<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Funding on Stars on Earth</title>
    <link>https://nashboykin.com/tags/funding/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Funding on Stars on Earth</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>2026 Nash Boykin · Stars on Earth</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nashboykin.com/tags/funding/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>US vs. UK vs. Europe: Fusion&#39;s Three Different Bets</title>
      <link>https://nashboykin.com/posts/fusion-funding-by-region/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2026 12:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nashboykin.com/posts/fusion-funding-by-region/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;A conversation with Rachel Bielajew, Head of Research at Rutherford Energy Ventures, and Riley Moeykins, Associate Technical Analyst there — Rutherford is a fusion-focused consulting firm, apparently the first of its kind — is where this one actually came from. Most of the conversation was about capital: their pitch is that financing structure, not physics, is one of the biggest levers determining which fusion bets actually make it to a commercial plant, and they specifically suggested this comparison — how differently the US, UK, and Europe handle that lever. The short version: they aren&amp;rsquo;t just racing toward fusion at different speeds, they&amp;rsquo;re running the race through three genuinely different institutional playbooks for who supplies the capital, and on what terms.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
