
Building a Lean AI Native Banking Platform With myTU
Does a modern banking platform need a large collection of microservices and separate engineering teams, or can a compact monolith offer greater reliability and speed? In this episode of IT Infrastructure as a Conversation, I speak with Tomas Navickas, co-founder and CTO of myTU, about the architecture behind a cloud based digital banking platform and the lessons he has carried from two decades of building transactional systems. Tomas begins by challenging a familiar assumption. Infrastructure often receives the blame when an application performs badly, even though the application may be making poor use of the resources already available. His earlier work involved systems that managed large numbers of payment terminals, security changes and transactions that could not simply stop for maintenance. That experience also exposed the operational burden of running server rooms, backup facilities, generators and specialist infrastructure teams. When Tomas began building the current myTU platform, he chose mature cloud services and kept the architecture deliberately simple. The engineering team did not need to maintain physical infrastructure, and the application could be designed around services with known reliability. He also rejected the idea that every modern banking platform should default to microservices. His reasoning is organizational as much as technical. Tomas argues that software architecture and company structure tend to mirror one another. A distributed collection of services often produces distributed teams, additional handoffs and slower decisions. myTU chose one core engineering team and a compact monolith because the company wanted to remain lean, make decisions quickly and upgrade the platform as one consistent system. That choice comes with tradeoffs. Owning much of the technology stack gives myTU control over priorities, language support and product changes. A small team can react within a day when something important appears. The burden is finding engineers who can hold a wider understanding of the system, accept broader responsibility and work comfortably without the narrow boundaries found in a larger company. We also discuss what AI native banking means in practice. At myTU, AI is used across internal processes rather than being confined to customer support. Agents can parse poorly structured information, extract knowledge, summarize cases, gather evidence and suggest decisions. A person can then review the material and move the case forward with a clearer record of why the decision was made. Business onboarding shows where that approach can remove friction. Tomas says the largest problem is often delay. If a customer receives the next precise question immediately, they are much more likely to complete the process. A delay of 15 minutes, an hour or a day can cause them to abandon it. An agent can inspect a document, identify what is missing and ask for the correct item while the customer is still present. The conversation closes with a warning about speed. Tomas believes teams can move quickly, but shortcuts create hidden liabilities. Missing evidence, incomplete recovery paths and temporary design decisions can resurface months or years later. If a shortcut is used to test whether an idea has merit, the system must then be rebuilt properly. Is the industry too quick to equate modern architecture with distributed services, and could a smaller, more coherent system offer a better foundation for regulated AI? Listen to the episode and share your thoughts with me.


















