Torsten Reil, Helsing Founder: Raising $828M to Build the Defence Champion of Europe | E1237

Intro (0s)

• Helsing was founded in March 2021, with the founders anticipating two significant events: an invasion of Ukraine by Russia and an invasion of Taiwan by China (0s).
• The founders believed a major wave of change was coming, driven by autonomy, software, and defense, which would be unstoppable (11s).
• The defense sector needs to adapt to this change to avoid a "Tesla moment," where the industry is disrupted by new technologies and innovations, similar to what happened to the car industry (16s).
• The current situation with Russia and Ukraine, as well as potential future conflicts between China and Taiwan, were seen as significant factors in this changing landscape (29s).
• Torsten Reil has wanted to work on this project for a long time and is now discussing it in an interview (46s).

How NaturalMotion Influenced Helsing (53s)

• NaturalMotion started as a spin-out from the University of Oxford, focusing on creating physically simulated creatures controlled by neural networks, a concept considered crazy at the time due to computational limitations (1m8s).
• The company initially used its technology for visual effects in big Hollywood movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Spider-Man, and later for big video games such as GTA 4 and GTA 5 (1m30s).
• Despite its success, the technology business was growing slowly, and the company decided to pivot to developing games themselves, taking a significant risk (2m2s).
• This pivot led to the creation of successful iPhone games, including CSR Racing, which became one of the largest iPhone games at the time and helped the company take off (2m36s).
• The experience at NaturalMotion taught the importance of risk-taking, adapting quickly, and focusing on a few key things, lessons that were carried over to Helsing (2m43s).
• Another key lesson learned was the importance of hiring exceptional talent, which requires a different mindset and a significant amount of time and effort (3m11s).
• At NaturalMotion, the company eventually fell into a rhythm of hiring people just to add headcount, which led to increased complexity and slower growth, a mistake that was avoided at Helsing (3m35s).
• At Helsing, the founders made a commitment to focus on hiring exceptional talent from the beginning, which has transformed the company and allowed it to attract top talent (4m8s).
• Helsing's approach to hiring involves hustling to find the best people, using various channels such as LinkedIn and networking, and not giving up until the right person is found (4m29s).

Hiring The Exceptional People (4m38s)

• Helsing currently has around 350 people, with the goal of hiring exceptional individuals, as the company believes that exceptional people are not limited in number and can be found at a relatively small scale, even up to 3,500 or 10,000 employees (4m41s).
• The top performers in the company can do the work of many people, giving the company a light-footedness and speed that wouldn't be possible otherwise, which reduces the need to grow into large headcount numbers and compromise on quality (5m10s).
• It's often possible to determine if someone is exceptional within 30 minutes of an interview, with the clearest signs being effortlessness and a feeling of being on top of every detail (5m27s).
• Key characteristics of exceptional individuals include effortlessness, unwavering imbalance, and the ability to go all-in on something, with the mindset behind it being particularly interesting (5m35s).
• A more effective approach to interviews is to go with the flow and have a conversation, rather than asking staged questions that can make people feel uncomfortable and not be themselves (6m10s).
• The company prioritizes talent density, aiming to replace two good people with one outstanding person, and takes hiring and performance management seriously to achieve this goal (6m35s).
• Helsing's approach to talent density involves making decisions about how to run the company, including reducing the number of people overall and focusing on small teams of exceptional individuals (6m53s).
• The company has found that the most performing teams are often small, with three to four exceptional people able to achieve a lot, particularly in software development, and that this approach is also more cost-effective (7m15s).

Structuring & Managing Small Teams Effectively (7m35s)

• The company structure consists of a handful of small teams, typically 3-4 people, working on specific projects, which can sometimes grow in size as needed, and team members are allowed to self-select to ensure effective communication and high performance (7m35s).
• Performance management is considered essential and exhausting, requiring difficult conversations with team members, and it's necessary to have a mindset that this is necessary for the company's growth (8m37s).
• One-on-one meetings are not considered necessary for senior team members who don't need guidance, and having too many one-on-ones can clog up the calendar and lead to repetition (8m55s).
• Performance management is crucial in identifying and addressing team members who are not a good fit for the company, as they can create pockets of unhappiness and make everything harder, and it's essential to commit to performance management early on (9m50s).
• At Helsing, performance management calibration is done with all leaders every quarter, where they review and discuss performance ratings given to team members to ensure consistency and fairness (10m37s).
• A team-based feedback system is used to calibrate performance, where team members provide feedback on performance rather than the individual, to help them understand what good performance looks like at Helsing, and this process is done regularly to create a well-calibrated performance system (10m53s).
• This system helps to avoid unfairness and ensures scrutiny when things go wrong, and it also involves reviewing the hiring process to identify what was missed during the hiring process when a wrong hire is made (11m23s).
• The key to addressing poor performance is to recognize it early, work with the individual to improve, and if that doesn't work, to part ways amicably, usually within the first few months (11m54s).
• Putting someone on a performance improvement plan can be effective, as some people are able to turn their performance around, and it's not a foregone conclusion that the plan will fail (12m10s).

What is Helsing Speed? (12m19s)

• Helsing's founders prioritized speed as one of the most important factors when starting the company in 2021, feeling that they had no time to lose due to shifting geopolitical tectonic plates (12m56s).
• The concept of "Housing Speed" was adopted from Zinga's "Zinga Speed," emphasizing the importance of being incredibly creative and fast (12m29s).
• To achieve speed, Helsing raised a significant amount of money from the beginning, embracing the idea of "Blitz scaling," which involves being inefficient in the short term to be effective and fast (13m6s).
• The company used a third-party recruitment service to quickly get people in, which was crucial for building a performance culture and managing the pipeline of good people coming in (13m38s).
• Helsing's founders recognized that Blitz scaling is not always necessary and that it's essential to make a commitment to it being a temporary period, in their case, the first 6 to 12 months (14m29s).
• The company raised 8.5 million euros in their seed round, and later, Daniel Ek and Prima Materia invested 100 million euros, allowing Helsing to focus on top talent and not go for innovation projects (14m44s).
• Daniel Ek developed conviction in Helsing within two or three months of investing in the seed round and offered to lead a significant investment, which enabled the company to achieve its goals (15m10s).
• Helsing was well-funded, allowing the company to take risks and pursue large, official programs of record, which are hard to get and very risky, but ultimately worked out well (15m49s).
• The capital requirements for Helsing make it a company that is easier to co-found with multiple founders, rather than a single founder, due to the complexity and various skills required (16m8s).
• The company's founders, including Torsten Reil, Nicholas, and others, come from different directions but have different emphases on various aspects of the business, providing a combination of skills (16m41s).
• The complexity of Helsing as a defense company involves various complexities such as government relations, go-to-market security, export law, and more, making it challenging for a single founder to stay on top of everything (16m51s).
• Having multiple founders provides bandwidth and allows them to be sounding boards for each other, making difficult decisions easier and enabling constant communication (17m19s).
• Torsten Reil's experience as a single founder at Natural Motion was much harder, especially when it came to making the right decisions, highlighting the benefits of having co-founders (17m32s).

On the Annexation of Crimea by Russia (17m44s)

• The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was a pivotal moment in the shifting of the geopolitical landscape, as it showed that a country with territorial ambitions could act without facing significant consequences from European and Western governments (17m55s).
• The lack of a strong reaction to the annexation created a sense of danger and a feeling that the clock was ticking until another similar event would occur (18m28s).
• When Helsing was founded in March 2021, the company predicted that there would be two galvanizing events: an invasion of Ukraine by Russia and an invasion of Taiwan by China, with the Russia-Ukraine invasion happening earlier than expected in 2022 (18m45s).
• The annexation of Crimea was not fully understood or prioritized by democratic societies at the time, and the consequences of the event were not fully thought through (19m18s).
• The consequences of the annexation would have required democratic societies to start thinking about defense and conflict again, which was not something they wanted to do (19m35s).
• It is intellectually lazy not to take the next step and think about what is required to protect democracies, and an increase in defense spending is necessary, even if it is expensive and requires sacrifices (19m55s).
• Most governments are committing to an increase in defense spending over time, with the average in NATO being around 2% currently, but historically it has been 3-6% during times of war (20m31s).
• Some countries, such as Poland, have increased their defense spending significantly in recent years, showing that it is possible for other countries to do the same (20m40s).
• Convincing people to rechannel money towards defense is not easy, but it is necessary, and budget pressures should not be an excuse for not increasing defense spending (20m56s).

How Trump’s Stances Impact European Funding Needs? (21m3s)

• The European funding requirements for defense have been on an upward trajectory since 2016, with the Ukraine conflict further increasing defense spending, and this trend is expected to continue regardless of the Trump Administration's stance (21m3s).
• The need for European sovereignty has become more important, and it is likely that European countries will continue to move in this direction, potentially at a faster pace (21m31s).
• European countries cannot rely on partners to secure and protect Europe over the long term, and it is necessary for Europe to take pride in protecting itself and being an equal partner (21m47s).
• The capability and willingness of partners, including the US, to protect Europe may decrease over time, making it essential for Europe to take responsibility for its own security (22m2s).
• The goal is for Europe to be an equal partner and not need to rely on others for protection, which is a natural and desired outcome for both Europe and its partners (22m19s).
• It is uncertain whether Trump will pull out of Ukraine, but his previous statements suggest that he has considered it (22m34s).
• A defense spending boom in Europe is possible, but it is more likely that some countries will increase their defense budgets, while others may not, with those most exposed to the Eastern flank being more likely to increase spending (22m47s).
• The increase in defense spending will be used to fix existing issues and invest in new equipment and technology, with a proportion of the increase going towards urgent defense technology needs (23m28s).

How Helsing Chooses Who to Sell To (23m49s)

• Helsing has a strong commitment to ethics, considering it a special responsibility as a company based in democratic countries, and to attract diverse talent with different backgrounds and views (24m5s).
• The company holds ethics workshops that are well-attended, allowing everyone to contribute to the decision-making process and build their "ethics muscle" to navigate complex issues (24m56s).
• The decision-making process involves considering various shades of gray and pros and cons, with the goal of making informed decisions that everyone in the company understands, even if they don't all agree (25m11s).
• The company uses The Economist's democracy index to evaluate countries and determine whether to sell to them, with clear decisions for countries at the top and bottom of the index, but more complex decisions for those in the middle (27m39s).
• The index provides a starting point, but the company also considers other factors, such as changes in government, participation in democratic alliances, and the potential impact on democracies (28m5s).
• A recent example of a complex decision was the development of strike drone software, which required careful consideration of the ethics involved in its use and technology (26m32s).
• The company's approach to ethics is not just about making decisions, but also about creating a culture where everyone is engaged and informed, and can contribute to the decision-making process (26m12s).
• The goal is to have a broad and inclusive company culture, where people with different views and backgrounds can work together and understand the reasoning behind the company's decisions (24m29s).

Navigating the Transience of Right and Wrong (28m30s)

• The concept of right and wrong can be transient, as seen in the example of Israel, where the world's opinion shifted from support to backlash after the events in Gaza, highlighting the complexity of conflicts (28m30s).
• Conflicts often involve complexities that make it difficult to determine right or wrong, and it's essential to navigate these complexities rather than relying on oversimplifications or cop-outs (28m58s).
• Companies working with defense technologies and capabilities need to go beyond static export laws and build a nuanced view that considers multiple factors, including European sovereignty and revenue optimization (29m39s).
• Helsing was founded to support Europe and be a European company, with the primary goal of making Europe safer and contributing to the continent's geopolitical security (30m8s).
• The company's objective is to make a tangible difference in Europe's security, and everything else, including its size and leverage, is a means to achieve this end (30m35s).
• Helsing aims to work with complex systems, such as the Euro Fighter, to deploy equipment and protect Europe, with the ultimate goal of being a European Lighthouse company that helps Europe protect itself (30m43s).

Why Was Now the Right Time to Shift Focus to Drones? (30m54s)

• The company has shifted its focus to drones, marking a significant introduction to hardware, which is a new chapter for the company that has always been software-first (30m58s).
• As a software company, the organization has worked on large contracts, such as the Eurofighter electronic warfare upgrade program with Saab, where software makes a massive difference, particularly with AI (31m27s).
• The company believes that software creates a 10x multiplier in terms of capabilities, and they will continue to work on software programs and contracts (31m47s).
• However, some areas require software to have a hardware carrier, and with drones, the company needs to think differently to achieve the desired effect of precise mass (32m17s).
• To achieve this, the company needs to manufacture large numbers of drones, which is not currently possible with most drone companies that build small numbers of expensive drones (32m38s).
• The company looked at the Western market and couldn't find anyone who could produce the required large numbers of drones, leading them to consider building the drones themselves (33m3s).
• By shifting complexity from hardware to software, the company can simplify the hardware, manufacture it in larger numbers, and reduce the price (33m19s).
• The company has developed a drone, the HX2, which was announced a couple of days ago, and has built an amazing team of hardware experts to work on the design, components, and supply chain (33m28s).
• The company views hardware as an area where complexity can be optimized by shifting it into software, and they have developed infrastructure for simulation platforms and AI infrastructure platforms (34m7s).
• This approach has allowed the company to develop and test their drones extremely fast, with a focus on iteration speed (34m15s).
• While software can simulate many things, there are still some aspects that need to be tested in hardware, particularly when deployed in conflict zones like Ukraine (34m59s).

Does Compliance Hinder Government Drone Procurement? (35m15s)

• Compliance can be an inhibitor to government procurement, particularly for single-use drones, as governments may struggle to purchase them due to their single-use nature (35m20s).
• Many rules and regulations in government procurement are in place for a reason, but they may not always be applied in the right or timely way (35m40s).
• The current system may incentivize maintaining long-standing relationships with established companies (primes) over innovation, as there is less risk of job loss if things go wrong (36m28s).
• Some individuals in procurement agencies and politics genuinely want to innovate, but the system may not encourage it (36m42s).
• Introducing a mandatory 20% spend on new defense companies for defense equipment could help realign incentives and encourage innovation (37m1s).
• The current spending on new defense companies is less than 1%, making a shift to 20% a significant change (37m27s).
• There are not many defense startups at scale, but smaller ones do exist (37m37s).
• Lobbying from industry can be a challenging element of selling into government, as not all established companies (primes) may see new companies as friends (37m56s).
• Companies like Sab are considered friends and partners, as they work closely together and are shareholders in Helsing (38m13s).
• Defense primes will likely continue to have a role in the industry, and their growth is possible if things are done right (38m34s).

What Happens If Defense Faces a 'Tesla Moment'? (38m43s)

• A "Tesla moment" in the defense sector would occur if a significant wave of new technologies, particularly autonomy, software, and AI, emerges and is not understood or adapted to by the industry, including major players, resulting in a disruption similar to what happened in the car industry with the rise of electric, software, and autonomous vehicles (38m43s).
• If this happens, the defense sector would face a large number of autonomous systems from adversaries, who may not have the same ethical boundaries as democratic societies (39m15s).
• Adversaries may take shortcuts that democratic societies are not willing to take, due to their focus on ethics, which could put them at a technological disadvantage (39m22s).
• To maintain a technological advantage and address the challenges posed by autonomous systems, it is essential for democratic societies to have technology leadership and prioritize ethics (39m42s).
• The industry may underestimate the potential impact of a "Tesla moment" and the need to adapt to new technologies to remain competitive (39m45s).

Are Russia and Iran’s Capabilities Underestimated? (39m46s)

• Russia and Iran's military capabilities are becoming increasingly clear, with Iran producing a large number of drones, including the Shahed, which has been licensed to Russia for manufacturing (39m47s).
• Russia has developed its own drones, such as the Lancet and Zala Lancet, which are capable strike drones with improving software (40m5s).
• The software for these drones is getting better over time, and they will be used in large numbers, making it necessary for adversaries to develop countermeasures (40m15s).
• Current military systems, such as tanks and artillery guns, are not well-suited to counter these autonomous systems, and a new approach is needed that utilizes the speed of software and interconnected systems (40m40s).
• To effectively deter adversaries, it will be necessary to have a large number of strike drones, potentially in the thousands or tens of thousands (40m57s).
• Some governments are starting to understand the implications of these developments, but many have not yet grasped the significance of the shift towards autonomy and software in defense (41m6s).
• A major shift towards autonomy and software in defense is inevitable, and governments will be forced to adapt to this new reality (41m13s).

How Will AI & Autonomy Shape the Future of Warfare (41m20s)

• The future of warfare and conflict is expected to involve increased use of AI and autonomy, with trends already visible in Ukraine, where drones such as the Turkish TB2 and others have been used to make up for a lack of artillery munitions, and are now being built in large numbers, with Ukraine reportedly building 1.5 million FPV drones per year (41m23s).
• The use of drones is expected to become more scalable, with a single operator able to control multiple drones, a trend that is likely to happen quickly, possibly as early as next year, due to the development of algorithms (42m16s).
• The success of drones is measured by their ability to hit targets, despite attempts to jam their signals using electronic warfare, a problem currently faced by Ukraine and likely to be faced by NATO and other countries in peer conflicts (42m43s).
• Drones can be jammed using GPS or coms jamming, making them difficult to use, and this is a problem that needs to be addressed, with jamming stations currently located every few kilometers at the front line (43m10s).
• The economies of conflict are changing, with expensive systems such as million-pound drones being vulnerable to being shot down by much cheaper missiles, and this mismatch in cost versus effectiveness is a problem that needs to be addressed (43m37s).
• The use of strike drones and other systems is changing the economics of conflict, with cheaper systems being able to overcome more expensive ones, such as tanks and artillery, and the use of saturation, or sending large numbers of cheaper systems, can be an effective way to overcome defenses (43m55s).
• Saturation can be used to solve almost every problem, by sending large numbers of cheaper systems, which can oversaturate defenses and make expensive systems vulnerable, and this is a strategy that is likely to be used in future conflicts (44m32s).
• The future of war is likely to involve less human contact, with areas of the battlefield becoming no-go zones for humans due to the presence of drones and other autonomous systems, as seen in Ukraine (45m11s).
• The increasing use of autonomous systems, such as strike drones, is making it harder and more expensive for traditional military systems, like tanks and artillery, to be effective in battle (44m47s).
• The use of autonomous swarms of drones is a concerning development that should prompt consideration of the implications and how to ensure safety without compromising ethical standards (46m14s).
• The concept of a traditional battlefield may become less relevant, with conflict potentially taking place in empty land masses where drones and artillery systems engage each other (45m37s).
• The location of battlefields is often related to physical proximity to important areas, such as ports, routes, or landmarks (45m58s).
• The development and use of autonomous systems in warfare raises ethical concerns and should be a topic of consideration and discussion (46m23s).

Is Public Perception of Defense Spending Changing? (46m40s)

• Public perception around defense spending has shifted, with most countries' populations agreeing that more needs to be spent on defense, although there may be differing opinions on what exactly should be spent on (46m41s).
• Overall, populations seem to understand the need for increased defense spending, but politicians may lack the courage to implement it, with some countries, like Poland, moving faster than others (47m7s).
• If given control of the UK defense budget, 20% would be allocated to new defense, which is necessary for modernization, including networking, AI, and precision mass production, to maintain deterrence and defense capabilities (47m21s).
• Current defense contractors, or primes, often take too long to deliver and are incentivized differently, with some spending less than 5% of their budget on R&D, unlike companies like Helsing, which pre-finance almost all developments (47m51s).
• Procurement processes need to be reformed to be faster, less constrained, and with aligned incentives, which currently favor slower and more traditional approaches (48m44s).
• The US and other countries have different defense spending dynamics, with various primes having different priorities and incentives, making a one-size-fits-all approach challenging (47m59s).
• Companies like Helsing are taking a different approach by pre-financing developments and spending heavily on R&D to deliver modern defense solutions quickly, which is why they have raised significant funding (48m16s).
• The current pace of defense modernization is too slow, with governments often taking years to fund and develop new systems, whereas companies like Helsing aim to deliver solutions in a much shorter timeframe, such as 8 months to 2 years (48m32s).

Is Defense a Standalone Category or a Broader Strategy? (49m5s)

• The future market composition in the defense industry is expected to be similar to the current one, with a small number of primes and a larger number of suppliers, and only a very small number of new primes emerging (49m5s).
• Defense is not a standalone category, but rather a broader strategy that requires a deep understanding of the industry and its complexities (49m26s).
• Venture capital firms (VCS) that truly understand the defense industry have already made their bets on defense companies, and a second or third wave of VCS is now investing in defense technology teams (49m38s).
• The exit route for these defense companies is a concern, as they may not be able to achieve the necessary scale and complexity to be acquired by primes or go public through an IPO (49m56s).
• To be a prime, a company needs to be multi-domain, have a strong foundation in software infrastructure, security, government relations, export law, and compliance, making it challenging for new companies to emerge (50m11s).
• Building a successful defense company is extremely complex and requires a founder team with experience in the industry, making it difficult for new companies to succeed without this expertise (50m46s).
• The majority of VC dollars going into defense companies today may not yield successful exits, and the biggest opportunity to deploy dollars in defense is in companies that have already achieved scale, have programs of record, and are active in conflicts (50m52s).
• Having a program of record is a significant milestone for a defense company, as it indicates that the company has already overcome significant hurdles and has a strong chance of success (51m24s).

Program of Record (51m31s)

• A program of record is an official government program of a certain size, where companies or consortia pitch for it, and it tends to be quite large, running over several years, in contrast to innovation projects which have smaller pots of money to prove certain forces or nations can do innovation and defense (51m32s).
• The jump from innovation projects to a program of record is huge because of the apparatus required to pitch for these programs, which isn't required for innovation projects, making it a completely different challenge (52m17s).
• To make the transition successfully, companies need to build teams around their innovation, but there's a scarcity of talent around go-to-market, government relations, compliance, and security in the defense industry (52m46s).
• This scarcity of talent makes it impossible for all companies to turn into primes, and they end up coming back to the innovation side with something that looks like product-market fit but is only a small part of building a prime (53m12s).
• Building a prime requires building infrastructure, which includes more than just product-market fit, and companies like Andre and Helsing are in the process of doing it (53m37s).
• Naivity can be a wonderful benefit in entrepreneurship, as many founders would say they wouldn't have tried if they knew how hard it was, but having co-founders can make it easier to build a company and go through difficult times (54m8s).
• Having co-founders provides a sounding board and someone to rely on, which is very important for getting through hard moments in the company (54m41s).
• Building a company can be time-consuming and involves setbacks, making it easier to overcome challenges with a team rather than alone (54m54s).
• Startups often face unexpected setbacks, and it's essential to be prepared for them, as experienced at Natural Motion (55m12s).
• Despite the challenges, Natural Motion managed to overcome difficult situations and eventually succeeded (55m37s).
• One notable challenge at Natural Motion was the integration of their Euphoria animation runtime engine into GTA 4, which required significant optimization to meet performance budget requirements (55m53s).
• The team of engineers at Natural Motion worked closely with Rockstar to achieve the necessary performance gain, ultimately succeeding in keeping the engine in the game (56m44s).
• This experience taught the importance of exceptional engineers in making significant achievements and earning respect for their capabilities (57m4s).
• The success of Natural Motion's Euphoria engine in GTA 4 marked the beginning of the company's growth and made everyone proud (56m55s).

Why Is Ambition a Bigger Problem Than Capital in Europe? (57m24s)

• Europe's main issue is not a lack of capital, but rather a lack of ambition, particularly among founders, which holds them back from building bigger companies that can create sovereignty in key areas (57m31s).
• There is too much capital available in Europe, especially for Series A and Series B funding, but what's missing is operational knowledge due to the relatively few startups that have become big in the region (57m50s).
• The lack of aggression and ambition among founders in Europe means it's still acceptable to build companies and sell them at a value of $100 million, which is life-changing but not what Europe needs (58m23s).
• Europe needs founders with ambition to build much bigger companies, which can be achieved by first-time founders or second- or third-time founders who have learned from their previous experiences (58m42s).
• In Europe, it's less common for founders to start a second or third company compared to the US, possibly because Europe is a nice place to retire and founders may choose not to work again (59m0s).
• To change this mindset, the founder community needs to discuss it more, and founders have a responsibility to contribute to society and help Europe become sovereign in key technologies (59m19s).
• Europe is falling behind in terms of technology, but this trend can be reversed by building companies that can scale quickly and provide a shortcut to success, as demonstrated by the founding of Helsing (59m55s).
• Europe has an advantage in terms of talent, with incredibly good engineers and a talent pool with a strong work ethic and a desire to make a difference (1h0m15s).

What Role Does US Capital Play for European Companies? (1h0m45s)

• US capital plays an important role for European companies, particularly in providing growth capital, which is lower in Europe compared to the US (1h0m56s).
• Exposure to US culture and investors is extremely useful for European companies, as it brings in a different mentality and helps them think bigger (1h1m16s).
• The injection of US mentality into European companies at the right point can be extremely helpful, as seen in the case of Helsing, which has a Europe-dominated cap table but has taken American money (1h1m44s).
• European companies can benefit from US investors' ability to think big and provide guidance on portfolio management, as experienced by the founder with Mitch Lasky from Benchmark (1h1m31s).
• Despite taking American money, Helsing remains a European company, and its cap table is still dominated by European investors (1h2m3s).
• The common narrative about Europe, particularly from the US, is a caricature that exaggerates certain elements of truth, such as the love for work-life balance and espressos (1h2m23s).
• The founder believes that the current narrative about Europe is not entirely accurate and that there is more to Europe than what is commonly perceived (1h2m26s).

Is Europe Becoming Increasingly Uncompetitive? (1h2m35s)

• Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on state subsidies and public employment, leading to a decline in competitiveness, with governments in Germany, France, and the UK contributing to this trend (1h2m41s).
• The current attitude of complaining about the situation without taking action is unproductive, and instead, people should focus on starting companies, building businesses, or getting involved in politics to create change (1h3m45s).
• Founder quality and founder ambition are crucial for a country's success, and attracting aggressive founders is more important than having the right regulatory settings or tax environment (1h4m35s).
• Europe needs companies that focus on sovereignty in areas such as energy, semiconductors, and defense, with potential solutions including conventional technologies, future technologies like fusion, and computer technologies (1h5m0s).
• While it may be challenging to create these companies in the next two to three years, it is possible to achieve sovereignty in these areas over the next five to ten years (1h5m35s).
• Pontificating about policy without taking action is unproductive, and instead, people should focus on building companies, investing in companies, and supporting founders (1h4m12s).
• The environment and regulatory settings are often overemphasized, while founder quality and ambition are more important factors in a country's success (1h4m22s).

What Will Happen To Russia-Ukraine & China-Taiwan (1h5m39s)

• In three years, it is difficult to predict what will happen with Russia and Ukraine, but there is a plausible threat to the NATO eastern flank that should be taken seriously, particularly in countries like the UK and Germany, which could learn from the Scandinavian and Baltic countries that take the threat more seriously (1h5m39s).
• The threat of Russia invading countries like Lithuania, Belarus, or Finland is a concern that needs to be addressed in the next few months and years (1h5m41s).
• The situation with China and Taiwan is also unpredictable, but a conflict is plausible and could happen sooner rather than later, with China's goal of reunification being a clear objective (1h6m20s).
• There is a general lack of awareness and preparedness for the danger of conflict, which is a concern, as people tend to avoid thinking about it due to its unpleasant nature (1h6m53s).
• The threat of conflict is not being taken seriously enough, and it is essential to acknowledge and prepare for it, despite the discomfort it may cause (1h7m9s).
• The goal of China to reunite with Taiwan is a clearly stated objective that should be taken seriously and considered a potential threat (1h6m45s).
• The unpredictability of the next few months and years makes it challenging to determine when a conflict might occur, but it is essential to be prepared and take the threats seriously (1h6m42s).

Relationship to Money (1h7m47s)

• Money can provide security, which is considered the most important thing, as not having to worry about money makes a significant difference in leading life and taking risks, especially when building a successful company (1h7m56s).
• Having financial security makes it easier to take risks, but it is not the only requirement for building a successful company (1h8m15s).
• Simple things in life can bring happiness, such as a self-made espresso, a new espresso machine, or a long walk every day, which cannot be put into a monetary value (1h8m29s).

Quick-Fire Round (1h8m37s)

• Most people believe that the environment in terms of taxation, regulation, etc., has a big impact on whether you can build successful startups in a country, but it's believed that this has a minor impact compared to attracting the right founders (1h8m44s).
• A company needs to adapt and change its structure every 12 to 18 months as it progresses at a rapid pace, requiring repeated evaluation of processes and people (1h9m13s).
• Quarterly founder off-sites have been a significant unlock for the company, providing a safe space to reflect on what's working and what isn't, and to make necessary changes (1h9m34s).
• It's believed that the idea that any decision is better than no decision is a trope, and that sometimes it's necessary to make a conscious decision not to decide on something due to a lack of information (1h10m8s).
• The concept of "work smart, not hard" is flawed, as it's necessary to do both in order to be successful, especially when competing with others who work smart and hard (1h10m50s).
• Servant leadership is not always the best approach, as founders should not be afraid to lead and provide direction, with the goal of making the company successful (1h11m1s).
• The decision was made for Helsing that the founders would lead the company and provide vision and direction, with the rest of the team serving the company to make it successful (1h11m11s).
• In the last 12 months, there has been a shift in thinking from believing that process is necessary when teams work together, to realizing that exceptional people can be trusted to get the job done without standups, predictions, or deadlines in a fast-changing environment (1h11m30s).
• In the early stages of a company, being unstructured can be the most efficient way to make progress, but eventually, structure becomes necessary (1h12m1s).
• If given the chance to work at any company for a day, the choice would be ByteDance, and the first action would be to shut down TikTok due to its addictive nature and potential for manipulation (1h12m15s).
• Social media can be compared to crack cocaine, but it can also be used positively if the content is chosen carefully, such as following protein recipes, gym workouts, and inspirational content (1h12m33s).
• TikTok is considered more dangerous than other social media platforms due to its highly tuned algorithm, making it incredibly addictive and a potential tool for manipulation (1h13m11s).
• The content that works best on social media is often the most extreme, leading to the radicalization of political views (1h13m55s).
• Twitter under Elon Musk is different, with a broader spectrum of views, but it's hard to tell if it's better (1h14m11s).
• The decision to invest in Twitter at $44 billion is uncertain, and it depends on how much one cares about the platform (1h14m39s).
• Knowing what they know now, they wish they had known that the Ukraine war was going to happen quickly, which would have led them to focus on specific systems to deal with electronic warfare and resistance (1h14m56s).
• If they had known about the impending war, they would have focused their efforts on developing systems to address the problems that arose, such as electronic warfare, GPS independence, and resilience to coms jamming (1h15m4s).
• The conflict was imminent, and priorities would have been shifted if it had been anticipated, allowing for more contributions at the beginning, but it was still possible to contribute after spooling up systems and acquiring knowledge (1h15m32s).
• A question that is not often asked is how a founder group works together, as founders are typically ambitious and have different personalities and egos (1h15m51s).
• The key to a successful founder group is mutual respect, which allows each member to find their role and contribute to the company's growth and management (1h16m26s).
• The roles within the founder group are not fixed and can shift over time, with each member chipping in and being involved in various aspects of the company, including management and scaling (1h16m49s).
• The founder group's ability to work together and respect each other's contributions is crucial to the company's success (1h17m5s).