事實再次證明我錯了。

八年來我一直預測科技金融投資將止步不前。而就2018年年初的局面而言，情況并非如此。實際上，今年第一季度投入金融科技領域里的資金已經超過54億美元，而且依然沒有放緩的跡象。大家可以比較一下，2014年全年的金融科技投資還略低于40億美元，也就是說四年時間里增長了五倍。研究機構Venture Scanner的數據顯示，2001年的金融科技投資約為3億美元。

但所謂的“金融科技”有點兒像個字謎。上個月我們和風投機構Nyca Partners共同舉辦了金融科技CEO峰會。就像我在會上告訴聽眾的那樣，得到我們投資的那些CEO經營的實際上并不是“金融科技企業”，其中有支付公司，有貸款公司，也有人開發投資技術，或者向銀行、保險公司或房地產開發商推銷他們的產品。

無論風投對有限合伙人說什么，也不管媒體怎樣報道這個行業，這些公司之間未必有很大的瓜葛（除了顯而易見的資本流動）。因此，盡管投資規模不斷積累，但各個子行業之間的差異非常大。目前的實際情況值得我們更深入地進行探究。

支付：來過，做過

10年前“金融科技”就等同于“支付”，原因是杰克·多爾西讓硅谷的支付變得很酷。現在的情況已經截然不同。新建立的金融科技初創企業中幾乎看不到支付公司的影子，近幾年的初期融資額也在不斷下滑。據我統計，2012年成立了大約90家支付公司，而2017年這個數字已經跌至10家以下。Billtrust和AvidXchange等商業支付公司仍有一定的受眾（充分披露一下，我的團隊對這些公司有投資），但如果跟蹤趨勢就會發現，今年或以后都不會出現大批支付類初創公司了。

那么能量都跑到哪里了呢？答案是加密貨幣。和如今的加密貨幣公司創始人見面后，我可以把他們想象為幾年前創立支付公司的那批人。二者有許多同樣的基因，有類似的工程人才，其中一些的終端市場甚至都一樣。

風投規模：2016年為16億美元（來源：CB Insights）

初創能量：微乎其微，均處于末期

貸款：金融色彩蓋過了科技

貸款公司近來日子不好過，2017年只獲得了40億美元投資，而且投資規模正在迅速下滑，特別是早期投資。貸款的交易和商品屬性總是帶來很大困難，現在投資界對這些初創公司的定義正在從科技公司變為貸款公司——Lending Club和OnDeck就是很明顯的例子。GreenSky最近順利首發上市，Funding Circle也蓄勢待發，那就讓我們看看它們能否改變投資者的想法。

風投規模：2017年為40億美元（來源：CB Insights）

初創能量：快速滑坡，有待IPO的提振

財富/投資：爭相變成銀行

年復一年，財富科技公司在金融科技投資中一直穩定地占據一成份額。一種長期觀點是它們代表著真正的顛覆機會。當下比較有意思的趨勢之一是所有已經上了規模的財富和投資公司，比如SoFi、Acorns和Wealthfront（再披露一下，我的團隊一直在支持Acorns），都在做同一件事，那就是提供支票賬戶服務。大家可以一概而論，認為它們都想變成銀行。不一定是有牌照的銀行，而是打算通過第三方和新技術成為消費者的首要財務伙伴。

這對我來說真的很耐人尋味，而且也給我們的行業和社會帶來了一個重大問題，那就是消費者會放棄傳統銀行嗎？他們會向自己的公司提交新的直存授權書，然后說“把我的工資存到Betterment、Acorns或者SoFi那里”嗎？這確實是個新現象。如果真是這樣，金融科技就會迎來一個全新時代，那時候銀行就會走出眼下的“帝國反擊戰”階段，而且現在它們就會開始感到擔心。這并不是說，如果不是這樣財富科技就完蛋了，但所有這些公司同時出現同樣的想法是一件引人關注的事。

風投規模：2017年為12億美元（來源：CB Insights）

初創能量：保持穩定

保險：增長迅速推動全面發展

保險初創公司目前確實是個焦點。Oscar和眾安保險等公司的融資規模在一年時間里從零增至數十億美元，在此期間，它們決定全面發展。在歷史上，Insureon和Zenefits兩家保險初創企業只不過是經紀商或者對總代理人進行管理，但越來越多的人認為初創公司需要承保。我當然理解這樣的沖動，因為如果不控制產品，資金就會被別人掌握。所以我明白這一點。但承保機構的權益回報率約為9%。風投沒有理由向承保機構投資。一點兒也沒有。

今后，保險類科技公司需要把這件事想清楚。它將決定是保險真的發生轉變，還是出現一大堆有著花哨app的經紀商。另外，第二種情況并不會創造出很多權益價值。

風投規模：2017年為14億美元（來源：CB Insights）

初創能量：處于尷尬的青少年時期

房地產：全面顛覆

房地產和加密貨幣是增長最多的兩個領域。世界上最新出現的10家獨角獸公司中，有五家在房地產行業，它們是Compass、OpenDoor、WeWork、愛彼迎和UCommune，無論大家是否這么看這些公司。以OpenDoor為例，它發明了真正的“房地產”中介方法。這家公司并不是按售價的6%收取傭金，而是先把房地產買下來，然后找下家，通過買賣差價來賺錢。現在Zillow說他們也在這樣做，其他一些公司也在迅速跟進。這個乏味的難以想象的行業，這個100年來都沒有變化的行業正在經歷重塑。

風投規模：2017年為12億美元（來源：PitchBook）

初創能量：領跑者快速前進

加密貨幣/區塊鏈：該認真起來了

對加密貨幣我們能說什么呢？在去年的金融科技CEO峰會上，我們說到了首次代幣發行（ICO）會以怎樣的方式把人送進監獄。雖然還沒有人因此入獄，但這事很難說。ICO的規模仍在膨脹，今年3月曾達到41億美元的高點，但一般來說每個月的規模約為15億美元。此外，政府發出的聲音越來越響，也越來越清晰，那就是這可不是什么避風港。

除了ICO，我們在研究加密貨幣領域時把它分成了三部分，分別是加密貨幣投資生態系統、企業區塊鏈和分布式應用。

對于第一部分，關鍵問題在于加密貨幣會成為一種資產嗎？我暫時認為答案是肯定的。這個投資生態系統目前正在順利成熟，Basis和Compound等幾家走在前面的公司（最后披露一下，這兩家都是我們投資的公司）正在打造市場結構的關鍵組成部分，其假設前提是今后人們會希望更多地進行大規模加密貨幣交易。

就企業區塊鏈而言，它真的是一個獨立行當嗎？基于新聞報道判斷，這個市場正在蓬勃發展，但如果在驗證概念之余還要獲得收入，這個市場就算不上繁榮。在初期階段，我們暫時對這個問題說“不”，但出色的創業者們正在為此付出努力，而且我確信他們將證明我們是錯的。

最后，分布式應用堪稱一項大獎。它顯然才剛剛起步，但人才正在向這里聚集。未來的愛彼迎、Uber和Amazon Web Services真的會變成由代幣驅動的開源協議，進而改變我們存儲文件、預定房間、訂票和管理行程的方式嗎？我不知道這種局面什么時候到來，但我相信它會到來。總有這么一天。

風投規模：2017年為7.16億美元（來源：CB Insights）

初創能量：熱火朝天，全面爆發

紅利趨勢：新老勢力合二為一？

剛剛進入金融科技領域時，這個行業的主要參與者是把產品賣給銀行的供應商。在我們這些開始投資的人中，許多人都把自己擺在對立面，他們說不，金融科技創業者能比現有公司做的更好。現在，大銀行越來越想了解那些它們應該納入采購范圍的新供應商，這樣就可以跟后者合作并采用它們的技術，從而讓自己變得更像現代企業。

這些銀行如今也開始收購上述“挑戰者”。去年我還不會做出這樣的預測，而摩根大通、高盛、Capital One和西班牙對外銀行目前都在這樣做。這些銀行認為收購金融科技公司并非禁忌。對所有跟我們合作的人來說，這都是一個重大而積極的變化。就讓我們看看它能持續多長時間吧。（財富中文網）

馬特·哈里斯是貝恩風投董事總經理。他一直是科技金融方面的頂尖投資人之一，從2000年起一直在這個領域活動。

譯者：Charlie

審校：夏林

I’ve been proven wrong once again.

For eight years running, I’ve predicted that fintech investment is going to plateau. Based on the start of 2018, it hasn’t yet. In fact, we saw more than $5.4 billion invested in fintech during the first quarter of the year, with no signs of slowing momentum. For perspective, fintech investment for all of 2014 was just under $4 billion, so that’s “5x” growth in four years. In 2001, per data from Venture Scanner, it was something like $300 million.

With that said, this whole “fintech” thing is kind of a charade. As I shared with attendees last month during our annual Fintech CEO Summit, co-hosted together with Nyca Partners, the CEOs in our portfolios don’t actually run “fintech businesses.” They run a payments business or a lending business, or they build investing technologies, or they sell to banks or insurance or real estate companies.

Regardless of what VCs tell limited partners, or how media cover the industry, these businesses don’t necessarily have much to do with each other (besides the obvious of moving money around). So while the investment numbers are up in aggregate, each sub-sector has a very different story. And it’s worth diving in more deeply to understand what’s really going on.

Payments: Been there, done that

Ten years ago, “fintech” equaled “payments” because Jack Dorsey made payments cool in Silicon Valley. That’s very different now. Payments is a distinct minority of new fintech startups, and early-stage funding has dipped over the past few years. In 2012, about 90 payment companies were founded by my count. In 2017, that number dropped down below 10. Commercial payment companies like Billtrust and AvidXchange are still having a bit of a moment (full disclosure: my team has invested in these firms), but if you follow the trends, you won’t see tons of payment startups this year or going forward.

Where did the energy go? Cryptocurrency. When I meet with cryptocurrency founders today, I can imagine those folks a few years ago being payments founders. It’s a lot of the same DNA, similar engineering talent, and even some of the same end markets.

Venture investment: $1.6 billion in 2016 (Source: CB Insights)

Startup energy: Slim to none, all late stage

Lending: More fin than tech

The lending sector is a tough business these days, with investment of just $4 billion in 2017 and dropping fast, especially in early stages. The transactional and commodity natures of lending always made it hard, and now the investment community re-rated those startups from technology companies to lending companies—Lending Club and OnDeck being the obvious examples. With GreenSky recently having a successful public debut and Funding Circle waiting in the wings, we’ll see if they can change investors’ minds.

Venture investment: $4.0 billion in 2017 (Source: CB Insights)

Startup energy: Declining fast, pending IPO boost

Wealth/Investing: Race to the bank

Wealth tech companies get a steady 10% of fintech investment year after year. There’s a durable view that they show real opportunity for disruption. One of the more interesting trends right now is that all the wealth and investment companies that have achieved scale—like SoFi, Acorns, and Wealthfront (another disclosure: my team has backed Acorns)—are doing the same thing: They’re adding a checking account. You could paint with a broad brush and say they are all trying to become banks. Not necessarily licensed banks, but rather, leveraging third parties and new technologies to try to become a consumer’s primary financial partner.

This is really fascinating to me and raises a key question for our industry, and our society: Will consumers bail on traditional banks? Will they go to their employer with a new direct deposit authorization form and say “send my money to Betterment, to Acorns, to SoFi”? This is truly a new phenomenon. If it works, there’s a whole new era of fintech coming, where the banks go from the “Empire Strikes Back” phase that they’re in right now—and they start to worry again. It doesn’t mean wealth tech is toast if it doesn’t work, but it’s striking that all these companies had the same ideas at the same time.

Venture investment: $1.2 billion in 2017 (Source: CB Insights)

Startup energy: Steady as she goes

Insurance: Fast growth leads to full stack

Insurance startups are really at a pivot right now. Companies like Oscar or ZhongAn have scaled from nothing to billions a year in funding, and in the process, they’ve decided to be full stack. Historically, insurance startups Insureon and Zenefits were simply brokers or managing general agents, but increasingly there’s a take that startups need to be(come) carriers. I certainly understand that instinct—if you don’t control the product, someone else controls the capital. So, I get it. But return on equity for carriers tends to be around 9%. It doesn’t make sense for a VC to invest in a carrier. Not at all.

Moving forward, the insurance tech players need to figure this out. It will be the difference between insurance getting really transformed or having a bunch of brokers with fancy apps. And that second future is not going to create a lot of equity value.

Venture investment: $1.4 billion in 2017 (Source: CB Insights)

Startup energy: Awkward teenage years

Real Estate: Disruption in full effect

Real estate and crypto are the two areas where we see the most growth. In real estate, five of the venture world’s 10 most recent unicorns—Compass, OpenDoor, WeWork, Airbnb and UCommune—are real estate companies, whether you think of them that way or not. OpenDoor, for instance, invented a true “prop” brokerage, where they don’t broker a sale for 6%, but instead buy the property, find another buyer and make money on the spread. Zillow now says they’re doing the same thing, and there have been a bunch of fast followers. This incredibly stodgy industry—which hasn’t changed in a hundred years—is getting re-made.

Venture investment: $1.2 billion in 2017 (Source: PitchBook)

Startup energy: First-movers moving fast

Cryptocurrency/Blockchain: Time to get serious

What can we say about crypto? Last year at our Fintech CEO Summit, we talked about how people were going to go to jail for initial coin offerings (ICOs). No one has gone to jail yet, but it’s tricky. ICO volume is still frothy, with a peak of $4.1 billion raised in March but otherwise running at roughly $1.5 billion a month. Plus, the noise out of government is getting louder and clearer that this is not some sort of safe harbor.

Beyond ICOs, we think about the crypto space in three parts: the crypto investing ecosystem, enterprise blockchain, and distributed applications.

For the first, a key question is: Will crypto be an asset class? Provisionally, I believe the answer is “yes.” The investing ecosystem is now maturing nicely, and several pioneers like Basis and Compound (last disclosure: both are portfolio companies), are filling in key elements of market structure, assuming people want to trade crypto at scale more in the future.

Regarding enterprise blockchain, is it actually a standalone business? The market is thriving if you count press releases, but not if you look for revenueoutside of proof-of-concept. We provisionally said “no” to this question in the early days, but we have great entrepreneurs working on it—and I’m sure they’ll prove us wrong.

Finally, distributed applications are the big prize. It’s clearly early days, but this is where the talent is heading. Will the Airbnb, Uber, and Amazon Web Services of the future simply be open source protocols powered by tokens that change the way we store our files, book our houses, book our travel, and manage our transportation? I don’t know when, but I believe we’ll get there. Someday.

Venture investment: $716 million in 2017 (Source: CB Insights)

Startup energy: Wild, wild west (and east and north and south)

Bonus trend: Incumbents and insurgents unite?

When I started in fintech, the industry was primarily made up of vendors that sold to banks. Many of us who started investing set ourselves in opposition to that and said, No, fintech can be entrepreneurs who do a better job than the incumbents. Now, the big banks increasingly want to know about new vendors they should push through procurement, so they can partner and deploy their technology to become more like modern companies.

Those banks are also now acquiring the insurgents. I would not have predicted this last year, but JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Capital One, and BBVA have processes that are under way right now. The banks have decided it is not taboo to buy fintech companies. That’s a meaningful and positive change for everyone with whom we work. We’ll see how lasting it is.

Matt Harris is a managing director at Bain Capital Ventures. He is consistently ranked as one of the top investors in fintech, having participated in the space since 2000.