Gecko Fund is a €1 million grant programme created to fund the open-source projects that quietly underpin global trading infrastructure. APIs, serialisation libraries, data pipelines; the unglamorous stuff that financial platforms run on. The programme does not fund new projects looking for their first break. It funds existing tools that are already carrying serious weight but are not getting paid for it.

��

The Free Software Problem Nobody Talks About

��

Open-source software runs about 70% of businesses worldwide. In financial services, that number is probably higher. The same libraries and frameworks that power consumer apps also process trade orders, manage market data feeds, and handle risk calculations at major institutions. The estimated global demand-side value of open source is around $8.8 trillion.

The people maintaining it often work for free. Around 63% of maintainers of widely used projects lack adequate funding, according to research from Sovereign Tech. Some of the most depended-upon tools in existence are kept alive by one or two people who do it because they care, not because anyone is paying them to. That creates a quiet fragility that the industry has mostly chosen not to think about.

AI is making that harder to ignore. The same acceleration that speeds up software development also accelerates vulnerability discovery. A poorly maintained library with a known flaw is now a faster target than it was three years ago.

��

The First Grant Goes To a 17-Year-Old Project

��

Gecko Fund’s first award was €10,000 to Kryo, a Java serialisation framework built in 2009 and maintained since by two people across two continents. Kryo is used in high-performance data processing and trading environments. It had never received outside funding before this grant.

“Critical open-source work often happens quietly, even as major industries depend on it,” said Nathan Sweet, creator of Kryo. “We are grateful to EXANTE and Gecko Fund for making that dependence reciprocal.”

The choice is worth noting. Kryo is not a startup. It is not seeking attention. It is a tool that has been doing its job reliably for nearly two decades, mostly unacknowledged. Starting there says something about what the fund is actually trying to do.

��

Why EXANTE Is Doing This?

��

Anatoly Knyazev, co-founder of EXANTE and founder of Gecko Fund, framed the rationale plainly. “When we started building EXANTE more than fifteen years ago, open-source software made it possible to move quickly and solve problems that would otherwise have been out of reach. Our goal is not simply to fund software. It is to strengthen the communities and maintainers behind the infrastructure that modern finance depends on every day.”

Richard Forss, EXANTE’s Chief Technology Officer, made the operational case. “Nearly 70% of our critical technology stack relies on open-source software — and we’re far from alone. Open-source infrastructure is not a charity case. It is load-bearing technology that underpins modern businesses, financial markets, and critical services worldwide. Gecko Fund is our way of helping ensure that this infrastructure remains resilient, secure, and sustainable.”

The fund reviews applications quarterly. Grants range from €10,000 to €150,000 depending on scope and impact. Priority areas include Erlang/OTP, Scala, Java/JVM, JavaScript, developer tooling, and core infrastructure libraries with relevance to financial systems. Individuals, teams, communities, and organisations are all eligible to apply.

Applications are open at

The post EXANTE Launches €1M Gecko Fund To Strengthen The Open-Source Infrastructure Powering Global Financial Markets appeared first on 91̽��.

Well, for all intents and purposes, that’s revenue-based financing (RBF). It’s a funding model that’s become super popular among SaaS companies, e-commerce brands and subscription-based businesses that want growth capital without handing over a chunk of their company.

And since founders of starting to come more and more cautious about dilution, it’s not difficult to understand why.

��

So, What Is Revenue-Based Financing?

��

Revenue-based financing is a type of funding where a company receives capital in exchange for a percentage of its future revenue. Instead of repaying a fixed monthly loan amount, repayments rise and fall depending on how much money the business generates.

According to funding providers including Capchase, Uncapped and Clearco, businesses typically repay a fixed multiple of the amount borrowed over time, with repayments linked directly to revenue performance.

For example, a startup might receive £100,000 in funding and agree to repay £120,000 over time. If sales are strong, the debt gets paid off faster, but if revenue slows, repayments generally decrease as well.

Unlike venture capital, investors don’t receive equity, and unlike traditional loans, repayments aren’t usually fixed.

��

��

Why Do Founders Like It?

��

Let’s be honest, most founders don’t wake up excited about giving away ownership in their company. I mean, who would?��Revenue-based financing allows businesses to access capital while retaining control.

Now, this can be particularly attractive for founders who have steady revenue, don’t want to dilute their equity, need funding quickly and simply aren’t interested in raising a full venture round.

For businesses already generating income, RBF can sometimes feel like a more straightforward solution than months of investor meetings and pitch decks. After all, not every company wants to become a unicorn.

��

But There’s a Catch (Isn’t There Always?)

��

Of course, if revenue-based financing was perfect, everyone would use it. Thus, the biggest limitation is that it generally works best for companies that already have predictable revenue streams.

If your startup is still pre-revenue, there’s usually nothing for the lender to base repayments on.

It can also become more expensive than founders initially expect. While there may be no equity dilution, businesses are still paying a premium for access to capital. And that’s why founders need to look beyond the headline funding amount and understand exactly how much they’ll repay over the life of the agreement.

��

Which Businesses Use Revenue-Based Financing?

��

Revenue-based financing tends to be most popular among��SaaS companies, e-commerce brands, subscription businesses, marketplaces and digital-first businesses with recurring revenue. And the common theme here is predictability. Providers want confidence that revenue will continue flowing through the business, making repayments manageable.

Unsurprisingly, it’s much harder to structure this type of funding around businesses with highly seasonal or unpredictable income.

��

Is Revenue-Based Financing Replacing Venture Capital?

��

No, probably not, because nothing is normally quite as dramatic as this. Venture capital still plays a huge role in funding high-growth startups, particularly those pursuing aggressive expansion or operating in capital-intensive sectors. But, revenue-based financing is becoming another tool in the founder toolkit.

In recent years, many startups have become more focused on sustainable growth rather than growth at all costs. At the same time, investors have become more selective about where they deploy capital.

And that’s created an environment where alternative funding models are getting more attention.

��

Is It Right For Your Startup?

��

Like most funding decisions, the answer depends on the business. Revenue-based financing can be an attractive option for companies that already have revenue, want to maintain ownership and need capital to accelerate growth. But, it isn’t free money, and founders should carefully assess the total repayment cost before signing any agreement.

The good news is that startup funding is no longer a simple choice between venture capital and bank loans. There actually are more options now.

Thus, revenue-based financing sits somewhere in the middle, offering founders another route to growth without immediately giving away part of the company they’ve worked so hard to build.

The post What Is Revenue-Based Financing? appeared first on 91̽��.

Despite its unusual name, pig butchering has become one of the fastest-growing forms of financial fraud in the world, and it actually may be more of a familiar concept than you think. According to estimates referenced by cybersecurity experts and law enforcement agencies, these scams have cost victims more than $10 billion globally, with the FBI continuing to track the trend as it spreads across social media, messaging apps and cryptocurrency platforms.

And unlike many scams that rely on panic or urgency, pig butchering scams play the long game. It’s about being cool, calm and collected.

��

What Is A Pig Butchering Scam?

��

A pig butchering scam is a type of fraud where criminals spend weeks or even months building a relationship with a victim before convincing them to hand over money.

The name comes from the idea of “fattening up” the victim before the final financial hit. Building trust before ripping it all away.

According to Annmarie Giblin, Chief Compliance Officer and Deputy General Counsel at Cloaked,��“pig butchering is not just a scam where someone asks for money once. It is a grooming process designed to get the victim to trust the scammer enough to hand over more and more money over time.”

And this difference – the idea of it happening over time rather than in one fell swoop – is important to recognise, because many people still imagine scams as nothing more than a suspicious email or an unexpected phone call. Pig butchering scams, however, are often much more sophisticated and well thought out than this.

A scammer might start a conversation on WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram or even a dating app (absolutely brutal, I know). They’ll most likely seem friendly, successful and completely genuine, and in some cases, they spend months building rapport before money is ever mentioned.

��

��

Why Are These Scams So Effective?

��

Part of the reason pig butchering scams work is because they don’t feel like scams. Instead of immediately asking for money, scammers often encourage victims to make small investments first. They may direct them to what appears to be a legitimate investment platform and even allow them to withdraw profits initially. That is, they may actually make some money in the very beginning, which is often seen as the ultimate indication of trust and reassurance.

According to Giblin, “the scammer may let them withdraw a small amount at first, show fake investment growth or act like a patient mentor. All of that is designed to make the final loss much bigger.” And it strengthens the sense of trust.

This creates a dangerous feedback loop. The victim believes the system works because they’ve seen returns with their own eyes, and as a result, they may then invest larger sums, encourage friends or family to join or even borrow money to maximise what appears to be a lucrative opportunity.

Only later do they discover that the investment platform was fake all along and they’ve been part of an elaborate scheme.

��

Why Is Cryptocurrency So Often Involved?

��

Crypto isn’t the cause of pig butchering scams, but unfortunately, it has become a popular tool for fraudsters. Cryptocurrency transactions can be fast, difficult to reverse and can move across borders quickly, so for criminals, that makes it an attractive payment method. It’s a no-brainer, in fact.

You’ve probably seen videos online showing people feeding large amounts of cash into Bitcoin ATMs after receiving instructions from someone they’ve never met. In many cases, these machines are being used as part of broader fraud schemes.

The technology itself isn’t necessarily the problem though. The problem is that scammers have become very good at convincing victims that they’re participating in a legitimate investment opportunity, and that’s the problem.

��

Could Anyone Fall For It?

��

Many people assume they would spot a scam immediately – the whole, “it could never be me” scenario. But the reality may be less straightforward.

Pig butchering scams aren’t usually designed to trick reckless people. In fact, they’re actually designed to manipulate trust. The scammers are often patient, organised and highly skilled at understanding human behaviour. And that helps explain why victims can include retirees, professionals, business owners and experienced investors.

So, in other words, this isn’t necessarily a technology problem; it’s actually more of a psychology problem.

��

Why Don’t More Victims Report It?

��

One of the biggest challenges is that many victims feel embarrassed, and they often are.��After all, nobody wants to admit they handed money to a stranger they met online. But that stigma actually makes things worse, often times helping scammers continue operating.

As Giblin puts it,��“the shame belongs to the criminal, not the person who was targeted.” The more victims stay silent, the harder it becomes for authorities to understand the true scale of the problem. So, it’s definitely better for everybody in the long term if these crimes are spoken about, but that’s also easier said than done.

��

What Happens Next?

��

As AI-generated content, deepfakes and sophisticated social engineering techniques become more common, many experts expect scams like these to evolve further.

Fraudsters are increasingly able to create convincing online personas, fake websites and realistic investment dashboards. In fact, some may even use AI-generated voices or videos to build trust.

Of course, that doesn’t mean every online conversation is dangerous – that’s not the point. But it does mean consumers need to be more cautious than ever when money enters the conversation.

Thus, the rise of pig butchering scams is a reminder that modern fraud isn’t always about hacking computers. Sometimes, it’s about hacking people, and if the estimated $10 billion in losses is anything to go by, criminals are becoming very good at it.

The post What Is A Pig Butchering Scam? Behind The $10 Billion Fraud That Has Nothing To Do With Livestock appeared first on 91̽��.

The question in 2026 is no longer whether crypto fraud exists – that’s not up for debate, it clearly does – but rather, whether we are still underestimating its scale, sophistication and human impact. Further to this, are these negative attributes and events outliers or intrinsic components of the system?

Opinions on the issue vary dramatically, with some asserting that the biggest vulnerability in crypto is the safety and potenial fallibility of the technology itself, and others arguing that in fact, the biggest issue is the gap between how people think it works and how it actually functions.

��

A Knowledge Gap, Not Just a Technology Problem

��

Chris Brooks, Co-Founder at Crypto Asset Recovery, argues that most victims of crypto scams aren’t being “out-hacked”, but rather misled by misunderstanding.

He says the core issue is a knowledge gap, where users often don’t understand fundamental mechanics such as irreversible transactions, custody or the fact that exchanges are not equivalent to banks. In his view, scammers don’t need to break the system; they can simply exploit the gap between perception and reality, something that is already there.

He also points to major collapses like FTX not as anomalies, but as warnings. According to Brooks, the broader issue is that “trust outruns understanding,” meaning that users often engage with systems they skmply do not fully comprehend.

He adds that regulation such as the FCA’s emerging framework is a step forward, but it can’t replace education entirely. Indeed, rules can’t teach users what a seed phrase is or how custody actually works.

��

Education, Evolution and the “Early Internet” Comparison

��

A similar perspective comes from Ryan Horst, CEO at Altcoin Pro, who argues that crypto fraud is largely a symptom of early-stage technological adoption.

He draws comparisons to the early internet era, where scams and fraud were widespread before standards matured. In his view, crypto is undergoing the same cycle; one where knowledge lags behind innovation, creating opportunities for bad actors.

Horst also stresses an important distinction often raised across the industry: that is, not all major failures represent failures of blockchain itself. Instead, collapses such as FTX, Celsius, BlockFi and Voyager are framed as failures of centralised intermediaries holding user funds.

At the same time howver, he acknowledges that decentralised finance is not risk-free either, pointing to protocol exploits, rug pulls and smart contract vulnerabilities. These issues, he argues, reflect growing pains rather than structural flaws.

He adds that regulatory progress��– including the UK’s FCA framework – is part of a broader maturation process, but that long-term resilience will depend just as much on education, security tooling and user behaviour as it will on formal oversight.

��

��

“Crypto Fraud Is Underestimated” – But Not Always Where People Think

��

Alex Witt, General Partner at Verda Ventures, also highlights the role of misunderstanding in driving losses, particularly around custody and self-sovereignty.

He argues that many users treat exchanges like traditional banks, which creates exposure when platforms fail or are mismanaged. At the same time, he emphasises that self-custody introduces its own learning curve, especially around private keys and transaction irreversibility.

On illicit activity, Witt asserts that crypto is often misunderstood in public debate. While fraud and misuse exist, he argues that blockchain transparency can actually make transactions more traceable than cash-based systems.

He also emphasises that regulation is improving market maturity but will not remove user error or sophisticated scams entirely.

��

The Shift Towards AI-Driven, Long-Form Deception

��

From a legal perspective, Louise Abbott, Crypto Fraud Partner at Keystone Law, says the nature of scams is evolving rapidly.

Rather than simple fake investment offers, she highlights a shift towards highly engineered, long-running social manipulation schemes. These increasingly use AI-generated content, deepfake videos, cloned voices and impersonation of financial professionals or celebrities.

According to Abbott, victims are often drawn into scams over weeks or months, building trust before being directed to fraudulent platforms controlled entirely by criminals.

She also notes that many of these cases involve organised criminal networks, and in some instances, they’re even linked to wider serious criminal activity, something that perhaps isn’t understood enough. Importantly, she argues that many of the most significant failures in the sector are driven by governance issues and fraud in centralised entities, rather than flaws in blockchain technology itself.

��

Regulation As A Sign of Progress, But Not a Complete Solution

��

Suhail Mayor, Associate at BCLP, views regulatory developments like the FCA’s recently announced crypto regime as a positive step towards market maturity.

But still, he highlights that the system is built on trade-offs. While platforms are being asked to take greater responsibility for due diligence and monitoring, decentralised activity and offshore platforms may remain harder to capture consistently.

He also raises a structural concern to be aware of. That is, regulatory frameworks often rely heavily on industry-led enforcement, which could create inconsistencies or serious conflicts in practice.

In his view, the UK is moving in the right direction, but long-term effectiveness will depend on how regulation adapts to decentralised, cross-border financial systems, and that remains to be seen.

��

The Recovery Problem: When Funds Disappear Across Borders

��

Alex Ferrer, Director of Forensic Investigations at Crypto Legal, sheds light on what happens after fraud occurs.

He notes that victims are often ordinary users interacting with what appear to be legitimate platforms. But, by the time fraud is discovered, assets are frequently moved across multiple wallets and jurisdictions, making recovery extremely difficult. It’s a scam that’s difficult to come back from.

Ferrer argues that regulation alone can’t prevent fraud. Instead, he asserts that there’s a need for faster cross-border cooperation, stronger due diligenc and improved consumer education, alongside rapid reporting systems.

Further to this, he believes that fraud networks are highly adaptive, operating internationally and evolving quickly in response to new technologies and trends. Thus, regulation is simply too slow when it comes to keeping up with criminal activity that is constantly changing, evolving and improving in terms of sophistication.

��

Ben McKenzie On the “Financial Illusion” and Narrative-Driven Markets

��

Alongside industry experts, actor and filmmaker Ben McKenzie has taken a more sceptical public stance on crypto markets. Important to note, however, is that McKenzie isn’t just a celebrity and film star with a strong opinion on crypto
– he also holds a degree�� in Economics from the University of Virginia and has long been particularly interested in financial fraud and crypto more specificallly.

In his documentary, “Everyone Is Lying to You for Money”, as covered in interviews including Deadline and Vice reporting on the project, McKenzie argues that crypto often operates within what he describes as a broader “illusion” in modern finance, in which narrative, hype and belief can outweigh underlying value or structure.

His critique focuses heavily on the role of storytelling in financial markets, particularly how marketing, celebrity influence and social momentum can contribute to speculative behaviour.

From this perspective, crypto fraud isn’t just about isolated scams or several individual bad actors, but rather about systems in which belief can sometimes run ahead of verification��– a dynamic that, he suggests, has been repeatedly exposed in major collapses and hype cycles.

��

So Are We Underestimating Crypto Fraud?

��

Across all perspectives, there seems to be a broad agreement on one point – crypto fraud is real, evolving and often more socially engineered than technically sophisticated.

But, where opinions diverge is on interpretation of crypto fraud. Industry voices tend to frame it as an education and maturity gap; legal and forensic experts highlight increasing sophistication and global criminal coordination; while more “hybrid” experts and sceptical commentators like McKenzie emphasise structural risks driven by narrative, hype and belief.

What emerges is less a clear conclusion (unfortunately) and more several significant tensions that needs to be grappled with��– between innovation and understanding, between decentralisation and accountability, and between financial opportunity and financial illusion.

In that sense, the question may not be whether crypto fraud is underestimated but ratherwhether the industry and its users are still catching up to what the system actually is at its very core.

��

Our Experts:

• Oscar Asly: Group CEO of M4Markets
• Chris Brooks: Co-Founder, Marketing and Boutique Wallet Recovery at Crypto Asset Recovery
• Ryan Horst: CEO at Altcoin Pro
• Alex Witt: General Partner at Verda Ventures
• Louise Abbott: Crypto Fraud Partner at Keystone Law
• Suhail Mayor: Associate, Financial Services Disputes and Investigations, BCLP
• Alex Ferrer:��Director of Forensic Investigations at Crypto Legal

��

Oscar Asly, Group CEO of M4Markets

��

��

“I think the harm is still being underestimated, especially at the retail end of the market. Too often the debate focuses on whether crypto itself is good or bad, when the more immediate issue is that many consumers are using financial infrastructure they do not properly understand.

“A customer may know that the price of a coin can rise or fall, but that is very different from understanding custody, private keys, wallet security, liquidity, counterparty risk, or the fact that some transactions cannot be reversed. Education should also extend beyond the assets themselves. People need to understand the difference between holding crypto with a centralized custodian and using a non-custodial wallet. Self-custody can significantly reduce counterparty risk, but it also places full responsibility for safeguarding assets on the individual. Neither model is inherently safer unless users fully understand the trade-offs

“We also need to be honest about the damage done by exchange failures, rug pulls, fake projects and high-profile collapses such as FTX. The technology can be innovative, and in many emerging markets digital assets have grown because people are looking for faster payments and broader access. But adoption without education is dangerous, and adoption without accountable firms is worse.

“Regulation is a positive step, but it will not rebuild trust by itself. Firms need clearer disclosure, stronger custody standards, better fraud monitoring, better consumer education and a higher bar for how these products are marketed.”

��

Chris Brooks, Co-Founder, Marketing and Boutique Wallet Recovery at Crypto Asset Recovery

��

��

“Yes, crypto fraud is underestimated, and the real problem isn’t the technology. It’s the knowledge gap. Most people who come to us weren’t outsmarted by some brilliant hacker. They simply didn’t understand what they owned. They didn’t know a transaction can’t be reversed, that an exchange isn’t a bank, or that holding “custody” means controlling keys they never actually held. Scammers don’t need to break the system. They just exploit the space between what people think crypto is and how it really works.

“On the bigger collapses, FTX wasn’t an outlier. It was a warning that too many people treated. Rug pulls and exchange failures keep working for the same reason: trust outruns understanding. And the debate over how much crypto fuels illicit activity often distracts from the quieter, more common harm, which is ordinary people losing their savings through honest confusion.

“Regulation like the FCA’s authorization rules is genuine progress, but rules alone won’t close the gap. A framework can’t teach a beginner what a seed phrase is or why writing it down matters. Until education keeps pace with adoption, the safeguards will always be one step behind the losses.”

��

Ryan Horst, CEO at Altcoin Pro

��

��

“One of the most misunderstood aspects of cryptocurrency is that many of its biggest failures have not been failures of the technology itself. They have been failures of education.

“Every major technological revolution creates a period where knowledge lags behind innovation. The internet experienced widespread fraud and scams in its early years, and artificial intelligence is now facing similar challenges with deepfakes and impersonation. Cryptocurrency is no different. A knowledge gap naturally creates opportunities for bad actors, making education one of the most effective forms of consumer protection.

“It is also important to distinguish between failures of centralized companies and failures of cryptocurrency itself. High-profile collapses such as FTX, Celsius, BlockFi, and Voyager are often cited as examples of crypto’s risks, yet these were centralized financial intermediaries that took custody of customer assets and assumed risks on behalf of their customers. One of cryptocurrency’s greatest innovations is the ability for individuals to hold and control their own digital assets without relying on a third party. By learning how to securely self-custody their assets, users can eliminate many of the counterparty risks that contributed to these failures. Understanding wallets, private keys, custody, transaction mechanics, and basic security practices is therefore fundamental to participating safely in the digital asset ecosystem.

“That is not to say decentralized finance (DeFi) has been without challenges. The ecosystem has experienced protocol exploits, rug pulls, and fraudulent projects, reinforcing the importance of due diligence and sensible risk management. While scams can often be avoided through proper research, protocol exploits are different. Some have resulted from users interacting with outdated smart contracts or older versions of decentralized applications (DApps), while others stemmed from vulnerabilities in code that were only discovered after deployment.

“This pattern is not unique to blockchain technology. Most transformative technologies experience higher failure rates in their early years before engineering practices, security standards, and regulations mature. Commercial aviation is a good example. In its early decades, accidents were far more common than they are today. Through continuous engineering improvements, stronger safety standards, and decades of learning, air travel has become one of the safest forms of transportation in the world. Blockchain technology is following a similar path of rapid iteration and improving security. The difference is that, while DeFi exploits can result in financial losses, they do not pose risks to human life. As the ecosystem matures, security audits, formal verification, bug bounty programs, insurance solutions, and user education continue to strengthen the industry’s resilience.

“Concerns around illicit activity are also frequently raised. While cryptocurrencies have been used in criminal activity, blockchain transactions are permanently recorded on public ledgers, making many transactions easier to trace than cash. Current research suggests illicit activity represents only a small percentage of overall blockchain transaction volume, although continued improvements in compliance and enforcement remain important.

“Regulatory developments, including the UK’s proposed FCA authorization framework, represent another positive step toward improving transparency, accountability, and consumer protection. While regulation can help establish higher industry standards, it cannot eliminate investment risk. Like any emerging asset class, responsible participation ultimately depends on informed decision-making.

“For this reason, we believe the future of digital assets depends as much on education as it does on technological innovation. As the industry continues to mature, the organizations that will create the greatest long-term value are those that prioritize education, transparency, and responsible participation, giving individuals the knowledge and confidence to navigate the digital asset ecosystem safely.”

��

Alex Witt, General Partner at Verda Ventures at Verda Ventures

��

��

“Yes, crypto fraud is still underestimated by the public, but the core issue is education, not the technology itself.

“Decentralised systems like Bitcoin empower users with true ownership via self-custody, but irreversibility and complex custody mechanics create steep learning curves. Many treat exchanges like banks and fall for phishing, rug pulls, or support scams. FTX exposed custodial risks dramatically.

“Illicit use exists but is overstated relative to cash; on-chain transparency often aids enforcement (permanent on-chain record visible to everyone!) more than traditional finance. Regulatory progress like UK FCA rules signals growing maturity, reducing some risks through clearer standards, but won’t eliminate user error or sophisticated attacks.

“What needs to change: Better onboarding education, default secure tools (e.g., multisig defaults), user-friendly verification, and a healthy skepticism around the latest hyped crypto trends (NFTs, GameFi, DAOs, etc.).”

��

Louise Abbott, Crypto Fraud Partner at Keystone Law��

��

��

“I have seen first-hand that one of the sector’s greatest challenges is not necessarily the underlying technology but the significant gap in consumer understanding. Many individuals do not fully appreciate the distinction between regulated and unregulated products, the implications of self-custody, or the fact that blockchain transactions are generally irreversible. These misunderstandings can increase exposure to scams, fraud, and unsuitable high-risk investments.

“The biggest crypto-fraud trend in the UK right now is the shift from simple fake investment scams to highly engineered, long-running social manipulation schemes powered by AI, deepfakes, and professional-looking crypto platforms. Fraudsters are now heavily using AI-generated celebrity endorsements, fake news interviews, cloned voices, live deepfake video calls or fake financial advisers.

“The frequency and magnitude of cryptocurrency fraud continues to increase. It is hugely underestimated and the risk is very real. The sophistication of the fraudster has increased as people have become more sceptical or scam aware. The industry’s track record has undoubtedly been affected by major exchange failures, frauds, and collapses such as FTX, which caused devastating losses for consumers. However, it is important to distinguish between misconduct by centralised businesses and the underlying blockchain technology. Many of the most significant failures have resulted from poor governance, inadequate controls and, in some cases, outright criminal behaviour rather than inherent flaws in distributed ledger technology.

“Many scams involve the fraudsters convincing the victim that they have entered onto a legitimate trading platform where they purchase and trade cryptocurrency. Victims are approached through social media with scammers spending weeks and months building trust. Eventually, they introduce a crypto investment opportunity. The victim is encouraged to invest via an app that the scammer controls. In most of my cases, I trace the funds back to wallets or ledgers being controlled by serious organised criminal gangs linked with people trafficking, terrorism or child sexual exploitation.

“Governments and regulators have been moving towards a more regulated regime, which this sector is in desperate need of. The legitimate exchanges do not shy away from this. However, the UK remain behind the other key jurisdictions. We have seen the slow introduction of some legislation concerning AML and promotion of crypto products, but in the large part, consumers in the UK remain hugely exposed to fraud, with limited recovery options. The UK’s move towards a comprehensive regulatory framework is a welcome and necessary development. Bringing crypto firms within the FCA’s regulatory perimeter should improve standards of governance, consumer protection, and financial crime controls. Consumer education, robust due diligence, and effective enforcement remain essential if confidence in the sector is to grow.”

��

Suhail Mayor,��Associate, Financial Services Disputes and Investigations, BCLP

��

��

“The FCA’s new crypto regime represents a welcome step towards a more credible and resilient market. By requiring platforms to conduct structured due diligence before admitting assets and to take the lead in detecting and preventing market abuse, the UK is signalling that participation is reserved for serious, well-governed firms, which should strengthen institutional trust over time. The FCA is clear, however, that the regime will not remove all risk, and consumers should understand that scam tokens and fraudulent activity may still arise.

“The framework also reflects deliberate trade-offs. Its industry-led model places real enforcement responsibility on platforms, raising legitimate questions about consistency and conflicts of interest. And while the prohibitions on market manipulation apply globally, the platform-centric monitoring model means that activity occurring wholly outside UK venues – including decentralised finance – is less directly captured in practice.

“In my view, these structural features will need ongoing attention as the regime evolves, particularly in a cross-border market where regulatory divergence can be exploited. The UK has made a credible start, but long-term success will depend on how effectively the rules are implemented and how quickly they adapt to an increasingly decentralised market.”

��

Alex Ferrer, Director of Forensic Investigations at Crypto Legal

��

��

“Crypto fraud is still significantly underestimated because the technology continues to evolve faster than public understanding. Most victims we encounter are not inexperienced or reckless investors. They are ordinary people who have been convinced they are using legitimate investment platforms, exchanges or wallet services. By the time they realise they have been deceived, the assets have often been transferred through multiple wallets and jurisdictions, making recovery considerably more complex.

“Regulatory progress is encouraging and should improve standards across the industry, but regulation alone cannot eliminate fraud. Criminal groups are highly organised, operate internationally and rapidly adapt their methods to exploit new technologies and market trends. Effective consumer protection requires more than compliance rules. It depends on better public education, stronger due diligence by exchanges, faster cross-border cooperation and prompt reporting by victims. As digital assets become more mainstream, trust in the sector will ultimately be determined not only by innovation, but by its ability to prevent, detect and respond to fraud effectively.”

The post The Age of Financial Illusion: Are We Underestimating Crypto Fraud? appeared first on 91̽��.

On 30 June, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published its final cryptoasset regulatory framework, introducing a comprehensive set of rules that will now require crypto firms operating in the UK to meet many of the same standards as traditional financial institutions. According to the FCA, the new regime is designed and intended to create clear standards for firms that allow consumers to buy, trade and hold cryptoassets, while also strengthening consumer protection and market integrity.

This move is significant both for the UK and the crypto industry globally, marking a significant shift in how crypto is regulated in the UK. It also reflects a broader global trend as governments attempt to balance innovation with oversight, realising that there are some really important issues to consider when it comes to managing crypto.

��

What Has Changed for Crypto In the UK?

��

Until now, crypto firms operating in the UK have mostly just been subject to anti-money laundering requirements and financial promotions rules rather than a full financial services regulatory framework. This has been the major difference between companies and actors operating within the crypto world as opposed to the traditional financial sector.

According to the FCA, up until now, crypto businesses haven’t been regulated under the same authorisation and supervision regime that applies to traditional financial services firms. But, the new framework changes that by bringing a wide range of cryptoasset activities within the FCA’s regulatory perimeter. This means that crypto companies won’t be able to do whatever they like without concern over being restricted by broader regulating authorities. Now, they need to play by the same (or more similar) rules.

Under the new rules, firms involved in crypto trading, custody, issuing stablecoins and other cryptoasset services will need FCA authorisation to operate in the UK. They’ll also be expected to comply with standards relating to financial resilience, governance, consumer protection and market conduct – a far cry from what they were expected to do and how they were expected to behave before.

��

��

What Are The New Rules in the UK?

��

According to the FCA, all firms covered by the regime will be required to meet financial resilience requirements, including holding appropriate capital and conducting stress testing. The regulator is also introducing new market integrity rules designed to tackle insider trading, market manipulation and other forms of market abuse. Basically, they’re trying to make the industry more robust and safer for those operating within it.

The framework also includes specific requirements for stablecoins, which are cryptoassets designed to maintain a stable value relative to a traditional currency. The FCA has introduced standards covering transparency, operational resilience and risk management for firms operating in this area.

FCA representatives have confirmed the intention to make crypto as safe and controlled as regular financial services, asserting that the intention is to ensure that crypto operates based on a foundation built for sustainable growth within the sector.

Between September 2026 and February 2027, the FCA’s authorisation process is expected to open, which allows businesses operating in the crypto industry to apply for and obtain authorisation to practice legally in the financial sector in the UK. The final deadline for the FCA’s new crypto regime is set to be fully in force by 25 October 2027.

��

How Does The UK Compare With Other Countries?

��

The UK’s approach to crypto regulation arrives as regulators around the world are developing their own frameworks for digital assets.

The European Union has already implemented its Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), creating a unified licensing regime across member states. According to reporting by the Financial Times, firms operating in the EU must obtain the appropriate authorisation to continue serving customers, leading to a significant reduction in the number of crypto firms able to operate in the bloc.

The UK framework shares some similarities with European efforts in that it seeks to bring crypto within a formal regulatory structure. However, the UK has generally emphasised applying existing financial services principles to crypto activities rather than creating an entirely separate system.

In other parts of the world, regulatory approaches still vary quite significantly. Some jurisdictions have adopted stricter frameworks focused on control and safety, while others have focused more on creating environments designed to attract crypto businesses and investment. Indeed, industry experts and actors alike tend to have fairly opposing views on the topic.

��

Why Are Countries Competing For Crypto Businesses?

��

Crypto regulation is no longer just a consumer protection issue. Indeed, it’s also become an economic and strategic one, and this is where a great deal of concern comes from.

Governments recognise that digital assets, tokenisation, blockchain infrastructure and related financial technologies could become significant parts of future financial systems, and as a result, many countries want to attract companies, talent and investment linked to the sector.

According to the FCA, one objective of the UK’s framework is to help cement the country’s position as a global hub for crypto and digital asset innovation while maintaining appropriate safeguards for consumers and markets.

This creates a delicate balancing act. Regulators must decide how to encourage innovation and investment without creating conditions that expose consumers to excessive risk.

The debate has become particularly prominent following a series of high-profile failures in the crypto sector over recent years, including exchange collapses like that of notorious FTX on top of allegations of fraud that prompted calls for stronger oversight around the world.

The question being asked by many has become whether focusing on the potential economic benefits of leading the crypto industry means disregarding safety and control. That is, does it have to be one or the other, or is it possible to get the best of both worlds?

��

Bringing Crypto Closer To Mainstream Finance

��

The FCA’s latest framework doesn’t eliminate the risks associated with cryptoassets, though. The regulator has repeatedly stated that crypto remains a high-risk area and that consumers should understand the risks before investing.

But, what the rules and their implementation do represent, however, is a major shift in how crypto is viewed by regulators and what their approach is going to be in the UK.

Rather than treating digital assets as a largely separate corner of the financial system, the UK is moving towards regulating crypto firms using many of the same principles that govern traditional financial services. According to the FCA, the aim is to create clearer standards around how firms manage risk, protect customers and operate within the market.

For the crypto industry, that means greater scrutiny; for regulators, it means greater oversight; and for the UK, it marks another step towards integrating digital assets into the broader financial framework.

The question is, what will regulators in other countries do?

The post UK Puts Crypto Under The Same Regulatory Umbrella As Traditional Finance With New FCA Rules appeared first on 91̽��.

The wider Google Finance update also includes portfolio consolidation – a single dashboard pulling together a user’s holdings – and “market intel” tasks that can be set as recurring briefings. Those features are live on the web now and will roll out to the app in the coming months. What’s new and significant about the app launch, though, isn’t the portfolio tools – it’s the Key Moments layer.

��

Why Key Moments Is The Interesting Part

��

Most finance apps show you what a stock did, but Key Moments is Google’s attempt to show you why.

The feature uses AI to surface the most noteworthy events affecting a stock’s price – earnings announcements, analyst upgrades, news events, macro shifts – and presents them as an explanation for the movement a user sees in their watchlist. A different proposition from a price chart.

For the average investor, understanding a stock’s movement is rarely straightforward. It often means juggling multiple platforms, only to find the same few facts repeated across dozens of headlines with conflicting interpretations. Stitching it into a coherent explanation of why something happened takes time most people don’t have. An AI layer that does that automatically, inside an app they’re already checking, is a valuable product improvement – if it works reliably.

That last qualification is the one to watch because AI-generated market explanations are only valuable if they’re accurate and timely. A Key Moments explanation that surfaces 48 hours after a price move, or that misidentifies the primary driver, creates a worse experience than no explanation at all. The feature’s utility will depend entirely on the quality and speed of the underlying model – and that’s not something a launch announcement can tell you.

��

What This Means For Fintech Apps Built On Data And UX

��

This launch poses the greatest threat to fintech startups that stake their entire value proposition on simple data aggregation and clean, intuitive interfaces. Robinhood, Trading 212, and their contemporaries initially secured their market position by democratising access to financial data, swapping complex tools for intuitive, user-friendly experiences. Now, Google Finance’s app is positioning itself to capture that same demographic by tackling those exact utility needs.

The threat is less about brokerage functionality than about attention and interface ownership. Google’s app doesn’t let you trade. What it does is try to become the default layer where users check their portfolios, read market context and understand price movements – the pre-trade research experience that trading apps have relied on to drive daily engagement. If Google captures that habit, it reduces the ambient usage that keeps users loyal to standalone apps between transactions.

Whether it succeeds depends on a concept Google has historically struggled with in consumer products: habit formation. The company can build a technically capable product and distribute it at scale through Android, but turning a finance app into something people open every morning rather than occasionally is a different challenge. The history of Google consumer product launches is full of capable tools that never became default behaviours.

��

Is the “Google Threat” Still What It Used To Be?

��

In the past, Google’s entry into a market was an immediate alarm bell, as its distribution power was nearly insurmountable. That dynamic still exists, but the playing field has become far more complex.

The fintech apps that have built strong positions in retail investing have done so through a combination of community, trust and product depth that goes beyond what a first-party Google app is likely to replicate quickly. Robinhood has social features, margin accounts and an established user base with strong habitual engagement. Trading 212 has built trust across European markets through years of consistency. Those aren’t things that a well-designed Android app dislodges in a single launch cycle.

Rather than an immediate disruption, it’s more realistic to view Google’s move as a competitive marker – a signal of intent that the market is shifting. It shows that Google sees retail investor attention as worth competing for and is willing to invest in AI features to do it. Founders in the market data space shouldn’t view this as a defeat, but as a turning point. Google hasn’t won, but they have effectively reset the bar for what a modern, context-rich investing experience looks like. The race to integrate AI into the user experience is officially on.

The post Does Google’s Finance App Pose A New Threat To Fintech? appeared first on 91̽��.

For years, cross-border payment providers have treated SMEs as smaller versions of large corporations. The usual logic is to take enterprise infrastructure, simplify the pitch, reduce a few limits and call it an SME product.

But globally operating SMEs do not work like that.

A software studio paying contractors across five countries does not need the same infrastructure as a multinational treasury department. A creator platform distributing revenue to hundreds of partners cannot wait months for onboarding and custom integrations. These businesses need control and speed from tools that stay simple to run.

They are international from day one. But they are not enterprise. And the market keeps offering them either tools that are too basic, or infrastructure that is too heavy.

��

The SME Has Changed

��

The new SME hires remotely, sells globally, works with distributed teams, accepts payments in multiple currencies and often operates across both fiat and digital asset rails. Its finance function may still be one or two people, but its operational reality is already international.

That creates a mismatch: business models have globalised faster than the financial infrastructure built to support them.

For these companies, the question is rarely “how do we access more banking products?” It is more practical: how do we accept money from international clients, track what came in, manage balances, pay partners, settle into fiat when needed and avoid manual reconciliation? That is not an enterprise treasury problem. It is an operating problem.

Enterprise Infrastructure Is Not Always Beneficial

��

Enterprise payment infrastructure has its place. Large companies need layered controls, custom integrations, approval chains and dedicated treasury tools.

The problem starts when the same logic is sold to companies that do not have enterprise resources. For SMEs, complexity is not sophistication, it is a cost. Every extra integration, unclear fee, compliance delay, manual approval and hidden settlement step becomes operational drag.

A large company can absorb that drag. An SME often cannot. In many cases, the founder, CFO or operations lead is also the person checking payout statuses, answering contractors, reconciling invoices and trying to understand why a transfer arrived short.

This is where many cross-border payment providers miss the SME market. They build powerful systems, but those systems assume the customer has the internal machinery to use them properly.

��

Basic Crypto Tools Are Not Enough Either

��

Crypto has offered a partial answer. Stablecoins, wallets and blockchain-based settlement have shown businesses that international money movement can be faster, more transparent and less dependent on legacy banking corridors.

But simply sending and receiving crypto is not the same as payment infrastructure.

A wallet address helps move money, but it does not handle invoicing. A payment link can collect funds, but it does not make reconciliation any easier. And while stablecoin transfers can speed up settlement, they do not automatically provide reporting, treasury management, payout controls or a smooth experience for the people receiving payments.

Moving funds is the easy part. The harder question is whether that movement can be managed.

This is the gap many providers ignore. On one side, SMEs have basic crypto tools that are fast but operationally thin. On the other, they have enterprise-grade systems that are powerful but expensive, slow and complex.

��

The Real Gap Is Right-Sized Infrastructure

��

The market does not need another “enterprise-lite” product. Instead, there is a clear need for infrastructure built around the real workflows of globally operating SMEs.

Pricing should be clear. SMEs do not have time to reverse-engineer FX spreads, payout fees, minimum commitments and hidden intermediary costs. Predictability is how small finance teams protect margins.

Fiat and crypto should not feel like separate worlds either. Many digital businesses already think in both: they may receive stablecoins, pay contractors in crypto, settle part of the balance into fiat and keep another part for liquidity. Infrastructure should reflect that reality instead of forcing teams to stitch together wallets, exchanges, banks and payout tools.

The recipient experience matters too. In payout-heavy businesses, contractors, creators, affiliates and partners are central to how the business runs. If getting paid is confusing, delayed or expensive, the platform’s reputation suffers.

��

What SMEs Actually Need

��

For SMEs, the best payment infrastructure is something they stop thinking about: client payments arrive; balances are visible; payouts are trackable; fees are clear. Contractors know what they received. Finance teams can reconcile without rebuilding the payment story manually.

This is the category we are building Performa for: digital-native SMEs that need international finance tools without being pushed into enterprise-level infrastructure. The platform brings crypto and fiat operations into one workspace, helping businesses manage pay-ins, treasury movement, payouts and settlement without stitching together several disconnected providers. The point is to give global SMEs an operating layer that matches the way they already work.

The market should not treat SMEs as failed enterprises. Their advantage is speed. Their infrastructure should protect that, not suffocate it.

The post Global SMEs Are Being Sold Enterprise Payment Infrastructure They Don’t Need appeared first on 91̽��.

The Qashio-NEXA partnership is a indicator of something broader. SMEs account for over 94% of companies in the UAE and contribute more than half of non-oil GDP, yet financial technology in the Gulf spent most of its first decade focused on consumer payments and enterprise banking. The tools that gave large corporations real-time spend control, automated compliance and data-driven access to capital are now arriving for small businesses – and change is accelerating faster than anticipated.

Over 500 fintech companies now operate across the GCC, up from fewer than ten in 2018. Saudi Arabia’s Fintech Saudi initiative and UAE hubs including ADGM and DIFC have created a regulatory environment that actively attracts both homegrown and international players. African fintechs including Paymob, MNT-Halan and Flutterwave are using Dubai as a regional base to reach Gulf SME markets, bringing payment infrastructure and credit solutions built for emerging market conditions into one of the world’s most liquid investment environments.

��

What’s Actually Changing On The Ground

��

The shift is most visible in the finance function itself. Where Gulf SMEs once relied on manual data entry, spreadsheet reconciliation and delayed reporting, AI-powered tools now handle receipt capture automatically – extracting TRN numbers, vendor names and transaction data instantly – while real-time dashboards give business owners visibility across all spending, cash flow and budgets without waiting for month-end.

The ripple effects are substantial; by using cleaner, AI-verified financial data, SMEs are changing their relationship with credit. Banks and alternative lenders that were reluctant to extend financing without reliable financial history now have access to verified data through platforms like Qashio, which has partnered with Dubai Chambers to reach SMEs across its network. Dubai Chambers represents 94% of companies operating in the UAE, making the distribution potential considerable.

NEXA AI Lab’s contribution to the partnership is the implementation and measurement layer: AI audits to identify where automation delivers the fastest return, ConvoAI for 24/7 financial data access, and the infrastructure to make AI adoption measurable rather than aspirational. The combination of spend management hardware (corporate cards), software (automated workflows) and AI advisory is the model other Gulf fintech players are likely to follow.

��

��

The Startups Building It

��

Qashio remains the most complete SME spend management solution in the UAE, covering corporate cards, expense automation and embedded finance from a single platform. NEXA AI Lab’s partnership extends its reach into AI implementation and operational support.

Paymob, which secured a full UAE Central Bank licence in 2025, is building regional payment infrastructure for SMEs across the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman. MNT-Halan, which expanded from Egypt into Dubai in 2026, brings salary financing and credit products developed for underserved SME markets. Flutterwave is expanding GCC operations with cross-border payment and treasury tools targeting the same segment.

These companies focus on SME credit and working capital rather than consumer payments. This segment, historically ignored by Gulf fintechs, is now commercially viable to serve at scale thanks to AI automation.

��

What The Next Wave Looks Like

��

The trajectory points toward always-on AI operations becoming standard for Gulf SMEs within two to three years. Real-time spend control, automated compliance and instant access to financial data – capabilities that required enterprise-level investment five years ago – are now accessible to businesses with ten employees and a corporate card.

Embedded finance is reshaping how Gulf SMEs access working capital. Platforms like Qashio now bake tailored payment cycles and working capital tools right into the spend management experience. For SMEs, this eliminates tedious bank applications, turning real-time, verified transaction histories into immediate funding opportunities. The regulatory support from Fintech Saudi and the UAE’s open banking framework makes this model significantly easier to build in the Gulf than in most other markets.

For anyone building or running a business in the GCC, the takeaway is clear: the tools to automate your finance function, improve your credit profile and reduce the hours your team spends on manual processing are now available and accessible.

The Gulf fintech wave spent its first decade building the pipes. It’s now building the products that run through them – and SMEs are finally first in line.

The post How AI Finance Automation Is Supercharging Gulf SMEs appeared first on 91̽��.

Revolut posted £1 billion in profit in 2024 and generated £1.1 billion in EBITDA. Monzo reported revenue above £1 billion and pre-tax profit of £53.5 million, up from £13.9 million the year before, according to Reuters. Between them, those two companies account for roughly 50% of UK fintech revenue – the sector looks healthy from a distance.

Take a closer look, and you’ll see there’s a lot more going on. Curve, which once had ambitions of a $50 to $60 billion valuation and raised more than £250 million since 2016, has sold to Lloyds for £120 million – less than half what it raised. GoCardless is heading for a discounted exit via a £920 million sale to Mollie, below its peak valuation. The median EBITDA margin across UK fintech improved from -97% in 2022 to -6.4% in 2024 as companies cut costs hard. And excluding Revolut’s £1.1 billion contribution, the entire rest of the UK fintech sector combined produced just £100 million in EBITDA last year.

��

One Decision Made Years Ago

��

The divide between the winners and the distressed exits doesn’t trace back to luck or market timing. It traces back to a strategic choice made years before the funding environment changed: whether to build for unit economics and profitability from early on, or to chase growth at all costs and worry about the rest later.

Revolut and Monzo chose the former – both pushed hard on efficiency as the cheap capital era ended, reached positive EBITDA sustainably and built revenue models that could actually support their scale. The companies now struggling chose the latter – raised at inflated valuations during the years when capital was essentially free, scaled aggressively without a clear path to profitability and are now selling at discounts or restructuring in a market where investors have stopped accepting “we’ll figure out the margins later” as a plan.

The data speaks for itself, showing exactly this evolution across the industry. While 17 major UK fintech companies achieved profitability in 2023, that number rose to 22 the following year. The mantra across the industry has moved to “low growth but high efficiency”. It’s a direct reversal of the logic that defined the 2019 to 2022 boom years, and the companies that didn’t start making that shift early enough are the ones now selling for less than they raised.

��

What The Curve Case Study Illustrates

��

Curve is the most instructive case study because the distance between ambition and outcome is so stark.
The company set out to build a supercard product that consolidated multiple bank cards into one – a compelling consumer idea that attracted serious investment and real users. But the unit economics never caught up with the vision. After a decade of trying, it sold for £120 million to Lloyds, a company it was arguably trying to make irrelevant.

GoCardless is a different kind of exit. The business has genuine scale and a real product – direct debit and recurring payment infrastructure – but the £920 million sale to Mollie still represents a significant discount from its peak £4 billion+ valuation.

The founders get their payday, but the peak-to-exit trajectory tells the classic Curve story: valuation inflation followed by a reckoning when hypergrowth stopped being enough.

��

The Takeaway For Business Builders

��

While the UK fintech sector hit £8.9 billion in revenue in 2024 and continues to grow, a distinct and permanent divide is locking in between top performers and lagging firms. The companies with a future in this market are the ones that figured out how to make money while they were growing, not the ones that assumed profitability would materialise once they hit a certain scale.

The era of cheap capital that made the growth-at-all-costs model viable is over. Investors want to see the money-making mechanics today, not just a “trust us” on future margins. Those building fintech products today who are still operating on the logic that scale comes first and economics comes later are building toward the same outcome as Curve. The data from the last 18 months is about as clear a warning as the industry has ever produced.

The post Profit Or Perish: The Strategic Choice Separating UK Fintech’s Winners From Its Casualties appeared first on 91̽��.

The platform connects users with banks and licensed lenders through a single digital interface, built around Islamic financing principles from the ground up rather than retrofitted with a compliance layer.

The sheer scale of that capital, combined with how underserved it is, creates a remarkable market opportunity. There are 400 million Muslim consumers in MENA alone. The global Islamic finance industry is valued at over $2 trillion. Shariah-compliant fintech is projected to reach $341 billion by 2029. The regulatory environment is forming – Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar are rolling out dedicated Shariah-compliant testing environments and crowdfunding guidelines. Consumer demand exists, and the competition is sparse.

Meryem Habibi, Chief Revenue Officer at Bitpace, points to where the real product differentiation lies. “Islamic fintech is different to conventional fintech because compliance can be led by the product, structurally aligned with Islamic principles from day one,” she says.

“Whether through profit-sharing models, asset-backed financing or interest-free structures, it depends on deep collaboration between technology teams and regulators. Founders can differentiate by creating innovative financial products that balance trust, Shariah compliance and accessibility. Cross-border payments, SME financing, digital banking, halal investment products and embedded finance all remain significantly underserved across MENA and parts of Southeast Asia.”

��

Why So Few Founders Are Building Here

��

Islamic fintech isn’t conventional fintech with an extra compliance requirement.

Interest (riba) is prohibited, so revenue models must be structured around Murabaha cost-plus financing, Mudarabah profit-sharing or Ijara asset-backed leasing. Shariah scholars must certify products, and risk-sharing between parties is a structural requirement. Social impact mechanisms – Zakat automation, Waqf management – are integral to the product category. Those requirements create barriers to entry. They also mean that founders who clear them face less competition than the opportunity size would normally attract.

Corina Goetz, Gulf cultural intelligence consultant and founder of Star-CaT, argues that most founders misread the market even before they get to the product architecture. “A Western founder reads $341 billion by 2029 and sees a market to capture,” she says. “The founders who actually win read it differently. They understand that a customer isn’t choosing a financial product. They are choosing whether they believe you respect what matters to them.”

That angle flips the script on the market entry logic. Regulatory compliance satisfies one requirement but doesn’t create consumer trust in a market where trust is built through demonstrated cultural knowledge, certified religious validity and community endorsement.

“The conventional fintech playbook misfires here,” Goetz says. “Move fast, acquire users, optimise the funnel – that logic assumes the customer’s decision is rational and quick. In the Gulf, the decision is relational and slow. Authenticity cannot be retrofitted with a compliance badge. People can tell.”

��

Where The Real Product Opportunities Are

��

The categories with the clearest near-term opportunity are marketplace lending, halal wealth management, takaful insurance, Zakat and Waqf digitisation and SME financing for businesses currently locked out of the formal credit system. Each has strong demand and limited supply. Muslims are actively seeking faith-aligned alternatives to conventional financial products and finding few digital options beyond traditional banks.

Goetz adds a geographic warning that founders approaching the region as a single market tend to learn the hard way. “There is no single MENA opportunity,” she says. “Saudi, the UAE, and Qatar are three distinct markets with three different appetites, regulators, and customer expectations. Treating them as one region is the most common, most expensive mistake I see.”

The barriers to entry in Islamic fintech – Shariah certification, product architecture complexity, cultural credibility – are exactly what has kept the market underdeveloped. They’re also exactly what will protect early movers once they’ve built their position. “The biggest opportunity is not a product category,” Goetz says. “It is the founders who build credibility first and sell second – because in this region, that is the only sequence that works.”

The post Islamic Fintech Is Having Its Moment – Why Are So Few Founders Building For It? appeared first on 91̽��.