For years, the concept of Open Banking was presented as the next major step in the transformation of the financial system. Essentially, this model sought to allow users to share their bank account information with authorized third parties, typically fintech companies or other financial service providers, through secure interfaces, in order to access new products, initiate payments, or compare offers.
Over time, this idea evolved into a broader concept: Open Finance. Unlike Open Banking, which focuses primarily on banking information, Open Finance expands the scope of data sharing to other financial products and services such as loans, investments, insurance, pensions, and even transactional data that provides a better understanding of users’ financial behavior.
In this context, the concept of Open Banking, which has now evolved into Open Finance, has been presented as the next major step in the transformation of the financial system. The narrative is compelling: data belongs to the user, competition increases, services become personalized, and financial inclusion ceases to be a goal and becomes a real possibility.
However, amid the regulatory debate currently taking place in Colombia and several other countries in the region on this issue, and given the uneven progress across the region, it is worth pausing to consider a question: Are we building a model that empowers users, or are we opening the door to data breaches?
Open Finance and Data Sharing: How the New Financial Model Works
The Open Finance model proposes that, with the customer’s consent, different entities can access their financial information through secure and standardized infrastructures. While mechanisms for accessing information—such as credit bureaus—already exist today to assess an individual’s financial behavior, the scope of Open Finance is potentially much broader. This model opens the door to a broader understanding of each user’s financial landscape, including payments and spending that occur outside the traditional banking system. In theory, this breaks information monopolies, lowers barriers to entry, and allows new players to develop more competitive products tailored to people’s real needs. In practice, the situation is much more complex.
Essentially, in Open Finance, the data that can be shared, always with the user’s authorization, may include information such as account transactions, payment history, credit products, credit cards, savings, investments, or insurance. The goal is for this information to enable the creation of more personalized services, more accurate risk assessments, and more integrated financial experiences across different providers.
Open Finance in Latin America: Progress, Regulatory Differences, and Case Studies
Latin America is making progress, but not uniformly. Part of this debate also draws on international experience. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, considered pioneers in the implementation of these models, have demonstrated both the potential and the challenges of Open Finance, facing adjustments in adoption timelines and the need to continually strengthen security and data protection standards.
In the region, Brazil has become the benchmark in terms of transaction volume and adoption of the model. Part of its success stems from a progressive regulatory strategy led by the Central Bank, which first promoted the interoperability of instant payments through Pix and subsequently integrated the Open Finance model into a centrally regulated and supervised ecosystem. Mexico was a pioneer in regulation, although its technical implementation has been slower than expected; Chile has already established a clear timeline, and Colombia is at a decisive juncture, where rather than adopting the model, it is defining its architecture.
El verdadero desafío del Open Finance: confianza, consentimiento y control de los datos
That detail is key: Open Finance is not a technology; it is a design decision for the financial system. In that design, the discourse typically places the user at the center. It is the user who authorizes the use of their data, who can switch providers more easily, and who should benefit from better terms. But that “control” raises several questions that still lack clear answers.
Is consent truly informed, or is it just another box users check to access a service?
Does the user understand the scope of what they are sharing? Can they revoke that permission easily and in real time? Is there sufficient financial and digital literacy for data portability to be synonymous with freedom?
In a region where trust in the financial system remains fragile, assuming that open data alone generates value is, at the very least, optimistic.
Competition or Concentration: The New Balance in Open Financial Systems
The other major point deserving further discussion is the concentration of power. Open Finance was born with the promise of increasing competition, but it may also end up strengthening the players who succeed in building the best data experience layer.
The question, then, is not just who has the data, but who builds the relationship with the customer. If user interaction shifts to platforms that centralize their financial lives, the model could change in form, but not necessarily in logic. We would move from a focus on products to a focus on interfaces.
This does not negate the potential of Open Finance; in fact, the ability to use alternative data to assess risk can expand access to credit for people who currently lack a traditional credit history, interoperability can reduce operational costs and improve the user experience, and product comparability can foster more competitive markets. However, none of this happens automatically.
For the model to work as promised, certain conditions must be met—conditions that are not technological, but structural:
Enforceable data protection frameworks.
Clear standards for security and accountability among participants.
Data tokenization to enhance data security.
Governance frameworks for the model.
Financial and digital education for users.
Without these elements, openness may remain at the technical level while real control remains in the hands of a few players.
El futuro del Open Finance en Latinoamérica: una discusión sobre confianza
The current situation in Colombia is particularly significant because there is still room to decide what kind of model the country wants to build. It is not just a matter of following a global trend, but of defining how value will be distributed within the financial system in the coming years.
Open Finance should not be measured solely by the number of available APIs or the number of integrations completed. Its success should be evaluated based on deeper questions: Does it truly improve people’s financial lives? Does it reduce information asymmetries? Does it generate effective competition? Does it give users back control of their data, or does it simply switch intermediaries?
