Interview with Professor Yu Xiong of the University of Surrey
Across Europe, a new kind of leadership is emerging at the intersection of technology, research, and governance. Professor Yu Xiong, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences, represents this shift — a generation of scholar–practitioners who translate academic rigour into real-world transformation. From data-driven policymaking to the architecture of fair digital economies, his work has become a touchstone for how innovation can align with public good.
In this conversation, The European Business Review explores his views on the next chapter of the digital revolution — and why the future of technology depends less on disruption and more on trust.
You’ve been described as part of a new class of “scholar–practitioners” who bridge research, entrepreneurship, and governance. What defines this new model of leadership?
The modern economy is increasingly data-led, but decisions still require human judgment. The leaders who can bridge both — who understand the algorithms and the ethics — will define the next decade. Scholar–practitioners are not content with writing theories; they build systems. Their research must be testable in the real world and scalable in policy terms.
The boundary between academia and industry is fading. In today’s world, a strong paper can influence investors and policymakers more than a lobbying campaign ever could — if it is grounded in evidence and communicated effectively.
Your Nature Communications paper on Bitcoin’s carbon footprint gained global attention. What did that moment teach you about the relationship between data and decision-making?
It proved that evidence can accelerate change. Our study compared Bitcoin’s energy impact to that of entire nations. The response was immediate — it informed climate discussions from Beijing to Brussels.
Our study compared Bitcoin’s energy impact to that of entire nations. The response was immediate — it informed climate discussions from Beijing to Brussels.
But the lesson went beyond cryptocurrencies. It showed that the right data, interpreted clearly, can shape regulation, investment, and behaviour. Policymakers are looking for clarity, not lobbying. When research is transparent and verifiable, it becomes a trusted foundation for governance.
You often speak about technology as a moral system as much as an economic one. What do you mean by that?
Every digital system embeds values. When you design an algorithm, you make ethical decisions — about who benefits, who is excluded, and how transparent the process is. Efficiency alone is no longer a valid metric of success.
We need to think in terms of fairness, transparency, and sustainability. Technology should enhance these principles, not erode them. That’s the foundation of digital trust — and without trust, no digital economy can scale sustainably.
Your ventures such as Endless Protocol and Luffa aim to build this trust through new kinds of digital infrastructure. How do they reflect your academic philosophy?
Endless Protocol and Luffa both aim to bridge technological innovation with social accountability. Endless Protocol is about designing systems that are transparent by architecture — where fairness and auditability are not afterthoughts but core functions.
Both projects demonstrate that governance and innovation can coexist — that decentralisation does not mean disorder.
Luffa combines programmable loyalty with AI-driven creator tools. It’s about rebalancing power between platforms and users. Both projects demonstrate that governance and innovation can coexist — that decentralisation does not mean disorder.
Many believe the era of speculative blockchain hype is over. What comes next?
The next phase is the institutionalisation of digital trust. The focus is shifting from speculative assets to governance — how value, identity, and rights are managed in digital ecosystems.
Blockchain, AI, and Web3 are not just technologies; they are governance frameworks. The question is no longer “Can we build it?” but “Should we build it — and under what principles?” Those who answer that question responsibly will shape the next generation of the digital economy.
If you had to summarise your mission in one line, what would it be?
To make technology serve humanity, not the other way around. The real innovation is not faster systems — it’s fairer systems.
EBR Analysis:
Professor Yu Xiong’s perspective embodies a new European pragmatism: one that treats technology as a public trust, not a private experiment. His work bridges academia, enterprise, and governance in pursuit of a more accountable digital future — where innovation is measured not by disruption, but by the integrity it sustains.
