Backlog

Next up

In Progress

Done

Main Roadmap

Many companies started by entrepreneurs who celebrate supporting entrepreneurship are corporates 2 layers below. The CEOs &amp; Founders might not realize how their recently grown organizations with VPs &amp; Directors etc are scared of doing decisions AND scared of buying from startups.Sure, startups should go abroad quickly and get customers from US etc. But why is Sweden doing so well? Partly because their internal ecosystem is better from this perspective. Companies buy more from startups, rather than scarily ask for GDPR-compliancy, SOC2 certificates, proof of having existed for 3y+ etc.A culture change is needed! If we want to get the ecosystem actually grow, let’s focus on providing opportunities for startups to help our scaleups and corporates. It starts from encouraging the decision makers: 1) Founders &amp; C-level, 2) VPs, Directors and the “Corporate-people”, to buy from startups, give the right to use the logo, and prove their value. If the startup service is shit, so be it, make sure to have the right to cancel at any point! But many times it may be surprisingly good and actually solve problems at a fraction of the price of an established alternative.If we get 100 companies to try out services of 5 small startups each to solve their problems, we unleash the potential of 500 case studies that can easily lead to a total new customer count of 5000 for these small companies. Small way to contribute to a massive potential opportunity. No charity, pure business, win win win.

In Review

From celebrating funding to celebrating having customers - via culture change

hidden

Start-ups can rarely attract talent with high salaries so giving out shares and stock options as part of the compensation is vital. However, the taxation regulations for this are extremely complicated, and more importantly, they do not seem to accept that most start-ups fail and the shares and stock options are worth nothing. Even if there is a successful funding round with a valuation, that does not mean that the shares/options are really worth that amount as there is no market to sell them and the likelihood of their value ending up at zero is still high. These are facts that should be taken into consideration in taxation. Ideally, taxes should be payable only when the shares are sold, or at least when there is a reasonable certainty that the company will survive. In the set-up where shares/options are taxed as income, it should be at least possible to claim the paid taxes back if the company ends up going bankrupt. This is just common sense as the recipient has not benefited financially from these shares/options at all and they have still paid taxes for them.

Shares and stock options as part of compensation package

The bureaucracy related to setting up option programs and managing them, as well as paying taxes, is a massive blocker for companies to set up programs as well as getting world class talent. The requirements from Oy-perspective are crazy, and simply the setup and registration tends to require lawyer help. I don’t see any reason why this should be massively more complex than paying salaries. The reason of course lies in the share ownership challenges and treatment of those, but maybe that could be massively simplified.Also, the taxation of calling options is ludicrous at minimum. It’s fine to pay taxes once you get some money out of them, but paying for example 10k cash for option taxes while getting an imaginary benefit of 20k now is stupid. Getting that 20k in cash might take easily 5-10 years in the typical setup of growth company lifecycles, and even then it is massively uncertain. Proposals:<ul><li>simpler and thus easier setup and registration requirements for option programs</li></ul><ul><li>separate taxation from calling the options</li><li>link taxation only to actually receiving money from the options (or in the event of IPO, tie the tax result to that)</li></ul>

Setting up options is funnily complex and expensive - it should be as easy as paying salaries

Startups require fuel for growth. One essential part of the fuel is private funding. Compared to US startups, their European counterparts raise much less funding. This means the startups in the EU and Finland are competing against better-funded competitors. We should look into tax incentives that increase the available capital for startups. The US has the QSBS system, and the UK has SEIS. Could this be implemented in the Finnish tax system?

Tax-incentives for investing in startups

It is concerning that in an already difficult economic environment, Finland is deciding to end or suspend instruments (like NIY) that were specifically designed to support growth and internationalization. In times like these, is this really where cuts should be made, from the tools that drive innovation and long-term economic growth? Perhaps this is an issue where the Finnish Startup Community could raise its voice even more strongly?

Cutting Public Innovation Funding

Few immigrants selected for volunteering leadership roles especially team leads, leadership paid positions, founders and grants like the startup foundation while many are applying like I did many times, especially Arabs which is raising a worry about islamophobic environments, could you please raise awareness about this topic?

Biased selection processes

In Denmark, companies are very dynamic in hiring. Companies can hire for any need and see how the person performs, 6 months, 1 year, etc. Then if the relationship is not valuable anymore, company might have changed course, strategy changed, it’s easy to fire. Not having the flexibility to fire makes Finland a very stagnant country. It also leads to the problem that we have much fewer jobs open, so much fewer chances of making great employer - employee matches happen. Also for the employees, it’s much better to be in a place where they can make a valuable contribution rather than staying at a company just because it’s difficult to find a new job and because it’s difficult to fire them.

Our employment market is too stagnant.

Why there are only few business incubator environments in Finland? There are many in Sweden.

Business incubators

Hi, Thanks for such initiative. Finnish taxation system is difficult to understand for any foreigners. I do not understand, if we want to raise any profit, we need to give own tax and company tax. As an example, To raise 100 Euro, we need to give almost 60 euro. This means we will get 40 euro. I work 6 days , start 9.30 and come back home after 22.00, I am so tired with restaurant business. It do not bring profit, moreover big money goes to franchise fee. Finland is not small entrepreneur friendly. Need more support to understand the overall system.

Taxation

I wrote a piece about it with 8 concrete suggestions: <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" class="link" href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/finland-from-founder-friendly-scale-ilya-mikhalev-0b6kf/?trackingId=PYBtZyoe1m1FUFx9HCKx2g%3D%3D">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/finland-from-founder-friendly-scale-ilya-mikhalev-0b6kf/?trackingId=PYBtZyoe1m1FUFx9HCKx2g%3D%3D</a> Copy pasting it here as well: As someone who spends most of my day on LinkedIn due to the nature of my job, I see a lot of posts and comments on how to boost economic growth and innovation in Finland, and in Europe overall. I have seen a lot of infographics comparing the sizes of unicorns from each country and how the AI boom will accelerate the future. I am not an expert on any of these topics.However, I have spent my professional life helping companies grow, so I thought I would share my point of view. I do not know if this post will get any reach, but at least it can serve as a watermark I can look back on to see whether any of these suggestions made sense or gained support.Most of my career has been in Finland, the country I love and call home. Like many others, Finland is figuring out how to grow again and adapt to the velocity and realities of the new world. A lot of great things have happened here. The startup ecosystem built over the last 10 years has grown remarkably. As someone who has been part of it, I see many right steps, and truly admire people who innovate and drive change here.It’s very possible to grow a strong 50–100 person tech company in Finland, and we’re seeing more of them every year. But scaling beyond that size while keeping talent density high is much harder, and the benefits compared to other hubs aren’t always obvious. Another perspective worth considering is the role of international companies. Before Covid we saw examples like Zalando and Unity (after the Amplifier acquisition), that continue to grow the hubs year over year with dozens of job openings<blockquote>Lately, there’s been less of that. As a recruiter I see the growing number of new companies and applicants per job, but not growing number of jobs and HC growth of newly founded companies. Even though major players like FAANG have entities here, they aren’t expanding their presence. If we want to strengthen talent density, it might help to focus on how to attract more international companies to build teams here—through tax incentives or other support.</blockquote>Still, the question persists:how do we build more great companies here that hire and increase talent density in Finland?As someone who has hired hundreds of highly skilled people and relocated dozens of families to Finland, while also hiring across Europe, I have been thinking about this and tried to articulate my observations. I do not claim to be the smartest person in the room. I may be wrong on parts, or some of these ideas have already been tried or are in progress. Either way, more visibility encourages discussion.Here is my core view, and it is positive.<blockquote>Finland is founder-friendly. It is excellent for small and startup-phase teams and for talent relocation, with predictable state support. Finland is strong in stability, clarity, and baseline R&amp;D support, but weaker in liquidity, scale, and flow mechanics. The gaps are not small tweaks. They sit at the leverage points where founders decide to scale, reside, or relocate.</blockquote><h2 style="text-align: start">What would actually help next:</h2><h3 style="text-align: start">1) Make employee ownership simple</h3>What it means: Shares and options should be easy to grant and worth real money when a company succeeds.Why it matters: Equity is how startups attract senior engineers and keep teams through the messy middle. If tax feels risky, people ask for cash and runway burns faster.Finland today: Good for direct share issues in private companies. Weak for classic stock options. No simple valuation safe harbor.The fix: Add a clear option path where tax is paid on sale at capital-gains rates. Publish simple valuation bands so pricing is predictable.Borrowed from and does it work: Israel’s Section 102 and the UK’s EMI are widely used and well understood by employees and investors. The US 409A safe harbor gives predictable pricing.<h3 style="text-align: start">2) Pay R&amp;D in cash when startups need it</h3>What it means: If a company is not profitable yet, pay a cash refund on R&amp;D rather than a deduction it cannot use.Why it matters: Early teams spend on product before revenue. Refundability keeps hiring and experiments alive.Finland today: Helpful deductions, but capped and non-refundable. Loss-makers leave value on the table.The fix: Make the R&amp;D credit refundable for loss-making firms. Add clear relief for prototypes, factory automation, and AI compute.Borrowed from and does it work: Canada’s SR&amp;ED and the UK’s SME R&amp;D credits have supported thousands of startups through downturns. Poland’s prototype and robotization relief helped hardware and industrial tech adopt faster.<h3 style="text-align: start">3) Keep IP here by rewarding it</h3>What it means: Profits from patents and software built in Finland can choose a lower, clean rate if they meet strict criteria.Why it matters: IP can be booked anywhere. A focused regime keeps valuable rights, jobs, and future tax here.Finland today: No focused IP regime that competes with the best, behind peers on this leverThe fix: Introduce a narrow Innovation Box with strong guardrails so only real Finnish-developed IP qualifies.Borrowed from and does it work: The Netherlands Innovation Box and the UK Patent Box have kept IP onshore. Poland’s 5 percent IP Box is used by product companies as they move from R&amp;D to revenue.<h3 style="text-align: start">4) Fill the Series B and growth gap</h3>What it means: Seed funding is fine. The drop-off comes when companies need 50 to 150 million euro to scale.Why it matters: Without domestic co-leaders at that size, founders move headquarters, list abroad, or slow down.Finland today: Can attract big foreign rounds, but local late-stage capital is thin and cannot co-lead regularly.The fix: Create state-matched growth funds so domestic investors can co-lead large rounds. Add a venture-debt guarantee so banks lend without forcing heavy dilution.Borrowed from and does it work: Israel’s Yozma model built the local VC market and Yozma-style matching is being used again. Singapore pairs public capital with private lenders to scale venture debt.<h3 style="text-align: start">5) Win the relocation moment end to end</h3>What it means: The fast permit is great. The first month of life here should be just as smooth for the whole family.Why it matters: Talent chooses the path of least hassle. If permits are fast but banking, tax IDs, Kela, and daycare drag, people choose another country.Finland today: Two-week D-visa is a strength. Onboarding still has too many steps and edge cases.The fix: Widen eligibility for certified startups. Allow accredited employer-of-record contractors. Make partner work rights universal. Give one English-first digital path for all day-one admin.Borrowed from and does it work: Canada’s Global Talent Stream, the Netherlands highly skilled migrant route, and Estonia’s digital admin cut time and stress for families.<h3 style="text-align: start">6) Buy from startups, not only pilot them</h3>What it means: Set aside a small share of public digital spend for startups and convert successful pilots into real contracts on a clear timeline.Why it matters: Pilots teach. Production pays salaries and creates case studies that unlock private customers.Finland today: Supportive programs exist. Conversion to production is not guaranteed and timelines drift.The fix: Reserve at least two percent of new public digital spend for SMEs and startups. If a pilot hits targets, convert it into a production contract within six to twelve months.Borrowed from and does it work: The UK G-Cloud and SBRI opened procurement to smaller vendors. Singapore’s regulators run sandboxes that move pilots into live use.<h3 style="text-align: start">7) Reward building and staying</h3>What it means: If founders build teams in Finland and hold for years, treat part of their exit more gently.Why it matters: This nudges founders to keep headquarters and key roles here. It also recycles gains into the next generation of startups.Finland today: Normal capital-gains rules. No targeted founder relief tied to local jobs and holding period. Neutral today, but clear room to lead.The fix: Tax the first 500 thousand euro of qualifying founder gains at half the normal rate if shares were held at least four years and at least five roles were based in Finland.Borrowed from and does it work: The UK Business Asset Disposal Relief and Canada’s lifetime capital gains exemptions have encouraged founder retention and reinvestment.