Many FinTech innovations, from crypto to payday lending apps, don't succeed because their technology is superior. Instead, their primary value comes from designing business models that exploit or circumvent existing financial regulations, giving them an unfair advantage over incumbents.
Related Insights
The current capital market structure, with its high fees, delays, and limited access, is a direct result of regulations from the 1930s. These laws created layers of intermediaries to enforce trust, baking in complexity and rent-seeking by design. This historical context explains why the system is ripe for disruption by more efficient technologies.
The explosive growth of prediction markets is driven by regulatory arbitrage. They capture immense value from the highly-regulated sports betting industry by operating under different, less restrictive rules for 'prediction markets,' despite significant product overlap.
Technology in finance is a double-edged sword. While it can increase access, it can also be used to gamify trading, encourage impulse spending with 'buy-now-pay-later' schemes, and circumvent traditional consumer protection laws.
Kalshi spent years working with regulators before launching, while competitor Polymarket gained mindshare by operating in a legal gray area. This dynamic frustrated Kalshi, which felt it was carrying the burden of legalization while its rival scaled without the same restrictions, highlighting two opposing fintech philosophies.
Many laws were written before technological shifts like the smartphone or AI. Companies like Uber and OpenAI found massive opportunities by operating in legal gray areas where old regulations no longer made sense and their service provided immense consumer value.
The narrative that new financial products are "innovative" is often used to argue against regulation, echoing the same rhetoric that led to the 2008 crisis. This skepticism towards "innovation speak" is crucial as Silicon Valley's language infiltrates finance.
While AI can write code, Affirm CEO Max Levchin states it can't replicate the true moats of a fintech company. These include deep capital markets relationships, a full suite of money transmitter licenses (which take ~18 months to acquire), and years of building consumer trust.
Prediction markets have existed for decades. Their recent popularity surge isn't due to a technological breakthrough but to success in legalizing them. The primary obstacle was always legal prohibition, not a lack of product-market fit or superior technology.
While fast-moving, unregulated competitors like FTX garner hype, a deliberate, compliance-first approach builds a more resilient and defensible business in sectors like finance. This unsexy path is the key to building a lasting, mainstream company with a strong regulatory moat.
The US banking system is technologically behind countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America. This inefficiency stems from a protected regulatory environment that fosters a status quo. In contrast, markets like the UK have implemented fintech-friendly charters, enabling innovators like Revolut to thrive.
