This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology
Whoever wrote this article has never actually worked in regulation. Regulatory ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing. It is both the consequence of our need for natural language to grasp reality and the acknowledgment that facts surrounding the regulated reality are both not completely known as they can be unpredictable.
Actually, whatever restrictions end up embedded into a FinTech design will not be "regulation" at all. Regulation requires the freedom of regulated agents to choose between complying or not. If you have no choice but to comply, that is just system design, but it's far from being any sort of regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesboyzeke (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
