 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Aabdulla6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Megancloran.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
八路军被服厂李厂长.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is growing rapidly and has evolved into a valid and informative essay. The section on the "Industry context" however appears a bit biased to me. It talks about one investment company and presents musicians like Snoop Dogg. To me that sounds like spam entries and links. I suggest to delete that section or enhance it by more relevant information. Any comment on that?
ScienceGuard ( talk) 18:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
note number 2 refers to a definition from National Digital Research Centre, but link doesn't match, thus it's either incorrect or obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celerati ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) just published a long-form report on Financial Technologies ( FinTech). The report is here: https://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD554.pdf The report title is IOSCO Research Report on Financial Technologies (Fintech).
Chapter 5, which makes up about a quarter of the overall report, covers "Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), including application of the blockchain technology and shared ledgers to the securities markets." It squarely places blockchain technology in the context of DLT and distributed databases more generally.
It seems to me that this broad industry report on FinTech could help address some of the concerns of the editor in the previous section who was concerned about spam entries and links. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The definition of Fintech is highly ambiguous and it is being used in many different contexts. However, the latest, most comprehensive, and scientifically most solid definition stems from this 2016 article: "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech". It was published in the double blind reviewed scientific journal, the Journal of Innovation Management. Moreover, Wikipedia users can verify the source by retrieving the full-text article online at http://www.open-jim.org/article/view/322 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscorer ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It is incomprehensible why the primary definition provided in this article should be a random one, i.e. why it should be from the article "Infinite Financial Intermediation", published in the Wake Forest Law Review 643, 2015. The Wake Forest Law Review is NOT a peer reviewed academic journal and therefore not of scientific standing. The far more authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date definition is therefore the one published in the Journal of Innovation Management, see above. Publishing an accidental definition from non-scientific source is detrimental to the quality and thus credibility of Wikipedia. It is certainly not in the interest of its users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscorer ( talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- What is your agenda here? The opening definition looks fine to me, not overly impressed with your link ither, that links wouldnt make a good ref. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- There is no "agenda" other than providing most sound knowledge. Could you please demonstrate why chosing a random opening statement provides the reader with better quality information than a scientifically proven statement? Moreover, please make yourself familiar with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.96.77.116 ( talk) 19:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- RichardWeiss, The defintion "Fintech is an industry composed of companies that use new technology and innovation with available resources in order to compete in the marketplace of traditional financial institutions and intermediaries in the delivery of financial services." is a non-scientific, pure randomly chosen statement among thousands on that topic. Why should this statement be used as introductory definition of Fintech? Underscorer
- Jytdog, the over and over again, the reference to the "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech" gets deleted. I do not understand why and by whom... Deleting reference certainly doesn not help advancing the discussion. Underscorer — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Underscorer (
talk •
contribs) 20:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- So
here is the article, as you edited it. You are new here in WP and there are a few things you are doing wrong.
- First of all, the part of the article above the table of contents, is called the "lead" and is described in WP:LEAD. If you read that, you will see that all the lead does, is summarize the body of the article, giving space and emphasis (what we call "weight" (see WP:WEIGHT) to the same extent things are found in the body . There should be nothing ( no content, and no reference) that is not discussed in more depth in the body of the article. Your edits don't follow that. A lot of new editors make that mistake, no big deal.
- Second, the content based on the Schueffel reference goes wrong in a few ways:
- First, it ignores the very first sentence of that reference, which is that there is no consensus on the definition. Leaving that out, is not OK.
- Second, the content assumes that Schueffel's definition has indeed become widely accepted. But for a Wikipedia article to say that, you would actually need a source that says that. What you have done there is what we call original research which is not allowed here. I am guessing that you come from academia or the like, and you are writing in Wikipedia as you would in say a review article, where you read the literature, and synthesize it, and provide references showing what you synthesized. But what we do here, is summarize what other sources say. This is enyclcopedia writing, which is a different genre. This is described some in the essay, WP:EXPERT, which you might find helpful.
- Finally, in actually naming Schueffel, the content comes across as promoting him, all the work he did, and his conclusions. (which is ~probably~ what drew the question from RichardWeiss above... and please see your Talk page for a question about this). The way we write here, is that if something is really accepted knowledge, we just say it in Wikipedia's voice, and if something is more contentious, we attribute it (something like this: "According to Peter Steuffel, fintech is blah blah blah") But we almost never say more than that.
- Those are just some quick thoughts. There is a learning curve to working in Wikipedia - everybody needs to be patient with each other. Jytdog ( talk) 20:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- So
here is the article, as you edited it. You are new here in WP and there are a few things you are doing wrong.
- Jytdog, the over and over again, the reference to the "Taming the Beast: A Scientific Definition of Fintech" gets deleted. I do not understand why and by whom... Deleting reference certainly doesn not help advancing the discussion. Underscorer — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Underscorer (
talk •
contribs) 20:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
- Ooof, this was re-added in 2022, at least this time the editor who added it wasn't one of the very many accounts that have existed only to add Patrick Schueffel sources. But ultimately it still fails as a primary source, never mind the general craziness of "scientifically" defining what is for all intents and purposes a marketing term. 50.232.188.150 ( talk) 01:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Why does "financial technology" need a definition beyond the obvious, "new financial technology". It isn't an industry. The industry is the "financial technology industry" or fintech industry. Volunteer1234 ( talk) 01:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed we're using "Fintech", "FinTech" and "fintech" throughout the article.
I propose for consistency we treat it as a regular noun, "fintech" because that's what I've seen the most around the place, e.g. the Cambridge Editorial style guide (“Use lower case letters and no hyphenation for phrases such as cleantech, medtech, fintech”).
If there's no objection I'll go through and update the article to use this style consistently.
The term "financial technology" is not in wide use, and could be applied to just about anything, for example ATMs and online banking. While there is no agreed definition of "Fintech" it is widely understood to refer to new firms that " aim to compete with traditional financial methods in the delivery of financial services." I propose renaming this article accordingly. JQ ( talk) 04:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ John Quiggin: It looks like you did a cut and paste move to enact this; the preferred method would simply be a page move to the new title that would retain the article's history clearly, as required by our license. I'm happy to do this for you, since there does not seem to have been any objection to your discussion here. Just let me know. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The article seems in general to be positively biased on the topic of blockchains. One sentence I'd like to bring to attention is the following: "In particular blockchains have the potential to reduce the cost of transacting in a financial system.[41]" I don't have access to the source. Using, however, common sense, can someone tell me how that would ever be possible?
Currently the costs of transaction in various blockchains are very high and if we are talking about Bitcoin in particular they'll get even more expensive when the last coin is mined. Sure, there are technologies built on top of the Blockchain that could potentially bring the costs down, but this has not really been proven in practice. And more importantly, no matter how low the costs, how could it ever be lower than a centralized database that "traditional" banking uses? It can't - it's physically impossible. As such that sentence is utterly incorrect.
I think it's a mistake confounding actual Fintech companies with crypto companies. Most economists don't even believe in crypto and we are currently seeing the house of cards that those companies are with FTX. 2A02:85F:E058:3D68:EC97:3CCD:C664:9645 ( talk) 17:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Community,
In a similar way the /info/en/?search=Finance is made, I would like to introduce the areas of Fintech.
As per my research, Fintech refers as an ecosystem that encompasses a range of dedicated areas such as Neobank, RegTech, WealthTech, InsurTech, each with their own focus.
Gathering new terms and definitions for the Fintech industry can be challenging, but I believe it's worth the effort to provide more detailed and precise information.
I will document and submit for approval the areas I am familiar with.🕵️♂️
Thank to @ MrOllie for advising me on such approach Charles Berthillon ( talk) 14:51, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that many of these neologisms are cheesy marketing attempts to create imaginary branding niches to for products or low quality scam companies. Given your rather blatant COI, it would be best to avoid writing in this area.
Sam Kuru
(talk) 15:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am respectful of the Wikipedia community.
- Fintech is my field of expertise, I am sorry you see that as a "blatant COI".
- I think there is some added value in feeding the page.
- You should have read the page 2 weeks ago: terms like InsurTech were published on the page; and Feel free to define
Neobank as a cheesy neologism. Same for regtech which is a key compliance concept for the future of Fintech. I you want I will not consider Wealthtech but someboby will have to define this area.
Charles Berthillon (
talk) 16:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you know what I'm talking about, Charles.
Sam Kuru
(talk) 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- no, you don't see. your comment is full of subjectivity.
- Please judge on my work not on what you think you know Charles Berthillon ( talk) 17:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you know what I'm talking about, Charles.
Sam Kuru
(talk) 17:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- C-Class Finance & Investment articles
- High-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- C-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- High-importance Computing articles
- C-Class software articles
- Mid-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Mid-importance
- All Software articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Mid-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Mid-importance
- All Websites articles
- All Computing articles