Our latest Impact talks feature Sandra Golbreich, General Partner at BSV Ventures, an early-stage VC firm backed by the NATO Innovation Fund and leading investors. Sandra leads fundraising, co-investor relations, and portfolio financing, focusing on deep tech, life sciences, and critical tech across Europe. She is also dedicated to bridging European scientific innovation with venture capital, fostering collaboration between academia, industry, and government.
Sandra, thank you for being with us today! Could you share a little about your journey into venture capital and how you co-founded BSV Ventures?
Yes, of course! My journey started within the Lithuanian startup ecosystem. My co-founder and I launched the Baltic Sandbox Accelerator, which eventually led to BSV Ventures.
We had been working in the ecosystem since 2015, but in 2018, we decided to formalize our efforts by launching an accelerator. We ran several acceleration programs, investing in startups through angel syndicates. Initially, we were generalists, but over time, we shifted our focus to deep tech and healthcare.
By 2021, the transition to a venture fund felt natural. We observed geopolitical shifts in the region—this was just before the war in Ukraine—and recognized the growing need for investments addressing global challenges beyond B2B SaaS or marketplace models.
That’s when we started discussing deep tech and critical tech. Today, we manage two funds:
Our LPs include the National Promotional Bank (ILT) in Lithuania, the NATO Innovation Fund, and several private VCs and business angels from across the ecosystem.
Lately, terms like deep tech and critical tech are widely used. How would you define the difference?
Good question! First, we need to clarify what deep tech really is. Back in 2021, when we talked about deep tech, it wasn’t widely understood—today, it’s a trend, and every fund claims to invest in it.
Most funds define deep tech as investments in AI, blockchain, and similar fields. However, at BSV Ventures, we invest in true deep tech—companies with a fundamental R&D-based edge. In fact, around 70% of our portfolio consists of hardware-focused companies.
Now, critical tech is a subcategory of deep tech. It includes innovations that are essential for economic security, such as:
Unlike pure defense tech, we refer to our investments as dual-use technologies—meaning they can serve both civilian and defense applications. Critical tech spans areas like energy, fintech, aerospace, quantum computing, and life sciences, all of which contribute to national and economic security.
You mentioned geopolitical challenges. How does critical tech influence a country’s independence?
Owning critical technologies is key to geopolitical and economic independence. When we started raising funds in 2021, we emphasized that small nations like those in the Baltics must own their technologies rather than rely on external suppliers.
If a crisis occurs—whether political, economic, or military—countries with their own technological assets hold leverage. Instead of depending on external allies for support, they can become technology providers and ensure long-term resilience.
This is precisely why NATO invested in us. Their focus isn’t just on defense but on securing Europe’s technological future.
Your portfolio has grown significantly, doubling from 30 to 60 startups in just 18 months. How do you maintain a hands-on approach while scaling?
We primarily invest in pre-seed startups, providing their first ticket. Many of our founders don’t even see themselves as entrepreneurs—95% of them have strong academic ties or originate from research institutions.
Scaling deep tech startups requires:
Bridging academia and venture capital – Many scientists lack business knowledge, so we guide them through commercialization.
Longer time-to-market cycles – Deep tech often takes years to develop, unlike SaaS businesses.
Strong co-investor partnerships – We rarely invest alone. In our pre-seed fund, 70% of the capital in our deals comes from co-investors.
Since most of your investments come from academic institutions, how did you build relationships with universities?
It took years to break the ice. European academia often views business as "commercializing science"—a cultural mindset that makes collaboration difficult.
Key challenges include:
Fragmented technology transfer policies – Every university operates differently, with no standardized process for spinning out startups.
Lack of entrepreneurship education – Scientists aren’t trained to commercialize their research.
Risk aversion – Universities don’t operate like venture capitalists, making it harder for them to take calculated risks.
However, we’ve made progress by:
Running education programs & hackathons to introduce founders to venture capital.
Connecting universities with each other to share best practices.
Working with tech transfer offices to improve startup spin-outs.
Some VCs prefer investing in marketplaces and SaaS because they seem less risky. What’s your take on that?
Actually, deep tech is often less risky because its value is rooted in hard assets, such as intellectual property and patents.
If a SaaS startup fails, its market share has no resale value.
If a deep tech startup exits, its IP can be acquired, making it a viable investment even at an early stage.
This makes deep tech more defensible and sustainable, especially in life sciences, quantum computing, and aerospace.
Looking ahead, how do you see critical tech evolving in Europe?
Europe must stop exporting its best technologies to the US and other regions. Too often, European deep tech startups relocate to the US due to a lack of early-stage funding.
Our mission at BSV Ventures is to:
Keep innovation in Europe
Build critical tech leadership
Strengthen Europe’s strategic independence
By backing scientific breakthroughs and providing the right commercialization tools, we can turn deep tech into Europe’s next competitive advantage.
