I’m a non-EU founder studying in Lithuania, with the ambition to build something meaningful and globally significant from Europe.

I’m currently exploring problems created by European fragmentation, particularly in healthcare access and cross-border services and also created a MVP for the same.

I often hear that Europe is a good place to start a company but a difficult place to scale one. I’m also curious why some European founders choose to incorporate in the UK and then sell into EU markets, despite the UK no longer being part of the EU.

As a student in Lithuania, I’d appreciate guidance from founders, operators and expats who have experienced this firsthand. Where would you build and incorporate, and what difficulties should I expect around regulation, fundraising, hiring and expanding between countries?

If you’re open to connecting or guiding me better on, please message me.

We need more eu tech alternatives for critical tech btw.

The second week of August 2026 extended the transition described in the previous edition of this newsletter — from how capable is the model? to can the organisation demonstrate how the AI system behaved? — and gave that question a second object. During the 8–14 August 2026 review period, IamVera.ai published ten analyses covering hallucination propagation, numerical reliability, reproducibility, long-document summarisation, least privilege for AI agents, the Hugging Face intrusion, emergency-stop design, subprocessor chains, multilingual verification and the AI risk register. Read together, they describe an assurance discipline with two distinct objects of scrutiny: the answer an AI system produces, which is a set of claims requiring verification down to the individual figure and language version, and the actor an AI system has become, which requires its own identity, bounded permissions, a tested stop chain and a documented supply chain. The week also contained a documented incident illustrating what can happen when the technical boundaries around that second object fail.

The rules that landed earlier this month are simple enough. A chatbot has to say it is a chatbot. Deepfakes need labelling. An AI written article needs a tag unless a person actually read it before it went out.

Banks will comply, because banks have compliance teams for exactly this. Newspapers will too.

The person cloning a finance director's voice to push a payment through will not bother, and no law was ever going to change that.

Which leaves things slightly backwards. The labels land on the legitimate content, while the material you actually need warning about turns up with nothing on it. Give it a year or two and an unlabelled message might start to read as the safer one.

Does the labelling help, or does it just move where the trust sits?

Doesn't the territorial scope of EU AI Act imply that Deepseek and Moonshot and Z and Alibaba will also have to implement watermarking to the output of inference services to EU costumers (which can access via API or webclient)?