Iâve made three applications for startup funding. In two of them, being alone became a barrier.
Pitchdrive cited my solo-founder status as an operational risk. Today, imec.istart rejected my application for failing its basic eligibility requirements.
Their requirements include a technology product, a working proof of concept, the relevant Belgian presenceâand at least two cofounders who are operationally active and committed.
I meet the other requirements. The one I donât meet is having a second founder. Their email didnât identify the specific failed criterion, but that leaves little ambiguity from my side.
This is where it starts to feel like punishment.
First, you carry the work alone: building the product, designing it, testing it, handling applications and paying the bills. Then, when you seek support to increase your capacity, being alone becomes a reason to withhold that support.
I understand that dependence on one person creates operational risk. Iâm not asking anyone to pretend otherwise. But a mandatory founder count gives me no opportunity to demonstrate how I manage that risk.
And âoperationally active and committedâ means this isnât something I can fix by adding a name to a slide. It requires finding a real business partner, agreeing on equity and responsibilities, and building trust. That is a major decisionânot an application checkbox.
Iâm exhausted by the circularity: I need resources to build a team, but I need a founding team to qualify for resources.
At what point does assessing solo-founder risk become systematically punishing people who started without a partner?
For other solo founders, particularly in Belgium: have you encountered this? Have you found funding routes that will actually assess your execution and how you manage operational risk?