Example: you think lending to folks with low credit scores is a risk, but I evaluate credit in a different way that lets me discover that some folks with low credit scores really are credit worthy.
Note that I am not supporting Ant Financial with my comment. I have no clue how their business works. But your comment is missing a key point.
However, if you're playing with someone else's money, then you do not get the privilege to make arbitrary calls on what's risky and what's not; the society has to presume that you may be mistaken or lying (especially because there's an incentive to lie), we have to discard and ignore your novel, innovative evaluations, and evaluate the risk according to some conservative measure that other people trust. I mean, it's not about being allowed or disallowed to make the loans, it's about capitalization requirements to cover the risks i.e. the need to back up your assumption that these people really are credit worthy with your own funds.
Innovation on better credit evaluation can help you lose less money on bad loans, which directly impacts your profit as a lender; but it can't (or at least shouldn't) be used to justify that you deserve extra leverage so that you'd have lower capital costs; the capital requirements are there to protect others from your risk-taking.
100x typical risk is not something most investors recognize as real let alone a sane investment. A financial advisor would ask how the fund is making a 100x return and step faaaar back from that portfolio.