OPENFUND

The Business Plan

Draft version - June 2009

1
 Abstract

The document at hand consists of the specifications of a seed venture capital fund,
focused specifically on innovative efforts immediately related to the Internet and High
Technologies.
The initiative capitalizes on the global promise and best practices of creating a disruptive
start-up enterprise, next to the lack of proper early-stage investment infrastructure in the
area of south eastern Europe. Moreover, it leverages on the locally available brainpower and
traction developed around innovation and entrepreneurship, as this is manifested through
the lasting momentum of Open Coffee meetings in Greece.
A brief description of the above potential is initially illustrated, together with the portrait
of the current situation in the local venture capital market, and some facts figuring out
the latent opportunity. Then, a detailed description of the formulated process is deployed,
providing all the specifications of the open call for applications, the selection and seeding
procedures, a process which is to be iterated for a number of rounds.
The document then moves on to shape out in detail the organizational structure of
the fund, including the liabilities and benefits of the Executive and Investor Boards, as
well as the Board of Advisors. An extended analysis of both the international and local
markets follows to document the funding void and investment opportunity to be addressed.
Further on, a financial analysis of the scheme is presented, covering the amount needed to
be raised, together with a breakdown of the operational cost of the vehicle. The expected
return on investment profiles are also put forward, next to the various exit strategies to be
targeted at.
Finally, the fund’s goals, under the perspective of each one of the participating entities
are stated, while also appendixes with application and evaluation templates, and the short
bios of the members of the Executive Board are provided.
The specifications provided within the document have matured over a broad time win-
dow and a number of reengineering cycles to finally shape out what is believed to be a solid
and close to optimal approach to the given problem and investment opportunity. At the
same time, it is clearly stated that all contents are subject to change and the document on
hand does not convey any legal powers or responsibilities.

2
Contents
1 Executive Summary 5

2 Status & Promise 7

2.1 Global Promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Local Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Open Coffee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3 Description 11
3.1 Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 Cycle iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 Structure 16
4.1 Executive Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2 Investor Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Board of Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.1 Liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.2 Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4 Corporate Processes and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Market analysis 23
5.1 International Market Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2 Local market attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6 Financial analysis 27
6.1 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.2 Return on Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.3 Exit strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7 Goals 27

A Application & Evaluation Templates 29

A.1 Application template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3
 A.2 Evaluation template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

B Composition of the Executive Board 37

B.1 Georgios Tziralis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2 Georgios Kasselakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.3 Dimitrios Athanasiadis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.4 Onic Palandjian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.5 Spiros Xanthos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.6 Apostolos Apostolakis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
B.7 Yannis Dosios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
B.8 Teresa Farmaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4
1 Executive Summary
Openfund is targeting towards developing globally innovative start-ups that will eventually re-
turn benefits, and profits, to everyone participated in the Openfund endeavor. To achieve this,
Openfund aims at bringing together all the parts needed to succeed in starting-up, including the
best and brightest of teams of entrepreneurs and start-up ideas, a number of investors, a well-
connected network of advisors and a carefully selected Executive Board to fine tune the whole
set of processes.
In brief, this is made possible firstly by setting up a competition that allows the creation or
discovery of start-ups with vision and potential. Following that, these start-ups are provided with
proper advice, guidance and support to accelerate their maturation until a subsequent round or
exit.
The competition is based on a call for interest for start-ups that are to submit their business
proposals within two months. The submitted proposals are then to be judged by the Executive
Board of the Openfund, while the successful ones are summoned for a brief interview. The
proposals that pass this second round of judgment are called in for further interviewing in front
of both the Executive and Investors Boards of the scheme.
The chosen submissions are granted access to the support of the Openfund partners. This
includes advice, networking and affiliations with the partners’ allies. The newly formed busi-
nesses are continuously nurtured and mentored throughout their funding steps in all necessary
aspects. Support includes, among others, legal and tax issues, hands-on mentoring in manage-
ment, business and financial subjects, while technological and marketing consulting is also given
when required. These are the main benefits of participating in the Openfund.
However, to help jumpstart their business, start-ups also receive a seed round funding of 20 to
30.000 euro. This funding is provided over 4 months during which the participants work full-time
on their venture and are monitored, supported and advised by the Openfund. The goal is for
the teams to be provided with enough time to develop a fully functional product and a business
based on it, instead of a simple business plan. This stands as another reason why we focus on
web services, since the creation of prototypes in this industry is feasible in such a strict time
window. Furthermore, the support of a next round of funding will be under consideration, as well
as a potential exit from the investment, or the extended support of the accepted start-ups. The
suggested scheme is designed to operate in iteration cycles of 4 months.
In this document, all details of the Openfund’s are provided. Among them, a brief descrip-
tion of the current status regarding high-tech entrepreneurship, next to the local problems and
potential, are outlined. A detailed description of the steps and phases of the whole process, the
structure of the people running it, a financial analysis demonstrating the Openfund sheets and

5
samples for the submission and judgment forms are also provided.

6
2 Status & Promise

2.1 Global Promise

New technologies in general and the web in particular offer today the opportunity to build dis-
ruptive businesses, by initially spending very limited time and resources. If Google, Skype and
Facebook stand as the legends of our times, they are nothing but the tip of an iceberg, comprised
out of thousands of examples of less or more successful enterprises, built by taking advantage of
software and the web. The promise of a couple of aspiring entrepreneurs with very little resources,
developing a prototype application within a few months, and opening their service to the world
straight from their garage has almost evolved into a myth, but at the same time paves the way
for those willing to give what it takes to bring their vision into reality and change the world.
‘The age of entrepreneur’ in numbers translates in US and 2008 alone in Venture Capital firms
which invested 28.3 billion $ in 3803 enterprises, with seed and early stage investments counting
for 6.8 billion $ and 1453 of the total deals. At the same time, Information Technologies was the
biggest sector with a share of 13.3 billions in total, and software/internet-specific deals counted
for 5.0 billions1 .
In Europe, Venture Capital fund allocation in 2007 was equal to 10.3 billion euro (not including
buyout and acquisition deals), out of which 7.2 billions were invested in high-tech. Interestingly,
out of these 7.2 billions, 3.3 were invested in early stage enterprises (seed and start-up phases),
while the number of total deals closed across industries was finally equal to 32752 .
Investment activity in Europe is proportionally strong as the American counterpart and the
above numbers paint an optimistic picture regarding, if not anything else, the entrepreneurial
spirit and trend to start-up, regardless of the general economic situation. And, at least ac-
cording to investors’ decisions and entrepreneurs’ will, the promise and potential of high-tech
entrepreneurship is a tremendous one.

2.2 Local Status

Given the promise and premise described above, it is clear that Greece and south-eastern Europe
in general have yet to jump on the bandwagon of web entrepreneurship. The number of start-
ups is small, if any, the deal flow remains far from strong, with few deals taking place, and the
whole entrepreneurial ecosystem in general is striving, or simply does not exist, with the best and
brightest of brains typically draining away in search of better opportunities.
1
source: PricewaterhouseCoopers, National Venture Capital Association MoneyTree Report
2
source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Private Equity Activity Survey 2008

7
 To provide some numbers on the above and considering Greece as a typical example of the
status quo in the south-eastern european region, the corresponding metrics in 2007 indicate that
venture deals contributed 0.002% of GDP (last in EU), while the expected allocation of funds
raised for high-tech, early-stage investments was equal to 0 euro3 . Moreover, there is virtually no
business angels’ network, no mature incubators, a few local companies that could buy-out smaller
companies and a very low activity of universities and public research institutions on making seed
capital investments in their researchers’ new ventures4 . To make matters worse, local venture
capitalists lack the knowledge regarding companies of the new economy, featuring technological
innovation and significant growth5 .
And assuming that the core components of a start-up ecosystem are its existing brainpower,
its active community, its investment funding and any proper advisory available, it is obvious
that the ecosystem in Greece is in a bad shape, regarding its latter two components at least.
However, there also exist some indicators that the needed ingredients for such an ecosystem are
in place and are simply lacking a reliable trigger to ignite the whole start-up cycle. For example,
regarding brainpower, Greece joins the top EU countries when it comes to higher education
indices (without considering the significant number of greek students and researchers abroad)
and availability of scientists and engineers6 . Moreover, some late developments with regard to
networking, cultivating interest and promoting high-tech entrepreneurship offer a tangible promise
of optimism. These developments which we consider sustainable and expandable are described
in more detail in the following paragraphs.

2.3 Open Coffee

Before describing in detail the suggested funding scheme, it is considered necessary to share the
Open Coffee Greece story, which actually is where this proposition comes from, while shaping
an overview of the present condition of Greek technology-oriented start-ups. A representative
portrait of the latter one can be drawn by extending the description of the community built
around the Open Coffee initiative.
Open Coffee as a movement began originally on February 27, 2007, when the British investor
Saul Klein announced on his personal blog that the following Thursday he would be at a Starbucks
café in central London, available to anyone who was interested in meeting him. Of course this
3
source: European Private Equity & Venture Capital Association, Private Equity Activity Survey 2008
4
source: M. Bakatsaki-Manoudaki, K. Kosmidou, G. Papadopoulos, C. Zopounidis, The Venture Capital
Investment Process In Greece: Some Evaluation Aspects, The Greek Industry Towards the Knowledge Economy,
Conference of Technical Chamber of Greece, July 3-5, 2006, Athens
5
source: Overview of the Greek Venture Capital Market, Presentation of the existing situation in Greece,
Atlantis Consulting, 2007
6
source: The Global Competitiveness Report 2007-2008, London: Palgrave MacMillan

8
would be for mutual benefit. “Let’s establish from this point on a stable meeting point for open
and periodical meet-ups of entrepreneurs, investors or anyone who is interested, in a completely
informal environment”, he suggested. A few months later, the original idea had spread like an
epidemic over more than 60 cities around the globe.
The need and vision of setting such an event seemed to be rather distant for Greece, when in
June 2007, a small group of people interested in technological entrepreneurship gathered for the
first time at a bookstore’s humble café, responding to a call by George Tziralis. The investors
were absent, however the inertia quickly gave in to enthusiasm, as the compatible start-up-related
interests sparked. People got to know each other, ideas were exchanged, next to experiences and
business cards, along with the promise for this pleasant experiment to repeat itself soon.
Since then many milestones have been reached, placing the Greek Open Coffee among the
top of similar events around the world, if not the most prominent one, with respect to attendance
count at least. Initially, the concept was enhanced with that of technological meetings in New
York, where each first Tuesday of a month, starting 7pm, up to 6 speakers got to pitch their
ideas or businesses over 5-10 minutes, to the most hip entrepreneurs of the city. Next –while
keeping the quality unchanged— the idea was spread to Thessaloniki, the second largest city in
the country, under the supervision and organization of Georgios Kasselakis, where it was met with
success comparable to that of Athens. Following that, it has also spread in Ioannina and Patras
with similar results. Finally, the 1-year anniversary of the event was marked by the co-hosting
of an event with the largest technology-related blog on the planet, TechCrunch.com, leading to
ever quicker expansion of the existing network of contacts and evangelists.
Today, two years after the first timid attempt, Open Coffee can report more than 40 meetings
in 6 cities around Greece, with almost a hundred and fifty of guest speakers and many hundreds
(a few thousands in total) participants (the last events in Athens gathered almost 300 people
per se), which quickly turn themselves into evangelists of the event and the start- up concept at
large. To give some further details, some of the most prominent speakers hosted so far include:

• International targeted local technology start-ups such as Wadja, Darkfall’s Aventurine,

Upstream Systems and Grebooca; next to a significant number of other, yet less known
enterprises

• Successful entrepreneurs from Greece and abroad, including Jason Calacanis, Patrick De
Laive, Tim O’Reilly and others, in total more than 70 entrepreneurs, many of which had
just commenced their operation

• Investors and funding schemes such as TANEO (New Economy Fund), Attica Ventures,
Velti SA, and Vasilis Makios, the driving force behind the Corallia Cluster.

9
 • Representatives from the area of politics such as Anna Diamantopoulou (former EU com-
missioner and minister of development) and Kiriakos Mitsotakis (ex- investment banker,
member of the parliament)

Moreover, many other events have been triggered or co-organized with companies such as Mi-
crosoft, the international Startup Weekend and many others with special interest groups on
technology and business issues.
No matter of the amount of traction created or the criteria to call this a success, even maybe
a grassroots change, what remains without dispute is the main ingredient behind the vision and
people behind the Greek Open Coffee: The passion, ambition and drive to put the pieces of latent
potential together and transform the infeasible to a tangible reality.

10
3 Description
Openfund is created with the single fundamental scope of boosting the local technological start-
up scene, and reaping the fruits out of this development. This target is to be delivered by filling
the existing gap in seed level funding and support for entrepreneurial attempts related to new
technologies and the internet. In the paragraphs to follow, the road map, time plan and processes,
from the creation of the scheme till the funding of the targeted start-ups, are presented.
The majority of these processes, from the creation to the operation of the scheme, are to
be handled by the Executive Board. These include, among others, collection and evaluation
of applications, early and final selection of the most capable among them, then support, advice,
funding and monitoring their way to launching their business, therefore providing exit opportunities
to the funding scheme itself. The Executive Board is comprised of a team of highly capable
consultants, covering all the range of expertise required for a start-up’s operations. Resumes for
the members of the Executive Board are also provided in this document (see App.B).

3.1 Phases
Openfund is to be built around iterative start-up contests, out of which the most capable of
submissions are selected to receive the Openfund benefits. A detailed description of these oper-
ations is provided hereafter, starting from the announcement of the contest, to the selection of
proposals to the investment and maturity processes, a cycle which is repeated for a number of
iterations initially spanning 3 years.
Call of interest (expected duration: 2 months): Starting at month ‘n’, a call of interest
for submission of applications for Openfund opens. The call remains open for two full months,
thereby the deadline is at the end of the month ‘n+2’. Proposals submitted after the deadline
are reviewed in the next round. The next call of interest starts at the beginning of month ‘n+4’
and lasts till the end of month ‘n+6’, and so forth. Submitters are requested to form teams of
2 to 4 persons and fill the Application Template, which is also provided within this document
(one-member teams submissions may be reviewed, however they are not encouraged). Calls of
interest are to be communicated mostly by leveraging the width and traction of the Open Coffee
community, apart from all other available media outlets.
First judgment (expected duration: 1 month): Starting at the time of submission, each
proposal is assigned to two members of the Executive Board; their decision is finally validated by
a third member, who also decides if the recommendations do not coincide. A positive judgment
is announced to the rest of the Board and successful applicants (expected to be around 40 at this
stage) are requested to provide more details on their submission and appear at a short interview

11
(15’ including Q&A). The whole judgment process including the announcement of results and
the ‘interview day’ (which is common for all those successful in this stage) lasts 30 days, thus be
completed at the end of month ‘n+3’.
Second judgment (expected duration: 15 days): The ‘interview day’ is followed by a briefing
of the applicants on their failure or success at this stage. Successful applicants are invited to
attend and give a 20’ presentation in front of the judges at a full day workshop called ‘Start-up
Day’, which is expected to take place in the middle of month ‘n+4’ and which is also be heavily
promoted and open to the public. The ‘Start-up Day’ typically also includes quick seminars by
prestigious speakers, sharing their experiences and viewpoints on building a successful start-up,
aiming to better prepare the successful teams that are the subject of investment. Seminars
take place in the morning, followed by the submissions pitches and Q&A. All 8 members of the
Executive Board serve as judges, plus 4 members of the Investor Board. All judges vote on each
submission, and the 5 proposals that get the most votes are selected. According to our financial
analysis support is planned for a maximum of 5 submissions per round. For a submission to be
selected, it should receive 7 positive votes at least. Moreover, 3 members of the Investor Board
could exercise a veto. Winners are announced in the same night or the morning that follows.
Seed preparation (expected duration: 15 days): Finally chosen submissions are given 15
days to accept and sign the terms of contract. The latter one defines a seed financing of 20.000
euro to 30.000 euro (typically, this is expected to be 20.000 euro for a two member team, plus
5.000 euro for each extra member, namely 25.000 euro for a three member team and 30.000
euro for a four member team; however the criteria may vary). Accepting the contract results
in an Openfund share of 20% in the company that is formed out of the submission. Another
fundamental term of the contract prescribes that the team works exclusively on their project
for the duration of 4 months, which is hereby called the Seeding Timeframe and is described in
detail below. The investment is not delivered at once, but gradually as the expenses come in and
the milestones defined by the Executive Board are met. Typically, each funded proposal receives
5.000 euro per month, while the extra amount granted for larger teams is to be given at the
beginning of the third month of the Timeframe. The time window from the ‘Start-up Day’ till
the start of the Seeding Timeframe is defined as 15 days and is completed at the end of month
‘n+4’.
Seeding Timeframe (expected duration: 4 months): As mentioned, this lasts 4 months
during which the receivers of the investment work exclusively on all their submission and its
business. This time window is provided to turn an idea to a working prototype and a business that
is launched, even if not at full operational capacity. The team will operate under a separate legal
entity (for each submission) which will have to be initiated if it does not exist. In order to avoid
wasting the entrepreneurs resources on the legal details and administration, two measures have

12
been taken. For one thing the legal process is identical and streamlined so that all submissions
go through the same steps and ideally require no customisation or alteration. For another, there
is legal help available in the form of the Board of Advisors members for the cases where it
is absolutely necessary. Both the Executive Board and the Board of Advisors provide extensive
support to the teams, including advisory in technical and business aspects, apart from giving access
into an extended network of contacts. Three members of the Executive Board are assigned with
the close monitoring of each start-up, while each start-up presents its progress to the full Executive
Board at the end of each month, to secure the investment flow for the next month. Upon initiation
of the Seeding Timeframe milestones are set jointly by the Executive Board members allocated to
the team and the team itself. It is these milestones that need to be achieved for the investment
installments to be deposited to the team. Moreover, each team submits a short progress report
on a weekly basis and discusses its problems or achievements with its assigned executives in an
almost daily basis. The Seeding Timeframe of the first cycle will be completed in month ‘n+8’.
Exit (expected duration: undefined): Without diminishing the processes described here, the
main purpose of a fund remains nevertheless to be profitable. The alumni start-ups of the
Openfund are provided with full support to grow, so as to end up in a further round of funding
or acquisition, providing exit opportunities for the fund’s investment. Within this context, all
members of the Investor Board are granted priority in considering a round A investment for
the start-ups, while all Boards contribute towards securing one of the previous options for each
one of the alumni start-ups. The aforementioned legal entities created out of the teams which
successfully submitted an idea to the Openfund will have already in place all the requirements
necessary to make them an enticing target for further funding whether that originates locally or
abroad.

3.2 Cycle iteration

The aforementioned process is to be repeated in cycles that are designed in order to maximize the
operational efficiency of the Board and provide a steady flow of submissions, start-ups, resources
absorption and exit opportunities. As such, the next cycle starts with a new call of interest right
after when the winners of the previous round are selected (month ‘n+5’), while the announcement
of the new winners coincides with the end of the Seeding Timeframe for the start-ups of the
previous rounds, and so forth. These become clearer into the flowchart of Fig.1. Finally, these
iterations are designed to continue for as long as a sufficient capital is provided, ideally for a
period of 3 years and 7 iterations. Naturally, each iteration builds upon and is improved by the
experiences and skills that gathered from the previous ones.
The overall process can also be examined in detail in Gantt format in Fig.2.

13
Figure 1: Openfund operations flowchart
14
Figure 2: Gantt diagram for Openfund

15
4 Structure
Openfund is essentially a three-component system which needs to be optimized so that all parties
involved (the start-ups, the Executive Board, the Board of Advisors and the Investor Board) get
the best deal possible. To ensure this a number of procedures are in place as already mentioned.

4.1 Executive Board

The Executive Board is comprised of 8 executive members and is in charge of running the
Openfund. Two of the executive members hold the position of executive director, while the
Board’s liabilities include, among others, fund raising, running the call of interest, judgment and
selection processes, next to facilitating anything related to the seeding of selected start-ups and
other activities. The above liabilities, as well as the benefits received by the Executive Board,
are described in detail in the following paragraphs, while the short bios of all members of the
Executive Board are included in App. B.

4.1.1 Liabilities

With the Executive Board being the driving force behind the Openfund, its liabilities extend to
practically everything related to the fund’s operations. Starting from specifying in detail the
framework of operation, to fund raising, to running the open call for submissions and the seeding
of the selected start-ups, the Executive Board needs to orchestrate the whole endeavor and
optimize the use of existing resources, together with the cooperation of entrepreneurs with the
Investor Board and Board of Advisors.
Regarding the more demanding of iterative processes, namely the review of applications and
the monitoring of selected start-ups, provision is drafted so as to secure the smooth and efficient
distribution of the needed tasks. Specifically, as figured out in Sec. 3.1, each proposal submitted
is assigned to two members of the Executive Board, of complementary backgrounds. Moreover,
the Executive Board members are those in close collaboration with their allocated start-ups.
Although this does not mean that Executive Board members are ‘embedded’ in the start-up team
in order to help with management or other decisions, it involves regular meetings and frequent
communication to ensure that issues and challenges that arise in the start-up’s progress are dealt
with as efficiently as possible – either by the assigned Executive Board members providing advice
or by them referring the start-up to the relevant member of the Board of Advisors. Progress
reports are produced by the entrepreneurs on a weekly basis for the assigned Executive Board
members. A monthly presentation of the results achieved is to be given for the entire Executive
Board to ensure that good progress has been made and to authorize the next installment of the

16
start-up investment. Overall, the Executive Board is responsible for carrying out and managing
successfully all the steps outlined in Sec.3.1.
Another significant set of liabilities regards the communication and the liaison with investors.
For one thing, the Executive Board is responsible for the information flow towards the investors
regarding their progress of their investment. For another, among the pool of investors with a
given interest in participating in the fund, it is the Executive Board that selects those who are to
invest in the forthcoming iteration. This process takes place at the beginning of each round and
the amount raised is sufficient for both the seed capital granted to the start-ups to be selected,
plus the operational expenses of the Openfund (for funding details see Sec.5). Moreover, the
Executive Board is responsible for raising further funds and ensuring a stable flow of commitment
and investment partners.
Lastly, the Executive Board is responsible for handling all matters related to its management,
administration, next to legal and tax matters (excluding issues that are outsourced to affiliated
partners - e.g. legal firms). It also means handling all publicity efforts involving traditional media
(press, magazines, TV, radio etc) as well as new media. This translates in maintaining a web
presence both based on an official homepage as well as by participating in the online community
(answering email, following blogs, twitter etc). Furthermore, the Executive Board is responsible
for organising, promoting and seeing through the special events occurring at the end of each
investment cycle.

4.1.2 Benefits

The single most important of benefits that each one of the members of the Executive Board
receives is a stake of 1% from each start-up created via the Openfund. Such a stake is considered
to provide, apart from a capable compensation, a sustainable and secure commitment to the
operation of both the Openfund, and the start-ups to be created. With each one of the Executive
Board members being a shareholder and partner in the start-ups, their best of efforts and support
to the new enterprises –and the Openfund– are guaranteed, as this lies in their best interests.
Other benefits include limited monthly wages. These are to be given into the members of the
executive board who are going to spend a significant (or full-time) amount of time and resources
into the Openfund, typically those who are holding a position of an executive director.
Last, but not least, the members of the Executive Board are co-shaping an ecosystem of
entrepreneurs, investors, advisors and business ventures and they are expected to gain access into
this extensive network of connections and projects, next to a considerable amount of exposure
and publicity. These stand as another significant benefit of joining the Executive Board.

17
4.2 Investor Board
The Fund’s structure under the investors’ need for due diligence is designed with a single goal
in mind: To minimize the extent of necessary investor interference, by providing a clear and
transparent framework of predefined processes for all of the Openfund’s operations. Given also
the limited size of the fund raised and especially its distributed character, this objective leads to
the following minimal set of liabilities for the Investors Board.

4.2.1 Liabilities

Minimum participation of each investor is defined equal to 30,000 euro (practically, one cannot
invest an amount less than the needed funding for one start-up), while each investor receives
a share on each start-up, fully equivalent to the amount he has invested in. For example, if 5
investors were to contribute 35,000 euro each for a specific round, then each one would essentially
own 2.4% of each start-ups’ shares (12% total share of the Investment Board).
The seed capitals are then pooled and invested according to the Openfund guidelines. Investors
are not given an ownership percentage over the Openfund but instead directly over the companies.
This percentage is distributed according to the amount of money that they have pledged over
each round. So, if at a given point in time the Openfund has money from a number of investors,
they all invest and receive a proportional stake in the companies that receive funding in the
following round. As the money from certain investors expire, so do their rights of a stake in future
investments - unless they reinvest new funds of course. This scheme is thus set up as a way to
protect the Openfund’s long term viability and the ability of smaller investors to participate. Since
start-up funding is not the primary problem that the Openfund addresses, smaller investments
from individual entrepreneurs and others that can also contribute with mentoring and professional
insight are considered very important.
It is also important to note though that investments in Openfund are organised in batches,
rather than rounds. Each investor, by putting the minimum amount of 30,000 euro receives
shares in 5 companies, no matter the number of the companies selected in the next round. In
other words, a batch of investments represents 5 investment agreements. That is, if in the ‘x’
round only 3 companies are selected, the investor of this round will also receive shares from other
2 companies in the round ‘x+1’. This approach is selected so as to secure the full absorption of
the minimum investment, moreover to provide the advertised spread of investors risk to 5 rather
than less enterprises. Fig.3 provides a schematic representation of the above.
Openfund’s operational expenses typically occur out of the investors’ participation, too. In
general, these are expected to be equal to ‘the 6th start-up’, so roughly one sixth of each investor’s
contribution will be spent for operational reasons. More details and a cost breakdown are provided

18
Figure 3: Openfund investment process flowchart

19
in Section 6.1.
Other than monetary, the liabilities of the Investor Board, which consists of the investors
taking part in the ongoing iteration, are limited to participating in the final judgment of funding
proposals with 4 members of the Investor Board, while also joining with one representative in
the regular monthly meeting of the Executive Board. The investors, apart from this opportunity
to examine the progress of the Openfund start-ups, also receive a short monthly report of the
start-ups’ track record. Other than that, the investors’ involvement is not required as most of the
work necessary to follow the start-ups’ development is undertaken by the Executive Board. All
logistics and investment decisions are taken by the Executive Board with the investors obviously
maintaining the right to veto some critical actions (see Sec.3.1).
Moreover, the Investors Board may be perceived as a subset of the Board of Advisors, with
any individual investor being encouraged to serve as an advisor too, contributing their valuable
expertise and experience, next to their network of contacts to the Openfund start-ups.

4.2.2 Benefits

The investors have the de facto advantage of owning a stake at a few of the best available startups
in the tech and IT industry in Greece and south-eastern Europe, which have been handpicked by
experts that have been embedded in the community and the market for many years. As such the
probability of having made a successful investment is maximised as is the expected ROI (to be
outlined in Sec. 6).
Other advantages for the Investor Board members include becoming acquainted and having
an improved access to that particular sector of the local market which in its short lifetime has
been known to be among the best in Europe (see Sec. 5). This is enabled by attracting the
attention of entrepreneurs who will be willing to demonstrate their ideas and business plans to
the publicly showcased investors - even outside and following the Openfund scope.
Furthermore, the strength of an investment in EU stands a fair chance of having its potential
enhanced by matching the amount invested by state or European funds. There are various
programs in operation currently which can relatively easily be applied to the Openfund vehicle in
its current legal format. It is stressed however that such processes are to run in the background;
in any case public money will not be vital for the operation of the Openfund and it will only be
pursued as a secondary target to support the private investments.
Finally, investing in the Openfund apart from its immediate gains related to the particular
startups results in actually creating a new market in the area. And although particular investments
no matter how carefully selected may not after all fulfill their potential for external reasons,
ensuring a continuous deal-flow is an even more important benefit for all parties involved but

20
especially for those with the role of an investor.

4.3 Board of Advisors

The Board of Advisors consists of a large number of experts covering a broad range of subjects:
legal, financial, technological, marketing, business and other fields are covered by multiple experts
based both in Greece and abroad. As such, it is ensured that start-ups accepted in the Openfund
have the best available resources covering both their local issues that are a consequence of each
start-ups established base (mainly legal, governmental and tax matters that are a consequence of
each start-up’s established base), as well as the rest of their needs relating to their global scope.

4.3.1 Liabilities

The main role of the Board of Advisors is to provide consulting when required by the start-
ups accepted in the Openfund. Requests for advice are monitored by the Executive Board to
ensure that the Board of Advisors’ help is utilised in the instances that it is really necessary. The
Executive Board also reserves the right to communicate with the Board of Advisors for counselling
and advice for its own management matters.
It is the aim of the Executive Board to achieve maximum efficiency and to make the most of
the resources available by both the start-ups and the Board of Advisors. Therefore, consulting
takes place primarily by employing all available means of remote communication (email, telephone,
webconferencing etc) and only in the cases it is feasible and necessary by physical presence. In
the rare occasion that a Board of Advisors member’s presence is absolutely necessary, every
effort is made by the Executive Board for their expenses to be covered. Practically, however, the
only requirement on the part of the Board of Advisors members is to be available for consulting
on a reasonable time-scale (i.e. within 2-3 days for remote communication). The Board of
Advisors members are also welcome and encouraged to participate in the start-up presentation
and interview events that are regularly organised by Openfund - although their presence is not
required. Lastly, it is also encouraged but left to the discretion of the Board of Advisors members
to aid the Openfund start-ups as well as the Executive Board by utilising their own network of
connections in the context of the Openfund.

4.3.2 Benefits

The Board of Advisors is kept up-to-date regarding all major developments solely by a regular
newsletter and by the Openfund main means of communication and presence its website. This
ensures a low overhead both for the Board of Advisors consuming updates and the Executive

21
Board producing them. The benefits of a professional becoming an Advisor are obvious in that
sense: with minimum involvement and effort an Advisor has easy access to first-class possible col-
laborators and experts. These are the startups’ entrepreneurs themselves who having collaborated
successfully with an Advisor are likely to request his services again. The Board of Advisors itself
can also be a pool of possible collaborators for an Advisor - its members will be displayed publicly
in the relevant section of the Openfund website along with a short bio and contact details. The
Advisor’s presence there as well as the publicity associated with the efforts of the startups they
choose to involve themselves with is another benefit for Board of Advisors members. Finally,
Advisors get to participate in the technology and IT startup community and involve themselves
in its stimulation an activity which can only benefit them in the long term.

4.4 Corporate Processes and Policies

available upon request

22
5 Market analysis
In this section the Openfund’s market environment is outlined categorised by locality. Firstly, the
situation is described in the international market and secondly particular details are given for the
Greek market.

5.1 International Market Analysis

In order to support that Openfund is a self-sustainable enterprise that is bound to generate income
for its stakeholders and stimulate entrepreneurship at the seed level, three other similar ventures
and their results are examined.
Seedcamp, a similar European venture based in London, has ran for two years (2007 and 2008)
and has micro-funded 6 and 7 start-ups respectively. Out of them, two have secured an unknown
series A funding (mybuilder.com, kublax.com), another has secured multiple seed rounds of 400K
in total (tablefinder.com) while another one, Zemanta, has secured 2.1M in seed funding. This
translates in approximately a 30% success rate (or 1 in 3) and conservative valuations of more
than 1M.
Techstars, a US vehicle enabling seed funding based in Boulder, Colorado, has invested in 19
start-ups in its short lifespan. Out of them 8 (or 40%) made an exit: socialthing.com was acquired
by AOL for a reported 6.8M, intensedebate.com was acquired by the Wordpress platform for an
undisclosed amount, while madkast.com, ignighter.com, foodzie.com, filtrbox.com, eventvue.com
and brightkite.com raised rounds of 300K, 1.2M, 1M, 0.5M, 0.25M and 1M respectively.
The most famous venture in this category, YCombinator, which was initiated in Boston and
has now moved to the Bay area, has funded more than 80 start-ups in the past 4 years. Its most
successful exits include Xobni (raised 4.2M), justin.tv (2M), Loopt (12M), reddit.com (acquired
by Condé Nast) and Scribd (3.7M) as well as the most recent tipjoy.com (1M) and rescuetime.com
(0.9M).
Furthermore, examples of investments in the broader southeast European region include
Croatian-based start-up, shoutem.com which raised 350K in late 2008, the previously mentioned
Zemanta of Slovenian origin and the Turkish befunky.com which has secured 0.8M.
Thus, by looking at ventures similar to Openfund but also the market as a whole, it becomes
apparent that there is a potential for seed funding start-ups whether the US or European sector
is examined. Also, using those examples as case-studies it is possible to estimate indicators like
rates of success (exits) and valuation levels that could also apply to Openfund-related forecasts.
In fact, if the rates of success and investments of the previous case-studies are taken at face-value
they may be considered to overestimate the Openfund potential. This is because they correspond

23
to the richer European and American market and in addition to this, some of those start-ups were
invested on at a less difficult financial period. As such, in order to account for these factors, it is
reasonable to consider the valuations described earlier as the maximum possible and the realistic
exit rates to be significantly lower. This translates in exits of in the range of 1 to 3M (instead of
the 4M or more) and success rates of 1 in 5 or even 1 in 10 (instead of 1 in 3).
In order to further ameliorate the likelihood of success of the case-studies examined here,
Openfund has an explicit aim in accepting only ventures which have global potential instead of
those that are local-scoped. As such, it will be in a strong position to also raise funds from
foreign sources of investment capitalising on its internationally-comprised Board of Advisors.

5.2 Local market attributes

Despite this international scope, the reference to other similar European or US ventures brings
into question of whether a sufficient number of startups and founders exists who are willing to
reply at the Openfund call and fully embrace its potential. Such a target group, under the given
limits, does exist and waits for a proper trigger to flourish.
Taking Greece as an example, the local population does enjoy one of the highest rate of
PhDs per capita across EU and beyond; innovation in academia blooms, especially at the fields
of Computer Science, Engineering and Business, both inside and outside of the Greek borders.
However, that innovation does not extend into the entrepreneurial scene, papers typically do not
turn into patents and business plans. The lack of a decent solution to seed capital funding is
considered as a root cause underlying this fact; the vast majority of local Venture Capitals target
at valuations bigger than 1M to start-up with.
And that need is made more than clear in each opportunity available. For example, an
innovation contest for business plans by Otenet corporation in 2006, giving as a prize a state
subsidy of 50,000 euro to the winner, managed to gather more than 2,700 submissions, while a
call for proposals on e-services by the Greek government was among the most popular ones in
the last years, gathering thousands of applications.
This impression is reinforced by the following two figures. Fig. 4 demonstrates Greece’s
excellent standing compared to other European countries in terms of its capability in innovation
in the computer science sector.
Moreover, Fig. 5 demonstrates that the strongest Greek industries are indeed ICT and CS
(along with real-estate). It is in these particular sectors that Greek human capital also excels
compared to European averages.
Because the IT startup market is anything but mature, it is relatively hard to collect quantitive
data regarding valuations, acquisitions and other related indices. This is both because no formal

24
 Figure 4: Greek market comparison with other EU countries in Computer Science (EIS 2005)

dedicated body exists to track that particular section of the market, but also because deals
are rather sparse. However, based on informal discussions and information exchange, it has
been determined that the few valuations of the most mature startups that have happened were
positioned in the 500K to 1M scale.
Through organizing Open Coffee (see Sec.2.3) meetings in Greece and coming in direct contact
with its participants, it has become clear that one of the main obstacles towards the creation
of start-ups is the lack of initial (seed) funding. Even though the amounts of money required
are very small, starting a company is made very difficult – especially to the younger and more
creative crowd – due to the financial pressure they are under.
Observations and numbers as those mentioned earlier consist a reliable indicator of exist-
ing wide interest and latent potential. The precious and proven sustainable community of en-
trepreneurs that are attending the Open Coffee events, guarantees the existence of a fertile ground
for the Openfund’s deployment.

25
 26
Figure 5: Greek industries’ comparison with other EU countries (EIS 2005)
6 Financial analysis

6.1 Costs
available upon request

6.2 Return on Investment

available upon request

6.3 Exit strategies

available upon request

7 Goals
It should be by now clear that Openfund addresses an ambitious, yet realistic opportunity and
tangible market need. And, by providing the missing links to bring the existing pieces together,
Openfund aims at creating significant value for everyone participating in it. In this context, the
goal is simple and straightforward: To form a number of stellar teams, help them turn their
innovative ideas into globally-aimed, disruptive start-ups, and make them succeed.
For the Openfund to prove itself operational and successful, all members of the equation
should reap substantial benefits, both in the mid- and long-term, with regards to what they
bring to the table. Entrepreneurs need to receive value which is corresponding to what they
forfeit - the amount of shares they assign to the Openfund. Investors expect to make a profit
-among other benefits- worthwhile of the risk they are taking by their participation, while the
same applies, in a different scale of pledge, for advisors, too. Finally, executives need to receive
a strong compensation, proportionate to the commitment and the value of their resources they
offer to the Openfund.
The above seem to compose a problem difficult to tackle and the failure to satisfy the needs
of any of the above participants is clearly more than crucial for the Openfund’s viability. However,
the creation of up to 15 exceptional enterprises per year is expected to offer multiple opportunities,
capable of ensuring that all cogs will slide into place and resulting into a clockwork operation.
It is typical to expect a significant amount of systemic and operational risk embedded in each
one of Openfund’s critical processes, from fund raising to start-up selection and success. This
is where the document at hand comes into the picture. It is strongly believed that the detailed
specifications, extensively reengineered to shape the optimum solution given the known problem

27
and resources, and covering every aspect of the Openfund’s operations, are capable of massaging
the embedded risk and turning the needed leap of faith for all Openfund’s participants into a safe
bet.
However, all of the above, lacking any further proof or track record under the local circum-
stances, stand as an experiment on paper which needs to be confirmed by running it in practice.
It is therefore reasonable to expect that a number of the above assumptions and specifications
will prove not to be operational or fully compatible with the actual needs of the local market. At
this point, it is the strong commitment, experience and expertise of all members of the Executive
Board that stands as the most important of Openfund’s assets. The Executive Board will be able
to fine-tune the given details, as soon as actual feedback from the Openfund’s operation comes
in, so as to further optimise all of the operational specifications.
It is the amount of work mirrored within this document plus the strong commitment that
the Executive Board puts in place that finally serve to secure the fulfillment of the Openfund’s
fundamental goals. If founding a company stands as the most efficient way to create wealth, for
both founders and investors, or the society at large, it is firmly believed that the Openfund stands
as the optimum way and shortest path from the current defunct situation into an enterprising
ecosystem that provides tangible benefits to all of its participants, yet alone the ones who have
caused its blossoming.

28
A Application & Evaluation Templates

A.1 Application template

This is provided online so that the data are immediately in processable format – hence the lack
of space to reply to the questions.

Idea description Describe your idea in 200 words or less

Team

Name
Surname
URL eg blog, company site, project
portfolio
Snail mail address
Living abroad Yes—No
Technical skills 1—2—3—4—5 Rate your technical skills (eg
programming, webpage design,
project management) of every
team member in the 1-5 scale.
Business skills 1—2—3—4—5
Finance skills 1—2—3—4—5
Level of studies Secondary Education (High School, Bac-
calaureate, ...) — Bachelor — Master —
Doctorate — Post Doc
Field of study Usually a member is an expert
in a field or has a skill that
makes him or her indispensable
for the team. This can be a
technical (eg translator) or a
human skill (eg communicator,
negotiator,etc)
Comments Whatever you think is impor-
tant but doesn’t fit in anywhere
else.

29
Product

Innovation Describe, if applicable, the dif-

ference between your idea and
other solutions to the same
problem
Revenue model How do you plan to make
money?
Product useful- Why is your product necessary
ness to the customer?
Idea maturity Mockup (Video, Directorware, Proposals that prove that their
Schematic) — Implemented Parts creators can actually do what
— Prototype — First implementation — they are suggesting are appre-
Mature ciated.
Prototype address An address of the product –
don’t forget access details if re-
quired.
Next phases of de- What are the steps you have
velopment decided to take and will happen
in the foreseeable future?

Competitors I

30
 Do you have Yes — No Name your competition
known competi-
tion in Europe?
Do you have Yes — No
known competi-
tion internation-
ally?
What are your dif-
ferentiating points
from them?
Unfair advantage Do you believe there is an el-
ement in your team, in your
intellectual property or in an-
other field that gives you an
advantage over your competi-
tion?

Competitors II

Established intel- Have you established any

lectual property patents for your intellectual
property?
Where Europe — USA
Is there intel- Have you come up with a pro-
lectual property cess that is worthy of protec-
that requires tion in a software or hardware
protection? patent?
Do you need Yes — No — Unclear Do you need patent licenses for
patent license? the processes you employ?

Corporate

31
What type of No company yet — EE — OE — EPE —
company do you AE — Other
have
Where is your
company based?
Have you received No — Loan — Venture Capital
funding in the
past?
What percent of 1-100 Please give the percentage per
your company funding body
belongs to the
funding party
mentioned above?

Funding

32
Amount # How much money do you need
for the fully functional start of
your business (e.g. first version
of your product)
Rounds Seed—A Seed, if you haven’t received
funding in the past. A, if you
have.
Needs Is there something particularly
expensive that is necessary or
helpful and can be bought with
the investment?
Maintenance cost # How much do you think run-
ning your business per month
costs (in euro)? Even if
the company has not been
founded, calculate the cost
based on the time you spend
on the project and your current
salary.
Utilization What else do you plan to
do with the investment apart
from the previously mentioned
needs?

Technology

33
 What is the basic There is no bias on our part.
platform on which
you are developing
(if relevant)?
Database What database or other stor-
age methods are you using?
Experience with How many months of experi-
the tools ence with your tools does your
team have collectively?
Previous use Have you done something with
those tools in the past? It helps
if there is an address and an
indication this is indeed your
work.
Principal technical Usually there is a principal
lesson technical person which makes
all the relevant final decisions
and implements the solutions
– although there can be more
than one.

Goals

What are your Achieving which goals would

measurable tar- mean your efforts have been
gets for the next considered a success?
quarter?
What are your Achieving which goals would
measurable tar- mean your efforts have been
gets for the next considered a success
year?
The evaluation is simply an example and some details may be inaccurate. The rankings
provided vary between 1 and 5 (5 being the best). The first part of the form is filled in by the
applicant. The section starting with the evaluation is filled in by the members of the Executive
Board.

34
A.2 Evaluation template
Project summary

• Description

• What is its usefulness and/or its innovation

Team members Project contact: One of the 2-4

Name Name Member 2 Member 3 Member 4

Email Email
URL URL
Background Technical/
Business /
Science
Level Level
Special skills Special skills

Product maturity

Development Phase Mockup (Video, Directorware, Schematic) /

Implemented Parts / Prototype /
First implementation/ Mature
Location URL
Comments

Funding details

Amount
Round Seed/A
Use
Exit Strategy

Points of importance

• positive points

• negative points

35
Recommendation

• General impression

• Usefulness evaluation

• Problems

• Realistic, in terms of the market

• Realistic in terms of team’s capabilities

• In need of funding

• In need of consulting and support

Proposition

VC suitability 1-5
Competitive advantage 1-5
Quality of work 1-5
Intellectual property 1-5
Team completeness 1-5
Usefulness 1-5
Overall evaluation 1-5

36
B Composition of the Executive Board
The human part of the Openfund scheme can be split in three layers. The first is the Executive
Board and has an executive role being responsible for taking initiatives and making decisions. It’s
also the team that has the final say over judgment and investment of various companies. The
second body, the Board of Advisors is there to provide their advice and adds with their experience
and technical expertise in the Openfund in their respective very specific entrepreneurial niches.
The third, the Funding Board is comprised of the investors, funding bodies and initiatives that
are participating in the legal entity behind the Openfund with a percentage proportional to their
monetary contribution.

B.1 Georgios Tziralis

Georgios Tziralis, 27, has received a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with a specialty in Op-
erations Research from the National Technical University of Athens. His PhD research covers
the area of Forecasting, ranging from Econometrics and Time Series Analysis to Data Mining
and Artificial Intelligence. His late research endeavors focus on the topic of prediction markets,
with a number of academic contributions that already enjoy international recognition. In paral-
lel, he teaches -in a purely innovative way- Algorithms for Pattern Recognition at the NTUA’s
post-graduate program of Applied Mathematical Sciences. As an entrepreneur, G. Tziralis serves
since 2007 as co-founder and CEO of AskMarkets UnLtd (www.askmarkets.com), a start-up
attempting to bring the promise and potential of prediction markets to the masses. Other activ-
ities include co-founding MineKnowledge Ltd (http://mineknowledge.com), an agency providing
simplified data mining services on demand and the ‘comparison search engine’ WebSource.it
(http://websource.it). Finally, G. Tziralis is widely identified as the initiator of Greek Open
Coffee.

B.2 Georgios Kasselakis

Georgios Kasselakis, 24, is an Informatics BSc from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, fo-
cused on Internet-related Technology and the syndication of data over it, as well as Algorithm
Theory and Procedural Analysis. Over time he has worked as a hardware repairman, software
engineer, software architect and recently project manager for informational systems built by com-
mission. Past works worthy of mention include the first asynchronous e-learning platform to
achieve a SCORM 1.2 certification in the world for System Consulting SA and the architectural
supervision of an expert system that automatically designs hydraulic elevators and integrates
them in the existing CRM of Kleemann SA. He has participated and excelled in competitions for

37
entrepreneurial ideas and software design such as the Innovation 2006 (top 1.4% of all proposals)
and ImagineCup 2005 (2nd place in Greece). He is now working on his personal project, Sojourner
which aims to leave a permanent mark –at an international level – on the way we manage and
distribute RSS Feeds. The first fruit of this effort is Twittastic (www.twittastic.net). In his free
time he also organizes the Open Coffee Thessaloniki event.

B.3 Dimitrios Athanasiadis

Dimitrios Athanasiadis, 31, is a graduate from the Physics Department of the University of
Athens (2001) with a PhD in Radioastronomy from the University of Manchester (2004). During
his studies in the UK he has worked on reviews, data analysis using programming techniques,
scientific observation, participating in various working groups, writing and presenting scientific
publications, teaching to undergraduates and so on. He was also charged with responsibilities
over the security and representation of undergraduate students, helping with the operation and
management of the student campus. In Greece he contributed with various articles in youth press,
an activity which he pursued for 2.5 years. From 2005 to 2007 he was employed in the National
Observatory of Athens as a researcher, a position which included data analysis, compiling results
and presenting them to the scientific team, participating in competitions and so on. In 2006 he
participated with a 5-strong team in the Innovation 2006 competition held by Otenet, where he
took 4th place among 2700 submissions. His role included providing the original concept, writing
a large part of the business plan and doing the final presentation before the judges. He has
also worked in various blogs since 2004 (miaparea.blogpot.com, terrainnova.org, opencoffee.gr)
and is an avid observer of all start-up and technology-related news he can get his eyes on. He
also recently participated in various projects (websource.it, howsocial.ru, greekstart-ups.com etc),
while co-organising the Open Coffee Athens events.

B.4 Onic Palandjian

Onic Palandjian, 38, has received a BSc in Management from Bentley and a CSS in Business
Administration from Harvard. His 17-year business experience is diverse – ten years as a venture
capitalist, four as an entrepreneur and three in financial services. Onic is the investment Director
of Capital Connect since the fund’s inception in 2003. At present Onic focuses primarily on
managing ‘green’ investments and is the founding investor of two recycling companies in Greece.
Prior to joining Capital Connect, Onic founded two technology companies, ihavemoved Ltd in
London and ich-zieh-um GmbH in Hamburg. He sourced $10 million from investors including
Rothschild’s, RWE, Hyundai and MIT’s Nicholas Negroponte and subsequently, in 2003, Royal

38
Mail Plc and Deutsche Post AG acquired them. His early venture capital experience comes from
Dorian Eagle Financial Partners (Hadjipateras Group), where he financed energy, transportation
and technology investments. Onic started his career in 1992 as an executive at J.Hancock - now
Manulife Financial - the 3rd largest Financial Services group in the world.

B.5 Spiros Xanthos

Spiros Xanthos, 27, is the co-founder and VP of Engineering at Pattern Insight, a software
company based in Mountain View, CA. Before that, Spiros conducted research in Systems Mining
and Reliability as a member of the Opera research group at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign that created the technology behind Pattern Insight. He has published several research
papers in the areas of Systems and Software Engineering. Spiros holds an MSc in computer
science from the University of Illinois and is currently on leave from the PhD program. He got
his BSc in Computer Science from the University of Macedonia in Thessaloniki Greece, where
he conducted research in Software Engineering. He has previously worked at Google. Spiros’
interests include information mining from systems data, search engines, and large scale software
systems development.

B.6 Apostolos Apostolakis

Apostolos Apostolakis, 35, has received his diploma in Civil Engineering from National Technical
University of Athens in 1996. In 1998 he cofounded with 2 friends e-shop.gr where he was involved
until 2000, when he went to New York to get his MBA from Columbia University. In 2002 after
graduation, he joined Boston Consulting Group where he worked as a consultant until 2004.
During his time with BCG he was involved with projects in consumer and corporate banking as
well as heavy industrial operations. At some of his main projects he analyzed and improved credit
processes for banks as well as helped formulate and implement revenue and cost allocation models
between business units. In 2004 he rejoined e-shop.gr as a general manager where he serves until
today. In 2008 e-shop.gr is the largest technology e-tailer in Greece and Cyprus, having 64 outlets
in both countries, employing more than 500 people and expecting revenue for 2009 of 150 million
euro. In the first years at e-shop.gr he was involved with all aspects of a growing company and
since 2008 with the company having matured he is mainly involved with the marketing and the
financial management of the company.

39
B.7 Yannis Dosios
Yannis Dosios, 33, is the VP of Marketing at Smilebox, a leading photo and video sharing
and preservation service headquartered in Seattle, Washington. His experience is in online paid
search and SEO marketing, building profitable consumer business models, business development,
partner management, brand building, PR and seeding programs, web analytics and research.
Before Smilebox, he was a Senior Product Manager at Microsoft, where he planned and managed
a version of the Windows operating system targeted at users in emerging markets and launched
it in countries in Asia and Latin America. Prior to that, he was a strategy consultant for the
Monitor Group in Los Anageles, providing business strategy advice to senior executives in the
pharmaceutical, technology and entertainment industries. Yannis holds a Masters in Business
Administration from Stanford University and a BA in Mathematics from Harvard University.

B.8 Teresa Farmaki

Ms Teresa Farmaki, 30, has received a BSc in Economics from the National and Capidistrian
University of Athens and an MBA from Columbia Business School in New York with particular
focus in Entrepreneurship and Finance. She also studied one MBA semester at London Business
School, where she supported Imperial College postgraduate students to complete commercializa-
tion studies on their innovation ideas. Teresa is currently Head of Private Equity at Piraeus Bank
in Athens, where she evaluates a wide spectrum of venture capital and private equity investments
in terms of size and maturity. In the beginning of 2009 she launched a 30M venture capital
fund between Piraeus Bank and TANEO, which is now run by a team of three. Previously, she
worked as an investment banking Associate at UBS Investment Bank in Mergers & Acquisitions
in London and in Power and Renewable Energy in New York. She started her professional career
in 2000 and has worked in several positions in asset management and consulting.

40