Building a More Resilient European Digital Ecosystem

August 30, 2026

By Eva Kelmendi

Europe’s semiconductor ambitions will depend on securing not only chip supply chains, but also the digital infrastructure and technologies underpinning its future resilience.

As part of its continuing campaign to secure its own semiconductor supply chain and de-risk from Chinese supply, the European Union has proposed a Chips Act 2.0, following up on the original Chips Act adopted in 2023. Last September 27 countries signed the Brussels Declaration, agreeing to the need for an updated Chips Act that includes five objectives to achieve semiconductor market independence by 2030. The new legislation emphasizes the need to secure each level of value added from the most advanced chips needed for AI development to those of lower-tier capacity for everyday appliances, automobiles, and telecommunications infrastructure.

Europe’s Semiconductor Vulnerabilities

The lack of European technological resilience became especially apparent when the 2020-22 Covid-era “chip crunch” highlighted structural dependencies on East Asian supply chains. European manufacturing was again strained when President Biden announced chip export controls in late 2022, and when China imposed rare earths export bans in April and October 2025. EU manufacturers are dependent on China and Taiwan for chips below 28nm; however, for chips above this threshold, other inputs in chip making like the rare earths, high-performance magnets, or intermediate processes like polishing and wet-processing still stem from China. This sort of diversified dependence on China is even more consequential, increasing risks across value chains for both the tech needed for AI and data centre development and everyday electronics and communications products.

From Chip Fabs to the Wider Technology Ecosystem

EU companies face an array of dependencies along the lower-tier of semiconductors. The new Chips Act recognizes this, seeking to create chip-adjacent resilience by incentivizing Europe-made packaging for AI accelerators, Massive MIMO technology for 5G, and wide-band-power-gap devices. This would shift the focus from fabrication companies like ESMC in Germany or STMicroelectronics’ chip plant in Italy, and move it towards empowering industries like Sweden’s Ericsson, which builds its own in-house telecommunications chips, or France’s Mistral, which aims to power its own compute. The diversification of the Chips Act is especially important now as Europe risks losing its ASML-led monopoly on extreme ultraviolet lithography for chip-making.

Securing Europe’s 5G Infrastructure

Efforts for de-risking from China have not only been incorporated through EU financing but also through import bans on making use of Huawei and ZTE technology. The US finalized its ban on the companies in 2022, labelling them national security threats. The EU followed suit but implementation has been slow and uneven across member states, with 17 countries unable to feasibly sever ties due to tech dependencies. Whether a security threat or not, Chinese companies pose dependency traps to European manufacturing: NVIDIA’s GPUs may still outperform Huawei’s Ascend NPU models, but for less-intensive needs, Huawei’s technology offers a reliable and cheaper alternative that Western equivalents.

Where EU companies face tight margins across an incredibly competitive market, import bans without cheap replacements can seriously impact revenues. When Greece switched to 4G in 2013, Huawei was the cheapest partner for Wind Hellas, providing almost all of Greece’s radio access network (RAN). Now Nova Telecommunications uses the exact same equipment across Greece and Cyprus.

The Balkans as Europe’s Strategic Frontier

Huawei’s competitive market integration is especially true for EU-accession candidates that have been seeking to both create attractive economies and comply with EU reforms. That dynamic produces a unique opportunity for EU border states to facilitate the EU’s de-risking goals. Telekom Srbija Group, for example, is responsible for building out 5G infrastructure across the Western Balkans. Without company efforts, which have been supported by financing from the EU and the US EXIM Bank, Serbia would likely still rely on Huawei products for expansion of its 5G network. Instead, Western loans stipulate Ericsson and Nokia products. Both companies are supporting the future transition to 6G, for which they will need advanced AI chips, and they both play a role in shaping the extent to which the EU and its accession countries rely on Chinese technology.

Working with Western companies instead of Huawei brings an added future benefit to the European Union in the realm of AI. Telekom Srbija Group, for example, hopes to become a driver of Serbia’s own emerging AI ecosystem, and chief executive officer Vladimir Lučić has argued that Serbia could develop into a major European AI centre by combining 5G networks with sovereign cloud platforms. Transitioning EU-accession candidates away from Huawei now means securing Europe’s AI future through secure data infrastructure, engineering talent, and access to advanced GPU capacity through international partnerships, including discussions with US institutions and global technology companies.

Surveying the other frontrunners in the Western Balkans telecommunications ng enlargement process, Albania and Montenegro, Vuk Vuksanovic, foreign policy expert at King’s College London, stated recently that while these countries may “not entirely replace or end partnerships with companies like Huawei, but deny them projects regarding the 5G spectrum.” That could mark a critical turning point: while the EU has sought change in the region, operators like Crnogorski Telekom, One Crna Gora, One Albania, and M:tel Montenegro still rely heavily on Huawei or ZTE equipment.

China’s Influence at Europe’s Periphery

EU-adjacent countries, such as those in the Balkans, act as strategic markets for the EU, functioning either as a potential weak point or as one well poised to protect broader European goals. China has warned the EU not to pursue state-led economic competition through the Chips Act or the proposed EU cybersecurity law, which would further reduce Chinese tech imports. Beijing has also responded by focusing itself on adjacent markets, turning them into a hybrid battleground for Europe’s economic independence. As the EU tries to decouple from China, Balkan telecom infrastructure could become a major weak point. Following the deal to no longer make use of Huawei equipment, for example, Telekom Srbija Group, and CEO Vladimir Lučić became targets of a cyber-attack originating from Russia, further highlighting ongoing challenges to European goals.

Turning De-Risking Into Digital Resilience

Banning Huawei and ZTE at a time when AI development is strongly encouraged leaves European innovators with fewer options. The European Chips Act 2.0 seeks to ameliorate the discrepancy; however, some countries, like Cyprus, Austria, and Hungary, are still nearly fully dependent on Chinese components. Thus, weak points across the Balkans and existing dependencies within EU countries themselves compound the risks from Chinese market dominance.

Europe’s chip strategy must also focus on existing critical infrastructure that every digital industry relies on. How EU-adjacent countries handle 5G expansion and telecommunications innovation will determine the EU’s goals for decoupling critical supply chains from China. Decoupling will be even more challenging for countries which have already fully integrated Huawei ecosystems. Europe must get ahead now, especially as China seeks to expand its influence from chips and rare-earths to the AI models that run on them. Multifaceted challenges stand in the way of a Chips Act 2.0, heightening economic rivalries with China, but also creating immense opportunity for investment, EU expansion, and home-grown technological innovation.

Go to top

About the Author

Eva Kelmendi is an Albanian-born analyst based in the UK, with experience working alongside civil society organisations focused on the Balkans and Eastern Europe. Her work centres on governance, political freedoms, and institutional accountability, with particular attention to democratic standards and the rule of law. She holds an MA in Human Rights from University College London (UCL).

Scaling Paid Media Across Geos: The Payment Infrastructure No One Talks About

August 28, 2026

Ask a performance marketer what’s hard about expanding paid media into new regions and you’ll hear about creative localization, audience research, platform quirks, and bid strategy. All real problems. But there’s one that almost never makes the list until it bites, and it’s usually the one that does the most damage: the payment infrastructure underneath the whole operation.

It’s an easy thing to overlook. Payments aren’t glamorous, they don’t show up in a campaign deck, and when they work you don’t think about them. The trouble is that as you scale across geographies, the payment layer is exactly where things quietly start to break — and the failures look like marketing problems, so that’s where teams waste time looking.

When a payment problem wears a marketing costume

Here’s a scenario most media buyers have lived through. A campaign is performing, spend is ramping, and then it stalls. The instinct is to blame the creative, the audience, the algorithm. Hours go into diagnosing a problem that was never about marketing at all — the card backing the account got declined or flagged, the platform paused delivery, and momentum that took weeks to build collapsed in an afternoon.

This happens far more than teams admit, partly because the root cause is invisible from inside the ad platform. You see a paused campaign and a drop in delivery. You don’t see that a single shared card number hit a limit, got locked for suspicious activity across too many accounts, or simply expired. The symptom and the cause live in different systems, so the connection rarely gets made.

Why geographic expansion makes it worse

Running paid media in one market with one card is manageable. Running it across several markets multiplies every payment risk at once. Different platforms in different regions have different tolerance for the same card behavior. Cross-border charges trigger fraud flags more easily. Currency and settlement friction creep in. And the more accounts you funnel through one or two payment methods, the more catastrophic any single failure becomes.

Most teams respond by adding more corporate cards, which trades one problem for another: now reconciliation is a nightmare and the fraud surface is bigger. It doesn’t actually solve the scaling issue. It just postpones it.

The infrastructure that makes scaling boring

The teams that scale paid media smoothly tend to treat payments as infrastructure rather than an errand. In practice that means a dedicated, limited payment instrument per account or per campaign, so that any single failure is contained and never takes the whole operation down with it. Platforms built for this — purpose-built business payment infrastructure like Finup — let teams issue cards per account, cap them, and keep each region’s spend isolated from the rest. When one card has an issue, it’s one campaign affected, not all of them.

There’s a funding dimension too. Teams operating across borders increasingly fund their spending with crypto, topping up a central balance and issuing cards against it, which sidesteps the slow settlement and stacked fees that come with moving money between regions through traditional banking. For globally distributed media operations, that speed isn’t a luxury — it’s what keeps campaigns funded the moment they need to scale.

The quiet advantage

None of this shows up in a case study about a brilliant campaign. That’s exactly why it’s an advantage. While competitors are losing hours to mystery declines and mid-flight freezes they keep misdiagnosing as creative fatigue, teams with solid payment infrastructure just keep spending, keep scaling, and keep their attention on the work that actually moves performance. The unglamorous layer turns out to be the one that decides whether expansion feels smooth or feels like a constant fire drill.

Go to top

Seven Simple Tests That Reveal the Real Experience on an iGaming Site

August 28, 2026

A lot of casino reviews focus on the pre-sign-up experience, detailing the perks and incentives used to attract new customers and get them to open an account. That’s all good, but it doesn’t really tell you much about how the site performs once you’re a member. So, here are seven things to look out for to put any iGaming platform through its paces.

Deposit Speed

Adding cash to your account should be quick and painless, but that’s not always the case, especially if the casino has sluggish payment options and drawn-out ID checks. The good news is that with plenty of PayPal casinos to play at, the number of platforms that support swift deposits and withdrawals is growing.

Fees

Hidden fees live up to their name by being out of sight until you’ve created an account. A casino that starts adding on charges and costs for things like making deposits via a certain method or converting funds between currencies might show its true colors at this point.

Bonus Ts & Cs

The terms and conditions on new player bonuses are always worth reading in detail before you open an account and redeem the offer. However, the reality of using the perks you unlock might not be up to scratch in a few ways.

For example, you could find it tricky to keep track of how much you’ve wagered, which matters because there’s usually a minimum wager requirement to hit when you redeem a deposit matching bonus. If information like this is obscured from you, it’s a red flag.

Game Variety & Access

Boasting of thousands of slots and casino games sounds good at the start, but is meaningless if either the games aren’t easy to search, or the catalog of ‘thousands’ of titles is actually just made up of near-identical versions of the same experience. A truly varied line-up of slots and table games should be easy to sniff out, and you also want to check how quickly the games load, as sluggish server performance can put a dent in your shiny new iGaming account.

Responsible Gambling Integration

As with the other aspects of an online casino that get talked up pre-sign-up but can fall short, responsible gambling features might be advertised as available for compliance purposes, but end up hidden behind endless menus. Preferably, you’ll want a site to make it easy for you to impose your own wagering limits and cooldown periods.

Customer Support

Often, you’ll only be able to tell if a casino actually will help customers as quickly as the marketing materials claim once you’ve signed up. Live chat might be responsive when you’re on the way to converting into a customer, but fall silent after the fact. And customer support email reply turnaround times should also be on your review checklist.

Withdrawal Speed

As with deposits, withdrawals can be protracted, even if the site initially claims that it offers fast request processing. Read all of the small print on this, as always, and compare what you learn against the reality.

Put simply, until you get hands-on with a casino as a customer, you can’t really claim to have reviewed it, nor have a legitimate opinion about its quality.

Go to top

Personal Accident Cover in Bike Insurance: Is It Mandatory?

August 27, 2026

A two-wheeler can make everyday travel more convenient, but insurance decisions often involve more than simply choosing a policy. Different covers serve different purposes, so understanding where each one fits can help riders make more informed choices.

While vehicle protection often gets most of the attention, personal accident cover in bike insurance is another aspect worth understanding. Its relevance can depend on the policy structure, regulatory requirements, and the protection already available to the owner-driver.

Knowing how this cover fits into the wider insurance framework can make policy selection easier. Let’s understand whether it is mandatory, why it matters, and how you can buy it online.

Is Personal Accident Cover Mandatory for Two-wheeler Owners?

For an eligible owner-driver, personal accident cover in bike insurance is compulsory under the applicable motor insurance framework in India.

1. Applies to Eligible Owner-drivers

The compulsory cover is designed for the registered owner who is also the insured person named in the policy. The owner-driver should also hold a valid driving licence for the cover to apply according to policy conditions.

This means the protection is linked specifically to the eligible owner-driver rather than every person using the two-wheeler.

2. Provides a Compulsory ₹15 Lakh Sum Insured

Compulsory personal accident cover provides a sum insured of ₹15 lakh for eligible owner-drivers. It can be arranged alongside a third-party or comprehensive two-wheeler insurance policy, depending on the selected insurance structure.

The benefit provides financial support following specified accidental death or permanent disability involving the eligible owner-driver.

3. Existing Cover can Affect the Requirement

The cover does not always need to be purchased separately for every vehicle owned by the same person. If you already hold qualifying standalone compulsory personal accident cover, duplicate owner-driver protection may not be required.

A similar consideration can apply when eligible cover already exists through another motor insurance policy. Reviewing existing personal accident cover in bike insurance can therefore help you understand whether another compulsory cover is necessary.

Why is Personal Accident Cover Important for Two-wheeler Owners?

The purpose of personal accident cover in bike insurance differs from protection designed for the two-wheeler itself.

1. Helps Support Financial Commitments After Disability

A serious accident resulting in permanent disability can affect a person’s ability to continue working in the same way. The cover can provide a financial cushion when permanent disability affects earning capacity or ongoing household responsibilities.

The applicable payout depends on the disability and the benefit structure stated within the policy. This gives personal accident cover in bike insurance a clear role in supporting financial preparedness for the owner-driver.

2. Provides Financial Security for the Family

An eligible accidental demise can create immediate financial responsibilities for the family of the insured owner-driver. The compulsory ₹15 lakh sum insured can provide a defined benefit, subject to applicable policy conditions.

Nominee information therefore becomes an important part of arranging the cover. Accurate nominee details help identify the intended recipient of the benefit following an eligible accidental death claim.

3. Offers a Defined Lump-sum Benefit

Personal accident cover works differently from insurance that reimburses repair expenses for an insured two-wheeler. The benefit is linked to the covered accidental outcome and the compensation scale stated within the policy.

This means personal accident cover in bike insurance can provide a defined lump-sum benefit rather than reimbursement against repair bills. This structure can make the available financial support easier to understand before purchasing the policy.

How can You Buy Personal Accident Cover With Bike Insurance Online?

Personal accident cover in bike insurance can be arranged while purchasing a new two-wheeler policy or renewing an existing one.

1. Select the Two-wheeler Insurance Plan

Start by choosing the required insurance structure for your two-wheeler. This may be a third-party policy or a comprehensive policy, depending on the level of protection you prefer.

Review how compulsory personal accident cover is presented alongside the selected insurance plan before proceeding.

2. Check the Personal Accident Cover Details

Confirm the applicable owner-driver cover and review the ₹15 lakh sum insured shown during the purchase process. If you already have qualifying standalone cover, review that arrangement before selecting another compulsory benefit.

This can help you avoid unnecessary duplication when arranging insurance for another two-wheeler.

3. Provide Accurate Nominee Details

Enter the nominee information requested during the online application and check that the details are correct. The nominee is intended to receive the applicable benefit following an eligible accidental death.

Accurate information can make personal accident cover in bike insurance easier to manage when a claim needs to be raised.

4. Complete the Purchase and Review the Policy

Check the owner-driver details, nominee information, selected policy, and personal accident cover before making payment. Once the policy is issued, review the digital document and confirm that the relevant information appears correctly.

Keeping the document accessible can also make future reference and claim-related communication easier.

Make Rider Protection Part of an Informed Insurance Choice

Choosing suitable two-wheeler insurance involves looking beyond vehicle protection and considering how the policy supports the person riding it. Personal accident cover in bike insurance adds an important layer of financial preparedness for eligible owner-drivers.

Before purchasing, review your existing cover, understand the policy terms, and check that all personal details are recorded accurately. This can help you make a clearer and more informed insurance decision.

Many online insurance brokers, such as Jio Insurance Broking Ltd., provide access to bike insurance plans from multiple insurers for comparison. Such platforms can help riders review available options and choose protection aligned with their individual requirements.

Go to top

Uri Poliavich and the Renewal of Jewish School Infrastructure in Europe

August 27, 2026

The development of Jewish schools in Europe is the field Uri Poliavich works in as a philanthropist, through the Yael Foundation he co-founded in 2020 under the commitment “No Jewish Child Left Behind”. The foundation supports 145 institutions across 48 countries and 101 cities, reaching 29,000 children through day schools, Sunday schools, kindergartens, and after-school programs. Physical infrastructure is a defining part of what Uri Poliavich supports, covering renovation, expansion, and new construction, because a community keeps a school only when the building can hold the children who need places in it.

European Jewish communities differ in size, resources, and the condition of the institutions serving them, which means a program designed for a large community produces little in a small one. Uri Poliavich assesses each institution against its own circumstances for that reason, covering the enrollment it currently holds, the condition of its premises, and the number of families it could reach with additional capacity.

Why Uri Poliavich Prioritizes Modernization and Expansion

Uri Poliavich supports modernization on that basis, because a building unable to hold additional students sets a limit on the institution whatever the quality of its teaching. Expansion addresses the same constraint by adding places, so a growing community can admit the children it currently turns away.

Infrastructure is treated as part of educational quality in the charitable work of Uri Poliavich, so a grant can cover a building as readily as a curriculum. Each commitment is calculated from the enrollment of the school, its setting, and local costs, and released in stages against goals agreed at the start, which allows a principal to schedule construction against support already confirmed.

Support for Day Schools, Sunday Schools, Kindergartens and After-School Programs

Support extends across every format of Jewish education in the work of Uri Poliavich, covering 75 primary and secondary schools, 35 Sunday schools, 75 kindergartens, and 38 after-school institutions and programs. Applications are accepted from legally registered schools, kindergartens, and informal educational programs serving children aged 3 to 18, so a part-time program in a community of two hundred families is assessed on the same terms as a full-day school. Uri Poliavich applies a single measure across those formats, being the educational effect a grant produces over time, and the size of an institution therefore does not determine its access to support.

New Premises Built for the Enrollment Ahead

New construction is supported where existing premises cannot accommodate the community, and Uri Poliavich has directed that support toward purpose-built institutions designed for the enrollment a community expects to reach. A school under development in Limassol, Cyprus, is expected to open in 2027 with room for roughly 1,500 students. Uri Poliavich sizes construction that way because premises built to present demand fill within a few years, and a single building also gives a community one location for lessons, programs, and events.

Equipment, Curriculum and the Training Uri Poliavich Funds

Learning conditions are supported alongside construction in the work of Uri Poliavich, with grants covering curriculum development and classroom equipment so a renovated building is matched by what takes place inside it. A training track teaches modern classroom methods and technology to principals and senior staff and provides initial support for the projects that come out of it, which carries improvement into teaching practice and not only into facilities. Uri Poliavich supports Jewish tradition and a full academic curriculum within the same timetable, so a family selecting a school receives both from the same institution.

How Uri Poliavich Treats a School as Community Infrastructure

A functioning school gives a small community a reason for young families to remain, so Uri Poliavich supports institutions as community infrastructure and not as isolated projects. Supported schools run programs that involve parents, assist families, and sustain cultural activity, and those programs are covered on the same terms as lessons because they keep the community connected to the institution. Uri Poliavich commits across multi-year cycles for that reason, since effects on enrollment, teacher retention, and the decisions families make appear over several years. The same institutions are supported year after year, with the scale adjusted as they grow.

The Vision of Uri Poliavich for the Jewish Education Network in Europe

Connected institutions are the outcome Uri Poliavich works toward, so schools in the network are linked to one another and a method proven in one country becomes available in another. The International Jewish School Leadership Exchange, launched in April 2025, connects principals and administrators across borders for that purpose, while an annual summit brings the network together each year. Uri Poliavich supports that exchange as part of the same commitment that covers buildings and teaching, because a principal who can draw on the experience of another school solves a problem without starting from nothing. Uri Poliavich measures the work by whether the supported institutions continue operating on their own after the construction and training stages are complete.

Go to top

Disclaimer: This article contains sponsored marketing content. It is intended for promotional purposes and should not be considered as an endorsement or recommendation by our website. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and exercise their own judgment before making any decisions based on the information provided in this article.

Nepal Flash Floods Leave More Than 1,000 Missing After Glacial Collapse at Tibet Border

August 27, 2026

At least 165 people have died and more than 1,000 remain missing after a catastrophic flash flood and debris flow struck the Nepal-Tibet border. Nepalese authorities said 823 people remained out of contact, including 579 tourists, while Chinese state media reported another 558 missing in Tibet’s Gyirong county. Hundreds of foreign nationals from India, Ukraine, Australia, the UK, Malaysia, South Korea, the US and other countries are among those unaccounted for, although officials warned that some figures from Nepal and China may overlap.

The disaster swept through villages, markets, roads and border facilities, with rescue teams searching for survivors amid extensive mud and debris. The U.S. Geological Survey initially reported an earthquake but later determined that the seismic activity was caused by a glacial collapse and debris flow, which triggered catastrophic flooding downstream. Nepal and China have deployed emergency workers, vehicles, helicopters, boats and rescue dogs, while international organisations and governments have offered assistance. Authorities have also warned that a blockage upstream could potentially cause another flood.

The tragedy highlights the exposure of Himalayan communities and tourists to abrupt glacial and climate-related hazards. And the final toll may be a lot higher as many people are still unaccounted for and large areas are difficult to access. The extent of the devastation has also prompted fears over the safety of infrastructure and tourism routes along the Nepal-China border as rescue workers continue their search for missing people and to assess the damage.

Related Readings:

Rescuers Search for Survivors After Venezuela Earthquakes

Rescue Efforts Intensify as Myanmar Earthquake Death Toll Rises

Wildfires Devastate Los Angeles, Claiming Five Lives and Forcing Mass Evacuations

Go to top

The Hormuz Catastrophe: The Netanyahu and Trump Administrations Knew the Risks—and Escalated Anyway

August 26, 2026

By Dan Steinbock

The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has produced precisely the kind of strategic blowback that earlier Israeli and American war-gaming had warned against. So, why the escalation?

Iran has not collapsed, while Hormuz has become a global economic choke point. The central failure was not ignorance of the risks, but the political decision in Washington and Tel Aviv to gamble that coercive military power could overcome them.

So, why did they set the stage for the catastrophe that was both unwarranted and unnecessary?

The Israeli conventional war game

In February 2024 – after 4 months of the Israeli obliteration of Gaza – over 100 senior military and government officials participated in a report by Reichman University’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism which outlined in painful detail how unprepared the Israeli home front was for an all-out war with Hezbollah.

A wider war could restore deterrence, destroy adversaries, preserve his coalition and keep the strategic initiative.

This lethal scenario was written long before Hamas’ October 7^th attack on Israel. It is the result of a three-year study. The 130-page report was the work of six think tanks made up of over 100 terrorism experts, former senior security officials, academics, and government officials who examined critical aspects related to the level of preparedness for the IDF and the home front in the event of a multi-front war.

The project was led by Professor Boaz Ganor, a world-renowned counter-terrorism expert. In the months leading up to October 7, he presented his research to relevant military and political authorities in an attempt to rouse intelligence and decision-makers from complacency and misconceptions.

The Netanyahu government ignored him and the analysis.

The Israel-Iran nuclear war game

In late 2023 – almost in parallel with the Hamas attack – a high-level U.S. war game was conducted in Washington. The participants included members of U.S. executive branch, Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, leading academics, think-tank experts and Pentagon officials. The game started in 2027 with Israeli intelligence reports that Iran was mating nuclear warheads to its long-range missiles. Consequently, Israel targets Iran’s key nuclear and missile sites with U.S. standoff hypersonic missiles.

Intriguingly, initially the U.S. participants presumed that self-restraint would prevail in this high-level war game. Yet, the simulation’s cold logic compelled them into a sequence of steps that quickly went nuclear. The adverse consequences were felt by millions of civilians in both Israel and Iran.

The lessons of the war game were ignored by both the Netanyahu government and the Trump administration.

Why did Netanyahu court the U.S. into the Iran conflict fully knowing the consequences?

Both war games were common knowledge among the US and Israeli military elites well before October 7, 2023. I referenced each in my book The Fall of Israel (2024). So, why were the lessons of these games effectively ignored?

The evidence points less to strategic ignorance than to political and strategic risk-taking. In particular, The Fall of Israel shows that Netanyahu’s government repeatedly treated regional escalation as a means of escaping an increasingly untenable post-October 7 position: prolong Gaza invasion, weaken Hezbollah, expand Israel’s northern security zone and ultimately confront Iran.

I argued that Netanyahu rejected a Gaza ceasefire while expecting Trump’s return to provide greater freedom of action against Gaza, Lebanon and Iran.

But the risks were hardly invisible even in 2023. The high-level U.S. war game in late projected that an Israel-Iran confrontation could rapidly escape Israeli and American control and go nuclear. The Hezbollah scenario likewise anticipated thousands of rockets, saturation of Israeli defenses, attacks on infrastructure and paralysis of ports and trade.

Netanyahu’s calculation therefore appears brutally simple: the risks of escalation were judged preferable to the political risks of de-escalation. A wider war could restore deterrence, destroy adversaries, preserve his coalition and keep the strategic initiative.

The catastrophic externalities—Lebanon, Iran, Hormuz, the Gulf and the world economy—were treated as manageable collateral risks. They were not Israel’s problem. They were the world’s problem.

Why did Trump take the bait when Washington understood the stakes?

Trump inherited an enormous institutional warning system. U.S. officials, Pentagon planners and bipartisan experts had already modeled escalation from an Israeli attack on Iran through retaliation, Israeli counterstrikes, nuclear signaling and ultimately nuclear exchange.

The war game initially assumed rational self-restraint; but its own sequence demonstrated how quickly that assumption could collapse.

Yet Trump appears to have made the classic great-power error: confusing overwhelming tactical superiority with strategic control.

To the interventionists, the political attractions were obvious—destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, reinforce Israel, demonstrate American dominance and claim a decisive victory where previous administrations had failed.

But the premise that Iran could be compelled to surrender under bombardment underestimated asymmetric retaliation, regional proxies, geography and the extraordinary leverage of Hormuz.

The result is the opposite of the promised quick victory. By August, Trump’s approval had fallen to 33%, while 80% of Americans said they expected the war to be prolonged. Earlier Pew polling found 59% of Americans believed using force against Iran was the wrong decision and 62% disapproved of Trump’s handling of it.

Ironically, Washington has converted a military operation into a strategic endurance contest in which Iran possesses an exceptionally powerful economic weapon: Hormuz.

Soaring oil/gas prices, plunging growth, 6+ million displaced

The Strait remains severely constrained. IEA estimates that Gulf output was still 8.3 million barrels/day below pre-war levels in July, while global inventories had fallen 410 million barrels since the beginning of the war. The agency now projects a 1.8 mb/d global oil deficit in 3Q26.

Brent was about $91/bbl on August 18, after reaching $105 in July. The EIA’s relatively benign baseline assumes Hormuz constraints persist through August and puts 3Q Brent around $85. But that is increasingly a floor, not a comfortable forecast.

Today, the baseline for the 1–3 month range is roughly $90–110 Brent if the present stalemate persists; $110–130+ if attacks intensify or Hormuz remains effectively closed into autumn; and $70–80 if a credible settlement restores unrestricted shipping.

Gas is even more exposed. European TTF recently reached about €64/MWh, while Uniper expects €50–60/MWh for as long as Hormuz remains closed. Qatar’s economy is projected to contract 8.6% in 2026, while Qatar and Kuwait are losing an estimated $1.5–2 billion per week in energy-export revenues.

Economically, the World Bank cut regional 2026 growth from 4.0% to 1.8%; IMF stress scenarios put global growth as low as 2% with inflation above 6% if the energy disruption persists into 2027.

The human baseline is already enormous: by June 10, reported deaths included 3,468 in Iran, 3,371 in Lebanon, 26 in Israel and 13 U.S. troops, plus deaths across Iraq and the Gulf. For all practical purposes, these estimates are likely huge under-estimates and ignore the displacement of millions in the region.

Starting in early 2026, some 3.2 million Iranians have fled massive regional airstrikes and hostilities. In Gaza, 1.7 to 1.9 million — over 80% of its population – remains displaced inside the enclave, despite volatile ceasefires. And in Lebanon 1.0 million have been displaced.

That’s a total of 6 million displaced people.

What options remain and how badly has America damaged itself

There are four remaining trajectories. First, negotiated de-escalation: reopen Hormuz, freeze attacks, restore oil/LNG flows and negotiate Iran’s nuclear status.

Second, prolonged managed conflict: intermittent strikes, sanctions and restricted shipping, producing structurally higher energy prices.

Third, regional expansion: Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Gulf infrastructure become increasingly active fronts.

Fourth, the tail risk: escalation toward nuclear confrontation—the scenario the war games warned could arise from supposedly controlled conventional operations.

What is urgently needed is an internationally mediated settlement involving Iran, the Gulf states, Europe, China, Russia and the UN—not another unilateral U.S. military ultimatum. As I argued in The Fall of Israel, unipolar solutions are increasingly incapable of managing a multipolar Middle East.

The reputational damage to Washington is already severe and potentially structural. Pew’s 2026 36-country survey found only 37% favorable views of the U.S., against 57% unfavorable, while 63% said America does not contribute to global peace and stability. In eight European countries, perceptions of U.S. reliability have fallen by 28–52 percentage points since 2022.

That is the geopolitical catastrophe. Washington sought to demonstrate that American military power still governs the Middle East. Instead, it has demonstrated that military superiority cannot guarantee political control.

Today, Hormuz has become an inconvenient symbol to many in Washington. After decades of U.S. primacy, the world’s most important energy chokepoint is now a bargaining instrument in a war Washington helped make possible.

Trump’s “Economic D-Day”: weaponizing the dollar regime

The Trump administration’s “Operation Economic Outcast” is best understood as a strategic pivot: after nearly six months of war failed to produce Iranian capitulation or secure Hormuz, Washington is attempting to convert its enormous financial leverage into the victory that military force has not delivered.

Announced August 24, the campaign sanctions more than 60 entities, individuals and vessels and targets Iran’s oil, shipping, aviation, technology, gold, digital assets and nuclear/missile networks; Washington is also threatening secondary sanctions against countries continuing to trade with Tehran.

Why now? Iran’s rial has collapsed to roughly 2 million per dollar, inflation is projected near 69%, and its economy is contracting—precisely the moment Washington hopes economic pain will force Tehran to reopen Hormuz and accept a nuclear settlement.

A wider war could restore deterrence, destroy adversaries, preserve his coalition and keep the strategic initiative.

But the strategy confronts a fundamental contradiction: Iran has endured decades of sanctions, while China remains its largest oil customer. Washington conspicuously did not sanction major Chinese financial institutions in this first wave, highlighting the diplomatic limits of escalation.

Three outcomes are plausible:

Prolonged economic war (likeliest) — Iran absorbs further economic damage but refuses surrender. Secondary sanctions generate friction with China, India, Turkey and the UAE, while Tehran retaliates through Hormuz. Global consumers pay for an American-Iranian confrontation.
Negotiated capitulation — economic exhaustion pushes Tehran into a deal, Hormuz reopens and oil prices fall. This is Washington’s desired outcome, but requires Iran to believe concessions improve rather than jeopardize regime survival.
Escalatory blowback — sanctions are interpreted as regime-change warfare; Iran tightens Hormuz, attacks remaining economic targets or expands asymmetric operations. The result could be higher oil/LNG prices, greater humanitarian suffering and a wider diplomatic rupture—turning an economic instrument intended to end the war into the mechanism that prolongs it.

The irony is stark: Washington is now trying economic coercion because military coercion has reached its limits.

And the longer Hormuz remains constrained, the more the “Economic D-Day” risks imposing costs on the world economy that exceed the additional pressure it imposes on Tehran.

The original version was released by Informed Comment (US) on August 25, 2026; the section on Trump’s “Economic D-Day” is an update.

[su_divider\

About the Author

Dr Dan Steinbock, an expert of the multipolar world, is the founder of Difference Group and has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), Shanghai Institute for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). He is also the author of two new books on the Middle East crises: The Obliteration Doctrine (Sept. 2025) and The Fall of Israel (Oct. 2024). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net/

12 Best Funded Trading Account Programs in 2026

August 26, 2026

A funded trading account program lets you trade a firm’s capital, keep the majority of the rewards, and scale to larger accounts over time — all for the cost of an evaluation instead of your own savings. The best programs in 2026 pair meaningful funding sizes with fair rules, a workable drawdown model, and reliable payouts. Below are the twelve best funded trading account programs this year, each with a standout strength and who it suits, covering forex, futures, and multi-asset options.

How we compared them

Funding size grabs attention, but the program details decide your results. We weighed each on:

Funding and scaling — starting account sizes and how far you can grow.
Rules and drawdown — realistic targets and a static-vs-trailing drawdown that fits your style.
Payout terms — split, schedule, and reliability.
Evaluation friction — one-step, multi-step, or instant.

Firm	Standout strength	Best for
FTMO	10+ year record, large scaling	Trust and reliability
FundedNext	High splits, no time limits, big scaling	Flexible high-reward funding
Pivex	One-step, static drawdown, scaling to $1M	Low-pressure funding + growth
Apex Trader Funding	Simple futures program	Futures traders
Topstep	Long-running futures specialist	Futures day traders
The 5%ers	Scaling-focused programs	Long-term growth
FundingPips	Low-cost, established	A proven budget program
Take Profit Trader	Futures with fast payouts	Futures payout speed
MyFundedFutures	Flexible futures programs	Futures flexibility
E8 Markets	Efficient payouts	Rapid capital access
Goat Funded Trader	1–3 step options, promos	Deal hunters
DNA Funded	Low-cost entry	Affordable funding

Funding sizes, splits, and rules change — confirm each firm’s current program on its own site.

The 12 best funded trading account programs in 2026

1. FTMO — best for trust and scaling

FTMO offers large funding with strong scaling potential and a 10+ year payout record, making it the benchmark program for reliability. Best for: traders who prioritise a proven operator.

2. FundedNext — best all-round program

FundedNext pairs high splits, no time limits, and large scaling potential, one of the most flexible high-reward programs available. Best for: flexible, high-reward funding.

3. Pivex — best for low-pressure funding and growth

Pivex earns a top-three spot on rules, not just size: accounts run from $10K to $200K with a path to scale toward $1,000,000, through a single one-step evaluation with a 10% target, a static (non-trailing) total drawdown, no time limit, an 80% split, 14-day payouts, and a refundable one-time fee (Pivex). The static drawdown and lack of a clock make it one of the more forgiving programs to pass and keep, and it supports scalping, news trading, forex, and crypto (Pivex). Best for: traders who want a simple, forgiving program with room to grow.

4. Apex Trader Funding — best futures program

Apex is a leading futures program known for simple, trader-friendly rules across many account sizes. Best for: futures traders.

5. Topstep — best-known futures program

Topstep is a long-running futures evaluation program with a strong reputation among day traders. Best for: futures day traders.

6. The 5%ers — best for long-term scaling

The 5%ers builds its programs around scaling consistent traders over time rather than a fast first payout. Best for: traders focused on growth.

7. FundingPips — best proven budget program

FundingPips combines low-cost challenges with an established track record and broad reach. Best for: a low-cost program from a big name.

8. Take Profit Trader — best for futures payout speed

Take Profit Trader is a futures program known for fast, trader-friendly payouts. Best for: futures traders who want quick rewards.

9. MyFundedFutures — best for futures flexibility

MyFundedFutures offers a range of flexible futures programs to fit different risk profiles. Best for: futures traders who want options.

10. E8 Markets — best for fast payouts

E8 Markets is known for efficient payout processing across its funded programs. Best for: rapid capital access.

11. Goat Funded Trader — best for deals

Goat Funded Trader offers 1-to-3-step programs with frequent discounts and strong scaling. Best for: value-focused traders.

12. DNA Funded — best for affordable entry

DNA Funded is known for low-cost challenges, making a funded program accessible for very little upfront. Best for: traders on a tight budget.

How to choose a funded account program

Start with your market: futures traders should look at Apex, Topstep, Take Profit Trader, or MyFundedFutures; forex and multi-asset traders at FTMO, FundedNext, or a one-step firm like Pivex. Then weigh funding size against rule quality — a huge account with a punishing trailing drawdown is harder to profit from than a moderate one with a static limit. Finally, confirm the payout split, schedule, and whether the fee is refundable, which together determine your real cost and reward.

What to watch out for

Trailing drawdowns that tighten as you profit.
Consistency rules capping single-day profit.
Payout conditions hidden in the fine print.
Instrument fit — confirm the program covers your market.

Frequently asked questions

What is a funded trading account program?

A program where a prop firm gives you a (usually simulated) account to trade after you pass an evaluation, paying you a share of the rewards and scaling your account as you perform.

Which program is most forgiving to pass and keep?

A one-step program with a static drawdown and no time limit — such as Pivex — is among the most forgiving. Verify current terms on its site.

Which program offers the most funding?

Several scale into the millions. Focus less on the headline maximum and more on the rules and payout reliability that determine whether you’ll actually reach it.

Is a bigger funded account always better?

No. A larger account with a trailing drawdown or harsh rules can be harder to profit from than a smaller one with a static limit.

The bottom line

The best funded trading account program depends on your market and style: FTMO and FundedNext for scale and flexibility, Apex and Topstep for futures, and a one-step firm like Pivex for a forgiving, low-pressure program that scales to $1,000,000. Judge each by its drawdown model and payout record, not its headline funding number. Trading carries the risk of loss, and no program guarantees a payout. [See Pivex’s one-step program and scaling →](https://pivex.com/)

Go to top

Best Dental Clinic in Turkey With an Experienced Team of Dental Specialists

August 26, 2026

Choosing the best dental clinic in Turkey involves more than comparing prices or modern facilities. The professionals responsible for diagnosis, treatment planning, and clinical care can strongly influence the treatment experience, especially for international patients needing several procedures during one trip.

An experienced dental team can assess individual needs, explain options, coordinate care, and provide follow-up. Before booking, patients should research the qualifications, experience, specialties, and approach of the professionals providing treatment.

Why the Dental Team Matters When Choosing a Clinic in Turkey

The dental team can influence every stage, from diagnosis to follow-up. Qualified professionals can evaluate oral health, identify problems, and develop plans based on individual needs.

Clinical expertise supports better decisions. Dentists may consider gum health, bone condition, bite, tooth structure, restorations, and aesthetic goals. Clear communication helps patients understand options, timelines, limitations, and aftercare.

What Makes an Experienced Dental Team?

Professional Qualifications and Training

Patients should review the dentists’ professional background. Education, qualifications, specialized training, certifications, and continuing professional development can help patients evaluate an experienced dentist Turkey.

Qualifications do not guarantee a particular outcome, but they help patients understand whether a professional has appropriate education and training for the treatment being considered.

Clinical Experience

Experience is valuable when it relates to the patient’s needs. Instead of focusing only on years in practice, patients should ask about similar cases, complex procedures, and the treatment they are considering.

Experience treating international patients can also help. Teams familiar with overseas patients may better understand remote consultations, travel schedules, communication, and treatment timelines.

Ongoing Professional Development

Dentistry evolves through new techniques, materials, technologies, and protocols. Professionals who pursue continuing education can stay familiar with developments relevant to their specialties.

Why a Multidisciplinary Dental Team Can Benefit Patients

Different Dental Specialties Working Together

A multidisciplinary team brings together different areas of expertise, including general dentistry, implant dentistry, cosmetic dentistry, prosthodontics, periodontics, endodontics, orthodontics, and pediatric dentistry.

Not every patient needs multiple specialists. However, when several concerns exist, different disciplines can support coordinated care and prevent one treatment from overlooking another problem.

Coordinated Treatment Planning

Complex treatment can involve several stages. A coordinated approach may follow:

Diagnosis → Treatment Planning → Specialist Input → Treatment → Follow-Up

This allows relevant professionals to contribute while keeping the plan focused on oral health, goals, and practical requirements.

Managing Complex Dental Cases

Patients with missing teeth, gum concerns, damaged teeth, bite problems, or combined cosmetic and restorative needs may benefit from multiple areas of expertise. Collaboration can help establish an appropriate treatment sequence.

How to Evaluate a Dental Specialist Before Booking Treatment

Check Their Professional Background

Review qualifications, specialization, experience, and professional development. Patients should also understand who will perform each procedure.

Review Their Relevant Experience

Instead of asking only, “How many years have you been a dentist?” ask, “How much experience do you have with cases similar to mine?” This provides more useful information.

Look at Patient Feedback

Patient reviews can provide insight into professionalism, communication, organization, treatment experience, and follow-up. Consider them alongside qualifications and clinical information.

Experience Is More Than the Number of Years in Dentistry

The term experienced dentist in Turkey should not mean years of practice alone. Relevant specialization, similar-case experience, continuing education, modern techniques, treatment planning, communication, and teamwork all matter.

Patients should assess the quality and relevance of experience. The most useful experience matches the clinical situation and is supported by appropriate planning and collaboration.

How Technology and Experience Work Together

Modern dentistry can use digital diagnostics, 3D imaging, digital treatment planning, digital impressions, and advanced restorative technology to support diagnosis and treatment. However, technology does not replace professional judgment.

The value of digital tools depends on professionals using and interpreting them correctly. An experienced team can combine appropriate technology with clinical assessment to develop a plan reflecting individual needs.

The strongest approach is:

Experienced Specialists + Appropriate Technology + Personalized Treatment Planning

Why Experience Matters for International Dental Patients

International patients may need remote consultations, pre-travel planning, coordinated procedures, realistic timelines, clear communication, and follow-up after returning home.

An experienced team can organize these stages and explain what can realistically be completed during a patient’s stay. Patients should ask who will perform treatment, whether specialists will be involved, who manages the plan, and how follow-up will be handled.

Questions International Patients Should Ask

Who will perform my treatment?
What is their relevant experience?
Will I see a specialist?
Who is responsible for my treatment plan?
Will different specialists coordinate my care?
How will follow-up be handled?

Why Patients Choose Vitrin Clinic in Turkey

Vitrin Clinic combines an experienced dental team with personalized planning and modern dental technology. For patients considering Istanbul treatment, qualified professionals across different areas can support coordinated care.

Personalized planning matters because every patient has different needs, expectations, and priorities. Treatment should follow an appropriate assessment rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Modern technology can support diagnosis, planning, and treatment when used appropriately. For international patients, communication and coordination matter from consultation through aftercare.

Questions to Ask Before Choosing a Best Dental Clinic in Turkey

About Experience

How long have you been practicing?
What treatments do you specialize in?
Have you treated cases similar to mine?

About Treatment Planning

Who will create my treatment plan?
Will other specialists be involved?
Are there alternative treatment options?

About Technology

What diagnostic technology will be used?
How does technology contribute to my treatment plan?

About Follow-Up

What happens after treatment?
Will I have a follow-up appointment?
What support is available after I return home?

Experienced Dentist vs. Dental Clinic: What Should Patients Choose?

Patients do not necessarily need to choose between an experienced dentist and an experienced clinic. The stronger approach is to look for both.

An experienced dentist provides clinical expertise, while a specialist team offers broader knowledge when different treatments are required. A modern facility provides appropriate resources, while coordinated care connects each stage.

In practical terms, patients should look for:

Experienced Dentist + Specialist Team + Modern Facility + Coordinated Patient Care

Checklist for Choosing an Experienced Dental Team in Turkey

Check dentist qualifications.
Verify relevant specialization.
Review clinical experience.
Look for experience with similar cases.
Check patient reviews.
Understand who will perform the treatment.
Ask whether specialists collaborate.
Evaluate treatment planning.
Ask about diagnostic and treatment technology.
Understand aftercare and follow-up.
Confirm international patient support.

Final Thoughts

Choosing the best dental clinic in Turkey is not only about the clinic itself. It is about the expertise of the people responsible for your care. A strong team brings experience, specialization, collaboration, technology, personalized planning, communication, and follow-up and patient safety.

For international patients, these factors are especially valuable because treatment requires planning before travel and coordinated support throughout the visit. Patients considering treatment in Istanbul can explore Vitrin Clinic and evaluate its team, treatment approach, technology, and patient-care services before making their decision.

Go to top

Signatures: The Real Source of AI Advantage in Regulated Industries

August 25, 2026

By Danny Goh, Terence Tse and Rob Casper

In regulated industries, AI’s true advantage lies not in capability alone, but in embedding human accountability, professional judgment, and trust into deployment.

The following scenario is common enough in financial services. Teams implement AI for contract drafting, fraud detection, or report generation. Although pilots have shown promising results, risk committees often halt these projects. The typical response is to improve models, increase testing, and tighten controls. Yet, despite these performance-improving measures, projects still stall at the committee stage. The core issue is not AI capability. Instead, it is the lack of accountability.

Accountability, not capability

Consider a hospital using advanced medical AI that outperforms physicians in diagnosis. Would it allow the AI to issue prescriptions on its own? The answer is a firm no. But this has more to do with the law requiring licensed physicians to sign prescriptions rather than doubts about AI’s capability. AI can prepare recommendations, but only a doctor can authorize them. Competence and accountability are two very different constructs. Only competence can be handed to a machine.

Producing an answer is easy for AI these days. Establishing traceability and accountability at scale is the real challenge. This is especially the case for highly regulated industries such as financial services. When banks evaluate AI systems, the compliance team isn’t necessarily concerned with the technical capability. What matters more is identifying who should be responsible if the system fails. Far more important is that current regulations in financial disclosure, banking oversight, and outsourcing in the US, UK, EU, and Singapore at least, require a named, accountable individual. It isn’t a role that AI is allowed to assume.

Two kinds of trust

Confusion between accountability and capability may arise because the term “trust” has two meanings. Execution trust is created or strengthened by improvements in the technology itself, such as increased accuracy, more detailed logs, and a more up-to-date performance history. Put differently, execution trust answers the question of whether the system is doing what it was designed to do.

Unfortunately, the AI industry has – erroneously – assumed that if execution trust becomes strong enough, business trust will follow.

Yet, what institutions actually need is business trust, which involves a qualified individual endorsing an outcome. An auditor signing a company’s accounts or a doctor signing a treatment order isn’t merely confirming that a process ran correctly — they are attaching their professional experience and standing to the result. In other words, business trust is unrelated to the properties of the AI systems and answers an entirely different question: who stands behind this.

Unfortunately, the AI industry has – erroneously – assumed that if execution trust becomes strong enough, business trust will follow. This is one reason many AI vendors and companies alike have focused their efforts on making their AI systems better. Even transparency and traceability can’t, by themselves, produce accountability; they merely produce more credible information. Establishing business trust requires a completely different approach, at least in the financial services sector.

AI you can sign

From our front-row seat in financial services’ AI work, we believe that building business trust requires a tool that predates computers by millennia: the signature. This mechanism underpins a doctor’s chart, an auditor’s opinion, and a CEO’s quarterly earnings sign-off. A signature carries legal weight and authenticity beyond a mere copy or electronic mark. It helps determine enforceability, evidentiary value, and compliance with governing laws. A signature is the source of business trust.

Yet much of the enterprise AI deployed today has only two stages: In the first, the system ingests and processes input data to produce a specific outcome; and in the second, the outcome is checked against a standard as a quality-assurance step. What is missing is a third stage: a named individual identified as accountable for the outcome. Without a sign-off, no one is truly accountable for what the AI produces.

Not all sign-offs are equal

We believe three tiers of sign-off exist, each with a different level of accountability. At the lowest tier, a human clicks “approve” on an output. Yet this can be done without the person actually reviewing – or even worse, understanding – the output. At most, this amounts to nominal supervision. This is one reason why the renowned “human-in-the-loop” is frequently not sufficient to build much business trust.

The next tier of sign-on is similar to a warranty: an assurance that an AI provider guarantees the output will meet specified conditions of quality or performance. But even in this case, no individual is personally accountable. A warranty merely compensates for failure. In short, it is just corporate accountability at work and not professional accountability.

The highest tier is the third, where a licensed professional reviews the work against a defined standard and signs it under their own name, putting their reputation and liability on the line. This is the level at which business trust can actually be created.

Building in accountability by design

For companies in regulated sectors, the goal should be to integrate the third tier directly into AI deployment, building the Stage 3 mentioned above into the AI architecture. We call this approach “machine-first,” human-final.” In this way, the AI platform manages 90% of the overall processing volume, automatically clearing standard, routine, low-risk cases and creating a full audit trail along the way. The AI passes the remaining 10% representing more complex and exceptional cases to a senior professional for sign-off.

For example, in wealth management, many firms can currently only spot-check a fraction of client statements to see if they are correctly presented. Now, with the “machine-first, human-final” model, AI can review every statement, clear most automatically, and escalate only genuine anomalies, allowing professionals to focus on significant exceptions and real exposure.

This approach can confer advantages that even the best AI model cannot offer. First, when a professional signs off on a case, the decision is documented along with the context, evidence, outcome, and the professional’s name. This documentation is especially valuable in regulated industries. Most AI systems do not capture this information because they tend to minimize rather than preserve and respect human involvement. Over time, a company can build a unique library of expert decisions that competitors and AI models cannot replicate. Indeed, this library, in turn, creates a compounding flywheel, in which every human correction becomes structured training data to further improve the AI in place.

Business leaders need to stop designing AI around tasks and start designing it around that which needs human accountability.

Second, this approach redefines automation by focusing on judgment rather than merely labor. Judgment improves with experience, often well into later stages of a career. This approach values professionals whose expertise was previously constrained by workload, not by the quality of their judgment. As a result, careers can be extended, allowing experienced individuals to guide AI-driven processes even as their pace slows. The goal of AI deployment should not be to replace people. Instead, AI deployment should eliminate routine tasks and enable professional judgment to have greater impact.

Design, not technology

Business leaders need to stop designing AI around tasks and start designing it around that which needs human accountability. Managers would do well to remember that the winners in cloud computing weren’t the quickest to roll out the infrastructure but the ones who made compliance their selling point. The firms that win in the enterprise AI world tomorrow won’t be the ones with the most clever models. They’ll be the ones whose output is worthy of – and signed by – a professional.

Go to top

About the Authors

Danny Goh is the Co-founder & CEO of Nexus FrontierTech. He also co-founded the AI Native Foundation. Danny is a co-author of Becoming AI Native: Charting the Next AI Frontier (Routledge, 2026).

Terence Tse is the Co-founder & Executive Director at Nexus FrontierTech. He also co-founded the AI Native Foundation. Terence is a co-author of Becoming AI Native: Charting the Next AI Frontier (Routledge, 2026).

Rob Casper is Principal at Ridgeview Digital.