DEEP LOOK | The strategic partnership creates a Nike-Strava-like marketplace that raises questions about custody’s gatekeeper model – who charges whom, and how.

Investors chasing returns and runners chasing personal bests share share a common wish: performance tools aggregated in one place. The runner’s quest for physical well-being mirrors the investor’s pursuit of financial well-being – both demand platforms that deliver efficiency, aggregation, speed, and data-driven insights.

Who controls the platform matters a lot. Who gets charged, how much, and for what access determines the platform economics. The recently announced BlackRock-Access Fintech partnership raises fundamental questions about existing platform dynamics of the custody industry’s gatekeeper model – not necessarily upending it, but challenging assumptions about who sits at the platform’s centre.

At its core, the partnership unites BlackRock’s Aladdin – the investment technology platform serving 300,000 institutional client users – with AccessFintech’s Synergy Network, which connects more than 250 sell-side participants, including custodians and market infrastructures. The result: buyside and sell-side clients get direct connectivity for enhanced post-trade workflows, creating an alternative path to the traditional custody platform intermediation model and custodians as the gateway to fintech capabilities.

Understanding the questions this raises requires an examination of three critical aspects: how current platform models work and their openness levels, who acts as gatekeeper and charges whom, and how BlackRock’s investment stake in AccessFintech could shift the revenue equation for all participants.

The current state

Custody platforms operate along a spectrum from closed, curated environments to semi-open ecosystems, each with distinct approaches to fintech integration and pricing.

The walled garden model operates like Apple’s ecosystem. Traditional custody platforms – BNY Pershing’s Wove and the custodian’s Snowflake collaboration, State Street Alpha, Northern Trust’s Integrated Trading Solutions – enable fintech capability integration, while maintaining control over which third parties can integrate. They vet fintechs, impose standardised integration requirements, and maintain quality control while managing client choice.

In the running world, this resembles the Apple Watch paired with Apple Fitness+. Runners can download third-party apps like Strava or Nike Run Club, but these apps have restricted access to Apple Health data unless Apple approves.  

The financial equivalent sees custodians controlling the platform while asset managers pay custody fees and platform fees. Third-party integrations are vetted and curated. Clients get quality assurance and security, with the tradeoff being a more structured choice and complexity around switching providers.

Our custody platforms in play article shows State Street embodying this approach through State Street Alpha, where the custodian sees value in owning investment software, services and data infrastructure from idea inception through to financial reporting, custody, clearing and accounting. Citi invests heavily in platform modernisation, while Deutsche Bank pursues microservices-driven platform investment, integrating front, middle and back-office functions into fewer platforms.

The semi-open ecosystem offers more permissiveness while maintaining curation. These platforms provide API access with clear standards and certification processes, allowing more vendors within defined guardrails. BNP Paribas demonstrates this model, working with custody partners including Manaos, Broadridge, Proxymity, AccessFintech, Digital Asset and Allfunds. Its NeoLink client platform integrates more than 50 apps, fintech services, AI and omnichannel connectivity.

In running terms, this resembles Garmin’s ecosystem. Garmin Connect syncs easily with Strava, and other apps. Running data flows freely between platforms via APIs.

Aladdin’s traditional model (before the AccessFintech partnership) provided core infrastructure with multiple third-party integrations, more vendor options, and API access, while maintaining overall control.

The network/marketplace model acts more as a connector than a controller. AccessFintech’s Synergy Network mirrors this approach – a neutral connection between multiple parties, facilitating data flow rather than controlling it, generating revenue from enabling connections rather than gatekeeping. It works simultaneously with multiple custodians, asset managers and brokers in a platform-agnostic approach.

In running terms, Strava operates this way. It accepts data from 100+ devices and apps and remains platform-agnostic with easy data export. Value comes from network effects (other runners) rather than device control. It allows users to use whatever hardware and training apps they want; Strava aggregates everything. It’s the aggregation hub, generating revenue from subscriptions and B2B partnerships rather than gatekeeping.

The specialised system focuses on professional-grade depth in narrower areas. In running, TrainingPeaks targets serious athletes with coaches, syncing with major devices but charging for premium features while providing deep training analytics. Its moderate openness and professional focus mirrors specialised post-trade fintechs offering tools like reconciliation systems, settlement matching and exception management that integrate with multiple custodians.

The gatekeeper question: Who charges whom?

Platform economics revolve around who controls access and extracts value. Custody platform owners charge for platform access, data fees, transaction charges, revenue sharing, and professional services. Third-party fintech providers may charge end-users directly, share revenue with platform owners, or use hybrid models.

In the walled garden model, the custodian gatekeeper charges users (asset managers) custody fees plus platform fees while charging fintech developers fees and revenue shares. Apps wanting deeper integration pay through revenue-sharing arrangements. The gatekeeper coordinates everything and manages relationships with multiple participants – users for access, developers for presence, taking cuts of transactions flowing through.

An AccessFintech spokesperson emphasised distinguishing enablers from challengers: “We do not compete for settlement and asset servicing business, but we do see a significant amount of settlement activity.” He predicted the custody ecosystem’s future as “a blend of proprietary build and collaboration with fintechs and other technology providers,” noting “fintechs will thrive where value is created by either being a place of mutual interest to share cost, or a place of value creation through a network of providers.”

The tension: What users want versus platform reality

Investors and runners want best-of-breed solutions across multiple vendors, flexibility to switch providers without platform lock-in, latest fintech capabilities without waiting for platform owners to build them, and competitive pricing.

Platform providers must balance quality control, security, regulatory requirements, monetising platform investments, client experience, and responsibility when third-party tools encounter issues.

Financial services platforms remain more curated than consumer app stores: platform owners bear regulatory compliance responsibility, operational risk from integration issues can cause settlement fails and compliance breaches, financial data requires stronger security controls, integration complexity makes coordination costlier, and platform economics require sustainable revenue models.

Users push for openness to avoid dependency on single providers, gain innovation speed, benefit from competitive dynamics, access specialised solutions, and maintain flexibility to adopt emerging technologies.

Reality more closely resembles Apple’s curated app store: platform owners maintain coordination for quality and risk management, charge for access and integration, balance competition with sustainability, while providing stability and accountability.

AccessFintech’s network approach attempts B2B marketplace dynamics – creating interoperability standards allowing multiple platforms to connect without single gatekeeper control.

The BlackRock-AccessFintech partnership: A different gateway?

The partnership is similar to Nike partnering with Strava and giving all Nike Training Club app users the ability to automatically share workout data with any gym, coach, or training programme in real-time through Strava’s network.

It shifts the dynamic – Nike (BlackRock) has a huge user base but wasn’t previously the data integration point. Strava (AccessFintech) operates the network connecting gyms, coaches, trainers, and competitors. Gyms and coaches (custodians and brokers) have traditionally been the primary point of coordination for how members accessed external tools; now, Nike clients can connect directly through Strava. Runners (investors) get seamless data flow without multiple logins or manual uploads.

The question: when your primary workout platform is Nike, and it already connects you to everything through Strava, how does your gym’s platform offering compete? What role does the gym play when the integration happens elsewhere?

Questions about the revenue model

This partnership raises questions about how value flows and who captures it – not necessarily providing definitive answers, but certainly surfacing tensions worth examining.

BlackRock’s position introduces new dynamics. Their direct clients (asset managers and asset owners using Aladdin) already pay technology platform fees, data and analytics services charges, and investment operations support costs. These existing fee structures likely continue – clients already pay for Aladdin access. But BlackRock gains potential new indirect revenue: with a strategic investment in AccessFintech to deepen integration, BlackRock may likely receive a share of AccessFintech’s revenue growth. More Aladdin clients using the network could mean more AccessFintech revenue, which could mean BlackRock benefiting from their equity stake.

BlackRock is positioned to potentially capture value through AccessFintech ownership as network usage grows. The question becomes: does BlackRock’s dual role as platform operator and network investor create different incentive structures than traditional custody gatekeeping?

AccessFintech’s network model raises interesting questions. Their existing revenue comes from network participants – the 250+ institutions already connected – with custodians, brokers and agent banks paying fees for Synergy Network access, likely tiered by transaction volume or connections. Expanded integration with Aladdin could drive network effects: as more Aladdin clients join, transaction volumes might increase. More data flowing through could justify different fee structures.

Will AccessFintech charge Aladdin clients separately for premium connectivity features? Will BlackRock bundle this into Aladdin fees and compensate AccessFintech separately through revenue sharing arrangements? These structural questions remain open.

Custodians and brokers face strategic questions

They continue charging custody fees for safekeeping, settlement and asset servicing, transaction fees, platform access fees for proprietary platforms like Wove and Alpha, and data and reporting services. But the partnership raises questions about positioning.

Does platform differentiation become harder when clients have alternative integration points? Previously, custodians could emphasise “use our platform for post-trade workflow and we’ll integrate approved fintechs.” If clients can access similar connectivity through Aladdin-AccessFintech, does that change the value proposition?  

Does data aggregation economics shift? Custodians have been building platforms partly to become data aggregators and insights providers. If BlackRock and AccessFintech create an alternative aggregation point, does that change pricing dynamics for consolidated reporting, analytics and dashboards that custodians currently provide?

Do workflow optimisation services face different competitive dynamics? Exception management, reconciliation, and workflow tools represent areas where custodians add value and margin. If BlackRock and AccessFintech offer similar capabilities through their integration, does that create pricing pressure? Or do custodians differentiate through specialised expertise that general platforms can’t easily replicate?

How do client relationships evolve? If asset managers interact primarily through Aladdin for certain workflows, with custodians providing backend infrastructure, does that affect how custodians cross-sell additional services and justify premium positioning?

What custodians continue providing – core custody services, regulatory and compliance expertise, physical asset servicing like income collection and corporate actions, specialised services including securities lending and FX- remains essential. The question is whether these services face different pricing dynamics or positioning challenges as alternative integration points emerge.

Network effects

BlackRock’s investment raises questions about competitive dynamics. Network effects could compound: more Aladdin clients joining potentially makes the network more valuable to custodians and brokers; better service from custodians and brokers potentially makes it more valuable to Aladdin clients. If AccessFintech revenue grows significantly, BlackRock benefits from equity stakes while also strengthening Aladdin’s value proposition.

Does the data ecosystem evolve differently? More participants could generate richer data enabling better AI and analytics; enhanced analytics might support different pricing models; BlackRock could capture value through both equity stakes and Aladdin positioning.

How does competitive positioning shift? Does Aladdin become harder for competitors to challenge with this enhanced connectivity? Are asset managers using Aladdin less likely to consider switching platforms? Could BlackRock potentially adjust Aladdin pricing over time as network value increases?

Do multiple revenue streams emerge? Direct client fees from Aladdin, equity appreciation in AccessFintech, potentially data licensing and insights, potentially transaction-based fees as the marketplace scales – these represent different revenue models than traditional custody economics.

Strategic considerations for all participants

The partnership provides essential services that platforms can’t easily replicate. But it raises strategic questions about positioning and how custodians might compete.

Most likely: different custodians will choose different strategies based on client mix, capability strengths, and market positioning. This could accelerate industry evolution and specialisation without necessarily displacing core custody functions.

The parallel with runners and gyms illuminates the dynamics without overstating disruption. Gyms historically could emphasise that their gyms have excellent app integrations and coaching technology partnerships. If runners increasingly access similar connectivity through Nike and Strava, gyms might adjust value propositions.

Questions worth watching

BlackRock’s partnership with AccessFintech raises several questions worth monitoring:

Who becomes the primary integration point for post-trade workflows – custody platforms, asset manager platforms like Aladdin, or network connectors like AccessFintech? Or does the answer vary by workflow type and client segment?

How do revenue models evolve as network effects potentially amplify? How do clients distribute spending across custody services, platform access, and network connectivity?

What role does BlackRock’s equity stake in AccessFintech play in competitive dynamics? Does dual ownership of platform and network infrastructure create different incentive structures than traditional models?

How do custodians differentiate when alternative integration points emerge? Do they emphasise specialised expertise, regulatory capability, and asset servicing depth that platforms don’t replicate? Do they become premium participants in networks like AccessFintech rather than alternative gatekeepers?

Does the industry move toward multiple integration points serving different needs – custody platforms for certain workflows, asset manager platforms for others, network connectors for data aggregation – rather than winner-take-all dynamics?

The bottom line

The BlackRock-AccessFintech partnership primarily raises questions about platform economics: who keeps the gate, who gets charged, and how revenue flows through increasingly connected ecosystems.

Custodians face strategic questions: such as whether core custodian and specialised asset services face different pricing environments or positioning challenges as alternative integration points emerge.

End clients – asset managers and asset owners—potentially benefit from enhanced connectivity, faster workflows and competitive dynamics. But who ultimately captures efficiency gains remains an open question.

It’s evolving marketplace economics: platform owners and network connectors potentially capture significant value as network effects compound. For the service providers, we ask if the future’s custody offer will be a platform for change or more of the same.

Investors’ pursuit of integrated service platforms accelerates the race to provide them. Custodians are in that race, competing to be essential infrastructure for investment operations. But with BlackRock and AccessFintech reshaping who controls integration points, who charges whom, and how value flows through networks, the race dynamics raise fundamental questions about gatekeeping, revenue models, and competitive positioning.

Forget watch this space. Watch this race.