Community

I'm guessing members of the public normally don't do sanctions screening / AML checks, so why should the ECJ verdict blocking access to public come in the way of AML carried out by banks, who are "interested parties" and shouldn't lose their former access to UBOs as a result of this ruling? In other words, why have the UBOs gone offline for everybody?

Private companies accept the inability to raise public funding probably because they want to be private, so providing access to their BO details to all and sundry infringed upon their "privacy". This verdict corrects that lacuna. Kudos to ECJ. 

"missing out on the opportunity to service these users". "losing out on potential market share and revenue".

Translation: Company is failing in its fiduciary duty to MSV.

In short, TulipShare has converted consumer activism into shareholder activism. 

A company can easily rebuff Consumer Activism by saying it's a private sector company and is under no obligation to uphold First Amendment freedom of speech and can jolly well provide services to who it wants to and deny it to who it does not want to. 

But, going by the case of, say, Engine No. 1 v. Exxon-Mobil, it's not so easy for a company to rebuff Shareholder Activism.

Novel strategy. I give it a fair chance of working where decades of complaints by blocked PayPal mechants have failed.

Further proof that (a) there's a tradeoff between convenience / frictionless UX and security / fraud potential (b) transparency is actually a way to shift liability.

While it's not very populist, my Three Strike Rule is the best way to eliminate APP Fraud and other forms of cybercrimes, even if I say so myself!

Kudos to UK Fintech. In a year when public market fintech valuations plunged by ~75% (e.g. Coinbase), a mere drop of 8% in funding is an awesome achievement. 

Also the part about UK receiving more investment than the next 10 European countries put together suggests that my post Upside Of Brexit For IT Industry has aged well.

If only they'd implemented my Three Strike Rule To Eliminate Cybercrime, they could saved a lot of money!

I totally agree with Anon Finextra Member that a near-guaranteed refund regime creates huge moral hazard, not to mention the heightened risk of first party fraud and cases of customers paying supplier invoices, crying APP Fraud and pulling their money back. 

TY @JohnBertrand.

Actually, after BREXIT, is GDPR applicable in UK?

India's UPI is the world's largest A2A RTP by volume. Since its launch in 2017 until the end of 2019, UPI had MDR of 0.8% (IIRC). From 1 Jan 2020, MDR was "brought to zero" by Reg ZeroMDR. The mandate is applicable for P2P and P2M UPI payments. Neither merchant nor payor / payee pay anything for UPI payments.

Leading UPI PSPs are Walmart PhonePe, Google Pay, PayTM, et al. Probably because of lack of PLBS, banks have virtually ceded the UPI frontend app space (although not the backend UPI rail, which is owned by NPCI, a consortium of banks.)

Aforementioned PSPs are reportedly making decent revenues via targeted offers, consumer lending, merchant lending, and other activities that are enabled / enhanced via core payments data. However, they're reportedly making whopping losses.

The jury's out on the sustainability of data-based business models for PSPs, at least in India. GDPR might pose even more challenges for such a model in EU.

Top 6 Banks in USA made a trillion - repeat, trillion - dollars in profits - yes profits, not revenues - in the last decade. That's the same period when fintech was supposed to disrupt dinosaur banks(Source).

Fintechs probably didn't even get a trillion pageviews of their websites or installs of their apps, let alone revenue or profits, during this period.

IMO banks have no reason to want to do anything substantially differently from what they've been doing or take any lessons from fintechs.

When I last read about "IoT for Banking" seven years ago, I felt that every article on the topic seemed convoluted.

That changed after reading your article. Kudos for giving a list of sensible use cases of IoT in Banking.

Let me list a few more use cases that could be relevant in this context:

1. 10+ years ago, I was walking in Canary Wharf. I suddenly received a ping on my (feature) phone via Bluetooth from a bank whose global HQ I'd just crossed. It was for a new savings product with attractive APY.

2. A bank in India RFID-tagged debit cards of a certain tier of customers. Everytime one of those customers walked into the branch, the RM would get a ping and walked out to greet the customer.

But most of these use cases seem to be pilots. I don't know any BFSI company that has done a national / global rollout.

OTOH, I know one insurance company that pulled the plug on its IoT pilot. Per your use case, it used telematics to gather driving data and use that to compute renewal premium. A friend's reckless driving habits led to higher auto insurance premium during renewal. He simply switched to another insurer and got a lower premium! Over time, the risk with this use case is that the reckless drivers churn out and the insurer is left with safe drivers, who lower the company's revenues because they inevitably need to be given discounts on premium.

Given that WhatsApp repeatedly assures that only the sender and the receiver can read a message, any idea how third parties can read and archive WhatsApp messages?