Travis Robson CMgr MCMI (UK), MBA, FIFM, FTIP™
Digital trading platforms have transformed access to financial markets. Onboarding is quicker, funding is easier, information is more visible, and participation is no longer limited to those with deep capital or traditional advisory relationships. In that sense, digital finance has achieved something important: it has lowered barriers. But lower barriers do not automatically produce better outcomes. The more important question may now be whether the industry is genuinely improving market access, or simply making participation faster, easier and more frequent.
That matters. The expansion of digital financial services has made it easier and cheaper for more people to access financial tools, particularly in markets where traditional distribution has long been expensive, fragmented, or limited. The World Bank has repeatedly highlighted the potential of digital financial services to reduce costs and expand reach, especially in developing economies where access gaps remain material (World Bank, 2020 & 2022).
Access is not the same as empowerment.
That may be the central question facing digital trading today. The industry has become exceptionally good at reducing friction. Opening an account is easier. Funding is quicker. Executing a trade is simpler. Market data is more immediate. The user experience is cleaner, faster, and more intuitive than ever before.
Yet that progress raises a more uncomfortable question: are we using technology to build better market participants, or simply to make participation feel easier?
Markets are not shaped only by regulation, infrastructure and liquidity. They are also shaped by the quality of participation within them. If digital platforms create participants who are more active but less reflective, then better interfaces may not necessarily translate into better markets.
Good interface design can play a positive role. It can lower complexity, improve navigation, and remove unnecessary barriers for people who were previously excluded from investing or trading. But there is a point at which simplification risks becoming over-simplification. Finance is not frictionless by nature. Some degree of pause, comparison, reflection, and even hesitation is not always a flaw in the user journey. Sometimes it is part of sound decision-making.
Recent evidence suggests that interface design can shape behaviour more powerfully than we often assume. In a 2024 experiment involving more than 9,000 consumers, the UK Financial Conduct Authority found that digital engagement practices such as push notifications, leaderboards, flashing prices, and points-based incentives can increase both trading frequency and investment risk, with some larger effects among younger adults and those with lower financial literacy (FCA, 2024).
That does not mean digital engagement is inherently bad. It does mean design is not neutral.
The point becomes even clearer when mobile access is considered. Research published through the National Bureau of Economic Research found that smartphone trading adoption was associated with greater purchases of assets with higher volatility and skewness, and a higher likelihood of buying lottery-type assets and past winners (Kalda et al., 2021). In other words, convenience does not just change when people trade. It can influence what they choose to trade.
This matters because the industry often speaks about access as though it were automatically a public good. In many ways it is. Broader participation, better information flow, and lower distribution costs are undeniably positive developments. But access on its own is only the start of the story. A market participant who is more active is not necessarily better informed. A user who finds an app intuitive is not necessarily making stronger decisions.
In South Africa and similar emerging markets, this distinction may matter even more. Digital access can play a meaningful role in widening participation where traditional barriers to finance have been higher, and recent evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa suggests that digital financial inclusion can support broader financial development (Akpa & Gnidehou, 2025).
That distinction may become even more important as retail participation continues to evolve. In its 2026 report on the retail investor journey, ESMA (2026) noted concerns that digitalisation, gamification features, the use of influencers, and increasingly aggressive digital marketing can amplify risk-taking without corresponding understanding. The issue, then, is not whether technology belongs in modern markets. It clearly does. The issue is whether we are designing for understanding as seriously as we are designing for engagement.
That is where the next phase of digital trading may be decided.
The best platforms of the future will not simply be the fastest or the most visually intuitive. They will be the ones that combine accessibility with clarity, speed with context, and participation with judgment. This is not an argument against innovation. It is an argument for a better standard of innovation, one that gives as much attention to understanding as it does to engagement.
Digital finance has already succeeded in making markets easier to reach. The harder challenge now is making that access more meaningful. The real test is not whether platforms can remove friction, but whether they can do so in a way that supports better judgment, stronger understanding and more resilient participation. In the years ahead, progress may be measured less by how quickly users can act, and more by whether easier access is helping create better-quality participation in the market.
References
- Akpa, A., & Gnidehou, M. (2025). Access to Finance in the Digital Age: Does Digital Financial Inclusion Promote Financial Development in Emerging Countries?. African Development Review.
- European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). 2026. Report on the retail investor journey: understanding retail participation in capital markets. Available at: ESMA website.
- Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). 2024. Digital engagement practices: a trading apps experiment. Available at: FCA website.
- Kalda, A., Loos, B., Previtero, A. and Hackethal, A. 2021. Smart(Phone) Investing? A Within-Investor Natural Experiment in Household Finance. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 28363
- World Bank. 2020. Digital Financial Services. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Available at: World Bank website.
- World Bank. 2022. The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19. Washington, DC: World Bank.
