Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#81

Post by oarsinsync »

sneak wrote: post #73
oarsinsync wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin holder and user for ~5 years here. As a comparison of two of those features, against Faster Payments (which is what the Fed is proposing creating a similar system to): Bitcoin is slow - it takes minimum 10 mins with high fees, or in times of congestion, hours or days with low fees. Faster payments takes minimum a few seconds, maximum 2 hours, for processing, no fees involved. Bitcoin is expensive - fees are v…

The fees are variable with congestion, sure, but in practice are very low, and even when “high” are less than what some people are mentioning the retail cost of a single one of these new fed transactions might cost (routinely, not congested). Also, you cite speed, but Bitcoin transactions confirm sufficiently in the usual case in 20-40 minutes, where two hours is the upper bound you mentioned for the new fed system.…

Faster Payments exists today, costs nothing to the end user, and usually takes seconds.

Bitcoin processes 200-500k payments per day[0].

Faster Payments processes 230k payments per hour[1].

Bitcoin may be superior to what currently exists in the USA as provided by banks, but it isn't compared to existing private sector payment solutions, and it definitely isn't compared to what other countries have already implemented successfully in their banking system.

Again, long time bitcoin holder and user, I'm painfully aware of the downsides having paid absurd fees and still ended up waiting hours for a transaction to finally get accepted into a block.

Bitcoin's great as a speculative asset, but it's not so great as currency.

[0] https://www.blockchain.com/en/charts/n-transactions?timespan...

[1] http://www.fasterpayments.org.uk/press-release/faster-paymen...

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#82

Post by throwaway9d0291 »

vinay427 wrote: post #4

I'm still hoping for something similar where I currently live, here in Switzerland (not in the EU). Payments generally arrive the next business day but that isn't good enough for most in-person transactions.

It depends on your bank. My transfers are generally same-day with BCGE and Neon.

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#83

Post by wmf »

incompatible wrote: post #54
wmf wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of looks like Congress is going to delay Libra until Facebook gives up.

Does Facebook need permission from Congress to launch?

Worst-case Congress can pass a law imposing onerous requirements on digital currencies backed by a basket of something. Best-case Libra has to comply with a bunch of existing money transfer regulations that were never written with cryptocurrency in mind and thus are open to interpretation; various agencies may choose stricter or looser interpretations depending on which way the winds are blowing.

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#84

Post by gingabriska »

repiret wrote: post #47
wahern wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real cost to ACH is fraud, not the electronic processing, per se. The faster a payment settles the easier and more profitable fraud becomes as it makes it easier to cash out and run. Low fees, fast transfers, high volume/high value--you only get to pick two of the three. (Okay, maybe that doesn't quite work, but you get the idea.)

Once upon a time I heard a quote from a PayPal CEO that was something along the lines of "we used to have a lot of competitors, but they all failed because they thought we were all in the business of transferring money. We're actually in the business of fraud prevention."

PayPal uses Ironfist approach to cure fraud.

It's known to freeze large amount of cash balance without contacting you or getting anyone to talk to you about this.

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#85

Post by noneeeed »

daeroth wrote: post #2

Some real-time payment infrastructures to compare to: UK - Faster Payments Service (2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_Payments_Service EU - SEPA Instant Credit (2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area#SEPA... Australia - New Payments Platform (2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Payments_Platform

While BACS' 24h clearing of interbank transfers was normally ok, FasterPayments really makes having multiple accounts split across bank's super convenient.

My wife and I both have our own accounts with Barclays and joint accounts (and mortgage) with Nationwide, and I have a Monzo account for small day to day expenses. It takes me less than a minute to open the Barclays app, transfer some money to the joint account, and then open the Nationwide app to confirm the balance and do whatever I needed to do from there. Total money management game changer. I've done a four hop transfer from my savings to overpay the mortgage, in about three minutes.

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#87

Post by stephen_g »

kevas wrote: post #53
stephen_g wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from a country that has had a modern payments system like this for a while - you generally still use a credit card for anything online or at stores, in an Uber or taxis, but use the real time bank payment system for paying invoices and bills, or buying a car from somebody, or sending $12 to your friend in real time because he paid for your lunch etc.

Why? Why opt for two when one, I presume, is sponsored by the gov and accepted everywhere in your country?

I was lumping in debit cards/EFTPOS with credit cards (and of course cash is also an option in stores). If not paying with cash, you use cards/contactless in stores because the terminals are integrated into the POS systems, have instant approval feedback etc. (and literally every card terminal here has contactless that works with pretty much any card and Apple Pay etc. too, which is nice).

To use a bank transfer you need to enter details (phone number or a bank number and account number) and then need either a description or reference number to match it to at the other side. And even with the New Payments Platform (fast payments), it can still take 30 seconds or so to come through. That's fine when paying an invoice or sending money to friends, but too cumbersome at a point of sale.

Re: The Fed is getting into the Real-Time payments business

#88

Post by rishirishi »

repiret wrote: post #47
wahern wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real cost to ACH is fraud, not the electronic processing, per se. The faster a payment settles the easier and more profitable fraud becomes as it makes it easier to cash out and run. Low fees, fast transfers, high volume/high value--you only get to pick two of the three. (Okay, maybe that doesn't quite work, but you get the idea.)

Once upon a time I heard a quote from a PayPal CEO that was something along the lines of "we used to have a lot of competitors, but they all failed because they thought we were all in the business of transferring money. We're actually in the business of fraud prevention."

Could you provide the source for this quote?
Post reply on HN