The first item on the roadmap, the migration to the directory service, has been completed, though it took longer than expected. The reason the other features haven’t been implemented yet is because they decided on an unplanned rewrite of the client app, which fixed a lot of bugs people were having. Both this and the directory service migration were large undertakings. They explain all of this in this blog post.
Cool, but this blog post was written in November 2025, so what has it done from November 2025 until now? Also, considering that it has enough money from donations to hire a full-time developer to work on it. For me, the plan to rewrite the entire client has always been a nonsensical decision, since there aren’t any issues on GitHub labeled as “bug”. I’m already aware that the early versions of Accrescent had a lot of bugs, such as update-related bugs (I’m talking about 2 and a half years ago, when I installed GrapheneOS and Accrescent). Because of that, I also don’t think it should take more than 6 months to rewrite the client app, since right now the app only has four functions: install, update, uninstall, and automatic updates.
I highly encourage anyone who’s interested in the project to read the full thing. It also details what will be coming next, which is what they’ve been working on since this was posted. Instead of continuing with the initial roadmap, they decided to shift the focus on developer experience, which is imo the right call if they want to open up app submissions as quickly as possible. This includes designing a new app publishing format, creating an app publishing API and developing a CLI tool. For many app developers, an API to automate the publishing process is a hard requirement before they’re willing to submit their app to Accrescent (see for example here or here).
It’s pretty funny how they introduced the stable API, and in the Ente issue you are linked to, it said that the app would be submitted to the app store, even though Accrescent has a stable API. The response was written on April 1, 2026. So… can I presume that Accrescent’s API is not actually in a stable version? In the second link (here), there is another link inside the thread: Accrescent: "Since we published our blog post on the future of…" - Infosec Exchange
This is an Accrescent post containing the following statement:
According to the rates in that post, we should now be able to fund full-time development through at least May 2026!
Today is June 2, 2026, and in the past few months, I haven’t seen this full-time development.
As part of this work, they are currently in the process of rewriting Parcelo, the developer console backend. You can follow the progress here.
Thanks for the source. I checked it out, and it doesn’t seem like there has been much change from November until now. Most of the commits are just adding a license to the code, others are simply commit (I’m talking about adding lines from 1 to 33). Only three commits has been made a substantial changes (I’m talking about adding 100 to 300 lines). Even so, it still doesn’t seem like the work of eight months of full-time development.
Just because you don’t see any user-facing improvement doesn’t mean no work is being done.
Obviously, I’m not looking at the user interface to determine whether something has been done or not. I never said that. I relied on the commits that have been made on GitHub, obviously excluding trivial commits, such as modifying the version of a module that is used or something like that.
At the moment, Accrescent is basically in a pilot phase, so the apps on there are those whose developers were willing to put up with a lackluster user experience, bugs, breaking changes, etc. Obviously, many aren’t gonna want to do that. Since quite some time, app submissions have actually been closed and will only reopen when Accrescent is able to offer a better experience (still planned to happen this year). If you go around the FOSS Android ecosystem, a lot of apps have open issues regarding inclusion in Accrescent and devs are just waiting for it to become more mature. That’s why the background work that is currently being done is very important.
Accrescent has been in a pilot phase for more than two and a half years I though it’s been even longer (since I installed it for the first time two and a half years ago). That’s also pretty funny, since other projects that started later than Accrescent have achieved an stable and complete application.
Some proprietary apps, like Qlango or Cape, are already on there.
Even for FOSS apps, it’s good to have an option that follows security best practices, has developers submitting their own signed builds and doesn’t introduce delays for updates. That doesn’t mean there isn’t also a place for stores focused on open source, with more vetting regarding privacy, etc. Those can exist in parallel to Accrescent, whose goal is general app distribution.
I completely agree with you. I hope that one day there will be a store where people can install applications without being tracked or forced to create an account. However, to achieve this goal, Accrescent needs to do a lot of work, because it is far from being able to compete with or compare to other app stores and the project is progressing so slowly that we might see a stable version only when we die of old age.
I’m speaking for myself: I don’t see a bright future for this project. There are a lot of promises that have not been fulfilled, the development is very slow, and the next steps of the project are a bit confusing. It is also still in alpha for many years. I donated some money because I believed in it, but now I feel like I’m being scammed with a false promise. Everything I have written is just my personal opinion about what I think of this project and how I feel about it. If you think I’m wrong, I respect that, and I’m glad to know that some people still want to continue supporting Accrescent.
Peace 
