FinTech interview with TrafficGuard CEO Mathew Ratty on invalid traffic, AI-driven ad fraud, CAC risks, and protecting bidding integrity.
Mathew Ratty, as CEO of TrafficGuard, your career spans venture capital, adtech, and digital fraud prevention. What personal or professional experiences shaped your focus on tackling invalid traffic at scale?
My background is in venture capital and high-growth businesses, so I’ve always looked at marketing through a capital lens. In finance, you obsess over marginal gains and marginal losses because they compound. When I moved into adtech, I realised something uncomfortable: invalid traffic was compounding in the wrong direction. Budgets were scaling, automation was accelerating, and scrutiny wasn’t keeping pace.
What makes ad fraud dangerous today isn’t just volume. It’s invisibility. It sits inside performance metrics, trains bidding systems, inflates CAC, and distorts decision-making long before anyone flags a problem. In high-CPC sectors like fintech, even small inefficiencies become material quickly.
That’s why I don’t view invalid traffic as a marketing issue. I view it as a governance issue. If you’re serious about growth, you have to protect the integrity of your acquisition engine. Because once your numbers are compromised, so is your strategy.
In fintech advertising, high-value keywords attract both legitimate users and bad actors, which makes IVT particularly damaging in financial and crypto campaigns compared to other industries.
IVT is a real threat to financial and crypto campaigns in particular because it hits where fintech is most exposed: high CPCs, tight compliance constraints, and automated bidding that reacts instantly to noise.
It can cost financial companies around $40 per click, exceeding the rates typically seen in eCommerce or SaaS. This is due to the highly competitive nature and tight regulations on the industry.
These high CPCs mean that companies can’t afford to let any spend go to waste. However, IVT is actively draining funds bots, scrapers, competitors, and now AI-driven agents are entering auctions and this synthetic engagement that looks “real” to platforms.
Competitors are also leveraging IVT strategically to sabotage their rivals. They’re deliberately triggering paid clicks to exhaust rival budgets, forcing them to spend even more on higher keyword bids to maintain visibility. And in fintech, “small” attacks are not small. A short burst on a high-CPC non-branded term can burn budget fast and destabilise bidding for weeks.
Every click counts for these campaigns, but IVT is inflating click volumes, distorting campaign metrics and polluting bidding algorithms. The bigger cost is what happens after the click: polluted optimisation signals, volatile CAC, and forecasts you cannot trust.
If nothing is done, financial services and crypto companies face significant damage to their budgets and compromised future campaigns. This is why fintech teams should treat IVT like a balance-sheet risk, not a marketing hygiene task.
Many advertisers still underestimate how early invalid traffic can distort performance data. Where do you see fintech marketers losing visibility or control first?
Fintech keywords are high-value and low in volume, making the competition to buy them intense. Automated bidding has become a tactic financial companies heavily rely on to keep up in auctions that move faster than human decision-making. These algorithms are optimised based on various behavioural signals from engagement and clicks, to conversion probability.
While an effective strategy, financial marketers are unaware that IVT is eroding the control they have over these bidding systems by generating signals without genuine intent. That is usually where control is lost first: at the input layer. The bidding algorithm powering the bidding system doesn’t evaluate the quality of the traffic, it just recognises that the keyword has high engagement. It then reacts by bidding much more aggressively, wasting budgets on false demand.
The impact doesn’t stop there, as the bidding system is trained by this polluted data and then continues to optimise towards low-value sources. It learns that it needs to keep bidding higher to remain competitive, even long after the IVT stops. In high-CPC markets, recovery is rarely instant. It can take weeks for strategies to stabilise once they have learned the wrong lesson.
If marketing teams react at this point it’s already too late, as CPCs have been inflated and budgets drained. The mistake is waiting for “proof” in conversions. By the time conversions dip, the model has already been trained on rubbish.
They need to ensure they have full visibility and control of their campaigns right from the very start. Prevention beats clean-up because clean-up does not untrain algorithms.
From your vantage point, how has the sophistication of fraudulent traffic evolved in recent years, especially with automation and AI-driven bots entering the mix?
Ad fraud has become incredibly sophisticated in recent years, particularly due to developments like AI making it much easier to carry out fraudulent attacks on a large scale. What has changed is not just capability. It is accessibility. Agent frameworks and automation tools are cheaper, easier to deploy, and far more “human” in how they behave.
Bots could originally only carry out basic tasks, but advancements in AI allow them to execute much more complex commands. AI-powered bots can now effectively mimic human behaviour, making it much more difficult to identify them. This behaviour includes replicating cursor jitter, scroll depth, and even dwell-time patterns.
Their increased sophistication allows AI-driven bots to carry out tasks with a much higher frequency. They’re capable of creating convincing fake accounts and bypassing simple CAPTCHAs to launch an attack. Some are not even “fraud” in the traditional sense. AI agents can be executing automated search or scraping tasks at scale, but the auction impact is the same, synthetic demand, higher CPCs, and distorted signals.
After this they’ll simply repeat the cycle, rapidly ramp up customer acquisition costs (CACs) and draining budgets with little to no effort needed from the fraudster. And in fintech, you do not need high volume to create high damage. A low-volume attack can have a material impact when CPCs are extreme.
TrafficGuard emphasizes prevention within the advertising journey rather than post-campaign clean-up. Why is early detection critical for fintech brands managing high CPC environments?
Early detection is critical because all it takes is one small bot attack on a high-CPC, non-branded keyword and marketers can quickly lose control of performance. Budgets are burned through and bidding strategies can be distorted if these attacks aren’t flagged fast enough.
Financial bidding systems are automated , and if they’re tampered with by bot attacks it can take them weeks to recover. In this time budgets are significantly impacted by these distorted algorithms overbidding.
Traffic clean-up can’t be left until the campaign has already ended, as at that point the damage is already done and can snowball into future projects. Detection without prevention is a false sense of security in high-CPC environments. Spikes of invalid traffic pollute campaign data, leading advertisers to think campaigns are successful despite the traffic actually being fraudulent. They’ll then mistakenly divert funds to unsuccessful areas, making future campaigns likely to underperform. This is how budgets get “optimised” into a hole.
Blanket blocking and blacklists are still widely used. What risks do these approaches pose for fintech advertisers trying to balance fraud protection with growth?
Utilising blanket blocking or blacklists can reduce the risk of fraud, but they also run the risk of undermining growth and efficiency for fintech advertisers. Over-blocking can decrease available inventory and limit reach. This in turn can slow user acquisition while raising CACs.
These tactics typically lack context, leading them to create false positives and exclude legitimate users while still missing sophisticated fraud. They also do not solve the “why”. If you cannot explain exclusions, you cannot defend them internally, especially to finance, compliance, or procurement.
Fraud tactics are continually evolving, but blacklists remain static and struggle to keep up with increasingly sophisticated methods. Meanwhile, excessive restrictions can push campaigns into concentrated, opaque supply sources, increasing data and transparency risks. The core challenge for fintech is balancing strong fraud and compliance protection with scalable growth.
The biggest risk is not blocking itself, but blocking without precision and transparency. Without in-depth analysis before blocking, advertisers run the risk of sacrificing reach and competitive advantage without fully tackling the issue of fraud. Fintech needs user-level validation and explainable decisions, not blunt instruments.
Transparency is a core principle of TrafficGuard’s platform. How does clear reporting on invalidated engagements change conversations between advertisers, agencies, and traffic sources?
Transparency and clear reporting is essential to any advertisers trying to protect their profit margins and drive new growth. While fintech advertisers will always have to pay a premium on their keywords, they can stop IVT from dictating how their campaigns learn, bid and scale.
Even a small number of invalid clicks can distort automated bidding systems and lock campaigns into paying inflated rates in future bids. Clear reporting allows advertisers to see discrepancies in their traffic or bidding systems and trace them back to the source.
They can then block any invalid clicks from bots or competitors before they generate engagement in their campaigns. This way, bidding systems won’t learn the wrong behaviour. With clean traffic, advertisers can focus on legitimate sources much more likely to convert and provide value to their company.
It also changes the internal conversation. Instead of arguing about “lead quality” after the month ends, teams can point to auditable exclusions and show exactly what was removed and why. That makes agencies sharper, vendors more accountable, and budget owners more confident.
Fintech companies often scale campaigns rapidly across regions what signals indicate that IVT is silently eroding performance during fast expansion phases?
While IVT is getting harder to identify, it does still leave signs that advertisers need to be on the lookout for. For example, bots typically don’t stay on a website for long or browse through different pages. If bounce rates on a site are much higher than expected and engagement is low, it’s likely being caused by bots quickly entering and leaving the site.
A sudden jump in traffic but conversions remaining low is another potential sign of IVT. This is especially true if it happens at suspicious times of the day, for example late at night. Advertisers should also be wary of traffic coming from suspicious locations, such as a country they don’t typically operate in.
If bots are visiting a site in large volumes scraping data or carrying out an attack, it can also significantly impact web performance. Websites become slow or even crash, causing companies to lose out on potential revenue and damaging customer satisfaction.
But the more fintech-specific early warning is CAC instability. If CPCs spike, conversion rates wobble, and the algorithm starts “hunting” for volume in strange places, that is often polluted signal behaviour, not market demand.
Based on your work with global brands and super-apps, what practical steps should fintech marketers take to safeguard budgets without slowing down acquisition momentum?
To avoid repeated hits to budgets and distorted campaign metrics, fintech marketers should take action. The biggest risk is not that fraud exists. It is that it trains your optimisation systems. It’s therefore crucial that fintech marketers are making frequent, in-depth audits of the traffic in their campaigns. If any suspicious activity is identified, it can then be blocked before it gets the chance to interfere with a campaign.
Advertisers can also set custom verification rules to deter bots without blocking legitimate potential customers. These rules place a cap on how many times a user can interact with a campaign before they’re blocked from viewing it. This stops repeated clicks from fraudulent bots, while allowing new users to still see campaigns and find the website.
Marketers can also consider implementing ad fraud detection tools built to identify if a click is non-human after its first interaction with an ad. In fintech, you want real-time prevention, not a report that tells you what you already paid for.
And do not ignore “non-fraud” waste: returning users repeatedly clicking branded ads for log-in or account access quietly inflate CAC. If paid navigation is replacing organic access, cap it.
Looking ahead, how do you see the fight against invalid traffic evolving, and what mindset should fintech leaders adopt to stay ahead of fraud rather than constantly reacting to it?
Fintech leaders need to be aware of just how big a challenge IVT poses, and the importance of developing a counter strategy. We’ve seen how far AI powered bots have come in recent years, and they’re only going to become more sophisticated and difficult to detect.
The financial industry spends enormous amounts on digital advertising, but ad fraud is siphoning it for malicious actors. Just as businesses would utilise antivirus programs to protect their data against hackers, safeguarding their digital channels from ad fraud should be just as much a priority.
Acting after the fact isn’t enough to repair the damage IVT is actively doing to campaigns both present and future, effective protection happens at the point of entry. With budgets under threat, advertisers need to take action.
Being aware of ad fraud and the risk it poses is the first step towards effectively countering it. Armed with the knowledge of the warning signs for fraud, fintech advertisers can identify and block it before the harm is done. This way, advertisers can ensure marketing campaigns aren’t being manipulating by fraud.
Looking forward, this becomes less about “catching bots” and more about defending signal integrity. AI will continue to generate traffic that looks human. That means fintech leaders should prioritise clean optimisation inputs, real-time prevention, auditable exclusions, and ongoing scepticism. Because the price of ROI is vigilance, and the market rewards teams who can scale on truth, not noise.
Quote : Invalid traffic is no longer just bot farms in the shadows. AI agents are now entering ad auctions at scale, creating synthetic demand that looks real and drives up costs. In high-CPC markets like fintech, that is not a nuisance. It is a structural risk. The companies that win will be the ones who treat AI-driven interference as a growth threat, not a reporting issue.
Stay Ahead of the Financial Curve with Our Latest Fintech News Updates!
