Conversation with Costanza

[!NOTE] There is a Ytterbium line at 770 nm

Conversation with Quantonation

Conversation notes

They asked for a broader selection of reading material

Who are you talking with? Pasqal or QuEra? Can Quantonation facilitate something?

How much would they pay for it? Are our estimates reasonable?

How do we maintain a platform technology and assure them that we won't just be acquired quickly.

They really want 6-8 year long relationship. How can they be assured that we won't sell out to QuEra at the first opportunity.

Follow up email

Intro from Quantonation Christian Lange ​​​ ​Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com​ Raphael and Alexandre,

Thank you both again for talking. I apologize that I had some difficulty hearing all of the questions. I thought I would send a quick summary here. Please let me know if I'm missing any important points.
Timeline and fundraising goal We are looking to raise a pre-seed on the order of $3M. September is a good timeline for us. If you know of other funds that would be useful contributors, we are of course happy to talk to them as well. A deeper understanding of the project We will work on putting together some materials and references to help you understand on a more detailed level what exactly we are building and how it interacts with existing platforms. We will send that over within the next week. We are also working on a theoretical white paper detailing how our source can be used alongside neutral atom technology for remote entanglement generation, which we can also send around the end of this month.
Conversations with Pasqal We are happy to have a conversation with Pasqal. Do you have a particular contact in mind that would be interested in talking with us? Exit strategy and timeline In our opinion, an early acquisition could seriously undersell what we're building. For a datacenter of quantum computers, the interconnects would be a sizeable fraction of the total value. Given that we are positioned to hold a lot of the critical IP, and since scaled nanophotonics can have large profit margins, we are very optimistic about the long-term potential for QLuster. While we have been thinking a lot about companies like QuEra and Infleqtion, simply because we have contacts in those companies, our plan is to build an independent platform to serve multiple neutral atom computing companies. We would only consider an acquisition if it reflected the broader platform value and produced a strong outcome for shareholders.

Looking forward to continuing this conversation,

Christian From: Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 9:56 AM To: Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com; jon.hood@q-luster.com jon.hood@q-luster.com Cc: Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com Subject: RE: Intro from Quantonation

11 am ET works great for us! Looking forward to meeting your CSO and talking again.

Alexandre De : Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Envoyé : mercredi 8 juillet 2026 15:40 À : Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com; jon.hood@q-luster.com jon.hood@q-luster.com Cc : Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com; Emily Meads emily@quantonation.com Objet : Re: Intro from Quantonation

Alexandre,

I would be happy to a follow-up meeting. I'm free all morning. Let me know what time works for you. Our CSO, Jon Hood, will also Join.

Christian

From: Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2026 5:50 AM To: Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Cc: Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com; Emily Meads emily@quantonation.com Subject: RE: Intro from Quantonation

Dear Christian,

I hope you are doing well. Would you be able to meet tomorrow (Thursday the 9^th) for a follow-up chat? We would love to talk more about Qluster.

Alexandre

De : Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Envoyé : lundi 29 juin 2026 17:28 À : Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Cc : Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com; Emily Meads emily@quantonation.com Objet : Re: Intro from Quantonation

Raphael,

Here is the presentation from the meeting. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Christian

From: Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 11:53 AM To: Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Cc: Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com; Emily Meads emily@quantonation.com Subject: Re: Intro from Quantonation

11 am EDT on Monday (6/29) works well for me. Looking forward to it!

Christian From: Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 10:45 AM To: Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Cc: Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com; Emily Meads emily@quantonation.com Subject: Re: Intro from Quantonation

Hi,

Great! I’d like to introduce you to Emily, our principal and Raphaël, one of our associates. We are available anytime between 9 and 12 AM EDT next Monday for a chat if that’s alright with you? Feel free to propose alternative times if needed.

Best,

Alexandre

De : Christian Lange christian.lange@q-luster.com Date : mardi, 23 juin 2026 à 15:22 À : Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Cc : Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com Objet : Re: Intro from Quantonation

Alexandre,

Of course, I would be happy to meet. I am pretty free next week. What time slots work for you?

Christian

From: Alexandre Salloum alexandre@quantonation.com Sent: Tuesday, 23 June 2026 07:53:46 To: Christian.Lange@q-luster.com Christian.Lange@q-luster.com Cc: Raphaël Bodin raphael@quantonation.com Subject: Intro from Quantonation

Dear QLuster Team,

I hope you are doing well. My name is Alexandre, part of the investment team at Quantonation, an early-stage VC firm based in Paris. We have made investments in over 35 quantum physics and adjacent deep tech start-ups, such as Pasqal and Diraq.

We recently developed a tool to help identify founders and promising projects early on and came across QLuster, which stood out to us. We would love to learn more about what you are building and your latest developments, and can schedule a short call to discuss with our team if you are interested, just let us know.

Looking forward to connecting!

——



 Capture d’écran 2026-06-18 à 15.51.53.png

Alexandre Salloum

Quantonation

Preparation material

The best framing is:

“Quantonation reached out before we had formally launched a process. We are not running a broad fundraising process yet, but we are open to a strategic pre-seed if we find the right partner. The right financing would let us accelerate the alpha prototype, customer validation, and the first packaged source demonstration. We are currently deciding whether to raise now or after the next technical milestone.”

The story is that we were thinking about raising money in the next month. We weren't exactly ready to do a focused round but we are open to a pre-seed if we find the right partner.

[!QUESTION]

What is the main technical risk?

The main technical risk is this: These emitters are really good, but to make something that could be a product, we need deterministic and subwavelength positioning of these emitters. The cleanest milestone is if we can find a way to position a molecule with 500 nm positioning accuracy. After that, collection efficiency is a matter of engineering and optimization.

[!NOTE]

Why aren't HOM and $\eta$ the main risks?

With these emitters, HOM can be taken care of by temperature (because no spin degree of freedom. If 3 K is still not optimal, there are 1 K cryostats that are getting increasingly inexpensive. As far as $\eta$ is concerned, that is mostly an engineering challenge. We have a scheme that shows >93\% collection efficiency with no Purcell factor. And there are companies that can provide >90\% coupling efficiency. y

[!QUESTION]

What is the main technical risk?

This main risk is collection efficiency. Can we collect lots of light without a Purcell factor. "Everything lives or dies on collection efficiency."

[!QUESTION]

Why is the market big?

Rubidium today, but Ytterbium tomorrow. This can expand to lots of neutral atom systems.

[!QUESTION]

What are you raising?

“We have been thinking about a $2-$3M round that gives us roughly 18–24 months to hit the alpha-prototype and customer-validation milestones. We would expect dilution around 10–15%, depending on lead quality, structure, and syndicate.”

[!QUESTION]

What is your valuation?

“We are not trying to over-optimize valuation at this stage. The round we have discussed internally is around $2M, with dilution in the 10–15% range. That implies something like a $13M–$20M post-money range, depending on structure and the lead. If Quantonation were seriously interested, we would want to understand where you think a fair physics-based pre-seed should price given our IP, technical risk, and milestone plan.”

Prep material: Questions for Quantonation

[!IMPORTANT] Who do you think we should talk to next? / Who do you think would be a natural lead or co-investor in this round?

[!QUESTION] Are you evaluating us for a near-term investment, or mostly tracking the company?

[!QUESTION] For a company like ours, what is the difference between “too early” and “early enough” for Quantonation?

[!QUESTION] What specific milestone would make this clearly investable?

[!QUESTION] If we raised a strategic pre-seed now, what round size, check size, and syndicate structure would you think makes sense?

[!QUESTION] What would you need to believe for this to be a venture-scale infrastructure company rather than a niche scientific instrument company?

[!QUESTION] What technical and customer diligence would you need before making a decision?

[!QUESTION] Based on this meeting, what is the right next step?

[!QUESTION] If the better path is to reconnect later, what exact milestone would change the conversation?

[!QUESTION] If there is near-term interest, what would you need from us this week?

[!QUESTION] What would make you say no?

Prep material: ChatGPT notes on the conversation

Quantonation is a serious, thesis-aligned investor for you. They are not a generic SaaS VC trying to understand “quantum.” They are an early-stage physics/quantum fund, investing globally from pre-seed to Series A, with follow-on support through Series B. Their current fund, Quantonation II, closed at €220M in February 2026 and is explicitly focused on quantum, networking, sensing, materials, photonics, and enabling technologies. They say they are actively deploying capital, and the second fund targets roughly 25 companies, with initial checks reportedly ranging from €200k to “a dozen million euros,” with capacity up to €20M over multiple rounds for top companies. (Quantonation) (Sifted)

For QLuster, the fit is unusually direct: atom-compatible single photons, quantum networking, neutral-atom interconnects, photonic infrastructure, and an academic spinout profile. Their own language emphasizes “enabling technologies,” networking solutions, control systems, and physics-based technologies such as photonics. (Quantonation) (Sifted)

The main thing to understand: this follow-up is probably not just a friendly chat. If they reached out and scheduled a follow-up, they are likely testing whether you are fundable now or should be tracked until a financing event. They may not be ready to write a term sheet immediately, but they are likely trying to classify you into one of three buckets: invest now, stay close for a round in 3–9 months, or pass because the risk/timing is not right.

Your job is not to pretend you are more ready than you are. Your job is to look fundable, disciplined, and strategically aware.

The best framing is:

“Quantonation reached out before we had formally launched a process. We are not running a broad fundraising process yet, but we are open to a strategic pre-seed if we find the right partner. The right financing would let us accelerate the alpha prototype, customer validation, and the first packaged source demonstration. We are currently deciding whether to raise now or after the next technical milestone.”

That answer is good because it creates urgency without lying. It also prevents you from sounding passive or confused.

What you should know about Quantonation specifically: they will probably understand the science better than most funds. Do not over-dilute the technical story. They advertise that they read papers, visit labs, and talk to experts rather than avoiding complex technology. (Quantonation) That means your weak point will not be “can they understand Purcell enhancement?” Your weak point will be whether they believe the company can become a venture-scale infrastructure business rather than a clever academic device.

Prepare around five axes.

First, technical credibility. You need a clean story for why DBT/organic molecules are credible as an atom-compatible photon source. Your answer should be: lifetime-limited optical transitions, high Debye-Waller fraction relative to many solid-state defects, compatibility with 780 nm engineering, demonstrated nanophotonic integration, and a path to Purcell-enhanced indistinguishable photons. Do not hide that the prototype is not done. State the next milestone precisely.

Second, why now. The answer is that neutral-atom systems are scaling, remote entanglement/interconnects are becoming a bottleneck, and weak coherent pulses are fundamentally inefficient for heralded entanglement. Your product thesis is not “single photons are nice.” It is: “Quantum processors are moving toward networked modularity, and the interconnect will bottleneck useful scaling unless photon generation becomes deterministic, atom-compatible, and packaged.”

Third, customer pain. They will ask who urgently needs this. Your answer should be narrower than “quantum computing companies.” Say: neutral-atom QC groups and quantum networking labs trying to increase remote entanglement generation rate without changing the atomic transition. Then name the buyer/user split: CTO/head of quantum hardware/head of photonics integration for companies; PI/lab manager for academic/national labs.

Fourth, milestone economics. You need to explain what $1M, $2M, or $3M buys. For example: $1M gets technical de-risking and alpha prototype; $2M gets packaged prototype plus customer pilots; $3M gets first product engineering, hire 2–4 people, and 18–24 months of runway. Even if these numbers are rough, you need a controlled answer.

Fifth, founder/company structure. They will ask about IP, license, founder equity, advisor roles, and whether you control the company. You should be ready to say the company is a Delaware C-corp, patent pending, exclusive license path in place or in process, and you are the operating founder driving commercialization. Do not volunteer internal cofounder tension unless asked. If asked, frame it calmly: “I am the operating CEO. Jonathan is the scientific cofounder/advisor and contributes technical credibility, grants, and scientific strategy. Day-to-day execution and commercial direction sit with me.”

Likely questions they will ask:

“What exactly are you building?”

Answer in one sentence first: “We are building a deterministic, atom-compatible, fiber-coupled single-photon source at 780 nm for neutral-atom quantum networking and remote entanglement.”

Then expand only if needed: “The core is an organic molecule integrated with a nanophotonic cavity to produce narrowband, indistinguishable photons matched to the Rb D2 line.”

“What is the killer application?”

Do not say “single-photon sources have many uses.” Say: “The first killer application is increasing remote entanglement generation rates between neutral-atom nodes. Weak coherent pulses throw away rate because the multi-photon probability constrains the mean photon number. A true single-photon source can improve the rate/fidelity tradeoff.”

“What makes this different from quantum dots?”

Answer: “Quantum dots are strong sources, but they are not naturally atom-line-compatible and often require frequency conversion or major spectral engineering. We are starting from an emitter platform with molecular optical coherence and engineering toward atomic compatibility.”

“What makes this different from atoms in cavities?”

Answer: “Atoms in cavities are excellent physics but difficult product hardware. Our bet is that a solid-state nanophotonic source can become smaller, manufacturable, and packageable while preserving the spectral properties needed by atomic systems.”

“What is the current state of the prototype?”

Be direct. “We do not yet have the fully packaged product. The underlying ingredients have been demonstrated: molecule coherence, nanophotonic integration, cavity Q, and coupling. The next company milestone is an alpha source showing narrowband photons near the target wavelength with measured brightness, linewidth, g², and HOM visibility.”

“What is the hardest technical risk?”

Give one main risk, not five. “The core risk is achieving simultaneously high collection efficiency, narrow linewidth, and stable operation after nanophotonic integration and packaging. The science is credible; the company risk is turning it into a robust device.”

“What milestone would make this investable?”

You should answer before they define it for you: “The cleanest milestone is a measured alpha source: single emitter in an integrated cavity/waveguide, target spectral region, g² below 0.01 or 0.001 depending on measurement conditions, linewidth in the tens of MHz regime, and a credible path to HOM above 90–95%. A second milestone is customer validation from neutral-atom groups saying this solves a real architecture problem.”

“What are you raising?”

Best answer if you are uncertain:

“We had not planned to formally launch a raise yet. We are considering whether to raise a strategic pre-seed now or wait until after the alpha milestone. If we raised now, the round would likely be in the $1–2M range, designed to produce the alpha prototype, secure the license/IP path, and convert customer interest into pilot commitments. If the right lead wanted to move earlier, we would engage seriously.”

This is much better than saying, “I don’t know if we’re raising.”

“What is your timeline?”

Use a two-track answer:

“Internally, we are deciding over the next few weeks whether to open a formal process now or defer until the next technical milestone. If we do open the process, we would want to keep it tight and close within roughly 8–12 weeks. If we wait, we would likely re-engage after the alpha prototype milestone.”

That gives them a timeline without creating fake urgency.

“What valuation are you thinking?”

Do not anchor too hard unless you have competing interest. Say:

“We are more focused on finding the right lead and enough capital to hit the next value-inflection point than on optimizing valuation. For a pre-seed deep-tech round, we understand the market is milestone- and syndicate-dependent. We would expect valuation to reflect the IP, founder/scientific pedigree, and the fact that this is pre-product but not pre-science.”

If they push: “We would want to understand how you think about comparable physics-based pre-seed rounds before anchoring.”

“What would you do with the money?”

Have a crisp use-of-funds answer:

“The round funds four things: one, alpha prototype demonstration; two, packaging and measurement infrastructure; three, customer validation/pilot development with neutral-atom and quantum networking groups; four, one or two key hires or contractors in nanophotonics/cryogenic packaging/control electronics.”

“What are the next 12 months?”

Answer with milestones, not activities:

“Within 12 months, the goal is to demonstrate the alpha source, quantify brightness/linewidth/g²/HOM, show credible spectral compatibility with Rb, secure the exclusive license, and have at least two serious customer/pilot relationships.”

“What does success look like in 24 months?”

“Packaged source, repeatable fabrication path, customer pilot or paid evaluation, and a technical dataset strong enough to support a seed or Series A focused on productization.”

“What do customers pay?”

You need a plausible answer, even if not proven:

“Initial systems are likely high-ASP research/prototype instruments, potentially in the $100k–$300k range depending on cryogenic/package configuration. Over time the product could split into modules, sources, and integration partnerships. The near-term buyer is not price-sensitive in the consumer sense; they care about whether the source unlocks a rate/fidelity improvement they cannot otherwise get.”

“What is the venture-scale outcome?”

Answer: “The large outcome is not selling one-off photon sources. It is becoming the photonic interconnect layer for modular quantum processors and quantum networks. If neutral-atom systems scale into distributed architectures, atom-compatible deterministic photons become infrastructure.”

If they ask whether they are moving toward funding you, interpret their behavior carefully. A follow-up means they are interested, not committed. Signs of real investment motion include: they ask for a data room, partner meeting, technical diligence call, customer references, IP documents, cap table, use of funds, and round structure. A casual second call is still top-of-funnel. A call with multiple partners or an explicit request to discuss round terms is more serious.

What should you do if they move quickly? Do not let them force you into a disorganized raise. Say:

“We would be excited to explore that. Since we had not formally launched a process, the right next step would be to align on what milestone, round size, and syndicate would make sense. I can send a short data package after this call: deck, technical memo, IP status, use of funds, and milestone plan.”

Then send a controlled package. Not everything. No giant raw folder. Give them enough to advance.

Your immediate prep should be a one-page internal cheat sheet with these sections:

Company: QLuster Photonics builds deterministic, atom-compatible single-photon sources for neutral-atom quantum networking.

Problem: weak coherent photons limit remote entanglement rate/fidelity; scalable quantum processors need better interconnects.

Product: 780 nm fiber-coupled source based on molecule-cavity nanophotonics, initially for Rb systems.

Proof: prior molecule coherence, thin-crystal integration, nanophotonic cavity coupling, patent pending, exclusive license path.

Next milestone: alpha prototype with measured linewidth, g², HOM, brightness, spectral stability.

Raise logic: not formally fundraising, but open to strategic $1–2M pre-seed if the right lead accelerates alpha prototype and customer validation.

Use of funds: prototype, packaging/measurement, IP/license, customer pilots, key hires.

Ask to them: “How do you think about investing before versus after the first alpha prototype? What would you need to see to lead or co-lead?”

You should also ask them questions. Good VCs judge founders by their questions.

Ask:

“How does Quantonation think about enabling technologies for neutral-atom scaling?”

“Where do you see the bottleneck in quantum networking: sources, memories, transduction, packaging, control, or system integration?”

“For pre-seed physics companies, do you prefer investing before the alpha prototype if the underlying science is strong, or after a first integrated demo?”

“What technical diligence would you need to become comfortable?”

“Would you be more interested in leading a round, joining a syndicate, or tracking us until the next milestone?”

“Which portfolio companies or strategics might be relevant for customer discovery or technical diligence?”

“What would make this look like a venture-scale infrastructure company rather than a niche scientific instrument company?”

The timeline answer is important. Do not say, “We aren’t ready.” Say:

“We are not running a broad process today. We are using conversations with a small number of highly relevant investors to decide whether to raise now or after the alpha milestone. If we decide to raise now, we would move deliberately and aim to close in a normal pre-seed timeline. If we wait, we will come back with a stronger technical package.”

That communicates control.

My tactical recommendation: do not open a broad fundraising process solely because they reached out. But do take the meeting seriously and be ready for them to accelerate. Treat this as a “pre-raise with an option to convert into a raise.” Your goal is to leave with clarity on one of three paths:

1. They want to lead or seriously explore a pre-seed now.

2. They want to track you until a named technical milestone.

3. They are interested but need customer validation first.

At the end of the meeting, force the next step politely:

“This has been useful. Based on what you’ve heard, do you think this is something Quantonation would want to evaluate now, or is the better path for us to come back after the alpha milestone? I’d rather be precise about the next step.”

That question is strong. It prevents vague investor drift.

The most important thing: do not sound like a scientist asking whether you are allowed to start a company. Sound like the CEO of a hard-physics company deciding whether the cost of capital is worth the acceleration. Your posture should be: “We can keep building without you, but the right investor could help us move faster and more strategically.”