Читати Українською

Ivan Petrenko is the CEO of Angel One Fund and the Executive Director of the Ideas Center UCU. He stands at the intersection of academic depth and dynamic venture capital, helping Ukrainian startups navigate the path from classroom ideas to global markets. As a member of Techosystem’s Venture Committee, Ivan works tirelessly to make the Ukrainian ecosystem transparent and attractive to the world.
For the Faces of Impact project, we spoke with Ivan about the shift in investment focus during the war, Swarmer’s success on NASDAQ, and why Ukrainian founders need to pursue sales velocity as passionately as engineering.

Ivan, Angel One Fund was launched during an incredibly difficult time. How has your investment focus evolved over the past two years? Have you become more conservative, or conversely, have you found opportunities where others see only risk?Ivan Petrenko: I would say we haven't necessarily become more conservative, but rather more precise. When the fund launched, we were willing to take on more very-early-stage risk because the market needed someone to simply say "yes" to Ukrainian teams. However, over the past two years, we’ve seen that in the current climate, the winners are teams that have already proven the basic viability of their product. That is why we shifted our focus from pre-seed to seed: today, it is vital for us to see initial sales or very clear user traction.

Naturally, this is also about risk mitigation. Ukrainian funds currently have limited capital, and raising new funds is challenging due to two factors: the war and the intense focus on defense tech.

That said, our approach hasn't become any less ambitious. On the contrary, we believe more strongly than ever that opportunities are forming in Ukraine that simply do not emerge in other markets. This is particularly evident in dual-use and defense-related sectors. In other words, we didn't run from risk—we learned to distinguish "chaotic risk" from "asymmetric opportunity." We are building Angel One’s second fund—approximately $3 million—on this exact logic, planning to invest in up to 12 startups in 2026, split equally between the civilian and defense sectors.
You invest at the early stages (Pre-seed/Seed). In your opinion, what is the greatest challenge for a Ukrainian founder today: the lack of capital within the country or a deficit in global scaling skills?I.P.: To be honest, it’s not just one issue — it’s a combination. There is indeed a shortage of capital within the country, especially at the early stages; that is an objective reality. But I wouldn't say that is the only, or even the primary, barrier. A much deeper problem is the shortage of teams that think globally from day one — in terms of market, distribution, sales, testing speed, and scaling.

Speed and sales are where Ukrainian founders need to grow the most.

Ukrainian founders are exceptionally strong in resilience, engineering, and the ability to build a product under pressure. But the global market rewards more than just product quality. It rewards the ability to quickly communicate value to the customer, build repeatable sales, and scale an organization. So, I would put it this way: money is scarce, but there are even fewer teams truly ready to take that money and turn it into a global company.
Angel One is often associated with "smart money." Tell us about your approach to supporting portfolio companies: where does the investor’s role as an "advisor" end and the strict demand for metrics and results begin?I.P.: To me, "smart money" isn't about the fund talking a lot; it’s about helping the company move faster. We don’t try to manage the startup for the founder. Instead, we try to provide what is often as valuable as money at the early stage: access to the right people, honest feedback, assistance with growth strategy, help with the next round, positioning, and hiring for critical roles.

At the same time, my position is quite simple: empathy for the founder does not eliminate discipline. I can be as involved, supportive, and constructive as possible, but at some point, the conversation must return to metrics. An investor cannot fund hope indefinitely. If there is no progress in traction, sales, unit economics, or the team's learning velocity, it means we either need to change the approach or honestly acknowledge the problem. A good investor doesn't just encourage; they create healthy pressure for results.

Ivan, the recent IPO of Swarmer on NASDAQ was a historic precedent for all of Ukraine. Angel One Fund was among those who believed in Serhiy Kuprienko's team early on. What exactly did you see in this project, and how is this case changing the perception of the Ukrainian market for global investors right now?I.P.: In Swarmer, we saw more than just a defense product; we saw a team operating in a category of global significance. When you look at companies this early, you have to be convinced by more than just technology. You have to be convinced by a combination of three things: a strong team, a real problem that is impossible to ignore, and a window of opportunity opening right now. Swarmer had all three.

What does this case give the market? Above all, a signal of trust. Ukrainian defense-tech is no longer perceived as "local wartime improvisation." Swarmer became one of the first highly visible examples proving that technologies forged in the Ukrainian reality can enter the global capital market. The company announced its IPO on Nasdaq in March 2026, and the story itself has already become a vital marker for international investors, who are beginning to view Ukrainian defense-tech as a distinct class of opportunity. This doesn’t mean everything will be easy from now on. But it does mean that the argument that "Ukraine has no exit stories and global outcomes" has become significantly weaker.
Techosystem is actively working on the implementation of EUSAFE. How will this tool help founders and investors avoid "legal hell" during deal structuring, especially regarding international syndicates?I.P.: The value of EUSAFE lies in its attempt to adapt the logic of the SAFE (Simple Agreement for Future Equity) to European realities, where everything is more complex: different jurisdictions, different tax regimes, and different legal interpretations. Because of this, many early deals here turn into overly expensive and slow legal processes.

If EUSAFE truly becomes a working standard, it could radically simplify life for both founders and investors. For the founder, it means less time with lawyers and more time on the business. For the investor, it provides more predictability, especially in international syndicates where every additional legal nuance multiplies the complexity.

Through your work at Ideas Center UCU, you see founders at the ideation stage. Has the "genetic code" of the Ukrainian entrepreneur changed during the war? What qualities are decisive today for you to believe in a team at the Pre-seed stage?I.P.: Yes, I think it has changed. The war harshly cut away many illusions — and that, paradoxically, has made some founders stronger. I see more maturity, more responsibility, and more internal focus. There is less romanticization of startups and more understanding that business is discipline, not just inspiration.
At the pre-seed stage, I don’t believe in "beautiful ideas"; I believe in people. For me, the decisive qualities are learning velocity, the ability to listen to the market, honesty when dealing with the truth, and internal stamina. If a team is in love only with their solution, that’s a bad sign. If a team learns very quickly, honestly admits mistakes, doesn't crumble under pressure, and has an internal ambition to play globally—that’s a reason to talk seriously.
How do you combine academic depth with venture speed? Is the "educational" approach to business perhaps too slow for today’s Defense and Deep Tech markets?I.P.: I see no contradiction here. Education becomes a problem only when it detaches from reality. But if an educational environment teaches a person to think systematically, work with uncertainty, take responsibility, and learn quickly, it’s not a brake—it’s a competitive advantage.
In Defense and Deep Tech specifically, it is dangerous to run fast without depth. There, errors are more expensive, the value creation cycle is more complex, and the requirements for solution quality are higher. Therefore, my conviction is this: academic depth is needed not instead of speed, but so that speed does not turn into superficiality. The strongest teams today are those that know how to combine fundamental thinking with market action.
A lot of capital is currently flowing into defense technologies. How can an investor avoid the "hype" and recognize a product with long-term value (Dual-use) rather than just a temporary wartime necessity?I.P.: The best defense against hype is asking uncomfortable questions. Does this technology have applications beyond a specific episode of the war? Can it become part of a broader defense stack or a civilian market? Does it have the potential to integrate into international supply chains or Western procurement systems?
I am very cautious about products that only look brilliant in the context of today's tactical needs. It might be a useful product, but not always a good venture investment. Long-term value usually exists where technology solves a systemic problem rather than a one-time frontline issue—problems related to security, autonomy, communication, data analysis, robotics, or manufacturing. These are areas where there is a chance for scaling beyond the war, not just within it.

What role does Angel One play in stimulating dual-use developments? Do you have internal restrictions regarding investing in purely "lethal" technologies?I.P.: Regarding restrictions—yes, they exist. We are very careful about exactly what we invest in. Our fund's internal logic is to support strong dual-use solutions, but we do not enter defense products directly through our main fund structure. That is why, in defense cases, we operate through syndicate or intermediary models. In those cases, there are no restrictions on lethal technologies.

It is also worth noting that investing in defense technologies was considered taboo for most funds only eighteen months to two years ago. Now, many investors are changing their approaches and obtaining mandates to invest in either dual-use or defense-tech.

However, I don't really understand the concept of "dual-use," especially now during the war. If you have many civilian clients, the appearance of even one defense client automatically makes you a defense company. How do you explain that to investors then?
Many founders are currently trying to become "American companies with Ukrainian roots." Do you see this as a threat to the Ukrainian economy in the long term, and how can investors encourage teams to keep part of their capitalization and intellectual property in Ukraine?I.P.: The risk is real. If all capitalization, IP, taxes, and key decisions are moved entirely out of Ukraine, we get nice stories about "Ukrainian founders," but almost zero effect on the Ukrainian economy. However, I don't believe the right answer is to force companies to stay in a jurisdiction that is inconvenient for them. That’s not how global venture capital works. A startup must be where the customers and the money are. Unfortunately, for now, that isn't here.

We need to create incentives, not barriers. Investors can require that R&D teams, part of the operations, technical expertise, manufacturing elements, options for the Ukrainian team, and local centers of competence remain in Ukraine. In other words, the question isn't where the holding company is registered, but where the value is actually created. My vision: the Ukrainian company of the future can be globally structured, but it must leave more than a symbolic footprint in Ukraine; it must leave a portion of its economic weight.

What is your personal forecast: when will we see the first major wave of exits for Ukrainian startups invested in during the war, and what will be the trigger?I.P.: I believe we will see the first truly significant wave not in some distant future, but within the next few years. Some of the companies invested in between 2022 and 2024 are entering a phase where we see either strategic M&As or large follow-on rounds that effectively act as partial liquidity events.

The main trigger won't be a single event, but a combination of three factors: first, the emergence of more companies with proven global traction; second, a decrease in the "country-risk discount" regarding the perception of Ukraine; and third, the appearance of several highly visible success stories that will shift market behavior. Swarmer is already acting as that signal. There are several other companies that have raised large rounds and entered into international partnerships, and this flywheel began to spin very quickly in 2026. International investors already see that you can not only build heroically in Ukraine but also exit structurally. I believe the wave of exits will truly accelerate.