受惠人工智慧（Artificial Intelligence, AI）與數位科技快速發展，金融產業逐漸由傳統服務模式轉向以資料驅動（data-driven）為核心之數位金融生態系。其中，數位身分認證與金融資料共享已成為AI金融應用能否有效運作的重要基礎。數位身分不僅影響金融服務之身份驗證與風險控管，更進一步關係到資料流通、金融效率與金融包容性之發展。因此，各國近年積極推動數位身分與金融資料共享制度，以因應數位經濟時代之治理需求。
本研究以新加坡 SingPass／SGFinDex 與越南 VNeID 為主要研究對象，並納入台灣自然人憑證（MOICA）、數位憑證皮夾（TW DIW）與開放銀行制度作為比較基礎，探討數位身分如何結合 AI 技術與金融資料共享架構，進一步提升金融效率與金融包容性。本研究採用跨國比較分析與質性研究方法，透過制度分析、政策文件整理與專家訪談，探討不同制度環境下之數位金融發展模式與治理差異。
研究結果顯示，新加坡透過政府主導與公私協作模式，成功建立以 SingPass 為核心之整合型數位身分平台，並透過 SGFinDex 串接金融資料共享架構，使資料能在使用者授權下有效流通，進一步提升金融服務效率與資料整合能力。越南則在制度成熟度相對有限之情況下，透過政府強勢推動與高度集中治理，加速 VNeID 普及與金融數位化發展，並結合 AI 活體辨識、行為生物辨識與替代資料信用評估等技術，提升金融包容性與風險控管能力。
相較之下，台灣雖已具備開放銀行、MyData 與數位身分等基礎架構，但研究發現其主要瓶頸並非技術不足，而是制度碎片化、跨部會協調低效與缺乏統一平台，導致資料整合能力有限，難以形成完整數位金融生態系。專家訪談結果亦顯示，目前金融機構面臨之最大問題在於制度不確定性與資料治理責任不明，而非技術能力不足。
本研究認為，台灣未來應由傳統「資料保護」思維，逐步轉向「資料治理」架構，在建構「數位身分-數據共享-AI驅動」框架，提供台灣發展藍圖，並且以「讀取不儲存（read but not store）」為核心之資料共享機制，同時透過 FIDO2、生物辨識與區塊鏈等技術，強化數位身分與資料安全之信任基礎。此外，參考金融監理數位創新兼具的新加坡與新興市場高度成長潛力的越南混合典範，政府可建立跨部會整合機制與統一數位平台，以推動數位身分、AI金融與金融資料共享之整合發展，進一步提升金融效率、金融包容性與國際競爭力。

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies, the financial industry has gradually shifted from traditional service models toward a data-driven financial ecosystem. In this transformation, digital identity and financial data sharing have become critical infrastructures for AI-enabled financial services. Digital identity systems not only influence authentication and risk management processes, but also determine the efficiency of data circulation, financial inclusion, and the development of digital governance. As a result, governments worldwide have accelerated the development of digital identity frameworks and financial data-sharing mechanisms to support the emerging digital economy.
This study examines the relationship between digital identity, AI-driven financial data sharing, and financial governance by comparing Singapore’s SingPass/SGFinDex model and Vietnam’s VNeID framework, while also incorporating Taiwan’s MOICA, Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet (TW DIW), MyData platform, and Open Banking initiatives as comparative references. The research explores how digital identity systems, combined with AI technologies and financial data-sharing infrastructures, can improve financial efficiency, financial inclusion, and digital financial innovation under different institutional environments.
Methodologically, this research adopts a cross-country comparative approach and qualitative institutional analysis. The study integrates policy analysis, secondary data review, and semi-structured expert interviews with financial practitioners and financial infrastructure institutions to evaluate the institutional differences, governance structures, and practical challenges associated with digital identity and financial data sharing systems.
The findings indicate that Singapore has successfully established an integrated digital identity ecosystem centered on SingPass and SGFinDex through strong government leadership and public-private collaboration. This model enables secure and authorized data sharing across financial institutions, thereby reducing information asymmetry, improving operational efficiency, and strengthening data integration capabilities. In contrast, Vietnam, despite having a relatively less mature regulatory environment, has rapidly expanded financial inclusion and digital financial services through centralized government-driven implementation of the VNeID platform. Vietnam has further incorporated AI-based technologies such as liveness detection, behavioral biometrics, and alternative-data credit assessment to enhance fraud prevention and broaden financial access for underserved populations.
Compared with Singapore and Vietnam, Taiwan has already established foundational infrastructures such as Open Banking APIs, MyData, MOICA, and TW DIW. However, this study finds that Taiwan’s primary challenge does not stem from technological limitations, but rather from institutional fragmentation, inefficient inter-agency coordination, and the absence of a unified national digital platform. Expert interview results further confirm that regulatory uncertainty and unclear data governance responsibilities remain the major obstacles preventing financial institutions from fully participating in data-sharing ecosystems.
This study argues that Taiwan should gradually shift from a traditional “data protection” approach toward a broader “data governance” framework. In particular, Taiwan may consider adopting a “read but not store” principle for financial data sharing, while integrating technologies such as FIDO2 authentication, biometrics, blockchain-based authorization records, and AI-driven risk analysis to strengthen digital trust and cybersecurity. Furthermore, the government should establish a centralized coordination mechanism and a unified digital identity platform to facilitate the integration of digital identity, AI finance, and financial data-sharing systems.
The contributions of this study are threefold. First, it constructs an integrated analytical framework linking digital identity, financial data sharing, AI applications, and institutional governance. Second, it provides comparative institutional evidence from Singapore, Vietnam, and Taiwan regarding the development of digital financial ecosystems. Third, it offers policy recommendations for Taiwan and other emerging digital economies seeking to balance financial innovation, privacy protection, and regulatory governance in the AI era.

一、 中文文獻
1.iThome（2019年9月17日）。財金 Open API 開發者平臺首度公開。https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/133124
2.iThome（2025）。行動自然人憑證申辦與應用發展。https://www.ithome.com.tw/
3.中央存款保險公司（無日期）。新加坡金融科技發展參訪報告。
4.中央通訊社（2020年12月7日）。新加坡推數位平台助民眾整合跨銀行財務資訊。https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202012070220.aspx
5.內政部（2023）。現行法律已足夠，將審慎推動數位身分證。https://www.moi.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=8&s=198370
6.內政部（2025）。行動自然人憑證使用與推動成果說明（政策資料）。
7.內政部戶政司（2025）。自然人憑證與行動自然人憑證服務說明。
8.王志誠（2021）。金融科技監理與監理沙盒制度之發展。月旦法學雜誌，315，45–63。
9.李沃牆（2022）。開放銀行與金融資料共享之監理挑戰。金融監理與風險管理，10(2)，55–80。
10.林明德（2023）。自然人憑證與 FIDO2 應用之研究。台灣法學雜誌，45(2)，78–95。
11.金融監督管理委員會（2019）。開放銀行推動架構與階段規劃。
12.金融監督管理委員會（2024）。金融科技發展路徑圖3.0。
13.金融監督管理委員會（2025）。金融創新實驗（監理沙盒）制度與申請說明。
14.金融監督管理委員會（2025）。虛擬資產專法草案及監理政策說明。
15.金融監督管理委員會（2026）。普惠數位金融服務指引。
16.財團法人金融聯合徵信中心（2024）。數位金融與資產代幣化發展趨勢研究。
17.財金資訊股份有限公司（2025）。開放銀行與金融 API 平台發展說明。
18.黃國峰（2023）。人工智慧於金融監理之應用與風險。金融科技發展季刊，12(1)，35–58。
19.陳怡君（2021）。高齡社會下數位落差問題之研究。社會政策與社會工作學刊，25(1)，101–130。
20.陳怡如（2024）。台灣開放銀行 API 參與困境分析。金融監理季刊，28(1)，45–62。
21.陳起行（2022）。個人資料保護法與數位治理發展之研究。資訊社會研究，38，1–25。
22.資策會 FIND（2024）。東數位身份驗證與資料治理發展趨勢報告。
23.資策會 FIND（2025）。東南亞金融科技市場趨勢分析。https://www.find.org.tw/
24.潘淑滿（2003）。質性研究：理性與應用。台北：心理出版社。
25.數位發展部（2025）。台灣數位身分政策與 TW DIW 發展報告。
26.數位發展部（2025）。數位憑證皮夾試驗沙河推動說明。
27.數位發展部（2025）。數位憑證皮夾（Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet）試營運說明。
28.數位發展部（2025）。數位憑證皮夾技術白皮書。
29.數位發展部（2026）。數位台灣行動方案。
二、 英文文獻
1.Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
2.Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2016). The evolution of FinTech: A new post-crisis paradigm. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47(4), 1271–1319.
3.Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2017). FinTech and RegTech in a nutshell, and the future in a sandbox. Research Foundation Briefs, 3(4), 1–20.
4.Bank for International Settlements (BIS). (2023). The Future Monetary System, Basel: BIS.
5.Bank for International Settlements (BIS). (2024). Project Guardian: Tokenisation and Financial Markets, Basel: BIS.
6.Berg, T., Burg, V., Gombović, A., & Puri, M. (2020). On the rise of FinTechs: Credit scoring using digital footprints. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(7), 2845–2897.
7.Berger, A. N. (2021). Open banking and credit cost efficiency. Journal of Banking & Finance, 129, 106–115.
8.Cath, C. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Ethical, legal and technical opportunities and challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376(2133).
9.Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.
10.Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning.
11.Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., Ansar, S., & Hess, J. (2022). The Global Findex Database 2021. World Bank.
12.European Banking Authority. (2019). Report on the impact of FinTech on payment institutions and e-money institutions. EBA.
13.European Commission. (2023). European Digital Identity Framework (eIDAS 2.0). European Commission.
14.European Commission. (2024). European Digital Identity Wallet Architecture and Reference Framework (ARF). European Commission.
15.FIDO Alliance. (2022). Passkeys: The future of passwordless authentication. FIDO Alliance.
16.FIDO Alliance. (2023). Passkeys: FIDO Authentication Standards Overview. FIDO Alliance.
17.Financial Supervisory Commission, Taiwan. (2025). Regulatory sandbox guidance. https://www.fsc.gov.tw
18.Government Technology Agency of Singapore. (2025). Singpass. https://www.tech.gov.sg/products-and-services/for-citizens/digital-services/singpass/
19.International Organization for Standardization. (2013). ISO/IEC 29115:2013 Information technology—Security techniques—Entity authentication assurance framework. Geneva: ISO.
20.International Monetary Fund. (2021). Fintech and financial services: Initial considerations. IMF.
21.International Monetary Fund. (2024). Digital Assets and Financial Stability Risks, Washington, DC: IMF.
22.Jun, M. (2020). Biometric authentication systems and privacy protection. Computer Law & Security Review, 36, 105378.
23.Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
24.Ministry of Digital Affairs, Taiwan. (2025). Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet (TW DIW). https://moda.gov.tw
25.Ministry of Information and Communications of Vietnam. (2024). Digital signatures available on VNeID app. https://english.mic.gov.vn
26.Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2024). Project Guardian: Tokenisation for Financial Markets, Singapore: MAS.
27.Monetary Authority of Singapore. (2025). SGFinDex. https://www.mas.gov.sg/development/fintech/sgfindex
28.National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2017). Digital identity guidelines (SP 800-63). https://www.nist.gov
29.National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards, Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
30.National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). FIPS 203: Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, Gaithersburg, MD: NIST.
31.National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). FIPS 204: Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, MD: NIST.
32.Narula, N., Vasquez, W., & Virza, M. (2018).zkLedger: Privacy-Preserving Auditing for Distributed Ledgers.USENIX Symposium.
33.Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life.
34.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Digital identity and electronic authentication in public services. OECD.
35.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). Digital identity : Enablers for Digital Government. OECD.
36.Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. (2016). Platform Revolution. New York: W. W. Norton.
37.Philippon, T. (2016). The FinTech opportunity. NBER Working Paper No. 22476.
38.Whitley, E. A., & Hosein, I. (2010). Global challenges for identity policies. Palgrave Macmillan.
39.World Bank. (2018). The Global Findex Database 2017.
40.World Bank. (2021). ID4D Practitioner’s Guide: Digital Identification Systems. Washington, DC: World Bank.
41.World Bank. (2022). Global financial development report 2022.
42.World Bank. (2025). Worldwide Governance Indicators.
43.World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2022).Decentralized Identifiers (DID) v1.0.W3C Recommendation.
44.World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). (2022). Verifiable Credentials Data Model 2.0.,W3C Recommendation.
45.Zarate, J. (2022). Data leakage risks in open banking. Journal of Financial Regulation.
46.Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., Arner, D. W., & Barberis, J. N. (2017). Regulating a revolution. Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law, 23(1), 31–103.
47.Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. (2015). Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data.