Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions for our paper. We have
made adjustments and improvements to the paper based on your suggestions and
directions. Here we attach the response we did based on your suggestion.
Hopefully our paper can meet the criteria of this review process.
Thank you,
Regards.

Point 1: The manuscript still needs a revision in particular the literature overview and the
discussion of results, which remain weak.

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have
corrected according to your directions.
We have made revisions related to “Literature Overview”, in the previous manuscript
we only had two sub-sections namely 2.1. Digital Banking Transactions and 2.2.
Operational Risk. However, in this revision, we have added further explanation and
detail for the “Literature Overview” section. So, the sub-section becomes 2.1. Digital
Banking; 2.2. Digital Banking Transaction Risks; 2.3. Operational Risk; 2.4.
Measurement of Operational Risk based on Basel Standard. (Page 4-6; Lines 161-
239)
In this new subsection, we explain further about digital banking services and their
uses for customers and companies. Then we also explain what are the risks that can
occur from digital banking. We convey the impact of these risks for banking
companies. In addition, we explain the operational risks of the digital banking system.
And how to mitigate operational risk through standard Basel rules. The explanation of
operational risk with the Basel Standard and its relation to the digital banking system,
become the basis of the literature for the research methods in this paper.

Furthermore, we have also made revisions related to “Discussion”. In the latest

manuscript, we have explained further regarding the discussion of regulatory
authorities in Indonesia that address the operational risks of digital banking. In the
regulation, we find things to consider. We provide input for regulatory improvements
based on the discussion of the results of this study. We reveal that the EVAR method
of risk measurement, which is included in the AMA method, is considered better than
the BIA method used by banks today. Because the EVAR risk measure provides more
optimal results. In this case, the company will more benefit because the estimated risk
measure will be more appropriate. The implication of that adjustment, banking
companies can allocate risk reserve funds more efficiently to develop their businesses.
(Page 15-16; Line 503-532)