Community

No, I won't use GoldCoin. Because I'd be better off with BitCoin and gold.

As for transacting, BitCoin already enjoys greater ubiquity compared to "yet another virtual currency" like GoldCoin. That GoldCoin is backed by gold doesn't really matter to me. All I need from my currency is the power to transact i.e. of being exchanged for some desired product or service. BitCoin - and half a dozen other virtual currencies - are miles ahead of GoldCoin on that count.

As for storing wealth, I'd prefer gold itself. When a nation's legal tender can be declared illegal by half a dozen leaders overnight - rightly or wrongly is besides the point - I'd prefer to hold my wealth in a form whose value can't be decided on the whim of a few people but is widely acknowledged by a vast majority of people. I'd certainly not want to hold it in yet another virtual currency like GoldCoin that can vanish in seconds because of a bug in some software.

If different fraud detection systems at different banks can cause the observed difference in "hackability between the two cards, then, IMHO (a) it's a bit irresponsible to tag the hackability difference by V / MC; and (b) a bit naive to select two such banks in the first place for conducting this test.

If anyone from the testing team needs any tips on finding a single bank that offers both V and MC cards and manages both of them on the same card management and fraud detection systems, they can feel free to contact me.

Why is this study silent on the time taken to crack the cardholder name? I don't know too many websites that allow an online card payment to go thru' without that piece of info.

People say UBER is the world's largest taxi company and it doesn't own a single cab. But UBER says it's not a taxi company but a tech company. Remains to be seen how many fintechs want to get a license to become a bank when they can enjoy much higher valuations as a tech company.

Nice post. At least the part that I could understand! From which I wish I could "unprofessionalize" myself and become a "professional amateur". The professional looks at the consequences of bursting of the bubble and stays away. The amateur can't predict the end of the bubble and jumps in headlong, mostly with disastrous consequences. It's only the rare "professional amateur" who makes fortunes from growing bubbles by knowing exactly when to get in and when to get out. 

Maybe STRIPE's vision on 3DS has deeply impressed its investors?

"At Stripe we've so far opted not to support 3D Secure since we believe the costs outweigh the benefits." More at https://support.stripe.com/questions/does-stripe-support-3d-secure-verified-by-visa-mastercard-securecode.

I totally agree with the sentiments expressed by the cross-industry letter. After years of mandating strong authentication, the Indian regulator seems to have realized that the friction posed by 2FA is a bigger conversion killer than any comfort feeling delivered by greater security. As a result, it has prioritized convenience over security by waiving the 2FA mandate in its recently-published specs for Recurring Payments. It has also allowed instore / card present transactions below INR 1000 to happen without PIN. I'm sure these measures will boost digital payments in India - even without counting the boost given by the recent #CurrencySwitch measure. Against this backdrop, I can't help feeling that EBA is going back in time.

I thought Visa recently told Europe to be ready for strong authentication via 3DS (Source). Now it's protesting strong authentication proposed by EBA. Maybe it's only me but there seems to be a contradiction.

Yes, there's an alternative to a mobile digital engagement strategy and it's called human being. More in the highlighted passage of my blog post titled "Secret of Survival of Bank Branches": http://qwt.io/s_ketharaman/ZWMp

IMO, engagement is not hoping that "By providing users with the ability to check their balance through their mobile", they'd "apply for loans and finance through their mobiles too." - it's making it happen. And, when it comes to making things happen, human beings can't be beat, at least not with the current state-of-the-art of digital technologies. As HBR says, "... financial services firms find that a human being is often the best channel for delivering offers."

I agree with @AFinextraMember that this specific instance is a "ridiculous gimmick". So are the plethora of mobile wallets in the market. The medical store in my building has been accepting plastic card payments for over a year. He then added PayTM, India's most popular mobile wallet, around six months ago. Then came mVisa via PayZapp around three months ago. Since the announcement of #CurrencySwitch on 8 Nov 2016, he has added support for 4 more mobile wallets in just one week. His storefront is now festooned with stickers for 7 brands of mobile wallets now. It's become very confusing to the average consumer.

But I sometimes wonder if this is just a sign of living in the "frontier" era for mobile wallet technology. Would love to hear from Finextra members if they saw a such a vast array of plastic cards in the early days of plastic cards, from which just a couple of brands - V/MC/AmEx - emerged as the survivors. Is there any reason why the same won't happen with mobile wallets and contactless payment products that seem to be gimmicks today?