3 ms·

> Everything you described is fundamentally a problem with banks not with Plaid. I don't disagree, but banking is not an arena where "creative disruption" that

by mbesto 7y ago

> Everything you described is fundamentally a problem with banks not with Plaid. I don't disagree, but banking is not an arena where "creative disruption" that has harmful side effects should be welcomed. The reason you can't send money from one bank to another efficiently in the US but can in the UK is purely due to regulation. Or why there isn't an Open Banking Initiative in the US but there is in the UK. Once again, regulation. The private market isn't making the solution better in this case because their implementation is reckless and potentially harmful.

jamiequint 7y ago
> The private market isn't making the solution better in this case because their implementation is reckless and potentially harmful. You could make this same argument about the existence of online banking. At some point utility supercedes risk. Personally, I feel fortunate to live in a society where I am able to make that decision for myself rather than the government making it for me.
- mbesto 7y ago
  > You could make this same argument about the existence of online banking. How so? If I'm using Wells Fargo and I find out they have a breach, I can happily switch to another bank because they're clearly being incompetent. If a software provider that I'm using uses Plaid and Plaid gets hacked, then my banking data is potentially compromised. The bank has zero control over that, so there is no impetus for me to change banks, yet it's their data that has been compromised. > Personally, I feel fortunate to live in a society where I am able to make that decision for myself rather than the government making it for me. For most things, yes I agree. Do you think it's any coincidence that the banks haven't adopted modern/secure API access even though their consumers demand it? That's not the definition of a free market and is at odds with "having a free choice is better than having the government do it for me".

by mbesto 7y ago

jamiequint 7y ago

> The private market isn't making the solution better in this case because their implementation is reckless and potentially harmful. You could make this same argument about the existence of online banking. At some point utility supercedes risk. Personally, I feel fortunate to live in a society where I am able to make that decision for myself rather than the government making it for me.

mbesto 7y ago
> You could make this same argument about the existence of online banking. How so? If I'm using Wells Fargo and I find out they have a breach, I can happily switch to another bank because they're clearly being incompetent. If a software provider that I'm using uses Plaid and Plaid gets hacked, then my banking data is potentially compromised. The bank has zero control over that, so there is no impetus for me to change banks, yet it's their data that has been compromised. > Personally, I feel fortunate to live in a society where I am able to make that decision for myself rather than the government making it for me. For most things, yes I agree. Do you think it's any coincidence that the banks haven't adopted modern/secure API access even though their consumers demand it? That's not the definition of a free market and is at odds with "having a free choice is better than having the government do it for me".