[nemesisj]

In context this is a really strange article. The government bodies listed in this article do give money to startups, and the bar is extremely low. In addition, private investors (angels and angel syndicates) get matching funds "for free" where the public money matches private money. I'm not sure why this isn't exactly what's being described in the article.

[5l]

The point is rather than these bodies acting as gatekeepers deciding what they think will work or not, funds should be distributed via a lottery subject to some basic criteria.

In fact, that is rather the point of the matching funds you mentioned - they let the private sector decide the winners and come in on the same times. That said, there's still a checklist of what sectors they will and won't fund - and it so happens that some startups get unreasonably pigeonholed.

[PeterisP]

If you make it a lottery subject to criteria X, then it will be a profitable "financial startup" business to cheaply make thousands of fresh companies matching criteria X, extracting the "free money" out of the startup ecosystem.

I've seen it many times for various subsidy programs - where a few "entrepreneurs" who learn how to game the system aren't just 'a few bad apples' but actually obtain the majority or even 100% of such programs.