Government Grants Directory: €500k+ in Free Money for Startups | Ultimate Guide For Startups

TL;DR: Government Grants Directory: €500k+ in Free Money for Startups

Table of Contents

Government Grants Directory: €500k+ in Free Money for Startups shows you how to find large non-dilutive funding, protect your equity, and avoid wasting months on grants that do not fit your startup.

• What you get: a founder-focused map of public funding above €500k, with strong attention on Europe, deeptech, healthtech, climate, industrial tech, and research-heavy startups.

• Why it matters to you: big grants can pay for R&D, pilots, hiring, hardware, regulatory work, and market entry without giving away shares. The article also explains that headline announcements are not the same as direct startup cash.

• What to check before applying: your startup needs proof, a clear project plan, budget logic, policy fit, and the team to handle reporting. If you are too early or too vague, you will likely lose time and get rejected.

• What funding paths to watch: the guide points to routes such as the From Lab to Market Challenge, France Health Innovation 2030, France 2030-linked sector calls, R&D tax reimbursement, and mission-led programs hidden inside public-private ecosystems.

It also gives you a step-by-step grant application process, common founder mistakes, stage-based grant strategy, and a 4-week action plan so you can treat grants as part of a funding mix, not as random “free money.” If you want country-specific options, check these guides to startup grants in France or government grants in Germany. Read the full guide and shortlist your top 3 grant fits this week.

Check out startup news that you might like:

Shopify News | June, 2026 (STARTUP EDITION)

When the grant spreadsheet says €500k available and suddenly your startup’s five-year roadmap includes chairs that match. Unsplash

Government Grants Directory: €500k+ in Free Money for Startups is not fantasy funding, and for the right founder it can become a real non-dilutive capital path that protects equity, extends runway, and buys time for product proof. For startups, these grants sit in a very different bucket from venture capital, bank debt, or angel money because you do not give away shares and you usually do not start with repayment pressure. That matters a lot when your product is technical, your sales cycle is slow, or your market needs evidence before customers buy.

I am writing this from the point of view of Violetta Bonenkamp, also known as Mean CEO, a female founder from Europe who has built across deeptech, edtech, IP tech, no-code systems, and startup tooling. My bias is clear. I like founders keeping control for longer. I also like money that comes with discipline. Grants can do both, but only if you stop treating them like lottery tickets and start treating them like a structured growth instrument.

What is this guide really about? It is a practical map for finding, judging, and going after public funding opportunities of €500k and above, with a focus on Europe and founder reality. You will see where these programs usually sit, who they are built for, what the hidden filters are, and how to avoid wasting three months on a bad-fit application.

Why this matters for startups: big grants can finance R&D, pilots, hiring, regulatory work, hardware, data, and market entry without immediate dilution. Unlike equity rounds, grant programs often reward technical depth, policy fit, consortium building, and public value. That gives an edge to founders who can think beyond pitch deck theater and show real substance.

Key takeaway

How government grants of €500k+ affect startup growth, timing, and founder control
How to judge if your startup is truly grant-ready before you apply
Which large public funding sources are worth tracking right now
Which mistakes kill applications long before the reviewer reaches page three
Which frameworks serious founders use to turn grants into assets, not admin theater

Why do €500k+ government grants matter so much for startups right now?

The challenge is simple. Startups need cash before certainty. Deeptech, healthtech, climate, materials, industrial software, data infrastructure, and regulated products all need time, proof, and expensive work before private investors feel comfortable. Founders often get trapped between a tiny pre-seed round and a giant technical to-do list.

That funding gap is where large public grants can change the game. Recent reporting points to programs and public-backed funding streams at serious scale. The From Lab to Market Challenge has supported more than 70 startups in its support program, and those startups have raised over €250 million in funding. France’s Health Innovation 2030 plan is a €7 billion push into biomedical research capacity and future healthcare. Reuters also reported that France attracted $108 billion in foreign investment linked to the Choose France summit, with state-backed positioning around AI, data centres, semiconductors, and industrial growth.

Here is why founders should pay attention. Public money often follows political missions. Those missions create procurement demand, pilot demand, lab demand, and co-funding demand. If your startup sits inside one of those missions, you are no longer begging for interest. You are fitting into a budget line.

Limited cash: grants can fund expensive proof work before revenue catches up
Equity protection: non-dilutive capital lets founders keep more ownership
Credibility: winning a major grant signals that reviewers believed the technical and commercial logic
Follow-on capital: grants often make angels, VCs, and corporate partners more comfortable
Mission fit: many public calls are tied to sectors governments want to accelerate

If you are building lean and want to avoid early overfunding, pair this grant logic with a disciplined bootstrapping strategy in Europe. The strongest founders I know do not worship one funding source. They stack revenue, grants, partnerships, and only then outside equity if needed.

What counts as a €500k+ government grant for startups?

A government grant in this context means public money allocated by a national government, regional authority, EU-linked mechanism, public agency, public-private challenge, or mission program where the startup receives funding for a project without giving away equity. Sometimes the startup gets the full grant directly. Sometimes the money sits inside a consortium, challenge, accelerator, innovation voucher structure, or matched-funding model.

Founders often confuse four very different things, and that confusion creates bad applications.

Grant: non-dilutive money for approved project activity
Subsidy: broader public support, often linked to a policy area
Tax credit: reimbursement or reduction linked to R&D spending, not cash up front in the same way
Investment pledge: not the same as a startup grant, even if public actors helped attract it

This distinction matters because many headlines mix these categories. A founder reads “billions announced,” then assumes there is a direct grant waiting online. Usually there is not. There is a policy umbrella, then agencies, then calls, then rules, then a very specific fit test.

Which €500k+ public funding sources should founders track first?

Let’s break it down. Below is a practical directory-style shortlist based on the provided source set, plus founder interpretation. Some entries are direct startup-facing paths, and some are umbrella programs or public-backed channels that signal where large startup funding is concentrated.

1. From Lab to Market Challenge

What it is: a challenge and startup support route linked to chemistry and science commercialization, highlighted by CHEManager.

Why founders should care: the source states that the broader startup support program has backed 70+ startups which together raised more than €250 million. That tells you this is not a hobby program. It sits close to real commercialization and research transfer.

Best fit: science-based startups, chemistry, advanced materials, industrial tech, green chemistry, university spinouts, and founders with lab-origin IP.

What to watch: programs like this often reward technical novelty, validation path, and consortium logic more than flashy growth claims.

2. France Health Innovation 2030

What it is: a large French public plan reported by BioSpace as a €7 billion initiative focused on healthcare innovation and sovereignty.

Why founders should care: a program at this scale creates grants, calls, procurement windows, public-private projects, and spinout opportunities for years. Even if your startup is not based in France yet, sector-level funding concentration changes partnership routes across Europe.

Best fit: biotech, medtech, diagnostics, digital health, biomedical tools, manufacturing platforms for healthcare, and research-heavy startups.

What to watch: heavy regulation, long timelines, and the need for clinical or scientific credibility from day one.

3. France 2030 and Choose France linked opportunities

What it is: a broader industrial and technology push that shows up through investment announcements, sector programs, and public positioning. Reuters and Global Banking & Finance Review both connect the Choose France summit to sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, space, and data centres, while referencing France 2030 strengths.

Why founders should care: giant national missions create spillover opportunities. Even when the headline number is not a direct startup grant, it often points to downstream calls, pilot projects, regional funding, and public support mechanisms.

Best fit: startups in sovereign tech, compute, infrastructure software, industrial decarbonization, energy systems, semiconductors, robotics, and AI tooling with public-interest positioning.

What to watch: do not confuse headline investment pledges with easy startup cash. You still need the right agency, the right call, and the right legal setup.

4. R&D tax reimbursement routes in France

What it is: France offers one of Europe’s more generous R&D tax incentive structures, with reporting noting reimbursement of up to 30% of research expenditure up to €100 million.

Why founders should care: it is not the same as a grant, but for some startups it acts like large-scale non-dilutive support when combined with grants, pilot funding, and regional programs.

Best fit: startups with genuine R&D spend, technical staff, prototypes, pilot installations, and strong accounting discipline.

What to watch: this is documentation-heavy and usually less useful for idea-stage founders with almost no real technical expenditure.

5. Mission-led public startup programs around green chemistry and industrial science

What it is: support structures around ecosystems such as GreenChem and university-linked venture labs, mentioned in the CHEManager source.

Why founders should care: large grants often do not appear first as a public listicle. They appear through ecosystems, venture labs, transfer offices, and themed challenge routes. If you wait for a simple “free money” page, you are already late.

Best fit: founders close to research, prototyping, university partnerships, and industrial adoption.

6. Sector-specific EU and national calls hidden behind umbrella narratives

What it is: health, agrifood, protein, manufacturing, circular economy, data, and industrial climate calls that surface in trade reporting before founders see the actual application route.

AgFunderNews, for example, reports public backing such as EU backing for single-cell protein scale-up, which signals that sector programs can support large commercialization jumps. It also notes that Innovafeed’s cumulative funding including grants has gone over $500 million including grants, a useful reminder that public money often sits quietly inside giant cap tables.

Best fit: founders in foodtech, industrial biotech, climate tech, and manufacturing-heavy categories.

How do you know if your startup is actually grant-ready?

Most founders are not rejected because they are bad. They are rejected because they are early, vague, or misaligned. In my own work across deeptech and startup education, I have seen one pattern again and again. Founders think enthusiasm can replace structure. It cannot.

Grant-ready does not mean “we need money.” It means you can prove, on paper and in budget logic, that public money can accelerate something the program already wants to fund.

Problem clarity: can you define the real technical or market problem in one paragraph
Project logic: can you break the work into work packages, deliverables, timeline, and budget
Evidence: do you have pilot data, lab proof, interviews, letters of interest, or early revenue
Team credibility: do reviewers believe your team can actually deliver the project
Policy fit: can you match your startup to the call language without forcing it
Admin stamina: can you handle forms, annexes, reporting, and audit trails

Here is my blunt view. A weak founder uses grant money to hide from the market. A strong founder uses grant money to buy time for hard proof. That difference changes the whole application.

If you are still deciding where in Europe to build and apply from, review this startup setup country guide. Jurisdiction changes grant access, tax treatment, hiring cost, and co-funding rules.

What are the core concepts founders must understand before applying?

Grant fit

Definition: grant fit means the overlap between your startup’s work and the exact goals, timing, and rules of a public funding call.

Why it matters for startups: reviewers are not scoring your startup in the abstract. They are scoring fit against a framed public objective. If the call is about industrial decarbonization and your startup is a general analytics tool, you need a real sector case, not a copywriting trick.

Real-world example: a CAD or industrial compliance startup like the kind I built around IP and engineering workflows may fit a manufacturing digitization or traceability call better than a generic SaaS growth program.

Related terms: eligibility, thematic priority, call scope, consortium logic, mission alignment.

Non-dilutive capital

Definition: money that finances the company without taking founder equity.

Why it matters for startups: if you can fund product proof with grants first, your next equity round may happen at a better valuation and with less desperation.

Real-world example: a female founder building a health or industrial startup may combine prototype grants, tax credits, and pilot customers before opening a priced equity round.

Related terms: equity, dilution, public funding, matched funding, reimbursement.

Consortium

Definition: a group of organizations applying together for a shared project, often including startups, universities, corporates, labs, hospitals, or municipalities.

Why it matters for startups: many large grants above €500k are easier to access through consortia than as solo startup applications.

Real-world example: a medtech startup may join a hospital, a university lab, and a manufacturing partner to qualify for a bigger health funding route.

Related terms: project partner, lead applicant, subcontractor, work package, dissemination.

Co-funding

Definition: the share of project cost that the startup or partners must finance themselves.

Why it matters for startups: founders often celebrate a big grant number and ignore that they still need cash, people, or in-kind contributions to cover the rest.

Real-world example: a €1 million project with 70% public coverage still leaves €300k to find elsewhere.

Related terms: matched funding, eligible costs, own contribution, cash flow gap.

How should a startup apply for €500k+ grants step by step?

Next steps. Treat the process like a strategic campaign, not a document dump.

Phase 1: Assessment and planning

Step 1. Audit your current state

List your current technical assets, pilot data, IP, and market proof
Check legal entity status, country, ownership, and eligibility
Identify which part of the business needs grant money most
Review public calls your competitors or peers have won

Step 2. Define the grant thesis

Name the exact project you want funded
State the public value, not only the company benefit
Set a budget range and co-funding reality
Choose between solo application, consortium, or challenge route

Step 3. Build internal commitment

Assign one owner for the application process
Block calendar time for technical writing and annexes
Decide who owns budgets, partner relations, and evidence gathering
Set a kill rule for bad-fit calls so the team does not waste weeks

Tools for this phase: Notion or Airtable for call tracking, a spreadsheet for cost logic, and a document folder with version control for annexes and evidence.

Phase 2: Foundation building

Step 4. Choose the right funding route

Direct startup grant
Challenge program
Consortium call
Regional innovation agency route
Tax credit plus smaller grant stack

Step 5. Build the project architecture

Break the project into work packages
Assign budget to each work package
Link every cost to an output and a result
Create a timeline with dependencies and review points
Prepare risk table and mitigation actions

Step 6. Build proof

Letters of intent from customers or pilot partners
Technical validation data
Team bios with domain credibility
IP ownership clarification
Any prior public support or accelerator track record

Phase 3: Submission and follow-through

Step 7. Write for reviewers, not for yourself

Use the language of the call
Answer the score criteria in the order they are scored
Make each claim provable
Cut slogans and vague market hype

Step 8. Run a hostile review

Ask someone outside the company to attack the application
Test whether the budget matches the narrative
Check whether the reviewer can understand the project in ten minutes
Fix contradictions before submission

Step 9. Prepare for due diligence and reporting

Set document storage rules
Track timesheets if required
Prepare invoice and cost evidence discipline
Assign a reporting owner before the grant starts

This is where many founders fail. They act as if winning the grant is the finish line. It is the start of a compliance relationship. I built in areas like blockchain, IP, and education systems, and I learned this the hard way. Protection and compliance should be invisible inside workflows. If you bolt them on later, your team bleeds time.

Which best practices actually work in 2026?

1. Match the call to the project, not the project to the cash

What it is: only apply when the project naturally belongs inside the funding objective.

Why it works: reviewers can smell forced fit. Public programs reward coherence.

Pick three top calls only
Map each score criterion to evidence you already have
Drop any call where the fit feels stretched

Common pitfall: chasing every open call because cash feels urgent.

How to avoid it: create a one-page fit scorecard with sector, stage, country, consortium need, and budget logic.

Metrics to track: application-to-shortlist rate, time spent per application, fit score.

2. Build proof before prose

What it is: gather letters, pilot results, technical diagrams, and customer evidence before you write the narrative.

Why it works: evidence makes claims believable and sharpens the proposal.

Collect all proof in one folder
Tag each proof item to a review criterion
Write only after the evidence map is complete

Common pitfall: founders write polished pages and then scramble for proof.

How to avoid it: no section gets written unless at least one piece of proof supports it.

Metrics to track: proof items per criterion, reviewer questions after submission, annex completeness.

3. Treat grants as part of a funding stack

What it is: combine grants with revenue, angel money, tax credits, paid pilots, or founder capital.

Why it works: very large projects often need co-funding and working capital. Grants rarely solve cash flow alone.

Model the project cash needs by month
Separate reimbursed costs from upfront costs
Secure a backup source before the project starts

Common pitfall: celebrating an award and then struggling to finance delivery.

How to avoid it: build a parallel financing plan before signing.

Metrics to track: months of runway, co-funding gap, reimbursement lag.

4. Use grants to create permanent assets

What it is: use public funding to build things that outlive the project, such as data sets, prototypes, patents, compliance files, customer references, and distribution partners.

Why it works: the smartest founders do not just complete the project. They exit the grant with stronger defensibility.

Define which assets must exist at project end
Assign ownership and storage early
Turn outputs into follow-on fundraising or sales material

Common pitfall: treating grant activity like a side quest disconnected from the business.

How to avoid it: each work package should create either proof, IP, market access, or internal know-how.

Metrics to track: pilot conversions, new IP filings, follow-on funding, partner retention.

What mistakes do founders make with big public grants?

Mistake 1: Confusing publicity with accessibility

Why founders make it: giant announcement numbers trigger FOMO. A €7 billion plan sounds like instant opportunity.

The impact: teams chase headlines instead of real calls and waste weeks on dead ends.

Trace the actual implementing agency
Read the eligibility text before celebrating
Check if the route is direct, consortium-based, or indirect

If you already did this: convert the headline into a call-mapping exercise and identify downstream programs, labs, clusters, and agency pages.

Mistake 2: Applying too early

Why founders make it: they need money before they have evidence.

The impact: rejection, weak reviewer trust, and founder burnout.

Get proof first, even if small
Run customer interviews or pilots before the big call
Use smaller support routes to prepare for larger grants

If you already did this: request feedback, rebuild the evidence base, and reapply only when the project is sharper.

Mistake 3: Ignoring women-specific structural barriers

Why founders make it: ecosystems love pretending capital is neutral. It is not. Networks, introductions, technical confidence signaling, and who gets read as “grant-worthy” all matter.

The impact: strong women founders often under-apply, under-budget, or self-censor before review.

Build reviewer-friendly proof, not just passion
Find funding partners and ecosystems that understand founder bias
Use women-focused support structures where useful

I have said this for years: women do not need more inspiration, they need infrastructure. If that is your context, this guide on female founders in Europe gives a broader funding and growth perspective, and founders in a smaller EU market may also benefit from this piece on women entrepreneurs in Malta.

Mistake 4: Underestimating reporting and compliance

Why founders make it: they think only about winning.

The impact: messy reporting, rejected cost claims, delayed payments, and team frustration.

Build document discipline from day one
Track time and costs exactly as the grant requires
Assign one internal owner for reporting

If you already did this: rebuild the audit trail immediately and ask the grant manager what can still be fixed.

How should startups measure grant success beyond “we got funded”?

Winning the grant is a vanity milestone if nothing durable comes out of it. Founders need a grant dashboard that tracks business effect, not just project administration.

Foundational metrics to track first

Application success rate
Time spent per successful application
Grant amount awarded
Cash received versus cash promised
Co-funding requirement
Runway extension in months
Number of pilots, prototypes, or technical proofs created

Advanced metrics to add after three months

Follow-on private capital unlocked
New customers or public-sector partners gained
IP assets created or strengthened
Hiring made possible by grant support
Regulatory progress achieved
Revenue linked to grant-funded outputs

What should your dashboard include?

Monthly cash effect
Project progress against work packages
Proof assets produced
Partner commitments and deadlines
Reporting obligations and payment timing

If you are a solo or lean founder, keep this simple. A spreadsheet and strict weekly review can beat a fancy system nobody maintains.

How does the grant strategy change by startup stage?

Pre-seed and seed stage

Your reality: limited time, limited people, and very uneven evidence.

Go after smaller proof-building routes first, unless you already have research-grade validation
Focus on direct relevance and simple budgets
Use grants to build assets that improve your next round or first sales

What to prioritize: validation, prototype proof, pilot access, and technical credibility.

What can wait: giant consortium efforts that eat your whole quarter.

Success looks like: one funded project that creates undeniable proof.

Series A stage

Your reality: product is gaining shape, hiring is real, and pressure to grow is rising.

Use grants to fund R&D, market expansion pilots, compliance work, or sector-specific proof
Stack public money with customer revenue and equity
Consider consortium routes if they unlock larger contracts or strategic partners

What to prioritize: projects that remove commercial blockers.

What can wait: prestige applications with weak business relevance.

Success looks like: faster market entry with less dilution.

Series B and beyond

Your reality: the company has more proof, more complexity, and more to lose from bad admin.

Use public funding for major technical programs, international pilots, manufacturing scale-up, or strategic sector positioning
Build an internal public funding function or external specialist support
Focus on programs that create market access and policy advantage

What to prioritize: large mission-linked projects with long-term asset value.

What can wait: small grants that distract the team.

Success looks like: public money becoming a repeatable growth channel.

What is a realistic 4-week action plan for founders?

Week 1: Research and fit check

List 10 public funding routes in your sector and geography
Shortlist 3 based on real fit
Review past winners and project themes
Check your legal and eligibility status

Week 2: Proof and project design

Collect all proof assets in one folder
Draft project scope, timeline, and budget
Contact possible partners if a consortium is needed
Estimate co-funding and cash timing

Week 3: Narrative and review

Write the application against scoring criteria
Fill gaps in evidence
Run an external review
Fix weak claims and budget contradictions

Week 4: Submit and prepare delivery

Submit with all annexes checked
Set up reporting folders and cost tracking
Plan the first 90 days if awarded
Prepare backup funding if the project needs upfront cash

If you are in a smaller ecosystem and want a tighter, more controlled startup path before chasing giant grants, this guide to bootstrapping in Malta is a useful counterweight. Grants are powerful, but they should support founder discipline, not replace it.

Glossary of grant terms founders should know

Non-dilutive funding: money that does not require giving away company shares.

Eligible costs: expenses the program allows you to claim under its rules.

Consortium: a group of organizations applying together for one project.

Co-funding: the part of project cost not covered by the grant.

Work package: a defined block of project activity with tasks, budget, and outputs.

Reimbursement model: a structure where you spend first and claim money back later.

Call for proposals: the official document inviting applications under a public funding program.

Key takeaways founders should remember

€500k+ government grants are real, but they are rarely simple and almost never random.
The best founders do not chase headlines. They trace the actual call, agency, rules, and fit.
Grant readiness is about proof and structure, not passion and big adjectives.
Large public funding works best as part of a capital stack with revenue, pilots, tax support, and sometimes equity.
The biggest win is not the grant itself. It is the asset base you create after the money is gone.

My closing view is simple. Founders who ignore public funding leave money on the table. Founders who depend on it blindly become bureaucrats with a logo. The sweet spot sits in the middle. Use grants to finance proof, build defensibility, and keep control long enough to make stronger decisions. That is how free money stops being a fantasy and starts becoming strategy.

FAQ

How long does it usually take to secure a €500k+ startup grant?

Large government grants rarely move fast. From scouting to submission to contract, six to twelve months is normal, especially for EU or consortium programs. Founders should plan for delays, build a cash buffer, and treat grant funding as a parallel track, not immediate operating capital.

Should a startup hire a grant writer or build the application internally?

If the project is technically complex, use a hybrid model. Keep strategy, technical truth, and budget ownership in-house, then bring in an external specialist for structure and review. Outsourcing everything usually weakens authenticity and makes reporting harder after approval.

What documents should founders prepare before they start applying?

Prepare a clean data room: company registration papers, cap table, financials, technical roadmap, team bios, IP status, pilot evidence, customer letters, and project budget. Strong applications move faster when the evidence already exists instead of being assembled during deadline week.

Are €500k+ grants better for deeptech than for SaaS startups?

Usually yes, because public funders often prioritize R&D intensity, industrial relevance, and strategic missions. Deeptech, biotech, climate, materials, and regulated products usually fit better than generic software. For broader ecosystem context, review the European Startup Playbook.

Can founders combine big grants with VC money or angel investment?

Yes, in many cases they can. But check state-aid limits, co-funding rules, and whether investor money affects eligibility. The smart move is to model grants, equity, and revenue together so the company avoids a reimbursement gap or conflicting funding conditions later.

How can startups reduce the risk of winning a grant and still not getting paid?

Do due diligence on the program operator, contract flow, and payment structure before celebrating. Consortium-heavy schemes can carry hidden risk. Founders should keep backup financing and study cases like EIT funding delays before relying on promised disbursements.

What makes a €500k+ government grant application look weak to reviewers?

Weak applications are usually too vague, too commercial, or too detached from the call language. Reviewers want measurable outcomes, realistic budgets, milestones, and policy fit. If a startup cannot explain why public money is necessary, the proposal usually feels forced.

Is it smarter to apply nationally first or go straight to EU-level grants?

For most early-stage founders, national or regional routes are the better first step. They are often simpler, faster, and easier to validate against. EU-level grants make more sense once the startup has proof, partners, and enough operational maturity to survive compliance.

Which countries are especially worth watching for large startup grant opportunities?

France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain remain important because they combine national schemes, sector missions, and regional support. Founders should track not only flagship programs but also local agencies and tax incentives. Country-specific grant pages often reveal more usable opportunities than big headlines.

What should a founder do in the first 30 days after receiving grant approval?

Set up reporting systems immediately: cost tracking, timesheets, partner responsibilities, milestone calendar, and document storage. Then convert the funded project into business assets such as pilots, IP, validation data, and customer references. The goal is not just compliance, but stronger fundraising and sales later.

Violetta Bonenkamp

Violetta Bonenkamp, also known as Mean CEO, is a female entrepreneur and an experienced startup founder, bootstrapping her startups. She has an impressive educational background including an MBA and four other higher education degrees. She has over 20 years of work experience across multiple countries, including 10 years as a solopreneur and serial entrepreneur. Throughout her startup experience she has applied for multiple startup grants at the EU level, in the Netherlands and Malta, and her startups received quite a few of those. She’s been living, studying and working in many countries around the globe and her extensive multicultural experience has influenced her immensely. Constantly learning new things, like AI, SEO, zero code, code, etc. and scaling her businesses through smart systems.

Government Grants Directory: €500k+ in Free Money for Startups | Ultimate Guide For Startups | 2026 EDITION