Community

Back in the day, Fintech Mafia used to threaten banks by saying Apple will get into financial services and make them extinct. That threat hasn't aged well! 

On a side note, the larger a company is, the more things you'd expect it to do inhouse. In fact, in emerging markets, the only way for a company to become large is to do more things inhouse even if they belong to diverse industries aka conglomerate.

But Apple defies this wisdom: Many parts of iPhone are bought outs; manufacturing of all its products is done by the Foxtrons of the world; Apple Card was from Goldman Sachs; AI is from OpenAI; now Apple Pay Later BNPL is from Affirm. 

Safe to say that the world's #1 (okay, #2 or #3 depending on how $AAPL does on the given trading day) is slowly turning into a design, branding cum sales company.

@Jeremy Light +1.

I was about to say the same thing! 

Sure why not. I've seen gas stations in Germany making changes to prices of petrol, diesel, etc. several times a day. At the time, they had to climb a ladder to change the prices manually. They probably have Digital / Electronic Shelf Label technology now.

OTOH, when you say "type an email", they ask "Why can't one converse with another person just by talking?" 

OTOrH, when you say "converse by talking", they say "This call could have been an email".

I wonder if there's anything "natural" about human behavior.

The #1 digital payments method in India, UPI, did around $2.2T in Total Payments Value (TPV) in 2023. Due to Reg ZeroMDR, banks who processed this TPV got zilch revenues. 

Citation required for your claim "The digital payments market in India is estimated to be valued at $3 trillion in 2022". 

@Anon 12 June, 10:43:

It's a fraud by payee on payor, ergo payor can seek legal redress to nail the payee and get their money back. 

But it's not a fraud by bank on payor, so there's no case for bank to reimburse the payor. ICYMI, UK Supreme Court has ruled accordingly in Philipp v. Barclays lawsuit.  

Meanwhile, enjoy your knowledge in this area.

@Anon 11 June, 18:43: 

Short Answer: Payor.

Long Answer: Cf. cited blog posts. 

If this compensation policy is voluntary, then my conspiracy theory that banks will delay payments to earn float income seems correct. 

AML is mostly against terrorist funding. There's no AML / Sanctions Screening Check in domestic payments, which comprise bulk of APP Scam cases.

Zillions of builders take money and run away, do you think they don't get to open bank accounts, or that their bank reimburses defrauded customers? Obviously no.There is no law against opening bank accounts to anyone with KYC documents, particularly if they don't have a sticker on their head announcing that they're fraudsters. 

APP FRAUD is an oxymoron. Fraud means Unauthorized Payment. Law already exists to reimburse victims of fraud. APP stands for AUTHORIZED Push Payments, ergo it's authorized, can't be fraud, must be called by a different name e.g. APP Scam.

Most of your other questions are already answered in my blog posts Why Is It So Hard To Catch Cybercriminals?, Fraud v Scam: Who Is Liable For Cybercrime, Why Don’t UPI / Zelle Provide Fraud Protection?, Three Strike Rule To Eliminate Cybercrime.

I'm glad that some banks like Revolut have already started implementing some form of my Three Strike Rule. 

Nice post.

Very few people realize that a typical 2FA credit card payment in India has 14 moving parts and the payment is successful only if all them work in concert. While the owner of each moving part might pat itself on the back for being up and running 95% of the time, the success rate of the end to end payment is only 0.95^^14 = 49%. In other words, a majority of payments would fail even if each hop has 95% success rate. 

Another thing many people - including many fintech founders - don't get is that the everyday transaction in other industries happen within a company's boundaries whereas even the smallest of payments traverses multiple companies, and that there's really no central system to orchestrate all of those systems.

Bingo! This totally resonates with my prediction that this populist PSR APP Scam Compensation regulation will get postponed, if not canceled, after UK elections. Change of PSR Chief is an unexpected windfall for banks.

Last I checked, alleged fraudsters - and even convicted criminals - can get bank accounts, so it makes no sense to hold the payee bank responsible for APP Scam.

Kudos to banks for pushing back against the rollout of this Drunk Under Lamp Post regulation.

LOL.

This is a carbon copy of the first version of PayPal, launched in ca. 1998, which let users "beam" money to each other by tapping their Palm PDAs.   

Exhibit Z: The more things change, the more they remain the same. (H/T Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr)