Originally published at Forbes
Silicon Valley loves a slogan, and “disrupt or be disrupted” became a mantra so clichéd, it was hard to find a pitch deck that wasn’t touting the company as the new disruptive Uber of X, the Netflix of Y, the Amazon of Z. Entire industries were supposedly ripe for overthrow.
It was an evolution of a serious economic theory, “creative destruction.” Joseph Schumpeter used it to explain how capitalism renews itself: new firms replacing old ones through constant innovation.
And did that happen? Not everywhere. Back in the ’90s, Bill Gates is reported to have said, “Banking is necessary, banks are not.” Banks were due to go the way of Blockbuster—archaic relics of a world that moved on. But the snappy Silicon Valley slogan missed one key ingredient articulated by the three recipients of the Nobel economics prize in October this year. Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt explicitly proved that innovation on its own doesn’t drive growth. It only works if the system around it is willing to adapt.
Shouting about disruption isn’t going to cut it. We need a more refined version. One, dare I say, a little more grown up.
What Fintech Actually Achieved
Digital challengers attacked every part of the financial stack. Payments became real-time. Neobanks Monzo, Revolut and NuBank let users open accounts quickly. Investing was gamified and commoditized. Lending got faster and more accessible. Fintech turned what had once felt like a chore into a streamlined experience.
Beyond that, we saw finance embedded into platforms that weren’t even banks, such as lending inside checkout flows and payments inside chat apps. Infrastructure quietly changed, too. Banking-as-a-service allowed financial features to be integrated like Lego blocks.
Textbook disruption, right? Not quite.
Incumbents Didn’t Die—They Adapted
The breathless comparisons to Blockbuster missed something critical: Banking is not entertainment. Banks have deposit guarantees, central bank access and political entanglement. They’re not taxi firms or DVD rental shops. The barriers to displacement are structural, not just technological.
What happened instead was integration. Banks learned from the competition. Legacy apps were rebuilt, branches downsized and customer experience brought in line with expectations set by fintech. Some incumbents bought or partnered with their disruptors. Open banking rules forced infrastructure to modernize.
The outcome? A hybrid system. Your card might be from a digital-first brand, but the underlying rails are old. The customer typically doesn’t notice or care. That line between fintech and traditional finance is now almost invisible.
So no, fintech didn’t burn it all down. It rewired the house while everyone was still living in it.
Promise Vs. Outcome—The Expectation Gap
The biggest lesson from fintech may be this: It’s far easier to build technology than it is to reshape systems.
We talked a lot about financial inclusion and democratization. And to be fair, some of that happened. But access to an app isn’t the same as access to opportunity.
In fact, some frictionless products made things worse. Zero-commission trading encouraged risky behaviors. Embedded credit made overspending easier. Predictive models trained on biased datasets reinforced discrimination under a shiny new UI.
This is what happens when disruption outpaces introspection. Tools built to empower can entrench fragility, depending on the business model behind them. If your revenue depends on more clicks, more trades, more leverage, then it doesn’t matter how slick the design is. You’re building on sand.
Creating A Fertile Landscape
However, what kills promising innovation isn’t always just sloppy compliance or poor governance. Sometimes, it’s the system itself.
In crypto, the pre-2024 regulatory landscape in the U.S. made it nearly impossible for legitimate companies to build at scale. The SEC’s piecemeal enforcement approach created a fog of uncertainty, and their high-profile lawsuits against Binance and Coinbase only underscored their view of newcomers.
Other times, the product just doesn’t live up to the pitch. Take Solid, the startup that promised to be the “AWS of fintech” infrastructure, offering plug-and-play financial services. Instead, it filed for bankruptcy earlier this year.
And then there’s the incumbent playbook. Visa and Mastercard’s near-total grip on interchange fees in the U.S.—while avoiding meaningful scrutiny for decades—left almost no space for challengers to scale. Only now, after a Senate hearing revealed their around 50% profit margins, is the market dominance being questioned.
In short, innovation doesn’t always fail on its own. Sometimes it’s smothered—by confused regulation, weak execution or incumbents unwilling to share the rails.
That’s the version of creative destruction the Nobel committee pointed to: one that pushes boundaries without destabilizing the foundations it rests on.
Where This Matters Next
Fintech may have been the proving ground, but the stakes are now even higher. In healthcare, AI diagnostics are challenging clinical protocols. In education, credentials are being unbundled and replaced. In law, automated tools are reshaping casework and due diligence.
In each of these fields, the fintech pattern is repeating. New players enter with elegant tools and bold claims. Incumbents look slow but hold the institutional trust. The systems are full of quirks, deeply entangled with public outcomes and regulated for a reason.
Disruption 2.0 cannot afford the same naivety. In sectors that deal with health, identity, law and education, the human cost of error is greater.
The opportunity isn’t just to copy fintech’s wins. It is to avoid its mistakes.
A Better Kind Of Disruption
It’s entirely possible to be a rebel without being reckless. You can innovate with speed while building for safety. The companies that thrive in the next decade will do all of this, not by shouting louder, but by designing smarter.
Disruption isn’t a synonym for destruction. And it shouldn’t be.
Because the real lesson from fintech is this: Change works best when it’s not imposed but absorbed.
Innovation is still a powerful force, but if it’s going to endure, it needs to grow up.
Comments are closed.