Community

Great points and good to see Barclays taking this initiative.

As a start, they and the other UK banks should publish the names of the tech companies where scams originate with statistics they have on their number and nature. It will raise awareness with the public and encourage the tech companies to take action.

Pix is a shining example of how instant account-to-account payments have a far superior and up-to-date product/market fit than cards - same goes for UPI in India. Both were implemented in relatively short time frames and gained huge traction immediately.

However, cards are far more profitable for banks which is why in countries such as the UK, Australia, USA, Canada and the Nordics initiatives to implement or upgrade real-time a2a payment systems are delayed continuosly or slow to get traction. Behind the scenes foot-dragging seems to be the order of the day in these countries which is a shame and a huge detriment to their economies and consumers.

yet another review of the future of UK payments... and what does 'looking at mobile payments' mean (as if they are some sort of new phenomenon)?

I suggest there should be less 'looking' and 'reviewing' and more doing - innovation waits for no-one, especially in these days of fast technology adoption. 

The fact that there is even a discussion about an artificial limit for holding a retail CBDC indicates a deep flaw in the thinking and design behind it. Its intended purpose is for use by tens of millions of people, how can it be that a handful of officials know how the population will use it and can determine how to limit its use? How would we even know when we are using a CBDC or a bank deposit? They are both digital.

Central banks should concentrate on providing wholesale CBDCs that the private sector can collateralise to provide innovative solutions whose success will be decided by the market. 

It is clear that the BIS is the driving force behind the proliferation of CBDC projects at central banks around the world. The BIS intention is clear, as stated in a speech by the general manager two years ago:

"A key difference with a CBDC (to cash) is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that determine the use of that expression of central bank liability. And also, we will have the technology to enforce that."

It is unclear how this fits in with the BIS mission to 'support central banks' pursuit of monetary and financial stability through international cooperation, and to act as a bank for central banks.'

With CBDCs central banks are straying outside settlement of wholesale payments and into retail payments where they have no expertise and no remit (generally) to operate.

The risks are mounting that CBDCs will become a fait-accomplit without the consent in national populaces, or even awareness, for their money usage to be subject to rules and regulations under the the 'absolute control' of unelected, obscure entities such as the BIS and the central banks it influences.

Projects such as Rosalind are no doubt well-intentioned by those running them but there are some big risks and issues - surveillance, privacy, freedom to name a few that need to be addressed and resolved before central banks are allowed to issue CBDCs or even continue these projects (justified as 'responsible innovation' a somewhat uneasy phrase used by the BIS).

Rosalind is a likeable but manipulative scheming Shakespeare character (As you Like It). What comes next - Project Ganymede (something in disguise such as carbon credits) then Project Orlando (a marriage such as CBDC plus digital id)?

The risks are very high.

Another centralised real-time payment system facing ongoing delays to add to the list. The technology and its implementation are proven, but the challenge is these type of systems are prone to go at the pace of the slowest participant; and there are many vested-interest reasons why a participant may want to delay - industry politics, internal priorities, internal capacity to change, lucrative legacy business models under threat, liquidity management, competition etc.

This is possibly the cause in Canada, maybe there are other reasons, but Pix in Brazil has shown what can be achieved when all participants pull together with strong direction (from the central bank in this case) and an absence of much legacy technology and business processes to change/protect.

Open Banking payments are on a roll - my back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest monthly OB payments will be close to 10m in May and likely to be well clear of 10m in July, reaching 14m or more in December this year.

It is a good analogy to compare the growth in OB payments with contactless, but it is a myth that UK contactless was driven by TFL in London - rather, contactless had been growing strongly for several years prompting TFL to join in with millions of contactless debit and credit cards already in circulation. See my Finextra video at the 2013 EBA Day where I observed this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnqcG5mitnc (start at 2:30).

Network effects are the key growth driver in successful payment systems - more uses for the system draw in more users causing more uses to be made available.

It looks like OB payments network effects are becoming established, setting them on a course for mass UK adoption (> 1bn annual payments) over the next 2 - 3 years.

cash is the only truly inclusive financial instrument. A cashless society and financial inclusion are a contradiction. Anything that requires owning a device or registering credentials creates an immediate barrier and a vector for financial exclusion.

Digital payments are great but it is best to avoid any policies that promote or discourage cash and let the market i.e.society decide.

'AI tools will be classified according to their perceived risk level' - who makes this judgement, what qualifications are needed to make it?

I doubt regulatiors have the experience or skill to do regulate AI, simply because I doubt anyone can to do so effectively.

In reality, the best regulator is the free market - get AI to learn from the free market and who knows, maybe regulators will become superfluous.  

2 days a week in the office is absurd - if employees are unwilling to work 5 days a week in the office they are clearly uncommitted to thier employer and colleagues. Flexibility is obviously important and desirable, but the default should be 5 days in the office with flexibility to work from home when that flexibility is needed.