy's leading deep tech VC firms, he spends his days translating breakthroughs in AI, quantum, aerospace, and computational science into companies that can actually scale. With nearly three decades spanning venture capital, corporate innovation, and research commercialization — including 15 years inside multinational corporations — Nicola sees the entire pipeline from lab bench to market in a way few investors can. 

This isn't just an Italian story. Europe and Canada both produce world-class research, then watch a lot of it get commercialized somewhere else — usually the US. Nicola is direct about why that keeps happening and what would actually have to change to stop it. He's also clear-eyed about where the real money in deep tech will be made next, and how to tell that apart from whatever everyone happens to be hyping this quarter. If you're building, operating, or investing, that filter alone makes this one worth your time. 

Key Topics Covered 

• Italy's hidden research strength — Why a country famous for tourism quietly ranks among the world's top research nations, and how that output is now becoming startups. 
• The technology-transfer model — How Obloo acts as a bridge between research labs and corporations, functioning almost like a third-party corporate venture arm. 
• Europe's single-market problem — Why fragmented rules across 27 member states hold back scaling, and what unifying the market would unlock. 
• The physical AI thesis — Where Nicola believes Europe can win even after losing the initial AI race, and why specificity beats hype. 
• What founders actually need — The skills, humility, and language scientists must learn to become operators who can build and lead companies. 

Key Insights 

Technology is a small part of the job. One of Nicola's founders — a top bio-robotics researcher — came back years after launching his company to admit the technology was only about 5% of the work. Market adoption, team-building, and execution are where companies actually win or lose. 

The real value is in the specifics. The categories everyone's talking about are usually overpriced just because everyone's talking about them. What Nicola actually gets excited about is deep tech aimed at narrow industrial problems — simulating new materials, running predictive maintenance through digital twins, and quantum built for one specific job. That's where the valuation reflects what a company can really do, not just the hype around it. 

Government's most powerful lever isn't incentives — it's buying. Nicola argues the biggest shift isn't more grants or funds-of-funds, but governments and corporations acting as launch customers for startups. As competitive pressure rises, the relationship between incumbents and early-stage companies is becoming a matter of survival: either you engage, or you get left behind. 

Links & Resources 

• Obloo Ventures: https://obloo.vc/ 
• Nicola Redi on LinkedIn: https://it.linkedin.com/in/nicolaredi 
• Future Ventures Corp: https://ca.linkedin.com/company/future-ventures-corp 

About the Guest 

Nicola Redi is Managing Partner at Obloo Ventures, one of Italy's leading deep tech venture capital firms focused on translating frontier science into scalable companies. He brings nearly three decades of experience across venture capital, corporate innovation, and research commercialization, with deep roots in scientific entrepreneurship and 15 years inside multinational corporations. His work sits at the intersection of advanced research, industrial transformation, and venture creation across AI, quantum computing, aerospace, biotech, and computational science. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

Welcome to the Future Ventures podcast on Scaling with Clarity. Today's guest is Nicola Redi, managing partner at Oblo Ventures, one of Italy's leading deep tech venture capital firms, focused on translating frontier science into a scalable company. Nicola brings nearly three decades of experience spending in venture capital, corporate innovation, research commercialization, and scientific entrepreneurship. His work sits at the intersection of advanced research, industrial transformation, and venture creation, helping turn breakthroughs in AI, quantum, computing, aerospace, biotech, and computational science into real-world companies. Nicola, welcome to the stage. I am super excited to uh connect with you today and have uh your perspective on kind of like what's happening in Italy and in Europe on Deep Tech.

SPEAKER_01 0:59

Well, Maxine, thank you so thank you for having me. It's a pleasure being in your podcast. Well, you know, it's probably Italy is pretty much renowned as the country of you know uh the sun, spaghetti, pizza, that sort of stuff, and it's seldom known as a deep country, but uh it it might sound strange, but nevertheless, as as far as we are still one of the top, let's say, uh, economies in the world, uh, we're also one of the top uh research nations. Uh, if you look into the any statistics and research productivity and basically all fields of research, and more specifically those that are now related to deep tech, so you mean uh engineering, computing science, aerospace, etc. And you, I don't know, you measure that research productivity in terms of publication or citation or ageing text, you name it, what you always see that Italy is usually among the top six, five, seven countries in the world. So uh as a matter of fact, we are uh a country that is with a very sound scientific research. Uh, and actually the outcome of that research is what we are now turning into uh deep tech startups. So our job as a technology transfer investor is to turn those uh outcomes of research into uh let's see, the uh fast-growing startup companies.

SPEAKER_00 2:30

So I and I mean I'm I'm loving what you're saying. What is the reason why uh I mean to your point, many people um associate Italy with a good life, like you know, sun, sand, great food, great culture, uh tourism. But why is Italy not associated as a country that you know with venture capital, frontier innovation? What are outsiders missing about the Italian ecosystem?

SPEAKER_01 3:03

Well, uh, Italy has historically been lagging out in terms of uh venture capital. Uh, if you look at the statistics, we are still in terms of GDP, the ratio between venture capital investment and GDP is not aligned with the standards of many other European countries. So definitely there's a lack of uh capital investment in whatever is the translation of the outcome of research into uh startup companies and making those startups growing. So that that was historically something that was lagging. Um although, let's say, in recent years we had we have experienced a significant increase in the amount of investments that we had in both venture capital, more specifically, deep tech venture capital. Um this is something that we are pretty much, let's say, uh under the uh European, not even the global average. However, uh this is a whole ecosystem that is now changing. Um what we are it basically, I think that probably venture capital was the first, let's say, area where actually uh Italy started changing in terms of uh having new funds, uh having uh more capital be deployed into deep tech. The next step would be ideally to see more corporations joining the VC experiment. And I mean, when we invest in in Deep Tech, you're basically acting as a sort of uh, let's say, third-party corporate venture capital. Our goal is basically to exploit the best technologies that bring those technologies into the heart of established corporations. Um, and right now uh Italian corporations are moving towards being uh LPs of venture funds, but let's say they're just making their initial steps. So we're looking forward to have more involvement of corporations. And not to mention international corporations, because so far Italy was outside of the radar uh for any CVC activity of global corporations. As far as the operating ecosystem now is getting more and more renewed around the international arena, we are experiencing more international VCs and international corporations joining the city, joining the panel and investing in any science startup company. So, what was missing in the past was definitely there was uh a lack of money and more specifically a lack of uh competences because you don't turn yourself into a deep tech investor unless you have deep tech experience, you have a scientific background, you have seen what the corporate world is all about, you understand research, you understand technology, and then you're able to support a portfolio company in translating research into a product into a company. So that is the kind of experience that you must believe in, you must have whenever you're investing in deep tech. And those sorts of competencies now we do have. I mean, definitely, if I think about our firm, we are 67% of our people, we do have a PhD. And we have been experienced, and we have been working in nuclear engineering, aerospace engineering, computational sciences, etc. And so smoothly, as far as we build our competences, we can act as a bridge between the world of research and the world of let's say cooperation through uh a venture capital approach that is pretty much an industrial venture capital approach. So this is what was missing, and now let's say we are definitely improving this scenario, and we see that year by year the number of deep tech investments in Italy uh is increasing.

SPEAKER_00 6:36

That's fantastic to hear. Um, I just wanted to double-click on on your last point. So, if if I'm understanding correctly, there's an emergence of corporate venture capital firms. Um and uh oh, I don't know if that's what you said. You you said that like corporations are coming in as LP into funds. Is there an emergence of corporate venture capital firms? Are corporations making it easier to um uh you know start up pilots with with uh startup or scale up companies? Um kind of like what's happening because from our I mean, I'm I'm European, I have a European passport, but um I've lived in Canada for for most of my life. When we think about Europe, we we we think about legacy wealth and family offices and things like that. We don't necessarily think about corporate VC. So can you just kind of cut a little bit more kind of like what's happening from a corporate perspective?

SPEAKER_01 7:32

Yeah, let's say what we're trying to build is um, I mean, I I I spend more than 15 years in in the multinational corporation, so another feeling from the other side. Uh, and actually, when you are a corporation uh and you're willing to invest in a company or you're considering a company as your supply, you want to have something that has a product is up and running, and something that is reliable. Uh, because you don't want to run the risk of having a product, have a technology that's not really uh let's say reliable and not um from a financial technology point of view. The point is that if you were to have something that is already uh up and running, something that is already the risk it, that would be too late. Because probably someone else would have that very same technology. Okay uh so what's the opportunity here? The opportunity is that if I think about it easily, as I mentioned before, we have fantastic research. Now, I know that research is not what you're looking for, you don't even look for technology, but first of all, you have to understand there is a new technology that is coming out, so it's a matter of being uh is an exercise of foresighting. What happens here? What happens in this country and the other countries? Do we have technology that are not there in other countries? And technology then might become uh say a competitive asset or a threat if they go into the hands of your competitors. And this is ideal if you do that, uh being an LP of a venture of uh technology transfer fund because the technology transfer fund we like as your foresight opportunity. So we scout, it's our job. We have uh link with basically all resource centers. We know what happens here, we benchmark with the international resource centers, and therefore we can tell any corporation, look, this is what is coming out. Probably you see in the market in the next 10 years, but you have to know that. And the way you know that is because you are my LP and I tell you what's happening. Furthermore, do we want to make a pilot test on a technology before, let's say, acquiring it? Fantastic. We have in our portfolio. And even if we don't have in our portfolio, because we haven't invested, we can definitely support the link between the corporation and the let's say the team of funders or the research team that is exploiting that uh that technology and make it pilot run. So once that process goes forward, and basically being an LP in a company from a financial point of view uh costs you less than establishing your CVC team. So you want to scout the Italian ecosystem, you need five people in Italy, that would going to cost you much more than uh underwriting a fund. And it would be a cost, not an investment. So we can add as your scouting uh partner, we can support you in pilot test, and once the company is up and running, probably getting to a CSB round, you can coinvest with us. That's something that is pretty much something that we would like to have because we, I mean, yeah, you have the financial muscles, you can even think about an acquisition, of course, that if that acquisition is made at market value and is let's say something that works even for the other day piece. But yeah, this is our job. So we are the bridge between the world of research and the world of the real CVC, which usually comes after, let's say, the company and the technology has already been proven in certain markets. Definitely you don't have any more uh technological risk.

SPEAKER_00 11:00

Uh do you see Nicola? Do you see any kind of a difference that Italy has to adopt between kind of like what's happening in the Silicon Valley versus what's happening in Italy? How do you how do you drive and foster innovation? Or or like I mean, you have a very, very established French capital market in Silicon Valley versus Italy, maybe it's more an emerging.

SPEAKER_01 11:22

Well, you know, of course, uh, I mean, if we have to compare, I mean, you cannot even compare the ecosystem, the VC ecosystem in Italy, and the one in Silicon Valley, but I wouldn't even compare the ecosystem in Italy with the one that there's in Sweden or Switzerland. Okay, so there the uh there are some in some cases there is also an order of magnitude if uh the numbers are let's say uh compared with the GDP. Nevertheless, uh the the way that we have now establishing some very specific ecosystem, technological system uh in Italy around uh some technological cluster. So I make an example. If you think about Bologna, and probably I mean it's a city in the center of Italy. Uh probably people will know Bologna for the tortellini, something like this, but uh actually that that city is the middle of one of the most, let's say, entrepreneurial and industrial, advanced industrial uh area, that is the one of Imi Romania, where you know you have all the uh automotive sector, um medical devices, so very advanced mechanics and electronics. In Bologna, we have one of the largest European competitional clusters. So if you look for HPCs, you have among the best HPCs over there. Now, around the infrastructure, uh there's now, let's say, an ecosystem that has been built by the municipality, the regional government, um, research foundations. In the last years, in Italy, we have seen new research foundations be built around the world of advanced computation. Uh, one research foundation for AI for industry, another for um semiconductors, foundations around high performance computing. And the those foundations are there just for making translational research from basic research into the real world. Whether that real world would be uh an up and running HPC for uh LLM training or whatever, but if you want to see the result of your, let's say, uh AI agent for, I don't know, quality control of a manufacturing line, then immediately after you have uh the opportunity to make a pilot run with other corporations that are in the neighborhood. So Italy is now building the clusters, technological clusters, where you see the infrastructure, basic research, corporations, and venture capitalists working together in building something that, of course, we don't have the scale of Silicon Valley. We would never have that scale, but those clusters are working, and the overall innovation ecosystem is more or less, let's say, uh starting a way of uh, let's say, providing the very same results that we probably had experienced in Silicon Valley 15 years ago.

SPEAKER_00 14:16

Nicola, um, uh I travel to Italy often. I I do work with Italy. Um, from an outside person's perspective, the my perception is northern Italy is where a lot of the commercialization or in industrial innovation takes place. And and so when I think about I think about Lombardier and think about Emilio-Romagna, right? Like kind of like those are the kind of the epicenters, but where are the those uh clusters taking place? Are they evenly distributed across like from I don't know, from Val d'Osta all the way to Sicily, or are they kind of still concentrated in the north?

SPEAKER_01 14:54

Well, uh we you can't deny there is a certain concentration of the north, uh but I'll tell you something. You know that actually the second internet hub was located in Sardinia, where we also have one of the largest HPC facilities close to Cagliogra. Yeah. Uh you know that one of the largest facilities in semiconductors is located in Catania, uh, where ST has one of the largest factories. Um if I think about uh other computational facility, quantum is in Naples. So uh we do have very sound research even in the south part of Italy. Unfortunately, what we are missing in the southern part of Italy is the industrial backbone. And without the industrial backbone, you lack the immediate translation of what is the outcome research into, let's say, in application. That is something that is definitely missing. So I can't deny there is a concentration in the north part of Italy. But uh we have also very, very good research and very good infrastructure in the south part. Uh even close to Naples. If you have aerospace, the the Italian research center for aerospace is located close to Naples. And uh, by the way, Naples is one of the largest uh aerospace clusters. Uh and I think about Apulia in Taranto. Uh we have a spaceport over there, which is located in the very same facility where probably the largest composite for aerostructure manufacturing plant is located. Okay.

SPEAKER_00 16:18

Like a super light materials that they used in aerospace in defense?

SPEAKER_01 16:22

Yeah, think about the point dream liner, the fuselage of the point dream liner, which is made of uh one of the largest uh composite made components is manufactured in Taranto.

SPEAKER_00 16:32

Interesting. Um I'm I'm curious, and and and I think this is somewhat of a similar problem that Canada has, what structural changes would most improve Europe's ability to commercialize science? Because like if if you think about from a research perspective, Europe produces a lot of research, Canada produces a lot of research, but a lot of research gets commercialized in in the United States. So uh from your perspective of advantage, Point of Like, are there structural changes that need to be put in place in order for Europe to commercialize science? And I'll give you an example that actually I'm seeing as we're helping companies on the life science and biotechnology side. We're actually advising companies from North America to go and launch in Western Europe or the Scandinavian countries um and then commercialize there early and then move back to the states. So I'm I'm curious, kind of like what is your perspective?

SPEAKER_01 17:27

Well, we're talking about structural changes. So my answer would be uh on on the structural line. And I think that the uh the greatest achievement we would have in Europe is to have a truly single market. Because once Europe will have a truly single market, both from a financial and let's say an economic point of view, that would be the moment where the overall European ecosystem would change. The reason why many things are, I mean, the commercial exploitation is done in the US, because the US are a single market, besides the differences among the different states, but they are a single market. It's much easier to scale up over there, not to mention about the financial markets. But Europe has all the potential. So if I think if I take every single country, every single nation in Europe, and I just let's say uh from one day to another, uh take down all the boundaries in terms of uh the rules of circulation of um goods, the way standardizing the rules or all the countries, etc. So making Europe a truly single market. Just I mean, out of curiosity, if you rent a house in Spain and then you want to have a contract with an Italian telephone company, that would be impossible. Okay, why in the hell? Or I have a bank account in Italy, I cannot use that bank account for uh paying uh for just the uh paying the uh telephone bill in Germany. Uh, you know, this is, I mean, besides the fact that we have we have fantastic opportunity, freedom uh to move around Europe, but still those tiny things are preventing us from becoming a truly uh integrated market. And once you have an integrated market, scalar companies can really scale up in that market very fast. And once you have companies that are scaling up in the market, there's actually a market of 300 million people, so it's comparable, similar to it, can be even higher than the US. Once you scale up, then financial investors will run after you because you're scaling up, they don't have to go to any more in the US, they will be investing in Europe because we give them more opportunity to scale up. So structural change is make a bit a single market in Europe.

SPEAKER_00 19:58

Are there examples in terms of specific industries that where those silos and barriers are falling apart and that leading to like unification over like single market, or it's still very much fragmented?

SPEAKER_01 20:11

Well, I I have let me make you two different examples. The first one is uh, I mean, think about life science. So, of course, we have EMA, but nevertheless, you need to have the authorization for each single market. Okay, so every country has to the health authority of each single country has to release you the certification to let's say sell something in the country. But also have the very same experience in the complete different research, which was building materials, so dry paddles for building materials and the standards where actually one building material can be approved in France or in Italy and Germany, although they're all, let's say, under the umbrella of the European standards, but there's a little difference. So the levels might be different because every state is still sovereign. So let's read out all those tiny differences that are there just for protecting the local market against the European competitors, and let's become real competitors at European level on a free market. That would be the let's say the pivotal point for Europe and for all the 27 members.

SPEAKER_00 21:19

Interesting, interesting. Um, wanted to shift gears a little bit more around the investment thesis that that uh OBLO has. So everyone is talking about AI, but where do you think the market is dramatically underestimating the next wave of opportunity? And kind of like what are the things that OBLO is really excited to look at and invest?

SPEAKER_01 21:47

So you you meant you mentioned AI, there's definitely a spike in AI, but then no AI is is award on his own, so there has to be, let's say, differentiated. Now what in a blue We truly believe that on one side Europe has lost, let's say, the risk, the initial AI race. There's something that we have lost as we lose the initial digital risk, but we can be the winner of the physical AI one. Because the competences that we have in physical modeling and the use of AI for uh apply to physical modeling is something that is unique. We have we know how to do that, we have the skills, and this is where we should be pushing ahead. There is also quite a hype on around quantum. Quantum has to, we really have to understand what quantum is all about. Probably there will be several quantums uh and for very specific applications. So uh our investment thesis is to invest in quantum once we see that not quantum per se, but once we see that there is an application that really changes uh provides an immediate effect of the quantum ability to uh have a significant advantage. On example, we have an investment in quantum that is a quantum edge. That uh that quantum edge is already built in order to work on a hybrid edge computer, and we're already testing LLM on a quantum chip that will be eventually located on an edge computer. So you have edge uh computers with quantum facility that will be definitely boosting the computational power on an edge computer on a hybrid mode. So those specific application quantum, beyond let's say the uh let's say uh the research for the standard quantum, probably we would never have a standard quantum, but those specific applications will be the winners, and this is what we're looking for. Uh, as far as for physical AI, we like something that is very, very specific and solve the specific needs, and we see the great advantage of using AI applied to physical model in maybe changing some industries. Uh, again, here an example of our portfolio company. It's a portfolio company that has built a physical AI model on power electronics and drivers. So we can have digital twins on every single electric motor, and that digital twin works on a small chip of a few cents, meaning that that specific motor, uh, every time you have to make predictive maintenance, understand exactly the condition of that model is something that we know how that motor works, like something that is today impossible. And if you have a manufacturing plan, how many drivers do you have? How many problems around uh let's say policonics you have? We can build a digital twin on time on that sp on every specific component to give you the ability to run predictive maintenance, uh standard maintenance, productivity, you name it. So those are the applications we're looking for.

SPEAKER_00 24:49

Interesting. And it makes sense. I mean, we've seen some of this kind of um like digital twins start to proliferate here in owing gas in terms of like how do you optimize performance of the assets? Like, when you run, how do you how do you run, how do you explore the reservoir in a way that like it it maximizes the the extraction. So that makes sense. Um which deep tech sectors are currently overhyped? Um, from your perspective, and kind of which and which ones are the ones that are still massively undervalued?

SPEAKER_02 25:26

Well, uh like I said, I think that we have kind of detailed positive, but nevertheless by now I say significant like in whatever uses over AI. Uh not any more detail with uh application of the standard technology. Um those are probably uh over that exciting.

SPEAKER_01 25:55

Uh I have seen also um uh if you think about space technology, uh there is a hype, or there is uh in some models, which I wonder will be the winning model, so sometimes you have to understand exactly how that specific industry works. Probably some valuations are too much with respect to the real industrial value that can be created, that are some names. Uh so my perspective is what we do see as uh um overinflated areas are the those that are basically in the say in the mouth of everyone. Those are the the buzzwords, and this is pretty much by definition inflated. If you get into something that is very more specific, uh so the use of deep tech for solving very specific problems with a real industrial, let's say, uh of a real industrial need, and honestly, with real industrial valuation of your companies, that is where I think that we really create value beside speculation. So uh the material simulation where you need high performance computing for uh looking to new materials. This is a very interesting area where you can have to combine in artificial intelligence, high performance computing, and significant knowledge of the physical, say, rules that are behind the material sciences or even think about nuclear fusion, uh superconductors. You want to build a new generation of superconductors, you probably need to move beyond mathematics and apply AI to think about the new mathematic model that would explain the new way of containing the uh plasma sources of the nuclear fusion. This is again again a nice application of how you can use AI with the physical on the physical process, and this is the deep tech that we like.

SPEAKER_00 28:00

Understood. Um, what industry are the most vulnerable to disruption from frontier computing technologies over the next decade? So kind of like where does the opportunity lie?

SPEAKER_01 28:14

Sorry, can you repeat? Because there was the sorry, the line broke out. Sorry.

SPEAKER_00 28:18

What what industries do you think are most vulnerable to disruption from frontier computing technologies?

SPEAKER_01 28:27

Well, uh, I think that we should see we should see an assessment, uh more specialization of computing technology. Let me tell you something. Uh uh, many people are saying that AS SAS will is dead. But then you look into the numbers and you say, well, is it really that something that provides you 90% first margin with respect to probably what is 30% for first margin of an LLM? Well, I wouldn't say this is really the death of a SAS. Probably SAS will be still there for specific applications while you will be leveraging AI-based uh, let's say, yeah, process on other specific applications. So, what I see is that uh there will be a new, let's say there will be new segments. Probably the market will be even the computational market will be more specifically designed for the specific applications you need to deploy. Then of course there will be enabling technologies that uh have to be exploited for uh basically solving basic problems. But again, if I think about energy consumption, energy consumption on a data center can be leveraged through a better way of running your algorithms or introducing superconductors for let's see reducing the heat generation on um on the data center. You can use uh, I don't know, uh new cooling system for data center. So all those technologies that are enabling technologies can be used, but again, they can be used on specific applications, not generally applied. So if you want to have a data center on space, probably cooling will be done on a certain way, which might be different with respect to the cooling you have at data center on Earth. And why you need data center on space, again, this is something that will have very specific applications, can be just data center that you can use for any kind of application, just because being located on space creates some problems in terms of latency, etc. etc.

SPEAKER_00 30:36

Yeah, agree, agree. Um so, with regards to this, um this is just uh our observation in terms of working with a lot of companies. Often what we're seeing is that um, and this is not necessarily isolated deep tech, but founders are often brilliant scientists, but when it comes to operations or commercialization, is that kind of where they lack? Um, do you have an advice for founders like that? Like how do they bridge that gap?

SPEAKER_01 31:16

Uh that's a very nice question. Uh, I've been working the last 15 years of my life in trying to answer that question and working on that question, actually. Now, uh the the the point is that really depends person by person. So uh I've seen scientists that became fantastic entrepreneurs. Uh but not all, I mean, being a scientist means that you have, in terms of soft skills, you are a different person with respect to an entrepreneur. Furthermore, if you're a scientist, sometimes you think about technology, but when you have to run a company, you have to think about products, not technologies anymore. Not to mention uh business models. So my answer would be uh what you have to do on scientists is to educate a scientist that there are more several other languages they have to learn in order to speak with the other, let's say, team members, they will be smoothly hiring their company. So you have to learn the language of the product, learn the language of the company. Uh if you're let's say good enough to learn that the language and become, let's say, mother tongue, you will be the CEO of the company forever. But as I always say to my funders, you're a shareholder of the company, and you should be looking for the best CEO for your company, which doesn't mean it will be you, but for you as a shareholder, looking for the best CEO is something that would provide significant benefits. So you can be the CEO at the beginning. It might be a point in time where actually say, okay, I need someone that knows better than me how to run the company. This is not a shame. If you do that, it means that you are even brighter than you thought. Because people that are willing to be surrounded by people that are brighter than themselves, they're just showing up that they are very bright people. So my advice is learn the language, and learn the language, something that, on example, we have been partnering with the business school in order to create an executive MBA for funders, for deep tech funders. And the reason why we want you to have that educational program, that is English, uh international credit, so it's a full-time, it's it's it's a part-time executive MBA. We wanted to have them because they have to learn the language of management and more specifically deep tech management. But we also know that actually this is just a language school, then you have to practice, and then if you're let's say proficient enough, you will be the CEO acting forever, but otherwise, it's not a shame. You build up your team, you know that you built have to build a team, yeah, and you can run the company. I mean, the company can be run by someone else, but it will be still your own company, the company has funded, so no shame at all.

SPEAKER_00 34:05

Okay, um, I I wanted to double-click on this. Um, from your perspective, Nicola, what are the most important skills, capabilities that uh founders or CEOs need to build to be the modern CEO? Like, like, is it storytelling? Is it like visions, is inspiration? Kind of like what are the skills and capabilities that the modern CEO or founder need to have in place kind of like to to be successful in leading the company in the future?

SPEAKER_01 34:39

Well, it's uh it's a long list of skills, but I think that uh on one side they have to be very humble. Humble means probably I mean, you think you are the best in something, but believe me that first of all, even if you are the best, the rest of the world has to accept you. So you think you have the best product, but be humble and listen to what your prospective customers are telling you. Uh, so this is the first point, and being humble in the means, as I mean, we were previously saying, be able to set up the right team. So you have to be someone that wants to set up a team, empathic, humble, and uh be, let's say, someone that knows very well how to make things happen. So, execution is something that is probably is the really the pivotal point. Uh, when you start a stuff at a company, uh every day you will see something different. Probably the business plan they have done yesterday is different today. Yeah, you thought about going left, actually have to go right, and that happens on the daytime or night time. So, what you have to do is both of them, daytime and nighttime. But yeah, uh, what you have to do is to be the one that knows how to execute, to make things real, and be always ready that even if the divisional plan was not met, it's not a problem. You have to solve the problem, the problem why you have to turn, you have to people, and make sure that your company will be up and running even after you make a people to point.

SPEAKER_00 36:26

Makes sense. Um, from your perspective, what's harder? Beauty the technology or building market adoption around it? Well, definitely in market.

SPEAKER_01 36:37

Uh, definitely go through there. So uh I I can tell you something. I had a conversation uh some times ago with a founder who he was and he's still a very uh one of the best researchers that we have in biorobotics. He founded the company, and after a few years he came back to me and said, Well, Nicola, you know you are right. I thought it was all about technology, and actually, technology was just five percent of my job.

SPEAKER_00 37:05

Yeah, it's true, it's true. Um I don't know much about kind of the the Italian government, and uh, but do you think that government should play a larger role in deep tech commercialization? Um, does this create dependency and efficiency? I mean, if it was to kind of like juxtaposed kind of what's happening in Canada, the Canadian federal government is is uh trying to roll out these programs to make it easier for startups to engage with the government. Kind of like as you pointed out earlier in the top of the conversation, you pointed out Italy is still one of the largest economies in the world. What role should the Italian government play in supporting uh a triving ecosystem in Italy?

SPEAKER_01 37:57

Well, there's uh the let's say the point of venture clienting, uh let's call it this way, is definitely uh a role that I do see in government. Uh honestly, what we we are seeing right now in the last in the last couple of years, definitely I've I've noticed a significant shift. Uh so the Italian government was always pretty much I'd say taking care of startups, uh, say on the basic terms, so in terms of creating the right ecosystem, rules, um supporting financial tools, uh, funds of funds, that that kind of stuff. But now they have also understood that venture clienting from a government point of view is something that would definitely provide significant value. Uh in these days, in the last couple of three days, probably the the sh the increased interest towards new technologies, especially dual technologies, made that are so there is a significant need of new dual technologies for the obvious reasons, and that makes the governments, by definition, the uh let's say the first customers, the large customers. So it is also not anymore just a matter of providing incentives, but it's it is nowadays probably one of the few ways where governments can survive on the long term from a strategic point of view if they start really thinking about acquiring new technologies from startup companies and not just from the incumbents, because otherwise they risk to be lagged behind in terms of being on the top of the new technologies.

SPEAKER_00 39:43

I agree. Um this is just a uh a real real life scenario for us. We we're constantly battling against this. Like I spent uh 10 years working with EOI, three years working with Eloite, and when I was with the big firms, uh it was fairly easy to sell into big corporations or into enterprise because you had the batch behind you. Um and and government uh was very much in a case that it they saw this as engaging startups or early stage companies, they saw this as a career risk. Why would I try this? Like uh I would rather go with a big name knowing that I I can't fail where nobody can hold me, blame me for um engaging them. Um, is do you see a shift in mindset in terms of like of enterprise piloting more and more in um early stage companies and doing pilots with them or engaging them rather than going a traditional route of just going with big consultancies or big companies incumbents?

SPEAKER_01 40:49

Well, definitely, definitely there's um I've seen the last five years significant uh switch in terms of that many many corporates are now opening their open innovation programs, they're trying to network with started companies. Um, but I would say that uh the mindset has smoothly changed. Now, at the very beginning, many of those open innovation programs were there for, let me say, probably more communication purposes, yeah, but then substantial. Of course, we have to think about that uh in a large corporation there are still the silos. Uh, people work in RD, they would ask themselves, well, if I'm looking to a technology outside of the company, then my boss probably would ask himself, why do I have to pay his salary? Because actually he's taking something from the outside and not something that has developed on the inside. So those kind of not invented here syndrome that is the standard syndrome of innovation is still dead, but the competitive pressure that we see in basically all businesses makes the relation between a corporation and a startup company a matter of survival. So either you do it or you're out. So any company that would say, I do everything on my own, I have my research team, I don't care about what startups are doing because they are those strange guys, we don't rely on them, etc. etc. Probably in 10 years they will be out of business because they will be outbided by other companies that have in source new technologies, they have taken the risk, but actually, I mean, life is about running the risk for and I would say managing the risk. So that's why, again, venture venture capital funds working in tech transfer are risk mitigators because we are the intermediaries, we are those that are providing even the public financial resources because many of our LPs are uh government institutions. So you have the private money and the public money that is a leverage for a private investor, and we know how to turn technologies into product, and only once everything is settled up, I mean, that would give the comfort for the corporation to acquire it. But having an intermediary will make the process much smoother than doing it on your own.

SPEAKER_00 43:23

Of course, of course, you're taking away some of the risk off the table. Um Nicola, what is one scientific or technological breakthrough that would radically change humanity if it was to become commercially viable?

SPEAKER_01 43:40

Oh gosh. That's uh that that is uh a great a great well I I would say definitely if we manage to have uh uh nuclear fusion, that would be uh something that in these days would change pretty much. see the uh even the balance of power in the world because that would change probably the way we produce energy in a clean way and running that uh source of energy in a safe and stable and reliable way would definitely mean that many economies will change. Yeah. So that is the first that comes to my mind.

SPEAKER_00 44:22

Is this something that uh Europe is actively investing? I mean obviously over the last three to four years we've seen the price of energy skyrocket and and especially in Italy um Germany is having the regrets around shutting uh nuclear power plants is is this something that European countries and European startups are actively working to solve well there are several startups working nuclear fusion trying to do something or components or take so there is some activity out there I would say there was also uh many many startups working on the say the standard well new generation um nuclear reactors uh for the reason that actually still nuclear power is now revamped and reconsidered um but uh yes I mean that I have seen something interesting going in in that specific field uh of course the source of energy is the cost of energy is one of the great problems I would say the the cost and overall the uh resilience of your uh of your energy system is uh something that is on the top of probably uh of the priorities of every government but again if you think about energy and I'm going back to the your question about the single I mean the single market we don't even have a single an energy infrastructure in Europe imagine if you have one real single infrastructure in Europe how easier would be and more resilient that would have been so transmission lines don't cross borders in Europe? No they are of course but not as much okay as of course the uh the I mean transmitting energy is not easy you need specific lines but the the more you're able to provide an integrated energy infrastructure yeah yeah the more resilient that would be do you have a forecast do you do you I mean we have European central banks the there's a lot of European institutions that they're trying to centralize to create one market do you have a prediction or opinion as to whether this kind of unification will take place and will will come to one market or is this like I don't have crystal ball yeah let me say I'd love to have it tomorrow understood yeah um we like to close our interviews Nicola with with uh kind of like a a two a two part question that you can choose what's the best advice you've ever received or you can answer the question like what's the kindest thing somebody has ever done for you the kindest thing yeah well actually I think one of the kindest things was uh was actually from an entrepreneur okay and uh after we rejected he the idea of investing his company he recommended us as a VC to another fund and say those are the guys that you should really meet.

SPEAKER_01 47:32

So I think that was pretty much and I really appreciate it because actually I mean after you reject someone you see I mean he's not in obligation with you but actually uh after the the analysis and the time we spent together he was really kind to say well you know I'm even if you rejected me I worked so well with you that I truly think that you should be recommended to someone else and give them the chance to to work with you.

SPEAKER_00 47:57

And what did you do in this situation like the um in in terms of the rejection part what did you do that made that experience so memorable for somebody that you know received negative news to to actually say despite the answer I got I still recommend OBLU because the the transparency integrity communication whatever it might have been like kind of like what led to that well actually you know I I already said that this this business our business is a people business so we rely on personal interaction and personal relations uh so the interpersonal relation the trust that you build is probably the best asset that we have the trust with other LPs the trust with other funders and that goes through establishing a human relation that is transparent we don't shit we tell you what is going right we tell you what is going wrong it's and in especially with funders where actually we work pretty much I mean on our at least on a weekly basis the personal relation is has to be built on the idea that we are cooperating with the same objective that is making that company great so if this is the perspective and we all have the understanding on the same boat we are rowing the same direction then we can really build the right trust that goes beyond any contract. I mean you you can write everything you wish on a contract but once you have the personal trust that is the most powerful tool you have in dealing with a portfolio company and with an investor okay I mean the same thing applies in in personal relationships so no I I really appreciate your your time uh I I really enjoyed the conversation all of the insights that you shared both in terms of venture capital deep tech Italy as well as broadly the broader European market so thank you so much for coming on the podcast and sharing your insights Maxime it was my pleasure and thank you for having me in absolutely anytime you want to come back you're welcome we'll do with pleasure