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

Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–377 of 377 posts

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#371

Post by browningstreet »

cuteboy19 wrote: post #334
browningstreet wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work for a bank in the US, and not one of the names you hear associated with scandals all the time. The level of redundancy and HA built into our everything is why our jobs are so boring and slow. We also use a core banking platform that lots of other banks use and it's properly engineered for the kind of enterprise performance we'd all expect. There are certainly problems in banking, but the FDIC protections are a…

> The level of redundancy and HA built into our everything is why our jobs are so boring and slow I have also done this, and I can't say I agree. This is certainly one issue but the real issue is that these companies are not run by tech people. The tech is simply another cost center and gets no vote on how things are run. Many tech firms have equal amounts of redundancy but still manage not to have such terrible soft…

> these companies are not run by tech people

This is a huge problem, I agree, but it's not why the redundancy and HA get built the way it does. That's still coming from IS in the orgs I've had exposure too. The business side would rather we do things quicker and easier and not put as many technical roadblocks to vendor selection and build roadmaps.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#372

Post by Consultant32452 »

ars wrote: post #94
colechristensen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, I didn’t even notice the covid paper products shortage on accounts of having every day life insurance in the form of a Costco membership and having bought toilet paper some months before. Buying in bulk isn’t even a cost, the cost of capital sitting idle in the form of a shelf of stuff I won’t need for a long time is more than made up for with the volume discount. Not only are the bulk beans a tiny fraction of t…

This only works if you don't live in a dense city. People in cities simply don't have space to store (many) bulk purchases, and the stores near them (i.e. that don't need a car) don't sell things in bulk (transporting bulk items by public transport is not feasible, and it's too expensive by Uber). When I visit friends who live in dense cities they are very excited that I have a car, and often ask me to take them to m…

If you live in a dense city, you may be better served by getting a commercial "emergency food supply" product. A 2-week food supply from one of the major suppliers of such products is about $125 and fits in 2 5-gallon buckets. Alternatively, you can get similar foods that come in #10 cans, they store nicely under a bed.

I use these products for backpacking and they will obviously never match a real home-cooked meal but they are decent in a pinch.

That covers you for food (you will need water), and just expanding your paper goods slightly should be plenty. You're not trying to become a "prepper", you just want to get through a bad week.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#373

Post by Consultant32452 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #108
Xylakant wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with buying in bulk is that it requires the money up-front and that works only if you can save enough money at least once. Poor people can be permanently cash-strapped, so they never manage to get to the point for that upfront investment.

Money up-front AND storage space.

I can't help you with the $ problem, but if storage space is your limiting factor you can buy commercially packaged "survival food" that comes in #10 cans and/or 5-gallon buckets. A 2-week supply of food at 2k calories per day takes up about 2 5-gallon buckets. #10 cans can be stored under a bed. You'll additionally need water and a way to heat it. I think most of them can be eaten cold, but that seems very unpleasant.

This, obviously, is a different strategy than buying bulk and cycling through your regular eating. A 1-2 week supply is plenty for most people. You aren't trying to become a prepper, you're just wanting to get through a crazy blizzard/hurricane/whatever.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#374

Post by Consultant32452 »

ars wrote: post #344
JoshuaDavid wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "1 kilo of food per person per day" is a reasonable approximation (e.g. 1kg of dried beans is 3300 calories, 1kg of canned tuna is 1300 calories). 400 kilos of food should be enough to last a family of 4 for 3 months. Efficiently packed, you can fit 400kg of food in a 0.5m x 1m x 1m space (1 large kitchen cabinet). It's a fair bit of space, but it's not a "fill your bedroom with stuff" amount of space.

The problem with efficiently packing that is you won't have access to it easily, in order to rotate stock. If you are not careful you'll end up with spoiled food when you need it. Plus there's a lot more to stock than just food - It's not just about disaster preparation, we're also trying to save money and packaging and resources.

I know this subthread is talking about saving money, but imo that shouldn't be the first priority. The first priority is avoiding disaster. Insurance costs money up front. The "cost" you are insuring against is being without food after a hurricane/blizzard/etc. If you can ALSO save money up front, that's great.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#375

Post by tubatime »

Maursault wrote: post #367
noahtallen wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, the risk is pretty minimal. Zelle isn’t a 3rd party payment platform — it’s a feature/standard a bank implements to give you instant peer-to-peer bank transfers. Zelle the company is owned by the banks, including Bank of America. So this is just BoA adding a feature they partly created to their banking suite. That in itself isn’t a red flag. Zelle itself is also secure. You have to be fully logged into your bank…

> Zelle itself is also secure. Zelle has been subject to tens of thousands of scams. If it's so secure, why doesn't Zelle have any guarantees? If money ever goes out, it will never come back, unlike competitors such as PayPal which have a successful refund process.

The argument is that Zelle helps you hand your friend a $20 and is secure in that context. If you use it out of that context you are using it “incorrectly”.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#376

Post by neon_electro »

ezfe wrote: post #265
neon_electro wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I no longer recommend Cash App (formerly Square Cash) because they explicitly removed the ability to have inbound transactions be automatically deposited into your bank account. They left it on for anyone who already had it on, but I specifically signed my dad up on the assumption that sending him money would be as frictionless as possible. Instead, Square/Block would love for that money to stay in the Cash App accou…

I don't actually blame them for this, because they have to make money somehow. If they make money by having your money in your account for a few hours/days, idc. So long as they make it frictionless to start a withdrawal - a tap or two, that's all I ask.

I do blame them for this - they can get fucked.

For my dad, Auto Cash Out was exactly the "frictionless" experience he needed, and he didn't need any of the BS Cash App wants to put in front of him.

I'm happy to help Square/Block make money with my engagement/interaction with Cash App, but they clearly can't figure it out without severely harming the UX in the process.

Therefore, they aren't recommended.

Re: Bank of America has lost Zelle transfers for many customers

#377

Post by r00fus »

uticus wrote: post #348
r00fus wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain what you mean by consolidation? It's essentially a standards-based collaborative approach not unlike other large payment networks like in the UK, Europe and India.

Apologies for the armchair commentary. "Consolidation" meaning commerce regulation and oversight more tightly consolidated than possible with technology (including paper notes) currently used. > ...standards-based collaborative approach... You have not said this explicitly, but for myself it is notable that this is not peer-to-peer, with both parties collaborating based on a standard. Instead it is clearinghouse. Unl…

Of course it's not peer-peer. Therein lies a lot of potential for fraud.

Do you have an example of a p2p system that doesn't show all the fraud issues rampant in modern crypto?

Post reply on HN