“Man is the problem.” These words permeate the discourse of the FinTech industry, a business sector characterized by a socially disruptive combination of finance and technology. “FinTech”, short for “financial technology”, represents companies that use technology to improve, digitize or automate financial services and processes. This fast-growing industry, which nominally aims to serve both businesses and consumers, offers an array of applications that range from mobile banking and insurance to cryptocurrencies and investment apps. Despite the promise of efficiency and innovation, the FinTech revolution ushered in an era of anti-human discourse in which the pursuit of technological “progress” and profit overshadows the intrinsic value of human engagement and decision-making in the field of finance. Accordingly, this essay seeks to critically examine how financial technology, by reshaping the notion of financial autonomy, attacks the notion of the value of human choice.
The central philosophy of FinTech was evident at a FinTech conference I attended last spring. Its main idea was to accelerate the circulation of money in the economy. This idea, contained in the name of the conference (Money Motion), suggests an almost contemptuous view of traditional money handling, where keeping money in any static form, and especially in the physical (cash) form, is considered bad. Although keeping money in a mattress is not the best idea due to the influence of inflation, the discourse of FinTech is not so much oriented on the advantages it can bring in the fight against inflation, but on the absolute necessity of leaving one’s own money to be managed by specialized FinTech companies. In contrast to them, there are traditional financial institutions, most often traditional banks that have not yet fully embraced the FinTech era, that have their own physical branches and where human contact is still part of the business model. Judging by some speakers at the conference, such banks are on the verge of extinction, and will be replaced by neobanks, which are entirely or mostly digital, and whose most popular representative is Revolut. In any case, the impression is that the discourse and practices of FinTech are subtly forcing individuals to entrust their financial autonomy to corporate entities. This reflects the larger narrative of the conference in which human intervention in financial affairs is seen as a problem to be solved rather than a right to be preserved.
At the heart of the FinTech revolution is a promise – the promise of trust, security and convenience. This was emphasized at the conference by Sandra Švaljek from the CNB, who poetically pointed out that “the soul of money is trust”. This principle, crucial in financial transactions, faces a paradox within digital finance. While FinTech platforms promise unparalleled levels of privacy and security, they also encourage a trend toward centralization. This centralization in FinTech, epitomized by the term “super-app”, signifies the concentration of control and data in the hands of a few dominant entities, thus deviating from the dispersion of power across a wider range of services and companies. The question that arises is: do these platforms, under the guise of digital convenience and security, exploit the trust of individuals and how? This doubt presents a critical dilemma regarding FinTech and challenges the very ethos of trust that is so widely propagated. In other words, has the fundamental trust of users of FinTech platforms been manipulated to foster a new era of digital oligarchy instead of the democratization of finance?
Another foundation of the FinTech industry is the pursuit of a “seamless” user experience. In this regard, the best user experience in the case of financial costs is – invisible. Why? Because FinTech users, according to the leaders of this neo-industry, don’t want to be reminded to spend money. The goal, therefore, is to reduce the number of clicks required for users’ money to move from their wallets to the “wallets” of FinTech entrepreneurs. This strategy aims to remove the individual from the process of financial transactions as much as possible. While this may seem like a step towards convenience, it is a significant and negative change in the way individuals interact with their finances and technology in general. In other words, by minimizing the active role of users, there is a risk of reducing financial literacy, awareness, and sense of responsibility. Finance becomes a game, a game in which there is only one winner: the owners of the means of prod… oops, the owners of FinTech platforms. A “flawless” user experience is therefore not based on the efficiency of financial processes, but rather on the separation of man from the autonomous and conscious management of his own money, which subtly encourages a culture of more passive consumers.
On the other side of FinTech, there are cryptocurrencies, whose original idea lay in their promise of financial decentralization, in the separation of money from the traditional central entity (the state, that is, the central bank). Essentially, the original idea of cryptocurrencies aimed to increase human autonomy. With this in mind, it is rather paradoxical that nowadays cryptocurrencies often lead to new forms of centralization, control and reduction of human freedom. The crypto market is not without a process of consolidating power, and the technological complexities of blockchain and cryptocurrency trading give significant power to those with technical knowledge, often to the detriment of the average user. This situation forces a critical conclusion about the FinTech revolution: the promise of the democratization of finance has been overshadowed by the emergence of new hierarchies and power structures that are no less elitist and exclusive than the ones they are trying to replace.
Additional worrying elements of cryptocurrencies are their volatility and the speculative nature of their trading. So called cryptocurrency day trading and the focus on quick gains undermine the traditional concept of money as a stable medium of exchange and store of value. This speculative environment encourages human detachment from the real implications of financial decisions, thus reducing complex economic interactions to mere numbers on a screen. In this way, the crypto market becomes a playground for algorithms and automated trading systems, where human judgment and ethical considerations take a backseat to cold, hard programming logic. The promise of a decentralized financial utopia is gradually being forgotten as the human element is progressively taken out of the equation.
The anti-human approach advocated by the FinTech industry has profound implications for society and individual autonomy. In the words of the conference, “technology is not the problem is not, people are”. This perspective represents a worrying shift in focus – from meeting human needs to reshaping human behavior to accommodate technological models and profit generation. The implication that people are the problem in financial transactions leads to the reduction of human autonomy and the redefinition of financial activity according to the conditions set by technological systems.
This shift has far-reaching consequences and contributes to the growing economic gap in society. Those who are technologically literate or have access to advanced financial tools profit disproportionately, while the rest lag behind. In addition, the emphasis on seamless, automated transactions can lead to a lack of transparency and accountability. When financial processes become too complex or obscure for the average person to understand, the potential for exploitation and manipulation increases. That is, as financial transactions become more abstract and detached from everyday experience, people’s ability to make informed financial decisions necessarily diminishes. This separation not only affects individual financial behavior, but also has broader social implications, as the financially illiterate population will be less equipped for political engagement, that is, influence on economic policies and practices.
Proponents of FinTech and cryptocurrencies could argue that these technologies bring unparalleled efficiency and democratization of finance. They argue that FinTech lowers barriers to access to financial services, making them more accessible to the wider population. Cryptocurrencies are promoted as tools of financial freedom, offering an alternative to traditional banking systems and state-controlled currencies. While these arguments have their basis in reality, they often ignore the broader implications of technology-driven finance. Efficiency and availability should not come at the cost of human autonomy and social well-being. The democratization of finance must be inclusive and must ensure empowerment and not alienation of people. Moreover, the potential of cryptocurrencies to serve as instruments of financial freedom is undermined by their speculative nature and the concentration of power in the hands of a few technological elites. The key is to strike a balance – taking advantage of FinTech and cryptocurrencies with a healthy dose of caution about their dehumanizing potential. This requires a conscious effort to (re)design financial technologies that are transparent, responsible, and aligned with human values and needs.
In conclusion, the core of the FinTech “revolution” lies not in advancing technology, but in promoting a troubling anti-human ideology. This ideology, noticeable in the discourse of the conference, prioritizes technological efficiency and financial profit over human values and needs. The promise of seamless, automated financial transactions, seemingly appealing in its practicality, risks the erosion of financial literacy, personal autonomy, and societal values.
And while society is barely keeping pace with this era of rapid technological change, it is occasionally necessary to remember that technology should serve man, not the other way around. However, what we have today is a society that serves the owners of technology. The challenge, therefore, lies in the development of (financial) technologies that increase – rather than decrease – human autonomy, if such a thing is even possible. If it is, only with an approach that focuses on people, and less on extracting profit, can we ensure that financial-technological innovations contribute positively to society, promoting not only financial efficiency, but also financial equality, transparency and, most importantly, human freedom.