I hate to be negative but I didn’t find that blog post particularly encouraging. You mention that -
Core banking is by its nature ‘account centric’ (not ‘customer centric’). “Where most other banking systems have gone wrong is allowing that account centric nature to define how they are delivering services,”
And it’s obviously those types of constraints that you’re trying to avoid when building a new banking platform. But then go on to say that SAP has -
taken its heritage applications and “re-platformed the infrastructure they are on to be cloud-like”
So it sounds like SAP has replicated the traditional core banking architecture to a certain extent. The point is, if you did want to do something like switch away from an account focused architecture to a customer focused architecture - you can replicate account functionality without accounts after all, for more flexibility - then presumably you’d be constrained by SAP’s design & less able to customise it for your needs.
I appreciate the fact that there’s a trade off here & that adopting the SAP platform will presumably enable you to get to market sooner. But if you were planning for the long term & really trying to shake things up, I expect you’d value increased flexibility more.
We need new banks (aka ‘neobanks’)
I agree with Valentina Kristensen’s definition of neobanks being banks that offer banking services but that don’t have a banking license. Xinja has has a license so you’re a proper ‘challenger bank’