3 ms·

I don’t really find Square or Stripe to be doing something mind blowing, if we’re talking about the core payments features. These should just be an open standar

I don’t really find Square or Stripe to be doing something mind blowing, if we’re talking about the core payments features. These should just be an open standard as they are developing in India, where people can transfer their money to each other without rent-seeking monopolists or just tech giants sheltered from competition via network effects. Payments are just a basic utility for society, not something to be controlled by authorities like giant tech companies.

ElFitz 5y ago
I remember seeing diagrams with some of the steps and stakeholders involved in nearly each credit card transaction, and it was quite the nightmare. Sure, it should be simpler. Much simpler. But given what we currently have, to have the option of abstracting all that away via pretty clear, mostly predictable and well documented APIs really is nice. It’s also complex for a reason, and not just because of inherited legacy processes and systems.
necovek 5y ago
Payments are a basic utility, but the hidden cost of ensuring funds are available on request in every conceivable location are not to be ignored. If you disagree, why not run a payments service at no or low cost yourself?
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  Honestly, I thought about doing it. It could be a nice passive business to be a small payment gateway provider. It's not rocket science, I could implement it alone. You invest some money to make it compliant with the security standards of the sector, charge less than all the other fat companies and you have another income stream. The only cons is you have to abide to so much stupid regulation in order for it to be legal (not secure, I'm fine with the private rules to ensure safety in running the service), and then making sure your customers are not doing something your government doesn't want them to do (like cleaning "dirty" money) and identify your customers (KYC). I looked also into starting a bank (you can do it with just 1mln in some places!) but you run into similar issues. It's a legal nightmare; if there was no government, I'd definitely do it.
  - necovek 5y ago
    I think you are still ignoring the unknown unknows which are abstracted away through legislation and government. If we exclude government, and avoid any fees from external providers (let's imagine a cryptocurrency-like asset), how would you warrant your solvency in fulfilling all the transactions and converting to fiat (which is ultimately what customers need today in a payments processor). I can't see it having a widespread appeal without costs matching the order of magnitude existing ones do (sure you can do it cheaper, but why haven't cryptocurrencies achieved it?)
    - jokethrowaway 5y ago
      While we're at it we could go back to a monetary standard backed by physical assets. Not necessarily gold, let's say a basket of everyday assets (wood, wheat, iron), so that the value of currency is tied up to the basic needs of a society. If you want to convert from fiat to these goods, you can do that. You can handle banks misbehaving and defaulting on their obligations with a competing system of private banks, third party services reviewing and auditing these banks and by paying a private insurance tied to the amount you own. Given that generally banks will make money with your parked resources they could be able to pay for the private insurance from the interests on your money. I don't think cryptocurrencies are the answer, they're a technical answer to a political problem and governments will probably just squash it or find a way to benefit from it.

ElFitz 5y ago

I remember seeing diagrams with some of the steps and stakeholders involved in nearly each credit card transaction, and it was quite the nightmare. Sure, it should be simpler. Much simpler. But given what we currently have, to have the option of abstracting all that away via pretty clear, mostly predictable and well documented APIs really is nice. It’s also complex for a reason, and not just because of inherited legacy processes and systems.

necovek 5y ago

Payments are a basic utility, but the hidden cost of ensuring funds are available on request in every conceivable location are not to be ignored. If you disagree, why not run a payments service at no or low cost yourself?

jokethrowaway 5y ago
Honestly, I thought about doing it. It could be a nice passive business to be a small payment gateway provider. It's not rocket science, I could implement it alone. You invest some money to make it compliant with the security standards of the sector, charge less than all the other fat companies and you have another income stream. The only cons is you have to abide to so much stupid regulation in order for it to be legal (not secure, I'm fine with the private rules to ensure safety in running the service), and then making sure your customers are not doing something your government doesn't want them to do (like cleaning "dirty" money) and identify your customers (KYC). I looked also into starting a bank (you can do it with just 1mln in some places!) but you run into similar issues. It's a legal nightmare; if there was no government, I'd definitely do it.
- necovek 5y ago
  I think you are still ignoring the unknown unknows which are abstracted away through legislation and government. If we exclude government, and avoid any fees from external providers (let's imagine a cryptocurrency-like asset), how would you warrant your solvency in fulfilling all the transactions and converting to fiat (which is ultimately what customers need today in a payments processor). I can't see it having a widespread appeal without costs matching the order of magnitude existing ones do (sure you can do it cheaper, but why haven't cryptocurrencies achieved it?)
  - jokethrowaway 5y ago
    While we're at it we could go back to a monetary standard backed by physical assets. Not necessarily gold, let's say a basket of everyday assets (wood, wheat, iron), so that the value of currency is tied up to the basic needs of a society. If you want to convert from fiat to these goods, you can do that. You can handle banks misbehaving and defaulting on their obligations with a competing system of private banks, third party services reviewing and auditing these banks and by paying a private insurance tied to the amount you own. Given that generally banks will make money with your parked resources they could be able to pay for the private insurance from the interests on your money. I don't think cryptocurrencies are the answer, they're a technical answer to a political problem and governments will probably just squash it or find a way to benefit from it.