Indonesia’s rapid embrace of digital payments through the Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard (QRIS) is often celebrated as a milestone in financial inclusion and economic modernization. Launched by Bank Indonesia in 2019, QRIS has become a symbol of the country’s leap toward a cashless society. From small warungs to major retail chains, QR codes now dominate everyday transactions. Yet beneath this impressive growth lies a critical question that policymakers and the public must confront: is Indonesia building an inclusive digital economy, or merely accelerating dependence on a fragile digital infrastructure?
There is little doubt that QRIS has transformed the payment landscape. Its appeal lies in simplicity, interoperability, and efficiency. By allowing transactions across platforms through a single standardized code, QRIS has removed long-standing barriers for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The numbers are compelling. By mid-2024, QRIS transactions had surged by more than 226 percent year-on-year, with over 50 million users and more than 32 million merchants nationwide. Digital payment values have climbed into the hundreds of trillions of rupiah, reinforcing QRIS as the backbone of Indonesia’s retail payment system.
From a policy perspective, QRIS aligns neatly with the government’s financial inclusion agenda. It lowers transaction costs, expands access to formal financial services, and integrates informal economic actors into the national payment system. In theory, this supports productivity, transparency, and long-term economic resilience. The system’s rapid adoption during the Covid-19 pandemic further strengthened its legitimacy, as contactless payments became a public health necessity rather than a lifestyle choice.
Potential Risks of Digital Crime
However, the very speed of QRIS expansion exposes a more uncomfortable reality: Indonesia’s digital transformation is advancing faster than its institutional readiness to manage the risks it creates.
The first and most pressing concern is data security. Digital payments inevitably generate vast amounts of sensitive information, from transaction histories to behavioral patterns. The growing frequency of cyber incidents, including breaches affecting public data infrastructure, raises serious questions about the robustness of Indonesia’s cybersecurity ecosystem. QRIS users, many of whom have limited digital literacy, are increasingly exposed to fraud, identity theft, and social engineering schemes. In this context, digital inclusion risks becoming digital vulnerability.
Second, the issue of systemic dependence cannot be ignored. As QRIS becomes deeply embedded in daily commerce, any disruption, whether technical failure, cyberattack, or network outage, could paralyze economic activity at scale. For small merchants and informal workers, such disruptions translate directly into lost income. Unlike cash-based systems, digital payment failures leave little room for contingency, especially in regions with weak connectivity or limited technological literacy.
Third, there is the structural challenge of integration. While large merchants and urban businesses can easily absorb the cost of digital adoption, smaller enterprises often struggle with system compatibility, device procurement, and training. The narrative of universal inclusion obscures the uneven capacity of businesses to adapt, potentially widening the very inequality QRIS seeks to reduce.
This is where the policy debate must shift, from celebrating adoption figures to scrutinizing governance frameworks. Financial inclusion should not be measured solely by transaction volume, but by resilience, security, and sustainability. A truly inclusive digital economy requires more than QR codes; it demands strong consumer protection, robust data governance, continuous public education, and a regulatory regime capable of anticipating technological risk rather than merely reacting to it.
Moreover, the growing reliance on digital payments raises broader questions about economic sovereignty. As data becomes the new currency, control over payment infrastructure equates to control over economic behavior. Without adequate safeguards, digital efficiency could quietly evolve into digital dependency.
None of this suggests that QRIS is a policy mistake. On the contrary, it is one of Indonesia’s most successful financial innovations. But success should not breed complacency. The challenge ahead is to ensure that the expansion of digital payments does not outpace the state’s capacity to regulate, secure, and equalize access to them.
In the end, QRIS stands at a crossroads. It can either become a cornerstone of inclusive growth, secure, accountable, and resilient, or a cautionary tale of how technological enthusiasm outran institutional preparedness. The choice will depend not on how fast Indonesia digitizes, but on how wisely it governs that transformation.
