(The original interview was published in Croatian in Dnevnik.hr)
The financial sector is undergoing one of the most transformative periods in its history. Driven by rapid technological innovation, the rise of fintech has reshaped how banks operate, how customers interact with financial services, and how regulators approach an increasingly digital marketplace. Traditional institutions are accelerating their digitalization efforts, all while competing and collaborating with agile fintech startups that are redefining industry standards.
On the other hand, fintech startups are rewriting the rules of money movement and customer experience, while traditional banks scramble to modernize decades-old systems and stay competitive in a market that now moves at the speed of an app.
One of the fintechs that’s making a difference in our region is Dorsum, headquartered in Budapest, Hungary. For the last 30 years, experts from Dorsum have offered innovative technological solutions to their investment and wealth management partners. They are a fintech company enabling financial institutions to become more competitive in today’s fast and digital world.
Martina Cizmic (Editor In Chief @ ZIMO) sat down with Bálint Fischer (Chief Business Development Officer and Board Member) who’s been with Dorsum for the last 8 years, to talk about the challenges financial industry faces today and how fintech companies are, at the same time, their biggest competitors and best partners.
Martina Cizmic (Editor In Chief @ ZIMO): So, the age of face-to-face banking, live banking, is coming to an end. A lot of banks are closing their branches and leaving only digital branches. Everything or almost everything today is digital. There are a lot of fintech companies that are making a name for themselves in this world in different ways. But what are your experiences? Can banks keep up with all the digitalization? And all the fintech competitions, I think something like Revolut, that’s digital bank, something in line with other companies that are digital first and bank second.
Bálint Fischer (Dorsum): The short answer is – it depends.
The longer answer is that the lines between industries are blurring. Banks—and not just banks, but most service-oriented companies—are increasingly becoming technology-driven. At the same time, tech companies are entering financial services. So, what used to be clearly separated industries are now increasingly overlapping.
Take Revolut as an example: it’s both a bank and a technology company. If you ask most people, they would probably describe it first as a tech company and only then as a bank. And this trend works in both directions.
Traditional banks, however, have two major advantages. One is client base and financial strength; they have the money, the reputation, and the legacy—legacy in a positive sense—that newcomers simply don’t.
The second is local presence and market knowledge; banks have deep roots in local markets, which is extremely hard to replicate. Newcomers like Revolut or Wise often struggle with localization because banking services are complex and vary by country.
For example, high-value added services like mortgages or investment advisory are not everyday needs. These require local expertise and often a personal touch. When you’re deciding about €1 million, whether you’re 20- or 80-year-old, you want someone on the other side—not just an app.
On the other hand, daily banking—the commodity side—is shifting rapidly to digital. That’s where traditional banks face challenges. Their legacy systems, processes, and even culture make transformation difficult. Moving from a traditional bank to a tech-driven organization is a massive undertaking. Without successful digital transformation, legacy can become a bottleneck.
This is why you see neobanks launching new features every month, while traditional banks move slower. They are working hard on digital transformation projects—becoming more agile, not just in technology but in mindset.
It’s happening, but it takes time.
Several years ago, people predicted that neobanks would destroy traditional banks but I believe in general that’s not going to happen. Instead, we’ll see a balance. Some neobanks will scale and thrive; others won’t survive. The same goes for traditional banks—those that adapt will remain strong. Partnerships between the two groups are already emerging.
Fifty years from now, you won’t be able to tell which was a neobank and which was a legacy bank—they’ll simply be banks. Not all will survive, but the ecosystem will evolve into a more connected network with winners and losers on both sides.
M.C.: So, in that context, how much does the regulation, because we all know EU is very regulated, how much is regulation in fintech section and in banking section, making banks go forward because they must be in line with the regulation. And how much does it hamper their innovations?
B.F.: Well, regulation can be both helpful, and sometimes not that helpful. Banks, including neobanks, must invest significant resources to stay compliant, which is demanding.
In the EU, the single market makes it easier: a banking license obtained in one member state can be “passported” across the EU, allowing services without local branches everywhere. Outside the EU, this isn’t possible—you need a local license to operate. Within the EU, requirements are broadly similar, but some countries offer more flexible regulatory environments. Securing a license there enables companies to provide services across the EU more efficiently — what we can call regulatory arbitrage.
In some cases it can be a huge advantage compared to the other players that have local licenses. And this is a huge difference between models and how banks work. If you take a look at any neobanks, they obtain their license in an EU country with more flexible regulations and then passport it across the EU. This means they don’t need to meet every local requirement, giving them a significant advantage. I think that’s something that the EU member states should also focus on.
The problem is that overly strict national regulations can hurt domestic banks while failing to control neobank players. That’s not likely the intended outcome.
European financial institutions also spend far more on compliance than their U.S. counterparts, which makes them less competitive in the long run. This imbalance is a real issue for the industry.
M.C.: In that light, AI has already become an everyday thing. We have our phones, smartwatches, and use ChatGPT all the time… Is AI also making its way into banking? Are we mentally and financially prepared to trust AI with our money, or will there always be a person at the end that’s going to have a final say?
B.F.: AI is already inside the banks; in a lot of areas, we can’t even see. For example, fraud detection—if your card is blocked after you pay abroad, it’s an AI. There are hundreds of use cases for AI, and when we talk about big decisions, like investment or mortgage approvals, AI can already be a very useful and supportive tool.
It’s largely a matter of psychology. Ten years ago, everyone said investment advisory would be fully automated, no humans needed. But clients didn’t change as fast as technology. People still want someone human on the other side when dealing with life savings.
For instance, in Budapest, when the first driverless subway arrived, passengers avoided it because they didn’t feel safe. The company placed someone in the driver’s seat—who did nothing—just to make people comfortable. That’s the “human in the loop” principle.
In complex portfolio management or advisory, I would still trust a human over AI today. In 5–10 years, AI may outperform humans entirely, but people will still want reassurance. Perhaps in 20 years, humans won’t be needed at all—but until then, the human touch adds real value.
M.C.: You mentioned AI as a tool to detect fraud. But what about the other side? What about banks fighting against AI fraud from the outside?
B.F.: It’s like the fight between the cops and the criminals — it’s all about technology. Today, deepfakes can bypass live checks; tomorrow, quantum computing may break passwords. Every innovation creates new risks, and society has to respond with new defenses. This cycle repeats with every major technological leap. AI is just the latest chapter.
M.C.: One of the biggest evolutions EU citizens will have in the next few years is digital euro… Can digital money replace physical money?
B.F.: We need to separate physical cash from digital money. Digital money isn’t new — salaries arrive digitally, transfers happen digitally. But many people still withdraw cash because it feels safe.
Then we have stablecoins, which are simply euros on blockchain. Their advantage is lower cost and higher efficiency because today’s banking infrastructure is expensive and slow.
And finally, we have electronic money directly issued by central banks — CBDCs. These are gaining traction worldwide. But the devil is in the details: if implemented poorly, CBDCs could shift us toward a single-tier banking system with major monetary consequences.
M.C.: In your experience, what’s the single biggest internal cultural or technical hurdle a large bank faces when moving to a modern digital investment platform?
B.F.: Five years ago, the focus was mobile apps and UX. Today, most banks offer apps as good as neobanks. Now the challenge is speed. Neobanks launch features in a month; traditional banks need a year. The reason is legacy systems — 20–25 years old — that weren’t designed for agility.
We help banks renew these systems because without modernization, launching new products or adapting to the market becomes extremely slow and costly.
The next challenge is backend: AI integration, cybersecurity, and compliance like DORA. Legacy architecture makes all of this harder. The last five years were about the front end; the next ten will be about rebuilding the back end.
M.C.: What if tomorrow the internet dies? Do banks prepare for that?
B.F.: A global internet failure would be a systemic shock for everyone, not just banks. But financial institutions do prepare for extreme cases with business continuity and disaster recovery plans. Realistically, the focus is on localized outages, cyberattacks, or cloud failures. The industry invests heavily in redundancy to ensure customers can access their money even in worst-case scenarios. There are also pilots for digital currencies that can be exchanged offline.
M.C.: What’s the situation with fintech and banking in Croatia?
B.F.: Trends are similar across the EU. People often think fintech equals Revolut, but B2C players are only 3–5% of the market. Most fintechs, like Dorsum, support banks with technology. It’s an ecosystem: sometimes you compete, sometimes you partner — often with the same company.
The real question is where to compete and where to complement others. As we work with 80 institutions across Europe, we see that not all players are ready for this cultural shift.
M.C.: So, what’s the situation in Croatia? Are banks rigid or open to change?
B.F.: Croatian banks are genuinely opening up. They’re not rigid — they’re actively pushing modernization to become faster, more efficient, and more customer-centric.
Being part of international groups adds momentum, but local initiative exists too. Croatian banks want to move forward, and group-level alignment simply accelerates that trajectory.
M.C.: Is being part of an international group an advantage or disadvantage?
B.F.: It depends on the headquarters. Banking is a scale business; centralizing capabilities across countries makes sense. Digital banks benefit heavily from this.
But the group must balance when to centralize and when to stay flexible. If headquarters doesn’t understand local realities, they risk losing market share. Today, the trend is heavy centralization — which works only if local contexts are respected.
M.C.: What can we expect from Dorsum?
B.F.: Our mission is to help banks and investment firms stay competitive. We simplify and accelerate everything related to capital markets, investments, wealth management, and digital assets.
We rely on 30 years of experience with top European banking groups — Intesa, Raiffeisen, Erste, OTP — and we constantly integrate modern technologies like cloud, AI, and digital assets.
Most problems come from operations. Fix the right 20%, and you solve 80% of the issues. That’s what we do: identify the critical 20% and make it work flawlessly.
