Leen Anthuenis

The through-line

Everything Leen Anthuenis says circles back to a single conviction: standing still is the risk, and most people and institutions are not being honest with themselves about it. At the level of the individual, that means asking a hard question that too few ask. "Er zijn veel jobs die zullen verdwijnen binnen de komende vijf jaar. Dat is gewoon een gegeven. En we zien nog te weinig mensen die daar kritisch over zijn." [1][2] At the level of the company, the same logic: "It's not a question anymore, do we have to innovate. Innovation should be in the heart and in the core of every company." [6] And at the level of the region, it becomes a call to raise ambition: "We can think bigger, I think, in this region, and also we should be more proud of what we do." [6]

What has shifted is scale of confidence rather than direction. Early on the emphasis is on establishing that Belgium deserves and can sustain a festival of this kind at all, built out from a project team into a real company with a permanent staff [6], with credibility won the hard way after most of the government subsidy fell away [3]. Later the argument widens outward to structural conditions, European legal frameworks, subsidy concentration and the reskilling of an entire workforce [1][2][4][5]. The one thing that does not shift is her refusal to equate growth with success: the event should be authoritative, not the biggest [3][4][5].

On reinventing yourself before the job disappears

The premise is stated flatly and without hedging: many jobs will vanish within five years, and that is simply a given [1][2]. What bothers her is not the disruption itself but the absence of critical self-examination, the small number of people willing to ask whether their own role will still be relevant on that horizon [1][2]. This is the reason 'Reinvent Yourself' became SuperNova's theme, and the reason reskilling awareness sits at its centre rather than being treated as a side topic [1][2]. The theme was in fact planned for 2027 and pulled forward once Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed [1]. She notes the distinction he draws in his own framing: "Hij noemt het geen droom, want droom is te vrijblijvend. Hij noemt het een visie." [1] The point of a vision over a dream is precisely that it commits you to something.

The harder version of the same argument concerns automation at societal scale. Funding social security through a wave of automation is a financial problem and therefore solvable; the genuinely difficult problem is keeping people meaningfully employed and flexible enough to switch careers when their current one ends [5]. That reframing puts the burden on individual adaptability and on the institutions meant to support it, rather than on the fiscal arithmetic that usually dominates the debate.

On keeping SuperNova curated rather than large

She is explicit that scale is not the goal. "Het is niet mijn persoonlijke ambitie om naar 20.000 man te gaan... goed gecureerd, de juiste dingen, de juiste mensen en top kwaliteit blijven leveren, dat is eigenlijk de intentie." [3] The concrete growth ambition is modest by design, perhaps a thousand more attendees, with expansion happening through more side events rather than a bigger floor [3]. The comparison she rejects is the Web Summit model of ten thousand people a day where nobody finds anyone [2]. The comparison she also declines, though more warmly, is VivaTech: "Ik wil niet per se de VivaTech worden en het grootste techfestival van Europa worden, maar ik wil wel toonaangevend zijn en een vaste waarde op de agenda van heel veel internationale spelers." [4][5] Authority and permanence on the international calendar, not volume.

The practical consequence is a boutique event that must nonetheless solve real constraints, including leaving the Waagnatie because of the Oosterweel construction works [2].

On designing an event for action rather than inspiration

The format follows the ambition. SuperNova deliberately refuses the traditional tech fair layout in favour of a pop-up co-working space scenography built around a big round bar, so that networking and follow-up action become the output rather than passive inspiration [6]. The value proposition is compression of time: "What he can do over here in two days, in normal days and normal working days and circumstances it will take them weeks or months to meet the same amount of people." [6] That same logic extends to peer programming, with a dedicated peer-to-peer track connecting investors with investors [6], and to her proposal for a fintech side event aimed at the office of finance [3].

International investors turn up, she argues, for two reasons that have nothing to do with the event's size: the quality of Belgian startups, scale-ups and their talent is genuinely high, and Belgium's central European location makes the trip easy to justify [6].

On running a festival as a startup

She does not treat the event as event management. "Eigenlijk is dat een startup op zich, want het gaat over zeer groot budget, dat gaat over zeer veel partners." [3] The hardest part is not logistics but alignment: a very large budget and a wide set of partners and stakeholders who all have to believe in the thing [3]. That belief was earned rather than granted. "Door gewoon door te zetten, ook zonder die subsidie, en dat eigenlijk op eigen krachten voor een groot stuk te gaan doen... dat zorgt dat je een bepaald respect krijgt." [3] Persisting after losing most of the government subsidy, and proving the edition could be repeated and consolidated, is what produced standing in Flanders [3]. The organisational counterpart is the shift from a one-off project team to a real company with a permanent team, made necessary by the decision to run a yearly edition [6].

On concentrating bets instead of spreading subsidies

Her critique of Flanders is structural rather than budgetary. The money is fragmented across many small organisations, which prevents any big initiative from forming; Luxembourg by contrast structures its startup support centrally and coherently behind a clear vision [4][5]. The conclusion is that Belgium should dare to concentrate its bets on a few large initiatives [4][5]. This is the policy version of the same argument she makes about the festival itself: fewer things, done properly, beat many things done thinly.

On Europe's real barrier being regulation, not language

The single market argument has changed shape, in her telling. Language used to be the structural advantage the United States held, with 330 million consumers sharing one; AI translation and widespread English fluency have neutralised that edge [4]. What now blocks a genuine European market is regulatory fragmentation [4]. The remedy she points to is the EU's 28th regime, which would let founders incorporate under a pan-European legal entity instead of a single member state, making it far faster to scale across all European countries [1][2].

On where the next decade's value sits

Health and mental wellbeing is the sector she would bet on for the coming decade, and she expects it to grow more important still as life shifts further into virtual worlds [5]. One concrete downstream consequence: insurance products will inevitably be linked to personal health statistics drawn from wearables, and insurers are already beginning to move on it [5].

On finance teams and their own development

She singles out CFOs and finance teams as hard-working people who rarely invest time in their own development [3]. Her claim is that an inspiration festival can accelerate their growth faster than classic training can, which is the reasoning behind proposing a fintech side event built specifically for the office of finance [3].

Takeaways

• Ask the uncomfortable question first: many jobs will disappear within five years, and too few people are critically assessing whether their own will still be relevant [1][2].
• Treat innovation as a settled requirement, not an open debate. "It's not a question anymore, do we have to innovate. Innovation should be in the heart and in the core of every company." [6]
• Optimise a gathering for authority and curation over headcount; the goal is being a fixed point on international agendas, not becoming VivaTech or a 10,000-a-day Web Summit [2][4][5].
• Design for follow-up action rather than passive inspiration: a co-working scenography and round bar exist so two days replace weeks or months of meetings [6].
• Losing a subsidy and continuing anyway builds credibility that the subsidy itself never would [3].
• Concentrate public support behind a few large bets, as Luxembourg does, instead of scattering it across many small organisations [4][5].
• The barrier to a single European market is regulatory fragmentation, not language; a 28th regime allowing pan-European incorporation would let founders scale far faster [1][2][4].
• The automation problem to solve is meaningful employment and career flexibility, not the financing of social security [5].
• Bet on health and mental wellbeing for the next decade, including wearable-linked insurance products [5].