Across global financial systems, open banking has evolved from a promising concept into an infrastructure model redefining how customers access financial services. Yet in Pakistan, where fintech adoption, mobile wallets, and digital payments have grown considerably, open banking remains constrained by a set of structural, technical, and regulatory barriers that impede progress. These challenges were brought into sharp focus at the Fintech Forward Forum 2025, where industry participants described the dissonance between the aspirations for seamless connectivity and the operational realities of implementing these systems. Despite a growing appetite for interoperability and partner-driven innovation, the lack of standardized protocols, weak integration readiness among many fintechs, and the absence of enabling regulation continue to hold back meaningful progress.
The conversation highlighted a recurring pattern: banks may be willing, fintechs may be ambitious, and customers may be receptive, but the connective tissue needed to bind these elements together remains underdeveloped. Integration becomes a slow, complex process when partners lack technical maturity, documentation is inconsistent, or technology stacks differ fundamentally in how they handle routing, security, and messaging. These issues are compounded by the broader regulatory environment, which lacks the clear directives needed to institutionalize open APIs and standardized onboarding frameworks. As a result, even innovative financial institutions find themselves anchored by the slowest-moving elements of the ecosystem. This article examines the structural and technical barriers inhibiting the advancement of open banking in Pakistan. Unlike broader discussions on collaboration or cultural readiness, this piece focuses specifically on the operational, technical, and regulatory dimensions that determine whether open banking can function as intended. It explores the integration complexities faced by banks and switch operators, the technical literacy gaps in fintechs, the infrastructure misalignments that make interoperability difficult, and the regulatory constraints that keep open banking from moving beyond its conceptual stage. Together, these dynamics reveal why Pakistan’s open banking trajectory remains uneven despite rising digital demand.
Integration as a Persistent Bottleneck
One of the most prominent issues raised at the Forum was the complexity of integration. Banks, fintechs, EMIs, and payment networks frequently engage in multi-layered connectivity cycles that require technical compatibility, documentation discipline, and process clarity. Yet practitioners emphasized that many fintechs struggle with these requirements, creating persistent bottlenecks in the integration process. As one panel member explained, “skills are limited on the fintech side. Their technical resources are not mature in documentation or integration requirements, which becomes a challenge for banks or for us to work with”. This single statement encapsulates a systemic problem: integration is only as smooth as the least prepared party. Banks may have well-structured onboarding processes, complete API documentation, and dedicated integration support teams, but progress stalls when fintech partners lack the technical literacy needed to interpret specifications, build compliant modules, or maintain consistent testing discipline. When one side lacks documentation rigour, the other side must compensate, adding time and complexity. This is not simply an inconvenience; it undermines confidence and delays launches.
Another speaker described how integration challenges become amplified when multiple interfaces are involved. Fintechs often connect to banks, payment switches, and third-party service layers simultaneously. When each layer has different protocols, security requirements, and authentication flows, fintech teams, especially smaller outfits, struggle to coordinate these elements. The result is a patchwork of partial integrations, incomplete testing cycles, and misaligned expectations. These integration bottlenecks also affect timelines. When fintechs are unprepared, banks must repeat explanations, re-share documentation, and walk partners through technical standards. One forum participant described how “onboarding partners means working with multiple interfaces, VPN tunnels, ISO requirements, routing tables, it becomes complex if the partner doesn’t understand the basics”. This highlights a fundamental truth: open banking requires more than willingness. It requires technical fluency.
Banks and switch operators are designed to handle regulated, mission-critical workloads. Their systems operate at high volumes, strict uptime requirements, and firm audit expectations. When fintechs introduce inconsistent code, unoptimized calls, or protocol violations, the bank must allocate disproportionate resources to stabilize the connection. These complexities slow down system readiness and add friction to what should ideally be seamless integration. This challenge is not unique to Pakistan, but in markets where open banking is more advanced, standards and regulatory mandates force fintechs to meet baseline integration maturity before connecting to banking infrastructure. In Pakistan, the absence of such standardized requirements makes integration performance inconsistent across the ecosystem, turning what should be predictable workflows into prolonged, unpredictable cycles.
Protocol Mismatches and Infrastructure Misalignment
Beyond general integration issues, specific technical incompatibilities further complicate the move toward open banking. Pakistan’s financial ecosystem operates on a mix of systems, ISO messaging standards, proprietary protocols, legacy routing frameworks, and modern API layers. When fintechs interact with these systems, they must understand not only the technical requirements but also the operational logic that drives transactions. A speaker at the Forum noted that many fintechs struggle with basic protocol literacy. They do not always understand routing requirements, encryption expectations, or message structures. As explained, “there are often issues with ISO messages, routing, and technical requirements, many fintech teams just don’t have the maturity to manage these correctly”. Such protocol mismatches lead to test failures, inconsistent message parsing, and transaction breakdowns.
Infrastructure misalignment also contributes to delays. Some fintechs attempt to build on lightweight technology stacks not optimized for enterprise-grade connectivity. When these stacks interface with banking infrastructure, which relies on stability, redundancy, and predictable throughput, disruptions inevitably occur. Problems such as session drops, message retries, timeout mismatches, or inconsistent payload structures emerge. Banks then spend time diagnosing issues that originate not in their systems but on the partner side. The same speaker described how, at times, fintechs lack understanding of core requirements for security protocols, VPN tunneling, or network isolation. These oversights create significant risk, forcing banks to enforce strict quality gates before enabling live traffic. In markets with advanced open banking, certification environments, compliance testing, and standardized sandboxes ensure partners meet minimum requirements before integration begins. In Pakistan, these safeguards exist informally but without unified governance, leaving banks and partners to negotiate requirements on a case-by-case basis.
Underlying these challenges is the absence of sector-wide standardization. Every bank, network operator, and processor may define its own documentation style, API structure, naming conventions, and security flows. Without unified standards, partners must adapt their systems repeatedly for each integration. In advanced markets, open banking standards provide uniformity, partners build once and reuse repeatedly. In Pakistan, partners must tailor their integrations for every institution, increasing complexity and reducing scalability. This lack of uniform infrastructure hampers innovation scale. Even where fintechs launch successfully with one bank, expansion to other institutions requires rework. That rework consumes resources, increases time-to-market, and fragments the ecosystem. Until Pakistan adopts common frameworks, protocol mismatches will remain an ongoing obstacle to open banking maturity.
Regulatory Gaps and the Missing Push Toward Open APIs
Perhaps the most significant constraint identified at the Forum was regulatory ambiguity. Participants noted that while open banking requires enabling regulation, Pakistan currently lacks a comprehensive framework mandating open APIs or defining interoperability standards. As the moderator remarked, “we don’t have the regulation right now for open banking… there’s no clarity from the regulator on how it’s going to roll out”.
This absence of regulatory direction affects every layer of the ecosystem:
1. Banks lack incentives to open their systems
Without regulatory mandates, banks default to caution. Opening APIs exposes them to operational, compliance, and reputational risks. In mature markets, regulatory mandates require banks to support partners, share data, and enable interoperability under strict governance. Without similar mandates, banks in Pakistan have no obligation to expose structured interfaces, making open banking inconsistent across institutions.
2. Fintechs lack guaranteed access
Fintechs rely on open APIs to build scalable products. Regulatory clarity ensures predictable access. Without it, fintechs must negotiate integrations individually, facing long delays and inconsistent outcomes. This weakens the innovation cycle and limits the breadth of digital services fintechs can deliver.
3. Consumer data rights remain undefined
Open banking relies on data portability, the idea that customers own their financial data and can authorize its secure transfer. Without regulatory infrastructure governing consent, access, permissions, and security, banks face legal uncertainty in sharing data. This stalls open banking before it begins.
4. No unified standards, formats, or certification environments
Regulations normally define technical standards for API security, message formats, consent flows, and authentication layers. In Pakistan, each institution follows its own approach. The lack of country-wide standards means integration becomes bespoke rather than standardized.
5. Sandbox environments remain transitional rather than foundational
The Forum highlighted that the sandbox is currently being used as a path toward regulatory clarity. But sandboxes, by design, are temporary environments. As one speaker explained, “the sandbox is actually a path toward open banking, but until regulation comes, everything stays experimental”.Without clear outcomes from these experiments, the ecosystem remains uncertain about how far to invest in open banking infrastructure.
Regulatory gaps exert a cascading effect. Even banks eager to collaborate must operate within compliance limitations, while fintechs eager to innovate must adapt to inconsistent rules. Until regulation establishes unified expectations, open banking cannot transition from conceptual ambition to institutionalized practice.
Why Technical Literacy Determines Open Banking Viability
A recurring theme at the Forum was the need for fintechs to strengthen their technical literacy. Banks and switch operators described numerous situations where fintech teams were unfamiliar with enterprise-grade standards, revealing not just isolated skill gaps but a broader maturity issue across the ecosystem. Many fintechs originate from lightweight technology environments where speed, experimentation, and consumer-facing features take priority. When these teams attempt to connect with banking infrastructure, they encounter an operational landscape defined by strict compliance requirements, detailed documentation, rigorous security expectations, and disciplined processes. Navigating this environment demands comfort with API specifications, ISO message structures, routing and switching logic, encryption models, failover planning, incident management, performance testing, version control, and audit-ready security practices. One speaker highlighted the challenge succinctly, noting that many fintech teams “lack the maturity to understand documentation and integration requirements,” a gap that forces banks to expend additional resources simply to bring their partners up to baseline standards. This dynamic introduces delays, disrupts development timelines, and increases the overall cost of collaboration. Technical literacy also shapes how fintechs respond when integration issues arise. More mature teams approach problems methodically, logging errors accurately, identifying payload mismatches, and conducting structured root-cause analysis. Less experienced teams resort to trial-and-error, escalate issues without proper diagnosis, or misinterpret failure patterns, extending integration cycles that should be routine. Open banking cannot operate effectively in such an environment. Without the ability to interpret documentation or implement required authentication and security protocols, fintechs cannot participate meaningfully in an interoperable system. This shortfall becomes a structural constraint on Pakistan’s digital financial progress, slowing innovation and limiting the potential of the broader ecosystem.
The Dependency Loop: Why Banks Cannot Move Faster Than Their Slowest Partners
An important insight that emerged from the Forum was the dependency loop created when fintechs fall short on technical readiness. Banks and payment networks cannot launch open banking features at scale if partners cannot integrate reliably. This dynamic means that the entire ecosystem moves at the pace of its least prepared participants. Even if a bank has strong open API frameworks, the number of partners that can leverage them remains limited if fintechs do not meet minimum integration standards. This creates asymmetrical readiness, banks have infrastructure, but fintechs lack capacity. As one panelist noted, “we have to guide some partners through basic requirements before they can even begin testing”.
This dependency loop has several consequences:
1. Banks hesitate to broaden API exposure
If partner maturity is inconsistent, banks must vet partners carefully. This slows onboarding and reduces willingness to open new services for external consumption.
2. High potential use cases remain unimplemented
Innovative ideas cannot move forward if integration is unstable. Banks prefer to prioritize partners capable of predictable execution, limiting the diversity of innovation.
3. Ecosystem-wide scalability stalls
Without technical maturity across partners, open banking remains limited to a few well-prepared institutions rather than becoming a national infrastructure layer.
4. Banks must invest heavily in partner support
This shifts resources away from core innovation and toward fixing partner-side issues.
The dependency loop thus becomes a structural brake on open banking. Until fintech maturity improves across the board, banks cannot unlock the full potential of their digital infrastructure.
The Sandbox as a Transitional Bridge, Not a Long-Term Solution
A significant portion of the discussion at the Forum centered on the role of the regulatory sandbox, which participants described as a valuable controlled environment for testing new use cases, experimenting with APIs, and identifying regulatory bottlenecks. Yet they also emphasized that sandboxes are, by design, temporary mechanisms intended to generate insights that feed into formal policy frameworks. The ecosystem’s current dependence on the sandbox reflects the absence of comprehensive open banking regulation. It enables banks and fintechs to explore ideas without full regulatory commitment, but it cannot substitute for the stability provided by clear, permanent guidelines. As one speaker observed, “the sandbox is a path, but until regulation formalizes open banking, everything remains in pilot mode,” capturing the uncertainty that surrounds these initiatives. This transitional state creates several challenges: partners hesitate to make substantial investments because successful pilots may not translate into real-world approvals; banks are unable to scale integrations without regulatory endorsement; experiments cannot produce the standardized structures required for interoperability; and insights generated during testing risk remaining unused if not followed by thoughtful regulatory action. Sandboxes are most effective when they serve as stepping stones toward established frameworks, but in Pakistan, the absence of subsequent regulation means that many of the lessons emerging from sandbox activity stay isolated. Without a clear pathway from experimentation to adoption, the sandbox risks becoming a perpetual testing ground rather than a bridge toward a mature open banking ecosystem that can support sustainable innovation.
What Pakistan Needs to Unlock Open Banking
The discussions at the Forum point toward several foundational requirements for Pakistan to advance toward open banking:
1. Clear regulatory direction
A unified framework governing open APIs, data consent, authentication standards, and interoperability is essential. Regulatory clarity reduces risk, builds partner confidence, and creates structured expectations.
2. Standardized technical frameworks
The ecosystem needs unified API specifications, message formats, security protocols, and certification environments. Standardization reduces integration costs and accelerates scalability.
3. Technical upskilling of fintechs
Fintechs must build competency in enterprise-grade integration, documentation rigor, and protocol literacy. Training, certification programs, and cross-industry workshops can help bridge the maturity gap.
4. Documentation discipline
Banks and fintechs must invest in high-quality documentation. Poor documentation introduces ambiguity, increases errors, and slows down development cycles.
5. Testing and certification layers
Before accessing live banking infrastructure, partners should pass standardized certification processes. This ensures minimum readiness and improves ecosystem stability.
6. Robust support structures
Banks and switches need clear onboarding teams, support frameworks, and escalation paths for partners. Centralizing support creates predictability.
7. Strong leadership commitment
Cultural shifts toward openness require leadership advocacy. Without leadership commitment, even the best frameworks remain unused.
These requirements align with international best practices. If implemented effectively, they can transform Pakistan’s fragmented integration landscape into a more cohesive, innovation-ready environment.
Bridging the Technical and Regulatory Gap for Open Banking
Open banking promises a future where customers can access financial services through interconnected platforms, where innovation moves fluidly across institutions, and where data becomes a driver of inclusion and economic activity. Yet as illustrated at the Fintech Forward Forum 2025, Pakistan’s path toward open banking remains hindered by integration bottlenecks, protocol mismatches, technical literacy gaps, and regulatory ambiguity. These challenges are not insurmountable, but they require coordinated action. The ecosystem must move beyond isolated readiness and embrace unified standards, stronger documentation, regulatory clarity, and improved technical capacity among fintechs. Without these foundations, open banking cannot evolve from pilot experiments to a mature, interoperable infrastructure layer. The insights shared at the Forum demonstrate that the missing technical link is not a single issue but a constellation of interconnected challenges. To bridge this gap, Pakistan must strengthen the core elements that enable integration, ensure that partners possess the required literacy, and adopt a regulatory framework that brings stability and confidence. Only then can open banking progress from aspiration to reality, enabling the country to unlock the full potential of its digital financial future.
Follow the PakBanker Whatsapp Channel for updates across Pakistan’s banking ecosystem.