←back to thread

666 points jcartw | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.503s | source
Show context
bestouff ◴[] No.43620573[source]
> Pix has spiced up Brazil’s fusty banking sector, but it gives the central bank a worrying amount of power

I think a largely prefer a government-run payment system than an US company monopoly.

replies(7): >>43620584 #>>43620865 #>>43620874 #>>43620906 #>>43620937 #>>43624958 #>>43625649 #
rebanevapustus ◴[] No.43620937[source]
The Brazilian government is a *very* corrupt authoritarian oligarchy. I would take any US company over that any day.
replies(4): >>43620990 #>>43622237 #>>43627367 #>>43628965 #
xinayder ◴[] No.43620990[source]
Yet we, a developing "third-world" country, have a better functioning payment system than the US, where it takes days, or even weeks, for a wire transfer to land, and you pay a huge amount of fees for that.

Cases in point:

- To transfer money to a broker, I need to pay around $5 in transfer fees via ACH or wire

- I want to change the custody of my stock market assets from one broker to another, and it will cost me $75 to move $60 worth of shares. Meanwhile, in Brazil, this process is free in every broker.

replies(4): >>43621031 #>>43621424 #>>43624618 #>>43631271 #
ave_b_2011 ◴[] No.43621031[source]
I don’t understand this binary. The UK was able to create a near-instant bank transfer system without monopolizing in the same way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_Payments

It costing more for instant transfers is just a regressive tax on the working poor.

replies(2): >>43621092 #>>43622253 #
1. marcosdumay ◴[] No.43622253[source]
Everybody adopting an open protocol is "monopolizing" now...