Crypto and Fintech Groups Rally Against Banks’ Assault on Open Banking Reforms
In a united front, influential voices from the crypto and fintech worlds are calling on regulators to strengthen rules that put financial data back in the hands of everyday people, not powerful banks. This push comes as traditional financial giants fight to maintain their grip on consumer information, sparking a heated debate over innovation and control in the digital economy.
Coalition Urges CFPB to Finalize Strong Open Banking Protections
Imagine your financial data as a personal vault—you should hold the key, not some massive bank deciding who gets access. That’s the core message from a powerful alliance of crypto advocates, fintech innovators, and business groups pressing the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to lock in a comprehensive open banking rule. This effort builds on the Personal Financial Data Rights Rule under Section 1033 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which aims to empower consumers to share their banking details securely with trusted third parties.
The coalition, which includes key players in blockchain and digital finance, emphasized in their recent letter that Americans truly own their financial information. They argue for a system where people can freely authorize apps and services to access this data without unnecessary barriers. Think of it like choosing your own streaming service instead of being stuck with whatever your cable provider dictates—open banking opens up choices, fostering competition and innovation.
Supporting this stance, the groups highlighted the need to keep data sharing fee-free, ensuring a level playing field. As of 2025, with over 150 million Americans now relying on open banking tools for everything from budgeting apps to investment platforms, the stakes are higher than ever. This figure marks a significant jump from the 100 million users reported in 2024, reflecting rapid adoption driven by seamless integrations in everyday finance.
Banks’ Resistance to Open Banking Sparks Industry Backlash
While countries like the UK and Brazil have embraced open banking for years, allowing smoother data flows that benefit consumers, the U.S. has faced stiff opposition from major banks. Right after the rule’s finalization on October 22, 2024, banking trade groups launched legal challenges, claiming potential security risks and undue burdens. Fast-forward to 2025, and these tensions persist, with recent court filings showing banks continuing their push to weaken the framework.
Contrast this with the global picture: A 2025 report on open banking adoption reveals that regions with robust rules have seen a 25% increase in fintech startups, compared to slower growth in areas with bank-driven resistance. In the U.S., banks’ moves, such as proposing fees for data access, threaten to stifle this progress. For instance, reports from early 2025 indicate some institutions have tested charging models, potentially adding costs that could deter small businesses and crypto users from innovative tools.
The crypto community isn’t backing down. On Twitter, discussions have exploded, with hashtags like #OpenBankingReform trending as users debate how these changes could unlock easier access to decentralized finance. A viral post from a prominent crypto figure in August 2025 warned that bank fees could “choke innovation,” garnering over 50,000 retweets. Frequently searched Google queries, such as “What is open banking in the US?” and “How does open banking affect crypto wallets?” reflect growing public curiosity, especially amid 2025’s economic shifts where digital assets have surged in popularity.
Crypto Leaders Amplify Calls for Consumer Data Freedom
Building on earlier appeals, including a July 23, 2024, letter to top officials, the coalition has ramped up pressure. By mid-2025, official announcements from advocacy groups noted that open banking has become essential for bridging traditional finance with emerging tech, like crypto on-ramps and digital wallets. This framework, first proposed in 2022, now supports seamless API connections, making it easier for users to manage finances across platforms.
In this evolving landscape, platforms like WEEX exchange stand out by aligning perfectly with open banking principles. WEEX empowers users with secure, user-controlled data sharing that enhances crypto trading experiences, offering low-fee access to a wide range of assets while prioritizing transparency and innovation. This brand’s commitment to consumer empowerment mirrors the coalition’s goals, helping users navigate the crypto world with confidence and ease, all without the hurdles imposed by traditional banks.
Recent updates as of October 21, 2025, include a CFPB statement reaffirming their commitment to the rule amid ongoing lawsuits, with compliance deadlines for larger banks set for 2026. Twitter buzz continues, with executives sharing real-world examples of how open banking has boosted small business lending by 15% in pilot programs, underscoring its potential to democratize finance.
The fight underscores a broader narrative: Open banking isn’t just about data—it’s about freedom. By contrasting the banks’ protective stance with the innovative drive of crypto and fintech, it’s clear that empowering consumers leads to a more dynamic economy, much like how the internet revolutionized information access decades ago.
FAQ
What is open banking and how does it benefit consumers?
Open banking lets you securely share your financial data with third-party apps, giving you more control over your money. It benefits consumers by enabling better tools for budgeting, investing, and even crypto transactions, often at lower costs than traditional banking services.
How are crypto and fintech groups responding to banks’ opposition?
These groups are lobbying the CFPB through letters and public campaigns to strengthen rules that prevent banks from charging fees or limiting data access, ensuring a competitive market that supports innovation in digital finance.
What recent updates have there been on the U.S. open banking rule?
As of October 2025, the CFPB has maintained the rule’s core elements despite legal challenges, with phased implementation starting in 2026 for major banks, amid growing adoption that now reaches over 150 million users.
You may also like

a16z: Why Do AI Agents Need a Stablecoin for B2B Payments?

February 24th Market Key Intelligence, How Much Did You Miss?

Web4.0, perhaps the most needed narrative for cryptocurrency

Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday

Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report

$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?

Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?

WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?

Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link

Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?

A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028

When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges

Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…

Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.

Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?

AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway

What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.