Schlagwortarchiv für: Payment

WEF2In its comprehensive report on the impact of emerging payment schemes, the message of the World Economic Forum (WEF) is clear—the industry must integrate legacy systems with new technologies in order the leverage the best of both worlds.

The report, which had a mandate to “explore the transformative potential of new entrants and innovations is the culmination of “extensive outreach and dialogue with the financial services community, innovation community, academia and a large number of financial technology startups” over the course of fifteen months.

The release of the WEF report follows a string of analysis on innovation in the payments space done by various industry organizations from the European Banking Association to Santander bank in Spain.

As part of the report’s key findings for payments, the WEF concluded that the greatest potential for “decentralized and non-traditional payment schemes” such as distributed ledgers “may be to radically streamline the transfer of value, rather than as store of value”—thus creating “competitive pressure for the value transfer rails to become faster, cheaper and more borderless.”

In other words, decentralized payment schemes are all but declared heir apparent to legacy banking structures, allowing for the possibility that nontraditional payments networks could rival, disrupt, or be assimilated into the traditional financial network.

It does not frame this as a question of if, but as a series of predictions of who, when, and how. Specifically, the WEF foresees three possible outcomes outlined in the report:

 

  1. Compete with an alternative network of financial providers
  2. Facilitate alternative payment schemes as complements
  3. Provide leaner, faster payment options within the existing network

In the first outcome, the two systems—the traditional and more modern financial systems—would remain disparate and have limited interaction with one another. This scenario is predicted to drive innovation, but possibly also expose consumers to unfamiliar risks.

The third outcome is considered the least likely—that incumbent institutions might transform their own payment and settlement systems, responding to competition with innovation to match. The financial industry is a slow-moving beast. Still, it appears many institutions get the picture. Banks like UBS, Deutsche Bank, and Citi are all betting big on fintech, launching so-called “innovation labs” around the world to experiment with new ideas.

But the WEF views the second outcome as the most productive, where the traditional banking structures adopt and integrate innovative technologies, fostering an ecosystem that combines the speed and ease of use of newer tech with the established identities of long-standing banks and improving the connectivity of historically siloed financial institutions.

The examples WEF provides (Fidor with Ripple and CIC with M-Pesa) represent this blending of establishment and disruptors offering “could be easily used for real-time payment and settlement between these institutions with no automated clearing house or correspondent banks required.”

This reality, the WEF suggests, represents the best of both worlds; the positioning and consumer confidence of legacy banking combined with the improved efficiency and compatibility with the real-time world that technologies can offer.

Read the World Economic Forum’s full report here

 

 

Follow Ripple on Twitter

 

Ripple

The Federal Reserve Bank has released its highly anticipated strategy report for improving the U.S. payment system.

The report follows calls for industry feedback in late 2013—which Ripple Labs participated in (letter, response)—during which the Federal Reserve acknowledged the payment system’s contribution to not only the country’s financial stability but also U.S. economic growth. The need to improve the nation’s underlying infrastructure had reached a critical juncture, the Fed concluded.

To put the significance of the Fed’s strategy report into context, this is the central bank’s first major initiative to upgrade the domestic payment system since the creation of ACH in the 1970s. This is a big deal—and the goal is clear.

The report’s executive summary overviews the current situation:

The Federal Reserve believes that the U.S. payment system is at a critical juncture in its evolution. Technology is rapidly changing many elements that support the payment process. High-speed data networks are becoming ubiquitous, computing devices are becoming more sophisticated and mobile, and information is increasingly processed in real time. These capabilities are changing the nature of commerce and end-user expectations for payment services.
Meanwhile, payment security and the protection of sensitive data, which are foundational to public confidence in any payment system, are challenged by dynamic, persistent and rapidly escalating threats. Finally, an increasing number of U.S. citizens and businesses routinely transfer value across borders and demand better payment options to swiftly and efficiently do so.

It’s also a call to arms:

Responses to the Federal Reserve’s 2013 Payment System Improvement – Public Consultation Paper (Consultation Paper) indicate broad agreement with the gaps, opportunities and desired outcomes discussed in that paper. Recent stakeholder dialogue has advanced significantly, and momentum toward common goals has increased.
Many payment stakeholders are now independently initiating actions to discuss payment system improvements with one another—especially the prospect of increasing end-to-end payment speed and security. We believe these developments illustrate a rare confluence of factors that create favorable conditions for change. Through this Strategies for Improving the U.S. Payment System paper, the Federal Reserve is calling on all stakeholders to seize this opportunity and join together to improve the payment system.

Of particular note are the potential solutions outlined by the report. Of the four solutions suggested, Ripple is the enabling technology described in option two (page 40). Ripple provides neutral payment infrastructure, and its users (banks, networks) set their own rules and governance in accordance with regulations set in their jurisdictions (e.g. the Fed in the U.S.).

Option 2: Facilitate direct clearing between financial institutions on public IP networks using protocols and standards for sending and receiving payments.
A distributed architecture for messaging between financial institutions over public IP networks has the potential to lower costs compared to clearing transactions over a hub-and-spoke network architecture. A central authority would establish common protocols for messaging standards, communication, security and logging transactions.

The Fed also made a statement about the design options it decided to exclude from further consideration, which included all proposals to evolve existing infrastructure such as ACH, wire transfers, and checks. They also decided to forego leveraging telecom infrastructure, a popular route in developing economies following the phenomenal success of M-Pesa.

The other options either involve leveraging the existing ATM/PIN debit infrastructure—which present numerous operational challenges such as “the high variability on implementation feasibility” and issue of “silos that often exist between the retail and commercial units of financial institutions”—or building new infrastructure from the ground up, which, while theoretically ideal as “a potential longer-term objective,” involves “potentially high cost.”

The Fed highlighted one of the primary weaknesses of the current status quo—that standards and protocols had failed to catch up to evolving needs as disparate networks and industry members failed to consistently reach consensus on new rulesets. The Fed pledged its commitment toward further industry coordination and cooperation to address this issue—which in our view underlines the unique advantage and responsibility of the central bank.

That’s also why we see Ripple technology as such a compelling solution within the components defined by the Fed that compose a payment system—technology, rules, risk management, and the messaging standard. As an efficient, inexpensive, ruleset-agnostic solution, Ripple provides the technological layer while the Fed and other industry members can play to their strengths and provide complementary components such as rulesets.

Ripple Labs designed the Ripple protocol as such because we believe that local jurisdictions are best suited to define their own standards in connecting fragmented payment networks given the complexity of financial regulation. By applying jurisdiction-specific rulesets on top of a common technical infrastructure like Ripple, the various national payment systems around the world would benefit from increased interoperability and a significant improvement in the speed and cost of cross border payments.

Having analyzed the Fed’s consultation papers over the past two years, we believe Ripple comprehensively achieves many of the desired outcomes outlined by the Fed (page 8-15) along with addressing many of the existing weaknesses highlighted (page 34).

In general, we applaud the Fed’s ongoing initiative to provide a safe, efficient, and broadly accessible payment network. Their active and inclusive approach provides us further confidence in the work we are doing at Ripple Labs.

 

Follow Ripple on Twitter

Ripple

Continuing our dialogue with regulators about efforts to build more efficient, safer payment systems, Ripple Labs recently detailed the benefits and implications of a distributed network to the UK’s new Payment System Regulator (PSR).

In most cases, payments are included under a general framework for financial regulations. Yet the UK has taken a unique approach in designating a new regulator to build a more competitive, innovative and inclusive payment system.

Since the group will be fully operational in April 2015, the PSR called for industry input on its regulatory approach and initial priorities. Ripple Labs commends the PSR’s transparency, thoughtfulness, and inclusion in its call for input, and is grateful for the opportunity to submit a letter.

Our recommendations reflect ongoing discussions with regulators—such as our recent correspondence with New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) and the BitLicense proposal—and along those lines, represent our core perspective on regulations. That is, we believe the following four points to be essential to not only the PSR’s success, but regulatory frameworks in general:

  • Ensure regulations account for the new technologies that will be necessary for creating a more competitive, innovative, and inclusive payment system. Generally, existing regulations assume the use of a centralized operator. However, new technologies such as open protocols and distributed networks may not rely on a central operator. Regulators should ensure their rules account for technology with  alternative governance models to best leverage their benefits in the payments system.
  • Enable startups and smaller companies to contribute to the payment system. We encourage a flexible regulatory framework that is inclusive of startups and smaller companies—typically the drivers of innovation. We commend both the PSR for recognizing this need in their proposals, as well as the NYDFS’ decision to include a two-year transitional operating license giving  startups and small businesses an opportunity to compete with established players.
  • Take a holistic view of risk and consider the cumulative impact of regulations. New technologies present new risks, yet many of these risks are known and can be mitigated. Ripple Labs urges regulators to also consider the risk of continued reliance on antiquated infrastructure. These risks grow over time, are often underappreciated, and may have systemic consequences. Further, regulators should take a coordinated approach when implementing new rules, being mindful of their cumulative impact.
  • Consider how new infrastructure technology can minimize payment, operational, and systemic risks while improving anti-money laundering (AML) efforts. Novel approaches to infrastructure improvements can also go a long way in optimizing compliance capabilities and mitigating structural risks. In the case of distributed networks, the shared ledger lowers the cost of compliance by providing improved funds traceability and AML oversight.

In this case, we also included an overview of how Ripple benefits regulators, government agencies, and central banks. As an innovative approach to funds transfer, Ripple is an opportunity to improve today’s payment systems and minimize or even eliminate structural inefficiencies.

Unlike existing systems, Ripple is an Internet protocol-based technology, which means it is both neutral and also has the capacity to maintain a record of balances without a central counterparty. The result is a competitive market for funds exchange and delivery.

A payment system powered by Ripple has numerous benefits:

  1. Reduces fragmentation and concentration; increases competition.
  2. Enables fund traceability and transaction visibility.
  3. Reduces systemic risk: no single point of failure.
  4. Reduces the possibility of conflicts of interest as a neutral infrastructure layer.
  5. Improves capital efficiency and liquidity management.
  6. Decreases operational and settlement risk.
  7. Enables new products and improved consumer experience.
  8. Improves information security and reduces cyber threats.

In all, Ripple Labs supports and shares the PSR’s objectives of fostering a competitive, innovative, and inclusive payments systems. Indeed, we believe the Ripple protocol embodies many of the PSR’s goals. We look forward to continuing our proactive engagement with the PSR and other regulators in the future.

For a more in-depth overview of how Ripple Labs approaches regulations, you can view the entirety of our response to PSR CP14/1 here (PDF): Ripple Labs response to PSR

Follow Ripple on Twitter

Ripple

Ripple Labs has issued a Gateway Bulletin on the Partial Payment flag which describes the flag and best practices around balancing activity on and off the ledger. The tfPartialPayment flag is set by the sender to specify a payment where the beneficiary can receive less than the specified amount.
Gateways are encouraged to implement best practices and understand the Partial Payment flag to mitigate errors that can result in fraud if undetected.
To view this bulletin, please visit: https://wiki.ripple.com/Gateway_Bulletins

Ripple

Ripple Labs has issued a Gateway Bulletin on the Partial Payment flag which describes the flag and best practices around balancing activity on and off the ledger. The tfPartialPayment flag is set by the sender to specify a payment where the beneficiary can receive less than the specified amount.
Gateways are encouraged to implement best practices and understand the Partial Payment flag to mitigate errors that can result in fraud if undetected.
To view this bulletin, please visit: https://wiki.ripple.com/Gateway_Bulletins

Ripple