3 ms·

Okay, so establish some sort of "crisis service fund" that pays out when payment processing breaks through no fault of your own. This is something the state can

Okay, so establish some sort of "crisis service fund" that pays out when payment processing breaks through no fault of your own. This is something the state can do at any time. Honestly, allowing a monopoly without planning something like this just seems careless. Providing service without hope of ever being paid is stupid. The market is pretty good at selecting against stupidity.

sam_lowry_ 5y ago
I lived both in a high-trust society and in a low-trust society. That you seem to have experienced only low-trust society may impact you worldview, but take my word for it, things are different elsewhere ;-)
- brobdingnagians 5y ago
  I really like this comment. It is an indictment of our society if we feel like we can't trust anyone around us. I have people around me with whom I'd trust my life; it is much better to surround ourselves with those people. And there are lots of examples of societies historically and now where things operated very largely on trust.
- MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
  Don't be too harsh. The experience of living in a high-trust society is becoming more and more rare for future generations, due to certain policy decisions. They will just assume things being broken is the natural order.
manicdee 5y ago
There are ways of collecting payments that don’t involve contactless card terminals.
Nullabillity 5y ago
Sounds like solving the problem from the wrong end. The payment infrastructure is the service provider's responsibility, not the state's. Instead, set up strict SLAs with harsh fines; make it more expensive to shut down than to provide free service.
bkor 5y ago
> Okay, so establish some sort of "crisis service fund" that pays out when payment processing breaks through no fault of your own. One company which suffered a cyber attack solved this partly by transferring a rough estimate of what a vendor should've been paid as a bank transfer. This up front. They did similar things for smaller vendors (smaller vendors might have bigger issues not getting paid on time). Not for everyone due to the amount of work involved. They got agreements in place to sort out the exact amounts afterwards. This required a huge trust and at the same time it created a great amount of goodwill from those vendors. Meaning, these vendors took over work on behalf of the company. Afterwards the exact costs can be figured out. What is important that business continues as much as possible, if you completely stop your business you'll also not have any revenue you could maybe charge later. I think the pipeline action on first hand is a rather stupid action. Loads of business is pretty predictable, plus often you already had the insight on the orders for the coming period. The cost of some mishaps and the economic damage to the country should be considered as well. It seems a case of "penny wise, pound foolish". Regarding "payment processing" breakdowns: there are various things in place in NL for that, though most don't know. Simply stated: you fill out a paper form, sign it, done.

sam_lowry_ 5y ago

I lived both in a high-trust society and in a low-trust society. That you seem to have experienced only low-trust society may impact you worldview, but take my word for it, things are different elsewhere ;-)

brobdingnagians 5y ago
I really like this comment. It is an indictment of our society if we feel like we can't trust anyone around us. I have people around me with whom I'd trust my life; it is much better to surround ourselves with those people. And there are lots of examples of societies historically and now where things operated very largely on trust.
MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
Don't be too harsh. The experience of living in a high-trust society is becoming more and more rare for future generations, due to certain policy decisions. They will just assume things being broken is the natural order.

manicdee 5y ago

There are ways of collecting payments that don’t involve contactless card terminals.

Nullabillity 5y ago

Sounds like solving the problem from the wrong end. The payment infrastructure is the service provider's responsibility, not the state's. Instead, set up strict SLAs with harsh fines; make it more expensive to shut down than to provide free service.

bkor 5y ago

> Okay, so establish some sort of "crisis service fund" that pays out when payment processing breaks through no fault of your own. One company which suffered a cyber attack solved this partly by transferring a rough estimate of what a vendor should've been paid as a bank transfer. This up front. They did similar things for smaller vendors (smaller vendors might have bigger issues not getting paid on time). Not for everyone due to the amount of work involved. They got agreements in place to sort out the exact amounts afterwards. This required a huge trust and at the same time it created a great amount of goodwill from those vendors. Meaning, these vendors took over work on behalf of the company. Afterwards the exact costs can be figured out. What is important that business continues as much as possible, if you completely stop your business you'll also not have any revenue you could maybe charge later. I think the pipeline action on first hand is a rather stupid action. Loads of business is pretty predictable, plus often you already had the insight on the orders for the coming period. The cost of some mishaps and the economic damage to the country should be considered as well. It seems a case of "penny wise, pound foolish". Regarding "payment processing" breakdowns: there are various things in place in NL for that, though most don't know. Simply stated: you fill out a paper form, sign it, done.