4 ms·

Something like Pix is a great blueprint for the future imo. I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected gover

Something like Pix is a great blueprint for the future imo. I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected government manage it.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago
I encourage you to loudly champion such a model in your nation state to whomever is in power and will listen.
catlikesshrimp 2mo ago
It goes both ways: What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. A balance where they can all exist is the best, and most difficult decision.
- surgical_fire 2mo ago
  > approved by your elected government. Fixed it for you. You had left some extraneous quotation marks there. Either way, while governments should not get free pass and should be scrutinized by its citizens, we definitely should not allow corporations with ties to hostile governments (such as the case of Visa and Mastercard) any oversight of payment infrastructure.
- diego_moita 2mo ago
  > What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. Yeah, what if? You didn't provide any argument, didn't point to any real problem. You just hinted at a "terrible bad thing". Would we have monsters under our beds or bad guys in corners to ambush us? This sounds like VISA/Mastercad/Apple Pay playing FUD[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
  - Ajedi32 2mo ago
    You realize you're arguing for a monopoly, right? One where competition is not only non-existent but also illegal, and which has complete control over how you're allowed to spend your money. I think arguing "but it's a democratic monopoly" is little comfort in this situation. Maybe you trust your government not to ever be incompetent or to use the powers granted by this monopoly in a way you disapprove of. Maybe in the short term you'd even be right to do so. But I think history has proven that over the long term that's a very foolish assumption to make.
    - TitaRusell 2mo ago
      In my country they have to make laws to FORCE shops and restaurants to accept cash. Because it is a damn hassle.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - moate 2mo ago
      You go far enough on fiscal tracking and you just wind up back where we've always been: barter. All currency is as useful as the regime backing it, and when that regime falls, barter always comes back in. Everything else is just rent seeking scaffolding to reduce barter friction (cash let's me store all the value I've created, but so could gold bars, or bitcoin, or vodka). This is to say: All currency is about control and convenience (you trade "invisible transaction" for "easily able to resolve payment") because those in power want to know/control the money and everyone else wants convenience.
    - dbetteridge 2mo ago
      Which is completely irrelevant because as the government of the country they have the power to make laws, now and in the future which compel private entities to perform actions like AML (anti money laundering) and KYC (know your customers). The end result is private entities taking money out of the system at some stage, and it doesn't shield you in any way from government incompetence or malice.
      - 2mo ago
- senorrib 2mo ago
  Currency is already managed by the elected government, and every democracy in the world traces electronic transactions. Some (like Italy) forbid cash payments in large sums altogether. So what's the boogieman here?
  - b112 2mo ago
    The boogyman is just what you described, and every democracy in the world absolutely does not trace electronic transactions. Some have a more hands off approach, including size of transactions and flagged behaviour as indicators of when payment processors must report to the government. The Goverment should absolutely have no idea who spends what, where. Warrants and court orders, check values should be required before anyone can know. The potential to suppress political opponents, to squelch legitimate protest, to interfere with elections, is too dangerous. Simply because some countries, like the US after 9/11, decided to give up this aspect of a free people, does not make it right.
    - sneak 2mo ago
      They do trace and log them, though.
      - carlosjobim 2mo ago
        They do not. They have to get a warrant to get such logs from a bank.
        sneak 2mo ago
        What makes you believe that this is true?
    - ivell 2mo ago
      AFAIK, in India, payments more than Rs. 50k is tracked. In anycase, the governments have the capability, what remains is just the intend. And we see how intends could change at the whim of a leader.
- bix6 2mo ago
  Payment rails are a natural monopoly so yeah I’m good with the gov owning it and as the article says, everyone is free to compete with the services they offer.
- cyberax 2mo ago
  The government can already order VISA to not accept your payment and/or just make it too cost-prohibitive. Without any real recourse from your side. Direct government services typically have a universal mandate. The government won't be able to stop doing business with you.
- dpc050505 2mo ago
  I'd have a very hard time spending other currencies than CAD to pay my bills.
- icantevenhold 2mo ago
  The alternatives still exist, there is just less and less reason to use them because they charge extra fees.
matheusmoreira 2mo ago
I don't want corporations controlling payments, but I don't want my government controlling payments either. What I actually wanted was for the cryptocurrency dream to become reality, but it turned into stocks instead.
- brnt 2mo ago
  Your government already controls your currency and thereby your assets, why would you die on the this particular hill of how you can transact this government-created currency? For free as opposed to for a fee no less? You don't believe transaction data isn't shared (sold) by commercial parties do you?
Gormo 2mo ago
> I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected government manage it. The ideal of course is decentralized payment systems with no middlemen, but if there are going to be middlemen, a competitive marketplace of middlemen driven primary by predictable financial incentives is vastly less scary than monopolization by power-centralizing political institutions.

Something like Pix is a great blueprint for the future imo. I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected government manage it.

toomuchtodo 2mo ago

I encourage you to loudly champion such a model in your nation state to whomever is in power and will listen.

catlikesshrimp 2mo ago

It goes both ways: What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. A balance where they can all exist is the best, and most difficult decision.

surgical_fire 2mo ago
> approved by your elected government. Fixed it for you. You had left some extraneous quotation marks there. Either way, while governments should not get free pass and should be scrutinized by its citizens, we definitely should not allow corporations with ties to hostile governments (such as the case of Visa and Mastercard) any oversight of payment infrastructure.
diego_moita 2mo ago
> What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. Yeah, what if? You didn't provide any argument, didn't point to any real problem. You just hinted at a "terrible bad thing". Would we have monsters under our beds or bad guys in corners to ambush us? This sounds like VISA/Mastercad/Apple Pay playing FUD[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt
- Ajedi32 2mo ago
  You realize you're arguing for a monopoly, right? One where competition is not only non-existent but also illegal, and which has complete control over how you're allowed to spend your money. I think arguing "but it's a democratic monopoly" is little comfort in this situation. Maybe you trust your government not to ever be incompetent or to use the powers granted by this monopoly in a way you disapprove of. Maybe in the short term you'd even be right to do so. But I think history has proven that over the long term that's a very foolish assumption to make.
  - TitaRusell 2mo ago
    In my country they have to make laws to FORCE shops and restaurants to accept cash. Because it is a damn hassle.
  - deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]
  - moate 2mo ago
    You go far enough on fiscal tracking and you just wind up back where we've always been: barter. All currency is as useful as the regime backing it, and when that regime falls, barter always comes back in. Everything else is just rent seeking scaffolding to reduce barter friction (cash let's me store all the value I've created, but so could gold bars, or bitcoin, or vodka). This is to say: All currency is about control and convenience (you trade "invisible transaction" for "easily able to resolve payment") because those in power want to know/control the money and everyone else wants convenience.
  - dbetteridge 2mo ago
    Which is completely irrelevant because as the government of the country they have the power to make laws, now and in the future which compel private entities to perform actions like AML (anti money laundering) and KYC (know your customers). The end result is private entities taking money out of the system at some stage, and it doesn't shield you in any way from government incompetence or malice.
    - 2mo ago
senorrib 2mo ago
Currency is already managed by the elected government, and every democracy in the world traces electronic transactions. Some (like Italy) forbid cash payments in large sums altogether. So what's the boogieman here?
- b112 2mo ago
  The boogyman is just what you described, and every democracy in the world absolutely does not trace electronic transactions. Some have a more hands off approach, including size of transactions and flagged behaviour as indicators of when payment processors must report to the government. The Goverment should absolutely have no idea who spends what, where. Warrants and court orders, check values should be required before anyone can know. The potential to suppress political opponents, to squelch legitimate protest, to interfere with elections, is too dangerous. Simply because some countries, like the US after 9/11, decided to give up this aspect of a free people, does not make it right.
  - sneak 2mo ago
    They do trace and log them, though.
    - carlosjobim 2mo ago
      They do not. They have to get a warrant to get such logs from a bank.
      - sneak 2mo ago
        What makes you believe that this is true?
  - ivell 2mo ago
    AFAIK, in India, payments more than Rs. 50k is tracked. In anycase, the governments have the capability, what remains is just the intend. And we see how intends could change at the whim of a leader.
bix6 2mo ago
Payment rails are a natural monopoly so yeah I’m good with the gov owning it and as the article says, everyone is free to compete with the services they offer.
cyberax 2mo ago
The government can already order VISA to not accept your payment and/or just make it too cost-prohibitive. Without any real recourse from your side. Direct government services typically have a universal mandate. The government won't be able to stop doing business with you.
dpc050505 2mo ago
I'd have a very hard time spending other currencies than CAD to pay my bills.
icantevenhold 2mo ago
The alternatives still exist, there is just less and less reason to use them because they charge extra fees.

matheusmoreira 2mo ago

I don't want corporations controlling payments, but I don't want my government controlling payments either. What I actually wanted was for the cryptocurrency dream to become reality, but it turned into stocks instead.

brnt 2mo ago
Your government already controls your currency and thereby your assets, why would you die on the this particular hill of how you can transact this government-created currency? For free as opposed to for a fee no less? You don't believe transaction data isn't shared (sold) by commercial parties do you?

Gormo 2mo ago

> I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected government manage it. The ideal of course is decentralized payment systems with no middlemen, but if there are going to be middlemen, a competitive marketplace of middlemen driven primary by predictable financial incentives is vastly less scary than monopolization by power-centralizing political institutions.