 (AI image/IANS) New Delhi, (IANS) Indian banks are benefiting from sustained credit growth, deeper digital public infrastructure and rapid adoption of AI‑driven operating models, and heightened regulatory focus on climate risk, cyber resilience and governance, a report said on Friday. The report from KPMG International said the sector is at par with global peers scaling from pilots to enterprise AI use, investing in workforce reskilling and strengthening cybersecurity and ESG frameworks to support long‑term resilience. Based on a survey of 110 global Banking and Capital Markets CEOs, the report found 83 per cent are confident about growth over the next three years and 65 per cent ranked AI as a top investment priority. Around 70 per cent CEOs said they plan to allocate 10–20 per cent of next‑12‑month budgets to AI, while 59 per cent expect agentic AI to have a transformational impact and 69 per cent expect returns within one to three years. "Around 83 per cent banking and capital market CEOs are prioritising reskilling for AI; 79 per cent say AI has redefined entry‑level skills whereas 78 per cent warn AI workforce readiness could negatively impact the organisation if not addressed," the report said. “As global banking leaders respond to rising operational and regulatory costs by pursuing scale and strategic M&A, the same imperative is increasingly shaping the Indian banking sector,” said Sanjay Doshi, Partner and Head, Transaction Services and Financial Services Advisory, KPMG in India. Doshi said that scale is more than just size for India but a catalyst for expanding distribution, accelerating digital transformation and enhancing cost efficiency. As banks deepen their investments in technology and modernize their operating models, selective consolidation and partnership‑led growth can unlock new markets, strengthen value propositions and build long‑term competitive resilience, he added.Around 86 per cent CEOs cited cyber insecurity as the top growth threat, 56 per cent cited ethical challenges, and 55 per cent pointed to data readiness and regulatory gaps. Indian banks benefit from AI‑driven operating models: Report | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
An ‘AI afterlife’ is now a real option – but what becomes of your legal status? (2026-02-27T13:47:00+05:30)
|
Would you create an interactive “digital twin” of yourself that can communicate with loved ones after your death? Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has made it possible to seemingly resurrect the dead. So-called griefbots or deathbots – an AI-generated voice, video avatar or text-based chatbot trained on the data of a deceased person – proliferate in the booming digital afterlife industry, also known as grief tech. Deathbots are usually created by the bereaved, often as part of the grieving process. But there are also services that allow you to create a digital twin of yourself while you’re still alive. So why not create one for when you’re gone? As with any application of new technology, the idea of such digital immortality raises many legal questions – and most of them don’t have a clear answer. Your AI afterlifeTo create an AI digital twin of yourself, you can sign up for a service that provides this feature, and answer a series of questions to provide data about who you are. You also record stories, memories and thoughts in your own voice. You might also upload your visual likeness in the form of images or video. The AI software then creates a digital replica based on that training data. After you die and the company is notified of your death, your loved ones can interact with your digital twin. But in doing this, you’re also delegating agency to a company to create a digital AI simulation of yourself after death. From the get go, this is different to using AI to “resurrect” a dead person who can’t consent to this. Instead, a living person is essentially licensing data about themselves to an AI afterlife company before they’ve died. They’re engaging in a deliberate, contractual creation of AI-generated data for posthumous use. However, there are many unanswered questions. What about copyright? What about your privacy?. What happens if the technology becomes outdated or the business closes? Does the data get sold on? Does the digital twin also “die”, and what effect does this have for a second time on the bereaved? What does the law say?Currently, Australian law doesn’t protect a person’s identity, voice, presence, values or personality as such. In contrast to the United States, Australians don’t have a general publicity or personality right. This means, for an Australian citizen, there’s currently no legal right for you to own or control your identity – the use of your voice, image or likeness. In short, the law doesn’t recognise a proprietary right in most of the unique things that make you “you”. Under copyright law, the concept of your presence or self is abstract, much like an idea is. Copyright doesn’t offer protection for “your presence” or “the self” as such. That’s because there has to be material form in specific categories of works for copyright to exist: these are tangible things, such as books or photos. However, typed responses or the voice recordings submitted to the AI for training are material. This means the data used to train the AI to create your digital twin would likely be protectable. But fully autonomous AI generated output is unlikely to have any copyright attached to it. Under current Australian law, it would likely be considered authorless because it didn’t originate from the “independent intellectual effort” of a human, but from a machine. Moral rights in copyright protect a creator’s reputation against false attribution and against derogatory treatment of their work. However, they wouldn’t apply to a digital twin. This is because moral rights attach to actual works created by a human author, not any AI-generated output. So where does that leave your digital twin? Although it’s unlikely copyright applies to AI-generated output, in their terms and conditions companies may assert ownership of the AI-generated data, users may be granted rights in outputs, or the company may reserve extensive reuse rights. It’s something to look out for. There are ethical risks, tooUsing AI to make digital copies of people – living or dead – also raises ethical risks. For example, even though the training data for your digital twin might be locked upon your death, others will be accessing it in the future by interacting with it. What happens if the technology misrepresents the deceased person’s morals and ethics? As AI is usually probabilistic and based on algorithms, there may be risk of creep or distortion, where the responses drift over time. The deathbot could lose its resemblance to the original person. It’s not clear what recourse the bereaved may have if this happens. AI-enabled deathbots and digital twins can help people grieve, but the effects so far are largely anecdotal – more study is needed. At the same time, there’s potential for bereaved relatives to form a dependence on the AI version of their loved one, rather than processing their grief in a healthier way. If the outputs of AI-powered grief tech cause distress, how can this be managed, and who will be held responsible? The current state of the law clearly shows more regulation is needed in this burgeoning grief tech industry. Even if you consent to the use of your data for an AI digital twin after you die, it’s difficult to anticipate new technologies changing how your data is used in the future. For now, it’s important to always read the terms and conditions if you decide to create a digital afterlife for yourself. After all, you are bound by the contract you sign. Wellett Potter, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of New England This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
China’s experience with mobile payments highlights the pros and cons of a cashless society (2026-02-27T13:47:00+05:30)
Wanglin Ma, Lincoln University, New Zealand; Hongyun Zheng, Huazhong Agricultural University, and Puneet Vatsa, Lincoln University, New ZealandAn increasing number of people are using mobile devices – their smartphone, a smartwatch or tablet – to pay for goods and services. Mobile devices allow people to complete transactions without using cash or a traditional bank card, making shopping quicker and easier. Our recent research on China’s experience with mobile payments even suggests that people who pay with mobile devices are happier than those who do not. While China’s experience with mobile payments over the past decade highlights some of the benefits of using digital devices to pay for everyday items, it also illustrates how accessibility issues can leave sections of the community behind. Although mobile payments have been around since the early 2000s, they did not take off until the widespread adoption of smartphones. PayPal launched its first product for mobile phones in 2006, allowing customers to pay others via text message. M-PESA was launched soon after in Kenya in 2007. Google launched its digital wallet in 2011 and Apple launched its own version of the digital wallet in 2014. Over the past two decades, China has emerged as the front runner in mobile payment usage. More than 87% of China’s internet users were using mobile payment services in 2021. The high rate of internet usage, a supportive regulatory framework and the government’s push for a cashless society – with COVID-19 as the impetus to introduce the digital yuan to replace physical bank notes – all contributed to the success of mobile payments in China. Leading mobile payment platforms Alipay and WeChat Pay, which boast over a billion users each, are leading the way. Alipay is a mobile payment app and digital wallet that also allows users to order a taxi, apply for a credit card and buy insurance. WeChat Pay is a payment feature integrated within the instant messaging app WeChat. Both apps allow users to leave their physical wallet at home in favour of just their smartphone or smartwatch. But China is not alone in this digital revolution. New Zealanders are also increasingly embracing mobile payments instead of cash. More than just convenientOn the surface, the benefits of mobile payments may seem trivial – they allow people to shop without the need for cash. But mobile payments can help reduce costs on essentials like food bills. In earlier research, we found mobile payment users in China spent 2,347 yuan (roughly NZ$546) less on food each year. These savings stemmed from the fact that people using mobile payments for their shopping were able to take advantage of time-sensitive online promotional offers at the checkout. Mobile payments also helped increase farmers’ resilience to adverse weather events by allowing them to access money from family and friends outside the affected areas. This access to funds that could then be spent via mobile payments allowed the farmers to remain solvent in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Mobile payments can boost rural household consumption by making shopping easier for communities that may not have access to traditional financial services such as banks. Mobile payments have also been found to create business opportunities by helping small entrepreneurs become more nimble, increasing their appetite for risk and easing credit constraints by allowing them to take advantage of micro-lending services. And mobile payments can measurably increase a person’s happiness, particularly in rural areas. Analysing data from the 2017 Chinese General Social Survey and measuring happiness on a five-point scale, we found that using mobile payments was associated with a 0.76 point increase in happiness in rural China. No changes in happiness were observed for city dwellers. The increased happiness was likely due to the convenience of mobile payments, helping people seamlessly pay for a broad spectrum of goods and services. In terms of gender, using mobile payments affected women’s happiness more than men’s, regardless of where they lived. In rural China, using mobile payments was associated with a 0.83 point increase in women’s happiness compared to a 0.69 point increase in men’s happiness. We found education increased the likelihood of someone using mobile payments. And being socially active was also positively associated with mobile payment use. But the data showed that the older the person, the less likely they were able to use mobile payments. Ensuring accessibilityWhile there are clear positives to the widespread use of mobile payments, one of the potential stumbling blocks has been the issue of accessibility. As the global pandemic spread in 2020, concerns were raised that China’s older cash-using residents were being excluded by the push towards mobile payment options. New Zealand could face similar issues. Concerns have already been raised by the reduction of bank branches in favour of online banking and what this means for older people and those with limited access to the internet. While 95% of New Zealanders have access to the internet – either via landlines or on their phones – 31% of those in social housing and 29% of people with disabilities report not having any access. Considering the documented benefits of mobile payments and their growing usage, service providers should invest in easy-to-use user interfaces for people from all walks of life. If managed well, the growing popularity of mobile payments in New Zealand could positively impact society, promoting financial inclusion, convenience and wellbeing. Wanglin Ma, Associate Professor of Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand; Hongyun Zheng, Associate Professor, College of Economics and Management, Huazhong Agricultural University, and Puneet Vatsa, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lincoln University, New Zealand This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
A month at sea with no technology taught me how to steal my life back from my phone (2026-02-26T11:21:00+05:30)
|
Robert Hassan, The University of Melbourne A survey this year revealed that Australians, on average, spend 10.2 hours a day with interactive digital technologies. And this figure goes up every year. This is time we don’t get back. And our analogue lives, which include everything not digital, shrink in direct proportion. I recently decided to spend four weeks at sea without access to my phone or the internet, and here’s what I learnt about myself, and the digital rat race I was caught in. Cold turkeyUntil a year or so ago, I was a 10.2 hours a day person. Over the years, dependence on technology and stress had destroyed any semblance of balance in my life – between work and home, or pleasure and obligation. I wanted to quit, or cut down, at least. Tech “detox” apps such as the time-limiting Screen Time were useless. Even with these, I was still “on”, and just a click away from unblocking Instagram. So I thought: what about going cold turkey? No screen time at all, 24/7. Was that possible, and what would it feel like? My commute to work passed the Footscray docks, where container-ships come and go. Passing one day, I wondered if it was possible to go on one of those ships and travel from Melbourne to … somewhere? Turns out it was. You can book a cabin online and just go. And in what was probably an impulse, I went. For about four weeks I had no devices, as I sailed solo from West Melbourne to Singapore. I wanted to experiment, to see what it felt like to take a digital detox, and whether I could change my habits when I returned home. What I learntCold turkey withdrawal is difficult. Even in prison, many inmates have access of some kind of device. The time on that ship taught me there is a whole other side to life, the non-digital side, that gets pushed aside by the ubiquitous screen. Real life contains people, conversations, flesh and textures that are not glass or plastic. It also contains whole worlds that exist inside your head, and these can be summoned when we have the time, and devote a bit of effort to it. These are worlds of memory and imagination. Worlds of reflection and thought. Worlds you see differently to the pallid glare of a screen. I took four books with me and read them in a way I hadn’t before: slower, deeper and with more contemplation. The words were finite (and therefore precious). I’d never spent time like this in my whole life, and was inspired to write about it in detail. Of course, we all have our own commitments and can’t always do something like this. But away from the screen, I learned a lot about our digital world and about myself, and have tried to adapt these lessons to “normal” life. Since I’ve been back, it feels like some sense of balance has been restored. Part of this came from seeing the smartphone as a slightly alien thing (which it is). And instead of being something that always prompts me, I flipped the power dynamic around, to make it something I choose to use - and choose when to use. Meaning sometimes it’s OK to leave it at home, or switch it off. If you can persist with these little changes, you might find even when you have your phone in your pocket, you can go hours without thinking about it. Hours spent doing precious, finite, analogue things. How to get startedYou could begin by deleting most of your apps. You’ll be surprised by how many you won’t miss. Then, slowly flip the power dynamic between you and your device around. Put it in a drawer once a week - for a morning, then for a day - increasing this over time. If this sounds a bit like commercial digital detox self-care, then so be it. But this is minus the self-care gurus and websites. Forget those. No one (and no app) is really going to help you take back your agency. You need to do it yourself, or organise it with friends. Perhaps try seeing who can go the furthest. After a few weeks, you might reflect on how it feels: what’s the texture of the analogue world you got back? Because, more likely than not, you will get it back. For some, it might be a quieter and more subjective pre-digital world they half remember. For others, it might be something quite new, which maybe feels a bit like freedom. Robert Hassan, Professor, School of Culture and Communication, The University of Melbourne This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
US NRC approves Limerick digital retrofit project (2026-02-25T13:51:00+05:30)
 (Image: Constellation)The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved what is described as a first-of-a-kind project to replace analogue instrumentation and control equipment with digital systems. The Limerick Clean Energy Center in Pennsylvania in the USA, is a nuclear power plant featuring two boiling water reactors with a combined capacity of 2,317 MW. The first unit entered commercial service in 1986 and the second unit in 1990. They are currently licensed to operate until 2044 and 2049, respectively. Constellation says the USD167 million Digital Modernization Project will "enhance reliability, diagnostic capability and cyber resilience" and "improve equipment monitoring, provide a broader range of automation and support additional operational flexibility with enhanced reliability". It will be the first large-scale upgrade to a digital safety system at an operating nuclear plant in the US, supported by the US Department of Energy's Light Water Reactor Sustainability Program. The installation of the new system will take place in phases, and digital control rooms will be installed during refuelling outages. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in its announcement: "As the nuclear industry advances toward next-generation power reactors equipped with state-of-the-art digital instrumentation and control (I&C) systems, much of today’s operating fleet still relies on analogue controls. While reactor operators have leveraged existing regulatory flexibilities to implement targeted digital upgrades, the NRC’s approval of the Limerick amendments represents a broader and more comprehensive approach. Limerick will be the first operating nuclear power plant the NRC has authorised to perform a major digital retrofit that replaces multiple analogue safety systems with a single digital plant protection system. "The change modernises the control room by replacing legacy equipment with modern digital controls and displays." It said that the approval of licence amendments for Limerick's modernisation project paves the way for future digital I&C modernisation at other US nuclear power plants. Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish said: "Upgrading nuclear power plants with advanced digital systems will help ensure that Americans continue to have access to affordable and abundant energy today and in the future." Joe Dominguez, President and CEO of Constellation, said: "Every dollar we invest to enhance and modernise the nation's largest nuclear fleet will pay dividends for American families and businesses by creating jobs, keeping costs down, improving reliability and adding much-needed capacity to fuel economic growth."Baltimore-based Constellation operates 14 nuclear power plants in the USA with a combined generating capacity of more than 19,000 MWe. These are: Braidwood, Byron, Calvert Cliffs, Clinton, Dresden, FitzPatrick, LaSalle, Limerick, Nine Mile Point, Peach Bottom, Quad Cities, R E Ginna, Salem and South Texas Project. US NRC approves Limerick digital retrofit project\ |
Digital monitoring is growing in South Africa’s public service – regulation needs to catch up (2026-02-25T11:37:00+05:30)
Lesedi Senamele Matlala, University of JohannesburgGovernment departments across South Africa are increasingly relying on digital tools to evaluate public programmes and monitor performance. This is part of broader public-sector reforms. Their aims are to improve accountability, respond to audit pressure and manage large-scale programmes with limited staff and budgets. Here’s an example. National departments tracking housing delivery, social grants or infrastructure rollout rely on digital performance systems rather than periodic paper-based reports. Dashboards – a way of showing visual data in one place – provide near real-time updates on service delivery. Another is the use platforms that collect mobile data. These allow frontline officials and contractors to upload information directly from the field. Both examples lend themselves to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to process large datasets and generate insights that would previously have taken months to analyse. This shift is often portrayed as a step forward for accountability and efficiency in the public sector. I am a public policy scholar with a special interest in monitoring and evaluation of government programmes. My recent research shows a worrying trend, that the turn to technology is unfolding much quicker than the ethical and governance frameworks meant to regulate it. Across the cases I’ve examined, digital tools were already embedded in routine monitoring and evaluation processes. But there weren’t clear standards guiding their use. This presents risks around surveillance, exclusion, data misuse and poor professional judgement. These risks are not abstract. They shape how citizens experience the state, how their data is handled and whose voices ultimately count in policy decisions. When technology outruns policyPublic-sector evaluation involves assessing government programmes and policies. It determines whether:
Traditionally, these evaluations relied on face-to-face engagement between communities, evaluators, government and others. They included qualitative methods that allowed for nuance, explanation and trust-building. Digital tools have changed this. In my research, I interviewed evaluators across government, NGOs, academia, professional associations and private consultancies. I found a consistent concern across the board. Digital systems are often introduced without ethical guidance tailored to evaluation practice. Ethical guidance would provide clear, practical rules for how digital tools are used in evaluations. For example, when using dashboards or automated data analytics, guidance should require evaluators to explain how data are generated, who has access to them and how findings may affect communities being evaluated. It should also prevent the use of digital systems to monitor individuals without consent or to rank programmes in ways that ignore context. South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act provides a general legal framework for data protection. But it doesn’t address the specific ethical dilemmas that arise when evaluation becomes automated, cloud-based and algorithmically mediated. The result is that evaluators are often left navigating complex ethical terrain without clear standards. This forces institutions to rely on precedent, informal habits, past practices and software defaults. Surveillance creep and data misuseDigital platforms make it possible to collect large volumes of data. Once data is uploaded to cloud-based systems or third-party platforms, control over its storage, reuse and sharing frequently shifts from the evaluators to others. Several evaluators described situations where data they’d collected on behalf of government departments was later reused by the departments or other state agencies. This was done without participants’ explicit awareness. Consent processes in digital environments are often reduced to a single click. Examples of other uses included other forms of analysis, reporting or institutional monitoring. One of the ethical risks that came out of the research was the use of this data for surveillance. This is the use of data to monitor individuals, communities or frontline workers. Digital exclusion and invisible voicesDigital evaluation tools are often presented as expanding reach and participation. But in practice, they can exclude already marginalised groups. Communities with limited internet access, low digital literacy, language barriers or unreliable infrastructure are less likely to participate fully in digital evaluations. Automated tools have limitations. For example, they may struggle to process multilingual data, local accents or culturally specific forms of expression. This leads to partial or distorted representations of lived experience. Evaluators in my study saw this happening in practice. This exclusion has serious consequences especially in a country with inequality like South Africa. Evaluations that rely heavily on digital tools might find urban, connected populations and make rural or informal communities statistically invisible. This is not merely a technical limitation. It shapes which needs are recognised and whose experiences inform policy decisions. If evaluation data underrepresents the most vulnerable, public programmes may appear more effective than they are. This masks structural failures rather than addressing them. In my study, some evaluations reported positive performance trends despite evaluators noting gaps in data collection. Algorithms are not neutralEvaluators also raised concerns about the growing authority granted to algorithmic outputs. Dashboards, automated reports and AI-driven analytics are often treated as the true picture. This happens even when they conflict with field-based knowledge or contextual understanding. For example, dashboards may show a target as on track. But in an example of a site visit, evaluators my find flaws or dissatisfaction. Several participants reported pressure from funders or institutions to rely on the analysis of the numbers. Yet algorithms reflect the assumptions, datasets and priorities embedded in their design. When applied uncritically, they can reproduce bias, oversimplify social dynamics and disregard qualitative insight. If digital systems dictate how data must be collected, analysed and reported, evaluators risk becoming technicians and not independent professionals exercising judgement. Why Africa needs context-sensitive ethicsAcross Africa, national strategies and policies on digital technologies often borrow heavily from international frameworks. These are developed in very different contexts. Global principles on AI ethics and data governance provide useful reference points. But they don’t adequately address the realities of inequality, historical mistrust and uneven digital access across much of Africa’s public sector. My research argues that ethical governance for digital evaluation must be context-sensitive. Standards must address:
Ethical frameworks must be embedded at the design stage of digital systems. Lesedi Senamele Matlala, Senior Lecturer and Researcher in Public Policy, Monitoring and Evaluations, University of Johannesburg This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
Digital ‘tokenisation’ is reshaping the global financial industry. Is NZ ready? (2026-02-23T13:11:00+05:30)
Murat Ungor, University of Otago and Olena Onishchenko, University of OtagoImagine investing in a premium Central Otago vineyard, or owning a slice of prime Wellington commercial property, all without needing millions in upfront capital. Through asset “tokenisation”, this is becoming a reality. Essentially, tokenisation converts physical and financial assets into digital records, called tokens, which are stored using blockchain technology. Some tokens represent ownership in the way digital property titles or share certificates do. Others might be used for customer loyalty schemes, digital event tickets to prevent scalping, or a means to make fast, low-cost international payments. The blockchain itself is basically a shared digital ledger distributed across computers, with transactions linked into a cryptographic chain. This decentralisation and transparency makes tokenisation both trustworthy and efficient. Why tokenise assets?For decades, investing in real-world assets has meant navigating lawyers, banks, brokers, registries, mountains of paperwork, hefty transaction costs and prohibitive minimum spends. A $10 million commercial building, for example, might require investors to commit large proportions of the full amount, locking out all but the wealthiest buyers. Tokenisation changes this equation for both buyers and sellers. That same building could be split into 100 digital tokens, each representing 1% ownership worth $100,000. Like owning shares in a company, token holders benefit from rental income and property appreciation proportional to their stake. For sellers, it’s a way to raise capital by attracting many smaller investors rather than a few large ones. Tokenisation is already happeningDigital assets are already woven into New Zealand’s economy. BlockchainNZ reports nearly NZ$8 billion of digital assets traded annually, with interest in digital assets becoming more common. But New Zealand stands at an important juncture. Existing financial regulations weren’t designed with tokenisation in mind, meaning progress is slow and complex. Industry bodies such as BlockchainNZ, the Banking Association and Payments NZ warn that even slight changes in a token’s features can alter its legal classification, making compliance confusing and expensive. Without clear rules, New Zealand risks losing billions to overseas markets offering greater regulatory certainty. Global momentum is undeniableExecutives from multinational investment company BlackRock have compared tokenisation today to the internet in 1996, something poised for explosive growth. Accounting firm Deloitte projects US$4 trillion in global real estate will be tokenised by 2035, up from less than US$0.3 trillion in 2024. In November 2025, Australia introduced legislation for digital asset platforms, with Treasurer Jim Chalmers citing potential annual gains of A$24 billion. Dubai launched its first tokenised real estate platform in May 2025, projecting US$16 billion in value by 2033. J.P. Morgan Asset Management has launched MONY, a tokenised cash fund that invests in relatively safe short-term debt securities. BlockChainNZ held New Zealand’s first real estate tokenisation forum in Auckland in July 2025. Industry analysis suggests tokenising just 2–3% of the domestic property market could unlock over NZ$60 billion in transaction volume. New Zealand’s positionNew Zealand has genuine advantages: internet penetration exceeds 95% of the population; it is a member of the intergovernmental Digital Nations coalition; and it operates an established digital land-title system, ideal for real estate tokenisation. The regulatory conversation is underway, with the Financial Markets Authority releasing a discussion paper on tokenisation in September 2025. But the Banking Association has identified a critical gap: while existing laws are technology-neutral, they lack clarity for tokenised products. It recommends legislative reviews, controlled testing of tokenised financial products, and guidance for industry participants and consumers on regulation and compliance. Ultimately, New Zealand will need a cohesive framework that actively enables safe innovation. As one industry insider has argued:
Navigating the risksTokenisation also brings serious challenges. Local financial laws were written for paper certificates and bank vaults, not digital tokens and blockchain networks. When an Auckland property developer tokenises an apartment building, or a Marlborough winery offers digital shares, which rules apply? Are these securities? Property titles? This uncertainty creates a compliance minefield. Technology risks compound these problems: cybersecurity vulnerabilities, digital key theft or loss, bugs or flaws in blockchain code that hackers can exploit, and malfunctions in the technology infrastructure can all cause irreversible losses. Energy-intensive blockchain systems raise environmental concerns, while weak consumer protections can expose users to fraud and scams. Tokenised assets can be highly volatile, with rapid price swings encouraging speculation and panic selling. Easy round-the-clock trading amplifies boom-and-bust cycles. When everyone can trade with a few clicks, panic can spread rapidly. The Financial Markets Authority has warned that market manipulation becomes easier across multiple unregulated platforms, money laundering may be harder to detect in cross-border transactions, and fraud (from fake tokenised assets to digital Ponzi schemes) can scale quickly. None of this means tokenisation should (or can) be avoided. The challenge for New Zealand is to keep up with this form of financial innovation, and to retain investment dollars that might otherwise migrate to other jurisdictions. Murat Ungor, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Otago and Olena Onishchenko, Senior Lecturer in Finance, University of Otago This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
In a world of digital money, what’s the right etiquette to split the bill with friends? (2026-02-16T13:20:00+05:30)
|
We’ve all been there – splitting a bill at dinner, covering a mate’s coffee, or sending a quick transfer for concert tickets. It’s part of modern social life. As money becomes increasingly digital and instantaneous, we no longer need to worry about doing maths in our heads or fussing about changing notes and coins. Now, we’ve got an app for that. Yet the way we exchange money is changing more than just our bank balances. It’s reshaping trust, communication, and even the dynamics of friendship. We often don’t think about it, but money does have an emotional weight. We experience what psychologists call the pain of payment, a negative emotional response to parting with money. It’s not just large amounts of money that feel uncomfortable or stressful – paying always carries some negative feeling. So, the next time it comes to splitting the bill, what’s the best way to approach it? Just because we can ask for money with an app doesn’t mean it’s good for our friendships – sometimes there are better ways to go about it. Money is the last tabooMoney is also one of those slightly taboo subjects, like religion or politics. When money comes up, we often prefer to change the subject, even with our partners. While “I’ll get you next time” might seem harmless, new payment technologies like PayID, Tap and Go, and instant transfers mean there’s less excuse for delay, and more potential for tension when people don’t pay up. A quick transfer request can feel efficient and convenient to one person, but uncomfortable and impersonal to another. When we ask for payment, we alter the social dynamic. A whole mix of psychological reactions and insecurities comes into play. These reactions can also damage the image we want to project to others. If we see ourselves as generous and caring, we might not be comfortable asking for payment for that coffee. Casual IOUs between friends often exist in a grey area – too small to make a fuss about, but significant enough to stick in our minds. When we don’t mind shoutingTaking turns to pay when going out to dinner or coffee is more likely to make us happier, as we don’t mind paying for those closest to us. Spending money on experiences with others actually increases our happiness, making us feel good to give them a little treat or gift. However, for someone we’re not close with, not splitting the bill can cause issues. Reciprocity, the expectation of getting something in return, can be encoded as a type of debt. Being paid for, then having a social debt, can feel unpleasant. On the flip side, some people will feel they have been unfairly taken advantage of when there isn’t reciprocity.  In one survey, seven out of ten people said they had opted out of a social event because it was too expensive. Negley Stockman/UnsplashThe fear of judgement can sometimes stop people being honest about financial struggles, even with a close friend. A recent survey revealed that one-third of people lied about being in a better financial situation than they really were to protect their social status. The same survey found this can impact relationships, with one-third of people admitting they had ended a relationship over money. Moreover, nearly seven in ten people said they had opted out of a social gathering because they were concerned it was too expensive. Of those, four in ten did not tell the real reason why. There can be a social costThe social etiquette around money has struggled to keep pace with technology. It can seem quite abrupt to message a close friend via an app like Beem (the Australian equivalent of Venmo) or even text to ask to be paid back. PayID has allowed us to send money to registered mobile numbers since 2018, doing away with the barriers of swapping BSB and account numbers. Although it’s quicker and easier than ever to transfer money, it’s the social barrier, not the admin barrier, that is really holding us back. How to approach the billUltimately, how we manage these exchanges, whether by politely reminding a friend or quietly letting it go, can reveal a lot about our social comfort zones. The closer the friendship, the more likely we are to ask in person, or just let it go. It can help to briefly mention money upfront, for instance, “Do you mind if we split this?”. This is socially easier than a discussion after someone has paid or as you both go to pay. It feels natural to pay half the bill at a restaurant, but can feel uncomfortable to either hand over cash later or transfer money to a friend. If we think of these exchanges as an investment, rather than a debt, we feel better about them. So, the next time you’re anxious about asking to be paid back, think of it as an investment in a friendship or connection. That’s more likely to help you enjoy the experience and your friendship too. Rhys Ashby, Lecturer in Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
India is building a future-ready economy through strong digital foundations: Industry (2026-02-16T13:18:00+05:30)
 (File Photo/IANS) Pune, (IANS) Founding Director of Delhi-based think tank India Foundation, Shaurya Doval, said on Saturday that India has built a strong base for a future economy by creating the digital infrastructure needed for long-term growth. Speaking about India’s economic journey, Doval said the country has become future-ready by investing in systems that can support an economy worth 30 to 40 trillion dollars in the coming decades. He explained that digital platforms, governance reforms, and technology-driven systems are laying the groundwork for sustained expansion and global competitiveness. "First thing that has happened is that we have laid the foundation of what I think will be a future economy, we are future ready as laying the digital infrastructure that is needed for an economy that is going to move to the range of our 30 to 40 trillion dollars," he mentioned. Doval also highlighted India’s economic performance over the last decade, especially from 2014 to 2025. He said that the numbers themselves reflect the progress made during this period. According to him, India’s GDP stood at around $2 trillion in 2004, which was the result of nearly 65 years of growth since Independence. He recalled that when India became independent in 1947, the economy was valued at just about $30 billion. Reaching the $2 trillion mark took decades, but the pace of growth has accelerated significantly in recent years due to policy stability, infrastructure development, and digital transformation. "I think if you look at the Indian economy's performance in the last 10 years, so 2014 to 25, I think the first statistic in itself speaks pretty much in terms of the scorecard," Doval mentioned. "In 2004, the GDP of India was $2 trillion. India had in about 65 years of its independence, we started off with a base of about $30 billion in 1947, had achieved an economic size of $2 trillion," he added.The remarks were made in Pune, where Doval emphasised that India is now better positioned than ever to move into the league of the world’s largest economies, backed by strong fundamentals and a clear long-term vision. India is building a future-ready economy through strong digital foundations: Industry | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
India needs 3.2 million green‑skilled workers by 2030: Report (2026-02-13T13:14:00+05:30)
 (AI image/IANS)Mumbai, (IANS) Nearly 45 per cent of core skills are projected to change by 2030 and India will need 3.2 million additional green‑skilled workers by then, a report said on Wednesday. The report from KPMG in India and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) said the current MSME talent landscape is characterised by fragmented skill levels, limited formal skilling exposure, and varying degrees of digital readiness. Only about 10 per cent of the MSME workforce have formal vocational training and nearly 69 per cent of MSMEs struggle to source skilled talent, the report said. The report outlined how India’s MSMEs can build digitally fluent, AI‑enabled and green‑ready talent to remain competitive. India’s MSME sector employs 32.84 crore people and contributes 30.1 per cent of GDP and is at a defining moment where talent will determine long‑term resilience and growth, it added. Each MSME worker delivers only 14 per cent of the productivity of a large‑enterprise worker, pointing out huge room for growth in India's MSME sector. The future of MSME work will be shaped by the twin transition and AI adoption, moving work from manual tasks to human–machine collaboration. The report outlined six strategic imperatives such as building an AI‑ready workforce, apprenticeships aligned with digital tools, skills‑first hiring, ONDC‑led digital market access, cluster‑based skill ecosystems, and inclusive talent practices driving transition readiness. “AI will change how MSMEs operate, but skills will determine whether it creates advantage or risk. The twin transition demands a digitally fluent, sustainability‑aware workforce ready to innovate at speed” said Sunit Sinha, Partner and Head, Human Capital Advisory, KPMG in India.Naveen Aggarwal, Office Managing Partner, Delhi-NCR, KPMG in India called MSMEs the heartbeat of India’s economic ambition, adding that the next wave of growth will be led by those that invest in high‑value talent and governed capability. India needs 3.2 million green‑skilled workers by 2030: Report | MorungExpress | morungexpress.com |
Spending too much time online? Try these helpful tips to improve your digital wellness (2026-02-11T12:09:00+05:30)
Bindiya Dutt, University of Stavanger and Mary Lynn Young, University of British Columbia Using digital platforms is increasingly the only option to manage our daily lives, from filling out forms at the doctor’s office or government offices to ordering food, booking a cab, paying taxes, banking, shopping or dating. Often, people are coerced into using apps or online platforms by the absence of any other options.Our social lives are equally entrenched in social media platforms. While the availability of services and opportunities on digital platforms may offer easier access or create an impression of wider connections, it also potentially harms our wellbeing. The adverse impacts of digital use have grown since the pandemic, as social isolation has increased dependence on these technologies. Impacts of excessive use of digital technologies range from physical problems such as increasing eye strain or dry eye to emotional concerns such as social media dependence. This in turn could trigger mental health issues due to online comparison and trolling. Other effects of platform dependence involve data privacy concerns with artificial intelligence and digital fraud. Likewise, social media comes with peer pressure, including the fear of missing out or social ostracism for not following digital trends. These affect our physical, mental, emotional and financial wellbeing. Recognizing and managing digital problems can improve our digital wellbeing. For some, digital autonomy refers to being in charge of personal data or having the right to withdraw consent from digital platforms. For others, it may be the ability to turn away from digital use and access non-digital options. Digital independenceChoosing to reduce or eliminate the use of digital platforms might seem like a feasible option. However, the coercive nature of these systems limits the availability of non-digital alternatives. For example, Meta’s refusal to share Canadian news media content had real impacts, highlighting people’s dependence on platforms for important news. The question of our autonomy as digital users is complex, as seen in the current conversation around smartphone use and its potential ban in classrooms. This touches on issues such as the relationship between self-regulation and government regulation. Another example emerges in the choices of how schools integrate digital learning — access versus screen time for example. Schools sometimes provide devices to students, and although this bridges the digital divide, it raises the question of whether students should be constantly available on digital devices? What alternatives can there be to digital platforms? How can we create an environment with varied choices while providing non-digital alternatives to accommodate individuals prone to digital addiction? Conversely, how might individuals averse to digital platforms or those lacking digital accessibility avail non-digital opportunities? Wellbeing comprises of creating a pleasant flow in all areas of life including physical, mental, emotional, financial and spiritual. Digital risks and digital overload can have detrimental effects on different areas of life including interpersonal relationships, productivity, sleep patterns and the quality of life. Wellbeing in the digital space largely depends on how we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by technology. This could mean taking actions like monitoring screen-time, refraining from random scrolling, partaking in offline activities and understanding the risks of digital overuse. Focusing on balanced and ethical use of technology while addressing the potential negative consequences can help deflect negative impacts. Yet there are larger roles and responsibilities for platform creators and government bodies to protect us from digital dependence, such as offering non-digital options. While we do not yet have complete agency over our data privacy, we can gain agency over our digital usage by encouraging opportunities for non-digital alternatives. Tools for digital wellbeingTo manage digital dependence and overload, service providers can offer non-digital options. Engaging with technology without becoming dependent on it can contribute to physical, psychological, social and financial wellbeing. Incorporating some daily practices, creating new digital habits, and striking a healthy balance between digital use and non-use can support wellbeing. Tracking Paying attention to our daily digital usage and monitoring screen time helps us understand how, why and when we get drawn to our devices. Using the devices purposefully may assist in finding alternative activities. Taking screen breaks Turning off notifications or completely switching off for some time each day encourages us to take notice of the surroundings. Creating a digital curfew Setting up a specific cut-off time for digital devices some hours before bedtime can improve sleep hygiene. Tech-free days Assigning a day in a week or month which is tech-free helps to unplug digitally, limit digital dependence and help regain a sense of autonomy. Assigning a specific space for devices Allotting a space for all devices helps to keep them away from certain areas of the home which are meant for rest. Forming offline social connections Staying away from digital devices while meeting friends in person can curb digital usage and bolster social connections. Being wary of digital red flags
Learning how to identify a scam and validating websites before making online payments helps to avoid financial scams. Similarly, exercising due diligence when navigating online sites and social media platforms can help avert falling prey to cat-fishing which can lead to both emotional and financial losses. Bindiya Dutt, Doctoral Candidate, Media and Communication, University of Stavanger and Mary Lynn Young, Professor, School of Journalism, Writing and Media, University of British Columbia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Bindiya Dutt, Doctoral Candidate, Media and Communication, University of Stavanger and Mary Lynn Young, Professor, School of Journalism, Writing and Media, University of British Columbia This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. |
