Community

Great idea....Looking forward to following these guys

Settlement finality and payment irrovocability can be a pain. 

There are so many patent trolls, its a disgrace.

However, how many times do we see big corporations and banks steal IP from others, abusing NDAs or just ignoring patents? i have even seen financial institutions decide to register their own trademarks post companies being trading for months on end, just to try and squash them or avoid paying some form of license fee. 

So in many ways, what goes around...

When I first read the headline I thought this might be something new. It initially looked to be a good idea. However, it doesn’t feel like an innovation hackathon.

The issues of X-border transactions are not new, it’s something that FinTech has been looking to solve for many years now. And they have. We have solutions out there that work, they just don’t run over SWIFT. Solutions such as Transferwise have shown what sort of customer experiences actual customers expect, and they have grabbed a lot of traction and business away from the banks (and by extension SWIFT). Then we have Ripple, who are solving these issues in a very different way, though granted it may not be the desired solution of banks or central banks for obvious reasons, however they do provide a solution to x-border transactions (better than the current offerings from banks and SWIFT). We now have in the marketplace RTGS.global, which has spoken at length about solving these problems, and they are already ISO 20022 based, already enable instant transparent payments (which renders tracking legacy),  can be used by banks and no doubt is a considerably cheaper more modern architecture. They would also be nuts not to have on their roadmap value add services such as identity, screening, AML etc.

So is this really a case of innovation, or a case of SWIFT trying to copy and cobble ideas together to help keep relevant? This feels more like a fishing exercise to inspire the hundreds of engineers SWIFT seem to be trying to onboard...

Obviously i am a big API first fan. I believe in APIs and their ability to bring systems together, however, i don't believe we are using them in the correct ways with PSD2 or the UKs slightly broader adoption of Open Banking.

We cannot expect thousands of companies to alter their systems to leverage banking APIs, even if they are starting to lower the number of APIs used via gateways or aggregators (TSPs). The issue is that the build cost, the cost of maintaining that API connectivity and service, maitnenance, patching, re-engineering to move forward with the standards or underlying tech just don't make economic sense. The value of the PSD2 API is that is must run through us as the individual customers, we are the glue that bring together companies with our own banking data and accounts. Only when we recognise that, do we see far simpler APIs, only then do we see customer first business models and only then do we see mass adoption as the entire ecosystem can expand rapidly at minimal cost.....

It is a highly competitive space, and highly challenging. We will no doubt have lots of questions of where that £50m should be re-deployed...

It's just yet another example of how handling personal identifiable data is a liability for companies - and really, the FCA shouldnt have needed this sort of data to be stored. 

Maybe the FCA will use this to drive discussions regarding digital identity and an entirely new model of how personal identifiable data is shared? It's needed, more so now than ever before with GDPR, but also Open Banking and the levels of push fraud...

This is a step in the right direction, but is missing some key fundamental areas which make it hard therefore for wider adoption. These solutions will get there however...

The issue is not "is this type of solution right", the issue is moving banks and large tech companies away from them trying to own our personal data. They see themselves as the custodian of our data and have shown they cannot be trusted as that. We need new players, new technology and probably regulators to step in to enforce banks and large tech to comply. GDPR has helped, but we need more as individuals and as businesses...

I've always seen the team at Dwolla as highly innovative. The problems they have faced really are the same problems I faced pre-ClearBank, that being the underlying banking infrastructure simply isnt where it needs to be. Sometimes you are simply too early to the market - but I believe the Dwolla initial model has a place in the world post real-time being introduced into the US....

I think this is a sad news story.

I don't agree that the reason is Brexit, though it probably does play a part. If you havent got the numbers you hoped, and you now fear you cannot simply passport your license in (you feel you need to go through the FCA and PRA to get a license to remain a DP of FPS for example) then you will have increased operational costs. So it will play a factor in working out viability within the jurisdiction...

The sad part is that they did have happy customers, that people who bought into N26 have to look elsewhere. I also feel for those staff who have worked so hard on the proposition and the capabilities here in the UK, many of which may now be looking for new employment..... All in all, not a happy story....

I would say though, that i think challengers have to look at their operational models. Being a direct participant in FPS etc is exepensive, in terms of IT infrastructure, IT support but also operational models and collaterlisation. I think many will have to revist their need for licenses and how they want to work. Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) capabilities are starting to change this landscape, which would make it easier for challengers to get their propositions to market and drastically reduce their operational costs, capital and liquidity requirements..... N26 may prove to be a use case for such providers....

I wish them well