- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I welcome an European alternative to Visa/Mastercard/Amex. I think it could have some at-cost fees, especially to make shops that benefit from the system pay for it instead of all taxpayers. I hope it will respect privacy, and not just at first and then start on a slippery slope. Maybe this would then allow shopkeepers to price the different payment options. I think there is legislation now that price cannot depend on payment method.
Well, practically time to see lower transaction fees. It is ridiculous to have all of your money on a bank which can invest them for profit, but you are earning nothing from all of this, and they even charge you to send money to an another bank…
I really don’t see the added benefit in this. We can already use our existing money in a digital way.
Doesn’t this just complicate things? Am I missing something?
Current transactions have a transaction fee. The digital euro will have maybe lower fees? Or 0 fee for non commercialized transactions?
The digital euro will be available to everyone, not just to people with bank accounts. In some countries, poor people have a hard time getting a bank account.
Privacy. Currently your bank knows what you buy and they can even potentially sell that information. Maybe with digital euro, only the government will know.
Offline. With digital euro you can buy stuff offline, ie without an internet connection. This in theory could also provide the same privacy as cash.
Maybe we can eventually cut the middleman, banks, out of the equation.
Cutting banks out of equation would be nice, but I don’t think they will ever let it happen, they will always lobby for their interests and will find ways to monetize us.
And funnily enough banks always seem to have money to spend on lobbying
The immediate reaction in the thread seems to be something like “what makes it a good alternative to Bitcoin” but it might be that it’s aimed more as a competitor to the physical euro.
If the government knows when payments have been made, that eliminates potential for not reporting sales, which I understand is a significant issue in some EU members.
There’s also some cost to handling (including security) and maintaining physical currency that doesn’t exist with digital currency.
Here’s an article arguing that the US – which has apparently not shown much interest in a “digital dollar” – should adopt something similar. The rationales it gives seem more aimed at it being an alternative to physical cash:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/opinion/cash-digital-currency-central-bank.html
-
One benefit is security. Cash is vulnerable to loss and theft, a problem for both individuals and businesses, whereas digital currencies are relatively secure. Electronic hacking does pose a risk, but one that can be managed with new technologies.
-
Digital currencies also benefit the poor and the “unbanked.” It is hard to get a credit card if you don’t have much money, and banks charge fees for low-balance accounts that can make them prohibitively expensive. But a digital dollar would give everyone, including the poor, access to a digital payment system and a portal for basic banking services.
-
A central-bank digital currency can also be a useful policy tool. Typically, if the Federal Reserve wants to stimulate consumption and investment, it can cut interest rates and make cheap credit available. But if the economy is cratering and the Fed has already cut the short-term interest rate it controls to near zero, its options are limited. If cash were replaced with a digital dollar, however, the Fed could impose a negative interest rate by gradually shrinking the electronic balances in everyone’s digital currency accounts, creating an incentive for consumers to spend and for companies to invest.
That one might not be too popular with users.
- A digital dollar would also hinder illegal activities that rely on anonymous cash transactions, such as drug dealing, money laundering and terrorism financing. It would bring “off the books” economic activity out of the shadows and into the formal economy, increasing tax revenues.
I struggle to understand the “poor and unbanked” argument. You will still need a smartphone and an app at the very least? Which is not cheap?
I assume that they’re talking about not having the minimum funds available to open an account or not being able to maintain the minimum balance and having the fees for not doing so being significant.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/bank-account-minimum-deposit-minimum-balance-requirements/
A minimum opening deposit is a certain amount of money—usually $25 to $100—that a bank or credit union requires you to deposit to open a checking or savings account. Some financial institutions do not require a minimum opening deposit.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/typical-minimum-balance-for-traditional-savings-accounts-5204547
When you open a traditional savings account, you may need to keep a certain amount of money in the account to avoid a monthly service fee. The minimum balance ranges from $300 to $500 in most cases, while the fees typically are around $5.
The bank is going to make their money by lending out the money you deposit, so they’re going to want to have some money kept in the account.
Might also be that “unbanked” is a euphemism for illegal immigrants who don’t have bank accounts because they’re worried about showing up to immigration enforcement or something. It looks like, while an illegal immigrant won’t have a Social Security number, there are ways to get around that.
googles
Or maybe that they immigrated legally from somewhere where banks aren’t a very safe place to put money.
More than 12% of Hispanic households don’t have a bank account.
Still, Hispanic households are less inclined than white, non-Hispanic ones to use the banking system. In 2019, 12.2% of Hispanic households were unbanked, compared to 2.5% of white ones, according to the FDIC’s latest survey. Black households had a rate of 13.8%.
The reasons for staying away from bank accounts may vary. There may be language barriers or a distrust of banking institutions, especially for those who may have come from a country that had a weak or corrupt system, Espinal said.
The main reason people are unbanked is the belief that minimum balances are too high for them to meet, said Karyen Chu, chief of banking research at the FDIC. Therefore, they will incur fees.
I mean, a mobile phone is going to cost something too, but I think that that’s kinda considered to be an essential by a lot of people today. Like, they’re going to want to have a phone to have a phone, independently of how they might use that phone to spend money.
-
Wait, people are paying for private transactions?
The whole society always has to pay for transactions as they require work. You either pay with increased prices, by using other services from the banks that cost something or by leeching off of other people paying for the transaction system. The idea of the digital euro could be to decrease this work by introducing a more efficient system.
The actual work behind a private banktransfer is fractions of cents, including power. Technically you’re correct, but in the real world, if you paid the real cost of all your private banktransfers, you could probably cover a years worth with a few nickel (if that).
I truly don’t see the benefit of this for countries that already have a good banking system. Every benefit mentioned for this system has been available for years or decades in the Netherlands, or has a functionally identical equivalent.
But I see lots of advantages for people who don’t have access to a cheap, good and easy banking system.
But aren’t the current fees some nickel per transaction, e. g., if you pay with a credit card? Why are the fees so high currently? I do not think that the banks have such a high margin.
Credit cards are expensive, because their security measures can be circumvented by a moderately good photograph of one. You’re paying for all the fraud getting compensated.
But a regular (first-party) bank transfer has no such overhead.
The system in the Netherlands is shit for foreigners. E.g. if you want a personalized OV-Chipkaart you can only pay with iDEAL, for which you need a Dutch Bank account.
___You can use public transportation directly with any V-pay, maestro, visa or MasterCard debit- or credit card, or Apple or Google pay nowadays.
If you absolutely must have a chipkaart, you can get one from any ticket machine at a station. No Dutch bank account required.
No I can’t get a personalized OV-Chipkaart this way, which is necessary for certain subscriptions and OV-Fiets. Only anonymous chip kaarts are sold via ticket machines
Relative to some other digital system, this is what WP has as ECB goals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_euro
Arguments and motives for the introduction of a digital euro are, according to the ECB:
- Maintain the role of central bank money as a monetary anchor for the payment system.
- Provide free digital access to a secure legal tender in the Eurozone
- Expanding payment options through alternative central bank money alongside cash and book money in commercial bank accounts, contributing to availability and inclusion
- Building trust in digital cash through a high level of privacy protection
- Promote innovation in retail payments
- Limiting the spread of foreign digital currencies to safeguard the financial stability and monetary sovereignty of the Eurozone
Like money, but digital I imagine? Is it really that complicated in a world were we’ve all used phones and contactless cards rather than cash for a decade now and crypto is a thing?
Would be interesting if there was a limited supply.
Otherwise I don’t see the advantage, it is still being controlled by a central entity.
Depends. With a digital euro, you can safely stash away your money without having allowing private banks to make a profit out of it. Same goes with transactions. Firms like Visa or Mastercard won’t turn a profit out of it. Of course there are many disadvantages as well.
With a digital euro, you can safely stash away your money without having allowing private banks to make a profit out of it.
According to OP’s article, the ECB is specifically aiming to make the digital euro not viable for storing a bunch of money, so I don’t think that that’s a target use case.
Sources with knowledge of the procedures explain to Capital.gr that the digital euro will take the form of a wallet that citizens will “load” with euros from their bank accounts. This means that the role of commercial banks is not canceled with the launch of the single digital currency, but they will still be an important part of the ecosystem.
For this reason, it is being considered to introduce a ceiling on the liquidity that citizens will be able to maintain in digital euro, in the order of 2,000 or 3,000 euros per user. The goal is for the digital euro to be used purely as a means of exchange and not as a means of accumulating wealth.
Indeed, I remembered when the ECB first talked about it (2-3years ago) and I read the article diagonally.
But it still, most people could get rid of their cash bank account as most people earn less than 3k€net per month and just keep a saving account.
All in all, I’d still argue it’s a not-so-bad initiative, especially for small businesses who pay a hefty fee per transactions
And then where would lending and borrowing money come from?
It would still be banks. Owning a bank account would just not be mandatory anymore.
Let’s hope they’ll use GNU Taler for this. I only heard it being considered in Switzerland.
