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

No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

popularfintech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 452 posts

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#391

Post by dathinab »

0xffff2 wrote: post #374
rvba wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some markets paypal has no market share at all - its whole value proposition is something that banks allready have. Paypal is needed in USA due to archaic systems. In Europe many banks allow instant transactions without the risk of blocking your money for 180 days - what paypal seems to do

Paypal (or its little brother Venmo) haven't been needed in the US in nearly a decade. I've never had a European bank account, but Zelle seems to me to be just as good as what the Europeans have.

Paypal is never needed, not in the EU nor in the US but that misses the point.

Pretty much every single online shop/website ever allows paying with PayPal (and Credit Card). And you pretty much have to use it as not allowing paying with PayPal will reduce your sales noticeable, especially for international orders. This is something people funnily frequently rediscover, again and again.

Also I don't thing many people do use PayPal to send money between each other tbh. when I mean competing I mean for paying online not for p2p money transfer. Like sending other private people money always had been trivial, through slightly annoying, in the EU, even before smartphones where a thing.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#392

Post by danielmarkbruce »

jncfhnb wrote: post #356
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that would be a pretty great way to ruin that Not really. It would be similar to tax rules—not really applicable to non-American depositors.

It _could_ be like that. But we’re very deep down slippery slope hypotheticals by this point.

A digital dollar is not down some rabbit hole of hypotheticals. The fed (amongst others) debate/study it. Published this a couple years ago:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/money-and-...

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#393

Post by dathinab »

rvba wrote: post #362
dathinab wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU also has put pressure on Banks for decades now to either "innovate" or "get innovated" by regulations forcing them to implement innovative ideas not coming from them. With both having happened over time. They also at least somewhat try to compete with Paypal on online payment on EU specific shops (not they they have much success, not just because of network effect but because a combination of their products be…

In some markets paypal has no market share at all - its whole value proposition is something that banks allready have. Paypal is needed in USA due to archaic systems. In Europe many banks allow instant transactions without the risk of blocking your money for 180 days - what paypal seems to do

In both the EU and US PayPal is very widely used to pay in online shops. To a point that disabling PayPal temporary can show noticeable decrease in sales for most online shops, especially if international orders are involved.

When I sayed "competing with PayPal" I meant for paying online, i.e. alternatives to both PayPal and Credit Cards. Not p2p money sending.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#394

Post by fsflover »

saalweachter wrote: post #376
fsflover wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it matter here?

Moving your money into a non-local currency or store-of-value has a cost and its own risks. If you trust an untrustable government, you lose when they betray you. If you don't trust a trustable government, you lose when you spend years and decades hedging against their betrayal and it never comes.

This is all true. The point is that a cryptocurrency gives you a choice, which you otherwise don't have, so it's useful.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#395

Post by selecsosi »

kasey_junk wrote: post #277
Red_Comet_88 wrote: post #3

No one is disrupting banks because the mega banks have the sole power of creating credit out of thin air, and no upstart fintech company has this power. To gain this power requires the creation of a bank, which as you can imagine, is probably the most gate-kept activity on earth. Andreesen talked about this in his Rogan appearance. The banks and gov brought the hammer down on crypto because it was a legitimate threat…

Everyone has the power to create credit out of thin air. What the banks have (now, due to long history) is a regularly regime where we expect the government to fix that credit when the bank gets those credit decisions wrong. In trade for that extraordinary treatment governments demand banks comply with a variety of regulations. I’ve worked for a long time in the banking and credit space, no one I know in that industr…

Thank you, this is something I think people really misunderstand about "money" in our system. Every time I create a "loan" for a family member I've technically created (i.e. debt) I've done the equivalent as to what a bank does to create "money". The question becomes if I can take the IOU I have from my brother, and trade that to another individual when I need to acquire goods.

The fact we have a mechanism to create trust in trading debut is about assigning and managing risk in the payment of that debt, and transferring/holding that risk over time, which is a separate aspect to the raw creation of money concern (managing total debt loads).

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#396

Post by vel0city »

reginald78 wrote: post #366
vel0city wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no pre-verification of authorization whatsoever. There actually is a way they can sync up to say this is an authorized regular transaction and they get the ability to keep charging even when the old number expires and a new card gets issued. I forget what it's called, and I don't believe it's supported everywhere.

This "feature" pisses me off. I was going to switch to capital one virtual cards but from reading around it seems that these two can be updated and even have spending limits overridden in the case of subscription services. Since protection from overcharging is the main draw that product had it seems like a useless feature once I read the details. They bill it as a benefit but with the possible exception of my life in…

It seems to me this feature should just come disabled for virtual cards, as that's the whole point of virtual numbers.

Personally though in a lifestyle with like a dozen regular recurring credit transactions I'm not likely to cancel on a whim or forget (electricity, gas, daycare, insurance, internet, etc.) I'm fine most of these entities getting a more stable identifier for billing but I do agree it would be better to be opt-in on the cardholder side.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#397

Post by kbolino »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #389
kbolino wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These incentives already exist. The tax code has been manipulated to encourage or discourage behavior since at least WW2. A digital currency makes a lot of these incentives easier to create and easier to enforce, but they wouldn't be new .

It's a huge difference. Incentives are one thing, being able to force or take money directly is a whole different level. Right now you need someone in the government administration + a court + a bank to do anything like this. With a digital dollar, you lose the last two.

The Federal Reserve is a bank. And we already have a relevant historical example to examine, postal savings accounts. I'm not aware of any special power that the executive branch had to bypass the judicial branch where those accounts were concerned, versus privately held accounts. Plus, the Post Office was directly answerable to the President then, while the Federal Reserve has never directly answered to the President. This is an unfounded fear and doesn't reflect anything intrinsic to a (central bank-administered) digital currency.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#398

Post by yfw »

Galatians4_16 wrote: post #363
wussboy wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not worried about the government doing these things, I'm worried about corporations colluding to do these things.

That's basically the same thing.

At least we pretend to have accountability in the government.

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#399

Post by yfw »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #378
delusional wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "the government" do that? I hate it when people talk about "the government" doing something. The real mechanics you'd see in your example is that the business elite would begin astroturfing support from the American public, with some nonsense about helping the poor better control their finances. Nobody would believe it, and progressives would be against it. In reality it will be driven by the commercial des…

The government already does this. SNAP, colloquially foodstamps, can only be used on certain forms of food. Frozen goods are fine, but cannot be prepared hot, even if there is not a charge or it is the exact same food product. So my local corner grocery is allowed to sell anyone frozen food, whether they pay with SNAP or cash. But they also have a microwave that anyone can use to heat up purchased food, except for SN…

This is all seen as acceptable but try tying a tax break to hiring or investment and you'll hear screams from the stock buyback board

Re: No one is disrupting banks – at least not the big ones

#400

Post by ninalanyon »

TrackerFF wrote: post #353
elric wrote: post #312

US banks are weird [1]. Archaic. Slow. Filthy rich. Incompetent. And yet they're nearly impossible to disrupt due to the benefit of size. Starting a new bank is expensive, unless you want to pretend at being a real bank and letting another bank handling all of the nitty-gritty details. In which case you've now become a reseller of that bank, and will likely be even worse. The only thing that can disrupt US banks is c…

Here in Norway new, innovative, and successful banks have been...wait for it...acquired by the big old banks. Then the enshittification starts. Then customers scramble to find a replacement, which opens up the door to a new exciting bank, and history repeats.

Have you found a replacement for SBanken?
Post reply on HN