Community

This is a welcome move and by being proactive the bank can hopefully be in control of the position it finds itself in with their customers than being passive and being relegated by the fintechs and other banks

While not dismissing the role of the FinTech firms and the opportunity available to upset the established banks, it must be worth assessing if such a threat can be really possible?

When the FinTechs do become big enough to matter, they will attract the regulatory attention and that will weigh / slow them down much as it does the players in the Financial services industry.

In order to be truly pathbreaking the FinTechs must play in the not very attractive world of the infrastructure and create truly alternative infrastructure. Riding on the current infrastructure can be limiting in terms of the variety of use cases or in terms of tru and sustainable differentiation that can be offered by the Fintechs.

For retail customers such as you and I, Instant Payments should be seen as a fundamental right rather than a luxury and so for banks it must be seen as a mandatory servcie rather than an option based on the Business Case.

Building a business case for such things is always farught with the danger having to traverse many orbits from the core proposition to paint potential revenue streams and in the current context of so much change it is almost impossible to predict something with any meaningful level of accuracy.

This is part of the coer infrastructure and so long as fintechs dont enter into the area of providing alternate infrastructure but ride on the ones that  current systems have, there will be a long way before banks get  displaced in the payments business.

Same thoughts in my mind... very high fees for the service... A reminder service that reminds customers to send their cheques can achieve a better outcome for the paying customer and for now fees

The proliferation of Payments companies that pick thinly sliced Use Cases only points to one thing sureley - A consolidation will be around the corner.. only uncertainty is when teh corner will come about..

A journey of Thousand miles begins with a single step...  this is a big win for Ripple

Single harmonised standard is no virtue in itself (view Inflexibility / straitjacket) and multiple standards is not a vice (flexibility)... Is this a lot of time and expense spent chasing the impossible.. should we focussing on how one can support easy implementation despite multiple variants...

This is an important and a welcome development. Given Digital wallets (and those offered by non-banks) are just another avenue for parking balances the  customer (depositor) needs a similar kind of protection to ensure they dont lose out.. This will also bring an element of regulation to the operations of these digital wallet providers  but will also raise their cost of funds at the minimum by insurance premia they would need to pay.

The trend seems to be to make authentication and access as invisible and as meshed in as possible .. confluence of mdecal realm and financial servcies ... the interconnectedness of everything

A very interesting analogy.. Hightime bankers look at their business through a cross-industry lens to see if there are better ways do run their business

I believe this is a great initiative and one that I feel will have good chance of success subject to ensuring that a passenger that gets on to the bus can actually complete the journey rather than be turned away just because the system is now cashless.

 However there are also other opportunities for TfL to take the lead and drive the move towards a "Cashless" society.  In this connection there are few points that TfL would need to consider

a. Oyster Reader does not work all the time..so what does Bus driver do? - provide free ride or take the bus off circulation?

Clearly there is a need for contingency in the bus for such situations and thus may have implications depending on "what the alternative is" and this may add to the overall cost of the proposition

b. Not enough balance on the Oyster card though the passenger has adequate money available with him either as Cash or other means to pay ?

Should the buses carry an Oyster Top-up capability or allow the Oyster card to be overdrawn to enable the user to complete the journey.

While today TfL benefits from unclaimed cash balances on Oyster cards that are not being used by customers, the question is will the facility to overdraw may change that?

c. Unlike what some of the others seem to think, I feel this move would be a blessing to the tourists subject to TfL

- Making it easier for the Tourists to purchase / Top-up an Oyster

- Making it easier for them to cash it back at airports, International train / port terminals and such so that they don't leave behind balances on the Oyster card

d. Can TfL take the leadership to drive the "Cashless" agenda by widening the usage of Oyster cards for other needs and services - Cafes / bars / entertainment venues etc.

- For domestic users this will mean an extension and thus easier adoption of this at other places where they traditionally use cash currently

- For the visitors, it means they can get a single instrument for most of their spending needs as tourist while visiting London - such as at Cafes / bars / entertainment venues. This will save them the hassle of managing notes and coins.

 e. Finally in keeping with the mobile and digital trend, does the Oyster card need to be a physical plastic card or can it be introduced on a Digital wallet.

With the number of users who are used to the "Contactless and Cashless" means of payments, TfL probably has more ability to influence the move towards a cashless society than the banks

May be TfL must start to think of themselves as cashless payment enablers servicing the micro-payment needs of the customers than as just a enabler for the passengers to pay for their daily journeys.