Banks and Fintechs: How to Develop a Digital Open Banking Approach for the Bank’s Future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutated market conditions, the advent of new players and digital technologies, and a significant regulatory push, are profoundly changing the banking industry. Banking business models may shift significantly from a pipeline, vertical, paradigm, to open banking models where modularity can be an opportunity for banks. Not only are the abovementioned factors representing a threat to the traditional model, but also they are spurring significant new opportunities to pursue new revenue streams. Those opportunities are exploited through new banking paradigms that entail higher levels of openness towards third parties and a crescent number of modular services bundled together. Models can go to mere compliance with the prescriptions of openness of PSD2, to the inclusion of new services, the opening of the banking core and data, and the aggregation of those within a platform experience. Value is created in platforms through economies of scope in production and innovation.This paper has explored the evolution of Fintech and Techfin in the market and the emergence of platform models in banking. It has investigated the evolution of that concept, also introducing an interesting banking case (BBVA), which gives several insights on the choices made toward a Banking-as-a-Platform model within the context of Fintech and Open Banking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it