It's unfortunately not that surprising though. The tech giants have operated in Europe largely without paying taxes. Avoiding corporate income taxes with help of Ireland, The Netherlands and US tax law. As well as avoiding VAT with special deals with Luxembourg. They have essentially operated with a large discount compared to local competitors. It's of course a lot harder to get investments in the shadow of such competition.
I don't think funding as such is the main problem in Europe though. We do have a few really rich tech people, as well as a lot of old wealth. What we don't have is the thousands of semi-rich people in the wake of the tech giants that can "repeat the cycle". Something especially needed since we haven't been spared the increase in housing costs.
Excellent point, especially with the tons of semi rich people. Its often overlooked how young SV really is. The first gold rush was in semiconductors, and the people that made money there invested in software and the cycle continued. What essentially happened is that these "semi-rich" people, as you say, were perfect investors in new startups:
1. They had the money to get the startup going
2. They had the technical expertise to (mostly) select good investments and cut through the bullshit.
3. They had experience with startups themselves; they were excellent mentors and had industry connections besides.
Now the system is in place, it seems rather magical.
Also becuase of difference between EU VC and US VC: US VCs are happy to invest in something that might not pay off, EU funding are more insistent about ROI.
Rather funnily, we had a Twilio in Nottingham too many years before Twilio was founded.
The difference between EU and American startups is that there are VCs investing huge sums in US companies so they can do mass advertising.