Context

In 2024, I was actively involved in eu/acc, an initiative aimed at accelerating European innovation and progress. At the time, discussion was largely in a Discord server led by entrepreneur and VC Andreas Klinger, and gained traction among policymakers, entrepreneurs, and technologists. The movement was entirely decentralised and sought to push for structural changes in European governance, investment, and regulatory frameworks to foster a more competitive and forward-thinking environment.

While the initiative attracted meaningful discussions, my views on its approach and effectiveness have evolved. I am no longer involved in eu/acc beyond occasional curiosity, and in this post, I’ll outline why.

Previous Arguments

When advocating for eu/acc, several key arguments resonated with me:

  1. Europe’s Need for Faster Policy Iteration – The EU’s regulatory landscape is often slow-moving, making it difficult for startups and technological innovation to thrive. eu/acc sought to challenge this inertia.
  2. A Stronger European Tech Ecosystem – The initiative brought together people that wanted to boost European competitiveness, particularly in AI, biotech, and deep tech.
  3. Leveraging Policy-Driven Change – Blog-driven policymaking has led to tangible shifts in regulation and investment. My aim was to build on this momentum to advocate for well-reasoned, evidence-based proposals.
  4. Cross-Ideological Appeal – By focusing on practical, non-partisan reforms, eu/acc aimed to unite different political perspectives behind a common goal of European advancement.

What Made Me Change My Mind

  1. Ideological Associations – While the movement started by using a largely apolitical definition of accelerationism, this has since changed. Its perceived ties to MAGA, e/acc, and certain internet personalities, limited its credibility with policymakers and risked prioritising ideology over evidence. As someone who tries to be led by evidence first and foremost, this was a fundamental issue.
  2. Objective Achieved – My biggest contribution to this movement was an article which was referenced in various outlets like FT Alphaville and Marginal Revolution, as well as the subsequent open letter. The open letter gathered a few dozen signatures from relevant people and was sent directly to the EU in a call for evidence, and shared with various MEPs and policy analysts in Brussels, fulfilling my primary goal.
  3. Policy Impact – Out of the five requests made in the open letter, four have been prioritised or even announced to some extent by European governments and the EU. Only corporate tax reform remains unaddressed.
  4. Fragmentation and Alternative Initiatives – Some individuals left eu/acc to start the EU Inc initiative, which focuses on a specific policy goal. While I believe this is highly desirable, the evidence suggests that the truly transformative policies that European governments should adopt are the ones I’ve outlined. Moreover, for pragmatic reasons, I believe policymakers should be offered a “menu” of options so they can choose which reforms to implement within their political and economic constraints, rather than putting all eggs in one basket.
  5. Challenges in Building Momentum – Gaining traction without an existing audience or a network of influential figures proved difficult. That being said, if you support the policies outlined in the open letter, I encourage you to sign it, as every signature adds credibility. The article still receives significant traffic and remains a relevant reference.
  6. Personal Priorities – I have to prioritise my time and my focus has shifted towards getting PopaDex off the ground.

Conclusion

I still believe in accelerating European progress, but while eu/acc contributed to valuable discussions, I have chosen to step away from it due to the reasons above.

That being said, many of the core ideas remain relevant. The need for a more dynamic, competitive, and forward-thinking Europe persists—how best to achieve that remains an open question.

The future of European innovation depends not on any single movement or initiative, but on the collective efforts of entrepreneurs, policymakers, and citizens committed to building a more dynamic and competitive continent. That’s a goal worth pursuing, regardless of the banner under which we advance it.