| |
| ▲ | icantevenhold 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Something like Pix is a great blueprint for the future imo. I don’t want international private companies controlling payments, better have my own elected government manage it. | | |
| ▲ | catlikesshrimp 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It goes both ways: What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. A balance where they can all exist is the best, and most difficult decision. | | |
| ▲ | senorrib an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Currency is already managed by the elected government, and every democracy in the world traces electronic transactions. Some (like Italy) forbid cash payments in large sums altogether. So what's the boogieman here? | | |
| ▲ | b112 an hour ago | parent [-] | | The boogyman is just what you described, and every democracy in the world absolutely does not trace electronic transactions. Some have a more hands off approach, including size of transactions and flagged behaviour as indicators of when payment processors must report to the government. The Goverment should absolutely have no idea who spends what, where. Warrants and court orders, check values should be required before anyone can know. The potential to suppress political opponents, to squelch legitimate protest, to interfere with elections, is too dangerous. Simply because some countries, like the US after 9/11, decided to give up this aspect of a free people, does not make it right. |
| |
| ▲ | cyberax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The government can already order VISA to not accept your payment and/or just make it too cost-prohibitive. Without any real recourse from your side. Direct government services typically have a universal mandate. The government won't be able to stop doing business with you. | |
| ▲ | diego_moita 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What if the ONLY payment method was the one approved by your "elected" government. Yeah, what if? You didn't provide any argument, didn't point to any real problem. You just hinted at a "terrible bad thing". Would we have monsters under our beds or bad guys in corners to ambush us? This sounds like VISA/Mastercad/Apple Pay playing FUD[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt | | |
| ▲ | Ajedi32 an hour ago | parent [-] | | You realize you're arguing for a monopoly, right? One where competition is not only non-existent but also illegal, and which has complete control over how you're allowed to spend your money. I think arguing "but it's a democratic monopoly" is little comfort in this situation. Maybe you trust your government not to ever be incompetent or to use the powers granted by this monopoly in a way you disapprove of. Maybe in the short term you'd even be right to do so. But I think history has proven that over the long term that's a very foolish assumption to make. | | |
| ▲ | dbetteridge 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is completely irrelevant because as the government of the country they have the power to make laws, now and in the future which compel private entities to perform actions like AML (anti money laundering) and KYC (know your customers). The end result is private entities taking money out of the system at some stage, and it doesn't shield you in any way from government incompetence or malice. | |
| ▲ | TitaRusell an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In my country they have to make laws to FORCE shops and restaurants to accept cash. Because it is a damn hassle. | |
| ▲ | moate an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You go far enough on fiscal tracking and you just wind up back where we've always been: barter. All currency is as useful as the regime backing it, and when that regime falls, barter always comes back in. Everything else is just rent seeking scaffolding to reduce barter friction (cash let's me store all the value I've created, but so could gold bars, or bitcoin, or vodka). This is to say: All currency is about control and convenience (you trade "invisible transaction" for "easily able to resolve payment") because those in power want to know/control the money and everyone else wants convenience. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | diego_moita 39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > You realize you're arguing for a monopoly, right? Right! Like all the other monopolies that governments already have: public security (police and courts of law), external security (armed forces), public healthcare in many civilized countries, inspection of health regulations and consumer safety, monetary policy, etc. > you trust your government not to ever be incompetent Oh, I don't. But Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Google Pay aren't very "competent" either. > history has proven that over the long term History has proven that privatization of many of government monopolies are disastrous: Roman generals making private armies and destroying the Republic, abuse of forced labor from inmates in private prisons, exorbitant fees from payment providers (Visa, Mastercard), food dangerous for public consumption because the governments didn't inspect them, etc. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bix6 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Payment rails are a natural monopoly so yeah I’m good with the gov owning it and as the article says, everyone is free to compete with the services they offer. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I encourage you to loudly champion such a model in your nation state to whomever is in power and will listen. |
| |
| ▲ | missedthecue 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The interesting thing is that Visa's payment rails are cheaper than Pix. Pix charges businesses 0.22% to 0.33% while the Visa network rate is only 0.10% to 0.15% per transaction. The main thing that makes card transactions more expensive is the merchant bank assuming chargeback risk, but that's because card payments are an entirely different transaction type. Pix is digital cash. You typically cannot get refunded for any reason. Cards are not digital cash. You can get refunded for fraud and unauthorized transactions. | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Visa debit, maybe, but they're way higher for Visa credit. | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The interesting thing is that Visa's payment rails are cheaper than Pix. Pix charges businesses 0.22% to 0.33% while the Visa network rate is only 0.10% to 0.15% per transaction. This is not factually accurate. Pix also has fraud controls built into the platform, and does fine doing far more volume than credit card rails in Brazil. It is an objective success, having avoided US financial service firms from skimming hundreds of basis points of total economic activity out of the Brazilian economy. Brazil's Pix payment system faces pressure from Visa and Mastercard - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48052371 - May 2026 (383 comments) Brazil's Pix ‘much cheaper' than card payments, paper by central bank economists shows - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/brazils-pix-much-ch... - March 23rd, 2022 ("Brazil’s Pix retail instant payment system is “much cheaper” than card payments for merchants, according to a paper published Wednesday by the umbrella body of the world’s central banks, highlighting its growth potential for businesses after its vertiginous rise among individuals. The paper, which was co-authored by economists at the Brazilian central bank for the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), says Pix costs an average of 0.22% of a transaction’s value for merchants, whereas debit cards cost slightly above 1% and credit cards reach 2.2% in Brazil.") Payment technology complementarities and their
consequences on the banking sector: evidence from
Brazil’s Pix - https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap152_c.pdf - December 2024 > In this paper, we employ an instrument and individual-level banking data in Brazil to
examine the effects of a novel payment technology, Pix, on the use of other payment
technologies and its impact on the banking sector. We find evidence that Pix increases
use of the four most common payment technologies in Brazil among individuals and
firms. Furthermore, our empirical evidence suggests that Pix contributes to an
increase in the number of bank accounts, their use and access to credit, benefiting
different types of banks. The findings indicate that the implementation of new
payment technologies yields advantages not only for firms and individuals but also
for the broader banking and payment industry. |
|
|
