Purpose Driven FinTech · 2026-05-14 · 30 min
Key moments - from our scoring
Substance score
67 / 100
Five dimensions, 20 points each
The payments industry is racing toward agentic AI adoption - 81% of APAC customers expect to shop with agentic AI, potentially driving $1 trillion in spending - but the fundamental question of liability remains unanswered. Camilla Bullock and Monica explore the dangerous assumption that the industry understands who controls an AI agent during transactions. Bullock emphasizes the need for robust governance frameworks, audit trails, and a "Know Your Agent" (KYA) standard before widespread deployment. The conversation examines real-world use cases, from mundane purchases like garbage bags to complex travel bookings, revealing that the upside must justify the risk. Bullock advocates for "positive black boxing" - learning from aviation's black box approach - to ensure explainability when things go wrong. The discussion also covers APAC's strengths in real-time payments infrastructure (PayNet, PayNow, PromptPay) and lessons from cross-border fraud challenges. Beyond agentic AI, Bullock warns of an overlooked existential threat: quantum computing will break current encryption standards by 2029, yet fewer than 20% of senior payment leaders are actively tracking this risk. Migration to quantum-safe encryption requires seven years and board-level commitment, making immediate action critical.
The industry has not yet defined liability - it could fall to the customer, bank, merchant, issuer, or the AI provider. This ambiguity is causing risk-averse institutions to hold back on enabling agentic payments until clarity emerges.
KYA is a proposed framework where agents would be certified after testing to ensure they stay within guardrails, similar to how banks today know their counterparties. It's needed because agents built by different parties (ChatGPT, Claude, PSPs) have varying quality and reliability.
Quantum computers will break current encryption standards, compromising data in movement and allowing attackers to access accounts, sanction lists, and bank liquidity. Google estimates quantum capability by 2029, but migration to quantum-safe encryption takes approximately seven years.
Low-friction, low-context purchases with clear parameters - like routine business orders or small consumer items (garbage bags, prepaid purchases capped by wallet limits) - are safer than complex, context-dependent use cases like airline bookings where intent changes frequently.
APAC has shown strong regulatory collaboration (like MAS's AI frameworks) and cross-border initiatives (Malaysia's national scam portal), demonstrating that real-time fraud and scams require industry-wide data sharing and collaboration, not individual institution solutions.
Our reviewer’s read on each dimension, with quotes from the episode.
The episode delivers solid, actionable insights about agentic payments governance and liability, with Camilla articulating the core challenge: industry doesn't yet know who bears liability when AI agents transact. However, the conversation often circles around the same core problems (intent, audit trails, shared liability as non-answer) rather than drilling into novel solutions, and significant time is spent on tangential topics (vintage shopping, garbage bags) that dilute density.
what we need to do right now is around governance, so we actually know what we're setting up the agents to do, so that we have that audit trail if something would go wrong
I would like to move the whole industry to talk about positive black boxing like you have in the aviation industry. Because if when something goes wrong, then you go to the black box that's where the audit trail sits
Camilla introduces some fresh framing - the 'positive black box' analogy from aviation, 'Know Your Agent' (KYA) as a concept mirroring KYC, and the pivot from liability being a blocker to intent-based design - but these ideas are presented as explorations rather than fully original theses. The core insights (governance gaps, fraud amplification, cross-border complexity) are logical extensions of existing payment and AI discourse rather than counterintuitive breakthroughs.
I would like to move the whole industry to talk about positive black boxing like you have in the aviation industry
know your agent or KYA is something like we have to solve now
Camilla Bullock is a highly relevant practitioner as CEO of the Emerging Payments Association Asia, with evident operational experience across APAC payments, real-time payment systems, and policy roundtables. She demonstrates deep institutional knowledge (Malaysia's scam portal, MAS frameworks, ISO migration timelines) and has clearly been convening industry leadership. She is a substantive operator, not a pure thought-leader, though her contributions remain more exploratory than prescriptive.
I hosted a roundtable in Japan earlier this year. It was one ... the first discussion I had designed on this topic
I have a data background
The episode lacks concrete data and named case studies beyond a few examples: the 81% APAC customer stat (uncited), Australia data-sharing pilot between bank and telecom (vague), Malaysia's national scam portal, and Google's 2029 quantum threat timeline. Most claims about liability, fraud vectors, and governance gaps are illustrative rather than evidenced; Camilla relies on personal anecdotes (vintage shopping, garbage bags) instead of hard metrics on fraud losses, transaction volumes affected, or regulatory positions.
across APAC, 81% of customers are e- expect to shop with agentic AI
In Australia you have one of the banks sharing the data with one of the telecoms
Monica asks smart, clarifying questions and follows up productively on liability and data-sharing frameworks. However, the conversation often meanders into personal anecdotes (garbage bags, vintage shopping, Taylor Swift tickets) that feel like relationship-building rather than pressure-testing. Monica doesn't forcefully challenge Camilla's vague claims (e.g., what does 'shared liability' actually mean, who specifically is dodging responsibility), and both speakers agree too readily instead of productively disagreeing or forcing precision.
Who... is deciding that? You know? Like, is it the schemes? Like, is it the big banks on behalf of the industry?
I'm not sure about shared liability
Computed from the transcript - who did the talking, and the words that came up most.
AI agents are about to start spending our money, and we as a payments industry are not ready. I love this episode as it’s recorded live at Money2020’s famous MoneyPot podcast booth! Yea the fancy, cool one LOL Today I’m joined by Camilla Bullock, CEO of Emerging Payments Association Asia, and we unpack one of the most pressing questions in FinTech right now: when an AI agent transacts on your behalf, who is actually in control and who is liable when something goes wrong? Key highlights: Why "shared liability" is not an answer; and what the industry needs to define first The emerging KYA (Know Your Agent) framework and why banks may refuse agentic transactions without it How real time payments in APAC already show us what agentic fraud will look like at scale The quantum encryption threat that less than 20% of senior payments leaders are actively tracking Why standards interoperability is the single most important unlock for agentic commerce We discuss: the $1 trillion agentic payments opportunity in APAC, the governance and audit trail gap, intent vs.
Transcribed and scored by The B2B Podcast Index.
Camilla: what we need to do right now is around governance, so we actually know what we're setting up the agents to do, so that we have that audit trail if something would go wrong. Monica: we're in Money 20/20, the industry is changing super fast. The theme that we have is agentic payments. So there's a stat that says across APAC, 81% of customers are e- expect to shop with agentic AI.
81% of customers, that's a lot. And this shift could drive over 1 trillion in spending. Wah. So it seems like there's a big promise out there of what agentic AI could do, but at the same time, there's this big question about fraud, liability, quantum security, like there's so many questions so a lot of the work that you do, it's like bringing the industry together and bringing like this thought leadership together.
And right now we need to define who's creating the rules for the future. So when it comes to agentic payments, it's become a policy, policy issue as such. So can you tell us a little bit more on what is the most dangerous assumption that the industry is making right now when it comes to who is in control when an AI agent is transacting? Camilla: I think even it is to think that we could know.
I think it has to take the step back to what we need to do right now is around governance, so we actually know what we're setting up the agents to do, so that we have that audit trail if something would go wrong. So it's very early days, so I think we need to get some parts right now, or we will not reach that 85%. Or I would say I hope we don't reach 85% before we have those things right because the industry, and I, I guess even society, has so much to lose because once the trust is gone, uh, it's gone, and it will take a very long time to build up again.
So It's exciting, but now is the time to really to come together to unlock this opportunity because it has so much upside, but it could also have a lot of downside. Monica: And it's so interesting. Like, I was in a panel earlier today and, and one of the themes that came up from a CPO, uh, was we were talking about AI and data, and basically he said auditability, that it's the same. Hmm.
It's like the audit trail. It seems like for innovation to go to the next level, it's kind of contradictory. We need more governance audit trail so that we can innovate, which is interesting. Camilla: Yeah.
It's... I think a word that's come up and that I'm pondering back and forwards is that we always seen, uh, agentic AI or the LLMs and that to be a little bit of black box that we don't know how, how it's behaving, and that's why we're a little bit s- scared, like, are we doing the right thing? If the regu- regulator is knocking on our door, can we explain, explainability how we came to decisions? But I would like to move the whole industry to talk about positive black boxing like you have in the aviation industry.
Because if when something goes wrong, then you go to the black box- You go to the black box that's where the audit trail sits. Oh, Monica: cool So Camilla: I think that would be a nice thing to shift because the technology is there, and I think that's one thing to continuously remember, the technology is there, so now we just have to unpack... And a big thing, like the biggest thing, and I hear it over and over again now, but a- actually, I would say, like, how much the discussion has matured on two months is massive.
I've been in so many... Well, like not so many, but I've been in four round tables within the last two months, and I do find the thought process is- Evolved ... is actually matured. And, um, that know your agent or KYA.
I said it right now. Yeah. KYA is something like we have to solve now because many participants w- will probably say no to allow agents, uh, to execute. So we actually need to start to say what agents do want to execute on, and how can banks, for example, today know that there is an agent on the other side of that, um, uh, purchase.
Who... Monica: Curiosity to question, who, who's deciding that? You know? Like, is it the schemes?
Like, is it the big banks on behalf of the industry? Like, who's making those decisions? Camilla: Uh, so I think it's just so early now, so anybody that is risk-averse would probably say, "No, we're not going to let this ex- execute go through before we know the liability," because- It, it is a big risk there because it's not just one purchase or one trade- No, exactly. Yeah ...
it can be many, and it can be big amounts. Uh- Monica: That's really unworthing. Camilla: Exactly. So, so many of those parameters are not in place yet, so hence I'm a, a bit bearish on the 85% in a quick pace, but it's definitely a possibility.
And I think also what the industry needs to really look at for what use cases does it make sense to start this? What use cases are really easy to define that your intent, because intent is, is the strong, uh, strongest word when it comes to liability and what you actually are meant to do, and the intent looks very different if I hit a button now or if I authorize an agent three months ago because the context has changed. There's all those things- Facts ... we actually haven't defined, and, uh, the example I hear a lot like, "Oh, wouldn't it be great to have an agent to, to buy, uh, airline tickets?"
But buying airline tickets for me as an individual is very complex. Monica: Complex. Yeah, it is. ' Camilla: Cause it like- Monica: Especially crossing to the other side of the world Camilla: what time of the day are you flying?
What route? Is your best friend actually in Delhi when you're flying there or not? It's going to change everything, but if it's a business that actually purchase a airline tickets might be slightly simpler because they're going to ask you certain parameters, and you can't choose. So I think any decisions that is easier to find and the context is not changing so often, but still how much harder is it to press a button?
Uh, how important, what are the upsides? And they're definitely out there. Don't get me wrong. So many upsides, and discoverability for products is, like, totally different.
But as an individual, as a business, when is the ips- upside big enough that you're happy for the agent to do it by themself instead of the discovery? Everybody has done research today, but do we want to take that extra bit of actually the money's leaving your bank account? Monica: I, I think you raise, like, a very good point because it's like money will leave bank accounts, and all is good when it's the happy path, and that's it. But this is a new technology.
Uh, things will go wrong. That's a fact. There's going to be wrong amount, wrong, uh, wrong, uh, item that you had to purchase. So who is going to be liable For each of these decisions that the agent is making.
Is it in some cases the customer, in some cases the bank, the merchant, the issuer? And Camilla: then also, uh, I hosted a roundtable in Japan earlier this year. It was one ... the first discussion I had designed on this topic, and it was interesting to hear everybody had so different views to the point that myself as moderators was second-guessing myself through the whole roundta- You've been in those, haven't you?
Like, oh my God, oh, where are we going? And then we started like, what, what type of agents are we talking about? Have you built your agent? Is it sitting in ChatGPT?
Is it a ChatGPT- Claude ... sitting outside? Yeah. Is it in Claude?
Where is it? Or is it sitting within one of the PSP? Is it sitting on a ... So, so many different, and, and they would all be built differently.
So is it like that, know your agent, and is it a certificate on it, like this one has actually been tested, that it will stay within the guardrails. It's, it's, yeah, so many new things, you know? Monica: Yeah, that's a very good point because then it's like I, as a non-coder with the technology, I can go and build an agent, right? But the quality of my agent may not be the quality of the agent provided by a merchant or by a, you know, like an established institution.
So there's going to be different, uh, reliability, quality, security of the agents that we're using. Camilla: Yeah, you're noticing- And Monica: that quality could- ... Camilla: on Reddit today, uh, a- and I know that you way more advanced in using this than me- No, I'm not but sometimes I don't know why I'm getting so bad answers that day. It's much more hallucination going on than other days.
So it's almost like you have given authorized your agents to do something, but what else is happening within, hopefully not in the future, but now a black box. So are you ... Would you What would you buy? What would you let an agent buy, and for how, how much does the upside need to be for you to take the risk?
Monica: Right now, I think I could buy small, small purchases. You know the ones that you remember, oh, I need to buy, I don't know, a new, I don't know, like something for day to day, and I, I speak with Claude a lot. The Camilla: garbage bags? Monica: Yeah, that's what I thought.
But I thought about that, but I'm like, no, that's not a good example. But yeah, the garbage bags. You're like, "Ah, yeah, I'm running out of garbage bags," and I would love to be like, "Hey, Claude. Please can you get me, uh, garbage bags delivered to the house?
Go to my c- go to my shop here, Lazada- Mm and just send them to me." That I'm gonna have, I would be happy to do. Yeah. And I could use them using either a wallet within Shopee or Lazada, so that I just, like, have a small amount, therefore it caps my risk, or a prepaid card.
Camilla: Yeah. Monica: And then it's like, that's it. I would not use it with my credit card. And not for, not for fights.
Yeah. Like... But it's, like, those little things that you're like, "Oh, I need this extra little thing," just go to Shopee. The Camilla: boring day-to-day, and the upside is actually not the money, it's the time you save.
Monica: It's the time. Yeah. It's the convenience. Because usually you have those thoughts, "Oh, I need to buy that," in the most random moment.
Camilla: Yeah. And Monica: you don't buy it there. You're like- Yeah ... Camilla: it comes with you or- So you...
But you're almost thinking more thought execution, that it's when you hit you, you want to speak and say- Yes ... so the authorization is not going to be for five months until it finds the perfect garbage bags for you. Monica: No, it's like a- Camilla: Just- Yeah do you see what I means? It's very different use cases because some of...
Everybody uses airline tickets, so fine. But it might be other... I had someone in... This was actually not related to agentic AI.
This was related to the importance of liquidity, and looking at, uh, travel agents and how important it is to have liquidity in different market. Because when Taylor Swift releases her tickets to KL, they want to buy the, uh, hotels there and then. And that might be other things you would say, like, when is the most popular artist going to go on tour? You know, start to do those different complex things to find, uh...
What did you say? I was gonna say, but you know, d- d- opportunities for upside. Monica: Yeah. Camilla: So is it opportunity for upside, or is it saving you time?
So it's like, what parameters will drive the use cases? I still think it will be business use cases because it might much easier to put the parameters around it. Monica: Hmm. That makes sense.
Camilla: Businesses aren't as impulsive as- Monica: No, as- ... as you and me ... as, like, yeah, I need I... Oh, no, yeah, because that's a very good point.
When it comes to money management perspective, if I were to have this agent in Shopee with some money in there, you know there's many purchases that we just buy, like, impulse shopping, but then you don't buy them because you are not in Shopee or online at the time. But if I just go, "Claude- Yeah ... can you please buy this? Oh, yeah, yeah.
Can you buy that? Can you buy that? Can you buy that?" Because it's so easy, it removes friction, that people may start, or I could start overspending in stuff that I don't need.
Yeah. It may be cheap, but it's like- Camilla: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, no, it's interesting It's- Like, I, Monica: I don't know Or the, there's a sale in...
My, m- my email is full, full of sales, like, every day. I, Camilla: I might save money on this because I, I think you know, I told you that, like, I'm a big vintage shopper- Monica: I just, Camilla: and I actually have a list of things I'm waiting for, and I always have to go to the shop and look and see if they've come in. And if somebody would have perfect APIs describing the clothes really well or pictures, maybe I can just tell my agent to keep on looking for that Moncler jacket that I saw three years ago, and I might even upload a photo because I do those weird things.
Uh, but yeah, those are those... It's edge use cases, and that's not... If I would say one thing to the industry out there today, it is don't look for the don't solve for the edge use cases. What is it that's really going to be worth it?
Where is the upside big enough for the potential risk? Monica: I like that. It's going to go in a clip. Okay.
So now it's like we're Money20/20 Bangkok. Of course, we're in APAC. In the region, we have a lot of real payments. We have PayNet, PayNow, PromptPay.
What lessons can we take from the region when it comes to fraud and risk and governance applied to agentic commerce? Camilla: First, I mean, we've been very innovative is- in this region. Um, I'm so proud of working in payments in our region wh- when I travel, and I speak about the use cases solving for very niches and, and challenges we had. I do think we're very early.
I have had to, uh, realize that with real-time payments comes real time, uh, fraud and scam, so we already see a lot of good collaborations around that. And even like Malaysia, you have the national scam portal. It, it sounds some- uh, like something negative every time I say it- Yes, we do have. No, we do have ...
but it's a, it's a great, it's a great example, especially for collaboration cross-border because this is not, uh, within market challenges. But I think with that also we have seen that our regulators are actually quite forthcoming on this. Like MAS has done, uh, a lot of good works around, uh, AI frameworks and guardrails- Mm ... and principles.
What I do think a- and this is in general, we're coming to a little bit... You know sometimes when you have discussion in, in different location and it comes a really catchy saying, and that is like, "Oh, it has to be shared liability"? That is not an answer because we don't know how to share it today. Monica: That's what I was going to say- Yes ...
I'm like, I'm not sure about shared liability. Camilla: Yeah, we have to define then who is even in the value chain. Uh, so a lot of the challenges we have will also touch on, on fraud and scams, and how can we use data today because signals is going to be a very important thing. And if it's one thing that our region potentially could have had more progress in, is how we, how we work with data and how we share data.
Monica: Hmm. That's a very good point. And I want to go back to what you said about cross-border payments. It's amazing.
You know, like the region, it's amazing real-time payments, cross-border real-time payments with all the rails, but it also comes with, uh, higher fraud, and then it's, uh, yeah, it's cross-border fraud. You empty the account and that's Camilla: it. Mm. Monica: So I was just...
As, as you were speaking, I was thinking if we put ourselves in the shoes of the fraudsters, agentic payments, it's just going to make their lives easier. So much Camilla: easier, yeah. Monica: They'll be like, "Yay, I can do this faster." Camilla: And they have much more budget than- A lot than a lot of big organizations or us.
Yeah. And then also, uh, impersonation is one of the biggest ways of conducting fraud and scams today, uh, especially a- as we have defined them before, authorized push payments or authorized payments. And AI is changing that a lot because they have so many more tools to trick you, and they decide, is this actually you going to be hit, uh, execution or not, in what way, and what steps they take you through that, uh, fraud. So I think how we think around fraud and scams and liability will change because of AI making it so much more powerful, so you can't talk about neglect in the same way as we've done with, um, with the princes of, uh, scamming and so on and so forth.
But then if you put the agents in there, there's like these agents on hyper being able- Exactly to act and do this fraud and scam. So it is scary. If it's one thing I'm asked of what, what I'm watching out for, w- we as have to, as an industry together, uh, look to keep the trust intact. It's, it's like we have to work together here because it's so much to lose for all of us, and still And this is why I love this industry so much.
I mean, we are a network, so we're already working together, but also we're just growing industry. We're still growing double digits, so you don't have to be like, "I'm not going to work with that organization or that organization." It's really like, let's do it together and, and grow that pie because everybody's get a bigger slice. Monica: Yeah, and I, I think that's another theme that I heard.
Exactly, working together. It's n- it's, uh ... Yeah, we'll just have to work together to figure it out, work together with regulators, and I think, like you said, it's like trust. I think the conversation so far has been how do I, as a individual organization, build trust with my customers?
I think now it's the time of how we, as an industry, build trust. You know, like if we go, like, 20, 30 years ago, like Visa and MasterCard, people started using Visa and MasterCard because it came with a logo. Yeah. You know they are reliable.
You can use them, and it's like you trust them. Camilla: Yeah. Monica: That's it. It's like implied trust.
You're like, "Okay, I can pay here." Yeah. That's it. Done.
But it's like now as we introduce agentic payments, it's like customers are going to be ... It's not if we have, similar to crypto, if we have one n- not bad actor, but like one bank that messes it up , it will go viral. Camilla: Yeah. Monica: And then trust is not going to be eroded for the bank's customers.
It's going to be eroded for industry and agentic payments. Camilla: Yeah. Monica: So yeah, we need to come together and be like, how do we build trust collectively? Yeah.
Camilla: And that's what, uh, uh, go back to what I said about data. So I've, I have a data background, so hence I get very passionate talking about data often. And, and not just data point, but insights from data points, and this is something we should double down on because there is no payments without the movement of data. Payments is data.
Uh- Yeah ... and how we can start to, to share data between entities in a more purposeful way. I mean, there's a lot of pilots on the way already. In Australia you have one of the banks sharing the data with one of the telecoms, and so they can actually track that signals and early flagging of that this looks like, uh, fraud.
So more of those initiatives, and I think there are those conjunction industry to ourself like telecom, uh, and big tech and platforms that have a lot to win if we can find a way how we collaborate. Monica: Cool. I want to change gears, talking about data. Well, no, it's not related to data, but it's related to data/technology.
Um, it's not just that we're seeing change in AI and agentic payments. There's another work stream or another uh, tech that's evolving that it's like quantum. So, uh, your research found that less than 20% of senior leaders in payments, uh, are actively aware or tracking the quantum threat. What does that mean?
Can you tell us, like, what's the threat? What's quantum? What's the issue? Camilla: This is one of the scariest thing we're working with, and if I think too much about it, I'm like, "Why is everybody sleeping at the steering wheel?"
And to the point that I've gone to people and said, "Is it just me, or is it as scary? Is this threat as big as I understand it to be?" And those who know says, "Yes, it is." So what we're talking about is...
And this is not just payments, but payments is, is so crucial for, um, for a country, and it's also so beneficial if somebody would go in and hack it. It's, uh, would rely on encryption, and when quantum computers are made available, that encryption is no longer going to be safe and keep the data safe, and this is specifically for data in movement. Uh, so that could mean that they could steal your data or get access to your accounts. But it can also be, and most likely would start as, uh, attacks on things that changes how you do business.
For example, say, a sanction list. Some- somebody gets access to a sanction list and go and change the entities there, and they go through. Oh, yeah. You say, so people, you think of this like, "Oh, somebody's going to take my data as a private."
What if somebody hacks and get keys to get into the liquidity of a bank? Monica: Oh. Camilla: Yeah, you know. So it's like, it's all data out there that has been encrypted today is at risk, and what we have to do as an industry is to migrate the encryption to quantum safe encryption, which is available.
Uh, challenge is that many financial institutions or organization in general don't really know where the encryptions is sitting today and the dependencies between systems. So what's needed is organizations to wake up and say, "This is real." Google put up, uh, 2029 now. It's not far away.
You have to go in, and you have to say who owns it in your organization. Then you have to do an encryption inventory, and then you can start to migrate this. Because as you know, data in movements, somebody's sitting on the other side. So you also have to move the encryption.
You have to do it in tandem, and that's why payments is such a challenging system because it's so many participants, and there is a very long tail in payments. Did I scare you now? Monica: I'm like, I had a conversation just a day before coming here- Camilla: Yeah ... Monica: with someone that works in quantum.
Camilla: Oh, Monica: nice. And, and he was, like, saying exactly like you. He's like, "People are, like not really taking this seriously." No.
It's a big threat. And even I'm like, like, "What do you mean?" It's massive. I think there's lack of awareness.
Camilla: And I think the challenge we're at is it's so many migrations going on already. It's so many technology, uh, uh, so many technology questions on boards' agendas today because this is a board decision. Yeah. It's not the somebody in the tech department.
No. It's a board decision. We're actually running now, uh, the bystander effect series, where it's talking to why you have to take action now and what each board member is normally saying why they're delaying it. So it's a little bit, "Oh, it's your problem.
Oh, it's your problem," while we, like, do something now. We had the estimate that it takes about seven years for a migration, so we're out of time already, so we better get our act together. Seven Monica: years? Camilla: It's like, look how long it took for ISO migration, and some are at it still, so Monica: Okay.
Camilla: Should we finish on a happy note? Monica: Yeah. I'm like, yeah, let's go back to, like, happy, happy, happy, uh not happy, but it's like, let's move away from risks and threats. Camilla: Uh- But with quantum technology also, you have to...
It's amazing, uh, opportunity for the world of resource optimization. So it's a lot of power. But as Peter Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility." It was his uncle, though, but still.
Monica: Yeah. Um, okay, so coming back to agentic AI standards, so we have basically Visa, Mastercard, Google. Everybody's creating standards. Let's say I, as a, as a CPO or as a bank, we, we need to put together our roadmap, and we need to say, "I'm going to work with this or that or that protocol."
How do you see the play within these standards among these players working out? Is it going to be like they each have their own or more like an industry standard? Camilla: I really hope that we're going to have an industry standard. Me too.
Uh, th- this is a great opportunity for level the playing field also and not locking, uh, people into certain choices for the future. And hence, it would be great if we've seen it was great. It's a necessity that those standards are interoperable. Uh, so we're sitting again at this cusp, as with so many other technologies, but I hope we learn from history that if we don't have standards, it costs the industry a great deal.
Monica: Yeah, and we've seen standards working well- Camilla: Mm. Monica: So it's like when we have the standards, like interoperability within Southeast Asia when it comes to QR payments is amazing. Camilla: Yeah. Monica: Like, that's it, and it's ...
That's a good use case, and the industry came together, so it's more of a, yeah, let's replicate those wins- Yeah ... in, in this segment. Camilla: I think, uh, before we get to standards also, it's a lot of work to done in this space, so... And I know you're doing some of it, so that's exciting.
I'm going to watch to see where you're going. But it is, um, to get the taxonomy right so we all know what we're talking about, and defining the different step of payments to, um, initiation, authentication, settlement. All the different steps are actually well understood of how the payments move and where it goes from one actor to the next when the ball is passed on. Monica: Yeah.
Before we finish, what are you most excited about? Camilla: I'm excited about that ... Uh, this sounds so cheesy, and it's our saying, but, like, when we get it right, it really improves lives everywhere. And, and that is- I like that ...
what I'm ... what drives me. Payments, there is no trade without payments, and, uh, trade leads to prosperity. So I, I do think that our industry, uh, can do so much good when we get it right.
Monica: Beautiful way to close because that's what I call the purpose-driven fintech stamp. Ta-da. Thank you, Camilla.
Agentic Payments: The Questions the Industry Needs to Answer Before Scaling | Robert Kraal, Co-Founder at Silverflow65 / 100
You Can't Beat Wise on FX. So Now You Partner With Them | Samarth Bansal, General Manager at Wise Platform85 / 100
55X in 12 Months: The Clearing and Settlement Layer No One Is Rebuilding Till Now | George Davis, CEO and Co Foudner of Lorum99 / 100
Trust Is the New Security: The AI & Quantum Threat Reshaping Finance by 2029 | Maxwell Denega, Founder & CEO of Quantum Chain71 / 100
Why Neofin Killed Its Niche and Rebuilt From Scratch. And What They're Launching Next | Svitlanka Sergiichuka, CEO & Co-Founder, Neofin56 / 100