Thought Leadership

5 Things JPMorgan’s AI Agent Warning Means for Banking

5 Things JPMorgan’s AI Agent Warning Means for Banking
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: List series, Thought Leadership

On JPMorgan’s third quarter earnings call yesterday, CEO Jamie Dimon expressed concern about AI agents, while CFO Jeremy Barnum discussed the risks of credential sharing and screen scraping.

JPMorgan has one of the largest technology budgets in the banking sector, with plans to spend almost $20 billion on technology overall in 2026. But the C-suite executives’ comments are in no way a rejection of agentic AI as an enabling technology. The bank is already using agentic AI to automate workflows, improve employee productivity, and streamline internal processes. “Internally, we use agents to do things here, and we are going to continue to do that,” Dimon said on the call. “And we do. We will use it for customers, but our focus would always be do a great job for customers.”

But when it comes to consumer use of agentic AI, the bank said it is restricting certain methods external agents use to access customer accounts. Barnum said the bank is blocking insecure access where it can and working toward safer alternatives.

This stance has five implications banks should consider as they weigh their own attitudes toward the use of external agents.

Agentic AI could reignite the screen-scraping debate

For years, the banking industry has been moving away from screen scraping and toward more secure, API-based data sharing. However, as consumers begin using AI agents capable of navigating banking websites like human customers, the industry’s progress toward standardized, permissioned data access could face a new challenge.

Agentic AI introduces a new version of the old screen-scraping debate, as third parties may be able to access customer information without relying on bank-approved APIs. JPMorgan, which clashed with Plaid in 2025 over the terms of API-based access to consumer-permissioned financial data, has already shown interest in controlling how third parties interact with its systems. And while cybersecurity concerns are one reason the bank is wary of opening up access, the value of the data is another. Consumers’ transaction histories and account balances are valuable sources of information, particularly for AI agents capable of analyzing spending patterns, recommending financial products, and influencing financial decisions.

While some banks may seek to restrict external agents, others may view secure agent access as an opportunity to improve the customer experience. Either way, the rise of agentic AI could accelerate demand for standardized, secure, permissioned access that allows AI agents to interact with banking systems without undermining the open banking infrastructure the industry has spent years building.

Banks could lose control of the customer relationship

If consumers begin using AI assistants to manage their finances, those agents could become the primary interface between customers and their banks. For example, an AI agent might compare savings rates, and either recommend switching providers, or initiate a transfer on a consumer’s behalf without the consumer ever opening a banking app.

On the earnings call, JPMorgan’s executives acknowledged the competitive implications of AI and fintech while emphasizing the value of the bank’s established customer relationships. However, those relationships could become less influential if consumers increasingly rely on AI agents to make financial decisions. Instead of choosing a bank based on its mobile app, brand recognition, or existing relationship, consumers could delegate more of their financial management to agents that prioritize interest rates, fees, and product features. In this scenario, banks risk becoming interchangeable providers of financial products rather than the primary destination for managing money.

We’re slowly approaching a world in which consumers don’t need to take action, but can instead give their agent permission to take action on their behalf. In this new reality that doesn’t rely on consumers to take small actions like transferring funds to multiple different bank accounts per week in order to maximize yield, banks may need to compete on the quality and accessibility of their financial products, not just on their digital banking experiences.

Consumer authorization may not be enough to protect consumers

The rapid pace of AI development has raised concerns about whether safeguards can keep up. Additionally, it is a complicated enough technology that everyday consumers do not understand implications or risks, despite giving AI agents permission to access their financial accounts. Especially in the early stages of the technology, where guardrails and standards are still in formation, an agent could easily misinterpret instructions, expose sensitive information, or initiate an unintended transaction.

JPMorgan’s executives specifically raised concerns about customers sharing credentials and the potential liability associated with agent activity. When consumers share their banking credentials with an AI agent, they may be granting it access to far more information and functionality than is necessary to complete a particular task. If an agent makes a mistake, determining who is responsible for the mistake is complicated. If an AI agent transfers funds to the wrong account, for example, who is liable?

As consumer adoption increases, there will likely be growing demand for granular permissions, transaction limits, agent authentication, revocable access, and clearer liability frameworks. It is also an example of how authorization and authentication are not the same thing. An agent may be properly authenticated but still attempt an action beyond what its user intended. Know Your Agent (KYA) technologies could help bridge that gap by verifying an agent’s identity, establishing the scope of its permissions, and helping to keep its actions within authorized boundaries.

Banks may favor their own AI agents over third-party platforms

In the early 2010s, fintechs introduced a competitive tension to the banking scene. Banks were worried about losing customers to fintechs, which offered new technologies and more intuitive user interfaces. As banking-as-a-service gained popularity, however, it created new opportunities for banks and fintechs to collaborate rather than compete. Agentic AI is bringing a similar tension back as banks want to use AI to improve their services, but they may be less comfortable allowing outside agents to interact with customer accounts.

This tension could encourage banks to steer consumers back to their own websites and mobile apps by building their own financial assistants or partnering with a network of approved AI providers. Offering agentic capabilities within their existing digital banking environments will help banks offer customers the convenience of AI-powered financial management while maintaining greater control over data access, security, and the customer experience. However, this approach still has limitations, as it still may not allow consumers to use their preferred third-party AI assistants.

Third-party technology providers that can demonstrate strong security, governance, and integration capabilities may have an advantage over those relying on unrestricted website access. Instead of competing directly with banks for the customer relationship, these providers could position themselves as trusted partners that enable secure agent-to-bank interactions. Just as banking-as-a-service created new opportunities for collaboration between banks and fintechs, agentic AI could give rise to a new category of infrastructure providers focused on agent authentication, permission management, and secure financial transactions.

Trust can be both a competitive advantage and an obstacle

Banks have spent decades establishing customer trust, especially when it comes to protecting their personal information. JPMorgan’s priorities are a reflection of preserving this trust, as its executives identified trust as a competitive asset. However, as Barnum pointed out, trust doesn’t excuse banks from delivering good customer experiences.

So how can banks balance trust with improving the customer experience in the age of agentic AI? If they impose too many restrictions on third-party agents, they risk frustrating consumers who want more convenient financial management tools. However, if they allow an agent free-for-all on their sites, they risk exposing customer data, enabling unauthorized transactions, and ultimately eroding the trust they’ve worked so hard to establish.

Here’s the takeaway: the institutions that succeed may be those that balance security with interoperability, rather than simply blocking external innovation. To be clear, JPMorgan did not state that it plans to permanently shut out all external AI agents. Instead, its executives indicated that the bank is working on safer ways to enable access. “We are building tools to [protect customers from risks associated with agents] too,” added Dimon. “In the meantime, we are not gonna allow just any agent to come, outside agent to come inside the company because it is just too risky for clients and for JPMorgan.”

Photo by Caden Garcia

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Visa Study Finds Consumers Trust AI to Shop, But Not to Pay

Visa Study Finds Consumers Trust AI to Shop, But Not to Pay
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: Report series, Thought Leadership, VISA

Agentic shopping is taking over the headlines, but are consumers really ready to hand over their credit cards to a bot? Visa recently sponsored a report that measures consumers’ attitudes toward agentic commerce.

The research was conducted by The Harris Poll in May of 2026 and surveyed 2,065 US adults to provide insight into how consumers are navigating the next evolution of AI shopping and payments. The report found that 72% of respondents have used an AI assistant, 23% trust generative AI to handle payments on their behalf, and 61% would trust Visa to handle agentic transactions.

The findings from The Harris Poll’s research reveal four key takeaways for the future of agentic commerce:

Payment providers could retain influence even if AI owns the customer interface

Visa’s research suggests that consumers distinguish between the technology that helps them shop and the payment providers they trust to facilitate transactions. So while they may use an AI agent to recommend a new pair of shoes, compare prices, and select a retailer, when it comes time to pay, many still prefer the protections and peace of mind offered when using a familiar, established payment provider.

The implication: Banks and payment networks may not need to own the entire AI shopping experience to remain relevant. Their competitive advantage could depend on providing trusted payment infrastructure that sits behind the shopping experience.

Trust could become a competitive advantage for incumbent banks

As it is still a new concept, much of the conversation around agentic commerce has focused on the enabling technology, such as APIs, tokenization, agent authentication, and payment execution. And for good reason: figuring out the logistics of the payment that leverages a constantly evolving field of technology with multiple players is complicated.

However, Visa’s research suggests that consumer confidence could be just as important as technical capability. This element of consumer trust and confidence creates a lot of opportunity for established financial institutions that may feel locked out of participating in agentic commerce.

The implication: Fortunately for banks and payment providers, they already have relationships with consumers, established fraud protections, and experience in handling disputes. Each of these elements is a differentiator as AI agents begin initiating transactions.

Agentic commerce could reinforce existing payment infrastructure

Stablecoins have been taking over discussions in banking and fintech, as their low-cost, speedy rails have the potential to improve the overall customer experience while driving down costs. Additionally, their programmable, blockchain-based infrastructure could make stablecoins an attractive payment option for certain agentic commerce use cases. However, as Visa’s study implies, if consumers prioritize familiar, trusted payment brands, card networks may have an advantage in the early stages of adoption.

The implication: This prioritization shows that lower transaction costs and technical efficiency may not be big enough reasons for consumers to adopt unfamiliar payment experiences. For fintechs building alternative payment solutions, trust and consumer protections may be just as important as price and convenience.

The opportunity in autonomous transactions is in making transactions feel safe

Agentic commerce is still in its early stages, and we still have a lot to learn when it comes to best practices. However, the findings in Visa’s study imply that successful agentic payments will require clear permissions, spending limits, authentication, and dispute resolution.

The implication: If shoppers do not feel safe in allowing agentic AI to make payments on their behalf, they will continue to shop via traditional ecommerce methods. However, Visa is already developing infrastructure through its Visa Intelligent Commerce initiative that will offer authentication, transaction security, and consumer controls. Consumers may be more willing to embrace agentic commerce when trusted financial services providers establish the necessary safeguards, rather than leaving the experience to a fragmented group of unfamiliar players.

Photo by SiljeAO

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Banks Know What You Spend. AI Knows Why.

Banks Know What You Spend. AI Knows Why.
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: Julie's Column, Thought Leadership

At FinovateFall earlier this month, there was one question brought up in multiple panel conversations and on the networking floor: in the age of AI, who owns the customer?

Historically, banks have had an obvious, structural advantage. They hold the checking account, receive the direct deposit from the paycheck, see transactions, and often serve as the place consumers turn when they need to dispute a payment, borrow for a home, finance a major life event, start investing, etc.

The LLM’s role

However, what happens when the place consumers go first with their financial questions isn’t their bank or even a fintech? With LLMs offering increasingly powerful financial capabilities and reliable bank account connections, a customer’s first stop for financial information may be their preferred LLM.

In 2026, consumers have become comfortable using LLMs for a vast array of tasks. People are using LLMs to research questions, plan vacations, manage work projects, interpret health and fitness data, meal-plan, get parenting and school help, navigate relationships, make purchases, and increasingly analyze financial information.

The retailer’s role

Before taking a deeper look at LLM’s relationship with consumers, let’s examine another stakeholder in this equation, the retailer. Retailers, especially big box retailers like Walmart, Costco, and Target, have always held a more intimate level of information about consumers than banks have. They not only see how much the consumer is spending, but they also see each individual item the consumer is purchasing.

So while banks have valuable data regarding their consumers’ financial lives, and retailers see the exact items in customer’s basket, LLMs get to form a picture of customers through their actual lives. Oftentimes, consumers will consult their preferred LLM about details before large purchases and events such as a move, vacation, wedding, new baby, home renovation, or job change. Because of this, the LLM has the data about the consumer before the resulting transactions even appear on their bank statement.

As an example, a bank may see the consumer spent $2,389 at Costco, while Costco sees a consumer who purchased patio furniture, kids’ clothes, hummus, and carrots. That item-level data gives retailers context banks traditionally haven’t had. Retailers can distinguish grocery spending from clothing or home improvement even when everything happened at the same merchant. To summarize, the bank sees the transaction, the retailer sees the purchase, and the LLM sees the person.

The steakhouse that got me thinking

The LLM introduces another layer to this because it understands the rationale behind the purchase. To offer up a personal example, I recently planned my in-laws’ 50th wedding anniversary celebration in Colorado. Because I am not local to the area, I used ChatGPT to help plan details such as photography, celebration locations, a restaurant, and logistics. Ultimately, after using ChatGPT to compare the options, we chose Twin Owls Steakhouse in Estes Park and it was fabulous.

Weeks later, I was reviewing my finances that are connected to ChatGPT via Plaid. On a monthly basis, ChatGPT offers a written overview of my finances with red flags and suggestions. In this report, ChatGPT identified that my restaurant spending for the previous month was higher than normal and exceeded my monthly stated budget. Unprompted, it went one step further. It recognized the Twin Owls Steakhouse charge as the anniversary dinner I had previously planned using ChatGPT. Instead of simply flagging the category as overspending, the LLM distinguished an intentional, one-time celebration from a potentially concerning spending trend.

My bank knew I spent money at Twin Owls. ChatGPT not only knew why I was there, it knew I had planned to spend the money before I even spent it, and crucially, it helped inform the decision of where I ultimately spent the money.

Banks’ new role

So where does this leave banks? When operating alongside LLMs, banks have three options:

  • Build: Banks can create AI experiences that sit within their app or website that develop meaningful customer context that extends beyond answering questions about the customers’ transactions.
  • Join: Banks can make bank data, products, and execution available within the existing LLMs and AI ecosystems where customers already go to make decisions.
  • Differentiate: Banks can double down on what external LLMs cannot independently provide, such as regulated custody, trusted execution, credit, identity, fraud protection and dispute resolution. These services are hard to replicate in an LLM setting and banks retain a significant advantage in these areas.

For years, banks have invested in creating a 360-degree view of the customer. But the next battle for primacy will be won by the company with the most comprehensive view of the customer’s life first.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

FinovateFall and AI’s Coming of Age Moment

FinovateFall and AI’s Coming of Age Moment
By David Penn Posted on
Categories: FinovateFall 2026, Thought Leadership

Did FinovateFall 2026 reflect a “coming of age” moment for AI?

It is probably too much and too soon to say that the current discourse around AI represents a milestone in–or, much less, a reckoning with–all the challenges and opportunities that AI technology presents. But the split-screen of last week’s conference was difficult to ignore: four days (including our Leaders+ pre-conference event) of sober, sophisticated discussion on what needs to be done to take our use of AI to the next level at the conference, while outside in the broader media landscape, the conversation is essentially a bet on how quickly AI will kill us all.

I don’t want to dismiss the concerns of those who are calling for a “slowdown” in AI development. And I certainly don’t want to suggest that those who are (and have been) working in AI for years have everything figured out. That said, we are clearly experiencing some sort of “coming of age” moment in our evolving relationship with AI. From the demoers to the keynote speakers, FinovateFall 2026 articulated several different versions of what that moment looks like and what it means.

The Other AI Reckoning

The existential debate aside, a different reckoning is clearly underway in the AI industry, and that reckoning involves reconciling the millions of dollars already invested in AI projects with the mixed return on investment many of these projects have produced. As the “gold rush” stage of the AI era subsides, it is no longer good enough for an AI pilot to work; financial institutions need to see results that are in line with goals and expectations, creating efficiencies, generating revenue, and boosting profitability.

This is how Inbenta CEO Melissa Solis and Chief Technology Officer Merlin Bise framed it for me during a Finovate studio interview at the conference week. The transition from AI pilots to AI production means that AI investments will come under increased scrutiny. While this will inevitably be painful in many instances, the shift in focus from promise to proof represents important evidence of maturation in this space.

Another reckoning that has received relatively short shrift in the conversation about data centers and AI-driven extinction is the old fear that AI will be a job-killer, especially for middle-class, white-collar jobs in customer service and call centers, for example. This was an issue that Solis was particularly concerned about, noting that the “human side” of AI is not just about putting humans in the loop of AI decision-making, but also about ensuring that humans are net beneficiaries of the technology rather than casualties of it. This is true whether their labor is enhanced by AI or, ultimately, replaced by it. For those industries where the latter is likely, businesses need to be prepared to help those workers transition to new roles.

Scenes from the Stages

Was there a single AI presentation that did not at some point underscore the importance of governance?

If so, I must have missed it. From the mainstage to the industry stages, I was struck by the number of times keynote speakers and panelists referenced not just what AI can do—a common theme in presentations in recent years—but what companies and innovators need to do to ensure that AI is delivering on those capabilities. From the special address that referenced the origins of American football to explain the importance of creating playbooks for AI agents to panels that highlighted the role of AI orchestration and the importance of governance and auditability, if there was one word that summed up the attitude toward AI coming from the FinovateFall stage last week, it might be “controls.”

This is not to say that there still isn’t a sense of near-giddy excitement over the opportunities that AI presents. Jon Lakefish of the Lakefish Group delivered another standout keynote on the current state of AI tools and solutions, followed by a standing-room-only workshop on practical applications of these resources. Statements like “I’m blown away!” “Please can you send me the materials?” and “You’ve just saved me $40,000!” were a small sample of the kinds of responses Lakefish’s AI workshop received.

Learning from the Demos

I’ve always found reviewing the companies that won Best of Show to be a good way of understanding which fintech innovations are making an impression. This year’s FinovateFall gave us a lot to think about, particularly in relation to the spread of AI in general and agentic AI in particular throughout the industry.

AI-powered solutions were present, but they did not dominate the innovations of the Best of Show-winning companies. Clockout, which secured its second Best of Show win in as many appearances, leverages embedded finance to help financial institutions better serve customers and increase deposits. Young Early Starters, picking up a Best of Show award in its Finovate debut last week, offers an investing and education app and platform that is engaging without relying on gamification, or on AI for that matter. That said, a number of firms did leverage AI for key functions such as executing marketing campaigns (Vertice AI), or providing co-pilot assistance to developers operating in legacy environments (Tweezr).

When AI was on display, it was often in the form of agentic AI, which featured prominently among the deployments demoed. Interestingly, many of these deployments are about augmenting human action rather than replacing it—from supporting developers in legacy environments, optimizing marketing campaigns, and guiding customer service and call center workers through complex processes and procedures. In many ways, AI is simultaneously a bridge from the current way of working to a new one and a new technological environment in its own right.

Photo by Emmanuel Olguín on Unsplash

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

3 Payments Shakeups This Summer That Will Shape Fintech in 2027

3 Payments Shakeups This Summer That Will Shape Fintech in 2027
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: List series, Thought Leadership

It is clear that the payments industry is entering its next phase. With stablecoins, AI advancements, and real-time payments, the payments scene of 2026 is a vastly different landscape from what it was in 2012. In this new era, success depends on scale, specialization, and settlement infrastructure.

This summer, three major announcements in the payments space have both supported evidence of this new era and hinted at where we can expect it to go next. Here are the top three headlines that will have impact on the space in the months to come.

Ant International raises $1.2 billion to expand cross-border payments and agentic commerce

What happened: Singapore-based Ant International raised $1.2 billion in Series A funding. The company said it will use the investment to accelerate global expansion, strengthen cross-border payments infrastructure, and invest in AI-powered merchant services and agentic commerce solutions. Ant International already connects more than 150 million merchants with over 2 billion user accounts through businesses including Alipay+, Antom, and WorldFirst.

Why it matters: The move to expand internationally and bolster its cross-border payments indicate two things. First, it shows that infrastructure for cross-border, agentic payments is becoming increasingly valuable, even if consumers are not ready for an agentic-led future. Second, Ant International’s plan for growth suggests that the company is readying for a potential future IPO. It is rumored that Ant International plans to IPO in Hong Kong as early as this year, which has the potential to create a new global payments heavyweight.

Stripe and Advent’s Failed $53 billion bid for PayPal

What happened: Stripe and private equity firm Advent International have made a joint offer to acquire PayPal Holdings. The move would have taken PayPal private and offered Stripe scale in addition to access to PayPal’s progress in the DeFi space, including its own stablecoin PYUSD. PayPal’s board rejected the bid, saying that it undervalues the company.

Why it matters: Whether or not a deal materializes, the reported bid signals that large payments platforms remain highly valuable strategic assets. It also suggests that established payments companies are increasingly being evaluated not only for their merchant and consumer networks, but also for emerging capabilities such as stablecoins, digital wallets, and AI-driven commerce, as well as their long-standing reputation and trusted consumer relationships.

Open USD Consortium launch

What happened: Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, Coinbase, and more than 140 other companies joined forces to launch Open USD, a consortium-backed stablecoin designed to create an open, interoperable digital dollar for business payments. Open USD will be operated by Open Standard to ensure decisions are made for the collective interest, not a single entity.

Why it matters: The new consortium offers a standardized, interoperable way for businesses to mint and redeem Open USD without relying on a single issuer or payments provider. By bringing together competitors such as Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and Coinbase, the initiative could accelerate enterprise adoption of stablecoins for cross-border payments, treasury management, and settlement while reducing concerns about vendor lock-in.

Reading Between the Headlines

Taken individually, these stories may seem unrelated. Together, however, they reveal that the payments industry is undergoing a transformation. While the industry used to favor those who could process a transaction the fastest or cheapest, in 2026 however, the winners will be those that build the most intelligent, connected, and globally interoperable payments ecosystem will be the winners.

For banks, fintechs, and payments providers, success in the years ahead will rely on more than just the ability to keep pace with new technologies. It will require rethinking how money moves in an era of AI-native commerce, global payment networks, and digital-dollar infrastructure. Organizations that embrace agentic capabilities, integrate stablecoin-based settlement where it adds value, and build for interoperability will be better positioned to meet evolving customer expectations in 2027 and beyond.

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Fintech Fundraising Has Changed. What Should Founders Focus On?

Fintech Fundraising Has Changed. What Should Founders Focus On?
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: IMPACT, Thought Leadership

Many of us fondly remember when, just a handful of years ago, VC funding was abundant. It was a golden era in which startups competed for investor attention, valuations climbed quickly, and founders optimized for growth.

Fast forward five years, and the situation is much different. Venture funding has become much more selective, and while it often favors cutting-edge technologies such as AI and the blockchain, investors have much higher expectations than they did at the dawn of the decade, wanting to see proven traction much earlier. Between the changing economics and new technologies, it is clear that the fundraising environment for fintechs has evolved.

AI is reshaping where venture dollars go

By now, it’s no secret that AI-focused fintechs and ideas are garnering a lot of VC funding. According to CB Insights’ State of Venture 2025 report, AI startups raised $226 billion in 2025, a figure that represented 48% of all global venture funding. This doesn’t mean investors have lost interest in fintech. Instead, fintech companies are increasingly expected to demonstrate how AI strengthens their product, operations, or competitive moat.

All of this is happening while deal counts continue to decline and total venture funding has increased, suggesting that more money is flowing to fewer companies. In other words, fintech fundraising has become increasingly challenging. Generalist investors who previously backed broad fintech opportunities may now devote more attention to AI infrastructure and applications. Therefore, fintech founders need to explain not only why their business matters, but also how AI strengthens their competitive advantage.

Investors are rewarding efficiency more than growth

In 2021, many investors were myopically focused on growth. Today, it is clear that the “growth at all costs” mentality has ended as investors have shifted their focus to long term sustainability. Higher interest rates, a more disciplined venture market, and several years of valuation resets have encouraged investors to prioritize sustainable businesses over rapid expansion. Five years ago, investors used to focus on how fast a company can grow and today they are asking if companies can survive, scale responsibly, and solve a meaningful problem.

What is clear is that investors are looking for sustainable unit economics, realistic customer acquisition costs, recurring revenue, capital efficiency, and credible pathways to profitability. The question has shifted from “How quickly can this company grow?” to “Can this company build an enduring business?” In the fundraising environment of 2026, disciplined execution and financial resilience have become just as compelling as ballooning growth projections.

Relationships matter more than ever

In a world where funding is more competitive than ever, what’s the best move for a founder? Just as with enterprise sales, relationships, fit, and timing matter when it comes to fundraising. At a time when fewer companies are receiving funding, warm introductions and a precise founder-investor fit become the two elements that can make the difference between getting a meeting and getting funded.

Given this, the strongest approach for founders is to spend time building relationships before formally raising capital. Instead of pitching everyone, founders’ strategy looks like building credibility with the right investors.

What’s a founder to do?

None of these changes mean fundraising has become impossible. But they do mean that founders need a different playbook than they did just a few years ago.

That’s one reason Finovate launched the new IMPACT Funders & Founders event. As fundraising becomes more relationship-driven and investors become more selective, founders benefit from opportunities to meet qualified investors, hear directly from active VCs, and build connections before they need them most.

The good news is that capital will continue flowing to companies solving meaningful problems. The founders who understand and adapt to today’s investment landscape will be best positioned to secure it.

Finovate’s IMPACT Funders & Founders event takes place on September 11, 2026 in New York. Reserve your spot today and check out our blog coverage for more detail on what to expect.

For more founder-focused insights on the current market, check out a panel conversation from FinovateSpring where investors discussed where investment will continue, shared their thoughts on M&A expectations, and analyzed whether or not the bubble has already burst in fintech.

Photo by Edge Training

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

What’s Really Behind Robinhood’s 7% Yield?

What’s Really Behind Robinhood’s 7% Yield?
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: Julie's Column, Thought Leadership

Robinhood announced a handful of features last week, including the rollout of Robinhood Earn, a decentralized lending product that allows people to lend their dollar-backed USDG through a self-custody wallet at an estimated 7% APY. This estimated 7% APY on USDG stablecoin deposits is high enough to raise eyebrows, especially at a time when banks are paying closer to 3% to 4% on their highest-yield savings accounts. So how can Robinhood sustainably offer 7%?

Robinhood Earn

First, let’s take a look at the details of the launch. Robinhood Earn applies to USDG, a stablecoin issued by Paxos Digital Singapore and Paxos Issuance Europe. Robinhood is not paying 7% APY on bank deposits. Instead, the yield is generated by lending activity for Robinhood users who lend stablecoins using Morpho, a decentralized lending protocol that powers onchain lending. Just as with fiat lending, there is risk in lending stablecoins. Users still assume the risk on the deposits. However, Robinhood has partnered with Lloyd’s of London and RELM to protect covered losses in the event of cyber or smart contract exploits. Essentially, the company is bringing decentralized finance (DeFi) into a familiar customer experience.

The 7% interest strategy appears no different from a fintech offering a new high-yield savings account that pays an above-average yield of over 4% APY in order to incentivize consumers to open new accounts. It is a marketing tool. Robinhood’s new DeFi lending product is already integrated into its mainstream brokerage experience, so the 7% is the additional incentive for users to convert cash to USDG, begin using Robinhood Chain, and eventually use tokenized assets and on-chain services.

Should banks offer 7% yield?

It is important for firms to recognize that yield has become a feature, not the product. If stablecoins become everyday money, what role does the deposit account play? If consumers can earn yield without a traditional bank account, how should banks compete? And what happens when customers don’t even realize they’re using decentralized finance?

The answer isn’t necessarily to match Robinhood’s 7% yield, which is good, because banks already know that offering a 7% yield is off the table. Instead, banks should focus on the advantages DeFi can’t easily replicate:

  • Trust
    FDIC insurance, consumer protections, fraud resolution, and regulatory oversight still matter—especially during periods of market volatility.
  • Financial relationships
    Consumers don’t just need a place to store money. They need mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, financial advice, and payment services. Banks have an opportunity to integrate yield-generating products into a broader relationship.
  • Simplicity
    Robinhood’s announcement demonstrates that consumers don’t want to navigate wallets, bridges, or smart contracts. Banks that can abstract blockchain complexity while maintaining a familiar customer experience will be well positioned.
  • Hybrid models
    Rather than viewing DeFi as competition, banks may eventually incorporate tokenized deposits, stablecoins, or on-chain lending into their own offerings, allowing customers to benefit from blockchain infrastructure without leaving the regulated banking system.

In the new era of finance, the winners will be those that make DeFi invisible. Just as most consumers don’t think about ACH, RTP, or card networks when they use a credit card, in the future they may not care whether their yield comes from a bank balance sheet or an on-chain lending protocol. Instead, they’ll choose the institution that offers the best combination of return, trust, and convenience.

Photo by Andrew Neel

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

5 Things to Know about TradFi’s Move to Control Digital Money Infrastructure

5 Things to Know about TradFi’s Move to Control Digital Money Infrastructure
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: List series, Thought Leadership

Late last week, a handful of the largest US banks revealed a plan to launch their own tokenized deposit network.

JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and other major banks will launch the new network, which is set to launch by mid-2027. The banks are launching this new network in partnership with The Clearing House (TCH), a bank-owned consortium that operates critical US payment infrastructure, including the RTP network, which enables real-time payments between participating financial institutions.

The initiative will connect traditional banking infrastructure with blockchain-based payments while keeping deposits inside the banking system. Here are five things banks and fintechs should know.

TradFi’s answer to stablecoins

With a market value of more than $316 billion, stablecoins are no longer a crypto experiment. Stablecoin issuance is projected to reach between $3 trillion and $4 trillion by 2030. This growth has the attention of some of the largest banks in the world, warranting a coordinated response.

Similar to stablecoins, a tokenized network offers 24/7 infrastructure and programmable payments, allowing banks to deliver many of the benefits associated with stablecoins. Most notably, the tokenized deposits network will not require customers to move funds outside the traditional banking system, meaning banks will be able to retain their deposits.

Because tokenized deposits are still bank deposits, they retain the same regulatory treatment, accounting treatment, and credit-risk profile as traditional deposits. Tokenized deposits are different from traditional deposits in that they are represented on blockchain infrastructure instead of existing bank ledgers.

It’s about controlling infrastructure

For much of the past decade, fintech competition centered on who could best distribute products and services. Fintechs and banks competed to acquire customers, launch new apps, and build better digital experiences. Recently, however, firms have shifted their focus to controlling the infrastructure that powers financial services.

This race toward infrastructure can be seen in Stripe acquiring Bridge to gain stablecoin infrastructure, Visa’s and Mastercard’s recent investment in stablecoin settlement capabilities, and in banks’ efforts to build tokenized deposit networks. Rather than competing for customer relationships, these companies are positioning themselves to own the rails that move money.

The new tokenized deposit network creates a shared infrastructure layer for programmable deposits and real-time settlement, allowing participating banks to ensure they remain at the center of digital money movement.

The initial target is corporate treasury, not consumers

The new tokenized deposits network will initially be aimed at corporate treasury, which means it will likely not reach consumers before 2028.

TCH expects early demand to come from multinational corporations seeking treasury automation, real-time liquidity management, cross-border payments, and programmable payments. These are the same use cases that have helped stablecoins gain traction among businesses.

While some of these workflows and use cases are applicable to retail clients, businesses stand to benefit the most from real-time settlement, programmable payments, and always-on liquidity management. For that reason, the battle between tokenized deposits and stablecoins may take place in corporate treasury long before it reaches the consumer wallet.

A tokenized network offers 24/7 infrastructure

One of the biggest benefits of blockchain-based payments is that they do not operate on traditional banking schedules that have batch processing at the end of each day.

The new proposed network would allow tokenized deposits to settle 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This continuous movement helps banks compete with stablecoin networks that already offer near-instant transfers at any time.

Smaller institutions will eventually need a position

With large financial institutions taking the lead on this new tokenized deposits network, where does that leave smaller community banks and credit unions? These smaller institutions will need to find their role in a world where money increasingly moves on programmable infrastructure.

Fortunately for these smaller institutions, the network is expected to be available to banks across the US, not just the largest institutions. As different digital asset infrastructure matures, financial institutions may need to determine their stance on whether they will issue, connect to, custody, or simply enable access to these new forms of digital money.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

Why Banks Should Pay Attention to a Visa–Mastercard–Stripe–Coinbase Stablecoin Alliance

Why Banks Should Pay Attention to a Visa–Mastercard–Stripe–Coinbase Stablecoin Alliance
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: Julie's Column, Thought Leadership

While many banks are still trying to create their stablecoin strategy (or decide to pursue a stablecoin strategy), some of the largest players in payments, acquiring, exchanges, and financial infrastructure are exploring a stablecoin collaboration.

CoinDesk reported that payments giants Stripe, Visa, and Mastercard are backing a stablecoin platform, while Coinbase is considering involvement. The move could challenge the dominance that Circle and Tether have on the stablecoin industry by helping standardize digital currency routing across legacy systems

What impact will this disruption have on players in the traditional space? Here are a few implications.

Stablecoin interoperability improves

As with many new enabling technologies in banking and fintech, stablecoins are quite fragmented. Even though Circle and Tether dominate issuance, moving stablecoins across wallets, exchanges, payment providers, and legacy financial infrastructure remains complex. Additionally, there is no universally accepted framework for how digital currency moves across financial infrastructure.

While both of these factors limit mainstream adoption, a consortium backed by companies such as Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, and Coinbase could help create a common framework that makes digital currency movement feel more like existing payment infrastructure.

For financial services providers in the traditional finance (TradFi) space, this common framework could help decrease integration costs, making stablecoin connectivity easier to implement. The shared framework could lower integration costs by reducing the number of connections banks and fintechs must build and maintain. A standardized ecosystem could potentially offer more consistent routing, settlement, and compliance processes. Importantly, the standardization would mean that banks would be able to act now instead of waiting for the winning standard to emerge.

Stablecoins become infrastructure instead of products

Right now, much of the conversation around stablecoins focuses on which company issues the token used for a transaction. Consumers, however, rarely care which payment rail, settlement network, or digital asset powers their transaction. Instead, they simply expect money movement to be fast, seamless, and secure.

For banks and fintechs, this may mean that owning the token itself becomes less important than controlling the infrastructure surrounding money movement. When consumers are rails agnostic, we may start to see that the companies that facilitate routing, settlement, custody, compliance, and customer experiences gain a competitive advantage over those that issue the underlying asset.

Economics of traditional payments face new pressure

Stablecoins are likely here to stay, but they will not replace cards, wires, or ACH payments. However, if major payment players like Visa and Mastercard help introduce new stablecoin infrastructure, it could create pressure on existing payment economics. For example, cross-border payments and merchant settlement could become faster and potentially less expensive.

This increased competition, even if only viable in certain use cases, could reduce margins and force traditional financial institutions to reconsider where they create value. Because both Visa and Mastercard have a stake in traditional payments, however, they are unlikely to introduce a structure that will eliminate traditional payment revenues altogether. Instead, there will likely be gradual pressure on pricing and a shift toward monetizing new infrastructure layers rather than existing friction.

Stablecoin strategy becomes harder to postpone

It is clear that stablecoins are no longer fringe, and at this point, sitting on the sidelines becomes a strategic decision. While it used to be acceptable to treat stablecoins like an optional experiment, the involvement of established financial infrastructure companies makes it mandatory to understand stablecoins. Traditional financial institutions of all sizes need to consider if they will issue stablecoins, custody them, connect to them, or simply enable customer access.

While the “wait and see” approach is still a valid strategy, at this stage it is more of an active strategic decision instead of a passive delay. Financial institutions that choose not to participate should do so intentionally, taking into consideration which revenue opportunities, customer segments, and payment flows they may be willing to forgo if adoption accelerates.

Photo by Thirdman

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

6 Arguments For and Against Prediction Markets as Spain Cracks Down

6 Arguments For and Against Prediction Markets as Spain Cracks Down
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: List series, Thought Leadership

Spain’s ministry of consumer rights blocked access to Kalshi and Polymarket this week. The country has paused the use of the prediction markets (also known as event contracts) as it determines whether their models are operating legally without a gambling license.

Spain joins France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Romania, which have all limited or blocked access to Polymarket.

The controversy begs the question: are prediction markets useful forecasting tools, speculative tools, or simply gambling platforms wrapped in fintech language? With that in mind, here’s a look at three arguments for and three arguments against event contracts.

Three arguments for

Supporters argue that prediction markets are not necessarily about gambling, but rather about information discovery.

  • Prediction markets can aggregate information more efficiently than polls or experts
    Prediction markets force participants to put money behind their convictions, which essentially rewards accuracy with financial incentives. Supporters argue this makes them more effective than polls or expert commentary at forecasting future events because markets continuously absorb new information and update probabilities in real time.
  • Financial markets already operate as forms of event contracts
    If you’ve ever invested in single stocks, you’ve essentially participated in prediction markets. The only difference is that, with stocks, investors are limited to predicting the outcome of a company instead of an event. Bonds and derivatives are also a type of prediction as well, as bonds essentially price default risk and derivatives price probabilities. This raises the question, why is betting on election outcomes different from betting on interest-rate moves.
  • Prediction markets could improve forecasting
    Because they are a useful tool for crowdsourcing information, prediction markets can be used by businesses or governments to improve decision-making. Users are more likely to make predictions on events about which they are knowledgeable, and this information could be helpful for forecasting recessions, fraud, supply chains, elections, and demand. Because they can source this information quickly, prediction markets can surface truths faster than committees or social media.

Three arguments against

Opponents argue that event contracts cause unwanted externalities

  • They may incentivize harmful or unethical behavior
    Oftentimes, event contracts offer events surrounding wars, assassinations, elections, and disasters. These are uncomfortable things to bet on, as it may feel as if users are rooting for these outcomes. Additionally, this raises ethics concerns over investors profiting from others’ tragedies.
  • Markets can be manipulated
    Even though prediction market outcomes may appear more organic than the performance of publicly traded companies, they are not immune to manipulation. Deep-pocketed participants willing to absorb larger losses may attempt to distort market odds, while coordinated misinformation campaigns and bot-driven activity can artificially influence sentiment and pricing. As event contracts become more popular, concerns are growing that the markets themselves could shape public perception rather than simply reflect it.
  • They lack consumer protections and regulatory frameworks
    Across the globe, prediction markets are relatively new and therefore lack regulation, as they don’t fit cleanly into existing categories. It is unclear if they are considered securities, gambling, or derivatives and therefore lack proper regulatory oversight and consumer protection standards.

As prediction markets continue to grow in popularity, regulators will increasingly need to decide whether these platforms belong within financial services, gambling, or an entirely new category. Spain’s move suggests that many jurisdictions are still uncomfortable with the idea of turning elections, world events, and public sentiment into tradeable assets.

Photo by Dante Grime Kahan

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

How Tokenization, AI, and Banks Can Drive the Future of Commerce

How Tokenization, AI, and Banks Can Drive the Future of Commerce
By David Penn Posted on
Categories: FinovateSpring 2026, Thought Leadership

With the wealth of conversation about AI at FinovateSpring just a few weeks ago, what are some of the key takeaways on how businesses are understanding and deploying the technology?

One of the more compelling presentations on this issue was the keynote address provided by Chris Nichols. Nichols is President of Institutional Banking at SouthState Bank where he supports innovation, AI, digital assets, loan pricing, asset-liability management, open banking, payments, and fintech investing. He is also producer of the Banker-to-Banker blog. Based in Winter Haven, Florida, SouthState Bank traces its roots back to First National Bank, founded in 1933 in South Carolina. Today, the institution has more than 370 branches across eight states and, last year, completed a major $2.49 billion acquisition of Texas-based Independent Bank Group. SouthState Bank reported total assets of $66 billion as of Q3 2025.

In his keynote, Why Agentic AI is Truly a New Frontier in Financial Services & How Agentic Commerce Will Reshape the Retail Landscape, Nichols suggested that the intersection of tokenization, a technology that comes to us from blockchain technology, and agentic AI, the leading iteration of AI technology today, will radically change payments and commerce and, as an impact, change the way we order our professional and personal lives. These developments also introduce a major challenge and opportunity for banks. Here are some takeaways from his address.

Tokenization, Micropayments, and Smart Money

Nichols pointed out that tokenization and blockchain-based payments are poised to significantly reduce friction and costs for most transactions. This is huge for cross-border payments especially, but the technology would help enable 24/7 settlement, off-hour transactions, smart contracts, programmable money, and other capabilities.

It is easy to point to the cost of transactions like wire transfers and paper checks. But even instant payments as currently configured are significantly more costly than what is promised in a world of tokenized payments. In addition to payments that, in Nichols’ words, could cost less than a penny, the infrastructure that supports tokenized payments would also enable true micropayments and transactions of less than a cent. Such payments may have had little utility a few years ago, but the rise of the subscription economy and the gig workforce have created demand for a new kind of payment flexibility.

“As we think this through, we see commerce evolving dramatically,” Nichols said from the FinovateSpring stage. “If you are a content provider or another type of digital agent and you need 1/30,000th of a cent, it changes the face of commerce.”

Not only will tokenization make transactions faster and less expensive, transactions will also become intelligent. The ability to program money, to create smart contracts that are executable only when certain conditions are present, could revolutionize lending in finance, claims processing in insurance, and fractional ownership of assets in real estate—to name a few likely use cases.

Agentic Commerce’s Autonomous Participants

Interestingly, Nichols pointed out that what many of these smart contracts and programmable money technologies are likely to do is send commands not to human actors but to AI agents who will carry out the requisite tasks. Nichols used the example of planning and traveling to FinovateSpring in San Diego as work that will soon be completed almost 100% by AI agents acting on an individual’s behalf—from travel planning and hotel booking to registration fees and hotel bill.

What was especially noteworthy about Nichols’ observation was the role of discovery that these autonomous actors will play in a world in which they—the AI agents—are doing the research, inquiry, and even negotiation with various merchants, vendors, and other agents. “Yes, although humans will initially remain in control, the major debate is how much autonomy people are willing to give their agents,” Nichols said in response to an audience question. “The next evolution will likely involve validating agents independently, rather than always validating them via a human intermediary. Eventually, agents may even create other agents.”

AI Orchestration as an Opportunity for Banks

Where does this leave banks?

One major role for banks in this emerging environment is that of an orchestration platform. In this view, banks evolve into 21st century financial services facilitators, moving beyond deposits and money movement to serve as the infrastructure layer for a wide variety of financial workflows for multiple participants. The tasks of the bank would be to coordinate, automate, and secure the actions of everyone and everything from individual consumers and businesses to merchants and suppliers, and from payment rails and compliance systems to lenders and third-party platform partners—and their AI agents.

“For example, consider a property management company,” Nichols suggested. “An agent could upload lease agreements, read and structure them into smart contracts, enable renter payments, collect security deposits, and authorize recurring monthly payments. Renters could pay using credit cards, ACH, cash deposits at a branch, or deposit tokens.” Nichols explained how these funds could then be routed automatically to the property management company, which would take its share before forwarding the balance to the property owner. He pointed out that this process reduces credit risk for banks and removes the burden and potential error of the many intermediate manual processes. Nichols also noted that this was an opportunity for banks—and not just the largest institutions, either. “Agentic capabilities are making it easier than ever for smaller institutions to adapt,” he said.

“We believe banks will play a more central role in this future, often through partnerships with fintechs,” Nichols concluded. “Banks can help commercial customers move from analog sales processes to more agent-driven systems … Banks can help businesses become discoverable, move customers through the sales funnel, and handle both onboarding and follow-up processes.”

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook

The Consumer Credit Stack Is Being Rebuilt in Real Time

The Consumer Credit Stack Is Being Rebuilt in Real Time
By Julie Muhn (@julieschicktanz) Posted on
Categories: Thought Leadership

With new enabling technologies like stablecoins and AI moving quickly and classic fintechs like Mint.com and Dwolla making their exits, it feels like fintech is entering a new era. This is especially true in lending, where new capabilities are enabling faster, more efficient, and in many cases more customer friendly tools than we had five years ago.

Looking back at the dawn of the decade, most lending innovation focused on digitizing the application process, facilitating the onboarding process, and turning loans faster. While some of those elements are still in place today, lending has changed with better intelligence, different distribution, and new infrastructure layers underneath credit itself.

Here’s a look at what’s changed:

Underwriting is becoming continuous instead of episodic

We used to think of the FICO score as the gold standard in underwriting. Today, however, underwriting is no longer done as a snapshot in time. Instead, lenders are using cash flow underwriting to get a view of the borrower’s creditworthiness over time by considering their account balance, overdraft occurrences, loan repayments, and other risk indicators.

Cash flow underwriting is becoming increasingly common, especially as consumers become more comfortable with open banking and the concept of sharing their financial data across platforms.

Embedded lending changed consumer expectations

Embedded lending itself is not new. Uber, for example, began experimenting with vehicle financing for drivers as early as 2014. What’s changed is how targeted, contextual, and embedded these lending experiences have become.

Today, financing is increasingly surfaced directly within the software platforms, marketplaces, and operational tools where consumers and businesses already spend their time. Point-of-sale platform Toast, for example, uses merchants’ daily sales data to underwrite loans and proactively surface financing offers within the Toast platform itself.

As consumers and businesses become more accustomed to contextual lending experiences like these and embedded buy now, pay later options they are relying less on traditional bank websites or standalone loan marketplaces to search for credit products.

The interface layer Is shifting

In addition to competition from software platforms and merchant ecosystems, a third distribution channel is beginning to emerge in lending: large language models (LLMs).

Consumers are increasingly turning to platforms like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini for both information and guidance and decision-making, including financial decisions. As these tools become more integrated into consumers’ daily lives, many borrowers may begin consulting an AI assistant before visiting a bank website or browsing a loan marketplace. Instead of searching manually for financing products, consumers may increasingly ask an LLM to help evaluate their situation and recommend the most suitable lending option.

That shift becomes even more significant as financial data aggregation moves into these environments. Through Plaid’s partnership with OpenAI, for example, ChatGPT can now aggregate and contextualize a consumer’s financial accounts, giving the platform a much richer understanding of cash flow, spending behavior, obligations, and financial goals.

As a result, the lender may still technically originate and hold the loan, but the customer relationship shifts to the interface layer. In this emerging model, the LLM becomes the discovery engine, recommendation layer, and engagement channel sitting between the consumer and the financial institution.

What scales vs. what doesn’t

Looking back at the lending technologies demoed on the Finovate stage five years ago, there is a noticeable divide between the ideas that generated excitement in the moment and the solutions that ultimately achieved scale.

Many of the products that struggled to move beyond the demo phase shared a common challenge: they required consumers to significantly alter their existing behaviors, communication methods, or digital environments. Metaverse-based banking and lending experiences, for example, were fun to watch on stage, but they never aligned with how most consumers wanted to interact with financial products in everyday life. In many cases, they required users to adopt entirely new platforms, devices, or behaviors before their value could even be realized.

By contrast, the lending solutions that have scaled most successfully are the ones that meet consumers where they already are. Buy now, pay later (BNPL) is perhaps the clearest example. Rather than requiring consumers to seek out financing separately, BNPL options are surfaced directly at checkout within the shopping experience itself. As a result, installment financing has become an expected feature for many higher-ticket purchases rather than a niche alternative payment method.

What credit looks like by 2030

Five years from now, much of today’s lending ecosystem will still look familiar. Regulated financial institutions will continue to originate loans, underwriting will remain central to managing risk, and compliance will remain a critical consideration not only for lenders, but also for fintech partners, platforms, and emerging distribution channels.

What may look very different, however, is the interface layer between the consumer and the lender.

Consumers may interact less directly with banks and more through AI assistants, software platforms, wallets, and embedded ecosystems that help evaluate financing options on their behalf. As LLMs become more integrated into everyday decision-making, they may fundamentally reshape how consumers discover, compare, and select credit products. In that environment, traditional loan marketplaces could become far less relevant as financing recommendations are surfaced contextually and conversationally through AI-driven interfaces rather than through manual product searches.

Photo by Silvio Pelegrin

Share this:

Send Post Twitter LinkedIn Facebook