Thread

1. carlosjobim · 1790944813 · focus · HN ↗

   And the benefits for users would be?

   1. asimpletune · 1790945273 · focus · HN ↗

      Probably lower prices since there’s competition between payment processors

      1. carlosjobim · 1790945587 · focus · HN ↗

         There's already competition between payment processors, and not lower prices.

         1. furst-blumier · 1790945946 · focus · HN ↗

            Isn't it actually "competition" in the visa/mastercard case?

            1. carlosjobim · 1790947341 · focus · HN ↗

               There are many other options already besides Visa and Mastercard. What I'm asking and nobody wants to answer is what the benefits for users are. The first thing you should think about when making a new product or service.

               People are only answering me here with benefits for European politicians and their sovereignty. That's alright. But what I'm asking about is benefits for the users.

               For example, Visa and Mastercard offer fraud protection to the users, and many card emitters offer cashback to their users. Can this new European system offer this? If not, why not? Can they offer something else which benefits the user over current providers?

               1. asimpletune · 1790950916 · focus · HN ↗

                  > What I'm asking and nobody wants to answer is what the benefits for users are.

                  I answered that it will lower prices, does that not count as a benefit to users?

                  Even if merchants pay the processing fees, those prices are inevitably passed onto their customers. With more competition among payment processors there will be pressure to lower processing fees.

                  All of this happens automatically. It’s the beauty of markets.

                  I’ll rephrase your own question in a different way that I think actually supports my point: Since there is no difference, as a product, between visa, Mastercard, and this new European alliance, then there is very little reason to not want more competition.

                  Payment processing is essentially a commodity in this sense. It’s all the same, with the differentiator being supply. If we increase the supply the price will go down. That’s it. It should honestly be stupid to not want a European alternative.

                  1. maratc · 1790952364 · focus · HN ↗

                     The problem with your argument is that the price to the consumer stays the same, regardless of the payment processor involved (or cash when none are involved.) These are the rules set by payment processors. With these rules, the prices will stay the same with any amount of the supply. If these rules are changed, all payment processors will suffer in cash's favour, and as governments oppose cash-based economy for tax maximisation, the change of the rules is unlikely.

                     1. asimpletune · 1790959954 · focus · HN ↗

                        We may be talking past each other. If card processing costs a business money, that cost is passed onto the consumer. It therefore stands to reason that the converse is also true with savings. The question remaining is just at what time scale.

                        I think you’re taking about a single transaction in the near future, whereas I’m talking about the effects which are felt, in aggregate, over a long period of time. Absolutely things will get slightly cheaper.

                        1. maratc · 1790973309 · focus · HN ↗

                           Currently, a cost of "something" is:

                           1. 100€ if paid with cash

                           2. 100€ if paid with sovereign-European low-cost GPDR-compliant ISO-certified processor

                           3. 100€ if paid with American expensive monopoly behemoth Visa/MC.

                           Currently, it stands to reason to pay with Visa/MC and not bother with carrying cash or switching from Visa/MC to anything else.

                           In the future, it might be that the cost of the same "something" is:

                           1. 99.5€ if paid with cash

                           2. 100€ if paid with sovereign-European low-cost GPDR-compliant ISO-certified processor

                           3. 102€ if paid with American expensive monopoly behemoth Visa/MC. (Note: Visa/MC explicitly prohibit this.)

                           If this is predictable and repeatable, everyone needs to change their customer habits. It stands to reason that the change would be to carry cash.

                           1. simonra · 1790981558 · focus · HN ↗

                              The price difference would have to be significantly more than 1 to 3% to justify the inconvenience of carrying around cash again for me as a consumer for the things I don't buy online. Also don't underestimate the benefits of not dealing with cash for the merchants either. After cash usage almost vanishing completely they made it mandatory to accept cash a couple of years ago in Norway in an attempt to keep the infrastructure on life support in case of crisis (but still illegal for big transactions like cars and houses because something something crime). At least one hairdresser chain notably resolved it by only accepting pre booked appointments, which you could only get along pre paying for them in an app.

                              1. maratc · 1791025204 · focus · HN ↗

                                 YMMV, but I still carry cash and find no inconvenience in this. Cash is never out of battery, never out of software support, and unaffected by AWS outages, cellular outages, or electricity outages. I also don't install apps that are supposed to make life convenient for others but not me. WRT that hairdresser chain, I suppose I'd simply use a different hairdresser that would accept both walk-ins and cash, and I'd hope there's no shortage of such.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.