3 ms·
The reason it's a farce is because most banks are using some off the shelf system from one of the big vendors in the space OR legacy systems, or both. FIS is a
by martinald 1y ago
The reason it's a farce is because most banks are using some off the shelf system from one of the big vendors in the space OR legacy systems, or both. FIS is a good example.
They have basically no real motive to improve anything (the lock in is utterly extreme) and no doubt will charge through the eyeballs for any improvements - especially ones that are regulatory related.
You can see the difference between a legacy bank and some of the neobanks in the UK. It's absolutely night and day when they own their own modern tech stack.
- pwg 1y ago> using some off the shelf system from one of the big vendors This also gives the bank 'cover' should an exploit be uncovered in "big vendors" system. They (the bank) are safe liability wise (or at least they think they are) because they used "approved vendor Y" for their authentication system. If they created their own system, then they would be unable to offload the liability onto someone else.
- FireBeyond 1y ago> If they created their own system, then they would be unable to offload the liability onto someone else. In a sense. The big banks in the US created Zelle with one of the specific outcomes being to offload liability for unauthorized transactions more on to the consumer than themselves.