@kevinnbass mapped this machine for Anthropic and METR in the US. This is the EU map. All information is fully sourced and available through public links. 1/ I mapped the money behind the EU's AI rulebook. The organizations that demanded the rules, co-wrote the rules, and are now paid to evaluate the rules are funded by the same handful of fortunes. 2/ The EU AI Office is a ~37-person unit enforcing the world's first comprehensive AI law. It outsourced its evaluation muscle through a €9M tender. Four of the six named consortium members are EA-ecosystem organizations: FAR.AI, GovAI, Epoch AI, METR. The referee and the rule-writers share the same funders 3/ Follow the money: Coefficient Giving (Moskovitz) put >$30M into the orgs in this map. Jaan Tallinn's Survival and Flourishing Fund added millions more. Steven Schuurman seeded the biggest Brussels EA lobby shop. Vitalik Buterin gave the Future of Life Institute ~$665M. This month, German investor Jan Beckers committed €50M more through his GTR Foundation. 4/ The part nobody says out loud: the funders of the warning are shareholders of the warned-about. Tallinn led Anthropic's 2021 Series A. Moskovitz invested in the same round (est. 0.8-2.5%; $500M of it moved to a nonprofit in 2025). Beckers said on record in March that he is privately invested in both OpenAI and Anthropic. The safety movement and the boom share the same owners. 5/ The rulebook's central concept, "systemic risk", comes from papers whose acknowledgments thank GovAI and Future of Life Institute staff. The Code of Practice was vice-chaired by GovAI, KIRA and a Tallinn-funded Oxford institute. At least 8 of the 60 Scientific Panel members carry ecosystem affiliations. 6/ There is a paid pipeline. The Talos Network, funded by the same donors, trains EU AI policy fellows and says its alumni "work across the EU AI Office". One confirmed placement joined the Office in January 2025. An EA Forum strategy post urged the movement to join the Office as it was being set up, noting members were already writing letters of interest to Heads of Unit. 7/ They sell the problem and the solution from the same money pile. The biorisk studies used to argue against open-source AI trace to an MIT lab funded with ~$6M by this ecosystem. The contracts to evaluate those very risks now flow to ecosystem organizations. Same money, both sides of the ledger. 8/ The newest move: this month's "Transformative AI Strategy for Europe" states it received no funding or direction from any company, government or EU institution. True, and incomplete. Its editorial lead is KIRA's Daniel Privitera. KIRA received donations from an NGO that is linked to an Anthropic Investor. Its research leads include KIRA's Philip Fox, GovAI's Noemi Dreksler and Anton Leicht, whom KIRA lists as an affiliate. Roughly 20 of ~45 named contributors come from the mapped ecosystem, fronted by Vestager, Varadkar and a Nobel laureate. KIRA's main institutional funder is the GTR Foundation of Jan Beckers (see 4). 9/ Proportionality, because it matters: Big Tech declares €73M+ per year lobbying the EU. This ecosystem spends a fraction of that. That is the story. Brussels was influenced cheaply: through expertise, staffing, fellowships and evaluation contracts, not ad campaigns. 10/ To be precise: I am not claiming illegality. The Commission ran an open tender. The panel was appointed openly. 12/ Disclosure, because transparency cuts both ways: I build open-source AI for healthcare. I have a side in this debate, and now you know which one. Everything above is documented from public sources and claims no illegality. If any organization named here disputes a fact, my replies are open: correct me, and I will correct the record publicly. IMPORTANT: Shared funders do not prove coordination. But when the demanders, drafters, evaluators and strategists all draw from the same money, independence is a question Europe gets to ask.