What a new Commerce paper says — and doesn’t say — about “Centers of Excellence,” full-stack research, NSTC’s operating nonprofit, membership tiers, Manufacturing USA, and partner-nation consortiums
Thanks for the question, John! I didn't comment much here on the startup angle because I don't think Commerce has fully baked anything relevant to startups yet, and the lack of new information below reflects that. Again, I'm not criticizing the team there for not having all their thoughts complete --this is a progress report.
1) Investment Fund: You understand this mechanism much more deeply than I do, but it seems to me that the five "important characteristics" the paper lays out as guiding the investment fund are just stating the obvious: reducing risk, collaborating with other USG offices, collaborating with private investors, a balanced portfolio, and entrepreneurial support.
I get that "reducing risk" is a unique investment strategy that not every investment fund includes in its mission, but does it mean helping guarantee a startup's short/mid-term research project, its long-term financial stability until it generates revenue, its long-term financial stability until it is purchased, etc.? I would have also really liked to see the paper state clearly whether the NSTC will be focused on supporting existing startups, spinning off internal IP into new startups, or both.
2) CHIPS Incentives: The strategy noted that applicants for CHIPS grants should reserve capacity to support shuttle runs (multi-project wafers) at market rates or below in support of startups and other groups. That line was already in the NOFO, though, so I don't see much reason to comment on it in the context of the NSTC paper.
3) Subsidizing EDA Licenses: This would be great, but past Commerce Department responses to the January 2022 RFI responses already said that this would be a key part of the NSTC's services to its members, especially startups. I suppose this paper confirms that view, but I don't think it is notable on its own.
What were your thoughts on the startups, investors being included, and the investment fund?
Thanks for the question, John! I didn't comment much here on the startup angle because I don't think Commerce has fully baked anything relevant to startups yet, and the lack of new information below reflects that. Again, I'm not criticizing the team there for not having all their thoughts complete --this is a progress report.
1) Investment Fund: You understand this mechanism much more deeply than I do, but it seems to me that the five "important characteristics" the paper lays out as guiding the investment fund are just stating the obvious: reducing risk, collaborating with other USG offices, collaborating with private investors, a balanced portfolio, and entrepreneurial support.
I get that "reducing risk" is a unique investment strategy that not every investment fund includes in its mission, but does it mean helping guarantee a startup's short/mid-term research project, its long-term financial stability until it generates revenue, its long-term financial stability until it is purchased, etc.? I would have also really liked to see the paper state clearly whether the NSTC will be focused on supporting existing startups, spinning off internal IP into new startups, or both.
2) CHIPS Incentives: The strategy noted that applicants for CHIPS grants should reserve capacity to support shuttle runs (multi-project wafers) at market rates or below in support of startups and other groups. That line was already in the NOFO, though, so I don't see much reason to comment on it in the context of the NSTC paper.
3) Subsidizing EDA Licenses: This would be great, but past Commerce Department responses to the January 2022 RFI responses already said that this would be a key part of the NSTC's services to its members, especially startups. I suppose this paper confirms that view, but I don't think it is notable on its own.