Live data from Hacker News

Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

bitsaboutmoney.com

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US I just iMessage money to people. Doesn’t work for Android, sure, but I know very few people still using Android and for them we just use Venmo.

Not the same. Payments in Asia and other developed countries are instant - bank to bank. No crappy 3rd party app.

So how do I text someone money bank-to-bank? How do I give someone money who doesn't have a bank account? I do this today with iMessage. And it's not a 3rd party app.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#172
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't trust Deloitte and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants... https://www.circle.com/hubfs/USDCAttestationReports/2023/202...

I'm generally good with crypto, but no, you literally cannot trust Deloitte :)

Why?

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good for you, but it's like saying, I rather travel by steam engine/someone else's car, while other countries are able to provide bullet trains. That how different payment methods in US vs few countries( I've only lived in the US and India, so I gave India as an example).

I can pay anyone instantly, and get paid instantly. What am I missing?

Assuming you are using Zelle or Cash app or PayPal Those are run by 3rd party companies, that can absolutely keep/loose your money, and are a privacy liability, why I used some one else's car analogy. Or if you are using direct bank transfers, I've never once had a transaction that went thru from chase to any other in seconds, it literally took atleast 3 days.(steam engine analogy) Also if I input the data into any service, there is no authorization forever. Just my A/C number which could be leaked, and routing number which is easily obtainable info are enough, which is security liability. Fun part is even direct bank transfers take mere seconds to complete and are also authenticated and authorized via OTP. And UPI is not some random company, it's a common public interface between banks built by the govt. Every bank integrates into the system. Its well documented, and any app or infact anyone implement clients for it. It's authenticated for every transaction. And they do, we have 10s if not 100s of apps. And everything is real time(bullet train analogy) UPI has become so common in India that even in villages, shops, tuks tuks (autos as we call em), even beggars accept it. But in NYC, I barely could use Zelle. PayPal is never even accepted at an most shops. Cash app has better adoption as Zelle but then again not preferred form of payment, UPI is default form of transfer that is an actual cash replacement.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#174
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if this is wrong, but I've read somewhere that Zelle gives you no recourse in the event of fraudulent transfers. This makes me extremely reticent to use it, or even use a bank that provides access to it without a signup process.

Prey tell, if you use cash, what recourse do you have in the event of fraudulent transfers? Does that also mean you refuse to use banks that provide cash ?

Yes, it is literally the case that you will be fully reimbursed (after a $50 maximum) in the event of cash fraud, and that is one of the things that makes banking in America so powerful and safe. See for example, consumerfinance.gov:

> Let’s say you lost your debit card or PIN or either was stolen. If you notify your bank or credit union within two business days of discovering the loss or theft of the card, the bank or credit union can’t hold you responsible for more than the amount of any unauthorized transactions or $50, whichever is less.

> If an unauthorized transaction appears on your statement, but you did not lose your card, security code, or PIN or had any of them stolen, you should still notify your bank or credit union right away. At the latest, you must notify your bank within 60 days after your bank or credit union sends your statement showing the unauthorized transaction. If you wait longer, you could have to pay the full amount of any transactions that occurred after the 60-day period and before you notify your bank. In order to hold you responsible for those transactions, your bank would have to show that if you notified them before the end of the 60-day period, the transactions would not have occurred.

Roughly speaking, you can only be held accountable for withdrawals, transactions, and transfers from your account that you actually authorized. Any other cash transaction is fraud, and will result in you getting your money back. This is why banks are careful not to allow transactions that they suspect to be fraudulent.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/how-do-i-get-my-mon...

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because everyone does it this doesn't mean it's safe to do. If some trolls manage to get hold of your IBAN and the account isn't protected from direct debit, you will get fucked by idiots ordering pizza and dildos. I don't know anyone who this has ever happened to. Only vetted companies are allowed to perform Direct Debits, e.g. utilities who know your physical address. In the UK (still a member of SEPA even p…

> Only vetted companies are allowed to perform Direct Debits, e.g. utilities who know your physical address. The scenario is not fraud, that is hard(er) to pull off due to vetting, but trolling someone with fake online shop orders. > In the UK (still a member of SEPA even post Brexit) the Direct Debit Guarantee [1] makes it easy to reverse any errant Direct Debits through your bank. It's the same here in Germany, but…

SEPA Direct Debit is mostly used for recurring payments, and the account owner must authorize the company to use it. Just knowing someone's account number is not enough, you still need that initial authorization.

In fact, in some EU countries businesses are required to publish their bank account numbers in some central, government-run registry. It wouldn't be safe to do, if it could result in having your money stolen.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zelle was a consortium of the biggest US banks. It works fine if you have a deposit account at one of those institutions, or if you have created a Zelle account that lets them get you funds through a shim if your bank isn't a member participant of Zelle. If you're at a brokerage that doesn't support it, a credit union, or a community bank, your experience is meh or non existent. FedNow is native real time messaging p…

Plenty of credit unions like BECU and First Tech fully support Zelle for sending and receiving payments, some credit unions even have higher daily and weekly Zelle limits than the traditional banks.

There are some for sure, but the vast majority of credit unions do not plug into Zelle or RTP.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#177

Would be interesting to know how Canada's Interac e-transfers[1] compare to the Indian or Japanese systems. Probably the biggest inconvenience of Canada's system it the need to use an email address as the destination. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interac_e-Transfer

I can compare it to Brazilian Pix. I use both extensively.

INTERAC is like the beta version of Pix (which is basically the same as the Indian system in the article).

Pix works via email, CPF (a person's "SIN" number, which isn't secret in Brazil), randomly generated key, telephone number, QR codes. INTERAC is mostly email.

Pix works immediately. Some transactions take 1 second or less to credit on the other bank (you can see that when you are trying to send money to yourself, when the destination bank gives you a notification that it received the money before the UI of the sending bank has even acknowledged that the operation is completed). INTERAC sometime takes several minutes, up to 30 minutes sometimes in my experience.

Personally I think INTERAC is about 70% of the way there, but I would chose PIX every time simply because it seems like a much better iteration.

With Pix, you get credited and debited immediately. With INTERAC, I've noticed that sometimes you can be debited immediately and the credit takes longer, and vice versa. Sometimes for several minutes, your money can "double" (appear in second account without disappearing from the first one) or "disappear" (leave the first account but not get credited on the second one).

This last point might not seem like much, but it gets in the way of using for a lot of things that would need to be immediate (paying for a Taxi, or a supermarket purchase). Since Pix is instantaneous, it is used heavily for those kind of payments where you don't want to wait.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#178
post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. I was helping a Canadian friend with their bank account and TD's website looks like it's from the 90's. And getting an SMS message when your credit card is charged? Yeah, it used to be a separate website (why?) but no longer offered. It looked absolutely archaic compared to my US bank.

Now compare your US bank to Asian or others outside the West. Actually, just check screenshots in the App Store for foreign non-Western banks.

I've had a Singaporean bank account and their online presence seems similar to the US, but higher fees.

Is that what you were getting at?

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same. Payments in Asia and other developed countries are instant - bank to bank. No crappy 3rd party app.

So how do I text someone money bank-to-bank? How do I give someone money who doesn't have a bank account? I do this today with iMessage. And it's not a 3rd party app.

Someone without a bank account but an iPhone? Sure.

Re: Bank transfers as a payment method (2021)

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prey tell, if you use cash, what recourse do you have in the event of fraudulent transfers? Does that also mean you refuse to use banks that provide cash ?

Yes, it is literally the case that you will be fully reimbursed (after a $50 maximum) in the event of cash fraud, and that is one of the things that makes banking in America so powerful and safe. See for example, consumerfinance.gov: > Let’s say you lost your debit card or PIN or either was stolen. If you notify your bank or credit union within two business days of discovering the loss or theft of the card, the bank…

:) . it’s quite a jump you took from cash to debit card . You give me $50 in cold card cash . I run away . And you are telling me your bank is on the hook for that $50?
Post reply on HN