Community

This is a non story. Its the same transaction/card its just that you can tap now for purchases between £45-£100 so of course more people will have. The real question is whether the retailer has to pay more for their customer to 'tap' rather than entering a PIN and also, as per the first coment, whether fraud increases because the increase has created a place for fraud to migrate to.  

Is this HMT following the tune of UK Finance and Visa/MC whilst it keeps putting back legaslation on Access to Cash. Where is HMTs joined up strategy? Increasing the contact limit within a Cash Acceptance/Access to Cash strategy will only damage the already left behind even further ...       

The pilot might be being sponsored by FDATA or OneBanks could be funding it from its own investor cashpile. But the point still stands that beyond a pilot (proving it works and providing data on costs and usage/transactions) either the customer will have to pay OneBanks to use the service or the banks will have to pay OneBanks if it's to be more than a funded pilot. 

But who pays? If it's free in credit banking for the customer and its based on Open Banking, so banks are not paying for their customers to use OneBanks kiosk, I'm not seeing how OneBanks gets any income? Unless banks are going to pay a similar amount of interchange for each (deposit, withdrawal, balance enqiry, etc.) transaction as they do for the post office through its framework agreement then there is no business model. Fully support the concept as it really is needed but others have tried and failed because the banks wouldn't support/pay. Open Banking might enable the transaction and it might be a cheaper 'rail' than LINK or the Post Office but without the banks paying OneBanks for their customers use or the customer paying themselves for the privilege then its OneBanks investor's money that will have to pay ...