AI can act, but cannot bear responsibility
An AI agent may select a counterparty, negotiate terms, interact with a smart contract and authorise payment. Yet it is not generally recognised as a legal person, therefore its outputs need to be attributed to a human being or organisation. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Automated Contracting, adopted in 2024, supports contracts formed or performed through automated systems, including AI and machine-to-machine transactions. It establishes rules for attributing automated outputs and addressing unexpected outcomes without requiring the system to possess legal personality. And the emerging direction is clear: autonomous execution does not remove human or corporate accountability.
Romeâs architecture of delegated commerce
Roman law distinguished between people who were legally independent (âsui iurisâ) and those subject to anotherâs authority (âalieni iurisâ). The âpaterfamiliasâ was the legally independent head of the household and principal holder of its property. He was not a âbeneficial ownerâ in the modern legal sense but can be compared cautiously with a principal asset owner, trustee, company or family office. Nevertheless, commerce required others to manage farms, ships and businesses and so the peculium was a fund placed under another personâs practical administration whilst remaining connected to the principal. The Roman jurist Gaius, Institutes, Book IV, sections 69 to 74, explained that liability depended on the authority granted; where the principal expressly ordered a transaction or appointed someone to operate a business or ship, liability could extend beyond the peculium. In other circumstances, recovery might be limited by reference to that fund. Justinianâs Institutes, Book IV, Title VII later restated this graduated approach and, in todayâs climate, the resulting lesson is clear:
The greater the authority given to an AI agent, the greater the potential exposure of the principal behind it.
Four questions for AI transactions
In the case of wallets, a separate wallet does not itself determine authority or liability; asset segregation, attribution and recourse remain distinct questions.
What modern cases tell us
In the case of Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd, algorithms entered cryptocurrency trades after a platform failure activated a fallback price. The Singapore Court of Appeal treated the deterministic programs as mechanisms selected by their human operators, rather than inventing a separate legal mind for the software. The case suggests that using an automated system does not necessarily allow its deployer to disown a resulting contract, with these limits of unchecked automation having been exposed by US global financial services firm, Knight Capital. In 2012, faulty software sent more than four million erroneous orders in forty-five minutes, producing losses exceeding $460 million. Unsurprisingly, the SEC found inadequate safeguards, testing and supervisory controls and imposed a $12 million penalty. The lesson is that an AI peculium needs more than a capped walletâââit requires transaction limits, cumulative exposure controls, approved counterparties, price tolerances and an effective suspension mechanism. Another example can be seen in the case of Moffatt v Air Canada, where a tribunal held the airline responsible after its chatbot gave a customer inaccurate information about bereavement fares. These decisions are not universally binding but illustrates that a business cannot assume its AI interface is legally separate from the organisation deploying it. Meanwhile, the Ooki DAO litigation has provided a related warningâââa US court held that a decentralised organisation could be sued as an unincorporated association and treated as a person under the Commodity Exchange Act. Similarly, the SECâs 2017 DAO Report emphasised that regulatory treatment depends on economic reality, not technological terminology. A wallet, smart contract, DAO or SPV may segregate operations but it cannot automatically override securities law, sanctions obligations, consumer protection or fiduciary duties.
Why England and Wales could lead
The Law Commission has concluded that the law of England and Wales can generally support smart legal contracts without wholesale statutory reform. It also identified areas requiring further attention, including deeds, jurisdiction, interpretation and remedies. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 has further confirmed that digital or electronic assets are not prevented from being objects of personal property rights merely because they fall outside the traditional categories of things in possession and things in action. That improves certainty over digital property but it does not determine who is responsible when an AI transfers it. The commercial opportunity is to combine existing contract, property, trust, company and financial-services law with a technically enforceable AIÂ mandate.
Building a modern peculium protocol
A modern AI peculium should be a legal and technical control framework where it would identify the principal and define the AIâs objectives, permitted assets, counterparties, jurisdictions and transaction types in a digitally signed mandate. Capital could be placed in a segregated wallet or account and smart-contract permissions would impose per-transaction and cumulative limits. Borrowing, pledging assets, using an unapproved protocol or exceeding a threshold would require human authorisation and instructions, data sources, decisions and transactions would be logged so the agentâs conduct could be reconstructed. Lawyers, trustees, directors, compliance officers or regulated custodians could validate authority, approve exceptional actions, preserve evidence and activate emergency suspension and insurance could then be priced against a measurable mandate and maximum exposure. Furthermore, ring-fencing would still have limits as it could not automatically exclude claims arising from fraud, negligence, sanctions breaches, regulatory violations, fiduciary misconduct or express authorisation by the principal. This all echoes Rome where liability depended not only on the assets allocated, but also on what was ordered, who benefited and how much authority had been granted.
The EU AI Act requires proportionate human oversight for high-risk systems, including the ability for authorised people to intervene or stop systems that are not operating as intended. The UKâs principles-based framework emphasises safety, transparency, accountability, governance and redress; both approaches point toward controlled autonomy rather than artificial personhood.
Autonomy without unaccountability
Roman law did not solve AI governance two thousand years in advance. It did, however, recognise that commerce could be delegated without leaving authority and liability undefined. AI agents do not need fictional personhood to contract and move valueâââthey need intelligible mandates, restricted access to assets, transparent records, effective human control and credible recourse. Jurisdictions that build this architecture first could provide the trusted infrastructure through which autonomous commerce, machine-to-machine payments and AI-managed wealth operate at scale. Romeâs enduring lesson is that delegation becomes commercially useful only when authority, assets and accountability have clearly defined boundaries.
Romeâs 2000-year-old answer to AI liability: give the agent a budget, not legal personhood was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
The UK has begun direct oversight of systemic cloud services used by financial firms, while banks remain responsible for their own operational resilience, contracts, and recovery planning.
The post UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight appeared first on TechRepublic.
The UK has begun direct oversight of systemic cloud services used by financial firms, while banks remain responsible for their own operational resilience, contracts, and recovery planning.
The post UK Puts AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, and Oracle Under Direct Financial Oversight appeared first on TechRepublic.
For fifty years, the language banks used to talk to each other was built for speed, not meaning. A cross-border payment traveling through SWIFT looked like a jumble of abbreviated fields, cramped codes, truncated names, unstructured addresses stuffed into a single line.
It worked, barely, in a world of manual reconciliation and paper trails. It does not work in a world of instant payments, real-time fraud screening, and automated compliance.
Thatâs the gap ISO 20022 was built to close. It isnât a new payment rail, itâs a global messaging standard that replaces those old, flat âMTâ messages with structured, XML-based âMXâ messages carrying far richer data. Think of it as swapping a fax machine for a searchable database. The same payment now arrives with clearly labelled fields for remitter, beneficiary, purpose, and reference data that machines, not just humans, can read and act on.
The migration has been years in the making, and 2025â2026 marked its most consequential stretch:
SWIFTâs Cross-Border Payments and Reporting Plus (CBPR+) program went live, opening a âcoexistenceâ window where both old MT and new MX messages could travel side by side.
Coexistence officially ended. Core payment instruction messages, including the workhorse MT103 and MT202, were retired for cross-border flows. Institutions still sending them now face contingency processing, with SWIFT charging extra fees for that fallback starting January 2026.
The next hard deadline. Unstructured postal addresses will be rejected outright; only structured or âhybridâ addresses (town and country coded, with limited free text) will be accepted. SWIFT will also begin phasing in Case Management 2.0 for handling payment exceptions and investigations.
Reporting and statement messages (the MT9xx family), direct debits, and remaining exception-handling flows are expected to complete their move to the camt.* message family, though this phase depends more on bilateral agreement between institutions than on a hard network cutoff.
In other words: the header-grabbing deadline has passed, but the migration is far from finished. Many banks are still leaning on SWIFTâs translation services to convert between formats behind the scenes a workable bridge, but one that quietly strips out the very data richness ISO 20022 was designed to deliver.
Itâs tempting to file ISO 20022 under âback-office plumbing.â That undersells it. The standard touches nearly every function that depends on payment data:
That last point is the strategic one. This isnât a SWIFT-only project. Fedwire, real-time gross settlement systems, and instant payment schemes across multiple regions have adopted or are adopting the same standard, which means a bankâs ISO 20022 investment pays off well beyond cross-border wires.
The institutions struggling most right now arenât the ones behind on the technology, theyâre the ones treating this as a one-time compliance checkbox rather than an ongoing data discipline. A few recurring pain points:
ISO 20022 wonât make headlines the way a new instant-payments app does. But itâs the foundation underneath nearly every modernization initiative in banking right now from real-time fraud engines to AI-driven compliance tools to seamless cross-border remittances. Systems can only be as smart as the data feeding them, and for the first time, global payments are getting data worth being smart about.
For treasurers, compliance officers, and product teams building on top of payment rails, the practical takeaway is simple: audit your address data now, stop treating translation services as a permanent solution, and start planning for the 2027 - 2028 reporting migration before it becomes the next scramble. The banks that treated November 2025 as a finish line are already behind. The ones treating it as a starting gun are quietly pulling ahead.
The deadline has passed. The work hasnât.
The Quiet Revolution Rewiring Global Payments was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
RedHook malware uses fake banking and government apps to steal data and control Android phones, with attacks confirmed in Vietnam and Indonesia so far.
The post Fake Bank Apps Let Scammers Control Android Phones in Southeast Asia appeared first on TechRepublic.
RedHook malware uses fake banking and government apps to steal data and control Android phones, with attacks confirmed in Vietnam and Indonesia so far.
The post Fake Bank Apps Let Scammers Control Android Phones in Southeast Asia appeared first on TechRepublic.
Five years ago, fintech was rewarded for moving fast.
Today, that is no longer enough.
The market has matured. The companies winning now are not simply the ones acquiring users the fastest. They are the ones that can scale money movement, survive scrutiny, and earn trust from users, regulators, and partners at the same time. That is the shift I keep coming back to when I look at Europeâs neobanks, payments platforms, and crypto-banking models.
Revolut, Monzo, and Deblock each point to the same conclusion from different angles: trust is no longer a soft brand attribute. It is an operating advantage.
The old fintech playbook was simple.
Build quickly. Grow fast. Add compliance later.
That playbook still created some remarkable companies. But it is no longer the full story. In the current environment, profitability matters because it signals discipline. Regulation matters because it shapes what products can safely become. And trust matters because money is not software in the abstract; it is an expectation that has to hold under pressure.
That is why the strongest fintech companies today are increasingly being judged less like apps and more like infrastructure. Users want speed, yes. But they also want reliability. Partners want clarity. Regulators want accountability. Those demands now sit at the centre of the business model.
Revolut is the clearest example of scale and trust compounding together. In 2025, it reported ÂŁ4.5 billion in revenue and ÂŁ1.7 billion in profit before tax, and the company said it had delivered its fifth consecutive year of net profitability. Revolut described the year as âanother year of breaking barriers,â with âsustainable growth, new banking licenses, and record profitabilityâ. That is not just strong performance. It is a signal that the company has moved from disruption to institution-building.
Monzo tells a different but equally important story. Its FY2025 results showed ÂŁ1.2 billion in revenue and ÂŁ113.9 million in adjusted profit before tax, while 2.4 million new customers joined during the year. Monzoâs own framing was simple: â2.4m new customersâ and âÂŁ113.9m adjusted profit before taxâ. The important point is not only the numbers. It is the fact that customer confidence has become repeatable economics.
Deblock is the most interesting case because it sits at the intersection of fiat banking and crypto-native control. Deblock says it combines âthe ease of a modern neobank with the power of a crypto wallet,â and that users can âhold and move both fiat and crypto from the same interfaceâ while keeping the wallet self-custodial. It also holds an EMI license and was the first financial institution in France to obtain a MiCA license. That makes it a useful lens on where the market may be heading next: regulated, hybrid, and built around user control.
Deblock is not a copy of Revolut or Monzo.
It is a different answer to a different problem.
Traditional neobanks solved convenience. Crypto-native products solved ownership. Deblock is trying to combine both: everyday banking usability with self-custody and on-chain access. That matters because the next phase of digital finance will likely reward products that reduce the gap between regulated finance and crypto-native behaviour.
The strategic significance is bigger than the product itself. Deblock shows that compliance is no longer a constraint sitting outside the product. In regulated finance, compliance is part of the product experience. In crypto, that is even more true. A great interface without regulatory credibility is fragile. A regulated structure without user value is irrelevant. The durable model has to do both.
The phrase âtrust is the new fintech moatâ is not just a nice line.
It is a practical operating thesis.
Trust is what allows a company to onboard faster without creating risk. It is what lets a product expand across markets without losing coherence. It is what turns a one-time user into a long-term relationship. And in fintech and crypto, where the stakes involve money, identity, and compliance, trust is also what determines whether a business can survive its own growth.
This is why the next winners will not simply be the fastest companies. They will be the ones that can build credible systems around speed. That means stable compliance, transparent operating models, clear customer value, and an ability to earn legitimacy from multiple constituencies at once.
For founders, that is a harder game than growth hacking.
For regulators, it is a more useful one.
And for customers, it is the difference between a clever product and something they will actually trust with their money.
If there is one lesson in this market moment, it is this: fintech has entered its maturity phase.
That does not mean innovation is slowing down. It means innovation is being filtered through trust. The companies that win will be the ones that understand this early and design for it intentionally. That is true for neobanks, payments platforms, and hybrid crypto-banking models alike.
Revolut shows what scale looks like when trust compounds. Monzo shows what profitability looks like when trust deepens. Deblock shows what the next frontier looks like when trust meets self-custody and regulation. Taken together, they point to the same conclusion: the future of fintech will not be defined by speed alone.
It will be defined by trust that can scale.
If you publish in fintech or crypto today, the market is no longer asking whether your product is clever.
It is asking whether it is credible.
That is the real moat.
Joseph Zammit is a CMO and CSO in fintech and crypto, with 25+ years at the intersection of marketing, strategy, and regulation. He helped design Maltaâs pioneering DLT framework, launched the countryâs first Neobank, and led the global expansion of crypto and Web3 platforms, turning complex regulatory and market conditions into clear goâtoâmarket decisions. He is a member of the Crypto Valley Association.
Trust Is the New Fintech Moat was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Written by Dan Feaheny, Fintechie
In the 1960s sitcom, Get Smart, Agent 99 and Maxwell Smart are a spy duo working for CONTROL. Across five seasons, we never learn Agent 99âs name. Sixty years later, agentic AI has the potential to utterly transform how work gets done and society functions. One asks, how can AI scale sustainably without a massive rethink around digital identity? AI agents are already trading tokens, managing treasuries, deploying capital, optimising yield and executing strategies. If AI can autonomously move data and value across the internet, agentic agent identity (KYA or know-your-agent) will quickly become the litmus test. Indeed, at a recent conference Nicolas Kokkalis, founder of Raspberry PI talked about one of the most urgent challenges in the AI era: how to maintain trust and verify real human identity as AI systems become capable of generating convincing bots, profiles and interactions at scale.
Source: X
Real-time systems
Real-time systems of intelligence converge across instant data streams, autonomous AI generated agents and tokenisation. As we transition from batch to real-time and from human to machine, then envision existential risks to the internet as we know it. Automation and orchestration without effective guardrails or strict governance is a recipe for disaster; with many more bots than humans processing data online, then an urgency for decentralised, user-controlled identity wallets increases from all corners. From data munching big techs to big government surveillance, there is an ever growing trust gap. Global angst amongst the next generation rises as AI embeds into workflows, decisioning and results. The opportunity for global banks is now. There are potentially two primary contenders for the custodial benefits of issuing identity wallets online and at scale: they are JPMorgan Chase and Revolutâââboth have global ambition, top talent and long-term vision. Let us square, therefore, the circle between privacy and security.
Payments (analogue to digital)
From card-based electronic payments of the âget smartâ era to todayâs smart contracts, identity access and governance has become patchwork at best and reactive at worst. The levels of fraud and scams continue to rise exponentially; networked individuals and state actors penetrate weak defences and poorly designed architectures; financial regulators supervise reactively from antiquated advice and manual guidebooks. Visa Direct and Mastercard Move are swiftly becoming instant data exchange networks and platformsâââleveraging global trust and brand, they aim to become default ecosystems for the internet of value. However, these two behemoths have little ambition in becoming identity issuers or wallet custodians.
Financial fraud and scams
Nasdaq Verafin just released its annual Global Financial Crime Report: illicit financial activity is now at a staggering $4.4 trillion; fraud and scams account for over $500 billion causing material losses for the victim and further erosion of institutional trust; and, criminal organisations and state actors move illicit funds across borders, jurisdictions and sectors in just seconds. Meanwhile, regulated institutions remain buried in technical debt and blinkered by siloed culture. Ultimately, which regulated banks are poised to capture both the commercial and societal benefits from issuing identity credentials via digital wallets for cross-border value exchange? Possibly, Revolut and JP Morgan Chase lead the packâââboth have global ambition, top technology and financial platform thinking.
Fintech evolution
One must admire the speed of change since 2008. The smart phone has become the operating system for cross-border value exchange. Chinese leaders launched WeChat and AliPay via QR code, bypassing card networks and opening up vast fintech potential. Bitcoin and other derived blockchain protocols enable P2P stablecoins linked to base fiat currenciesâââhence all these leap-frogging innovations and digital identity becomes ever more patchwork and fragmented.
Digital identity
At sovereign level Europe, Australia and India are leveraging digital identity systems for both accessibility and inclusion to support citizen services online:
¡ European Digital Identity Framework (eIDAS 2.0)âââEurope is building digital identity wallets allowing citizens to prove identity and credentials across borders.
¡ Australian Trusted Digital Identity Framework (TDIF)âââa framework of rules and standards enabling secure, trusted and consistent digital identity verification, so forming the foundation of national Digital ID legislation.
¡ Indian Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)âââIndiaâs digital identity platform now supports over a billion citizens and underpins financial inclusion, payments and digital public services.
Technology vendors, including Okta to Ping, deliver identity access and governance to protect stakeholders, customers and employees from hackers and scammers; operating systems from closed Apple iOS to open Google Android continuously monitor their ecosystems of applications to maintain data safely and securely. Moreover, banks use a patchwork of federated systems, third party support and proprietary databases to reduce fraud and protect their customers; SWIFT moves government fiat, and stablecoin platforms move digital assets. We picture a lack of interoperability between networks, systems and applicationsâââthe internet was never designed with an identity layer, but here we are. What would Agent 99Â do?
Apps and infrastructure converging
Fintechs have taught legacy banks how to better serve their customers via better front end experiences. From cash to stablecoins and from batch to instant, digital rails collapse monolithic IT architectures replacing static core systems of record; agentic AI enables autonomous workflows horizontally across departments, borders and even jurisdictions; modern and scalable IT systems are continuously executing, highly automating and tightly interconnecting; table stakes are graph matrices and algorithms of BigTechs such as Facebook aka Meta; cloud technologies combine with data-intensive AI for instant decisioning without human inputs. Hence, we need far more data governance and codebase maintenance as data lineage and leakage get worse and the financial services industry needs KYA or know-your-agent tooling immediately to identify these machines and bots transferring money online on behalf of humans and entities. As the dream of Web3 and decentralised finance nears, identity wallets issued by trusted and regulated banks should help us all cross the divide resulting in a safer online world, including:
¡ systems that are transparent and verifiable
¡ networks that are global from day one
¡ economic models that align users, creators, developers and operators.
Infrastructure that does not depend on a small number of intermediaries
This half of this decade will shape the internetâs future for generations to come, so letâs help the banks issue identity and restore institutional trust for all. For decades banks protected money, governments protected identity and technology firms-controlled access to information. Yet agentic AI may collapse these boundaries into a single problem. An autonomous machine trading assets, initiating payments, signing contracts and interacting with governments cannot simply rely on usernames and passwords designed for humans. The internet was built around connectivity, not trust. And that design decision mattered little when people moved information; it becomes far more consequential when machines begin moving money, assets and legal rights. The institutions that issue and verify trusted digital identity may not simply control authentication. They may ultimately determine who can participate in the economy itself. So, the question is no longer whether AI needs an identity layerâââthe question may be whether future citizens, companies and AI agents require permission from whoever owns it.
The next banking war is not about money: it is about identity was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
A few years ago, a loan officer would sit across from you, ask a few questions, maybe raise an eyebrow at your spending habits, and make a call. You could argue with that person. You could explain the rough patch on your credit report. Today, that officer is often a model, software trained on millions of past decisions, quietly deciding whether youâre worth the risk. You canât argue with it. Most of the time, you donât even know it exists.
Thatâs the backdrop to a conversation building steam across boardrooms and regulators alike: how do you govern something that decides faster than any human can review it, at a scale nobody can fully audit?
Plenty of sectors are wrestling with AI oversight right now. But finance carries a particular kind of risk, because money doesnât stay in one place. It moves, it connects, it cascades. A recommendation algorithm messing up on a shopping app is annoying. A risk model messing up inside a major bank can spread through markets before anyone notices the source.
A few things make finance especially tricky:
Regulators clearly see this coming. The EUâs AI Act, fresh guidance from the Federal Reserve and OCC, and ongoing work from bodies like the Financial Stability Board are all starting to treat AI as its own category of risk, not an IT upgrade, but something that belongs alongside credit risk and market risk.
Itâs not one policy or checklist. Itâs closer to a set of habits a bank builds into how it treats every model, from the day itâs built to the day itâs retired. Institutions doing this well tend to focus on a handful of things:
None of this sounds exciting. Itâs closer to fire codes than innovation. But thatâs kind of the point, the boring stuff is usually what stops a small glitch from becoming a front-page problem.
The trickier issue might not be technical at all. Itâs cultural. Data science teams are rewarded for accuracy and speed. Risk teams are trained to ask what could go wrong. For a long time, these were basically two departments that rarely spoke the same language. Good AI governance forces them into the same room, and thatâs where things get uncomfortable.
Deployment slows down. A fraud model that looked ready to ship might sit in review for months while someone stress-tests it against every weird scenario they can think of. Itâs frustrating short-term. But banks that lean into that friction, instead of fighting it, tend to end up ahead, not behind.
A few examples make it concrete:
Seen this way, governance isnât fighting innovation. Itâs the scaffolding that keeps innovation from collapsing on itself.
A few things seem likely to shape the next stretch of this story.
None of this gets solved with one law or one audit. It gets solved the slow, unglamorous way most financial infrastructure gets built, through mistakes, corrections, and repetition.
AI in finance isnât going anywhere, and neither is the risk that comes with it. The banks that come out ahead wonât be the ones shipping the flashiest models first. Theyâll be the ones that can explain what their models did, defend those decisions, and fix them fast when something goes sideways. Governance isnât slowing this industry down, itâs the seat-belt that lets it move fast without everything falling apart.
The rules are still being figured out, in real time, by people who donât have all the answers yet. But the institutions taking this seriously now will probably be the ones still standing the next time something breaks.
Whoâs Watching the Algorithm Thatâs Watching Your Money? was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Written by Brett Hillis, Partner Reed Smith LLP
Technological change is nothing new and legal systems have been responding to it since at least the introduction of the printing press. Changes in technology gives rise to questions that the law has not needed to answer before, or not at the same scale. To take an example, how should law and regulation respond to driverless vehicles? Should such vehicles be allowed on public roads? What safety requirements do such vehicles need to comply with? Who is liable for accidents caused by such vehicles?
Whilst there is an interesting history to how law and regulation respond to technological change, the purpose of this article is to identify different approaches that law and regulation is taking to technological change today, looking specifically at digital assets and digital money. These are important issues for business; the carrying on of transactions between AI agents is going to require some form of programmable money as measure of value and a means of exchange. Tokenisation has the capacity to reduce settlement times and make many transactions more efficient. At the same time, the stakes in decisions on where to invest feel higher than ever before, as such decisions face conflicting trends. Capital feels more mobile than ever and can search out opportunities across jurisdictions. Businesses have greater opportunities to create brand value globally and network effects create âwinner take allâ markets, where a Taylor Swift is dominant in a way no one else has been for decades. At the same time, countries are taking much more varied approaches to how these markets affect their economies. Some are adopting an âopen doorsâ policy, others are pragmatically adopting regulatory regimes, whereas others have rejected these markets in favour of centralised national paradigms.
CBDCs vs private stablecoins
At present, the most obvious distinction is between those jurisdictions which are embracing private stablecoins, chiefly the US, and those looking to develop their own central bank digital currencies (all be it not using blockchain technology to do so), most notably China. Through the GENIUS Act, the US has developed a comprehensive regulatory framework for USD denominated stablecoins. The same time, the US has taken steps to prevent the establishment, issuance and use of CBDCs within the US. This ban affects not just foreign issuers but the US Federal Reserve itself.
China bans unapproved yuan stablecoins
At the other end of the spectrum, China has maintained a ban on cryptocurrency transactions since 2017, which continues to be extended. For example, earlier in 2026, China was reported to have banned unauthorised offshore issuance of yuan-pegged stablecoins. At the same time China has been promoting the digital yuan, which is seen as part of a strategy to reduce reliance on the US dollar. The two superpowers represent opposites in their approach and, while interesting geopolitically, their different approaches to this most obvious issue are not the most elucidating for businesses since the choice likely amounts to being âopen for businessâ or not. Of more interest are some of the more subtle distinctions regarding how countries are responding to digital assets and programmable money.
Laying the groundwork?
Before one gets to regulation, a fundamental question is the legal nature of digital assetsâââin particular, are they a form of property and, if so, what form of property? Answering these questions are key to establishing dependable ways in which digital assets can be used. A legal regime that does not reliably address these questions can leave the most basic questions for business uncertain. Whilst this may not stop innovation, it puts a break on investment especially where the underlying issue manifests itself. The way to approach these issues can vary between countries based on the legal system with courts, legislators, academics and trade bodies all potentially playing a role. In England, whilst there are critical voices, a response to these questions has received broad acceptance. Work on the issues proceeded through the UK Jurisdiction Taskforceâs (âUKJTâ) Legal Statement on cryptoassets and smart contracts, Law Commission projects and decided cases, and included a short piece of legislation (the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025) to address one specific uncertainty. Whatever the questions about regulation, attention to these essential issues of legal classification is vital.
Early regulation vs âwait and seeâ
Some jurisdictions moved early to set up regulatory regimes for digital assets. An interesting example was the EU and its MiCAR regulation. In setting out a regime early, MiCAR gave market participants a level of predictability about the scope and content of regulation. Having a clear target as to what businesses need to do and, crucially, certainty that it will not change with the political weather, has encouraged many international digital asset companies set up MiCAR regulated entities in response. That early approach can also act as an anchor, pulling the regimes of other jurisdictions towards it, in terms of the scope and content of regulation. The EUâs approach has generated a lot of institutional interest, and early regulatory adoption can build credibility. But early adoption risks rules becoming out of date. Much of MiCAR was already written by the time of the FTX collapse. It appears that the EU digital assets industry has achieved good growth with no obvious failures, but there is a perception (fair or unfair) of unnecessary friction in the EUÂ regime.
An obvious comparator to the EU is the UKâs approach, which has been to move later and in a more piecemeal fashion seeking to learn lessons from other countriesâ approaches. The UK introduced AML requirements for cryptoasset firms at the same time as the EU, then moved to regulate financial promotion and is bring cryptoassets fully within the UK regulatory perimeter, with effect from October 2027. The theory behind this approach is that it will better enable the UK to calibrate its regime to reflect the experiences of other jurisdictions. Certainly, the UKâs consultations on the new regime have been extensive and industry has been given a good opportunity to consider and comment on the potential new rules. Whether that effort is worth it will partly come down to the extent to which this work has produced a better regime, or one that industry and the public better understand.
But that is not the only factor. The âwait and see approachâ has allowed some crypto businesses to develop and grow in the UK whilst complying with the more limited current or developing regime and gain traction and size whilst not imposing full regulation on them from the outset. On the one hand, these businesses face a more complex and changeable path to dealing with emerging regulation; on the other hand, some of that greater complexity only arises when they are in a better position to address it. The approach has also given the UK the time and space to work out its views regarding digital assets. There was considerable scepticism at the regulatory level regarding these products and markets but those views have become somewhat more balanced, although there is room for further movement. There is also evidence that UK authorities have been listening to industry (see its response to criticism of holding limits on stablecoins discussed below).
Embrace the substitutes?
One way to distinguish different countriesâ approaches to this area is how comfortable they are with products and services that are substitutes (sometimes less than perfect substitutes) for existing products and services. More specifically, to what extent are they comfortable with holdings of stablecoins as a substitute for deposits? The US has established a comprehensive prudential regime for stablecoins through the GENIUS Act and appears unperturbed about any potential for holdings of stablecoins to reduce bank deposits and its effect on US financial stability. Stablecoins appears to be an acceptable substitute for bank depositsâââindeed, the point seems hardly to have been raised. The UK approach has been different in that the Bank of England has been exercised about the effect on bank deposits. In part, this has been to avoid customer confusionâââsetting up guardrails to reduce the risks a stablecoin issued by a bank is, in fact, a deposit with deposit protection sitting behind it. This lies behind the Bank of England preventing banks issuing stablecoins except through a separate company. But the UK approach has gone beyond this and the Bank has proposed strict holding limits on stablecoins, a move which provoked industry backlashâââeven from the House of Lords. In response, the Bank has said it is examining alternative means of ensuring financial stability (e.g. through issuance limits). It will be interesting (and important) to see where it lands.
Are there lessons for firms from this experience?
I think there are several general points for those firms navigating policy in this field:
¡ understand how policy can shiftâââfirms need to think through and hedge against how the policy approach can change, as demonstrated by the variety by the shifts in US policy.
¡ good regulation can build credibilityâââthere is comfort in dealing with firms that are well-regulated.
¡ respond to consultationsâââwhether through trade associations or on your own. It may well make a difference.
The battle over stablecoins, CBDCs and tokenisation is often presented as a technology story. It is not. It is a competition for economic influence. Just as previous generations fought to host stock exchanges, payment networks and internet platforms, todayâs race is about who controls the rails of programmable value. The jurisdictions that get law and regulation right will attract capital, talent and innovation. Those that get it wrong may discover that in the digital age, financial leadership can migrate far faster than anyone imagined.
How law and regulation are responding to technological change in digital assets and money: what⌠was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Customers no longer compare their banking experience with other banks they compare it with the speed and convenience of every digital service they use. Whether itâs instant messaging, real-time order tracking, or same-day deliveries, expectations for financial transactions have changed dramatically.
To meet these expectations, some of the UKâs largest financial institutions are modernizing the way money moves across borders.
Major banks such as Barclays and HSBC are among the early adopters of SWIFTâs enhanced consumer payments framework, marking another important step toward a faster, more transparent, and more connected global payments ecosystem.
Cross-border payments have traditionally faced several challenges:
For businesses operating internationally, these inefficiencies can increase operational costs and create uncertainty. Consumers also expect international transfers to be as seamless as domestic payments.
Modern payment infrastructure is designed to solve these challenges.
SWIFTâs enhanced consumer payments framework builds on the organizationâs global messaging network to improve how financial institutions exchange payment information.
Rather than simply moving payment instructions, the framework focuses on creating a more connected payment journey that improves speed, transparency, and consistency across participating institutions.
The initiative supports banks in delivering a modern payment experience without requiring customers to change how they bank.
Businesses increasingly rely on international suppliers, customers, and partners. Faster settlement helps improve cash flow, reduces waiting times, and supports more efficient global operations.
One of the biggest frustrations with international payments is the lack of transparency.
Enhanced payment tracking allows banks and customers to gain better insight into where a payment is in its journey, making it easier to resolve delays and improve customer confidence.
Payments rarely involve a single institution.
Improved communication standards enable participating banks to exchange richer payment information, helping reduce friction while supporting greater interoperability across the global financial ecosystem.
Modern consumers expect payment experiences that are fast, reliable, and transparent.
By upgrading payment infrastructure, banks can deliver services that better align with todayâs digital expectations while improving customer satisfaction and trust.
The UK remains one of the worldâs leading financial hubs.
As global commerce continues to expand, banks must support businesses that operate across multiple countries and currencies. Investment in payment modernization is no longer just a technology initiativeâââit has become a competitive advantage.
Banks that embrace modern payment frameworks can:
Early adoption also positions institutions to adapt more easily as new payment technologies, regulatory requirements, and customer expectations continue to evolve.
The modernization of payments extends far beyond faster transfers.
Across the financial industry, institutions are investing in cloud-native infrastructure, ISO 20022 messaging, API-driven connectivity, real-time payments, artificial intelligence, and advanced fraud prevention. Together, these innovations are creating a more resilient and intelligent financial ecosystem.
SWIFTâs enhanced consumer payments framework represents another important piece of this transformation, enabling banks to collaborate more effectively while delivering greater value to customers.
The future of payments will be defined by speed, transparency, interoperability, and security.
As leading UK banks continue investing in modern payment infrastructure, businesses and consumers stand to benefit from more reliable cross-border transactions and a smoother digital banking experience.
Payment modernization is no longer a vision for the futureâââitâs happening today.
Financial institutions that embrace innovation now will be better positioned to meet tomorrowâs demands and shape the next generation of global payments.
UKâs Biggest Banks Are Preparing for the Future of Payments was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
For decades, there was only one generally undisputed rule about the financial industry, if you want to provide banking services, you have to open a bank.
Banking licenses, compliance departments, hundreds of regulators, and billions in capital were some of the high barriers to entry that only large multinational conglomerates could overcome
That belief, however, is now an outdated perspective that does not take into account recent innovations in the financial industry. Namely, many financial institutions now rely on specialized enablers to provide regulated banking-like services to their clients.
As such, the banking-as-a-service (BaaS) economy now enables non-financial institutions to embed payments, wallets, cards, accounts, and other financial services and functions within their own P2P and B2B commerce platforms, apps, and sites
This new industry trend ultimately results in a situation where the line between technology and finance gets blurred, often to the point where neither one is particularly obvious to the consumer
The new BaaS economy disrupts the traditional financial services industry in numerous ways, from allowing non-banks to embed financial services inside their platforms to enabling technology companies to innovate and specialize in different aspects of the financial value chain
The most basic characteristic of the BaaS economy is that it enables collaboration between financial institutions that hold banking licenses and technology companies that operate as enablers. The former provides the backbone services and products, such as custodian accounts and deposits,
While the latter embed them in their platforms to facilitate everyday P2P and B2B payments, money transfers, issuing cards, lending, and other financial services
The overall purpose of BaaS is to separate the core banking infrastructure from the front-end technologies and make it much easier for companies to adopt and customize financial services, rather than having to build them from scratch.
The BaaS economy ultimately makes a wide variety of financial services accessible to a much broader audience of innovators and entrepreneurs. Some examples of such companies include technology-native financial platforms that embed cards and accounts as a way to make their business-to-business and business-to-consumer transactions more efficient, secure, and transparent
For example, many of the largest technology companies today offer their business clients an option to open business accounts and receive payments directly through their digital platforms.
In that way, BaaS ultimately empowers the technology industry to disrupt the financial services industry by embedding financial infrastructure as a way to improve products and services offered by non-financial companies.
At the same time, the BaaS economy is not removing the importance of financial institutions, as they remain critical enablers of the digital economy.
A fundamental change brought by the BaaS economy is that it focuses on the needs of the consumer. Embedded finance ultimately puts the consumer at the center of the financial experience, which means the overall experience has to be much more intuitive and more compelling
The BaaS economy therefore ultimately shifts the paradigm to create value by complementing existing products and services with financial services and functions
The opportunities for such financial complementarities are countless, as they can be found in virtually every industry and every company, regardless of their size or specialization.
An e-commerce marketplace can allow its merchants to receive instant settlements, rather than having to wait for several days for the money to clear. A payroll company can allow its workers to open mobile accounts and receive payments instantly, as well as issue cards that can be used to make purchases.
A logistics company can make it much easier for its business clients to settle international payments, while a SaaS company can allow its clients to send and receive money directly through the SaaS platform. In each of these examples, the financial infrastructure enhances the core vertical, which ultimately results in a much better client experience.
Ultimately, the embedded finance model can be seen as much more efficient and effective way to distribute financial services, as it ultimately makes them more accessible and easier to use.
It is important to note that financial regulations have not gone away, despite the rapid rise of the BaaS economy. Financial services have always been one of the most heavily regulated industries worldwide, and they continue to be subject to extremely strict anti-money laundering (AML), compliance, transaction monitoring, and data privacy regulations.
However, many of those regulations can now be handled by BaaS enablers (i.e., financial institutions that specialize in reselling their infrastructure and technology to other companies). Such enablers handle the banking license, custodian accounts, deposits, transaction clearing, and other aspects that were traditionally the responsibility of the financial institutions that provided those services directly to the consumer
Therefore, the BaaS economy ultimately lowers the regulatory barriers for non-financial companies that want to embed financial services within their platforms and products. At the same time, the BaaS economy also reduces the implementation costs and the amount of time needed to launch new financial products and services
That is especially important for smaller technology companies and start-ups that would not be able to launch a financial services product, even if they wanted to, due to the immense costs involved. It takes hundreds if not thousands of employees for technology-native financial platforms to manage risk, comply with regulations, maintain the necessary IT infrastructure, and provide excellent consumer support.
By collaborating with BaaS enablers, such companies can significantly reduce their costs and risks by relying on the expertise of financial infrastructure providers and their extensive regulatory experience.
The BaaS economy ultimately lowers the barriers to entry for everyone involved. New entrants can launch more innovative financial products and services with reduced risk and cost.
Simultaneously, larger financial services companies can use the BaaS economy to scale their operations faster by relying on the business-to-business (B2B) infrastructure provided by technology enablers. At the same time, the widespread adoption of the BaaS economy allows even non-financial and non-technology companies to embed wallets and payments solutions within their business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) operations.
Such opportunities ultimately allow diverse sets of companies to compete more effectively while improving products and services offered to their consumers.
One of the reasons why the BaaS economy is misunderstood is because some of the most basic principles have not been fully acknowledged. The banking industry has long held the belief that only banks can offer banking services.
Yet, in the twenty-first century, the most valuable financial services innovations are being driven by companies that are not financial institutions, even if they collaborate with banks and other financial institutions.
There is nothing mysterious or counterintuitive about this trend the banking-as-a-service economy ultimately reflects the fact that the finance industry has started to behave like any other technology-driven industry.
Just like many other technologies, finance is now being unbundled between different specialized enablers, each of which plays a specific role in the client experience. The core infrastructure remains the domain of financial institutions, while the front-end technology is now being developed by companies that care to customize the financial experience for their clients.
By enabling those enablers, the BaaS economy ultimately promotes competition, lowers the costs and complexity of financial services, and provides those services to a much broader audience.
The finance industry no longer has a duopoly between large technology companies and big banks, with the competition between the two often stifling the innovation at the intersection between the two domains. Instead, the BaaS economy enables a much more dynamic and diverse financial services ecosystem that ultimately benefits everyone involved.
Perhaps the most important insight regarding the BaaS economy and the embedded finance space is that the entire financial services industry will ultimately become dominated by non-bank enablers that embed financial services within their products and technologies.
This development is ultimately driven by the demand for convenience and ease of use, as consumers are much more likely to use financial services when they do not have to deal with the hassles and complexities of the traditional finance industry.
The BaaS economy ultimately recognizes that the most valuable financial services are the ones that are embedded within other technology products and services. As such, the future of financial services is no longer dictated by banks, but rather the companies and platforms that utilize banksâ infrastructure to create compelling financial products for their clients.
The Biggest Fintech Myth Holding Businesses Back: You Donât Need to Be a Bank to Offer Banking⌠was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
For decades, traditional banking has served as the backbone of the global financial system. It has enabled businesses to grow, facilitated international commerce, and provided individuals with access to essential financial services. However, despite its long-standing role in the economy, the traditional banking model is increasingly struggling to keep pace with the demands of a digital-first world.
Todayâs consumers and businesses expect instant payments, seamless cross-border transactions, personalized financial services, and always-on digital experiences. Entrepreneurs entering the financial technology sector are recognizing that meeting these expectations often requires a different approachâââone built on modern infrastructure rather than legacy banking systems.
This shift has given rise to a new generation of financial platforms: crypto banks. Combining blockchain technology with digital banking experiences, crypto banks are redefining how financial services are delivered and creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs to build scalable, global financial businesses.
The banking industry has undergone significant transformation over the past decade. Mobile banking, digital wallets, contactless payments, open banking, and embedded finance have fundamentally changed how people interact with financial institutions.
Consumers no longer compare banks solely on interest rates or branch locations. Instead, they evaluate financial platforms based on speed, accessibility, convenience, transparency, and digital experience.
Businesses have similar expectations. They seek banking solutions that support international operations, reduce payment friction, simplify treasury management, and integrate seamlessly with modern digital ecosystems.
As customer expectations continue to evolve, entrepreneurs are looking beyond conventional banking models and investing in technology-driven financial platforms that are more agile, scalable, and globally accessible.
Traditional banks remain essential to the global economy, but many of their operating models were designed for an era that relied heavily on physical infrastructure and manual processes.
Entrepreneurs entering todayâs fintech market often encounter challenges such as:
These challenges can slow product development and make it difficult for startups to compete in rapidly evolving financial markets.
As a result, many founders are exploring alternative financial infrastructure that enables faster innovation while delivering the digital experiences customers increasingly expect.
Crypto banks represent the convergence of blockchain technology and modern digital banking.
Rather than replacing traditional financial services, many crypto banks complement them by offering digital asset management, multi-currency accounts, international transfers, virtual and physical payment cards, digital wallets, and seamless cryptocurrency transactions within a unified banking experience.
Our modern crypto bank software is designed to serve both individual users and businesses, enabling financial services that are faster, more accessible, and increasingly borderless.
For entrepreneurs, this creates an opportunity to build financial platforms capable of serving customers across multiple regions without replicating the operational complexity associated with traditional banking infrastructure.
Launching a traditional banking institution often requires years of planning, extensive infrastructure, and significant financial investment.
Modern crypto banking infrastructure enables entrepreneurs to introduce digital financial services much more quickly, allowing businesses to validate ideas, acquire customers, and respond to market opportunities with greater agility.
Digital businesses increasingly operate without geographical boundaries.
Crypto banks are designed to facilitate international transactions, support multiple currencies and digital assets, and serve customers across diverse markets through digital-first platforms.
This global accessibility allows entrepreneurs to expand beyond domestic markets while providing consistent financial services to international users.
Developing a complete banking ecosystem from scratch requires expertise across payments, compliance, wallet infrastructure, security, customer management, and core banking technology.
By leveraging modern banking infrastructure, startups can significantly reduce development complexity and operational costs while focusing resources on product innovation and customer acquisition.
Digital banking extends far beyond account management.
Entrepreneurs can create diversified revenue streams through services such as:
This ecosystem approach enables businesses to build stronger customer relationships while increasing long-term revenue potential.
Blockchain technology has evolved from a niche innovation into a foundational component of modern financial systems.
Its ability to provide transparent record-keeping, secure digital asset transfers, programmable financial services, and near-instant settlement has attracted growing interest from fintech companies worldwide.
Rather than viewing blockchain solely as cryptocurrency infrastructure, entrepreneurs increasingly recognize it as an enabling technology for next-generation banking platforms.
By integrating blockchain with traditional financial services, businesses can improve operational efficiency while creating entirely new customer experiences.
Modern consumers expect financial services to operate with the same convenience as their favorite digital applications.
They expect:
Businesses that successfully deliver these experiences are more likely to attract digitally native customers who value convenience, accessibility, and innovation.
One of the most significant developments in fintech has been the rise of white-label banking infrastructure.
Instead of investing years building proprietary banking systems, entrepreneurs can deploy fully branded financial platforms using proven infrastructure while focusing on customer growth and product differentiation.
This model enables startups to launch modern banking services with significantly lower development risk, shorter implementation timelines, and greater operational flexibility.
As competition within fintech continues to intensify, white-label infrastructure is becoming an increasingly strategic advantage for businesses seeking rapid market entry.
The future of banking will not be defined solely by physical branches or legacy systems.
It will be shaped by intelligent, technology-driven financial platforms capable of delivering secure, scalable, and globally connected services.
Artificial intelligence, blockchain, embedded finance, digital identity, and programmable payments are converging to create a financial ecosystem where flexibility and customer experience become the primary competitive advantages.
Entrepreneurs who embrace these technologies today will be better positioned to meet tomorrowâs financial expectations while building resilient businesses capable of evolving alongside the digital economy.
Why Coinexraâs White Label Crypto Bank Is Built for the Future of Digital Banking
As the demand for digital-first financial services continues to grow, entrepreneurs need more than just an ideaâââthey need a technology partner capable of transforming that vision into a secure, scalable, and market-ready banking platform.
Coinexraâs white label crypto bank software is designed to help fintech startups, financial institutions, payment providers, and entrepreneurs launch fully branded crypto banking platforms without the complexity of developing an entire banking ecosystem from scratch.
Built on modern financial infrastructure, Coinexra combines digital banking capabilities with blockchain-powered services, enabling businesses to deliver seamless financial experiences while accelerating time-to-market.
Whether your goal is to launch a digital bank, a crypto-first financial platform, or an all-in-one fintech ecosystem, Coinexra provides the infrastructure needed to accelerate growth while maintaining the flexibility to evolve with changing customer expectations and market demands.
Digital banking is no longer defined by physical branches or legacy financial systems. It is increasingly shaped by technology, customer experience, and the ability to deliver financial services without traditional limitations.
For entrepreneurs, the rise of crypto banks represents more than a technological trendâââit is an opportunity to participate in the next phase of financial innovation. By combining blockchain technology with modern banking infrastructure, businesses can create platforms that are faster to launch, easier to scale, and better aligned with the expectations of todayâs global customers.
As the financial industry continues to evolve, those who invest in digital-first infrastructure today will be well positioned to lead tomorrowâs banking landscape.
The Rise of Digital Banking: Why Entrepreneurs Are Building Crypto Banks Instead of Traditional⌠was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Every year people say that this will be the year that fintech really takes off.
2025 Was different from other years.
The fintech industry did not just talk about the buzzwords.
It actually worked on solving problems that people face.
Banks became more comfortable using intelligence.
Digital payments became more common and easy to use.
The people in charge of making rules moved faster than expected.
Consumers just expected everything to work quickly and easily.
When we look back at 2025 it is clear that there was not one big change.
The whole year was defined by the fact that things kept moving
Here are five stories that shaped the fintech industry and five things that could happen next.
If there was one thing that stood out in fintech this year it was intelligence.
Banks stopped asking if artificial intelligence was useful and started asking how they could use it in a way.
Artificial intelligence was used for things including:
The biggest change was not in the technology.
It was in the way people thought about intelligence.
Banks started using intelligence as a normal part of their work not just as an experiment.
This change in thinking might be more important than any product that was launched.
People do not usually think about how payments work.
They only notice when something goes wrong.
In 2025 the systems that make payments faster kept getting better and were used in places.
This made people expect businesses and banks to be faster.
Waiting a time for a payment to go through is starting to seem old-fashioned.
Whether you are sending money to family paying a supplier or paying a bill speed is becoming the standard.
The future of payments is not about using digital systems.
It is about making payments happen away.
As financial services become more digital it is just as important to prove who you are as it is to move money.
Banks and fintech companies invested a lot in:
Customers want things to be easy and convenient.
The people in charge of making rules want things to be secure.
The companies that are doing well are finding ways to give people both convenience and security.
payments have been a big problem in finance for a long time.
There are fees, slow payments and complicated banking details.
In 2025 the industry made some progress.
New payment systems, coordination between banks and the use of standards like ISO 20022 made things more efficient for businesses that operate globally.
There is still work to be done. Cross-border payments are becoming faster more transparent and more customer-friendly.
A years ago people thought that fintech would replace banks.
Things did not turn out that way.
In 2025 fintech and banks started working more often than competing.
Banks got access to technology.
Fintech companies benefited from the expertise and experience of banks well as the trust that people have in banks.
The future is starting to look like it will be about partnerships, not one industry replacing another.
Sometimes the biggest innovation is not about replacing an industry. About making it better together.
It is always hard to predict what will happen next. There are some trends that suggest where fintech might be headed.
The first thing that could happen is that artificial intelligence will become invisible.
Customers will not choose an app just because it uses artificial intelligence.
They will choose it because it makes things easier.
Artificial intelligence will quietly make recommendations help with decisions protect against fraud and give people personalized experiences often without them even realizing it.
The second thing that could happen is that financial services will be built into things.
You will be able to book travel manage your health run your business and buy equipment all with services built in.
Payments, loans, insurance and banking products will become part of the background not separate things.
The third thing that could happen is that cross-border payments will become almost instant.
Businesses that operate globally will expect the speed as domestic payments.
There will be investment in real-time settlement blockchain-based payment systems, artificial intelligence-powered routing and better coordination between financial networks.
The phrase â transfer delayâ might start to disappear.
The fourth thing that could happen is that following the rules will become an advantage.
The fintech companies that do well will not just be the ones that move the fastest.
They will be the ones that combine innovation with trust.
They will use intelligence in a responsible way protect peoples data keep things secure and be transparent.
These things will not just be required by law they will be what sets companies apart.
The fifth thing that could happen is that financial experiences will become very personalized.
Imagine opening your banking app and getting advice thatâs just right for you.
Not just general. Random offers.
Real insights based on your goals, spending habits, investments and financial behavior.
That is where artificial intelligence, open banking and advanced analytics are headed.
The future of banking might feel like managing money and more like having a financial coach in your pocket.
The biggest lesson from 2025 is that fintech is no longer a small part of the financial industry.
It has become part of life.
Whether you are paying with your phone getting paid from another country investing through an app applying for a loan online or using intelligence-powered financial tools chances are you are already using fintech every day.
The technology has become so common that many people do not even notice it anymore.
Ironically that is often the sign of innovation.
If 2024 was about trying things and 2025 was about making them work then 2026 might be the year that fintech really becomes mature.
Artificial intelligence will become smarter.
Payments will become faster.
Identity will become more secure.
Banking will become more personalized.
Fintech and banks will likely work together even more.
The biggest question is not whether fintech will keep changing.
It probably will.
The real question is which companies will build things that people really trust and will keep using after the excitement, about new technology fades away.
Looking back, which fintech story do you think had the biggest impact in 2025?
And if you had to make one prediction for 2026, what would it be?
Share your thoughts below. Some of the most interesting ideas about the future of finance often begin with conversations like this.
5 Biggest Fintech Stories of 2025 and 5 Bold Predictions That Could Shape 2026 was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
But behind every fast onboarding process lies a complex compliance framework designed to protect customers, financial institutions, and the global financial system.
Two of the most important pillars of this framework are Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance. While customers often experience a smooth sign-up process that takes only a few minutes, neobanks perform numerous checks behind the scenes to verify identities, detect suspicious activity, and meet regulatory requirements.
Know Your Customer (KYC) is the process financial institutions use to verify a customerâs identity before allowing access to banking services.
A typical KYC process includes:
The goal is simple: ensure that every customer is who they claim to be.
Anti-Money Laundering (AML) refers to the policies, technologies, and procedures used to detect and prevent financial crimes such as money laundering, fraud, terrorist financing, and other illicit activities.
Unlike KYC, which primarily focuses on verifying identity during onboarding, AML is an ongoing process that continuously monitors customer behavior and transaction patterns throughout the customer relationship.
One of the biggest advantages of neobanks is their ability to complete identity verification in minutes instead of days.
Modern digital onboarding typically includes:
Document Verification
Customers upload a passport, driverâs license, or national identity card. AI-powered systems verify document authenticity, detect tampering, and extract relevant information automatically.
Biometric Verification
A live selfie or short video confirms that the person opening the account matches the identity document. Facial recognition technology helps reduce identity fraud and prevents the use of stolen documents.
Database Validation
Customer information is cross-checked against trusted data sources, sanctions databases, and fraud intelligence systems to identify potential risks before the account is activated.
Compliance doesnât end once an account is opened.
Neobanks continuously monitor customer transactions using advanced analytics and machine learning models.
These systems can identify unusual behaviors such as:
When suspicious activity is detected, the system flags it for review by compliance teams, who determine whether further investigation or regulatory reporting is required.
Artificial intelligence has become a critical component of modern compliance.
AI helps neobanks:
Rather than replacing compliance professionals, AI enables them to focus on high-risk cases while automating repetitive tasks.
One of the biggest challenges for neobanks is maintaining strong compliance without creating friction for customers.
Lengthy verification processes can increase customer abandonment during onboarding. On the other hand, weak verification exposes institutions to fraud and regulatory penalties.
Successful neobanks achieve this balance by combining automation, AI, risk-based verification, and intelligent workflow design. Low-risk customers can often complete onboarding within minutes, while higher-risk applicants undergo additional checks when necessary.
Many people see compliance as a regulatory obligation, but for leading neobanks, it has become a strategic advantage.
Strong KYC and AML programs help:
In an increasingly digital financial ecosystem, trust is one of the most valuable assets a financial institution can earn.
The next generation of compliance will be more intelligent, automated, and proactive.
Emerging technologies such as AI-driven risk scoring, behavioral analytics, digital identity wallets, blockchain-based identity verification, and continuous authentication are expected to make compliance both stronger and less intrusive.
As financial crime becomes more sophisticated, neobanks will continue investing in technologies that allow them to identify risks faster while delivering the seamless digital experiences customers expect.
KYC and AML compliance are far more than regulatory checklistsâââthey are the foundation of secure digital banking. Every instant account opening, secure payment, and trusted financial transaction depends on robust identity verification and continuous risk monitoring.
The most successful neobanks understand that compliance and customer experience are not opposing goals. By leveraging automation, artificial intelligence, and real-time monitoring, they create banking platforms that are both secure and user-friendly.
As digital banking continues to evolve, effective KYC and AML practices will remain essential to protecting customers, combating financial crime, and shaping the future of global finance.
How Neobanks Handle KYC and AML Compliance was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
But Youâre Actually Using a Bank Youâve Never Heard Of
You open an app.
It feels like the company built all of it.
Clean interface.
Fast experience.
No âbank-likeâ friction.
But behind that app?
Thereâs a real bank.
And itâs doing all the heavy lifting.
At its core, Banking as a Service (BaaS) is simple:
It allows non-bank companies to offer banking products by connecting to a licensed bankâs infrastructure through APIs.
In plain terms:
You interact with the brand.
But the bank is the engine.
Every BaaS product quietly runs on three layers:
As one explanation puts it:
The bank supplies the regulated infrastructure, while the partner controls the user experience.
So when you trust the appâŚ
youâre actually trusting a system behind it.
Before BaaS, launching a financial product meant:
Now?
You can plug into a bankâs system and launch in months.
Thatâs why:
Because:
they donât need to become banks anymore.
This is the part most people miss.
Banking used to be a destination.
You went to a bank.
Now?
Banking is becoming:
a background service.
Research describes BaaSÂ as:
an infrastructure layer that lets financial services be embedded directly into other products.
So instead of going to a bankâŚ
banking comes to you.
Hereâs where it gets interesting.
Most fintech apps feel new.
Different.
Faster.
Better.
But often:
As one explanation puts it:
the partner company interacts with the customer, while the bank manages capital and risk behind the scenes.
So the âinnovationâ you see is often:
the interface, not the infrastructure.
BaaS makes things easier.
But it also creates dependencies.
Because now:
And when something breaks?
Itâs rarely clear whoâs responsible.
In some cases, weak oversight in these setups has even led to:
So the system is powerful.
But fragile.
Because it solves a fundamental problem:
Speed vs Regulation
BaaS combines both:
And thatâs why the model is growing rapidly across industries.
Hereâs the real power dynamic.
In traditional banking:
Banks owned the customer.
In BaaS:
The interface owns the customer.
Which means:
Banking turns into:
a commodity layer.
You wonât notice it immediately.
But over time:
And eventually:
you may stop knowing who your bank even is.
Banking as a Service didnât just change fintech.
It changed what a âbankâ even means.
Itâs no longer:
Itâs becoming:
infrastructure.
Invisible.
Embedded.
Everywhere.
So the next time you use a financial appâŚ
ask yourself:
Are you using a fintech product
or just a different interface to the same old system?
Banking as a Service: The System You Use Every Day⌠Without Realising It was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Itâs Becoming a Decision Engine
For years, a card did one simple thing:
You swipe.
Money moves.
Thatâs it.
But something is changing.
Quietly.
When AI integrates with Cards-as-a-ServiceâŚ
the card stops being passive.
It starts making decisions.
Cards-as-a-Service (CaaS) already transformed fintech.
It allowed companies to:
Instead of building infrastructureâŚ
you plug into it.
That alone was powerful.
But AI adds something deeper:
intelligence on top of infrastructure.
Letâs remove the hype.
AI in cards doesnât mean a âsmart card.â
It means smarter systems behind it.
For example:
In simple terms:
The card starts understanding usage, not just processing it.
Hereâs where things get interesting.
Before AI:
After AI:
So instead of:
âDid this payment happen?â
The system asks:
âShould this payment happen?â
CaaS already made cards programmable.
You could:
But AI makes this dynamic.
Now:
Itâs no longer:
rules you set once.
Itâs:
rules that learn.
This is where things start to feel different.
AI agents can now:
A new model is emerging:
cards designed for machines, not humans.
These cards:
Think about that.
Weâve moved from:
Humans using cards
to
systems using cards on behalf of humans
From the outside, nothing changes.
You still:
But underneath:
The experience feels smoother.
Because the complexity is hidden.
More intelligence means more data.
To work well, AI systems need:
Which raises real questions:
Because when AI declines a transactionâŚ
itâs not always clear why.
CaaS makes launching cards look easy.
AI makes them feel smart.
But behind that simplicity:
As one insight puts it:
The complexity doesnât disappearâââit shifts from technical to operational.
And AI accelerates that shift.
This is the part most people miss.
Cards-as-a-Service was never just about issuing cards.
It was about:
controlling the last mile of money movement
AI strengthens that control.
Because now, control isnât just:
Itâs also:
Weâre moving toward a system where:
Not in theory.
In practice.
And slowly, this becomes normal.
When your card declines a payment in the futureâŚ
or approves one instantlyâŚ
Ask yourself:
Did I decide that?
Or did the system decide it for me?
AI doesnât change what a card is.
It changes what a card does.
From:
A tool that executes your decisions
To:
A system that helps make them
And once that shift happensâŚ
youâre no longer just spending money.
Youâre interacting with a system
that is quietly deciding
how money should move.
What Happens When AI Meets Cards-as-a-Service was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Weâve all become used to the idea of moving money instantly.
You can order something from another country, pay a freelancer halfway across the world, or send money to a family member overseas, all from your phone. A few taps, a confirmation message, and itâs done.
Itâs easy to forget that behind those few taps is an incredibly complex banking system making sure your money arrives exactly where itâs supposed to.
One of the unsung heroes of that system is the International Bank Account Number, better known as the IBAN.
It isnât flashy. It doesnât have a mobile app or a sleek interface. Most people only notice it when theyâre asked to enter one during an international bank transfer.
Yet this simple string of letters and numbers has become one of the most important standards in global banking.
Think of an IBAN as a globally recognized address for your bank account.
Just as every home has a unique address that helps couriers deliver packages to the right destination, an IBAN helps banks deliver money to the correct account, even when that account is thousands of miles away.
Every IBAN contains a carefully structured combination of information, including:
This standardized format allows banks in different countries to âspeak the same languageâ when processing international payments.
Without that common format, transferring money across borders would be far more complicated than most people realize.
Before IBAN became widely adopted, international bank transfers often relied on country-specific account formats.
Every banking system looked different.
Every country had its own rules.
That meant something as small as a missing digit or an incorrectly formatted account number could delay payments for days, or even send funds to the wrong destination.
Banks spent valuable time manually checking payment instructions, correcting mistakes, and communicating with one another to resolve issues.
IBAN changed that.
By introducing a standardized structure, banks could automatically validate account details before processing payments.
That simple improvement dramatically reduced errors, improved efficiency, and made international banking much more reliable.
Sometimes the biggest innovations arenât the most glamorous, they simply make everyday processes work better.
For businesses operating internationally, speed and accuracy arenât just nice to have, they directly affect cash flow.
Imagine running an ecommerce business in India while paying suppliers in Germany.
Or managing payroll for remote employees across Europe.
Or receiving payments from international clients every week.
Every delayed transfer can disrupt operations.
Every failed payment creates unnecessary administrative work.
IBAN helps minimize those problems by giving banks a standardized way to identify accounts before money even begins its journey.
That means:
For companies expanding globally, thatâs a significant advantage.
One of the most common questions people ask is:
âIf I already have a SWIFT code, why do I need an IBAN?â
The answer is simple.
They do different jobs.
A SWIFT (or BIC) code identifies the bank.
An IBAN identifies the individual bank account within that bank.
A useful way to think about it is this:
If youâre sending a letter:
In many international transfers, both are required to make sure the payment reaches the right place without delays.
Financial technology is evolving at an incredible pace.
Real-time payment networks are expanding.
Artificial intelligence is helping detect fraud.
Blockchain is changing how some cross-border transactions are processed.
Digital currencies continue to dominate headlines.
With so much innovation happening, you might assume systems like IBAN are becoming outdated.
In reality, the opposite is happening.
The newer payment technologies become, the more important standardized banking information becomes.
IBAN continues to provide the consistency that allows different banks, payment providers, and financial platforms to work together.
It may not attract headlines, but itâs one of the foundations that keeps the global financial system connected.
Global business has changed dramatically over the last decade.
Small businesses now sell products worldwide.
Freelancers work with clients on different continents.
Startups hire remote teams across multiple countries.
Cross-border payments are no longer reserved for multinational corporations, theyâve become part of everyday life.
As international transactions become increasingly common, accuracy becomes even more important.
Thatâs exactly where IBAN proves its value.
It quietly reduces friction in a process that millions of people rely on every single day.
Most users never notice it.
And thatâs probably the best compliment any piece of financial infrastructure can receive.
Some technologies grab attention because theyâre new.
Others become important because they simply work.
IBAN belongs firmly in the second category.
For decades, it has helped banks process international payments with greater speed, accuracy, and confidence. It has reduced costly mistakes, simplified cross-border banking, and created a common standard that financial institutions around the world can rely on.
As global commerce continues to grow and payment technology becomes even more sophisticated, IBAN isnât disappearing, it remains one of the invisible building blocks supporting the movement of money across borders.
The next time youâre asked to enter an IBAN, youâll know itâs much more than a long string of characters.
Itâs one of the reasons international banking works as smoothly as it does.
IBAN Explained: The Global Banking Standard Quietly Powering International Payments was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Login