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.
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.
I don't want corporations controlling payments, but I don't want my government controlling payments either.
What I actually wanted was for the cryptocurrency dream to become reality, but it turned into stocks instead.
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.
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?
Currency is a barriers bond that affords a degree of decentralisation-in-operation and use that isn't afforded by digital payments, even crypto for practical purposes.
bearers* bond. Too late to edit.
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.
AFAIK, in India, payments more than Rs. 50k is tracked.
In anycase, the governments have the capability, what remains is just the intend. And we see how intends could change at the whim of a leader.
They do trace and log them, though.
They do not. They have to get a warrant to get such logs from a bank.
The Italian government has no power over foreign cards, and will be careful to not hinder those transactions lest they want to lose their tourism income.
Yes, and this is a bad thing, and free societies are impossible without the possibility of payments that the government doesn’t want you to be able to make.
Cryptocurrency solves that problem well, which is why governments have moved hard to effectively nerf it everywhere.
> the possibility of payments that the government doesn’t want you to be able to make
The idea that visa and mastercard provide these ...
Visa and Mastercard don't, but right now cash more or less does. If the state has a monopoly on digital payments, and can thus mass surveil all digital payments without any scrutiny, the state has a huge incentive to disincentivize or bar the use of cash. Then all it takes is a bad actor to come into power and abuse the system.
I'd have a very hard time spending other currencies than CAD to pay my bills.
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.
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.
> 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
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.
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.
Suppose you have an actually decentralized payment system, like cash, or any digital system that preserves the same properties whether or not it involves a blockchain.
An example of one that doesn't would be a global decentralized protocol for transferring money. You're standing in a coffee shop in LA and want to pay for a coffee so you tell your bank to transfer $5 to their bank. It works the same if your bank is in Brazil and their bank is in Switzerland as if both banks are in Nebraska, involves no intermediary other than each party's bank, and their bank shows them the transfer immediately so they know to give you the coffee.
Then the panzers roll into Washington and der Führer wants to reintroduce financial surveillance to make sure nobody is covertly buying a computer that doesn't censor the internet. Obviously they can force the bank in Nebraska to inform on the dissidents, but your bank is in Brazil and the seller's bank is in Switzerland.
Unless the system allowing that is dismantled ahead of time so the dystopia can be switched on overnight instead of needing years to erode entrenched decentralized infrastructure.
In my country they have to make laws to FORCE shops and restaurants to accept cash. Because it is a damn hassle.
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.
> 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.
> Like all the other monopolies that governments already have
Your examples are things that aren't inherently monopolies and are significantly worse if you try to make them such. It's better to give people the right to self-defense than to put them in jail for violating a "public security" monopoly for not allowing someone else to kill them when there were no police around. It's cruel to prohibit someone from paying for their own healthcare in cases when the procedure exists but the public system won't spend the money. What argument could you even make for prohibiting private inspections of products and services the likes of Consumer Reports?
The things that are better as a monopoly are so rare that they plausibly don't exist.
> But Apple, Visa, Mastercard and Google Pay aren't very "competent" either.
The article doesn't say and I know nothing about India. I could guess consumers are oaying using their smartphones. So Google/Apple duopoly are still the gatekeepers to use UPI making huge profits. Of course using one of the American backends would make their control and profits orders of magnitudes bigger.
> approved by your elected government.
Fixed it for you. You had left some extraneous quotation marks there.
Either way, while governments should not get free pass and should be scrutinized by its citizens, we definitely should not allow corporations with ties to hostile governments (such as the case of Visa and Mastercard) any oversight of payment infrastructure.
I encourage you to loudly champion such a model in your nation state to whomever is in power and will listen.