Banks have fraud experts on staff, they have people that can monitor activity and stop such transactions. Both sides have accountability so that the thief can be tracked down. Your worst outcome is getting your card skimmed and not noticing it in time to report the fraud unless you deliberately send your bank info to someone else. But even then, your bank can probably still help you.
It costs the Brazilian government around $10M yearly to maintain[1]. A bargain.
[1] https://www.infomoney.com.br/economia/custo-para-manter-pix-...
Nothing has been said by the parent about the message: Instead, the messenger is marked as the target in order to take down the message via association.
"Give me the man and I will give you the case against him"
------
About the legislation itself:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...
It's mainly 3 semi-related parts stapled together. If the person/business/bank is complying with the law:
- 1a) Banks with > $10 billion are blocked from (i) the Fed's discount window lending program, & (ii) the Automated Clearing House Network, if they refuse to do business with them,
- 1b) Banks are required to accept deposits from them & law-complying member banks,
- 1c) The board of directors of banks/credit unions have to notify the state/fed if said access blocking happens,
- 2) (Section 5) Payment networks can't refuse service to them, &
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/401...
- 3) Banks & payment networks have to give them access to financial services
The middle part (2) is what's being focused on in the article.
I'm mostly in agreement that (1) the penalty's too low, & (2) restricting dispense of the law to only the Comptroller renders it ineffective.
(1) is easily solvable with regards to editing the text alone: raise the limit to 50% & $100k respectively.
(2) is also solvable, by striking out "by the Comptroller of the Currency".
Currently, it feels like it's illegal to be poor. You can't do anything without a license due to regulations. Not to mention the media conditioning you have to overcome to achieve the simple goal of living sustainably.
I'm becoming jealous of cavemen because a caveman did not have to convince his wife to live in a cave without tap water and electricity, it was a given. They just made the most of what they had knowing that there was no alternative. They would just hunt and wash their clothes in the river. The inconvenience came with some benefits of having lots of time to be out in nature, enjoying the sights and sounds, never knowing what they're going to encounter. Also, they didn't know about bacteria or parasites so they didn't have to worry about anything.
The most difficult part of being alive today is convincing your loved ones to cut on expenses. Even if you can have a comfortable life without all the consumable junk, it's impossible to convince most people that this is the case. Life is a constant struggle against media conditioning.
The media creates this narrative that you need to have a lot of things just to be alive. For some people, it's possible for them to have all these things without too much struggle but for others it's basically impossible for them to have... so these people have to spend a ton of their energy just fighting these media narratives because that's all they can do.
It's like being a salesman except your customers are your loved ones, your product is 'cutting expenses' and your biggest competitor, 'consumerism' has an unlimited advertising budget and its product is totally incompatible with your product... And your competitor runs its ads on repeat 24/7.
Businesses being cut off from the prominent financial system of society is very stressful, damaging, and really shouldn't be a thing if they are not breaking any laws of where they are operating.
UPIPS covers why payment networks are effectively immune from competition, and why creating a new competing payment network without restrictions will not provide benefits due to contract lock-in and other problems.
They also cover proposed legislation's benefits and weaknesses for addressing the problem.