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

411–420 of 452 posts

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

#411

Post by gosub100 »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #349
bArray wrote: post #305

What does "disruption" look like in the banking space? Banks want the perception of immovable, confidence, reliable, resilience, etc. It's what gives them the credibility to move big money. They don't want to "move fast and break things". Some may think about digital currencies. My warning is this: Be careful what you wish for. If we were to switch to a full digital currency, there are significant concerns that money…

I mean, the government in the US already loves dictating what poor people can spend their money on when they get assistance. Look at WIC for example, even in progressive California, they literally force you to buy only white eggs: https://docs.wic.ca.gov/Content/Documents/ShoppingGuide-EN-A... . You also can’t buy any cheese with taste, because you are poor and you don’t deserve good food. Think of the cost of that s…

You can't buy luxury food because people will turn around and sell it. Beggars can't be choosers.

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

#412

Post by phil21 »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #390
Kiro wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cash is already practically gone in a lot of countries. I don't know anyone who uses it and don't even know how the bills look nowadays. Must have been at least 10 years since I even touched physical cash.

But the option is there. It matters.

It only remains if people who have choices actually prioritize using cash.

I get strange looks from folks now since I try to use cash whenever possible to do so.

If I’m the only one taking the effort to do this, everyone will eventually lose this option. It’s incredibly frustrating to watch people actively work to not understand this point.

All so they can make 2% in credit card points, pretend they are at some materially increased risk of crime, and the convenience argument. None of which are very compelling compared to “a third party now mediates what spending you are allowed to partake in”. Works until it doesn’t.

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

#413

Post by rvba »

dathinab wrote: post #393
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

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.

Paypal has no market share in Poland for example. Where you can just sent instant transfers.

Also you never replied about paypal not being a real bank, ao it can block money for months. Are you connected to them in any way?

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

#414

Post by dghlsakjg »

gosub100 wrote: post #410
dghlsakjg wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's meant to prevent side hustles like buying Big Macs and selling them for cash.

Sure, but it also prevents poor people without access to a kitchen from having hot food.

Do we even know that people reselling hot food would be more of a problem than people reselling cold food? Wouldn't it just be easier to review the transaction data and detect patterns of actual fraud? Is the cost of doing any of this actually lower than the cost of fraud?

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

#415

Post by ninetyninenine »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #409
ninetyninenine wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all empires eventually fall

And when they do, the banks and “innovation” are the least of anyone’s concerns. As long as the USA stands, banks won’t change, and if the USA doesn’t stand, I’m not sure banking will even matter anymore.

When the USA doesn’t stand you can go to China for the banking.

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

#416

Post by dlenski »

jszymborski wrote: post #373
dlenski wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Glad you're not the only one to point out Canada's comparatively stodgy financial industry. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42838063 The account management interfaces of Canadian banks are pretty universally terrible. Even the neo-banks like Tangerine.

Tangerine still insists on making login credentials your account number, and a 4 digit pin. There used to be a second system where they'd show you a secret combination of images after login and you'd provide an answer to one of four security questions, which kinda made things better as I just provided passwords as the answer to the questions, but now they've replaced that with drumroll SMS 2FA. Security is a clown sh…

Indeed. Their 2FA manages to hit the sweet spot of being incredibly laggy, never remembering me, and maximally insecure.

> I no longer use it and can't suggest other folks do.

Same. I was lured in by their interest rate bonuses a couple years ago, but they're no longer offering anything that isn't beat by WealthSimple and others.

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

#417

Post by NoPicklez »

herodoturtle wrote: post #281

In South Africa the "big" (historically incumbent) banks were indeed disrupted by a "startup" bank relatively recently (in the last 20 years) - and this startup bank went on to in turn become one of the big banks. There is an excellent book called "Stalking Giants" [1] that covers this story nicely. It's a fun read (especially for South Africans) and was published recently. [1] https://www.amazon.co.za/Capitec-Stalki…

What did they do to "disrupt" the others?

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

#418

Post by Galatians4_16 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #414
gosub100 wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's meant to prevent side hustles like buying Big Macs and selling them for cash.

Sure, but it also prevents poor people without access to a kitchen from having hot food. Do we even know that people reselling hot food would be more of a problem than people reselling cold food? Wouldn't it just be easier to review the transaction data and detect patterns of actual fraud? Is the cost of doing any of this actually lower than the cost of fraud?

Exactly. Poor people are then forced to burn stuff to make heat, which often releases carbon dioxide, unlike clean burning methods using magnetrons.

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

#419

Post by southernplaces7 »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #9

I don’t think disrupting banks is even possible. The time, money, and energy required is simply not realistic. There’s so many disrupt-able industries out there and I’m not even sure banking is the most beneficial one to tackle. It’s a realistic Star Wars story where the Empire always wins because… well it’s the fucking empire. They didn’t get there by losing.

>here’s so many disrupt-able industries out there

If you could name a couple that you think stand out more usefully than banking, i'm curious.

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

#420

Post by piperswe »

n4r9 wrote: post #249
2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote: post #247

You can't really "take deposits and issue loans" without just becoming a bank yourself. People start new banks all the time. Or by "disrupting" does he just mean "end run around the laws and regulations"?

> People start new banks all the time Is that true in the US? In the UK there was recently a period of around 150 years during which not a single new banking licence was issued. There's a film called Bank of Dave which dramatises the attempts of Dave Fishwick - a businessman from the North of England - to set up a local community bank. It's distressing the lengths that the established banks went to to quash it. If I…

Banking licenses are surely not an easy feat in America, but they are at least regularly issued. Not issuing any licenses for 150 years sounds quite crazy to my American ears, though as I understand it America is quite the outlier with thousands of active banks and credit unions.
Post reply on HN