After successfully creating the need to justify lockdowns, which are now forcing everyone to rely heavily on online services for running a business and “work from home” schemes in order to survive, and the subsequent requirements of “travel papers” and QR Codes that link to our personal profile for contact tracing purposes, the social engineers want to double down on their dystopian black ops by

floating the idea of using our internet activities to establish creditworthiness, or we’ll be left with no access to financial services online.

In short, after they have forced us into a corner with limited options to survive physically, mentally, and economically, they are now forcing us to swallow whatever totalitarian idea that’s been there all along, i.e., all those that’s been ridiculed as “conspiracy theories” are now fast becoming real, and the self-righteous “debunkers” are falling silent on their facemasks.

Through the infrastructure of the banking and finance industry, we will soon be required to submit ourselves to internet browsing audit before we can qualify for a bank credit or debit account.

What is Really New in Fintech

December 17, 2020

By Arnoud Boot, Peter Hoffmann, Luc Laeven, Lev Ratnovski

The financial industry is undergoing rapid technological change. Traditional banks face competition from online start-ups with no physical branches. Social media and other digital platforms are expanding into payments and credit. The increase in demand for digital services triggered by COVID-19 is turbo-charging this transformation. The confluence we are witnessing is driving fintech innovation and raises important questions. What are the transformative aspects of recent financial innovation that can uproot finance as we know it? Which new policy challenges will the transformation of finance bring?

Recent IMF and ECB staff research distinguishes two areas of financial innovation. One is information: new tools to collect and analyse data on customers, for example for determining creditworthiness. Another is communication: new approaches to customer relationships and the distribution of financial products. We argue that each dimension contains some transformative components.

New types of information

The most transformative information innovation is the increase in use of new types of data coming from the digital footprint of customers’ various online activities—mainly for credit-worthiness analysis.

Credit scoring using so-called hard information (income, employment time, assets and debts) is nothing new. Typically, the more data is available, the more accurate is the assessment. But this method has two problems. First, hard information tends to be “procyclical”: it boosts credit expansion in good times but exacerbates contraction during downturns.

The second and most complex problem is that certain kinds of people, like new entrepreneurs, innovators and many informal workers might not have enough hard data available. Even a well-paid expatriate moving to the United States can be caught in the conundrum of not getting a credit card for lack of credit record, and not having a credit record for lack of credit cards.

Fintech resolves the dilemma by tapping various nonfinancial data: the type of browser and hardware used to access the internet, the history of online searches and purchases. Recent research documents that, once powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning, these alternative data sources are often superior than traditional credit assessment methods, and can advance financial inclusion, by, for example, enabling more credit to informal workers and households and firms in rural areas.

https://blogs.imf.org/2020/12/17/what-is-really-new-in-fintech/

The justification may sound noble at first and ridiculously redundant later on, considering that this is exactly what we have thought they’ve been doing all along with our social media posts and comments.

But just like they have convinced governments around the world about the need for locking down towns and cities to protect ourselves from an imaginary virus that has a kill rate of less than old age hypertensions, we should expect to see this fintech-powered internet activity surveillance mechanisms implemented very soon with a legislated cooperation from our elected officials nonetheless.

Do you know how they will force the governments to allow these intrusive activities to be done openly now?

Regulators need to assess the operational risks of new lending technologies and business models facing their first real-life stress test during the COVID-19 downturn.

Other risks also loom large: more cybersecurity risks (financial institutions and customers using more online services creates potential new opportunities for criminals), and regulatory arbitrage (tailoring business models to reduce regulatory oversight). To address all these challenges, regulatory agencies need to ensure that their expertise matches that of the industry—something historically difficult that may become even harder as more talent enters the financial technology sphere and the pace of innovation accelerates.

… Other critical areas include competition policy, to address the monopolistic tendencies of large digital platforms, related to network effects and the natural tendency to converge to a few large platforms; and data policies to ensure consumer privacy and efficient and safe collection, processing, and exchange of data…”

As what always happens in the real world, it is when our so-called legislators craft the guidelines on how to protect our data, is exactly when they inject something detrimental to that idea because we can all be potential terrorists, right?

Remember the US Patriot Act in the immediate aftermath of the controlled WTC demolition in 2001? Well, every other country has its own version of that, without even using marketing lingo like patriotism. We also thought that these measures will be temporary, but now we know that they’re not. That should prove that what we’re thinking is not the same as these people have between their ears.

Another way of reading this is that they are now trying to legitimize what they have already done for decades, i.e., metadata collection of all our online activities and offline communications, to be used as a blackmailing weapon in case of dissent of any form.

Disarming their potential adversaries in us through threats of leaking our personal data in public is what Mafiosi’s always do, and they are nothing but gangsters wearing suits and ties to protect and sustain their extortion business labeled with financial terms and wrapped with fancy papers.

They have contemplated that using these “new communication channels” for potential sources of critical information should give them all the advantage…

Communication innovation is driven by the variety of digital platforms in social media, mobile communication, and online shopping that have penetrated much of consumers’ everyday lives, thus increasing their digital footprint and the available data.

Platforms like Amazon, Facebook or Alibaba incorporate more and more financial services into their ecosystems, enabling the rise of new specialized providers that compete with banks in payments, asset management, and financial information provision.

Some of us may just consider this as an overreaction to something potentially useful because if we’re not doing anything illegal, why worry at all.

We must understand that these people, who don’t share our paradigm, gained their privilege positions from a system that they’ve built, maintained and protected for years through lies, deceptions, and bloodletting, and when they do something like this, it is for another sinister purpose that’s certainly won’t benefit humanity at large.

When every data about all of us are fully integrated into a closed AI driven system, there will be no turning back if we consider the fact that they can do whatever they want just by turning off our access to our financial assets anytime if the embedded algorithm says so.

Even private ownership is being considered to be an anathema to their technocratic dictatorship plans, and should be rid of completely in the foreseeable future. These same rules don’t apply to them, of course.

That’s why people like the authors of this piece from the IMF will continue to serve the Beast because that’s the only way that these so-called financial experts thought they can survive what’s forthcoming, and they are pretty convincing…

Governments should follow and carefully support the technological transition in finance. It is important to adjust policies accordingly and stay ahead of the curve.