Future of mobile money in the middle eastern region and how telecommunication operators and financial institutions can work together to accelerate its progress
It’s estimated that approximately 70% of the world population owns a mobile phone. Mobile smartphones are growing at an accelerated pace and by 2020 should outnumber the human population, with a ratio of 2:1. Smartphones are no longer only considered as communication tool, but its ubiquitous. It’s also a camera, a gaming console, a work station, a TV and now a payment device or even more so a Wallet! When you think about people would rather leave their wallets at home than their smartphones.
The concept of mobile money has been around since the late 2000’s. Mobile money users has grown from approximately 70 million in 2009 to an approximately 400 million in 2016.
Africa and Asia have pioneered the way mobile money due to a high unbanked population base. For the unbanked base in these regions mobile money (Fintech) is an alternative way to gain access to a variety of payment methods. For instance, In rural developing areas, where millions of mobile users are still unbanked, consumers use their mobile phones as an alternative–‐banking device. Simple mobile enables rural farmers to receive money from urban family–‐ members, P2P payment, transferred over great distances (mobile remittance).
It’s estimated that within 2018, approximately 750 million people will have access to Mobile Financial Services. This will mostly be dominated by Asia & Africa, where Mobile Operators drive initiatives to bank the unbanked. However other regions not so impacted with un-banking issues will also most likely take a slice of the market share. This is due to the Fintech eco-system extending its reach in more relevant domains, i.e. mPos, utility and goods payments, etc…
My focus will be to evaluate the Current and Future impact of Mobile Money in the Middle Eastern region.
The Middle Eastern region has been slow to join the mobile money revolution. Currently two most-relevant types of mobile money services in the Gulf States are direct carrier billing (DCB) and advanced mobile wallets which positions telecommunication operators in the ecommerce value chain.
My aim & question will be the following:
• To assess what are the concerns and issues for the slow uptake of Fintech/Mobile Money in the MENA region.
• How will banks and telecommunication operators coexist in the value chain. Who lead and who will follow?
• How can telecom operators via their network and scale compete with banks and financial operators?
• What is impact of mobile money OTT on both the telecom and banking industry. i.e. bitcoin, etc…
• How will main stakeholders work on converting customers into the mode of mobile money? What methods can be leveraged?
• How would blockchain technology and cryptocurrency impact the fintech transformation process in the middle east?
To me, the privilege of the right to speak freely in the primary revision or adjustment in the Constitution is a champion among the most huge rights American locals have. It suggests that I can voice and express my individual appraisals and keep up the principal destinations of our organization. To begin with, this accommodates me the privilege to voice and pass on what needs be wherever and at whatever point I pick, as long as I don't intrude with some other individual Constitutional rights. Second, the United States may be in a to an incredible degree slight state if nationals didn't have the privilege to Freedom of discourse. Without Freedom of discourse in our Bill of Rights, people couldn't stay up for what they believe in (Kanovitz, 2010). I envision that if an individual has a thought or point they have to voice they should be able to without anything staying toward them. Moreover, not having this privilege may suggest that it may be relatively extraordinary for particular relationship to structure in light of the fact that they wouldn't have the ability to express their viewpoints. Moreover, since the United States has the right to speak freely, locals have the ability to have a greater voice in their governing body (Kanovitz, 2010). These people who voice their decisions can impact their assembly experts' situation on show issues. The right to speak freely is a basic decent in light of the fact that it grants introduction toward oneself, and finally offers worth to the single individual. I acknowledge that free talk increases past the logos-based dispute and I acknowledge that free talk includes more than that of what Peter ensures, that there is to be no previous control. I acknowledge that the technique for thinking based off of Peter; most tastefully addresses free talk. This is because of Peter isn't at all like whatever conceivable academic; he fixates his philosophical setting up on the possibility that there is definitely not a level out goal truth. Decrease declares the possibility that if there is no aggregate truth then no two individuals will perceive regard and truth similarly; thus, Peter gathers that the reason that we convey is for our own specific satisfaction toward oneself. Decrease grounds his feelings on the solitary and the regard that talk has on him or her. He doesn't acknowledge that Freedom of discourse and additionally elucidation is a strategies in which individuals can work to make a total incredible, or benefit social request generally speaking, yet chance of talk is a plans to upgrade one's own specific self (artist, 1994). It is my conviction that talk should continue being guaranteed under the laws of the Constitution and the Harm Principle in light of the way that by confining talk government will be constrained to agree to what social request regards to regularize hones, in this manner criticizing the feelings of the people who don't fall under the prevailing part. The Harm Principle is reliant upon this conviction that "The primary purpose behind which power could be authentically rehearsed over any piece of an adapted gathering, without needing to, can't avoid being to turn away wickedness to others." (Law distribute, 2011) I acknowledge this is incredibly gigantic in light of the fact that it is hard to control an unmistakable sentiments; it is insufficient to state that what will horrendously offended one man will in like manner terribly bother a substitute. Since no one will have the same eager torment it is hard to control using any speculation that constructs its teach regarding talk that affront. I acknowledge that free discourse should reliably be guaranteed. It is exactly when talk demonstrates a prompt hazard that unmistakable exercises should be compelled. Finally what we require most is the security of individuals. With a particular true objective to achieve this it is vital to guarantee the inhabitants from quick devilishness while also accepting into account open door of outpouring to happen. Free talk in the long run offers worth to the particular despite if the talk is ill bred, insubordinate, or energetic as long as it stays quiet then it should remain guaranteed under the First Amendment (First Amendment ever, 2010). In any case, in cases that do impel some moral or physical devilishness it is vital to look at this about; it is fundamental for the organization to give a constraining inspiration to oversee or repel the talk. I acknowledge that the directions that I have realized should be the most outrageous measure of control on free talk. This is because of individuals should have the privilege to talk their mind and convey in any case they require. Government should not to be allowed to put controls on portrayals as long as it doesn't physically prompt hurt and the organization does not have the ability to restrict free-floating designs. Finally the adaptability to pass on what needs be is reliant upon the nature of the talk to the single individual. In any case, I don't acknowledge that it is sensible to acknowledge that all countries will use my model as an establishment. This is by virtue of I acknowledge that adjacent society will have too much mind blowing of an influence. Along these lines, I acknowledge that this model should be realized as a target for all nations to achieve. The base measure of free talk to be anchored may fluctuate from mine (Tueber, 1988). All things considered, I acknowledge that the right to speak freely is a greatly basic bit of our organization's connection amongst inhabitants and government experts. If we didn't have the right to speak freely, our organization wouldn't be "of the people, by the people, for the people" (Monk, 2003); government experts may settle on every one of the decisions. To underscore, Freedom of discourse may be something that can help an exceptional express their thought on something or it can help and solitary harm an other race/kind of people without comes about as a result of the endless chance of talk. If Freedom of discourse was limited, it may help control a lot of partition and the hordes in light of the fact that they can get charged for it and be caught. Finally, that is the thing that chance of talk plans to me>GET ANSWER