Community

'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.

This is policy trumping free markets.

CBDCs such as the digital Euro are as much a new payment system as they are a new form of money.

There are two approaches to introducing a new payment system - by dictat or by free markets.

If a CBDC is introduced by dictat, it is hardly a 'public good', more an imposition. Especially with the statement a digital euro makes 'European payments more resilient, enhancing competition and reducing costs'. This sounds great and pro-free markets but it is just propaganda without real evidence of market demand and market-driven problem solving and solutions.

The reality is introducing new payment systems for ubiquitous use is hard, very hard. Policy is unlikely to get it right by imposition. 

Instead, policy should be an enabler for the free markets - create a CBDC by all means, preferably wholesale so it can be used as a new form of settlement collateral instead of reserves, but allow private enterprise to innovate with it, sinking or swimming on their ability to meet the market needs. Otherwise, policy will just sink.

This highlights the big risk of 'grands projets' in payments - if they take too long to implement they become superseded, the market moves on and competition comes up with alternatives

With neither the UK's New Payment Architecture (in planning since 2015) or the Bank of England's new RTGS (started in 2017) implemented yet, there must be a risk of a similar situation in the UK, exacerbated by HM Treasury moves to implement a CBDC at an equally slow pace. 

However, in fact, it is also a great opportunity for competitive solutions with a strong product-market fit to step in to meet the needs of today's digital economy. 

meanwhile the UK closes down its mobile payments system Paym due to lack of interest (from the baking industry)...

Politicians push for digital ID as it opens the door to absolute surveillance and control of the population. It is a vehicle for exclusion (for people governments dislike/fear) and intrusion instead of inclusion. A honeypot of data open to hacking and misuse.

The fact that these two are advocating digital id is a sure sign it is bad idea. Their concern that when "the industrial revolution happened politics took decades to catch up with it." illustrates their hubris.

A more interesting metric from the OBIE is 8.45m successful OB payments in Jan 23. This is 121% higher than Jan 22, while the total for the year in 2022 (68m payments) is 171% higher than 2021 (25m payments). OB payments are demonstrating a sustained trajectory at a growth rate suggesting a billion or more OB payments in 2025. At this point, if other payment innovations are a guide such as contactless cards, the U.K. FS industry will take notice, with many saying “we failed to see that coming”. In contrast, the PISPs already driving and riding this growth will be sitting pretty.

Google "UK money laundering convictions" or "UK credit card fraud convictions" and results come up with cases of convicted criminals. Do the same for "UK authorised push payment fraud convictions" and there are none - it's very strange, especially since APP fraud is bigger than credit card fraud.

Generally, there is a dearth of information and data on APP fraud - who is committing it, where they are from, which UK banks they target to take over accounts or open accounts, the conviction rates and so on.

All the focus is on reimbursing victims - why the silence on the fraudsters, measures to convict them and actions to prevent them?

A great initiative but its scope should also include ethical change in government behaviour. Payment companies are boxed in by governments in two ways: 1. Direct pressure - for example the Canadian govt ordered bank accounts to be frozen last year of peaceful protesters and anyone donating to them. Given the revelations coming out of Twitter of egregious interference by govt agencies in social media it is quite possible (likely) they are applying similar pressure to payment processors 2.Regulatory complexity - it can be easier for payment processors to close accounts and ban user types than deal with the regulatory cost and time overhead. Payment processors also have to consider reputation risks in dealing with certain customer types and the threat of having licences removed. Therefore it is quite understandable, although very concerning, that payment processors have biased practices. ‘Financial inclusion’ has become a mantra for FS and Fintech but the reality is the actions of governments and regulators can drive financial exclusion in digital financial services as described above. In a free society governments are accountable to society but increasingly governments are using technology to reverse this and become authoritarian, as is seen in payments. This is why CBDCs are so problematic without the correct design. Society needs to be vigilant and hold governments to account to act ethically as digital financial services develop. We need an app for that too.

Yawn - if you demonize crypto for electricity consumption how about demonizing electric cars as well and electric trains and lightbulbs and mobiles and and. Shilling one cryptocurrency at the expense of others using electricity as a bogeyman reflects how vacuous much of the crypto industry has become. It also misunderstands and misrepresents the role of energy in true digital assets.