EP06 - Execution Is The Moat: Why Science Alone Isn’t Enough

A couple of days ago, I met with Roswitha Verwer, founder of YON E, and Dr. Peter Kovacs, an investor, scientist, and clinical expert.

On the surface, we were discussing milestones, fundraising, and the realities of building a femtech company in today’s market.

But underneath that conversation was something far more important.

Execution.

Roswitha shared that her team accelerated the roadmap originally planned for a year to roughly six months. TRL progress moved faster than expected. Publications were completed. IP advanced. The prototype development was on track.

Peter, as both investor and clinician, highlighted something many miss. The real signal was not just the science. It was the team's operational strength. The cadence. The professionalism. The clarity.

That is when it became obvious again.

The real risk in science ventures is not the science.
It is the absence of systems.

Investors love science.

I get it. I love it too.

The gap nobody wants to talk about

In early-stage science companies, we often invest in potential and call it conviction.

We review the IP and the publication list.
We review the advisory board and the clinical plan.

Then we send an intro to a contract research organization and hope it goes well.

If you have been around long enough, you know what happens next.

Delays.
Vague status updates.
A founder chasing answers across time zones.
A vendor that treats your project like one of twenty.
A team that is smart, but not synchronized.
A runway that shrinks while everyone stays polite.

And the investor says, “This is just how deep tech works.”

No. This is how deep tech works when you do not build systems.

A lab can survive like that.
A venture cannot.

Discovery tolerates chaos.
Delivery demands rhythm.

A real pattern from the field

I recently listened to a founder discuss accelerating a roadmap that was supposed to take a year to roughly six months.

That is not normal in this category.

The interesting part was not the milestones. It was how they got there.

They treated communication as a core capability, not a soft skill.

They noticed friction with external partners and changed the rules. They set response expectations in the contract. They assigned clear ownership. They established a weekly cadence of calls to surface issues early. Not when a problem becomes a disaster, but when it is still small.

They trained team members, especially junior team members, to represent the company professionally. Not for image. For speed, clarity, and trust.

They measured performance. And when benchmarks were repeatedly not met, they had the conversation. Calmly. With data. Without drama.

This is the part that founders rarely post on social media. But it is the part that creates a compounding advantage.

Execution becomes a flywheel.

And for investors, it becomes a de-risked, verifiable measure of progress.

Why execution is the real moat

Moats in science are often framed in terms of defensibility.

Patents.
Trade secrets.
Unique datasets.
Clinical access.
Regulatory complexity.

All of that matters.

But I have seen something more reliable.

A team with a strong operating system can outpace a better-funded competitor with stronger science but weaker execution.

Because they convert energy into progress with less waste.

That is the real moat.
Conversion.

In sailing terms, the wind is not enough. You need a boat that can translate wind into speed, in the right direction, under changing conditions.

A company is no different.

The investor mistake: funding science, ignoring the vessel

Here is the uncomfortable truth.

Many investors are trained to evaluate ideas, not operations.

They can smell a weak market thesis.
They can challenge a valuation.
They can negotiate terms.

But when it comes to whether a team can run a tight ship, they rely on proxies.

Charisma.
Pedigree.
Confidence.
Brand.

Those proxies fail, especially in science.

Science ventures can appear slow until they suddenly accelerate.
Or they can look fast, until the first real delivery phase exposes that nothing is coordinated.

If you want to invest with fewer surprises, you have to look at the system, not just the science.

The Execution Moat: four systems that matter

I will keep this practical.

If you invest in science without checking these, you are choosing blind spots.

1) Communication system

This is not about “good communication” as a personality trait.
It is about design.

Do they have clear response expectations with external partners?
Do they run a consistent cadence across functions?
Do they have written decision notes, or do decisions dissolve into memory?
Do they escalate issues early, or do they wait until the founder feels pain?

In science ventures, a single slow vendor can kill a quarter.
A single unclear email can create weeks of drift.

Communication is not a nice-to-have.
It is a delivery system.

2) Accountability system

Accountability is not aggression.
It is clarity.

What are the benchmarks?
Who owns them?
What happens when they are missed twice?

If the answer is “we will discuss it,” you will discuss it forever.

The healthiest teams I know treat accountability as a sign of respect.
They do not leave people guessing.
They do not address the problem.
They solve it.

3) Operating rhythm

Every company has chaos. The early stage is inherently chaotic.

The question is whether chaos is information or whether chaos becomes identity.

Strong teams create rhythm in uncertainty.

Weekly executive alignment.
Functional cadences.
A clear view of what the one thing is today.
A way to zoom out and zoom in without losing the thread.

When the founder is fundraising, the operating rhythm becomes the difference between momentum and drift.

This is why I ask, early, who owns the rhythm.

4) External partner control

Science ventures live on vendors.

CROs.
Labs.
Manufacturing partners.
Regulatory consultants.
Clinical collaborators.

If you do not control vendor timelines, you do not control your company timeline.

The best founders I have seen treat external partners like extensions of the team, with explicit expectations, clear ownership, and a cadence that surfaces risks early.

This is not about being demanding.
It is about being real.

If a company needs two weeks to respond to a technical question, you do not have a partner.
You have a delay machine.

What this means for investors and capital partners

If you are a capital partner, especially in Europe, where ecosystems are fragmented, you already know the noise problem.

Too many decks.
Too many programs that claim they will open doors.
Too many people are selling services while pretending to invest.

So here is a different lens.

Stop asking only, “Is the science real?”
Start asking, “Is the system real?”

Because a real system produces predictable execution even under pressure.

And pressure is guaranteed.

Regulatory pressure.
Fundraising pressure.
Team pressure.
Market pressure.
Human pressure.

If the system holds, the company holds.

Why this matters even more for underrepresented founders

There is another layer here that investors avoid because it is uncomfortable.

Some founders do not get the benefit of the doubt.

They have to prove more, with less patience, under more skepticism.

I have seen female founders in femtech face extra friction just to get the first meeting. Once they are in the room, they often perform. The barrier is the door, not the capability.

If you are an investor who claims to care about this, your job is not to post about it.
Your job is to build a better evaluation method.

Systems are one of the fairest evaluation tools we have.

A tight operating cadence does not care about bias.
A robust vendor management system does not rely on stereotypes.
Execution is measurable.

If you want to be serious about backing underdogs, stop asking for polish and start asking for proof of the system.

A simple due diligence upgrade

Here is a practical checklist you can run in one call.

Ask the founder to walk you through:

Their weekly operating cadence.
Their vendor management rules include response times and escalation.
Their KPI system and what happens when KPIs are missed repeatedly.
How decisions are documented and communicated.
Who owns operations when the founder is fundraising?

You will quickly know whether you are looking at a boat that can cross an ocean or one that looks good at the dock.

Closing thought

The shortest route is not always the fastest.

In venture, the straight line is rare. Conditions change. The market shifts. People burn out. Funding gets delayed.

You cannot control the wind.

But you can build a vessel that keeps moving with the wind, not against it.

That is the moat.

Execution.
Systems.
Rhythm.
Truth.

If you want better outcomes in science investing, fund the science.
But do not forget to fund the system that turns science into delivery.

Otherwise, you are not investing in a company.
You are investing in a hope.

And hope is expensive.

Timecode:

00:00 Introduction and Welcome

00:21 Achievements and Progress

01:38 Lessons for Startup Founders

02:56 Building a Strong Global Team

04:44 Handling Underperformance

09:36 Future Challenges and Milestones

13:28 Fundraising Challenges for FemTech

27:36 The Importance of Value-Driven Partnerships

31:29 Conclusion and Gratitude

Links:

Karoly Szanto LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/karolyszanto1/

Karoly Szanto Personal Website: https://www.karolyszanto.com/

UniPrisma: https://uniprisma.com/

Guests:

Roswitha Verwer: https://www.linkedin.com/in/roswitha-verwer-b2b636137/

Peter M. Kovacs Personal Website:https://www.petermkovacs.com/

Transcript:

Peter M. Kovacs: Well, hi Roswitha Hi, Karoly. Thanks for accepting my invitation. I'm very happy to see you here again. We met a couple of months ago and I'm just really wondering, as is all of our audience, how did you progress in the last few months? I heard that you made a really nice achievement.

Roswitha Verwer Verwer: Yes.

Peter M. Kovacs: I just would like to hear about it and I'm asking where you are now.

Roswitha Verwer: Of course. First of all, thank you so much for inviting us, Peter. It's lovely to be here again and we're super excited to share all the amazing things that we've done with YONE and how much we accelerated. I think since you invested in us in August, we had a roadmap for this year and also next year, and I'm happy to share that we actually already achieved the majority of the roadmap for next year. That was actually done in six months. Currently, we are already in Phase 1 of TRL 4, which means that we did 2 and 3 already successfully. On top of that, we also did a second publication and it's soon going to be live with the team. It's a lot of amazing things. The IP roadmap is also accelerating and moving forward, so a lot of things are happening simultaneously. I'm really proud to have such an amazing global team that can help us with these amazing milestones.

Peter M. Kovacs: It's nice music for investors. You achieved something much earlier than expected, because usually the opposite is the most common case—that we do not achieve on time.

Roswitha Verwer: Yeah. No, I make sure that we have strong communication and all eyes are on the same road to ensure we can mitigate risk on time. I prefer that our deadlines are met before the deadline. So when something happens, we still have time to solve issues that arise. But so far nothing happened and we were able to really accelerate strong and fast.

Peter M. Kovacs: If we would like to give something as a lesson learned for other startup founders, what did you learn in the last few months during this very intense period? What can you share with other founders?

Roswitha Verwer: I think it's interesting to sometimes understand the communication internally from other companies or vendors that you're working with. I think it's important to have certain benchmarks and requirements discussed internally regarding what you would like to have. If you do, let's say, certain important laboratory testing, those reports and results are really critical for you as a company. Now, it does not always mean that the company conducting these tests is taking communication as seriously as you are. It's important to set benchmarks. For example, we noticed some friction in communication and we included certain rules in the contract for the next phase, such as requiring a response in 24 hours. That we have one designated person as a project manager that we have  weekly calls to always mitigate those risks and answer questions fast. Because The last thing we wanna  do is figure out a solution to a problem and then need two to three weeks to solve it. I think it is important to analyze what requirements you would like communication-wise and then make sure that the company or vendor you're working with is also comfortable with that.

Peter M. Kovacs: You mentioned many times that you have a very good team and good communication. How can you get this professional team, especially since you have a global team?

Roswitha Verwer: I think because of my background, I used to work a lot in the US and overseas and I'm used to working across different time zones. Communication is really important, so I like to work with individuals who can voice their opinion, are not afraid to ask critical questions during meetings, and are not afraid to actually go for our goals. I think that's one of the most important things, and that of course comes with experience. Now, not only experience is important; I think personality is also important. From the start, I implement a strong company culture that we include in policies and share with everyone that is onboarded. Of course, we also implement a three-month training period. If we see it's not working from either end, we can always separate paths or figure out another opportunity to align in vision. For me, it's company culture and alignment with vision, because experience is something a lot of people can have, but they need to fit in the team as well. We make sure to also build personal relationships. If we have the team in person, we get to know each other better. We have weekly calls with the team and with every individual from various divisions. We have separate legal calls, finance calls, medical calls, etc. Then, of course, we have our external calls. I think it's really important to have those relationships, especially when you work remotely.

Peter M. Kovacs: You mentioned in our previous discussion that you measure people's performance, which is very important. On the other hand, it's a bit tricky or difficult to manage sometimes. How can you overcome the hurdle of having what is sometimes an uncomfortable discussion with people who are not performing or are underperforming? Uh, how do, can you manage it?

Because it's very, very difficult and challenging HR leader. It is difficult leadership. 

Roswitha Verwer: I just think back on how much I would like to make this company successful. I also know how hard it was to find the right investor and I know how much hard work I put into this. When you have the opportunity to become really big and successful, I need the team to understand that. On one hand, I try to make every individual understand that they're part of something bigger and that what we're doing is really important for women's health. They need to understand the vision. On the other hand, I just separate emotions in those conversations because in that moment it's just business. When certain benchmarks and KPIs are not being met a couple of times, I automatically have a strict conversation. That's with the advisors, the operations team, even with the junior team or the social media team if it's needed. It's important because in the end, it's our message going out. We have a big responsibility and I want to make sure that the team understands and really feels that when they wake up every day to start working with YONE. It's not easy to have this conversation, especially when the individuals have many more years of experience, but that does not always mean they are in alignment with the direction of YONE. Now, when I start this conversation, I make sure I have the right facts as well so that it's never based on assumptions, because I think that can cause a lot of friction. I make sure I have the data and the stats, and I make sure they understand it. It's a calm conversation, and I try to make sure that by the end, we're both on the same page again and have the right direction to go in.

Peter M. Kovacs: This very hard work and the energy you spend makes you strong enough to have these conversations, and of course, the numbers help. I like meritocracy because numbers never lie. But on the other hand, people and personalities are different, so it's a big challenge.

Roswitha Verwer: Yes. And I think what I really like is that, besides the policies we implemented, we already started conducting training for the team on how to represent themselves, how to speak better during conversations, and how to find their voice. This is especially for the junior people in our team because certain research managers sometimes need to manage these conversations. That even goes for communication by email or by phone. I want to make sure that everyone who reaches out to a team member of YONE experiences that level of professionalism. It's important to monitor that and train where needed.

Peter M. Kovacs: You have reached a stage where your team is almost perfect.

Roswitha Verwer: I don't know if perfect is the word, but they are really, really strong. Especially what I like to hear is when companies that have existed for multiple decades work with us and tell me that our team is so professional, that we respond fast, and that we are always super hands-on. We are professional and secure with the materials, documents, and deliverables, and I noticed that with companies that are indeed much more mature and seasoned, that's often not the case. I'm proud that we already have that for a young startup.

Peter M. Kovacs: I think it was very important because many companies don't pay so much attention to PDPs (Personal Development Plans) and training. Most probably you also have good personalities, so you find each other very well. I remember how you found your team members in the past; first of all, I think you were a bit lucky because you found very good people. On the other hand, it's this selection process where you resonate very well with your key team members.

Roswitha Verwer: And even because we will onboard our Chair of Advisory in January, I made sure to include the board in that process to give them the opportunity to have separate conversations because I want to make sure the board is aligned. They need to feel the same vision rather than randomly onboarding someone, because that alone causes friction. But back to what you were mentioning, I think I'm also quite lucky with my team. I know it's not easy because we are in different time zones, but we are handling it strongly; it has never affected us that we are all remote.

Peter M. Kovacs: I think you can check the box that you reached everything you planned and even more.

Roswitha Verwer: Even more, indeed.

Peter M. Kovacs: What is the next step and what are the biggest challenges of the coming months?

Karoly Szanto: Can I ask a question before we move to the future? I'm just curious to hear how you, as a leader and a person, have developed in these busy and challenging times under pressure in the last half a year. That must have been quite a journey for you as a person.

Roswitha Verwer: I think what really changed is that I separate my emotions more where needed. Especially now when there is a lot of money on the line and when stepping into new partnerships. In the beginning, I could overthink certain conversations too much. Now it's like: No, I know what I want and I know the direction. I want to be lean with the investments and I want to make sure that we do not say "yes" to anything that's not feasible for us. I think that's one thing that I've grown a lot in. I've seen it with internal conversations too. It's hard sometimes to have difficult conversations, especially as a woman, because it's mainly men I have these conversations with, and it's not easy because I'm also a bit younger. I used to overthink that and might think about how to address it for a week to make sure there wasn't a problem. Now that is totally gone. It's business; I need to make sure that we're all on the same page. I'm happy that I definitely grew there.

Peter M. Kovacs: Returning to the topic of the next challenges and milestones, what are your next steps in the coming months?

Roswitha Verwer: The next steps involve finishing TRL 4. We are currently in Phase 1 of that. For that, we do need to focus on co-investments. We are currently raising an additional 600,000 for the co-investments. The plan is to actually close the seed round in the summer of next year because if the funding is there, we can accelerate. We can start clinical trials next year to prepare for that. That is quite exciting because if you think about starting in August, it shows how strong we are as a team. Besides that, we will continue with the IP protection, publishing more publications, focusing on the biocompatibility testing we're going to do next year, and our sensor technology developments. The first milestone will be developing our prototype, which we are currently working hard on. Closing investment is one of our biggest priorities right now and then continuing with the regulatory roadmap.

Peter M. Kovacs: So, until March is the 600,000 and in the summer is the seed round.

Roswitha Verwer: Yes. Until March, indeed, we need to close the 600,000 because that allows us to continue with our manufacturing and development partner for the sensor technology. That basically then can finalize our prototype, and then we can get ready for the first phase of clinical trials. Now we will have multiple phases in the clinical trials, but that's where the seed round comes into play.

Peter M. Kovacs: It is very difficult. I don't know how you can manage to get everything on time because you manage your team very quickly and you achieve your milestones much earlier because of your extraordinary work. You are not working just eight hours a day, but much more. It's very difficult to handle what is out of your control, which is mainly the investment part. It's hard to manage getting the funding on time to avoid having to make a short break, especially after such impressive achievements.

Roswitha Verwer: I think also because it's so hard for women founders to raise investment, I'm going to show the whole world why it's good to invest in women. It's almost a situation like: I'll prove to everyone why it's a strong decision and why we as women give a higher return on investment. Regarding investment, we of course work with UniPrisma to help us with investment outreach because I understand that it's a lot for a founder. I want to make sure that the investment we did receive is managed well—that is the number one priority—while simultaneously trying to close other investments. But that's where our achievements come in, because the conversations will be a bit easier when we have achieved our great milestones.

Peter M. Kovacs: Do you have any support within your team, or are you working with UniPrisma helping you? because you have to focus on the, on the. Human partthe managing the team and managing  the project.  do you have  any support within your team or you're working with UniPrisma they helping you for 

Roswitha Verwer: I have a really strong executive team. Legal, finance, and regulatory are amazing. The Chief Clinical Officer, Dr. Muskaan Bhan, is truly amazing. I'm really lucky to find her. Same with David, Dahn, and Matias Toye. We have weekly executive team meetings to make sure all the divisions are on the same page.  This is simultaneously with every quarter and also at the end and start of the year. With their help, I'm able to run all divisions in the same direction, and that gives me a bit more time to focus on investment readiness—preparing the packages and making sure that the runway is aligned—so that no matter when I get the call to go into investment conversations, we are ready.

Peter M. Kovacs: Karoly, how easy is it nowadays to get funding for early-stage femtech companies?

Karoly Szanto: It is difficult, definitely. Because I've been involved in so many fundraisings, I have a comparison and unfortunately, I can confirm that it's a lot more difficult to raise as a female founder. What I also discovered is that once Roswitha can get an investor meeting, she can turn it around. So I think it's clearly a prejudice. They see that it's a female startup, especially in the femtech sector, and it becomes more difficult. The other difficulty is that most of the investors active in med-tech are either very early-stage or they want to join during or after the clinical phase. We are in between. The good part is that we have already identified investors who are excited to join later, but we need them now. I think history proves over and over that the brave ones will be the ones to harvest. The brave ones who can make a bet early on will win big. Later YONE and Roswitha and the whole team—and now with you, Peter, as an investor—we will be in a much stronger negotiation position. The power will shift. Even with this progress, within half a year, it will be a totally different discussion. Now it's hard work—a lot of canceled meetings, unanswered emails, delays, and funny excuses. There are a lot of opportunistic agents appearing to be investors but turning out to be offering paid services. It's a strange experience. But the point is, traction will actually convert. Consistent work of Roswitha and team I think it becomes  measurable. As you progress, the chances are better. All in all, it's difficult to find investors who are willing to take the time to actually understand what's happening. It's also in my opinion it's a bit difficult for them to believe the speed and efficiency with which you guys are working, because it's not common. It takes effort to dig deep and ask, "Is this really happening?" Once an investor is ready to engage on that level, they could be convinced. One strong card we haven't played yet in this whole fundraising is actually having you on board, Peter, because you are not just a financial investor; you are a researcher, a scientist, and a clinical expert. Your belief is a validation, and because you are also an investor, you have skin in the game. Having you is a very strong validation and that defines what kind of potential investors we need: investors who see the value in an amazing team with an amazing investor and expert partner together with a Venture Studio. This is the best de-risked model for building a startup.

Peter M. Kovacs: In a broader question, why is it so difficult for female leaders and femtech companies to raise money?

Roswitha Verwer: That's a good question. I think it's just based on history. If you think about the work environment and all the issues that women face regarding gender inequality, it stems back to that. Many times it's also a little bit of ego because men—not all men, but they often feel superior. It's also men with each other; they just cannot believe that women can do this. But it's proven that women give double the return on investment. Because we need to work double, we really want to prove that we've got this. What I noticed in the beginning is that when I was working with David, he was one of the only males on our team. I automatically included him in meetings because I noticed that they take me much more seriously, even though I shared the exact same information. It was the exact same pitch, but just because David was there, the environment changed. It changed the whole dynamics. I realized I’m going to find a really strong advisory board, mainly men, because they can back me up in the fields they're operating in. It's just sad to see. But if you understand that, you can also make it work for you. I thought about fighting against it and only having women on the team, as certain companies are doing, but I’d rather hire on skills first and then personality. It's just a bit sad to notice that the second David came on, they immediately were sitting differently. To be honest, I don't understand the answer because I hope at one point we can find the answer and people can change it. Even though people say we need to invest in female companies and femtech, saying it is different from actually doing it. I think it's time to just start doing it. When I started with YONE in the Netherlands, they didn't even know what femtech was; they consistently confused me with fintech. Now there's a big change going on. Finally, after three and a half years, they understand what it is and would like to invest more in the innovation aspect of it. When I first started, femtech was fully new, and then I'm a female founder talking about vaginal health. That alone already starts many conversations quite uncomfortably. But here we are and I'm really happy to see that because we are so consistent in pushing the message and making sure we are being heard, there's slowly a change going on everywhere. I just hope that change will go a little bit faster for all female founders.

Peter M. Kovacs: That's interesting, especially since you are providing high value and impact. It should be identified by professional and high-value investors.

Roswitha Verwer: I think also what I've experienced a lot is because the vision is exactly the same as when I started. It's the same direction and the same go-to-market strategy. But in the beginning, people just thought I was crazy. They literally said they couldn't comprehend the vision because it was so new. Because you're a woman, you are often seen as emotional. That was sometimes mentioned in conversations and they just literally told me that this is not going to work, that it was too new and too risky.

Peter M. Kovacs: Only positives!

Roswitha Verwer: Yeah. So that was interesting to notice. But right now, we brought a lot of value into the company and that really changed. The conversations right now are much different than when we first started, and I feel like that's the same for all female founders within femtech. I hope they also experience the positive shift that is currently happening.

Karoly Szanto: I've witnessed a lot of insecurities in men during the discussions and your pitch. The first time we met, I was in a room full of an investor team and I remember you pitching them. Because I knew those people, I could feel they were insecure. It's part of you coming on with your confidence, but also your vulnerability—sharing your story. That combination of confidence and being vulnerable  It's. Either or choose your game, but it's, is difficult for men to handle. Plus, on top of that, you have a very sensitive topic. For men, I think most would either react to it as if it might be an important topic but "not for me," or even the wording makes it difficult for them. It's a cultural thing and, again, it comes down to bravery. A lot of investors say they invest in femtech or support female founders, but honestly, it's more smoke. There's a lot of talk, but show me the action. It's the same with a lot of acceleration programs because it's marketing, basically.

Roswitha Verwer: YONE won a spot in a program in the US and we were really critical regarding funding. I asked upfront to sign it on paper: "There are investors, it's going to be amazing." But we were their first European startup. We felt like they just utilized us for marketing and branding to say that they are a global accelerating program. Then you spend a lot of investment as a startup on traveling, accommodation, etc. Then you realize that on the day of pitching to supposedly a hundred investors, there are like nine people, and two of them were selling life insurance. It's interesting to see that many accelerating programs do that. At a certain point, I felt comfortable enough to say "no" when we secured a spot. The last time, I discussed it with the board and UniPrisma because I said I'd rather focus on accelerating operations than going there and not getting anything. To be honest, I don't know any startup that got investment through an accelerating program. Many times I feel like startups think you have to go this route and that it's an amazing opportunity. Of course, in the beginning, you should go for certain opportunities, but the majority of the time it feels like taking advantage of the startups for their own benefit. and that's just sad and disappointed for me  to hear.

Peter M. Kovacs: It's very hard work. I hope that Karoly and UniPrisma can help you.

Roswitha Verwer: It's like a maze almost, where we need to go, and that's where really strong advisors are a must. You really need to have a strong advisory team. 

Karoly Szanto:  Just yesterday we had a discussion about,  what would be the ideal, co-investor partner, and of course there could be many different types.

But one of the, the highlights I think was, um, what we all agreed is that we are all value driven. Yes. And that is the core. Yes. So this is the core or the foundation, like then we need to, there's a minimum requirements for us. Exactly. So for all the partners, if we are such, then we need to find partners who are also value driven.

And most of these partners are, could be, high-net-worth individuals who are angel investing because they believe in a cause. It's not a financial activity, but it's supporting a cause, not is the most important. 

Yes. Yeah, that's one. The second is family offices, but only the ones that actually follow a cause because as we discussed, most family offices are totally different than VCs.

they are, they are patient,  with the capital,  but they wanna make an impact and they wanna build a legacy. Yeah, so we, we agreed that,  we'll also scout more and build relationships more towards,  family offices because they could be also a long-term partner. So it's not so much transactional, but it's more like,  building a relationship, a meaningful partnership.

Peter m Kovacs : Right? It's very important to find the, the proper partner. And, um, I, I see that, um, turning back to this, this fem tech, uh, ar arena. I see that more and more, uh, EmTech companies, they, they are, uh, following you. And, and I think it's very important that you, you have this pioneer role that, that, that you show and it's, um, to make it a bit more affordable in the next coming startup companies.

And I know that you, you takes also special attention. You,  Give your lesson learned and your, your personal learning curve show to other companies and,  startup funders and,  I really like  your attitude because you are over busy, but you still take the time to,

And I think it is the real accelerator. So they are really, as you mentioned, there are a lot of accelerator. They're doing nothing. They organizing meetings, but no impact at all. Yeah. Still based on your busy schedule, based on your very high intense activity, you make a more accelerator activities. Yeah, in parallel.

I think it's very nice and, I think it should be also visible by other investors.  they works and,  they focusing on values that you are not just investing uni, but they are investing in and all this mindset. They're providing. And uh, for me it was also very important and that was, it's a very easy decision for me.

And that's, this was a very quick decision. I don't remember how many days or weeks, but it was quite fast. 

It was fast because  I saw this and I, I think it's so unique. And,  of course ROI is important because all of us,  we are living from, from money but it's not the number one. So, so the first one, um, the team and it's, it's very important that you have, and you especially that you have this very special attention and  I'm just more and more happy that talking with you that  how your team is evolving and because if you have this very strong business, and I see that most of the companies, they don't have it and it's one of the key reason of failures.

They don't have this very strong team. And with this strong team, you can achieve much more than anybody else. And this one is also a risk mitigation. Yes. And many investors, they also don't realize this because they are not taking the time, the energy, the effort to understand. 

Thank you guys. , I hope you can, you can close this, fundraising  in March, and the next one in summer, I will be here. So I will support that as well. 

Thank you. and I hope that, that, uh, we can, we can go forward at the same speed. Yes. And, uh, we, it'll, it could be a very nice and, um, show, uh, case study that to show to the, to the public that.

With the, with the proper partnering, with, with the professional partner, investor partners, you can achieve much more, uh, than in the current, original and conservative investment model, which is, I think should be replaced very soon. 

Roswitha Verwer: . Thank you so much, Peter, for your amazing kind words. And I think because when you mentioned that when we first met and the alignment how quick your decision was, I think one of the difference is the alignment part, right?

Because the pitch is the same. You've seen me pitching as well. It's the exact same pitch, but if people are not. Taking time to actually indeed listen or understand the vision or have the right experience and background to do so, then the alignment is not there. And then it doesn't matter how good I pitch, they just don't see it.

So thank you for, for really taking the time to also listen and do your background and also understand the strength of our branding online and how important that is. Because everything, what we're doing is also already thinking about. Our customer, our audience, and our community. So we understand the responsibility of that, and that's why I'm making sure that whatever we do is in alignment with being professional and understanding and build that relationship.

So I'm really happy that we have this alignment between each and every one of our teams. So, and thank you again for supporting us as a fem tech company and a female founder, and I hope that, uh, you can lead the example as well for future investors. 

Thank you so much. 

Thank you.