First off, e was discovered, not chosen. Think of the speed of light, c. It wasn't originally decided to be 299,792,458 m/s -- we did experiments and realized under ideal, universal conditions (a vacuum), this was the fastest light could move¹.

Let's look at growth and ask under ideal, universal conditions, what's the fastest something can possibly grow? Ideal, universal assumptions would be:

• Growing by the unit rate (100%)
• Growing for the unit time (1 time period)
• Growing perfectly, without any delay (continuous)

Turning these assumptions into a formula, we get:

If we actually use the formula (using large values of n for more accuracy) we get e = 2.718281828459...

Objection: But can model exponential growth just like can!

Sure. But what assumptions did you make to get 13.74? They probably weren't "unit rate, unit time, perfectly compounded". (You can pick k as the speed of light through Kool Aid too -- but why?)

Arguably, is also universal ("the discrete e"), because you have zero compounding (n is an integer like 0, 1, 2, 3). Instead of perfectly continuous, it's perfectly non-continuous (discrete), and we take growth step-by-step.

So, I'd say either (in discrete systems) or (in continuous systems) are "universal".

Objection: But things can grow faster than , which is just -- what about ?

What is it with you and 13.74? Yes, you can beat in an exponential footrace, if you use a rate more than 100%. is really . Because ln(13.74) ~ 2.6, you are assuming a 260% continuous interest rate, more than the 100% uses. (Alternatively, you can grow for 260% of the unit time period that uses.)

Related:

• Intuitive guide to e
• Common definitions of e (colorized)