Pedro Santos Vieira on Risk, Capital, and the Next Generation of Startups

Starting a technology company has become possible from almost anywhere. Scaling one still exposes the asymmetries between ecosystems: fragmented markets, thinner pools of growth capital, and very different appetites for risk.

We sat down with Pedro Santos Vieira in the aftermath of Doers Summit Limassol, to discuss what founders and investors need to understand about the difficult stretch between early promise and global scale.

Twenty years ago, access to capital was often the bottleneck. Today, information, talent, and even distribution have become more global. Where do you think geography still matters most?

Geography definitely still matters. If anything, the rise of AI has brought this question back to the forefront. We constantly hear debates about whether founders need to be in Silicon Valley or the US to build a large company, and that discussion is particularly relevant in Europe today.

From what we see across CEE, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, the talent is here. Access to early-stage capital is increasingly available, and so is access to acceleration programs, mentorship, and knowledge. In many emerging ecosystems, the biggest mortality point is not company formation. It is the transition from Seed to Series A.

The gap is not only the check. It is the combination of capital, growth expertise, customer access, and investor readiness that helps a company move from a promising seed-stage startup to a credible Series A candidate.

Europe continues to discuss how it can compete with the US technology ecosystem. How do you think Europe should approach that challenge?

I think it's useful to separate the discussion into two parts.

The first is market access. The US remains a more unified market than Europe. Despite significant progress, Europe still faces fragmentation across borders, regulations, and operating environments. Initiatives aimed at reducing those frictions are important and should continue.

The second is capital availability. That is a much longer-term challenge. Several European countries have tried to create larger growth-stage funds to support companies before they feel compelled to move to the US. 

That said, matching the US dollar for dollar should not necessarily be the goal. A more practical objective is ensuring that European startups can grow to a stage where they can attract leading global investors, including top US funds, without having to relocate their teams or companies. 

Another important piece is capital formation. European venture funds still face greater difficulty accessing institutional capital from pension funds, endowments, and similar sources. Even when those pools of capital exist in Europe, they often end up being allocated to American funds.

Creating more pathways for institutional investors to support European venture funds would strengthen the ecosystem considerably.

Looking across the markets you know well, what are the patterns that distinguish ecosystems that ultimately become developed from those that remain perpetually emerging?

I'm optimistic by nature, so I don't believe any ecosystem is destined to remain permanently emerging. But there is a process that successful ecosystems tend to follow.

The first step is helping founders understand how to translate technology and science into commercial value. After producing exceptional engineers, scientists, and technically skilled graduates, what comes next is learning how to sell, build products customers will pay for, and turn innovation into companies.

As the strongest startups mature, the second challenge becomes expansion. Founders need the knowledge, networks, and experience required to enter new markets and sell internationally. The ecosystems that break out are usually the ones that build bridges from local talent to international customers and capital before founders feel forced to move elsewhere.

Eventually, successful companies generate exits. That's when the flywheel starts turning. Capital flows back into the ecosystem, but so does experience. Former founders become angel investors, mentors, and operators who help the next generation. 

Alongside that founder flywheel, there's also a capital flywheel. In many emerging ecosystems, public institutions play an important role early on by providing anchor capital that attracts private investors. Over time, successful funds mature, generate returns, and create self-sustaining investment cycles.

The final piece is regulation. Governments need to create frameworks that protect society while still allowing innovation to happen. Startup-friendly policies around stock options, company formation, fundraising, and experimentation matter enormously.

The startup world often talks about product-market fit. In your experience, are there less visible forms of fit that determine whether a company can scale?

Absolutely. In fact, before product-market fit, we spend a lot of time talking about founder-market fit, especially at the pre-seed stage.

At that point, there often isn't much of a product yet. Sometimes there's only an idea or an early prototype that will evolve significantly over time. What matters most is whether the founders are genuinely suited to solving the problem they've chosen.

For me, founder-market fit goes beyond passion. It's not enough for someone to say, "I experienced this problem myself" or "I care deeply about it." We need to see traits, skills, experiences, and capabilities that align with the challenge they're taking on. 

There's also another type of fit that doesn't get discussed enough: venture capital fit. Not every company is built for venture capital, and not every founder wants to build the kind of business venture capital is designed to support. Sometimes founders don't realize that early enough. 

The company may still become a great business, it just may not be a venture-backed business. At pre-Series A, this becomes even more important. The company needs to show not only that the founders are credible and the product is promising, but that the business can scale at the speed and magnitude venture capital requires.

Investors are also human and can have some blind spots. Are there any you've had to fight yourself?

Definitely. Venture capitalists are far from perfect, even if some occasionally behave as though they are. This is called risk capital for a reason. We know many of our decisions will be wrong. That's built into the model.

Because I invest very early and across many companies, I have the privilege of being wrong relatively often, provided I am right often enough. That's simply how venture works.

One blind spot I've seen repeatedly is founders becoming deeply attached to a problem that simply isn't large enough to support a meaningful business. Investors can fall into the same trap. They may become excited about the founders and convince themselves that the market opportunity is larger than it really is.

Sometimes investors tell themselves that strong founders will eventually pivot into a bigger opportunity. Sometimes they believe their own experience can help shape the company into something more valuable. As a result, they invest despite weak market fundamentals.

Eventually, if there isn't a real market opportunity, neither the founders nor the investors can force one into existence.

Every founder now has access to tools that can generate a convincing story about a market, a customer problem, and a path to scale. Has AI made storytelling cheaper than understanding, and if so, how are investors adapting?

AI has absolutely made storytelling easier. Founders can communicate their ideas more clearly, write better outreach messages, produce stronger pitch materials, and generally present themselves more effectively than ever before. To some extent, the same applies to investors when they're raising funds themselves.

But it’s a relevant question, whether AI is making it easier to tell a compelling story or easier to identify when the story lacks substance. I think we're seeing both.

AI can help founders open doors. It can improve cold outreach, sharpen narratives, and create stronger first impressions. But once you're in the room, the fundamentals still matter. As basic storytelling becomes cheaper, evidence becomes more valuable. The companies that stand out will be the ones that can support the narrative with customer proof, retention, revenue quality, and a clear path to the next round.

Ultimately, nothing replaces a direct conversation with a founder. At some point, investors need to understand where the conviction comes from, how deeply the founder understands the market, and whether the numbers support the narrative.

What's a question you wish more founders asked investors during fundraising?

Great question. One thing founders should spend more time understanding is how difficult it will be to raise the next round of capital after the current one. Many founders focus heavily on getting the first investment secured. They think less about what needs to happen for future investors to participate. The question I wish more founders asked is: what needs to be true 18 months from now for a strong Series A investor to lead the next round?

Fundraising is a sequence, not a single event. More broadly, the question I always want founders to answer, whether they ask it explicitly or not, is this: are there enough people in the world willing to pay a meaningful amount of money to have this problem solved?

Founders often assume they already know the answer, investors cannot afford to make that assumption.

At Doers Summit, you had the opportunity to hear perspectives from people building companies, allocating capital, and shaping policy. Where did you see alignment, and where did you see the biggest disconnects?

There is broad agreement that this region produces exceptional founders, engineers, and operators. We've already seen evidence of that through companies such as UiPath, ElevenLabs, and many others in between. 

Where I see less alignment is around risk. More specifically, I see a gap between the level of risk founders are willing to take and the level of risk investors are willing to underwrite, particularly at the Series A stage.

Many founders in Europe are pursuing opportunities that are just as ambitious as those being pursued in the United States. Yet the capital available, the valuations, and the willingness to back uncertainty often look very different.

That is visible in funding outcomes. Part of the reason American venture firms have produced so many category-defining companies is that they are often more comfortable looking wrong in the short term. They are willing to make bets that may appear irrational or premature because they are optimizing for outsized outcomes.

The best European investors are changing this, especially in AI, defense, fintech, and deep tech… but structurally, the market still rewards caution more than the US does.