2 ms·

actually its not completely true. The banks were MADE to do it by Raghuram Rajan (the ex-director of the Reserve Bank of India) The day of UPI launch was the la

actually its not completely true. The banks were MADE to do it by Raghuram Rajan (the ex-director of the Reserve Bank of India) The day of UPI launch was the last day Raghuram Rajan was in office. Even today, you see news of banks trying to sidestep the UPI. For example HDFC tried to start charging UPI transactions, but was soon made to shut it down. GST tax is also a private agency - the GSTN Pvt Ltd. - but that is the structure the govt created for autonomy. The RBI in India is heavily progressive - for example the business models of Yodlee is at risk for bank data scraping, because the RBI is creating a new kind of a regulatory structure (called "Aggregator NBFC") whose only job is to hold personal financial information. The plan to start charging for UPI has been a debate inside the RBI that I have been privy to - everyone has bets on different sides of the table. My personal bet is that the govt is going to keep digital payments free for the next decade atleast. The revenue share is too less - the long term strategic gains are too high to not do otherwise. Plus, the govt is promoting digital payments in villages which were predominantly cash - this cannot happen unless digital and cash are made equally free. Anyone can integrate with UPI - you can too. Its not very hard. Facebook, Google have had licenses for a long time. Its the demand side that they are figuring out.

_jgdh 9y ago
> The banks were MADE to do it That's what I said too, read my comment once more. I only pointed out that the banks didn't resist it, because they could see that a compelling payment experience could help them fight PayTM. > Anyone can integrate with UPI - you can too That's what makes me sceptical of your expertise. My experience working in a payments startup tells me that the only way to integrate with UPI is to partner up with an existing bank. For example, Flipkart's PhonePe couldn't simply start calling UPI APIs. They use software provided by Yes Bank Limited and all payment requests were routed through Yes Bank. This is why all PhonePe users have @ybl addresses, not @phonepe. > Its the demand side that they are figuring out. I don't see what "demand-side" needs to be figured out. Everyone agrees that giving the 200M users of Android/Whatsapp the power to make payments would be desirable. What Google and Facebook must actually figure out is how to integrate with YBL or whichever bank they're partnering with and to make sure their UX is good.
- sandGorgon 9y ago
  UPI addresses are linked to banks. When a merchant integrates with UPI, they are using it to transfer money and accept payments. For example if you use UPI via Razorpay - it does not ask you to create a new UPI id. What Flipkart/Phonepe did was a play to own the customer - and bring more people to their fold. So that was a strategic partnership between YBL and Phonepe via which users could implicitly get a bank account as well! However you can link your existing UPI id with it as well. YBL does not provide software - they have certain API that you can use. You can integrate with other banks as well...Or use Razorpay. The difference between both is that it's harder to talk to banks. The banks are still resisting it. The banks are not hugely threatened by Paytm in general but UPI is causing a drop in revenue. Check out HDFC trying to introduce UPI charges and the hullabaloo. It would have done it, if it hadn't gotten a rap from the regulators. Payments is a two sided game - I think that Google and Facebook are figuring out how to create walled gardens around payments in India, when UPI basically makes it easy to switch apps. This is purely my conjecture at this point. So yes, my expertise is definitely doubtful ;)

_jgdh 9y ago

> The banks were MADE to do it That's what I said too, read my comment once more. I only pointed out that the banks didn't resist it, because they could see that a compelling payment experience could help them fight PayTM. > Anyone can integrate with UPI - you can too That's what makes me sceptical of your expertise. My experience working in a payments startup tells me that the only way to integrate with UPI is to partner up with an existing bank. For example, Flipkart's PhonePe couldn't simply start calling UPI APIs. They use software provided by Yes Bank Limited and all payment requests were routed through Yes Bank. This is why all PhonePe users have @ybl addresses, not @phonepe. > Its the demand side that they are figuring out. I don't see what "demand-side" needs to be figured out. Everyone agrees that giving the 200M users of Android/Whatsapp the power to make payments would be desirable. What Google and Facebook must actually figure out is how to integrate with YBL or whichever bank they're partnering with and to make sure their UX is good.

sandGorgon 9y ago
UPI addresses are linked to banks. When a merchant integrates with UPI, they are using it to transfer money and accept payments. For example if you use UPI via Razorpay - it does not ask you to create a new UPI id. What Flipkart/Phonepe did was a play to own the customer - and bring more people to their fold. So that was a strategic partnership between YBL and Phonepe via which users could implicitly get a bank account as well! However you can link your existing UPI id with it as well. YBL does not provide software - they have certain API that you can use. You can integrate with other banks as well...Or use Razorpay. The difference between both is that it's harder to talk to banks. The banks are still resisting it. The banks are not hugely threatened by Paytm in general but UPI is causing a drop in revenue. Check out HDFC trying to introduce UPI charges and the hullabaloo. It would have done it, if it hadn't gotten a rap from the regulators. Payments is a two sided game - I think that Google and Facebook are figuring out how to create walled gardens around payments in India, when UPI basically makes it easy to switch apps. This is purely my conjecture at this point. So yes, my expertise is definitely doubtful ;)