Banks struggle to regain trust
The Money20/20 USA event in Las Vegas made clear that financial trust is no longer automatic. The assumption that customers inherently trust their bank is fading as new offerings like digital gold, AI-driven agents, and stablecoins enter the market. These innovations force institutions to actively prove their reliability rather than passively rely on past reputation.
World Gold Council CEO David Tait addressed this shift during a session. His organization estimates the digital gold market currently sits at $45–55 billion, with potential demand climbing to $700 billion. Yet a survey of 12,000 retail investors identified a major obstacle: two-thirds of respondents cited trust as the primary barrier to adoption. Participants demanded stronger regulations, clearer consumer protections, and greater transparency. Nearly half expressed a preference for purchasing such products through their primary bank rather than third-party providers.
The World Gold Council responded by launching Gold as a Service, a platform designed to help fintechs and banks offer digital gold products. The council handles asset custody, ensuring traceable gold origins and legally allocated holdings. Tait compared the service to “the Apple Store for gold,” emphasizing the need for a trusted physical layer that all tokenized assets can build upon.
Verifying Who Is Acting
The rise of AI agents has intensified concerns about transactional trust, particularly around identity verification. These systems can research, compare options, and execute purchases on behalf of users, but determining who is truly on the other side of a transaction remains unresolved. PayPal CEO Enrique Lores stated that merchants must confirm an agent’s legitimacy and funding capacity, while consumers need assurance that a merchant’s agent is genuine. Google’s Stavan Parikh reinforced this need, noting that verification will soon become mandatory for nearly all online transactions.
Alex Blania of Tools for Humanity, which specializes in proof-of-human identity solutions, predicted this requirement will extend across financial services. The question now facing institutions is whether customer financial interactions will occur within general-purpose AI assistants or through bank-controlled agent experiences. Plaid CEO Zach Perret highlighted this dilemma in a panel discussion, warning that the choice will define future customer relationships. Coinbase’s Scott Meadows added that platforms must decide whether agents will operate under human supervision, with predefined guardrails, or function fully autonomously—a determination based on each company’s risk tolerance.
Proving Machine Actions and Decisions
Beyond identity, a second challenge emerged: demonstrating what AI agents do and why they make specific decisions. Auditing firm Stephano Slack LLC, partnering with AI tool Seekr, outlined their approach to 401(k) audits. They maintain human oversight at every stage, ensuring actions are reproducible and decisions are explainable. The firm distinguishes between observability—tracking a system’s actions, and explainability, justifying those actions.
The LexisNexis True Cost of Fraud study, presented by Kim Sutherland, revealed that 56% of firms experience higher customer churn due to stricter fraud controls. One-third of fraud losses now stem from scams, with only a third of victims receiving reimbursements. Each security layer, whether for identity, transaction history, or agent behavior, adds friction for legitimate users while failing to fully mitigate financial harm. Institutions face a persistent tension between regulatory compliance and customer convenience.
Public Trust in Financial Products
Edelman’s 2026 Trust Barometer, based on surveys of nearly 34,000 people across 28 countries, showed a clear trust divide. Banks hold the highest rating at 65%, while cryptocurrency trails at 41%. This aligns with the World Gold Council’s findings: half of digital gold investors prefer buying through their primary bank. However, trust varies significantly by income. Lower-income respondents rated financial services at 55%, compared to 68% among higher-income groups. The gap highlights the need for institutions to address both perception and accessibility when introducing new products.
