在今年6月舉辦的《財富》頭腦風暴金融大會上，我的討論組被問到了一個問題：金融科技這個行業究竟是監管過度還是監管不足？根據各自的產品，討論組專家們給出的回答不一，卻體現出了一大共性：看情況而定。

金融科技公司面對大量金融監管條例，在合規問題上要付出高昂代價，而這些監管針對的主要是我們不做的事情。與許多科技驅動的行業一樣，我們的監管條例嚴重不合時宜，它起草于應用還相當于一桌大餐中的炸薯條、垃圾郵件只是肉罐頭的年代。想象一下，法規出臺時，你的行業或產品根本還不存在，而你卻要在它的管理下經營公司。這就是大部分金融科技公司的現狀。“銀行”是什么，發揮什么作用？國會對監管者的這類指導還停留在20世紀70年代的銀行業水平。

我們接觸的監管者和立法者經常和我們說：“我們知道這些法律過時了，需要廢棄和改寫，但這個工程太大、太難，需要投入太多的工作。”在某種程度上，他們沒有說錯。銀行的董事會成員和聯邦監管者無法把握變化的范圍或跟上變化的節奏，也可能只是在堅持把每家公司都看作一家銀行，每筆貸款都看作30年的抵押貸款。

銀行其實已經不再作為一個機構而存在了。消費者行為還在，金融服務還在——它們屬于一個復雜而不斷變化的問題與解決方案網絡中的一部分。

為了跟上變革的步伐，英國采用了一種全新的方法，這值得美國借鑒研究。英國監管的是服務——也就是企業真正在做的事情。不同的執照和標準管理著向購房者或小型企業提供的借貸。銀行之間的處理付款不會帶來類似存款的風險，所以在英國，風險敏感型的監管對此較為放松。

放棄實體銀行或中產階級抵押貸款等一刀切式的金融關系模型，有助于推廣定制化、專業化，重新塑造消費者與企業的關系。將Pandora和Spotify看作20世紀70年代唱片公司或廣播站的過時監管條例，最終導致了全方位的版權變革。消費者對金融服務的期待，其變化幅度絲毫不遜于他們對音樂行業的期待。變革早就應該出現了。

位于加利福尼亞州、在發展中國家開展小額信貸業務的公司Tala利用手機使用習慣來判定用戶信譽。如果一個潛在借款人定期充值通話時間，有著相識多年的廣泛關系網并保持聯系，還定期支付其他訂單，那么他為了進貨水果而借款50美元貸款或購買摩托車而借款250美元，償還的概率就會很高。而同樣，對于金融科技模型的預測有所幫助的數據類型或來源，潛在借款人或許愿意共享，也有可能不愿意。

現代監管條例應該允許消費者決定誰有權訪問他們的數據，選擇對保險、投資、處理付款或存款等某項特定服務的共享內容。這是走向透明和創新的途徑。

直到最近，消費者還無權獲知自己的信用數據，而銀行卻在用它們來決定借款人在金融上的未來。具有遠見的監管條例讓消費者有權看到這些記錄，挑戰它們的準確性，盡管這會遭遇數據持有方的阻力。我們出臺的規定要讓消費者控制自己的金融數據和銀行服務，不是把這項權力交給銀行，這點當然至關重要。

但是我們也不能走向極端。在龐大統一的監管框架下，消費者日益期待的充滿活力、選擇廣泛、形態各異的產品難有容身之地，無論是搖滾樂還是小型商業貸款都是如此。讓廣播站記錄你昨天聽到深夜的歌曲，在當年聽上去十分荒謬。但如今，人們已經愛上了由收集這類數據的公司所提供的定制體驗和精選推薦。

無論銀行和監管方是否做好了準備，銀行業都在飛速地發生變化。幾乎沒有哪個千禧一代愿意走進一家銀行支行，并與出納員進行對話——“銀行業”對他們而言并不意味著這些。如果你不打算購置房產、生育小孩、上大學或直接用支票存款，貝寶（PayPal）就是你唯一需要的銀行。

如果你想要其他服務，也總有一家銀行可以實現。請讓人們選擇他們想要的世界，而不是強迫他們走進一個更適合過去的世界。（財富中文網）

凱瑟琳·佩特里亞是Kabbage的聯合創始人及總裁。

譯者：嚴匡正

During Fortune’s Brainstorm Finance conference in June, my panel was asked whether fintech, as an industry, faces too much or too little regulation. Panelists answered the question differently depending on their product and a common theme emerged: It depends.

Fintech companies face costly compliance with a mountain of financial regulations, most of which describe work we don’t do. Like many technology-driven industries, our regulations are horribly outdated, authored at a time when an app meant fries for the whole table, and spam was just canned meat. Imagine running a business under laws written before your industry or product ever existed. That’s the reality for most fintechs. Congress’s directions for regulators about what “banks” are and do are based on how banking worked in the 1970s.

Regulators and lawmakers we meet with regularly tell us: “We know the laws are outdated and need to be scrapped and rewritten, but it’s just too big, too hard, and too much work.” To some extent, they’re right. Bank board members and federal regulators can’t grasp the scope or pace of change, or possibly keep up if they insist on treating every company like a bank and every loan like a 30-year mortgage.

Banks, as institutions, don’t really exist anymore. Customer activities exist and financial services exist—and they’re part of a complex and perpetually shifting network of problems and solutions.

To keep up, the U.K. takes a novel approach that America should examine. The U.K. regulates services—what businesses actually do. Separate licenses and standards govern lending to home buyers or small businesses. Processing payments between banks doesn’t pose the same risk as deposits, so risk-sensitive regulations in the U.K. are relaxed.

Giving up the one-size-fits-all model of financial relationships, such as the brick-and-mortar bank or middle-class mortgage, opens the door to customization, specialization, and reimagining customer-business relationships. Dated regulations treating Pandora and Spotify like 1970s record labels or radio stations led to a total copyright overhaul. Customers’ expectations have changed every bit as much for financial services as for the music industry. Change is overdue.

Tala, a California-based company offering microloans in developing countries, is using mobile phone habits to determine creditworthiness. If a potential borrower tops up his minutes at regular intervals, has a wide network of contacts who he’s known for years and stays in contact with, and pays his other bills regularly, he’s very likely to repay the loan of $50 to stock his fruit stand or $250 for a motorbike. Similarly, for any type or source of data fintech models find predictive, the would-be borrower may consent to share, or not.

Modern regulation should allow the customer to determine who has access to their data, choosing what to share or not to share for a certain service, including underwriting, investing, processing payments, and deposits. This is the path toward transparency and innovation.

Until recently, customers weren’t entitled to access their credit bureau data, which banks were using to make decisions about borrowers’ financial futures. Forward-thinking regulation gave customers the right to see these records and challenge their accuracy, despite resistance from the data holders. It’s certainly important that we develop regulations to give customers control of their financial data and banking services, instead of the banks.

But we can’t take this too far. Monolithic regulatory frameworks don’t allow for the dynamic, interwoven range of options and diversified offerings customers have come to expect, whether they’re rock songs or small business loans. Letting radio stations log what songs you listen to late at night might have seemed absurd back in the day, but now people love the custom experience and curated suggestions provided by companies collecting that data.

Banking is changing fast, whether banks and regulators are ready or not. Very few millennials value walking into a bank branch and speaking to a teller—that’s not what “banking” means to them. If you don’t intend to buy a home, have a child, go to college, or directly deposit a paycheck, PayPal’s the only bank you need.

If you want something else, there’s a company out there that can do it. Let people opt into the world they want, instead of forcing them into the one that was easier yesterday.

Kathryn Petralia is the co-founder and president of Kabbage.