Filled in the questionnaire today. Nothing special there, but still sharing stuff as translated by Vivaldi, along with some comments.
I did not choose "totally agree" for first question, since I do not think it is required or mandatory to monitor the sector. Especially since financial sector is quite big, and OP is offering multiple financial services. It is definitely useful, but that's also the point of having an "assembly": everyone shares what they know, and if someone does not know something - someone else would. And if no one knows - do some research before making a decission then.
For 7th question I do not totally agree, because the question is a bit vague. If some volunteering or donations or something like that is being meant - yes, sure, if you do have enough resources. But if it's something else - what exactly? Overall, it's more like a bank should not be obstructing the vitality. If it will get into lobbying or something similar - it becomes a tentative topic.
Questions 8th and 9th quite similar, and I do not totally agree with them, because I do not think you should be focusing on owner-customers specifically. You should be focusing on all customers having good experiences with your service, regardless of their status. It is fine to provide more service or bonuses to those who are willing to pay more (and thus "invest"), but only as long as it does not affect others.
I do not totally agree with 11th question, because that's not really banks job to teach digital skills. It is important for the bank to promote good security standards, though. That should be done mostly through UI and UX, so that there is as less friction as possible for the user. There should also be enough information for the user on what is where and why, how things work and why. Any extra education is optional, but still not a bad idea if done in cooperation with other organizations, which have respective focus(es) in education, in security, in crime fighting and stuff like that.
As for the last, 12th, question, I also do not totally agree with it, because this is another vague one. If the question is about something that is against the law in the country of operation - definitely. If it's about something at the workplace within the bank or some sort of discrimination or whatever else in communication with clients - yes, bank should stand firm against bad actors here. But I think there may be topics like "lefts think this, and rights think that", and on those any bank should stay neutral, and should not endorse anyone. And it may not be a good idea to take a stance on some issues happening outside of bank's purview. This probably should be a case-by-case thing is what I am saying.
As for why I am even trying (with no hope of success)... It's because I did not like my previous experience. Yes, I understood where this was coming from, but I still believe that things could have been handled differently. I think there may be a way to improve things. Of course, it is also possible, that once we start discussing it with people with more experience in fraud and money laundry, maybe it will turn out that I am wrong, but at least I believe there needs to be discussion.
