Search
00
GBAF Logo
trophy
Top StoriesInterviewsBusinessFinanceBankingTechnologyInvestingTradingVideosAwardsMagazinesHeadlinesTrends

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get the latest news and updates from our team.

Global Banking & Finance Review®

Global Banking & Finance Review® - Subscribe to our newsletter

Company

    GBAF Logo
    • About Us
    • Advertising and Sponsorship
    • Profile & Readership
    • Contact Us
    • Latest News
    • Privacy & Cookies Policies
    • Terms of Use
    • Advertising Terms
    • Issue 81
    • Issue 80
    • Issue 79
    • Issue 78
    • Issue 77
    • Issue 76
    • Issue 75
    • Issue 74
    • Issue 73
    • Issue 72
    • Issue 71
    • Issue 70
    • View All
    • About the Awards
    • Awards Timetable
    • Awards Winners
    • Submit Nominations
    • Testimonials
    • Media Room
    • FAQ
    • Asset Management Awards
    • Brand of the Year Awards
    • Business Awards
    • Cash Management Banking Awards
    • Banking Technology Awards
    • CEO Awards
    • Customer Service Awards
    • CSR Awards
    • Deal of the Year Awards
    • Corporate Governance Awards
    • Corporate Banking Awards
    • Digital Transformation Awards
    • Fintech Awards
    • Education & Training Awards
    • ESG & Sustainability Awards
    • ESG Awards
    • Forex Banking Awards
    • Innovation Awards
    • Insurance & Takaful Awards
    • Investment Banking Awards
    • Investor Relations Awards
    • Leadership Awards
    • Islamic Banking Awards
    • Real Estate Awards
    • Project Finance Awards
    • Process & Product Awards
    • Telecommunication Awards
    • HR & Recruitment Awards
    • Trade Finance Awards
    • The Next 100 Global Awards
    • Wealth Management Awards
    • Travel Awards
    • Years of Excellence Awards
    • Publishing Principles
    • Ownership & Funding
    • Corrections Policy
    • Editorial Code of Ethics
    • Diversity & Inclusion Policy
    • Fact Checking Policy
    Original content: Global Banking and Finance Review - https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com

    A global financial intelligence and recognition platform delivering authoritative insights, data-driven analysis, and institutional benchmarking across Banking, Capital Markets, Investment, Technology, and Financial Infrastructure.

    Copyright © 2010-2026 - All Rights Reserved. | Sitemap | Tags

    Editorial & Advertiser disclosure

    Global Banking & Finance Review® is an online platform offering news, analysis, and opinion on the latest trends, developments, and innovations in the banking and finance industry worldwide. The platform covers a diverse range of topics, including banking, insurance, investment, wealth management, fintech, and regulatory issues. The website publishes news, press releases, opinion and advertorials on various financial organizations, products and services which are commissioned from various Companies, Organizations, PR agencies, Bloggers etc. These commissioned articles are commercial in nature. This is not to be considered as financial advice and should be considered only for information purposes. It does not reflect the views or opinion of our website and is not to be considered an endorsement or a recommendation. We cannot guarantee the accuracy or applicability of any information provided with respect to your individual or personal circumstances. Please seek Professional advice from a qualified professional before making any financial decisions. We link to various third-party websites, affiliate sales networks, and to our advertising partners websites. When you view or click on certain links available on our articles, our partners may compensate us for displaying the content to you or make a purchase or fill a form. This will not incur any additional charges to you. To make things simpler for you to identity or distinguish advertised or sponsored articles or links, you may consider all articles or links hosted on our site as a commercial article placement. We will not be responsible for any loss you may suffer as a result of any omission or inaccuracy on the website.

    1. Home
    2. >Banking
    3. >It’s time for a serious open banking standard
    Banking

    It’s Time for a Serious Open Banking Standard

    Published by Gbaf News

    Posted on July 3, 2018

    11 min read

    Last updated: January 21, 2026

    Add as preferred source on Google
    An informative graph depicting the projected growth of the Health Caregiving Market from USD 233.02 billion in 2025 to USD 521.61 billion by 2032, highlighting a CAGR of 12.2%. This image enhances understanding of the market dynamics discussed in the report.
    Graph illustrating growth of the Health Caregiving Market to USD 521.61 billion by 2032 - Global Banking & Finance Review
    Why waste money on news and opinion when you can access them for free?

    Take advantage of our newsletter subscription and stay informed on the go!

    Subscribe

    Steve Kirsch, CEO and Founder, Token

    There are four things that should now be crystal clear to everyone involved in open banking:

    1.    Open banking has arrived. It was the #1 topic at Money 20/20 Europe. Open banking regulations are now appearing in other parts of the world beyond the EU.
    2.    Open banking is so irresistible that even banks that aren’t required to adopt open APIs are doing it voluntarily. Wells Fargo, for example, has implemented APIs to support over 20 use cases that it thought were compelling.
    3.    There is a lack of standardization. Of the APIs now available, only a handful of banks in the UK and Ireland are using the same API. And they only did that because the UK regulator required them to do so. But each bank implemented the standard differently. This lack of standardization is bad for everyone: it increases costs and complexity at each bank, it opens the door to insecure solutions which expose banks and their customers to unnecessary risk, and it hinders adoption by software developers who only have bandwidth to write to one or two open APIs at the most.
    4.    The standards that have been created/proposed leave a lot of room for improvement. The UK open banking API, for example, is only usable by human beings, and it took about two minutes and 15 screens for a typical human to approve a simple access request. None of the standards allow for charging the caller a fee. The Berlin Group standard is very complex.

    If open banking is to reach its full potential, it’s critical that points 3 and 4 are resolved. Here’s what I think should be done:

    1.    The top banks worldwide should jointly fund the creation of a worldwide open banking standard.
    2.    The creation of the API should be done by a commercial vendor selected by the banks. Presumably, it would be a vendor that specializes in open banking APIs and also has expertise in secure, instant micro-payments.
    3.    The chosen vendor for the API design should seek input from all parties in the ecosystem: business, consumers, banks, service providers, software developers, system integrators, regulators, security experts.

    Here’s why:

    1.    To be a global standard, it’s really best that it starts with global support. Trying to take a single region/country standard and get other countries to adopt it is harder (especially one that has been designed by committee).
    2.    The best standards are created by small teams of highly competent people working together in close proximity. In contrast, “design by committee” efforts take a very long time to come to fruition and the results are generally subpar. For example, all the computer platforms we use today to develop software on desktop and mobile devices were all created by commercial vendors, not by non-profits or industry consortiums. Choosing multiple vendors to work together is also infeasible. Great products aren’t created this way.
    3.    Getting input from all stakeholders is not controversial. Importantly, however, this doesn’t mean the vendor should accept it all blindly; good design is always an iterative process and input is often conflicting.

    Finally, the direction given to the selected vendor should include things such as:

    1.    The API should be simple and low-level, somewhat analogous to the BIOS layer in personal computers: the simplest possible API which safely exposes the offered banking functionality and which handles authorization and consent management in a consistent, secure manner. This would enable vendors implementing other open banking API specifications to build on top of this core layer. For example, the OFX standard has worked very well over time for data and it is very simple. By contrast ISO-20022 is very complex. We should always be asking: do we need this complexity at the core layer? More often than not, the answer is no.
    2.    The API standard should specify things at a high level, e.g. a payment request that can include meta-data, and let the meta-data itself be self-describing. Higher level APIs could translate the meta-data to/from a variety of formats.
    3.    The API should be fully open and not assume a particular style of API access. For example, it should not specify the interaction between a PSU and PISP/AISP; that should be out of scope. The API should assume the callers are evil and not compliant with any regulations. For example, Bitcoin and Ethereum are designed to be callable by anyone and it works extremely well because the security is built into the architecture.
    4.    The API should be easy to read, understand, and use by programmers. For example, Plaid and Stripe APIs are examples of APIs that are easy to understand, well documented, and easy to use.
    5.    The API should be available as a commercial product from at least one commercial vendor so banks don’t have to write it themselves.
    6.    The spec should be sufficiently detailed that all implementations operate identically.
    7.    The back-end of the API server should be easy for a bank to implement. For example, Token offers banks a full PSD2/RTS compliant API including very sophisticated consent management, yet a bank only has to implement eight simple API calls.
    8.    The API should use modern security and software methodologies for authentication and authorization/SCA. There must be no shared secrets between the owner of the account and the bank.
    9.    The API should not support the use of insecure standards. For example, OAuth2 is fundamentally insecure. It was designed to be insecure because they wanted it to be easier for programmers to implement. Sadly, we see OAuth2 specified in pretty much every open banking standard proposal. This is a huge mistake; basing open banking protocols on OAuth2 is a recipe for never ending security problems for the next 50 years.
    10. The API should work for retail as well as corporate applications. For example, the API should not assume that there is a human being/user interface making the transaction: it should be computer-to-computer. Human interaction should be layered on top of the API, not designed into it.
    11.   The API should be designed to be extensible so it can last for at least 50 years.
    12.   The API should support charging API callers for the service(s) provided so that banks can make money, e.g. by secure instant micro-payments that work worldwide.
    13.   The API should allow for instantly pushing payments worldwide, not just a local payment push.
    14.   There should not be any sacred cows, e.g. directives such as “you should start with the xyz standard and build off of that.”

    Following this process will create a solid foundation for building great applications and benefit all parties.

    Steve Kirsch, CEO and Founder, Token

    There are four things that should now be crystal clear to everyone involved in open banking:

    1.    Open banking has arrived. It was the #1 topic at Money 20/20 Europe. Open banking regulations are now appearing in other parts of the world beyond the EU.
    2.    Open banking is so irresistible that even banks that aren’t required to adopt open APIs are doing it voluntarily. Wells Fargo, for example, has implemented APIs to support over 20 use cases that it thought were compelling.
    3.    There is a lack of standardization. Of the APIs now available, only a handful of banks in the UK and Ireland are using the same API. And they only did that because the UK regulator required them to do so. But each bank implemented the standard differently. This lack of standardization is bad for everyone: it increases costs and complexity at each bank, it opens the door to insecure solutions which expose banks and their customers to unnecessary risk, and it hinders adoption by software developers who only have bandwidth to write to one or two open APIs at the most.
    4.    The standards that have been created/proposed leave a lot of room for improvement. The UK open banking API, for example, is only usable by human beings, and it took about two minutes and 15 screens for a typical human to approve a simple access request. None of the standards allow for charging the caller a fee. The Berlin Group standard is very complex.

    If open banking is to reach its full potential, it’s critical that points 3 and 4 are resolved. Here’s what I think should be done:

    1.    The top banks worldwide should jointly fund the creation of a worldwide open banking standard.
    2.    The creation of the API should be done by a commercial vendor selected by the banks. Presumably, it would be a vendor that specializes in open banking APIs and also has expertise in secure, instant micro-payments.
    3.    The chosen vendor for the API design should seek input from all parties in the ecosystem: business, consumers, banks, service providers, software developers, system integrators, regulators, security experts.

    Here’s why:

    1.    To be a global standard, it’s really best that it starts with global support. Trying to take a single region/country standard and get other countries to adopt it is harder (especially one that has been designed by committee).
    2.    The best standards are created by small teams of highly competent people working together in close proximity. In contrast, “design by committee” efforts take a very long time to come to fruition and the results are generally subpar. For example, all the computer platforms we use today to develop software on desktop and mobile devices were all created by commercial vendors, not by non-profits or industry consortiums. Choosing multiple vendors to work together is also infeasible. Great products aren’t created this way.
    3.    Getting input from all stakeholders is not controversial. Importantly, however, this doesn’t mean the vendor should accept it all blindly; good design is always an iterative process and input is often conflicting.

    Finally, the direction given to the selected vendor should include things such as:

    1.    The API should be simple and low-level, somewhat analogous to the BIOS layer in personal computers: the simplest possible API which safely exposes the offered banking functionality and which handles authorization and consent management in a consistent, secure manner. This would enable vendors implementing other open banking API specifications to build on top of this core layer. For example, the OFX standard has worked very well over time for data and it is very simple. By contrast ISO-20022 is very complex. We should always be asking: do we need this complexity at the core layer? More often than not, the answer is no.
    2.    The API standard should specify things at a high level, e.g. a payment request that can include meta-data, and let the meta-data itself be self-describing. Higher level APIs could translate the meta-data to/from a variety of formats.
    3.    The API should be fully open and not assume a particular style of API access. For example, it should not specify the interaction between a PSU and PISP/AISP; that should be out of scope. The API should assume the callers are evil and not compliant with any regulations. For example, Bitcoin and Ethereum are designed to be callable by anyone and it works extremely well because the security is built into the architecture.
    4.    The API should be easy to read, understand, and use by programmers. For example, Plaid and Stripe APIs are examples of APIs that are easy to understand, well documented, and easy to use.
    5.    The API should be available as a commercial product from at least one commercial vendor so banks don’t have to write it themselves.
    6.    The spec should be sufficiently detailed that all implementations operate identically.
    7.    The back-end of the API server should be easy for a bank to implement. For example, Token offers banks a full PSD2/RTS compliant API including very sophisticated consent management, yet a bank only has to implement eight simple API calls.
    8.    The API should use modern security and software methodologies for authentication and authorization/SCA. There must be no shared secrets between the owner of the account and the bank.
    9.    The API should not support the use of insecure standards. For example, OAuth2 is fundamentally insecure. It was designed to be insecure because they wanted it to be easier for programmers to implement. Sadly, we see OAuth2 specified in pretty much every open banking standard proposal. This is a huge mistake; basing open banking protocols on OAuth2 is a recipe for never ending security problems for the next 50 years.
    10. The API should work for retail as well as corporate applications. For example, the API should not assume that there is a human being/user interface making the transaction: it should be computer-to-computer. Human interaction should be layered on top of the API, not designed into it.
    11.   The API should be designed to be extensible so it can last for at least 50 years.
    12.   The API should support charging API callers for the service(s) provided so that banks can make money, e.g. by secure instant micro-payments that work worldwide.
    13.   The API should allow for instantly pushing payments worldwide, not just a local payment push.
    14.   There should not be any sacred cows, e.g. directives such as “you should start with the xyz standard and build off of that.”

    Following this process will create a solid foundation for building great applications and benefit all parties.

    More from Banking

    Explore more articles in the Banking category

    Image for Nominate Today for the Leadership Awards 2026
    Nominate Today for the Leadership Awards 2026
    Image for Submit Your Entries for Insurance & Takaful Awards 2026
    Submit Your Entries for Insurance & Takaful Awards 2026
    Image for Calling for Entries: ESG & Sustainability Awards 2026
    Calling for Entries: ESG & Sustainability Awards 2026
    Image for Call for Entries: Deal of the Year Awards 2026
    Call for Entries: Deal of the Year Awards 2026
    Image for Submit Your Entry Today for Customer Service Awards 2026
    Submit Your Entry Today for Customer Service Awards 2026
    Image for Submit Your Entry Today for CSR Awards 2026
    Submit Your Entry Today for CSR Awards 2026
    Image for Submit Your Entry Today for Retail Banking Awards 2026
    Submit Your Entry Today for Retail Banking Awards 2026
    Image for Nominations Open for Islamic Banking Awards 2026
    Nominations Open for Islamic Banking Awards 2026
    Image for Submit Your Entry Today for Fund & Asset Management Awards 2026
    Submit Your Entry Today for Fund & Asset Management Awards 2026
    Image for Entries Open for Forex Banking Awards 2026
    Entries Open for Forex Banking Awards 2026
    Image for Call for Entries for Brand of the Year Awards 2026
    Call for Entries for Brand of the Year Awards 2026
    Image for Nominations Open for Corporate Banking Awards 2026
    Nominations Open for Corporate Banking Awards 2026
    View All Banking Posts
    Previous Banking PostCareer Opportunities in Banking: Where Are We Now and What Is the Future?
    Next Banking PostBuilding Consumer Trust Is the Biggest Open Banking Challenge