April 22, 2025. Building in the United States, European Union, China, and Indonesia.

After spending months developing MIKE-AI and encountering that formidable wall. I've been thinking deeply about where innovation happens and why. These thoughts aren't just abstract musings; they're practical considerations about where ideas can take root and grow into something meaningful. 

Over these past few months of building what I hoped would be a thinking machine, I've encountered countless perspectives from innovators, investors, and dreamers around the world. 

Each conversation has helped me understand the unique innovation landscapes that exist globally, and I'd like to share some of those insights here.

I've chosen to focus on four specific regions: the United States, China, the European Union, and Indonesia. 

The first three represent the current epicenters of global innovation, each with distinct advantages and challenges.

Indonesia, my homeland, represents emerging markets – places with tremendous potential but different constraints than established innovation hubs. My hope is that by examining these contrasts, I might find clarity about where Seraphim's next chapter should unfold, and perhaps provide some useful perspective for others on similar journeys.

The United States exists in what I might call a superposition of advantages when it comes to building something new. 

If quantum particles can occupy multiple states simultaneously, then America occupies multiple states of possibility for founders. When you build in the United States mainland (Alaska, Hawaii, and other territories have different dynamics), you immediately gain access to what remains the world's most powerful innovation ecosystem. US consistently holds the premier position in global startup ecosystem rankings, with an impressive 240 cities featuring in the top 1000 worldwide. You're building in a market of 330 million relatively affluent consumers, with access to the world's reserve currency, the most developed venture capital networks, and an entrepreneurial culture that celebrates risk-taking and resilient failure.

Think about it: almost every major paradigm shift in computing and artificial intelligence has emerged from American institutions and companies. From early innovations at Bell Labs and IBM to the personal computing revolution led by Apple and Microsoft, from the birth of the internet to the rise of cloud computing giants like Amazon and Google, from the mobile revolution to today's AI transformation – America has consistently provided the environment where these quantum leaps become reality. The wave function of possibility seems to collapse into tangible innovation there more consistently than anywhere else.

But this environment isn't without its challenges. The United States has essentially outsourced much of its manufacturing capacity over decades of globalization. Building hardware there means navigating complex supply chains that often stretch across oceans. Taxes and regulations, while not as burdensome as in some regions, still create friction. And the high cost of talent – especially in innovation hubs like San Francisco, Seattle, and Boston – means burning through capital at rates that can be unsustainable for early-stage ventures.

Interestingly, the current administration's focus on "Made in America" initiatives might be creating a unique moment of opportunity. As policies shift to incentivize domestic production and innovation, the calculus for where to build might be changing too. The superposition of advantages and disadvantages in America seems to be collapsing into a more favorable state for certain kinds of innovation – particularly those in strategic sectors like advanced computing, biotechnology, and clean energy.

For China presents an entirely different quantum state of possibility. Where America excels at creating new paradigms, China has mastered the art of scaling and implementation. The production capabilities, the supply chain integration, the raw materials to finished products pipeline – all operate with remarkable efficiency within the Chinese mainland. This efficiency isn't just anecdotal – China's manufacturing advantage comes from a combination of lower production costs due to its large labor force, well-established supply chains, and the ability to achieve high output in short timeframes. 

A product that might take months to prototype and manufacture elsewhere can materialize in weeks in Shenzhen. Scale that might take years to achieve in other markets can happen in months in China's massive domestic market of 1.4 billion consumers.

I'm particularly fascinated by how China approaches the innovation process differently than the West. Where Silicon Valley might emphasize disruption and radical breakthroughs, Chinese innovation often focuses on what they call "micro-innovation" – smaller, iterative improvements that compound quickly. It's like the difference between quantum leaps and continuous wave functions, both valid approaches to moving forward, but with different characteristics and outcomes.

The potential hurdles in China are significant, though. The relationship between private enterprise and the central government creates a unique risk profile that doesn't exist in the same way elsewhere. Policies can shift rapidly, entire sectors can face sudden regulatory changes, and foreign entities face additional scrutiny. Foreign companies in China are encountering increasing difficulties, including significant barriers to market access and complex regulatory challenges encompassing data regulations and trade policies. The revised Company Law has introduced stricter regulations on capital contributions, and China has implemented binding national regulations governing AI technologies – particularly relevant for a venture focused on thinking machines.

And despite its massive domestic market, China still needs access to global markets and US dollars to fully realize the potential of its innovations. These constraints create what I might call a "bounded infinity" – enormous possibility within specific parameters. For certain types of businesses, particularly those in hardware manufacturing or with strong domestic market potential, these boundaries might never be encountered. For others, particularly in sensitive technology areas like AI, they become very real limitations.

The European Union exists in yet another quantum state altogether. I've always admired Europe's cultural heritage, the way centuries of intellectual tradition and artistic excellence have shaped its societies. The continent that gave us the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution – these were not minor contributions to human progress. But like those quantum particles that can exist in multiple states until observed, Europe seems to exist in a state of both tremendous potential and significant limitation.

Today's EU faces a complex set of challenges. The leadership appears fragmented, lacking the unified vision and direction that drives focused innovation. The 27 member states often move in different trajectories, their individual priorities creating interference patterns rather than coherent momentum. The regulatory environment, while well-intentioned in protecting consumers and privacy, often creates friction that slows the pace of innovation and implementation. When I look at the data, it's striking – despite official claims of excellence in innovation, the EU's economic growth has consistently lagged behind the US, and the innovation gap between EU member states remains wide and persistent.

A significant factor in Europe's innovation deficit is the relative shortage of young, innovative companies (what some analysts call "yollies") operating in high-tech sectors compared to the US. Researching this reminded me of quantum entanglement – how particles that form together remain connected regardless of distance. In the innovation landscape, these young companies often remain entangled with academic institutions and research facilities, but struggle to break free and achieve the escape velocity needed for significant commercial growth.

The demographic and social challenges are equally significant. An aging population, complex immigration dynamics, and social systems designed for a different era create additional layers of complexity. Immigration is playing an increasingly crucial role – a substantial proportion of new jobs in the EU are now filled by non-EU citizens, particularly following the influx of refugees from Ukraine. This migration has potential to stimulate innovation and address demographic challenges, but requires effective integration policies to realize these benefits.

Yet beneath these challenges lies immense potential. Europe possesses world-class educational institutions, research facilities, and intellectual capital. The infrastructure for innovation – from laboratories to transportation networks – is among the best in the world. 

What Europe seems to need is a collapse of its wave function – a focused observation that brings its superposition of possibilities into a single, coherent direction. If the EU could achieve greater unity of purpose, streamline its regulatory frameworks while maintaining its values, and leverage its extraordinary intellectual resources toward clear goals, it could once again become a primary driver of global innovation rather than primarily a consumer of it.

And then there's Indonesia, my homeland, where I sit in my bedroom, building dreams that sometimes feel as vast as our archipelago. Like many emerging markets, Indonesia exists in what quantum physicists might call an "excited state" – full of energy and potential, but not yet stable in its final form. With over 280 million people, abundant natural resources, and a strategic location in Southeast Asia, Indonesia has all the fundamental elements needed for an innovation powerhouse.

Indonesia stands out as one of the most rapidly expanding consumer markets globally, with its total market value projected to surpass $1 trillion. E-commerce is experiencing a substantial boom, with mobile-first shopping habits and social commerce platforms playing a dominant role in how consumers browse and purchase products.

Indonesia's digital economy currently holds the highest valuation among all Southeast Asian nations – a promising sign for technology startups. The country also possesses considerable untapped potential across diverse sectors, from sustainable goods and electric vehicles to wealth management and the rapidly expanding digital economy.

Yet the constraints are real and significant. The average purchasing power remains limited compared to developed economies, with consumer spending experiencing fluctuations due to factors like deflationary pressures and broader economic uncertainties. The infrastructure – both physical and digital – is still developing, with the quality and extent often insufficient to fully support rapid business expansion. The educational system, while improving, hasn't yet produced the critical mass of specialized talent needed for certain types of innovation. Capital markets, especially for early-stage ventures in frontier technologies, are still maturing, with the market capitalization of Indonesia's equity market significantly lower compared to developed markets.

Building in Indonesia requires a different approach than building in established innovation hubs. Here, solving fundamental, practical problems often creates more value than developing cutting-edge technologies that few can access or afford. A startup providing reliable logistics solutions for Indonesia's thousands of islands might create more real-world impact than the most sophisticated AI system that requires computing resources beyond local reach.

This doesn't mean Indonesia can't participate in advanced innovation – far from it. But it does mean that innovation here often takes different forms, solving different problems, with different constraints and opportunities. In quantum terms, we're operating in a different energy level, with different rules and patterns.

I've experienced this firsthand with MIKE-AI. The vision I had for an advanced cognitive assistant ran headlong into the realities of computing infrastructure, capital requirements, and market readiness. In Silicon Valley, these limitations might have been overcome through venture funding and access to advanced computing resources. In Indonesia, they became that wall I wrote about – not insurmountable perhaps, but requiring a different approach, a different path.

So where does this leave those of us building in different contexts? Is Indonesia simply not suited for certain types of innovation? Should everyone with big technological dreams migrate to established hubs? I don't believe so. Instead, I think each region represents a different set of quantum possibilities, a different configuration of potential that can collapse into reality under the right conditions.

In the United States, the conditions favor paradigm-shifting innovation backed by substantial capital. The San Francisco Bay Area stands out as the world's leading epicenter for AI technologies, offering an unparalleled concentration of resources, skilled talent, and domain expertise. However, startups must navigate complex tax landscapes. 

In China, conditions favor rapid scaling and manufacturing efficiency. China offers significant advantages in production costs, manufacturing capacity, and a sophisticated logistics infrastructure. The government actively promotes manufacturing growth through various incentives and supportive policies. However, foreign companies face increasing regulatory challenges, including stringent rules on data security and complex capital requirements.

In Europe, conditions favor measured, systematic approaches built on deep research foundations. The EU possesses world-class universities and research facilities, with initiatives like the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures developing strategic roadmaps for the next two decades. However, bureaucratic hurdles and regulatory fragmentation across 27 member states create significant complexity, with Digital regulations imposing substantial compliance costs on technology firms.

In Indonesia and similar emerging markets, conditions favor innovations that solve immediate, practical problems for large populations with specific local needs. Indonesia's digital economy is booming, with mobile-first shopping habits and a growing middle class driving demand. However, startups still face regulatory challenges, including complicated licensing processes and limited access to specialized talent.

None of these environments is inherently better than the others – they're just different states of possibility. The key is understanding which environment aligns with the particular innovation you're pursuing, and how to navigate the specific constraints of that environment.

For Seraphim, this means carefully considering where our next evolution should take place. The vision of building systems that enhance human resilience and capability remains intact. But the path to realizing that vision might require moving between these different quantum states of innovation – perhaps developing certain components in different regions based on their comparative advantages.

What I've come to realize is that, much like those quantum particles that can be entangled across vast distances, innovation today exists in a state of global entanglement. An idea conceived in a bedroom in Indonesia might be refined in a European research institution, manufactured at scale in China, and achieve market validation in the United States. The barriers between these innovation ecosystems remain, but they're becoming increasingly permeable for those who understand how to navigate them.

This global entanglement creates both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, it means competing in a truly global landscape, with all the complexity that entails. On the other, it means being able to draw on global resources, talents, and markets in ways that weren't possible for previous generations of innovators.

For those of us building from emerging markets like Indonesia, it means our quantum state isn't fixed. We're not limited to what can be built entirely within our local context. We can exist in superposition, leveraging different innovation ecosystems for different aspects of our vision, collapsing the wave function of possibility into reality across multiple geographies simultaneously.

Looking ahead to 2025-2030, this global entanglement becomes even more promising. The US technology sector is projected to maintain strong growth, with AI continuing as a central driver. While overall economic growth may moderate slightly before stabilizing, business sentiment remains largely optimistic. The European Union will likely maintain its focus on accelerating digital transformation, with ambitious targets for digital skills and infrastructure development. China's economic growth is expected to prioritize quality over quantity, with strong emphasis on technological innovation in AI, biotechnology, and new energy. And Indonesia has set ambitious economic growth targets, with its digital economy continuing rapid expansion and sectors like green energy holding considerable potential.

This doesn't mean abandoning our roots or forgetting the unique needs and opportunities of our home markets. Rather, it means becoming quantum navigators of a globally entangled innovation landscape – understanding where each piece of our vision can best take form, and how to connect those pieces across geographical and cultural boundaries.

So as I continue building Seraphim and charting the path beyond MIKE-AI, I'm thinking not in terms of choosing a single region, but in terms of quantum entanglement across regions. The question isn't simply "Where should I build?" but "How can I leverage the unique advantages of different innovation ecosystems to bring this vision to life?"

Perhaps that's the real lesson here: In today's world, innovation itself exists in a quantum state – not bound to a single location or context, but entangled across a global landscape of possibility. Our job as founders and creators isn't to limit ourselves to a single point in that landscape, but to navigate it fluidly, collapsing possibility into reality wherever the conditions are most favorable for each piece of our vision.

Just as quantum particles can exist in multiple states simultaneously, perhaps our innovations can exist across multiple contexts simultaneously – drawing strength from each, overcoming the limitations of any single environment, and ultimately creating something greater than would be possible in isolation.

And maybe that's the future of global innovation – not competition between isolated ecosystems, but collaboration across entangled ones, each contributing its unique advantages to a greater whole. In that future, the question of where to build becomes less about choosing a single location and more about orchestrating across many, collapsing multiple wave functions of possibility into a coherent reality that transcends geographical boundaries.

For now, I remain in Indonesia, building from my bedroom with that squeaky chair, entangled with minds and markets across the globe, navigating quantum states of innovation that exist simultaneously here and elsewhere. The wall remains, but perhaps, like quantum particles that can tunnel through seemingly impenetrable barriers, the path forward lies not in breaking through but in existing on both sides simultaneously.