The Fintercept convened a roundtable of payments leaders this week to discuss a key industry question: Should fintechs get direct access to Federal Reserve payment rails, or should banks remain the gatekeepers?
The responses revealed clear differences. Leaders from Oobit, Sphere, and Trace Finance argued that fintechs meeting the same supervisory and compliance standards as banks should receive equal access. They viewed continued bank gatekeeping as a way to protect established players rather than the financial system.
Other executives supported direct access but called for clear safeguards. Their proposals included phased eligibility and separating Federal Reserve payment rail access from discount window privileges.
Rouzbeh Rotabi, SVP at Qolo, offered a different perspective. He argued that banks do more than act as intermediaries or collect fees. They also absorb risks that do not disappear when a fintech is removed from the payment chain.
Banks remain responsible for Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) obligations, settlement exposure, and charter risk. These responsibilities explain why banks must carefully assess the fintech partners they support.
Rotabi’s argument challenges the idea that removing banks from the process automatically speeds up time to market. In many cases, banks provide the expertise and risk management that help fintech programs scale safely. Their involvement may cause delays, but it can also help protect the financial system.
This perspective adds an important counterpoint to the roundtable’s support for broader fintech access. Ultimately, the debate over Federal Reserve payment rails is about more than access. It is also about who bears the risk when something goes wrong.
Read the full article here.
