3 ms·
Unless this is actually possible in some country, I think they're both confused. But I'm guessing the objection was probably intended to convey "this is just as
by dataflow 6y ago
Unless this is actually possible in some country, I think they're both confused. But I'm guessing the objection was probably intended to convey "this is just as 'direct' in the US as it is in Australia", which would seem like a valid objection to the article.
- throwanem 6y agoI suppose that's fair. In the article author's defense, he did pretty much disclaim any detailed or experiential knowledge right up front. That said, while my own relevant experience is now many years past and was in any case mostly refracted through the payment card industry, I didn't spot any obvious howlers.
- zaroth 6y agoMost country’s bank systems have a “receiving only” number which can be shared and then used by a 3rd party to directly enter an instant money transfer into the system. Because America doesn’t have the equivalent of a “receive only” code, every service has to build that functionality themselves “on top of” ACH, and prevent direct access to ACH debit and credit functionality. That being said, for $10/month any business can get direct access to ACH including debits and credits, and then whatever gateway you use is supposed to do some level of fraud detection against your transactions.
- mehrdadn 6y agoA few days ago someone here point out the numbers aren't actually "receive-only" for IBANs either, but anyway, the point you're making is a separate point from the one being made here. If anything, it's the opposite -- it's arguing that the US system is too capable, rather than insufficiently capable.