3 ms·

Irrevocability- for consumer payments there will always be revocability. And yet, if you go into a store and buy something with cash, you have never been able

Irrevocability- for consumer payments there will always be revocability. And yet, if you go into a store and buy something with cash, you have never been able to just arbitrarily reverse that payment and keep the goods several months later, and the sky has not fallen. Humans doing stuff make mistakes, and need to be able to "take it back." And what about the humans who didn't make a mistake, but simply chose to abuse the system at the expense of whoever they transferred the money to? Certainty and security are important for those on both sides of a transaction. If you have a dispute, that's what legal systems are there for. The quasi-judicial role that financial services play in resolving disputes, often with little regulatory oversight and absolutely no requirement to be neutral or objective, is long overdue for retirement.

tmp538394722 6y ago
Scale is relevant. It’s why people don’t typically make down payments on houses with sacks of nickles. And why people don’t wire funds to buy a bag of snackums.
snoshy 6y ago
> The quasi-judicial role that financial services play in resolving disputes, often with little regulatory oversight and absolutely no requirement to be neutral or objective, is long overdue for retirement. I would bet that the Fed views this as a feature, not a bug. Regardless of your (and mine or their) beliefs on that matter, I would hope you see why they might choose a measure of progress in payment clearance and disassociate the two goals. I imagine the Fed fully knows it plays the role of a rather strong glue within the broader global financial system, and could just as easily throw on another layer of binding to require irrevocable payments by sheer fiat if they chose, regardless of the technical implementations of bank payment clearance.
rattray 6y ago
> The quasi-judicial role that financial services play in resolving disputes, often with little regulatory oversight and absolutely no requirement to be neutral or objective, is long overdue for retirement. Honestly, from what I've heard of the US Court system, I'd much rather have the least competent bank in the country deal with my disputes than have to go through the courts. Slow, expensive, and also unjust. I'm also under the impression that this would be a tightly regulated area but I don't know for sure.

tmp538394722 6y ago

Scale is relevant. It’s why people don’t typically make down payments on houses with sacks of nickles. And why people don’t wire funds to buy a bag of snackums.

snoshy 6y ago

> The quasi-judicial role that financial services play in resolving disputes, often with little regulatory oversight and absolutely no requirement to be neutral or objective, is long overdue for retirement. I would bet that the Fed views this as a feature, not a bug. Regardless of your (and mine or their) beliefs on that matter, I would hope you see why they might choose a measure of progress in payment clearance and disassociate the two goals. I imagine the Fed fully knows it plays the role of a rather strong glue within the broader global financial system, and could just as easily throw on another layer of binding to require irrevocable payments by sheer fiat if they chose, regardless of the technical implementations of bank payment clearance.

rattray 6y ago

> The quasi-judicial role that financial services play in resolving disputes, often with little regulatory oversight and absolutely no requirement to be neutral or objective, is long overdue for retirement. Honestly, from what I've heard of the US Court system, I'd much rather have the least competent bank in the country deal with my disputes than have to go through the courts. Slow, expensive, and also unjust. I'm also under the impression that this would be a tightly regulated area but I don't know for sure.