The short answer
Founders often ask whether a Berlin studio that lists four focus sectors will still read a fintech, climate, edtech, proptech, legal-tech, or martech deck. For Halfmeyer Ventures, the answer is yes when the product is software-led and the link to health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation is explicit (see focus sectors versus adjacent; fintech: fintech; climate and cleantech: climate; public sector and govtech: public sector; cybersecurity: cybersecurity; edtech: edtech; proptech: proptech; legal tech: legal tech; martech: martech).
- Focus sectors: health tech, AI, e-commerce, and automation remain the center of our underwriting.
- Adjacent fit: other verticals can work when software, data, or automation is the product core and the thesis ties to a focus sector.
- Ticket and stage: €25k–€200k at pre-seed and seed, with design, engineering, and GTM playbooks beyond the check when the engagement is investment.
- Path: cold pitch welcome; response within 48 hours.
This is our investment posture, not legal or regulatory advice for your vertical. For general criteria, see what we look for. For who we back across ticket and stage, see our Berlin pre-seed investor guide.
Focus sectors versus adjacent verticals
Halfmeyer Ventures underwrites from four focus sectors: health tech, AI, e-commerce, and automation. That is the center of our Berlin family office and venture studio practice at pre-seed and seed (€25,000–€200,000). Adjacent verticals sit next to those theses. They are not an open “we invest in everything” mandate. We still need a software surface we can underwrite with design, engineering, and GTM support, and a clear sentence that connects your product to one of the four focus sectors. Cold pitches are welcome; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, Berlin and Europe climate-tech venture builders and deep-tech pre-seed programs often market climate, hardware, or scientific breakthroughs as the primary thesis. Specialty-fund listicles do the same for fintech, edtech, and other labels. That framing leaves vague whether a studio that publishes four focus theses will still read an adjacent deck. Our posture is simpler: focus sectors are where we publish deeper theses and where most of our portfolio signal sits. Adjacent labels (fintech, climate and cleantech, edtech, proptech, legal tech, and the rest of the public list) can fit when software, data, or automation is the product core and the tie to health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation is explicit. A hardware-only climate or deep-tech plan without a software surface is usually a pass for our investment door (clear passes).
Example patterns that usually read as adjacent rather than off-thesis: payments or lending software that automates a buyer workflow (see fintech); climate software that optimizes operations with data (see climate and cleantech); cybersecurity software that owns an identity, detection, or security-operations workflow (see cybersecurity); edtech that ships a product surface with measurable learning outcomes (often AI-assisted; see edtech); proptech that owns a workflow, not a listing board (see proptech); legal tech that owns a matter, contract, or operator workflow rather than a lawyer directory (see legal tech); martech that owns a campaign, lifecycle, or operator workflow rather than a thin CRM wrapper (see martech). The label is secondary. The product core is not. In the deck, name the focus sector you tie to and what the software does. For the four focus theses, see health tech, AI, e-commerce, and automation. For buyer type, see B2B and B2C. If you want a Berlin venture studio that treats four focus sectors as the underwriting center and still reads software-led adjacent decks, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Fintech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led fintech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when fintech is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Fintech is not one of our four published focus theses. It can still fit when the product core is software-led and the focus-sector tie is explicit in the deck. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Berlin and Europe fintech investor lists commonly frame specialty fintech funds with early checks often starting around €500,000 and ranging much higher at seed (sometimes into the multi-million band). That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led fintech at €25k–€200k. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate fintech fund mandate, banking-license SLA, or regulatory timeline beyond the public software-led pass patterns.
Patterns that usually fit: payments, lending, billing, or treasury software that owns a buyer or operator workflow; AI-assisted finance tools when the wedge is workflow or data (not a thin prompt wrapper; thin wrappers vs vertical AI); automation that compresses finance ops with a productized software layer; insurtech or regtech when software, data, or automation is the core and the focus-sector tie is clear. Patterns that usually pass for investment: token-first or speculative crypto and Web3 models (clear passes); capital-intensive hardware-only builds without a productized software surface; pure listing marketplaces without a technology moat. Public portfolio signal in finance includes Debtist (selected name only; not a promise that every fintech label closes). In the deck, name fintech as the adjacent label, state which focus sector you tie to, say what the software does, and disclose any known regulatory path in plain language (we are not your counsel; DORA is a disclosure question, not a gate: DORA at pitch stage). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led fintech inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
DORA at pitch stage (Register of Information, ICT risk, incident reporting)
The Digital Operational Resilience Act is a disclosure question at pitch stage, not a gate. Halfmeyer Ventures is a Berlin-based family office and venture studio, and at pre-seed and seed we deploy €25,000–€200,000 into software-led teams, including software-led fintech adjacent to our focus sectors, without requiring a Register of Information, an approved ICT risk-management framework, an incident-reporting workflow on the European Supervisory Authorities clock, an Article 30 contract pack, or a finished DORA scope memo before a first check. What we read is whether you look like an authorised financial entity or like software sold to one, whether a bank, a payment partner, or a supervisor already asked, and what exists versus what this round funds. That is a different question from manufacturer cybersecurity under the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA at pitch stage), from organisational certificates such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001 (security and compliance posture), and from whether fintech is an adjacent fit at all (fintech). Cold pitches are welcome; we respond within 48 hours.
As of September 2026, founder-facing fintech compliance guides treat DORA as live enforcement and as a raise or partner-bank gate. Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 has applied since 17 January 2025 to financial entities listed in Article 2, including payment institutions, electronic-money institutions, investment firms, crowdfunding service providers, and crypto-asset service providers authorised under MiCA. The operating file those guides ask for is an approved ICT risk framework, a Register of Information on ICT third-party arrangements, an incident-classification and reporting workflow (initial notification commonly framed at four hours after classification and twenty-four hours after detection), and Article 30 contract language, plus an evidence index for investor or banking-partner diligence. A 2026 Register of Information cycle is already running: national competent authorities collect registers so the European Supervisory Authorities can receive them by 31 March 2026. That file is written for an authorised financial entity already inside the supervisory perimeter. It does not say who reads a cold pre-seed deck while the product is still a workflow sold to a bank, and before any register exists.
The distinction the market collapses is simple. DORA binds the authorised financial entity. A pre-seed company selling payments, lending, billing, or treasury software to a bank or a payment institution is usually an ICT third-party to that entity, not a financial entity itself. We publish no in-or-out-of-scope rule. We read the difference as a fact you can name.
At €25,000–€200,000 we read five facts:
- What you are, named: an authorised or soon-to-be-authorised financial entity, or software sold to one. Label it as your current view, not as a legal classification. One deck line is enough at this stage (minimum deck).
- The ask you have actually seen: whether a bank, a payment partner, a competent authority, or an investor already asked for a Register of Information, an ICT framework, or an incident-reporting workflow. “No one has asked” is an answer. Inventing a request is not.
- What exists versus planned: a register, a framework the management body has approved, an incident workflow, a contract gap list, or nothing yet. Do not invent a file. “We will figure DORA later” next to a live payment or e-money licence is a weaker answer than “we sell workflow software to banks; no one has asked; we are not authorised.”
- What this round funds: if DORA work is real work, put a line in use of funds (state the ask). A register bought before any partner asked is a runway decision we do not price as credibility.
- Which focus sector the software ties to: AI, automation, e-commerce, or health tech, in one sentence. DORA does not turn fintech into a fifth focus thesis (focus sectors versus adjacent).
Three answers cost credibility: a confident “DORA does not apply” next to a live payment, e-money, or MiCA authorisation; a Register of Information that does not exist; and treating a SOC 2 report or a CRA file as DORA conformity. Token-first or speculative crypto remains a pass for investment even when MiCA and DORA are in the same sentence (clear passes).
We publish no Register of Information format, no ICT-framework template, no incident-reporting SLA, no Article 30 clause list, and no in-or-out-of-scope rule. A DORA file is not needed to pitch us (no data room to pitch). Authorisation, Article 2 scope, ICT third-party overlay, proportionality, and reporting to a competent authority belong with your counsel, not with us. This is investment posture, not legal or regulatory advice. This is a different question from manufacturer cybersecurity (CRA at pitch stage), from organisational certificates (security and compliance posture), from AI Act classification (the EU AI Act at pitch stage), and from whether fintech fits as software-led adjacent (fintech). Product questions go deeper inside the lean 1–2 week post-call review (diligence window). Want a Berlin studio check that reads the company you are, not your Register of Information? Submit your deck (view-only; 48-hour response).
Climate and cleantech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led climate and cleantech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when climate is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Climate is not one of our four published focus theses. It can still fit when the product core is software-led and the focus-sector tie is explicit in the deck. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Berlin and Europe climate-tech investor lists commonly frame specialty climate funds with initial checks often starting around €1 million and ranging much higher at seed, and they often lean toward hardware or deep-decarbonization paths. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led climate at €25k–€200k. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate climate fund mandate or hardware-ban SLA beyond the public software-led pass patterns.
Patterns that usually fit: climate software that owns an operations, energy, logistics, or buyer workflow with data; AI-assisted climate tools when the wedge is workflow or data; automation that compresses climate-relevant ops with a productized software layer. Patterns that usually pass for investment: capital-intensive hardware-only climate bets without a productized software surface (clear passes; software surface). Hardware can sit in the stack when the investable surface remains software. In the deck, name climate as the adjacent label, state which focus sector you tie to, and say what the software does. Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led climate inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Public sector and govtech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led public-sector and govtech products at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when software, data, or automation is the core of the product and the tie to a focus sector (AI, automation, or health tech) is explicit. Govtech is not one of our four published focus theses (focus sectors versus adjacent), and a public buyer is not a filter: a municipality, a state or federal authority, a public IT service provider, a public hospital, or a public payer can be the customer without changing our bar. Before you pitch we require no won tender, no framework agreement, no public reference customer, no security accreditation, and no minimum contract value, and we publish no public-sector experience requirement for the founding team. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026 the demand side is not the uncertain part. European Commission figures put public procurement at around 14 percent of EU GDP, roughly €2 trillion a year spent by more than 250,000 public authorities, and a June 2026 sector report tracked EU digitalisation funding above €8 billion with German digitalisation spending near €16 billion in 2025, in a market growing about 9 percent a year toward one trillion dollars by 2030 with Europe holding roughly a quarter of it. The same report recorded the opposite movement in the same year: listed govtech shares fell about 28 percent in 2025 on AI disruption and funding uncertainty, and European deal flow ran through private-equity-led consolidation rather than new entrants. Read both honestly. A rising public budget is a market signal and not your traction, and a falling sector multiple is a comment on incumbents and not on your product.
The founder-side numbers are the ones worth planning around. A June 2026 German survey of 225 founders and 33 public-administration staff found 78 percent rating the volume of public contracts positively and 71 percent valuing public bodies as reference customers, while only 11 percent found working with administration more attractive than the private market and 59 percent found it less attractive. The funnel explains that gap: 83 percent believed their solution was usable in public administration, 42 percent had bid for a public contract, and 24 percent had won one. 77 percent said tender procedures favour established providers, and 81 percent called it hard to find the right contact person, with personal networks the dominant route in. At the same time public business grew from about 4.7 percent of German startup revenue in 2021 to 7.0 percent in 2025, and federal administration alone spent more than €600 million on software licences in 2025, concentrated among a few large vendors. The binding constraint in this market is access and procurement, not whether the product is wanted.
What a founder finds when searching how to sell software to government is mostly written for another country and a later stage. 2026 guidance for the United States federal market puts twelve to twenty-four months and thirty to one hundred fifty thousand dollars of effort between a startup and its first contract, expects that contract between fifty and five hundred thousand dollars at roughly half of commercial margins, and routes founders through vendor registration systems, small-business set-asides, research grant phases, cooperative purchasing schedules, and authorisation programmes that have no direct equivalent for a European team selling to a German municipality. State and local guidance gets closer (sixty to ninety days at a small agency with its own purchase authority, six to eighteen months at a mid-sized municipality) and still assumes a sales organisation you do not have yet. None of it answers the question you actually have while raising: does a public buyer make this uninvestable at pre-seed?
It does not. A public buyer changes the vocabulary of your traction, not our bar. The institutional buying clock is the same problem we describe for hospital and payer buyers (procurement cycles), and we read a public authority the same way. Five things make a public-sector deck legible to us:
- Which public body, and what it can buy without a tender: a municipality, a state or federal authority, a public IT service provider, a public hospital, and a public payer sit under different rulebooks and different value thresholds. Name the one that funds the next twelve months, and say whether the purchase you are chasing sits below a direct-award threshold, inside an existing framework, or in a full tender. Which rules bind a specific buyer is a question for that buyer’s procurement office and your counsel, not for us.
- What you have, labelled precisely: an innovation-programme placement, a research or sandbox project, an unpaid trial, a paid pilot, a direct award below threshold, a subcontract under a prime or a public IT provider, a call-off from an existing framework, and a won tender are eight different things, and only some of them are a customer buying a product. Public money that funds your development is a funding route rather than demand (non-dilutive capital and grants).
- How you got in: the market’s own data says access is the constraint, so the route matters more than the logo. Name the department, the role of the person who wants this, and how you reached them, then say whether that route is repeatable or one personal relationship.
- What repeats: whether the second buyer can copy the first buyer’s path (same threshold, same framework, same integration, same rulebook) or whether every deal is a bespoke build. That is the line between a product with a public-sector market and a project business with one client (software surface; software-led automation).
- What our check is for: €25,000–€200,000 funds product, integrations, and the first reference deployments that make the next procurement cheaper. It does not fund a bid desk, a public-sector sales team, or the accreditation programme a later round pays for.
Where public-sector work stops being an adjacent fit for our investment door: day-rate implementation or staffing dressed as a platform, reselling somebody else’s product into tenders, and a plan whose real asset is the procurement relationship rather than the software (clear passes). Digital sovereignty is a real tailwind for European vendors in 2026 and it is not a substitute for a product. Our own clock is short and independent of your buyer’s: a first reply within 48 hours, and typically one to two weeks of diligence after a founder call (diligence timeline), so a tender that resolves in twelve months does not have to resolve before you pitch. If you are building software-led public-sector or govtech products and want a Berlin venture studio check inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Cybersecurity (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led cybersecurity at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when cybersecurity is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Cybersecurity is not one of our four published focus theses. It can still fit when the product core is software-led and the focus-sector tie is explicit in the deck. We publish no defence or dual-use mandate, no required CISO logo count, and no SOC 2, ISO 27001, or penetration-test gate before a first read. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Europe cybersecurity investor lists commonly frame specialty cyber funds with early cheques from about £250,000 to £2.5 million, and seed playbooks ask for two to four named CISO design partners, a paid pilot in the $15,000–$40,000 band that converts to a $60,000–$150,000 annual contract, plus a signed ROI memo before a serious conversation. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led security at €25k–€200k before those artifacts exist. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate cyber fund mandate, a CISO-logo floor, or a defence-clearance SLA.
The label and the law are easy to mix up. The Cyber Resilience Act is manufacturer law for products with digital elements. It is a disclosure question on any software deck, not a sector thesis, and it does not decide whether a security product fits (CRA at pitch stage). Organisational certificates (SOC 2, ISO 27001, questionnaires) are a different disclosure (security and compliance posture). A public buyer for a security product is a buyer question, not a cyber filter (public sector and govtech).
Patterns that usually fit: identity, detection, posture, or security-operations software that owns a buyer workflow; AI-assisted security tools when the wedge is workflow or data rather than a prompt over a scanner API (thin wrappers vs vertical AI); automation that compresses security ops with a productized software layer. Patterns that usually pass for investment: capital-intensive hardware-only appliances or air-gapped kits without a productized software surface (clear passes; software surface); day-rate MSSP, SOC staffing, or body-shop consulting wrapped as a platform; token-first or speculative crypto and Web3 models. Hardware can sit in the stack when the investable surface remains software. We publish no defence or dual-use mandate, so a deck that names a defence buyer is read for the software surface and the focus-sector tie, not against a classified-programme scorecard we do not have.
Four things make a cybersecurity deck legible to us:
- What the software does: the workflow you own (identity, detection, response, posture, developer security, or buyer evidence), not a category slogan.
- Which focus sector you tie to: AI, automation, health tech, or e-commerce, in one sentence.
- Who already asked, and what they asked for: a named buyer, a questionnaire, a pilot, or nothing yet. “No CISO logo yet” is acceptable at pre-seed. A Fortune 500 logo you cannot explain is not.
- What this round funds: product and the next proof, not a bid desk or a certificate programme a later round pays for.
Three answers cost credibility: treating a SOC 2 plan as if it were the product; calling a staffing roster a platform; and a confident “CRA does not apply” next to a downloadable agent or client. In the deck, name cybersecurity as the adjacent label, state the focus-sector tie, say what the software does, and disclose any known regulatory or buyer-security path in plain language (we are not your counsel). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led cybersecurity inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Edtech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led edtech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when edtech is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Edtech is not one of our four published focus theses. A school, university, employer L&D, or consumer-learning label is a disclosure question, not a filter. We publish no required learning-outcome study, ESSA evidence tier, district logo, renewal-rate floor, student-count bar, or ARR gate before a first read. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Europe edtech lists route founders to specialist funds with initial cheques commonly framed from about €400,000 to €4 million, and one specialist pre-seed vehicle writes $500,000–$2.5 million. Pitch-deck and fundraising guides treat measurable learning outcomes, ESSA-aligned studies, six-to-eighteen-month school procurement, and institutional renewal rates above roughly 85 percent as the conversation starter, and they split K-12, higher education, workforce, and consumer into different investor lists. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led learning products at €25k–€200k before those artifacts exist. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate edtech fund mandate, an efficacy-study SLA, or a school-versus-corporate preference.
A school or public university buyer is a buyer question, not an edtech filter (public sector and govtech). Buyer type (institution versus consumer) is the same B2B/B2C read we already publish (B2B and B2C). A thin prompt over a content library is the same wrapper question as in AI (thin wrappers vs vertical AI).
Patterns that usually fit: learning or teaching software that owns a lesson, assessment, credential, skills, or operator workflow; AI-assisted learning tools when the wedge is workflow or data rather than a prompt over a content catalogue; workforce and corporate L&D software with a productized layer; consumer learning products that clear the same software bar. Patterns that usually pass for investment: a content catalogue or textbook library with a thin player and no owned workflow; tutor or course directories that are listing marketplaces without a technology moat (clear passes); day-rate training or staffing dressed as a platform; hardware-only classroom kits without a productized software surface (software surface). Hardware can sit in the stack when the investable surface remains software.
Four things make an edtech deck legible to us:
- What the software does: the workflow you own (lesson, assessment, credential, skills, or operator ops), not a category slogan or a student-count headline.
- Which focus sector you tie to: AI, automation, health tech, or e-commerce, in one sentence.
- Who pays, and what they already asked: a school, a university, an employer, a parent, or nobody yet. “No district logo yet” is acceptable at pre-seed. “We have 200,000 students” with no payer and no shipped product is not.
- What this round funds: product and the next proof, not an efficacy study or a bid desk a later round pays for.
Three answers cost credibility: calling a content catalogue or tutor directory “edtech software”; leading with a student-count when almost nobody pays and nothing ships; and treating an ESSA file or a won district tender as the company. In the deck, name edtech as the adjacent label, state the focus-sector tie, say what the software does, and disclose who pays and any known procurement or evidence path in plain language (we are not your counsel). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led edtech inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Proptech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led proptech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when proptech is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Proptech is not one of our four published focus theses. A real-estate, construction, property-operations, or tenant-experience label is a disclosure question, not a filter. We publish no required AUM of buildings, signed-landlord count, construction-site pilot conversion rate, square-metre-under-management bar, or must-become-a-CRE-platform rule before a first read. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Europe proptech lists route founders to specialist funds with a median first check around $540,000 across hundreds of named firms, and Berlin-area specialty vehicles commonly write initial tickets from about €300,000 to €4 million. A first-half 2026 cohort of twenty-six US proptech and proptech-adjacent rounds between $500,000 and $2 million showed a median pre-seed of $800,000, with construction-adjacent companies taking eleven of those twenty-six rounds at a $560,000 construction median. Pitch and operator guides treat a signed landlord or property manager, a construction-site pilot that converted to a repeatable contract, and buildings under management as the conversation starter, and they split residential, commercial, construction, and smart-building into different investor lists. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led property products at €25k–€200k before those artifacts exist. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate proptech fund mandate, an AUM floor, or a construction-versus-operations preference.
A housing-authority or municipal-housing buyer is a buyer question, not a proptech filter (public sector and govtech). Building energy or operations software that is primarily a climate thesis is still the climate read (climate and cleantech). Buyer type (operator versus tenant) is the same B2B/B2C read we already publish (B2B and B2C). A listing board of flats or sites is the same marketplace pass (clear passes; marketplaces).
Patterns that usually fit: leasing, property-operations, construction, asset, tenant, or energy-workflow software that owns a buyer or operator workflow; AI-assisted building tools when the wedge is workflow or data rather than a prompt over a BMS or listing API (thin wrappers vs vertical AI); construction or trades software with a productized layer; tenant or residential products that clear the same software bar. Patterns that usually pass for investment: classifieds or listing boards without matching, pricing, trust, or workflow depth (clear passes); day-rate project, brokerage, or site-management staffing dressed as a platform; hardware-only construction kits, sensors, or robotics without a productized software surface (software surface); token-first real-estate tokens. Hardware can sit in the stack when the investable surface remains software.
Four things make a proptech deck legible to us:
- What the software does: the workflow you own (leasing, operations, construction, asset, tenant, or energy), not a category slogan or an AUM headline.
- Which focus sector you tie to: AI, automation, health tech, or e-commerce, in one sentence.
- Who already asked, and what they asked for: a named operator, a landlord, a contractor, a tenant, or nobody yet. “No signed landlord yet” is acceptable at pre-seed. “We cover 2 million square metres” with no payer and no shipped product is not.
- What this round funds: product and the next proof, not a bid desk or a portfolio of buildings a later round pays for.
Three answers cost credibility: calling a listing board “proptech software”; leading with AUM of buildings when almost nobody pays and nothing ships; and treating a signed REIT logo as the company. In the deck, name proptech as the adjacent label, state the focus-sector tie, say what the software does, and disclose who pays and any known procurement or building-data path in plain language (we are not your counsel). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led proptech inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Legal tech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led legal tech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when legal tech is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Legal tech is not one of our four published focus theses. A law-firm, in-house legal, court, insolvency, or consumer-legal label is a disclosure question, not a filter. We publish no required practising-lawyer founder, bar admission, law-firm logo, billed-hour or matter-count bar, or must-become-a-legal-ops-platform rule before a first read. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Europe legaltech lists route founders to specialist funds with initial cheques commonly framed from about €225,000 to €2.3 million, and $1 million to $5 million at one dedicated vehicle. Announced European legaltech pre-seed rounds in 2026 often land between about €1 million and €3 million. Pitch and operator guides treat a practising lawyer on the founding team, a law-firm or in-house legal logo, and early revenue as the conversation starter, and they split law-firm software, in-house legal ops, consumer legal, and litigation finance into different investor lists. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led legal products at €25k–€200k before those artifacts exist. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate legaltech fund mandate, a lawyer-founder SLA, or a law-firm-versus-in-house preference.
A court, ministry, or public-legal buyer is a buyer question, not a legal-tech filter (public sector and govtech). Payments or billing software sold into a legal workflow is still the fintech read when finance is the core (fintech). Buyer type (firm versus consumer) is the same B2B/B2C read we already publish (B2B and B2C). A lawyer directory or referral board is the same marketplace pass (clear passes; marketplaces). A thin prompt over a statute library is the same wrapper question as in AI (thin wrappers vs vertical AI). A plan to buy law firms and rebuild them with AI needs acquisition capital far above this band (services-as-software).
Patterns that usually fit: matter, contract, research, intake, or operator-workflow software that owns a buyer or practitioner workflow; AI-assisted legal tools when the wedge is workflow or data rather than a prompt over a public statute dump; insolvency, restructuring, or court-adjacent software with a productized layer; consumer legal products that clear the same software bar. Patterns that usually pass for investment: lawyer or counsel directories that are listing marketplaces without a technology moat (clear passes); day-rate legal staffing or secondment dressed as a platform; practising law as the product with software as a brochure. Public portfolio signal in legal-adjacent software includes Sunset (selected name only; not a promise that every legal-tech label closes).
Four things make a legal-tech deck legible to us:
- What the software does: the workflow you own (matter, contract, research, intake, insolvency, or operator ops), not a category slogan or a lawyer-count headline.
- Which focus sector you tie to: AI, automation, health tech, or e-commerce, in one sentence.
- Who pays, and what they already asked: a firm, an in-house team, a court-adjacent operator, a consumer, or nobody yet. “No law-firm logo yet” is acceptable at pre-seed. “Our founder is a lawyer” with no payer and no shipped product is not.
- What this round funds: product and the next proof, not a bar admission or a partnership committee a later round pays for.
Three answers cost credibility: calling a lawyer directory or referral network “legal tech software”; leading with a practising-lawyer founder when almost nobody pays and nothing ships; and treating a bar admission or a law-firm logo as the company. In the deck, name legal tech as the adjacent label, state the focus-sector tie, say what the software does, and disclose who pays and any known regulatory or professional-conduct path in plain language (we are not your counsel). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Ops automation core: software-led automation. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led legal tech inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Martech (software-led adjacent)
Halfmeyer Ventures backs software-led martech at pre-seed and seed from Berlin with a typical €25,000–€200,000 check when martech is adjacent to our focus sectors (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) and the investable surface is software, data, or automation. Martech is not one of our four published focus theses. A marketing-automation, CRM, lifecycle, attribution, CDP, or content-ops label is a disclosure question, not a filter. We publish no required CMO logo, CMO founder, attribution study, incrementality test, HubSpot or Salesforce integration, paid-customer floor, or must-become-a-marketing-cloud rule before a first read. Cold submissions are welcome at halfmeyer.tech/pitch; we respond within 48 hours.
As of 2026, founder-facing Europe martech and adtech lists route founders to specialist funds with initial cheques commonly framed from about €100,000 to €1.5 million, and $250,000 to $750,000 at one pre-seed vehicle. Announced European lifecycle-marketing and mobile-marketing pre-seed rounds in 2026 often land between about €2 million and €3 million. Pitch and marketing-diligence guides treat a CMO logo, a documented attribution model (often with incrementality), a HubSpot or Salesforce integration, and first paying customers as the conversation starter, and they split lifecycle, CRM, attribution, and media buying into different investor lists. That framing leaves vague whether a Berlin family office and venture studio that publishes four focus sectors will still cold-pitch software-led marketing products at €25k–€200k before those artifacts exist. Our bar is software surface first, focus-sector tie second, ticket inside €25k–€200k. We do not invent a separate martech fund mandate, a CMO-logo SLA, or a CRM-versus-lifecycle preference.
Paid channels you rent to acquire customers are a distribution question, not a martech filter (paid channels and rented demand). A product that lives as an app on a commerce platform you do not own is still the platform-app read (platform apps). Media buying, programmatic, or ad-network infrastructure is adtech: the same software-led adjacent bar applies, and you do not need a dedicated adtech page to pitch. Buyer type (brand versus agency versus consumer) is the same B2B/B2C read we already publish (B2B and B2C). A thin prompt over a public CRM or email API is the same wrapper question as in AI (thin wrappers vs vertical AI). A plan to buy agencies and rebuild them with AI needs acquisition capital far above this band (services-as-software).
Patterns that usually fit: campaign, lifecycle, attribution, or operator-workflow software that owns a buyer or marketer workflow; AI-assisted marketing tools when the wedge is workflow or data rather than a prompt over a public CRM or email API; CDP, content-ops, or sales-enablement software with a productized layer; brand or consumer-facing marketing products that clear the same software bar. Patterns that usually pass for investment: influencer or creator directories that are listing marketplaces without a technology moat (clear passes; marketplaces); day-rate agency, performance-marketing staffing, or media buying dressed as a platform; a native-feature wrapper of a public CRM, email, or ads API with no owned workflow.
Four things make a martech deck legible to us:
- What the software does: the workflow you own (campaign, lifecycle, attribution, content, or operator ops), not a category slogan or a CMO-count headline.
- Which focus sector you tie to: AI, e-commerce, automation, or health tech, in one sentence.
- Who pays, and what they already asked: a brand, an agency, a mid-market operator, a consumer, or nobody yet. “No CMO logo yet” is acceptable at pre-seed. “Our founder was a CMO” with no payer and no shipped product is not.
- What this round funds: product and the next proof, not an incrementality study or a marketplace listing a later round pays for.
Three answers cost credibility: calling an influencer directory or a media-buying desk “martech software”; leading with a CMO founder when almost nobody pays and nothing ships; and treating a HubSpot badge or an attribution slide as the company. In the deck, name martech as the adjacent label, state the focus-sector tie, say what the software does, and disclose who pays and any known data or consent path in plain language (we are not your counsel). Focus versus adjacent: focus sectors. Commerce distribution: channel dependency. If you want a Berlin studio that cold-pitches software-led martech inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
Which adjacent verticals can fit
We explicitly consider adjacent verticals when the software, data, or automation core is real. The public list includes fintech, insurtech, proptech, climate and cleantech, edtech, agtech, foodtech, logistics, mobility, cybersecurity, HR tech, legal tech, regtech, martech, adtech, developer tools, life sciences, biotech, and medtech. That list is illustrative of where founders commonly ask, not a closed taxonomy that invents new Halfmeyer mandates. Public-sector and govtech software sits in the same category, with the buyer rather than the technology as the distinctive part (see public sector and govtech). Cybersecurity sits in the same list, with the software surface rather than a CISO logo or a SOC 2 report as the distinctive part (see cybersecurity). Edtech sits in the same list, with the software surface rather than a learning-outcome study or a district logo as the distinctive part (see edtech). Proptech sits in the same list, with the software surface rather than AUM of buildings or a signed landlord as the distinctive part (see proptech). Legal tech sits in the same list, with the software surface rather than a practising-lawyer founder or a law-firm logo as the distinctive part (see legal tech). Martech sits in the same list, with the software surface rather than a CMO logo or an attribution study as the distinctive part (see martech).
Life sciences, biotech, and medtech can fit when there is a software, data, or automation surface we can underwrite at pre-seed or seed (for example clinical workflow software, decision support, or productized data infrastructure). A pure wet-lab or device-only plan without that surface is a different product and usually a pass for our investment path. For incorporation and jurisdiction when your entity sits outside Germany, see incorporation. For corporate or academic spin-outs with IP questions, see spin-outs.
The software, data, or automation bar
Adjacent fit fails when the vertical label is strong but the product is not software-led. We look for a product or prototype where software, data models, or automation owns a workflow, creates a repeatable buyer value, and can compound with design and engineering support. Spreadsheets plus a pitch narrative are not enough. A services wrapper around someone else’s API is weak unless you own the workflow and the differentiation.
Tie the bar to stage proof. At pre-seed we want a working product, prototype, or validated problem–solution fit. At seed we want clearer repeatability. Adjacent verticals do not get a lower bar. If metrics are thin, state what you validated and what this round will prove. For stage language, see what pre-seed means.
Clear passes: hardware-only, token-first crypto, and pure listing marketplaces
Halfmeyer Ventures typically passes on three patterns at our €25,000–€200,000 pre-seed and seed ticket from Berlin: capital-intensive hardware-only or deep-tech bets without a software surface; token-first or speculative crypto and Web3 models; and pure listing marketplaces without a technology moat. Europe founder lists still market Web3, hardware, and deep-tech capital heavily. Our investment door is software-led. Cold submissions remain welcome when your product is software-led in (or clearly adjacent to) health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation; we respond within 48 hours.
Hardware-only means the core bet is physical build-out (devices, robotics, lab hardware) without a productized software, data, or automation layer we can underwrite with design and engineering support. A device plus a thin companion app that does not own a workflow usually fails this bar. Token-first crypto and Web3 means primary value depends on token economics or speculative on-chain narratives rather than software used for a real buyer or user workflow. Pure listing marketplaces means classifieds-style inventory aggregation without software that owns matching, pricing, trust, or workflow depth. Commerce products with a real software surface can still fit our e-commerce thesis; the pass is about listing-only aggregation, not every marketplace label.
These are investment passes for our check, not judgments about whether those companies can raise elsewhere. Revenue or a warm intro does not rescue a model outside the software-led bar. Advisory or incubation may still be relevant if that is the engagement you want; name the model clearly. In the deck, state what the software does, the focus-sector tie, and why you are not in one of these three pass patterns. Buyer type is separate: B2B and B2C. Broader criteria: what we look for. Four engagement paths: invest vs incubate vs accelerate vs advisory. If your product is software-led and you want a Berlin venture studio check inside €25k–€200k, submit your deck. We respond within 48 hours.
B2B and B2C
Halfmeyer Ventures backs both B2B and B2C at pre-seed and seed from Berlin. Buyer type is not a hard filter for our €25,000–€200,000 check. What matters is a software-led product in (or clearly adjacent to) health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation, with stage proof we can underwrite: a working product, prototype, or validated problem–solution fit. Cold pitches are welcome; we respond within 48 hours.
Europe fundraising explainers often imply investors prefer B2B SaaS and treat consumer as a special case. That stereotype is not our filter. We back enterprise and consumer products when the software surface is real and operator support (design, engineering, and go-to-market playbooks) can compound from day one. B2B is not automatic: a services wrapper without a productized software layer still fails. B2C is not out of scope: consumer products need the same stage proof and software depth as enterprise products, not a lower bar dressed as a growth narrative.
Marketplaces and hybrid models sit under the same rules. Pure listing marketplaces without a technology moat (matching, pricing, trust, or workflow depth) are a typical pass. Commerce products with a real software surface can fit our e-commerce thesis. Adjacent vertical labels still need a clear focus-sector tie and a software, data, or automation core. For commerce framing, see e-commerce. For criteria across buyer types, see what we look for.
In the deck, name whether you sell to businesses, consumers, or both, and state the buyer and the workflow the software owns. Do not assume we will infer B2C fit from an e-commerce tag, or B2B fit from a SaaS label. If you want a Berlin venture studio that treats buyer type as secondary to software and sector fit, submit your deck. Keep the link view-only; we respond within 48 hours.
What to state in the deck
Adjacent pitches fail when founders hope we will infer the focus-sector link. In your first-pass deck, include:
- Sector fit sentence: which focus sector (health tech, AI, e-commerce, or automation) your product ties to, and how.
- What the software does: the workflow you own, the data or automation layer, and why it is not a services wrapper.
- Regulatory path (if any): state known constraints in plain language; we are not your counsel, but we need the disclosure.
- Traction: strongest signal at your stage (users, pilots, revenue, retention, or LOIs).
- Round terms: amount, use of funds, timing, and instrument inside a dilutive equity path.
Ten to fifteen slides covering team, problem and market, product or prototype, traction, business model, and round terms is enough for a first submission. Set the link to view-only for anyone with the link. For slide mechanics, see pitch deck expectations. For capital-stack fit (dilutive check; exclusive RBF or grant-only does not fit), see non-dilutive and RBF-only.
How to pitch an adjacent vertical
Submit at halfmeyer.tech/pitch. Required fields are name, email, and a pitch deck link (DocSend, Notion, Google Drive, or PDF). Company name is optional. Cold submissions are welcome; you do not need a warm introduction. Name the adjacent vertical, the focus-sector tie, and whether you want investment, incubation, acceleration, or advisory. We review every deck personally and respond within 48 hours.
Public track record we state for the entity: 20+ investments, 5.6× portfolio ROI, and 100+ products built. Selected public portfolio names include Recovio, Keel, Tenpal, Doctario, Debtist, Fideus, Joy_, Papeer, vi Health, Urban Ray, mula., Morgen Health, Sunset, ClearStack, and Protocol Health. Use those as entity facts, not as a promise that every adjacent label closes. For the cold path end to end, see how to pitch Halfmeyer.