Remix.run Logo
▲ smath 4 hours ago

Can anyone knowledgeable explain (or point to a good reference) why the US doesn't have a real time payment system, say something like UPI in India?

▲smallmancontrov 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Mostly the curse of the first mover, with a dash of corruption for spice.

Part of it is "the curse of good enough": the US has had good credit-card style infrastructure for over a century and digital infrastructure since the POTS days. Part of it is that we lost our appetite for anti-trust in the 80s. Part of it is that the price structure of this infrastructure has wormed its way into everything in a way that is difficult to undo without causing high-visibility inconvenience for low-visibility benefit. The good-enough is the enemy of the good.

▲skrause 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think it's mainly because they aren't forced by regulation.

Germany is another first mover with decades old banking systems and standards. German banks also dragged their feet supporting SEPA Instant or they added additional fees so that barely anybody wanted to use it.

Then the EU stepped in with regulation: If you support classic SEPA transactions, you also have to support SEPA Instant for the same price (which is almost always free for retail banking accounts). And suddenly banks did.

▲smallmancontrov 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, this could be fixed with regulation -- but whoever did the regulation would have to contend with angry fools complaining about how "the government took away my credit card rewards!!!" for years and of course the credit card companies themselves would stir and amplify those voices as much as possible.

▲fn-mote 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the price structure of this infrastructure has wormed its way into everything in a way that is difficult to undo without causing high-visibility inconvenience for low-visibility benefit

I think the “recent” change allowing merchants to pass along the credit card fees is a step in the right direction.

I think a lot of people would still choose fraud protection for the extra costs, though.

▲alphazard 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Payment processors and banks lobby for control over this. As usual, a service/product is bad because no one is allowed to create a better alternative, this is an almost universal rule. Specific to this case: the government is included in the list of parties not allowed to make it better.

▲brunoborges 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the government is included in the list of parties not allowed to make it better.

The government is the only one capable of changing the rules to be included in the list of allowed parties to make it better.

▲shimman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you mean in Canada or is this also the case in the US?

▲Aspos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Mostly deficiencies of the political system: regulators see themselves, call themselves and act like "watchdogs", whereas in other countries financial regulators act like shepherds and lead the market. Hence in this country relatively minor players with interests not exactly aligned with the general public can hijack the process. That's what we are witnessing.

▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲kolanos 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not real time, but ACH is being forcibly sped up by regulators. [0]

> All U.S. financial institutions (Receiving Depository Financial Institutions or RDFIs) must participate and accept Same Day ACH credit transactions.

> However, sending (originating) Same Day ACH payments is optional for banks and credit unions.

[0]: https://www.nebankmn.com/assets/files/aijt34yD

▲Scaled 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's great, but $1 per transaction makes same day ACH tough for small transactions

▲bernardom 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

$1 is not market.

I've signed up for or seen the contracts for several payment processors across several companies. Rack rate for ACH debit starts at $0.25/trx and goes down to sub-penny at scale. Returns can be high though ($2 per, going down as well).

Edited to add: that's not a defense, I *loathe* ACH. It's a negative-reporting system which is such a pain to deal with.

▲e63f67dd-065b 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

My understanding is that sameday ACH does not cost extra (from a network perspective) than regular ACH, it's just that some shitty banks apparently like to charge extra for it.

▲mwwaters an hour ago | parent [-]

Outside the AI summaries, I couldn’t easily find the sources. But a couple of different sources say same-day ACH is 5.2 cents per outgoing item while overnight is 0.35 cents.

What I can say is the Fed has draconian rules for pricing its services. The services cannot be subsidized but must be priced to recover costs, including a return on capital similar to what a private payment system (ie from the Clearinghouse) would expect.

▲iAMkenough 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think it’s the general desire for a “smaller” Federal government that instead relies on private sector solutions.

For other examples, look at adoption of login.gov vs id.me, and tax filing software solutions.

▲ethbr1 an hour ago | parent [-]

Ah, login.gov, that perfectly reasonable thing that USDS and 18F built, before Elon Musk and his DOGE minions de-staffed both departments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18F#Mass_firings_and_eliminati... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Digital_Service#...

Because why would Musk possibly be interested in saving money and making the government run more efficiently?

What an egotistical ass hat.

▲j16sdiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In most part of the world, the government just force the bank to join the payment system and restrict how they charge the customer.

In the USA, no single regulator have that power. Basically only congress can do something like this. The us Congress ain't famous for being fast, you know.

▲upboundspiral 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Fed prints a fraction of a fraction of the actual money in circulation. Private banks in practice control the money supply. As such, they want to maintain their monopoly.

The countries that have innovated the most in regards to automated payments are the ones trying to escape US influence: look at PIX in Brazil, BRICS pay, etc...

In America, the payment system is an oligarchy, they protect their own (the bankers), what need is there for innovation when they are making a killing out of the current inefficiency?

The one place where the US haven't been slow is in stablecoins, making them dollar donominated, to ensure the monopoly the US dollar has on international trade stays strong. That way, when the US has a crisis, they take down the rest of the world too, to the joy of non-US countries.

▲ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
▲yieldcrv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It does. Outdated information RTP is what its called

▲jameson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lobbying?

▲richwater 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Our federal representatives are mostly incompetent and technologically illiterate. When a large project does materialize, the funding is wasted on contractors who actively scam the government.