Georges Khneysser, Venture Capitalist at Park Innovaare, explains what science-based spin-offs need to understand about market requirements and why trust matters more than the perfect pitch.
Georges Khneysser is the Founder and Managing Partner of QBIT Capital, a Swiss venture capital company licensed by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) focused on early-stage deep-tech and B2B start-ups. With over 35 years of experience in global finance, he builds a bridge between capital and the ETH Domain, as well as Switzerland’s leading universities and research institutions. His personal interest include chess, Go, contemporary art and quantum physics.
In their early stages, PSI spin-offs face a fundamental tension: on one hand, they are built on high-potential breakthrough technologies; on the other hand, they usually take long to develop, need more capital and often generate revenue later. This is where venture capital becomes critical, sometimes even before the company is fully formed (see infobox). But how do founders convince investors under these conditions? Georges Khneysser, venture capitalist at QBIT Capital based at Park Innovaare, offers a clear perspective. He acts as a bridge between PSI’s scientific innovation and market expectations.
Georges Khneysser: QBIT needs to be present where science translates into real-world applications. In many respects, PSI is a hidden gem, with a unique combination of scientific excellence, state-of-the-art research infrastructure, and a strong innovative environment. It is truly a “science village”! Proximity to researchers, founders, and PSI spin-offs fundamentally changes the quality of day-to-day conversations. You are not just evaluating presentations – you’re experiencing how ideas evolve and solutions emerge in real time. Being close to PSI enables a much deeper understanding of the impact this place can have on the world.
Venture capital is risk capital provided to young companies with high growth potential. Investors acquire equity stakes in a company and rely on its value increasing considerably over time. In addition to capital, they often bring experience, strategic support and access to their networks.
Alternatives to venture capital include grants, industrial partnerships, business angels, bank financing or long-term-oriented investors.
At the early deep-tech stage, it’s essential to evaluate whether the science is sound, the problem is relevant and the team demonstrates clarity around what they know – and they do not know – with honesty. Uncertainty at this stage is entirely normal, whereas a lack of intellectual rigour or integrity, however, is not.
My focus lies on development over time. I observe how founders handle feedback, whether they reflect, learn and act. I do not question the technology itself. Rather, what matters is whether the entrepreneur can lead, make difficult decisions, and consciously navigate the transition from scientific discovery to a marketable product. I do not expect perfection or a fully developed business model from the very beginning – but rather the ability to learn and to reflect.
They need to fall in love with the problem – not the solution. The key question is whether the technology addresses a market need, and the answer must come from the market itself. At the same time, it’s about building bridges between research, industry and customers, without losing scientific depth.
It gives founders time and space to think and exchange views before a start-up is formed. This respect for complexity is rare – and essential with deep-tech environments.
Honesty and authenticity. The best early conversations are not about valuations or perfect pitches, but around trust and whether we can build something meaningful together over the long term.
