55North's Helmut Katzgraber: materials simulation, not optimisation, is quantum's best near term bet

[Aura]

The Quantum Insider has an interview with Helmut Katzgraber, a general partner at 55North, a Danish venture fund focused on quantum technology. Katzgraber has an interesting background. He was born in Peru, studied physics in Switzerland, and previously led quantum science teams at AWS and worked at Microsoft. So he brings theory, computing and cloud experience to investing

His main argument is clear. He thinks materials simulation is the most promising near to medium term application for quantum computers, especially strongly correlated systems like battery materials, organic LEDs and medicines involving metal organic complexes. Those are areas where classical computers struggle and where quantum technologies hopefully will bring value down the road. On optimisation, he is sceptical, saying classical technologies will outperform any quantum device for the foreseeable future

That is a notable position, because optimisation has been one of the most heavily marketed quantum use cases. Logistics, scheduling and portfolio optimisation feature in countless press releases. We even covered Rigetti's Gurobi speed up recently. Katzgraber's view lines up with the BCG report and the Kondo effect research we discussed, which both point to chemistry and materials as the natural fit

55North itself had a first close of 134 million euros and could grow to 300 million, investing from pre seed to Series B across all quantum technologies, including sensing and networking. The partners include Owen Lozman, formerly of Merck Ventures, and Kai Hudek, an early IonQ employee. Katzgraber says Europe has fantastic talent and education, but struggles with turning lab research into products and finding growth funding compared with the US. He also wants more product managers trained in both physics and business

On deployment, he expects most users to access quantum through the cloud, since the machines need a lot more babysitting, while supercomputing centres and national security users keep some on premises. Do you agree that optimisation is oversold? And is Europe's funding gap the main thing holding back its quantum startups?. Fund size matters, because quantum hardware companies burn through cash quickly

Helmut Katzgraber (55North): Why materials simulation beats optimization for near-term quantumthequantuminsider.com

[TristanFenwick]

Physics and business product managers would be gold dust. Most quantum startups are run by brilliant physicists who struggle to explain what they sell. Someone who can bridge that gap is rare

[TheRock]

A lot more babysitting is a lovely way to describe quantum hardware. These machines need constant calibration and expert care. Cloud access makes sense for nearly everyone. Few businesses want a physicist on staff just to keep a computer running

[BatchWizard]

AWS and Microsoft experience gives him a good view of what customers want. Cloud providers see what people try to run and what fails

Usage data is a goldmine for spotting real demand. He would know which problems people kept trying

[IronSpectre88]

An investor saying optimisation is oversold is worth noting. Investors usually hype whatever sells. Saying the opposite suggests he believes it. Credibility counts in a field this noisy

[BareMinimum]

Optimisation has definitely been oversold. Classical solvers are incredibly good and keep improving. Quantum needs a much clearer advantage before businesses switch

Gurobi and CPLEX have decades of tuning behind them. Beating that is a tall order

[Pilgrim]

Europe's problem is always the same. Great universities and research, then the best startups move to the US for funding. A 300 million euro fund helps, but American funds are far bigger

Some do succeed though. Pasqal and IQM show it can be done