Community

Nice post. Domain Name is certainly a very important component of a company's branding. 

On a side note, if Crypto.com was sold, as you believe, for $10 million, it's certainly not the most expensive name, which distinction must go to Insurance.com @ $35.6M. According to this article, at least 9 domain names fetched more than $10 million. 

Nice post, especially since I've been writing about Open Banking myself: Open Banking Needs A Blockchain Boost. 

I was shocked to read this passage in your post: "Is the financial benefit worth the risk of handing over your log-in details? People seem content to do so thus far."

MINT and other PFMs have been enabling budgeting and other functionality in return for access to Internet Banking credentials for over 10 years. Open Banking was supposed to eliminate the need for handing over wholesale login details and instead work on the basis of need-to-know info accessed via API-based architecture.  

Any idea why SafetyNet Credit is asking for login details? With such an operating model, how is it even compliant with Open Banking / PSD2?

We'll have to agree to disagree: (1) A bank selling soap is not pushing the next frontier of innovation but recipe for disaster (2) Even assuming a bank should be in the business of selling soap, as a bank, I'd tend to believe that a soap manufacturer will do a better job at selling soap than me, thus handing off a prospect to the soap real estate will only enhance the chances of conversion and, thus, my probability of earning commission.

While on this subject, a few years ago, the ludicrous punditry was exhorting banks to rethink of themselves as being in the "financial wellbeing" business or get killed by PFMs / MoMMAs for whom that was the raison d'être. Most banks spurned that advice - and rightly so. Today, many of those same PFMs / MoMMAs have died or have given up on their original mission and have pivoted to becoming technology suppliers to banks whereas banks stuck to their knitting and have remained the largest and most profitable industry in FORTUNE 500. 

Bank is a Manufacturer cum Distributor cum Retailer. All leading examples of platforms that I know of are set up by Retailers who are not Manufacturers of the products that are sold on their platforms. Just as P&G doesn't have a detergent platform or American Airlines doen't have an air ticket platform, why should a Bank have a platform for checking account or loans or whatever financial products? What's wrong in their current "Affiliate Marketing" model where they let people who come to their websites click a link and end up on the real estate of a Manufacturer / Retailer of a non-competing product and earn a commission in the process? 

At last count, some 2000 banks in USA use Cardlytics and other solutions to make targeted offers based on customer transaction data to customers who have opted-in to receive them. AFAIK, no bank or fintech has been challenged or penalized for doing this. Probably because there's no contradiction between Trust and Monetization. 

@Alexander Peschkoff:

I don't think it's a question of QR or Visa. From @Anna Kuzmina's reply to my question above, I understand that Alipay / WeChat Pay (i.e. QR) can and do use a credit / debit card as funding source and that card can be Visa.

Whenever I say valuation lies in the wallet of the investor, most people look askance. Good to know someone else shares that same belief! 

@Alexander Peschkoff: 

AFAIK, CUP is the world's largest credit card network (14 bn cards). According to a comment I read on another post (that I can't locate readily), V & MC have supposedly vacated the China market.

@Victor Van Rij:

Since APP is a PUSH type of A2A payment, it means Payor has the prior itch to make the said payment to the said Beneficiary and that, unlike a PULL payment, Bank has no role in creating or conveying the said itch. PUSH further means that Payor logs into their Internet / Mobile Banking account of their own free will and volition and, unlike PULL, according to their own schedule to "scratch their itch". Under this circumstance, there's absolutely no culpability of the bank if Payor ends up being defrauded by the Beneficiary. 

What you seem to be suggesting looks like plain, simple hacking of the bank's system. AFAIK, that does not come under the purview of APP Fraud.     

PS: Once again, it's "Ketharaman":(

Why not move everything off-chain and avoid all problems altogether? Off-chain means centralized and is totally repugnant to the context of Blockchain's founding principle of decentralization.