MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400244869 · doi:10.55496/snpi2967

"Regulators Nurturing Fintech Innovation: Global Evolution of the Regulatory Sandbox as Opportunity-Based Regulation"

2019· article· en· W4400244869 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deirdre Ahern

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Law and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandbox (software development)European unionFinancial regulationRegulatory reformBusinessEconomicsInternational tradeMarket economyFinanceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The regulatory sandbox is a real-world alternative to regulatory lag. Its emergence as a novel regulatory development responds to challenges faced by FinTech innovators in navigating an unwieldy regulatory landscape not designed with FinTech in mind. Regulatory sandboxes are in operation in developed countries including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Hong Kong, Singapore, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Within the European Union they are seen in Denmark, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the Netherlands. The concept has also gained traction with regulators in developing countries such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritius and Thailand. Not only is the regulatory sandbox an experimental space for firms testing innovative FinTech products and services, it is also a novel regulatory experiment for regulators. This article advances the available literature through focusing on the contradictions inherent in the role of the regulator in administering a regulatory sandbox. It characterises the regulatory sandbox as a form of agile, opportunity-based regulation, distinguished by a regulatory approach that is concerned with actively supporting innovators in nurturing cutting-edge innovation to benefit innovators, consumers, investors, and the wider economy. This is path-breaking regulatory territory. In its provision and design, a regulatory sandbox performs a crucial signalling function in relation to a given financial system’s receptivity to FinTech business. An economic, pro-innovation agenda is at work. Distinct policy questions are therefore raised regarding the legitimate role of public gatekeeper financial services regulators operating regulatory sandboxes. The role of a regulatory sandbox in nurturing and expanding competition suggests a public interest role in the interests of consumer choice, price and efficiency rather than simply on risk minimisation. However, pressure on regulators to produce sandbox successes and to compete with other sandboxes may influence the exercise of regulatory discretion and produce regulatory distortions that affect competition in FinTech markets."

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Law and TechnologySame topicFinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital FinanceFrench-language works237,207