5 ms·

Electricity, water, roads, bridges are all public infrastructure. Why should payments be any different. Without summoning the decentralized block-based "curren

by jryio 9mo ago

Electricity, water, roads, bridges are all public infrastructure. Why should payments be any different. Without summoning the decentralized block-based "currency" crowd, I would like to point out that in the entire lifespan of such technologies they never have received widespread institutional or legislative buy-in like this EU initiative to build a digital Euro. While USDC and BTC have been used as defacto currencies in some countries there is truly no equivalent adoption in any meaningfully mature economic zone such as EU/NA/CN. I welcome sovereign digital payments initiatives.

Saline9515 9mo ago
Electricity, water, roads and bridges are natural monopolies. Payments aren't and there is no reason for the State to monopolize it. Especially given the EU poor track record on fostering innovation. The EU bureaucrats will "regulate" it to the bone, increasing compliance costs for processors and mass surveillance. We'll be back to the start.
- anhner 9mo ago
  > there is no reason for the State to monopolize it except relying on a foreign actor for the economy is a security risk?
  - Saline9515 9mo ago
    The alternative could be to foster competition to allow private local actors to emerge. Why do we need the State for this? The EU prevents sellers from surcharging depending on the type of credit card used, which led to the Visa/Mc duopoly and prevented local alternatives to compete on costs.
- jryio 9mo ago
  There is already. Almost every country on earth has single state controlled currency. Fiat currency is already a natural monopoly on payments. Imagine if every time you wanted to pay for a train ride you had to put your money into an envelope, mail it to the United States, and wait for it to come back. That's VISA.
- samus 9mo ago
  In an age where card payments are ubiquitous, being suddenly cut off from VISA/MasterCard networks can severely disrupt a country's economy. Especially if it heavily relies on tourism.
  - jeroenhd 9mo ago
    When it comes to tourism, this problem will always happen if the tourists are coming from the side that's cutting off the other. Without an interface between European and American payment systems, Americans won't be able to pay in Europe.
    - samus 9mo ago
      It's way more severe than that since Americans are not the only ones relying on VISA/MasterCard for payments abroad. The presence of other payment systems would make it easier for any non-USA country to still do payments.
  - Saline9515 9mo ago
    The EU prevents sellers to surcharge depending on the type of card used (PSD2 Directive (EU) 2015/2366), Art. 62(4)). It in effect opened the door to a Visa/Mastercard duopoly, as no local competitor could emerge and compete on price.
- isodev 9mo ago
  Some corrections: - The EU is not a state, it's a governance body composed of representatives from individual member states. Every state is responsible for implementing their take on the directive. - "EU poor track record on fostering innovation" - many things you use online have been researched and conceptualised in the EU. Even if they go elsewhere for funding, don't mistake where "innovation" happens and where it gets packaged by VC money for sale and enschitification. - compliance costs: I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost.
  - Saline9515 9mo ago
    > "The EU is not a state" It's a supranational institution that dictates laws to States, with a budget and coercive powers against States. It just lacks an army of its own. Whether it's a proper state or not doesn't matter. > conceptualised in the EU No, in Europe. No EU bureaucrat conceptualizes things. EU =\= Europe. > I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost. A lot of businesses need consumer data to improve their offerings and be competitive against the big boys. And RGPD lawyers ain't cheap, so even if you keep the minimal amount of data, you have to fork €10k+ to review everything, etc. The requirements for AI are even worse. All of those compliance jobs are unproductive and a burden on EU companies. Same for the tax compliance obligations, which are ever increasing and now require you to record and document everything, especially if you do cross-border operations, as you are considered guilty by default if you don't. We could also talk about the requirements to audit your sourcing chain for "human rights abuses", which ends in compliance hell for industrial companies with 2k+ suppliers, while of course Chinese companies don't have this problem. The EU doesn't do any cost/benefit analysis on this, and just suppose that companies will magically find ressources to deal with their new regulatory "innovations".
    - isodev 9mo ago
      Ok, I think you're reading a lot of tabloids as none of the above are actually true. Regarding > Institution that dictates laws to States again no, because the laws are created and voted by elected representatives of said states, so the EU is not some 3rd party that exists on the side, the EU is the countries within it. Member states create their own laws.
- zihotki 9mo ago
  Payments aren't but issuing currency is. State doesn't monopolize the payments. State creates a regulation and common standard across the EU. It's the banks who would do the payments, not the state, and for that banks would receive a standard fee so you as a consumer always know how much you pay for the service.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
  How many non-government physical currencies are there in your country? I'm guessing if there is a legitimate government electronic currency most alternatives will fade away which will be the best rebuttal to your argument. The public can hold government rules for surveillance in check, whereas they don't have that option for private payment systems.
ChocolateGod 9mo ago
I would argue that physical currency transfer is already public infrastructure, in the terms of coins and notes that are physically given. So it only makes sense that digital currency is too.
- samrus 9mo ago
  Absolutely agree. The idea that private corporation manage our digital payments is crazy if you ever imagine that happening to physical payments. Imagine if bank of america got to decide if the dollar bill your trying to use is too damaged. That should be between me, the recipient, and a public body
qeternity 9mo ago
> Electricity, water, roads, bridges are all public infrastructure. Why should payments be any different. I think you fail to understand why these are public infrastructure. Why should water be public infra but food is not?
- samus 9mo ago
  Medicine should count too. And a lot of other things that we often realize to be essential only in a crisis situation. But I'm sure GP didn't intend their list to be exclusive.
- moooo99 9mo ago
  > Why should water be public infra but food is not? The main reason why infrastructure of any kind (water, sewage, etc) is a public infrastructure - even in largely privatized economies - is that infrastructure is essentially a natural monopoly. Food on the other hand isn't and it can largely be traded as a commodity (which is, at least in my opinion, a major reason why our food system is so broken).
  - MadDemon 9mo ago
    The food system in Europe works pretty well.
    - moooo99 9mo ago
      Define "works pretty well". If your only expectation is that it provides enough calories for your population, you are absolutely right. If you have a look at the bigger picture, the issues are plentiful. On the producer side, farmers are operating at relatively thin margins which encourages consolidation and unsustainable farming practices. This in turn leads to extensive soil degradation and fertilizer use, which is unsustainable - both financially and ecologically. On the consumer side, people are becoming more overweight (which cannot be exclusively be attributed to the food system, but diet of course plays a significant role). Food is becoming more expensive and lower quality. Food waste also still is a major problem. Many issues are shared between the US and the European food system, although they may not be as extreme as in the US. However, it does not feel like there is actual political will to steer the ship in a different direction.
eviks 9mo ago
X, Y, Z are not public infrastructure, why should payments be any different?
Fire-Dragon-DoL 9mo ago
Internet should be too, and yet here we are

by jryio 9mo ago

Saline9515 9mo ago

Electricity, water, roads and bridges are natural monopolies. Payments aren't and there is no reason for the State to monopolize it. Especially given the EU poor track record on fostering innovation. The EU bureaucrats will "regulate" it to the bone, increasing compliance costs for processors and mass surveillance. We'll be back to the start.

anhner 9mo ago
> there is no reason for the State to monopolize it except relying on a foreign actor for the economy is a security risk?
- Saline9515 9mo ago
  The alternative could be to foster competition to allow private local actors to emerge. Why do we need the State for this? The EU prevents sellers from surcharging depending on the type of credit card used, which led to the Visa/Mc duopoly and prevented local alternatives to compete on costs.
jryio 9mo ago
There is already. Almost every country on earth has single state controlled currency. Fiat currency is already a natural monopoly on payments. Imagine if every time you wanted to pay for a train ride you had to put your money into an envelope, mail it to the United States, and wait for it to come back. That's VISA.
samus 9mo ago
In an age where card payments are ubiquitous, being suddenly cut off from VISA/MasterCard networks can severely disrupt a country's economy. Especially if it heavily relies on tourism.
- jeroenhd 9mo ago
  When it comes to tourism, this problem will always happen if the tourists are coming from the side that's cutting off the other. Without an interface between European and American payment systems, Americans won't be able to pay in Europe.
  - samus 9mo ago
    It's way more severe than that since Americans are not the only ones relying on VISA/MasterCard for payments abroad. The presence of other payment systems would make it easier for any non-USA country to still do payments.
- Saline9515 9mo ago
  The EU prevents sellers to surcharge depending on the type of card used (PSD2 Directive (EU) 2015/2366), Art. 62(4)). It in effect opened the door to a Visa/Mastercard duopoly, as no local competitor could emerge and compete on price.
isodev 9mo ago
Some corrections: - The EU is not a state, it's a governance body composed of representatives from individual member states. Every state is responsible for implementing their take on the directive. - "EU poor track record on fostering innovation" - many things you use online have been researched and conceptualised in the EU. Even if they go elsewhere for funding, don't mistake where "innovation" happens and where it gets packaged by VC money for sale and enschitification. - compliance costs: I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost.
- Saline9515 9mo ago
  > "The EU is not a state" It's a supranational institution that dictates laws to States, with a budget and coercive powers against States. It just lacks an army of its own. Whether it's a proper state or not doesn't matter. > conceptualised in the EU No, in Europe. No EU bureaucrat conceptualizes things. EU =\= Europe. > I think that's only expensive for companies who intend to to sell or otherwise do something shady with user data. Remember, not collecting data makes you instantly compliant with zero cost. A lot of businesses need consumer data to improve their offerings and be competitive against the big boys. And RGPD lawyers ain't cheap, so even if you keep the minimal amount of data, you have to fork €10k+ to review everything, etc. The requirements for AI are even worse. All of those compliance jobs are unproductive and a burden on EU companies. Same for the tax compliance obligations, which are ever increasing and now require you to record and document everything, especially if you do cross-border operations, as you are considered guilty by default if you don't. We could also talk about the requirements to audit your sourcing chain for "human rights abuses", which ends in compliance hell for industrial companies with 2k+ suppliers, while of course Chinese companies don't have this problem. The EU doesn't do any cost/benefit analysis on this, and just suppose that companies will magically find ressources to deal with their new regulatory "innovations".
  - isodev 9mo ago
    Ok, I think you're reading a lot of tabloids as none of the above are actually true. Regarding > Institution that dictates laws to States again no, because the laws are created and voted by elected representatives of said states, so the EU is not some 3rd party that exists on the side, the EU is the countries within it. Member states create their own laws.
zihotki 9mo ago
Payments aren't but issuing currency is. State doesn't monopolize the payments. State creates a regulation and common standard across the EU. It's the banks who would do the payments, not the state, and for that banks would receive a standard fee so you as a consumer always know how much you pay for the service.
_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
How many non-government physical currencies are there in your country? I'm guessing if there is a legitimate government electronic currency most alternatives will fade away which will be the best rebuttal to your argument. The public can hold government rules for surveillance in check, whereas they don't have that option for private payment systems.

ChocolateGod 9mo ago

I would argue that physical currency transfer is already public infrastructure, in the terms of coins and notes that are physically given. So it only makes sense that digital currency is too.

samrus 9mo ago
Absolutely agree. The idea that private corporation manage our digital payments is crazy if you ever imagine that happening to physical payments. Imagine if bank of america got to decide if the dollar bill your trying to use is too damaged. That should be between me, the recipient, and a public body

qeternity 9mo ago

> Electricity, water, roads, bridges are all public infrastructure. Why should payments be any different. I think you fail to understand why these are public infrastructure. Why should water be public infra but food is not?

samus 9mo ago
Medicine should count too. And a lot of other things that we often realize to be essential only in a crisis situation. But I'm sure GP didn't intend their list to be exclusive.
moooo99 9mo ago
> Why should water be public infra but food is not? The main reason why infrastructure of any kind (water, sewage, etc) is a public infrastructure - even in largely privatized economies - is that infrastructure is essentially a natural monopoly. Food on the other hand isn't and it can largely be traded as a commodity (which is, at least in my opinion, a major reason why our food system is so broken).
- MadDemon 9mo ago
  The food system in Europe works pretty well.
  - moooo99 9mo ago
    Define "works pretty well". If your only expectation is that it provides enough calories for your population, you are absolutely right. If you have a look at the bigger picture, the issues are plentiful. On the producer side, farmers are operating at relatively thin margins which encourages consolidation and unsustainable farming practices. This in turn leads to extensive soil degradation and fertilizer use, which is unsustainable - both financially and ecologically. On the consumer side, people are becoming more overweight (which cannot be exclusively be attributed to the food system, but diet of course plays a significant role). Food is becoming more expensive and lower quality. Food waste also still is a major problem. Many issues are shared between the US and the European food system, although they may not be as extreme as in the US. However, it does not feel like there is actual political will to steer the ship in a different direction.

eviks 9mo ago

X, Y, Z are not public infrastructure, why should payments be any different?

Fire-Dragon-DoL 9mo ago

Internet should be too, and yet here we are