I attended a FinTech conference last month with three goals for TiVaMo, but what I took away was something entirely different. I went in thinking as a founder—and came out thinking as a consumer. That shift in perspective revealed something troubling about the future of traditional banking.

Let me be clear: I am an outsider to this industry. My background is in supply chain consulting, software, and operations—not financial services. But that is exactly why I entered this space: to bring a customer perspective to an industry that desperately needs it. And what I observed at this conference confirmed my experiences dealing with banks and other financial institutions.

Three Observations That Changed Everything

First, there was endless discussion about AI agents and stablecoins. FinTechs (and some banks) talked excitedly about deploying agents to handle customer tasks. But here is the thing: when I call my bank today, I end up shouting "AGENT" ten times at increasing volume just to reach a human who can actually help me. If that basic capability doesn't work well, why should I trust more advanced automation? One company, Hamming AI, even demonstrated live how they could hack an agent and make it transfer money. I am a big believer in AI (with concerns that I will address in a different article), but that should terrify everyone.

Second—and this is where the ostrich metaphor hit me—there wasn't a single neobank presenting. No Chime, no representatives from any of the digital-first challengers. This was happening the same week Chime announced its planned acquisition of Stride Bank. The traditional banks in that room were simply ignoring the threat. They weren't just being disrupted; they're potentially being put out of business, and they acted like it wasn't happening.

Third, there was plenty of talk about customer engagement, experience, and acquisition—but it all felt like shuffling pieces on a board, not changing the game - one bank gains a customer's mortgage, another one loses it. The mindset was deeply inside-out: what products can we sell to customers? Not outside-in: what do customers actually need? All the marketing money being spent was on a zero-sum game. And new products, such as "Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL)" are trying to create a future obligation on the consumer which the banks hope we will not fulfill so they can make more money through interest charges. I do see value for such products (again, for another article), but the consumer needs to use them in the right way to meet their overall individualized financial needs.

Otherwise, WINNER: Bank, LOSER: customer.

The Insight That Broke Me

The breaking point came during a panel featuring a CMO from a top-ten bank—a bank where I am actually a customer. This executive proudly discussed the billions of "insights" they serve to customers through their portal. I had seen these before and didn't see much value in them. But, I logged in to take another look.

It was for my water bill. The insight told me that I typically pay a certain amount around this time of year, and predicted I would pay $138. But looking at the actual data—May, June, July in Dallas during the Summer—the bills were climbing steadily higher. Anyone with basic analytical skills would see the trend. The prediction made no sense, offered nothing actionable, and demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of my data that they already have.

If this is the best they can do with insights, I am terrified of what happens when they deploy AI agents to schedule payments on my behalf.

After the conference, I spoke with someone from a top-20 bank about partnerships. When I explained TiVaMo's customer-first approach, her response crystallized everything: "We are in the volume business." Not individual customers. Just how many products to how many people. She even acknowledged her own dissatisfaction with how banks charge ATM fees and pocket returns they should pass to customers.

The Infrastructure Trap

I have seen this movie before. Twice.

In the 1990s, telecom providers like AT&T built and managed infrastructure—then internet companies like Google sat on top of it and captured all the value by delivering what customers actually wanted. Thirty years later, telecoms are still stuck maintaining networks while others monetize them.

In the late 2000s, automotive companies faced the same shift. They managed the infrastructure—the vehicles—while companies like Apple monetized the mobile-device aspects of increasingly connected cars. Tesla took a different approach, and it has helped them considerably.

Now it's banking's turn. Traditional banks will become infrastructure providers—someone has to manage compliance and track the money. But the companies facing customers, understanding their needs, delivering real value? Those are the ones that will win. The neobanks aren't just competitors; they're rewriting the rules while traditional banks rearrange deck chairs (shuffle pieces on a board - different metaphor, same idea).

If anyone from a traditional bank wants to have a dialogue about this, I am here. I ain't afraid of no big birds. But the clock is ticking, and the head-in-sand strategy has never worked out well for anyone.