4 ms·

This partly exists. But could of course be much simpler to use: 1) some banks/fintech offer virtual cards. For example, whenever I need to pay with credit card

by valzam 5y ago

This partly exists. But could of course be much simpler to use: 1) some banks/fintech offer virtual cards. For example, whenever I need to pay with credit card at a site that seems to be using some homegrown system I create a new virtual card in transferwise and destroy it right after. 2) I've seen banks offer virtual cards with CVC codes that change every 24h hours.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
Re 1), virtual cards are useful if you can get them (banks that I use stubbornly refuse to provide them; same story with subaccounts). But it feels like doubling-down on the bad mental model. Cards make sense in meatspace, not on-line. Virtual cards are stretching the analogy already. Short-lived virtual cards are pushing it to the limits. What users need is the ability to generate single-use payment authorization tokens. Talking about "cards" carries too much irrelevant meatspace baggage; we've already worked out different, better-fitting abstractions for digital use.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  You talk about "users" as if the majority of people are tech-literate. They are not. Imagine explaining to your parents what a "single use digital token" is. Now imagine explaining "it's a card that you only use for this". Outdated/meat-space abstractions are useful for both driving adoption and getting laypeople to understand intuitively what you mean. And beyond that, most of us encounter dozens of them a day without blinking. Think about that the next time you check your electronic mail on your general-purpose computing device you call a "phone".
- valzam 5y ago
  FYI Google Pay actually creates a new "credit card", i.e. a single-use token for every payment, something along those lines would probably be great if more widely adopted. https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6345242?hl=en https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6345242?hl=e... I agree with the other post that keeping meatspace terminology isn't bad. Offering a "Single use credit card" would be an easily understandable feature.

by valzam 5y ago

TeMPOraL 5y ago

Re 1), virtual cards are useful if you can get them (banks that I use stubbornly refuse to provide them; same story with subaccounts). But it feels like doubling-down on the bad mental model. Cards make sense in meatspace, not on-line. Virtual cards are stretching the analogy already. Short-lived virtual cards are pushing it to the limits. What users need is the ability to generate single-use payment authorization tokens. Talking about "cards" carries too much irrelevant meatspace baggage; we've already worked out different, better-fitting abstractions for digital use.

LordDragonfang 5y ago
You talk about "users" as if the majority of people are tech-literate. They are not. Imagine explaining to your parents what a "single use digital token" is. Now imagine explaining "it's a card that you only use for this". Outdated/meat-space abstractions are useful for both driving adoption and getting laypeople to understand intuitively what you mean. And beyond that, most of us encounter dozens of them a day without blinking. Think about that the next time you check your electronic mail on your general-purpose computing device you call a "phone".
valzam 5y ago
FYI Google Pay actually creates a new "credit card", i.e. a single-use token for every payment, something along those lines would probably be great if more widely adopted. https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6345242?hl=en https://support.google.com/pay/merchants/answer/6345242?hl=e... I agree with the other post that keeping meatspace terminology isn't bad. Offering a "Single use credit card" would be an easily understandable feature.