The comparison that matters most for European founders raising venture capital.
| EU Inc. | Delaware C-Corp | |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum capital | €0 | $0 (par value) |
| Registration | 48 hours, digital | 24 hours, digital |
| Notary | No | No |
| Cross-border recognition | 27 EU states | 50 US states |
| Employee equity | EU-ESO (harmonised) | Stock options (mature) |
| Courts | National (27 jurisdictions) | Court of Chancery (specialist) |
| Investor familiarity | New | 200+ years established |
Every European founder who has raised from US investors has faced the question: do you flip to Delaware? For 15 years, the answer was often yes, not because Delaware is inherently superior, but because European fragmentation made it the path of least resistance.
EU Inc. is designed to end that calculus. One entity, one registration, 27-country recognition. But it does not replicate what makes Delaware truly valuable: the Court of Chancery, a specialised corporate court with 200 years of precedent and judges who understand venture capital structures.
For European founders building for the European market, EU Inc. may become the rational default once it is operational. For European founders raising US institutional capital or listing in the US, Delaware flips will remain rational. EU Inc. and Delaware solve different problems.
EU market focus, EU investors, pan-European operations, avoiding flip complexity
US institutional capital, US listing plans, investor familiarity, established case law
Europe's most common company form, head to head.
France's flexible startup form vs pan-European reach.
Holding structures and tax efficiency.
Digital pioneers: two approaches.
Post-Brexit divergence and the EU question.
Old pan-European form meets new.