Let’s analyze this case: a startup with all the right ingredients: strong traction, a clean cap table and a buyer with strategic fit. Thanks to AI, the narrative made the pitch stronger. The board was alignment. Or so it seemed.
Then the call of perseverance came. A direct question arises: “How is it under the EU I Act?“… The founder looked at the board. A person did something about examining it.
Three days later, the buyer quietly moved away. No drama, no noise. Just a quiet departure, when no one is in charge of the table, this is the kind of such. Follow the quiet dissecting when someone is doing a clear sign that is steering.
Donor
In 2024, Europe’s Startup Ecosystem is being rewritten by AI. Alef Alpha has collected $ 500 million. Mistral hit Unicorn status under one year. Synthesia has re -shape the future of content creating. And now, the EU AI effectively effectively, the control is no longer obscure concern. It is a live parameter in every serious conversation about capital, product and risk.
In that context, the founder is moving fast. That’s not the problem. The problem is not keeping boards and buyers they walk when they notice the gap.
Silence is not confident: it is absence
In my work, I have seen boards that lack AI understanding. It’s not fatal. What is fatal is a board that doesn’t ask about it. They do not question the guess. They do not flag risk. They do not clarify whose owners. In the absence of challenges, buyers have taken the worst, not because of what is said, because not.
A buyer has kept it sharply: “If someone does not argue about it internally, they probably don’t know where it breaks.”
In deals above 30 to 50 million, the administration becomes part of the signal. Buyers read more than financial. They read the posture. When the board appears as a passive audience than the decision -making body, the contract begins to look fragile, no matter how strong the product is.
This is not about control: it’s about trust
No AI scientist is needed on your board. You need someone who can connect the product, capital and consent and who can say that quite confident enough, “This is again explained.” Most AI strategies do not fail because of overreach. They fail from lack of exams.
In a recent case, the founder has clearly talked about a new AI level. The CFO lowers the head. The board lowers the head. No one has asked how someone was trained, how it would be managed, or what would happen if it failed. The buyer noticed and decided not to find the difficult way.
I do not suggest the drama. I suggest a signal. A good board leaves a paper trail of excitement: disagreement, pushback, risk ownership. Not to block progress, but to show someone who thinks the store is.
If you are reading it before departure you are already late
- Founding: If your board is silent at the moment of entering the AI product roadmap, it is not alignment. This is exposure. Now invite friction.
- Investors: If the deck is full of AI claims, the minutes of the board are full of empty space, it is a liability, not a rock.
- Neds: Your job is not to explain the model. It is to confirm that the party is not explaining the reality very optimisticly.
- Buyers: If everything seems very clear, ask who has been allowed to say “Not“, And when they finished.
The sum: Startups do not fail because of AI. If they are failing when nobody asks what can be wrong. The powerful boards I worked with do not just approve the plan; They interrogate it. This is not to slow down, but to ensure that it survives in contact with the real world.
If your AI story is ready for the market, make sure you have the administration too. Because at the time of departure, the real risk is rarely on the slide. This is what no one says loudly.
[publish_date
