Key Takeaways

  • Deep tech businesses, from advanced semiconductor foundries to AI factories, have become incredibly capital-intensive, often requiring billions in funding that outstrip traditional venture capital models.
  • Founders building these industrial-scale projects must look beyond conventional VC, actively seeking patient capital from sources like government funding, sovereign wealth funds, and large infrastructure-focused investment vehicles.
  • Governments are evolving from grant providers to direct shareholders; Lip Bu Tan cites Taiwan's early support for TSMC and the US government's current investment in Intel as examples of essential industrial policy for national infrastructure.
  • For deep tech companies, securing long-term, growth-oriented investors who prioritize business building over short-term capital allocation is not just nice to have—it's critical for achieving generational returns.
  • Intel’s CEO expects the long game to pay off, projecting that by “2030 2032 31 32 I think I was starting to surface up people may not understand how big potential I can be in term of product.”

Governments: The New (Old) Deep Tech VC

Forget the traditional venture capital model for the biggest bets in deep tech. Lip Bu Tan, the CEO of Intel, isn't talking about Series A rounds; he’s discussing billions for projects like semiconductor foundries and AI factories. This kind of capital intensity has changed the game. “For capital intensive business and infrastructure play, you need to access to the capital,” Tan says. He makes it clear that this isn't merely about tapping private equity, but about securing funds that understand the decades-long horizon required.

Tan points directly to governments as key players. He’s not talking about simple grants or tax breaks, but about governments as direct shareholders, a strategic partner in building national infrastructure. He recalls a conversation with President Trump, where he explained that “TSMC when they started they have the Taiwan government as a shareholder.” Now, Intel finds itself in a similar position with the US government. This isn't charity; it's industrial policy. “If you look at Japan, you look at Singapore, this is the infrastructure US government get to provide the support,” Tan adds. For any founder building something truly foundational, this means understanding that your deepest competition—and your biggest potential ally—might just be a nation-state.

Why Patient Capital Isn't Optional for Real Builders

When you're building a multi-billion dollar factory, quarterly earnings calls are a distraction, not a driver. Tan stresses the importance of finding capital that's aligned with a generational timescale. “As a public company, I also purposely want to focus on some of the investor that are more long-term growth oriented,” he notes. The alternative? Investors who push for “short-term asking capital location,” a recipe for disaster when your payoff is still a decade out.

For Tan, this means clearly articulating a vision that extends far beyond next year's revenue. He's betting on Intel's long-term product pipeline, telling listeners that “by 2030 2032 31 32 I think I was starting to surface up people may not understand how big potential I can be in term of product.” This isn't just a marketing line; it's a strategic imperative for attracting the right kind of money. Building foundational tech requires conviction and the financial runway to see it through, even if it means reshaping who your shareholders are and how you communicate your value.

What to Do With This

If you're building a deep tech company that will eventually require billions in capital, start by asking: Is your solution a piece of national infrastructure? If so, map out not just traditional VCs, but also government initiatives, strategic investment arms, and infrastructure funds. When pitching, frame your company not just as a business opportunity, but as a critical national asset, and actively seek investors whose LPs have a 10-20 year horizon, not a 3-5 year exit strategy.