Technological Sovereignty and the Shortage of “Long Money”: An Interview with the Founder of The Trends Forum

Artur Anisimov and Edgar Grigoryan are entrepreneurs and organizers whose project emerged as a response to the challenge of the times. Three years ago, when they observed a decline in the quality of technology events, a brain drain, and a narrowing of international ties, they saw not a problem, but a niche. Their answer was the international technology forum The Trends.

The Trends is not just another conference. The Trends was created as a unique cross-industry ecosystem—a platform where government representatives, top business leaders, investors, and technology entrepreneurs meet not only to discuss trends, but to form practical connections and launch joint projects.

Today, Artur Anisimov is answering our questions.

“Looking back at 2021, we formulated three key priorities for the Russian technology ecosystem,” Artur Anisimov says at the beginning of our interview. “The first task was to unite the fragmented tech community. The second was to make Russia an attractive investment destination again and reignite interest from foreign countries, so people would come to see our developments. The third was to find the most interesting technological solutions and showcase them to investors, representatives of state corporations, and the government.”
What was achieved by the end of 2025?
Artur Anisimov: On the first task, uniting industries, we managed to create an event where leaders and professionals from different fields genuinely meet, and new partnerships and agreements emerge. We’ve accomplished about seventy percent of this task.
The second task, making the country attractive to foreign guests, has probably been fulfilled about fifty percent. Over two and a half years, we’ve had speakers from 35 countries, with more than 350 people speaking. Of course, we need to scale up and attract more key decision-makers from different countries, which we plan to do by November 2026.
On the third task, finding interesting solutions, we have indeed managed to find strong teams and projects in the fields of artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies, and creative industries. Some of them have already found their path for further development.

Analyzing the forum landscape 3-5 years ago, when you decided to create The Trends: What was the main niche? What was the critical “missing link” in the forum market? What weren’t the big state forums like SPIEF and the highly specialized ones providing? Did you see a niche for a “translator” between worlds?
Artur Anisimov: Oh, I don’t know exactly what it was like five years ago, because personally, I wasn’t involved in shaping that system back then and wasn’t deeply immersed in the technological infrastructure. So it’s hard for me to say what it was like five years ago.
What I can say is that three years ago—and actually, even now—there’s been a certain decline in technology events in general. A decline in quality, a decline in interest. For the following reasons:
More and more people left the country, genuinely pursuing business elsewhere.
Fewer and fewer interesting speakers have come here over the last four years.
Consequently, more and more of the same speakers reappear at all events.
The absence of major leaders, like Elon Musk in America—i.e., the lack of such prominent entrepreneurs associated with the tech market—also fails to draw additional attention to this industry.
As a result, there are practically no high-quality technology events left for business and government. Events specifically aimed at business, at shaping the business environment not only domestically but also at fostering some kind of business cooperation between states, have essentially disappeared.
State events like SPIEF are still more economic forums. They aren’t purely technological. As for niche technology events—they existed before, but now they’re small-scale and have shrunk dramatically over the years.
There’s a lack of large, high-quality events involving international business. So our focus was precisely on this: creating an event oriented towards business, one that contributes, among other things, to shaping international relations. Primarily business relations.

Partner Priorities: What are corporate and investment partners primarily looking for at the forum today?
Artur Anisimov: I can say for sure: different segments of partners look for and address different needs at our events.
Take the mining segment, which has received full approval in Russia. They’re mainly looking for buyers, investors, people interested in creating new infrastructure—either for energy savings or for utilizing surplus energy.
Large exchanges, of course, are looking for clients—traders, investors.
Banks are looking for clients, both in the business and retail segments.
State corporations are always looking for employees, technological solutions, and a key aspect is also PR.
Other companies come to see what industry leaders are saying, to feel out a niche, catch a trend, and meet new partners.
“Our event is probably one of the few places in Russia where you can come offline and meet people from various industries: from developers, engineers, product founders to leaders of state corporations and major international business. That’s why many come specifically for connections,” Artur Anisimov summarizes.

Have we moved within forums from merely stating problems to seeking solutions? How have the sentiments of participants changed in discussions about technological sovereignty?
Artur Anisimov: Sovereignty is a complex topic. Full sovereignty requires fully providing the entire spectrum of technological solutions domestically. Of course, no one has that completely right now. I don’t know, maybe China is close, but it seems no country in the world has full technological sovereignty. Probably China and the USA are closest, but they still remain somewhat dependent on each other. And this depends not only on the state but on all market players, large and small. So everyone absolutely must work on this.
Discussions have changed a bit; there’s a search for solutions, an analysis of how other countries are slowly moving towards it. But predicting exact timelines for when Russia will achieve absolute sovereignty is unrealistic.

What place is given to fundamental science in the triad of “business—government—investors”? Are scientists with breakthrough developments equal participants in the dialogue at The Trends forums, or do they remain on the periphery?
Artur Anisimov: This is a critically important question. Science is the foundation from which breakthrough technologies are born. We see that for a full-fledged technological leap, it’s necessary to connect scientific thought more closely with the demands of the market and the state.
For science to work, it’s important to:
1.Increase the number and quality of scientific institutions in the country.
2.Provide targeted and sufficient grant funding for promising research.
3.Create demand for scientific personnel and developments not only in academia but also from corporations and the state.
You can only remain competitive by being at the forefront of science. That’s why we will pay increasing attention to scientific and knowledge-intensive startups.
We see scientists not as abstract “idea providers,” but as future leaders of technology companies. We aim to create demand for them from corporations and the state, helping them grow from the lab into business.
That’s why we’re taking a concrete step: forming a separate, full-fledged conference on science and innovation. Its goal is to attract the attention of the state, corporations, scientific institutes, and international business to Russian developments. We will hold a competition for knowledge-intensive startups to give young scientists and innovators the opportunity to present their solutions on the same stage as industry leaders.
This is our direct investment—both financial and in terms of time—in shaping the scientific-innovative community. We aim to bring attention back to it from the audience, industries, media, the state, and international partners. It’s a step towards restoring the grandeur of Russian scientific thought, which, unfortunately, is currently very much in question elsewhere in the world.

Speaking of the “valley of death” between an idea and its industrial implementation, what does the Russian ecosystem lack the most today? What is most critical in this “valley” for innovation? This question touches on the deficits of the existing ecosystem and infrastructure—the processes that occur on the path from idea to project launch.
Artur Anisimov: Three key points can be highlighted.
1.First, the absence of a developed venture capital investment mindset in Russia. The prevailing mindset is geared towards quick or medium-term returns, which is insufficient for the venture capital game where capital is committed for 5-10 years. Most companies simply can’t develop because technology corporations globally are sponsored for decades.
2.Second, the lack of a sufficient number of accelerator programs and institutions that will train new personnel.
3.The third problem is that corporations build their own closed systems, making it very difficult for new players to break through to these major clients. When dealing with large players, the decision-making cycle lengthens, bureaucracy appears, and flexibility decreases. In today’s fast-changing world, it’s hard for technologies to emerge and develop in time under such conditions.
[Editor’s note: The thesis about the shortage of “long” venture capital money is confirmed by market data. At the end of 2025, the volume of venture investments in Russia decreased by 18%, and the number of deals fell by a quarter. At the same time, investors maintain a focus on later, less risky stages of projects.]

Do vertically integrated ecosystems (like Sber’s) create a risk of forming “new techno-fiefdoms”? Is there a risk of monopolization, and against this backdrop, a risk of diminishing the role of forums like yours? Is the forum a neutral platform for resolving conflicts of interest? How does the forum protect the interests of small innovators? Does it remain a “short arm” of access?
Artur Anisimov: Thank you for the questions. They are probably the best I’ve received so far—both in number and quality.
Answering the questions about monopolization and conflicts of interest… Of course, any structure’s desire to grow is inevitable. If it doesn’t grow, it stagnates; if it stagnates, it withers. That’s probably a principle of life, a principle of the universe. In today’s world, it’s very difficult to grow without suppressing anyone or encroaching on others’ markets.
Clearly, risks exist. There’s a risk of monopolization in the growth of state corporations and large companies. But that risk has existed for some time, remains, and will continue to exist. Large companies with big capital find it easier to bring products to a mass audience because they already have one. This creates a somewhat unfair market, but in modern realities, it’s unlikely to be any other way.
Where can the forum be useful here?
First, we have done and will continue to do special sessions. For example, for companies ready for a merger or acquisition. We purposefully select partners. These are existing companies with a certain revenue, sometimes profit, that might be of interest to specific corporations. Such sessions are interesting and useful; they’re compelling to watch.
I think we will continue to hold such sessions, especially within the framework of the science and innovation conference. It will be relevant for scientists, development teams, and R&D departments.
But, perhaps, the forum isn’t ready yet to take on too large a role as an arbiter. Everything must happen step by step. We first need to become a stable, profitable ecosystem structure ourselves to be able to invest in forming useful online platforms and catalogs as part of our activities.
Right now, we are more focused on the exhibition, the program, and the conferences. We cannot yet become a direct “shoulder” or support for everyone. But we are moving towards it. Step by step, progressively.

At the very beginning of our discussion, you said you managed to find strong teams and projects in the fields of artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies, and creative industries. What about the AI implementation strategy? Five years ago, the talk about AI focused on possibilities and automation. Today, researchers face a paradox where AI can slow down experienced developers when dealing with complex tasks, rather than speed them up. In your opinion, how should the strategy for implementing AI in Russian companies change, and what role can the forum play in bridging this gap between expectation and reality?
Artur Anisimov: I don’t think the conversation was solely focused on automation five years ago. Five years ago, companies were already starting to solve specific tasks with AI—in science, medicine, and for process automation.
As for the slowdown paradox… I’m not aware of that. If you use algorithmic solutions, understanding what you’re doing and having the necessary computing power, I don’t see any slowdown anywhere.
Speaking about how the strategy for implementing AI in companies should change—it’s quite simple.
1.You need to find more ready-made solutions, ready for pilots, implementation, or sale.
2.And accordingly, constantly engage in pilot implementations of external solutions.
3.And, of course, build strong internal teams within the company, giving them some freedom to improve certain services or business processes.
What role can the forum play? It can focus precisely on developments, solutions, and products—through discussions, booths, and the exhibition part. But for that, the market for products and solutions itself needs to participate a little more actively. This is partly why we are creating a separate conference where the specific tasks of private and state companies will be raised and addressed.

Thus, while the largest forums, like SPIEF, focus on the macroeconomic agenda and creating conditions for major government contracts, and industry-specific platforms delve deep into one topic, The Trends positions itself as a cross-industry business platform. Its goal is not general discussions, but practical deals, partnerships, and the formation of business connections between different technology sectors and international players, resonating with the global trend towards the value of practical networking.
What is the strength and uniqueness of the forum? What was the main “pain point” of the audience that other platforms didn’t address? Was it the demand for quality networking without “noisy” mass attendance? What is the main strength of the forum today—access to technology or to leaders? What was primary? What is the “special magic” of The Trends format that others cannot copy?
Artur Anisimov: Many indeed claim to offer networking, but our “magic” lies in three things that are difficult to replicate individually, and almost impossible in combination.
1.Quality, not quantity, of the audience. It’s not a random crowd. We work on the structure and composition of participants time and again. Those who come are already part of the system and genuinely influence it.
2.True cross-industry nature. People don’t just come to talk about their narrow segment. They come to broaden their horizons, find contacts and ideas in related, and sometimes completely new, industries. This creates a unique environment for cross-sectoral collaboration.
3.An irreproducible atmosphere. This is the hardest part to copy. We deliberately create an open, friendly, and welcoming atmosphere that “permeates” the entire space. In such conditions, people connect more easily, are more relaxed, and are ready for dialogue regardless of their position or the size of their capital. It’s not just business chemistry that forms, but human chemistry, which creates the desire to build business together, to join forces. Because it’s crucial not only that money and opportunities align, but also that the interpersonal interaction “clicks”—that it’s understandable and comfortable. This combination is our main strength.
This is probably where we differ significantly from other major events. In this welcoming atmosphere that pervades the space.

If you had to describe the forum with the formula “We are X, but for Y,” how would it sound?
Artur Anisimov: Based on what we do and how we differ, I would put it like this: “We are the depth and trusting atmosphere of a niche industry event, but on the scale of the entire technology industry and with a focus on immediate business results.”

Let’s turn to a metaphor. If you were to describe your community in terms of blockchain consensus, what holds it together today—a shared “stake” in technology development, or “proof of useful work”?
Artur Anisimov: Regarding the community metaphor… First, blockchain terminology is very unclear to most people, even within the tech industry. Few people know and differentiate these concepts.
But, probably, our community is primarily those who are already creating value in the technology industry. From enthusiasts and solution founders to those holding various positions in tech companies and corporations.
So, to compare… Ultimately, those who come to the event itself are mostly those who have already demonstrated something and are part of the system. It stems not just from a desire to learn something, but from the fact that the person is already inside the system—because they make products, create within the system, or invest in them.
So, they are players from within the system. Ninety percent of the audience are exactly those already inside this large system.

In what direction will The Trends evolve to maintain its leadership?
Artur Anisimov: Our strategy is not to chase every single trend and not to turn into a narrowly specialized or, conversely, overly vague forum. We want to be a platform where the most advanced fields—whether AI, blockchain, robotics, or future quantum computing—meet not with themselves, but with real business, investors, and government objectives. Our path is to remain a “translator” and catalyst between the worlds of technology and their practical application, including within the framework of major national projects.
The Trends is a structured “deal-making platform” that can minimize risks for startups by bringing the process of finding a partner or investor out of the shadows into a public, transparent field.

Who is the key customer for the forum and breakthrough technologies in Russia today?
Artur Anisimov: In my opinion, today the key customer for breakthrough technologies in Russia is, of course, the state—its national projects and state-owned companies. Next is large resource-based businesses and major tech businesses. The financial sector and banking are also consumers of technological solutions. And gradually, a business is emerging that works for the mass consumer and provides services independently of top-down orders.
What about the “short arm” for innovation implementation? Can you give an example?
Artur Anisimov: I think, in part, yes—no less than existing accelerators.
There are speakers we “discovered.” They appeared on our stage for the first time and are now interacting with state institutions, shaping programs.
There are companies that, thanks to us, secured contracts or gained full recognition from scratch in one forum, solving their PR tasks for a year or a year and a half ahead.
There are companies that received direct interest from corporations for piloting or purchasing their solutions.
There is interstate interaction and business formed on personal relationships.
We are useful, obvious; otherwise, we wouldn’t be growing. We are a business for business, a high-quality assembly point.
I see no reason why we couldn’t receive full information support from the state and federal media. Name something similar in Russia to what we do—of this level, scale, and quality—but without state participation, without large injections from state corporations, and without government subsidies. We do this at our own risk, at our own expense.
The state and the media should start with us to show how interaction can be built between a private entrepreneurial initiative aimed at creation and the country’s interests at the interstate level. Once we receive such support, the amount of innovation implementation in practice could increase, possibly even tenfold.
So, a private platform, built on enthusiasm and having already proven its effectiveness, is ready to become an active tool for the country’s technological development. But for this, it needs not finances, but recognition and information support.

The Mission of The Trends and Key Principles
1.Focus on Results, Not Discussion. The mission is to be a “catalyst” and a “short arm” for implementation, where contacts leading to contracts, pilots, and M&A deals are made.
2.Community Over Audience. Value is determined not by the number of people, but by their real contribution and position in the technology industry—a kind of “Proof-of-Useful-Work.”
3.Practical Response to Systemic Challenges. The forum doesn’t shy away from acute topics—from the shortage of “long money” and the “valley of death” for startups to the risks of monopolization and the search for technological sovereignty. But it offers not a rhetorical, but an instrumental solution: a platform for dialogue and finding partners.
The Trends is a strategic partner in building a new technological landscape where the state, business, and science speak the same language—the language of concrete projects. The Trends is more than a forum. It is an environment where trust breeds action, and technologies meet their future.
Interview conducted by Tatiana Burmagina
P.S. In May, within the framework of The Trends forums, the first international forum, Moscow Trading Week, will take place—welcome!