4 ms·
It's the same problem for the biggest 4 banks. The rest can join the "future" in their own time. It's after the first 4 that you go from trillions to billions
by viraptor 3y ago
It's the same problem for the biggest 4 banks. The rest can join the "future" in their own time.
It's after the first 4 that you go from trillions to billions in assets. They should have some reasonable pull. 10 should be still a low enough number to make an agreement and effectively make the rest follow or lose out.
- naniwaduni 3y agoThe biggest 4 banks ... do support near-instant transfers? Probably in at least three forms each pairwise? I'm not sure why we're pretending the US doesn't have infrastructure for instant transfers, there are like at least four directly supported systems, a couple accidental ones, and a whole host of third-parties in the space, each with a different set of tradeoffs and spotty support.
- viraptor 3y agoYeah... That's not really a solution, is it? They're not pushing a common standard that way and the small banks will have to play stupid games instead of implementing "the" solution.
- esrauch 3y agoDo they? When I move money between two accounts each in large banks it takes a day or more to clear. It would literally be an order of magnitude faster for me to walk to the a branch of one, withdraw, walk to a branch of the other to deposit than it is to move the money online.