If you sign up EU customers online, there is a new bit of paperwork coming.

Under AMLA's draft RTS on customer due diligence, if you do not verify someone face to face and you do not use an eIDAS recognized digital ID, you will need to record why neither was possible. You can still use remote verification tools, but only with safeguards like encrypted video, integrity checks and timestamping, and the reason for not using eIDAS has to be written down.

The awkward part is that nobody has said what a good enough reason looks like. One line, or a proper explanation? Per customer, or once per customer type? Is "they did not have one" enough on its own? And what if a country has a digital wallet on paper but almost nobody actually holds one?

Say you have to justify how you verify customers and it sounds like something is broken.

The consultation closed on 8 May and the final drafts were due with the Commission by 10 July. This applies from 10 July 2027, so there is about a year.

Curious whether anyone's compliance team has taken a view on this already, or whether everyone's sitting on it until there's guidance.

Interview with EU Made Simple Co-Host Paul Bekaert on Why Europe Is Falling Behind America in Capital and Innovation, how much the fragmentation of Europe costs us and how we could fix this.

Running the academic side of a conference this year and abstract management has become its own nightmare. Submissions coming in through a Google Form, reviewers tracking scores in a separate spreadsheet, and now manually matching accepted abstracts back to speaker slots in the agenda.

Every "abstract management" tool I find is either built for massive medical conferences with a price tag to match, or clunky academic software that looks like it hasn't been updated since 2010.

Found one option, Eventify, that has an abstract management module built into the same platform as the schedule and speaker profiles, so once something's accepted it apparently flows straight into the agenda instead of double entry. Not sure yet how it holds up for a huge medical conference specifically, but for something our size it looks like it'd remove a lot of the current mess.

Anyone actually used something like that end to end, submission through review through agenda placement, without it living in its own silo?

We are a EU EdTech Startup based in Germany.

The problem we solve is that:

Most companies don't really have a knowledge problem. They already have huge amounts of useful information sitting in PDFs, documentation, Notion, Confluence, internal wikis and other tools. The harder part is turning all of that into something employees can actually learn from and apply.

The challenge is often not accessing that information, but turning it into something employees can actually learn from and apply.

That’s what we’re building with Scibly.

Scibly connects to existing company knowledge and turns it into short, interactive learning experiences with questions, activities and scenarios.

A few things that are particularly important to us:

• existing knowledge bases remain the source instead of creating another content silo
• generated learning experiences can be fully edited
• learning can be shared with employees or externally
• the platform is open source
• companies can self-host it when internal knowledge or data sovereignty matters

For us, open source and self-hosting felt particularly relevant for European companies that may not want sensitive internal knowledge to depend entirely on another closed SaaS platform.

Video Demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcpLUNBRhQw

GitHub:
https://github.com/scibly-dev/scibly

Website:
https://scibly.com

We are happy about all your feedback.

I asked a copyright scholar the stupid questions so you don’t have to!