Key barriers: categorical inertia and interbank blindness
Categorical inertia and statistical distortion
The main unique barrier is when a user sees an error in an expense category (for example, lunch in a cafe is counted as “Groceries”), but they have no simple motivation or convenient interface to fix it. As a result, the analytics begin to “lie,” and the user stops looking at it, losing trust in the tool.
The phenomenon of “interbank blindness” and budget dilution
Due to rigid interbank barriers and the lack of end-to-end analytics, users are forced to split their capital among several financial organizations for the sake of cashback and favorable installment terms. The absence of a single screen displaying balances and expenses across all banks simultaneously creates “interbank blindness” and complicates budget control.
Technological fragility of auto-import
The rejection of built-in analytics is often due to technical instability: auto-import regularly “breaks” or pulls data incorrectly. This forces financially literate users to consciously move to external programs (for example, ZenMoney) or keep records in Google Sheets.
Behavioral models: from passive observation to strict control
In-depth interviews allowed dividing Kazakhstani users by their attitude to financial planning:
-
Inertia model (Normies and Olds): Expense tracking for them is a curious extra feature, not a system. They check charts situationally (for example, at the end of the month asking “where did the money go”). They rarely plan a budget themselves, fear complex financial spreadsheets, and prefer to keep elementary lists in smartphone notes or fully trust their intuition.
-
Cold calculation model (Pragmatists and the Financially Literate): They view expense tracking as a tool to maximize personal benefit. They manually set monthly limits, keep detailed records in third-party software or Excel spreadsheets, and strictly track how effectively their strategy for collecting bonuses and cashbacks works.
-
Survival and fear model (The Burned): They categorically distrust automatic expense analysis. They fear that incorrect account linking will lead to unnecessary deductions, so they disable any automatic subscription services, avoid fixing personal budgets within banks, and double-check every transaction manually.
Why it matters
Understanding the hidden barriers in expense tracking scenarios is critical for designing modern superapps. The winner in the Kazakhstan market will be the ecosystem that offers not just pretty charts of past spending, but a proactive financial assistant with protection against interbank blindness.
In solving such product challenges, high-quality UX/UI analytics play an invaluable role. The Rocket Tech team, with over 10 years of experience in the fintech market and a portfolio of 550+ successful projects, helps companies and startups design seamless mobile app interfaces that eliminate cognitive friction and build trusting relationships with every user segment.
FAQ
Why do users still keep budgets in Excel if banks have expense charts?
This happens due to distrust of automatic categorization (which often makes mistakes) and the phenomenon of “interbank blindness”—banking apps cannot collect expense data from all of a user’s cards in a single interface.
What is the biggest obstacle preventing banking analytics from becoming a full-fledged financial advisor?
Built-in services only show what “has already happened,” but do not push the user to action. They lack proactive tools: future benefit calculators, personalized tips on optimizing spending, and gamification elements.
What should the ideal expense tracking service look like according to Kazakhstanis?
Users see it as an intelligent and accurate assistant that categorizes transactions without errors, takes into account accounts in third-party banks, and gives practical advice on savings without overloading the interface with ads.
Original research source: Rocket Tech: How Kazakhstanis use financial planning and expense tracking in banking ecosystems