The study is devoted to the analysis of the current model of self-regulation of microfinance organizations (MFOs) in Russia as an element of a mixed regulatory framework that combines state supervision by the Bank of Russia and mandatory MFO membership in self-regulatory organizations (SROs). Its purpose is to assess the effectiveness of this system in increasing market transparency and protecting consumer rights. The objective of the work is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the two-tier model, determine the role of basic and internal SRO standards, and outline directions for its improvement in the context of the digital transformation of microfinance. The materials and methods include formal legal, systemic, and comparative legal approaches; a comprehensive analysis of Federal Laws No. 151-FZ, No. 223-FZ, and No. 353-FZ, regulatory acts of the Bank of Russia, basic and internal SRO standards, as well as judicial practice of arbitration and general jurisdiction courts in disputes involving SROs and MFOs. The results show that SROs perform key functions: development of mandatory standards (consumer protection, operations, risk management, corporate governance), compliance control (scheduled and unscheduled inspections), disciplinary measures (orders, fines, expulsion), pre-trial handling of complaints, and formation of compensation funds. Courts increasingly take into account the provisions of basic standards when assessing the good faith of MFOs, while the Bank of Russia actively supervises SROs, approves standards, and applies liability measures for inadequate oversight. The discussion identifies systemic contradictions: conflicts of interest due to SRO funding by their members, risks of formalized control and regulatory arbitrage, incomplete delineation of powers with the financial ombudsman, as well as technological challenges related to online lending, remote identification, data protection, and the use of Al, all of which require prompt updating of standards. The conclusions confirm that the self-regulation model has improved organization and predictability of practices, reduced the burden on the regulator and the courts, but needs strengthened independence and accountability of SROs, unification of enforcement practices, increased transparency of compensation fund operations, and the development of preventive control tools. Limitations are associated with the lack of quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of specific mechanisms, which calls for further empirical research (content analysis of orders, panel review of court rulings, consumer surveys) and methodological support for good practices.