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

Bank transfers as a payment method

bam.kalzumeus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 335 posts

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#321

Post by neom »

OJFord wrote: post #318
neom wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're misunderstanding how the system works. The email or txt is just to send the link/code. In theory you could open the email and copy/paste the link to someone else and they could deposit it into their own account. You just click the link, it directs you to select your banking portal, you login like you would and accept the funds into your account. Works on web and apps. Canadian banks all use what is cal…

Oh I see, yes I was, ok that's a lot better. Indeed there are plenty of (fee-taking) third-party solutions for that in other countries. Monzo (if not other banks) offer something similar, push vs. pull if you like (you go to my URL and pay by card to 'transfer') in the UK. So you enter an email address/phone number for them, and they receive a (presumably one time use, pre-set amount) link to retrieve money from you.…

Curious what you mean where you go to pay? You mean in addition to peer to peer (me sending $50 to my buddy for dinner) I should be able to checkout with the link IRL also? I'm a little confused (although that's an interesting idea). FWIW, 99% of people I know have auto-deposit on, I'm not sure how it works because I don't have it on, but I presume it means if the email matches the email/phn with your bank, it automatically deposits, so most people I Etransfer don't even ask me to put a password on (if you do I guess auto deposit doesn't work or something).

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#322

Post by Tijdreiziger »

leokennis wrote: post #310
Tijdreiziger wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, so direct debit and iDEAL together account for less than 10% of consumer payments? That's shockingly low.

No, SDD is a lot of the total transaction volume. Everyone has a mortgage, phone plan, energy contract etc. and that is all SDD. iDeal is of course the default for webshops, it’s big too. But the 90% I referred to are “person to person” payments.

Ah, that makes more sense. I'm still a bit surprised that iDEAL payment requests ('Tikkie') account for less than 10%.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#323

Post by ksec »

anticristi wrote: post #165
ErrantX wrote: post #113

Odd not to touch on Open Banking and PSD2 in Europe; as that is basically the future he is talking about. In essence; financial institutions are legislated to add customer friendly UX and fraud prevention on top of standard bank to bank transfers. It's effectively a set of APIs that orchestrate it all, with things like dynamic linking to the payment and secure authentication rules for anti fraud. The idea is for comm…

Cynical me reads this article as follows: Shit! We promised investors that Stripe will be the sh*t, the Global Payment Network. Now banks and regulators have woken up and we are commoditised in India, Japan and EU. Sure hope FedNow won't follow suit. Sorry VCs. Please exit Stripe before it's too late.

I expect UPI are like Japan's Suica where it basically dominate low value transition like transport, vending machine and convenient store. While Credit Card Based transaction will continue with those who wants credit and pay later type along with big purchase.

EUR is sort of out side of these because vast majority of transactions has always been Direct Debit. Credit Card spending just isn't as much a thing. And they use Direct Debit for everything. They also have very good consumer protection in place so using a credit card for delayed payment ( in case of dispute ) doesn't happen as often compare to US.

As far as I can tell there isn't a one size fit all solution to every one in the world.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#325

Post by OJFord »

neom wrote: post #321
OJFord wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I see, yes I was, ok that's a lot better. Indeed there are plenty of (fee-taking) third-party solutions for that in other countries. Monzo (if not other banks) offer something similar, push vs. pull if you like (you go to my URL and pay by card to 'transfer') in the UK. So you enter an email address/phone number for them, and they receive a (presumably one time use, pre-set amount) link to retrieve money from you.…

Curious what you mean where you go to pay? You mean in addition to peer to peer (me sending $50 to my buddy for dinner) I should be able to checkout with the link IRL also? I'm a little confused (although that's an interesting idea). FWIW, 99% of people I know have auto-deposit on, I'm not sure how it works because I don't have it on, but I presume it means if the email matches the email/phn with your bank, it automa…

I mean that rather than (my understanding - correct if wrong) the way this works of: A generates link to pay someone $x, A (or A's bank) sends B ('s email address/phone number) the link, B visits link and takes the payment; that I would have it be: A visits B's link, A pays by card or transfer if linked to bank account.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#326

Post by neom »

OJFord wrote: post #325
neom wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what you mean where you go to pay? You mean in addition to peer to peer (me sending $50 to my buddy for dinner) I should be able to checkout with the link IRL also? I'm a little confused (although that's an interesting idea). FWIW, 99% of people I know have auto-deposit on, I'm not sure how it works because I don't have it on, but I presume it means if the email matches the email/phn with your bank, it automa…

I mean that rather than (my understanding - correct if wrong) the way this works of: A generates link to pay someone $x, A (or A's bank) sends B ('s email address/phone number) the link, B visits link and takes the payment; that I would have it be: A visits B's link, A pays by card or transfer if linked to bank account.

Oh I see, yeah it's bidirectional, either party can initiate. It's a pretty good system tbh, and amazing we've had it for so many years!!

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#327

Post by kalleboo »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #255
fbrncci wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty great. These transfers sometimes arrive within <1s. The speed and ease of use is something that cryptocurrencies are "trying" to "solve" (Among other things). Most aren't aware of the wide adoption here already, of course there are other aspects crypto's score better on. But if all bank transfers would be a Tikkie, then what would Crypto's, in terms of ease of use and speed have to offer?

Nothing, those were never claimed as cryptocurrency strenghts, the opposite in fact, were accepted as weaknesses that were still worth it considering the other benefits.

It definitely was in the early days, back when the movement was more idealistic and people were making posters comparing Bitcoin, Western Union & wire transfers to spread the word. I think around the block size debate/BCC fork era most of that rhetoric went away.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#328

Post by berkes »

rambambram wrote: post #291
berkes wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's so easy. No setting up shit like iDeal or Stripe.. While true, the friction with iDeal or Stripe is a lot lower than with bank-transfers. I've helped set up such payment systems (backends): the rate of non-paying (send reminders, etc) is far higher with bank-transfers than with iDeal. So much, that for many freelancers who send just a few dozens of invoices per year, it pays off (pun intended) to include an iD…

Oh definitely, it's not for every use case. If one just shuffles boxes through (roughly speaking) and competes on price, an automated system with all the well-known payment providers is better. If you want to go bare bones, spend as little money as possible (on fees, setup costs and setup time, brain cycles) then I just want everybody to know that - at least in Europe - that's possible. Even with only a personal bank…

Thanks for detailing. As always in IT, the actual, practical use-case is what makes the difference :).

And yes! I've set-up webshops that work exactly this way: both B2C, and B2B. I even encounter them regularly in NL, where iDeal is the norm and dead-easy to implement: e.g. yesterday when ordering special seeds for coming years vegetable-garden:

"Please email us the product-numbers and quantities, the bank-account from where you send the money and your postal address"

Having no PSP is always easier than the easiest PSP. Having no webshop is always easier than the simplest webshop. Apparently such businesses can get away with it. Or, more in y-combinator-speak: by far the leanest webshop is a simple email-inbox.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#329

Post by astrange »

baby wrote: post #299
astrange wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sent $50 in USDC yesterday and was charged $9 in fees, not counting the coinbase USD USDC fee which I think existed since I used a debit card. Legit crypto users[1] should let you pay with TransferWise. [1] ie online research chemical stores

Ah interesting, I guess USDC relies on Ethereum and so you're eating ETH's fees? I've never used USDC myself. I'm hearing Celo fees are around 1 cents. Wise is also a great solution, but its speed is going to be dependent on a lot of factors: does it have a partnership with your bank, how long is the route it'll take, and how long each node will take to process a transfer on the route. It is streamlined though so the…

Oh, and we haven't managed to confirm the transaction yet because I sent slightly too much and Coinbase's UI won't show me the transaction ID, or even the amount sent after fees.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method

#330

Post by fbrncci »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #315
fbrncci wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the time I entered the world of Crypto (2012) until now. Both speed and ease of use were major selling points for many, if not most alt-coins. Sure, it's not the core promise of ALL those alts, but I remember a period (Raiblocks/Nano), where no crypto could even dare to under deliver on the promise of speed.

Ah, for me the cryptocurrency story is still mostly about bitcoin and the overall concept of the blockchain. Promises aren't worth zilch. (We now do have additional features that some altcoins actually deliver on, the most famous one being of course Ethereum with its smart contracts... but trying to beat the ease of use and speed of in-country traditional banking is a lost cause.)

There was a time when Bitcoin was super fast, you send it and it's there. We didn't really care about double-spends, so no-confirmation transactions where good enough. I kind of long back to that time :). But yes, at this point, I don't think Bitcoin does neither have a speed or ease of use issues, we are long passed the stage where it was of importance.
Post reply on HN