New battles for players, new definitions for fintech

In the context of profound changes taking place in the real economy, the financial sector also needs to undergo such a new transformation. Only in this way can finance realize the real sense of return to the entity; Only in this way can the supply of finance really meet the change in demand. However, finance has not developed in such a direction. After the amplification of the Internet, finance has fallen into greater risks. The chaos we see in Internet finance is almost a direct reflection of this phenomenon.

Even in the context of the emergence of fintech, this problem has not been fundamentally solved. Many players just regard fintech as a concept, instead of finding ways and means to change finance. Finally, fintech becomes a tool and means to harvest traffic. Later development tells us that only changes the object of transformation, but does not change the finance itself, then the so-called change, is only superficial. Once the traffic bonus is gone, players will still face some challenges.

As fintech moves into a new cycle, we need to find a completely different way to grow. Starting from this, we can bring the development of fintech to a new stage of development, the supply of finance can be changed, and the return of finance to the entity is not just a concept and stunt, but an existence that can be landed.

Fintech needs a new interpretation

What is certain is that it is impossible to bring the development of fintech to a new stage if we only interpret fintech with the previous formula and logic and define fintech with the original model. At such a time, what we need is a new interpretation of fintech. Only from this can we find a new direction for the development of fintech.

Fintech is not “finance”. For those financial players, when they look at fintech, they usually think and look at it from the perspective of finance. In their eyes, the so-called fintech more represents a brand new form of finance. Whether it is digital finance or intelligent finance, we can clearly see that they are all based on finance.

When players use finance to interpret fintech, their focus is still on the derivation and evolution of new forms of finance. Although this approach can meet people’s diversified financial needs, these fintech players are still an independent existence outside the industry, still a provider of financial products and services, they will not be involved in the industry, let alone have a deep and comprehensive connection with the industry.

If only “finance” is used to interpret fintech, then such fintech is not a new model of fintech, but a new concept of finance. At first glance, finance has changed, but at its core, the logic of this new fintech model is no different from that of traditional financial players such as banks, insurance and securities. It’s just that new players are adding more elements to finance. Therefore, we cannot use “finance” to describe fintech.

Fintech, not “tech”. For those technology players, when they look at fintech, they also stand in the perspective of technology to think and look. In their eyes, the so-called fintech more represents a brand new form of technology. No matter whether it is the transformation of traditional finance based on technology or the empowerment and transformation of real economy based on technology, players still regard fintech as a way and method to transform traditional industries.

When we only look at fintech in terms of technology, players only think about the transformation of the entity and the improvement of efficiency, while ignoring the risk control and risk of finance itself. In this case, fintech is more similar to the Internet. It can be associated with many industries, it can be associated with many scenes, but it forgets the control of risks.

In the long run, tech-oriented fintech players will walk into a development cycle similar to Internet finance. Tech-dominated fintech players will constantly seek the combination of industries and scenes associated with them, constantly opening connections with various scenes, but ignoring the particularity of finance. When technology cannot afford to take risks, it is bound to face the same problems and drawbacks as the Internet-style development model.

As the development of fintech enters a new stage, we need a new interpretation of it. To be sure, it is not correct to interpret fintech either in a financial way or in a technological way. What is needed is a reinterpretation of fintech in a way that is both “financial” and “tech”. When fintech takes into account the characteristics of “finance” and “science and technology”, and when fintech can deeply empower the real economy with the advantages of “finance” and “science and technology”, its development can truly enter a new stage of development.

After the shuffle, what is the new definition of fintech?

Blindly focusing on “finance”, or blindly focusing on “technology”, is unable to perfect the interpretation of fintech, which is doomed to fintech will inevitably face a reshuffle. The reshuffle began when Ant Financial’s listing was halted. Such a shakeout tells us that fintech needs a new definition. Only in this way can the development of fintech truly enter a new stage of development.

Fintech requires both “finance” and “technology”. From the above analysis, we can clearly feel that it is impossible to get a perfect answer just by using “finance” or “technology” to interpret fintech. After the reshuffle of fintech, we need to reinterpret fintech with a new definition that addresses both “financial” and “tech.”

In order to achieve both “finance” and “technology”, players must have both “finance” and “technology” characteristics, using financial connotation and technological means to redefine fintech. Externally, fintech players connect with the real economy just as technology connects with the real economy. What they change is the elements, processes and links of the real industry. From the inside, fintech players can empower the real economy, just as finance can empower the real economy, with immediate results.

Undoubtedly, this puts new demands on fintech players. For fintech players, they should not only continuously strengthen their financial literacy, constantly innovate financial models, but also constantly use new technologies to enrich and improve themselves, so as to find new ways to connect with the real economy. When fintech takes into account the attributes of “finance” and “technology”, and when fintech is no longer either “finance” or “technology”, its development has really entered a new stage of development.

Fintech needs to abandon the platform model and traffic thinking. If fintech is only defined by platform mode and traffic thinking, then fintech may never break out of the vicious circle of Internet finance, and fintech will never make a breakthrough. To solve this problem, what we need to do is to abandon the platform model and traffic thinking, and truly view fintech from a new perspective, and truly interpret fintech with new connotations. The so-called fintech is not an enabling platform, nor is it a tool to reap new traffic dividends, but a new existence deeply integrated with the industry it serves.

So, in the new stage of development, what role should fintech use to interpret and define itself? The author believes that in the new development stage, fintech needs to play a role of connecting the upstream and downstream of the industry, dredging the obstruction and embolism of the industry, and opening the barriers between industries. If you want to play such a role, you can’t just think in terms of platforms and traffic. Only by truly integrating into it and becoming a part of the development of the industry can the development of fintech assume such a role and function.

It is foreseeable that the fintech platform in the future will no longer be a platform and a central existence that we see now. They disappear in the actual operation process of the industry and run through all aspects of the industrial operation. When the real industry needs to be empowered, fintech players can be empowered in an appropriate way. Fintech has completely got rid of the problems and drawbacks existing only in a single and independent way, and realized the real sense of returning to the entity and the industry.

Fintech needs to break the closure and form an ecology. Fintech is not a closed system, it needs a strong ecology. In such an ecosystem, there is not only a single, limited element, but needs to cover the whole industry aspects of the elements. In such an ecosystem, each element can be a supplement to other elements, and each link can be a support to other links. When the development of fintech enters a new stage of development, we need to redefine fintech with ecological thinking to find a new development direction of fintech.

In such a new ecology, the harvested and captive objects have become a major part of the operation process of fintech. In such a brand new ecology, the existence of unrelated, become each other, complementary advantages of the existence; In such a new ecology, the fragments that had been separated began to integrate and support each other; In such a new ecology, the object of harvest begins to become the protagonist of development.

In short, when fintech becomes a new ecology, it will no longer be a closed state, a fractured and unsustainable existence, but an open and sustainable existence. When fintech really defines itself in such a new way, a new cycle of development in a real sense will open up.


When the fanaticism and agitation of fintech began to stop, its development really entered a new cycle of development. In this new development cycle, we will see the start of a new evolution of fintech. It requires a new definition of fintech. It requires a new interpretation of fintech. When fintech has a new definition and interpretation, it can develop in a new direction.

A whole new battle will be waged over fintech, involving both traditional financial players and new tech giants. If you want to ask who is the winner of this battle, I think, those who can really find their own role and positioning, those who can really give new concepts and connotations to the financial technology, those who can really break the new bottleneck of the development of financial technology players, perhaps the real winners.

A great battle is beginning. What is certain is that such a new battle will not be played out in the way we have seen before, but will start in a new way.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *