Do you remember the times when you were standing in line at a bank branch with a copy of your passport to exchange dollars or open a credit card? Those moments feel like they happened yesterday, but today’s reality is completely different. Right now, taking a microloan in 2 minutes or making an international payment while sitting on the sofa is normal. The FinTech revolution (stage 2.0) has begun in Uzbekistan. Will agile neo-banks win this battle, or will the “dinosaurs” with capital finally wake up?
Transition from FinTech 1.0 to 2.0: What’s the difference?
The FinTech 1.0 era in Uzbekistan was about the arrival of simple payment systems (Click, Payme) and basic mobile banking apps. It was essentially just a “plastic card control panel.”
FinTech 2.0 is the era of ecosystems and digital banks. The app is no longer only a payment tool. It becomes a marketplace (Grape), an investment instrument (Iman, Asaxiy Invest, TBC), and a lifestyle product.
Key players: TBC (Georgian unicorn), Anorbank (the first domestic digital bank), Uzum Bank (e-commerce giant).
Key tools: Big Data and AI-based scoring (customer evaluation).
Traditional banking problem: The legacy burden
Why are major state-owned banks (NBU, SQB, Asaka) falling behind in the digital race? They have billions in capital, don’t they? The issue is legacy systems.
- Technical debt: The backend systems of traditional banks were built decades ago. Adding a new feature is like replacing the foundation of an old building without demolishing it. Neobanks are agile because they are built from scratch (cloud-native).
- Customer attitude: In old banks, the customer is an “applicant.” In new banks, the client is a “user.”
- Branch thinking: A traditional banker thinks, “let the client come to the branch.” FinTech thinks, “the bank should be in the customer’s pocket.”
Paradox: Today, people receive their salaries on “old” bank cards, but as soon as they get the money, they immediately transfer it to a “new” bank app—because it’s simply more convenient.
Battlefield: SuperApp and BNPL (Buy Now, Pay Later)
The main battle today is not about “percentages,” but about winning the customer’s attention and time.
- Ecosystem warfare: This can be seen in the example of Grape: choose the product → buy on credit → pay from the same app. The client meets all needs without leaving a single application. Traditional banks, however, mostly offer only financial services.
- BNPL: The microloan market has exploded. If you need documents to get a 5 million soum loan from a traditional bank, FinTech can solve it in 2 minutes using Face ID. Is there a risk? Yes. But speed became the decisive factor.
Outlook: BaaS (Bank as a Service)
Will traditional banks die? No. They are forced to change. In the future, two models may remain:
- Bank platform: A great app, strong marketing, direct work with clients (mainly neobanks).
- Banking infrastructure: Banks that have a license, capital, and SWIFT channels, but operate “behind the curtain” (mainly state banks).
Many traditional banks will survive by leasing their licenses and capital to FinTech startups (BaaS). In other words, behind the beautiful app you’re using, there might actually be an old, boring bank.
The real winner: The consumer
The biggest winner of this conflict is the ordinary Uzbek citizen. Competition forced banks to move faster, reduce commissions, and offer cashback. “FinTech 2.0” transformed banking in Uzbekistan from an “institution” into a “service.” Now the banker is no longer a serious man in a tie—but a colorful button on your smartphone.
