An interesting perspective from someone like me, who runs an accelerator, is that I think we need to be very honest with ourselves about what type of team value proposition, business model and competitive advantage a venture has. If they do check a certain number of boxes, they will get capital. The next tier where they're missing one of those factors is where accelerators like us come in.
You don't want to disrupt a company that is already on its pathway, but if a company can't quite get it, let's be honest: What do we need to have them show to really recommend that government programs lean in and make those investments that will have a higher probability of success? We do a lot of work with our programming to weed out who really has those boxes checked. Remember, regardless of what company you look at that's successful, they're going to pivot along the way. They're going to learn on the way. There's no perfection. But if we have platforms that are rigorous, that are market-, data- and problem-driven, then I think the supports that follow will align with that.
Certainly on the project funding side, that's a little trickier. I would say that the investment needs to be more on domestic adoption opportunities. Those companies that have a perceived valley of death will win through procurement efforts, as opposed to having to worry as much about the venture side. It's a two-sided marketplace.