Community

LOL "One of the firm's surveys found 75% of people would like to have access to data on how they spend their money, but only 40% said they were comfortable providing the information that could lead to that." is a nod to basic human behavior: People want fruits of the labor without the labor.

It also harkens back to the concept of Consent. 

3 years ago, I said on Open Banking: Consent is Key that opt-in rates will vary vastly depending on whether the consent question is worded by way of Feature (low) or Benefit (high). That's exactly what the latest study shows. 

Cashback of 3% is not on *their* but *my* highest spend category. It's possible that my second and third highest spend categories on which I get 2% and 1% cashback respectively turn out to be Venmo's highest MDR category on which it earns >=3%, so there's a source of revenue there. On top of that, there are fees and interest charges plus new sources of revenues like advertising fees off of credit card spends.

Of course, all this is relevant only if Venmo is under any obligation to have a profitable business model in the first place. That's not a given when scores of fintechs - among startups in other industries - enjoy skyhigh valuation despite making paltry revenues and whopping losses. 

The article makes a strong case for fintech having a dearth of women founders. But "suffering"? In what way is fintech suffering from this?

Will this help JPMC crack the Holy Grail of Loyalty Programs?

How Blockchain Can Crack The Holy Grail Of Loyalty Programs

Banks have faced many of these touted threats during the last decade. They have stuck to their legacy stack. That hasn't stopped them from laughing all the way to the - ahem - bank during this period.  

In 2013, I outlined six hurdles erected by tech to explain Why Banks Can't Transform Legacy Applications? . Keen to know how many of those hurdles have been removed by tech industry in the meanwhile.

With Fintechs changing their tune to Bank Partnership instead of chanting the Disrupt Banks mantra during the last couple of years, the threat to banks has receded. Therefore, if anything, tech companies have to try even harder to drive legacy transformation by banks than before.

Great move. MSV is a full time and a half job. Doesn't leave employees with time to get diverted into all this "purpose" BS.

As I highlighted in Winners Don't Let Security Screw Up User Experience, even when it's well implemented, 3DS v2 risks causing inconsistent UX, which is a big conversion killer.

It's easy to make motherhood statements. PSPs have been trying - and failing - to ensure high UX and low Fraud for decades. Enough damage has been done by security measures to conversion and sales already. It's high time we shed foolhardy notions of being able to strike a tradeoff between UX / Revenues on the one side and Security on the other, and decided to get behind one or the other. Since Revenues can pay for Security but Security can't pay for Revenues, it's obvious what the right choice is.

More like train wreck!

My comment on Thought GDPR was complex? Get ready for SCA! last year is equally relevant here.

LOL almost everything predicted for 2028 was predicted for 2018, if not also 2008. Plastic cards have been predicted to die next year for the last 10 years. Hope they really die soon so that we can be spared from these tiresome predictions year after year or, worse still, decade after decade.

The coronavirus-driven digitization opportunities are equally avalable to banks and fintechs. Banks have 5 Products / Customer versus Fintechs (1.5), according to Finextra article entitled Fintech sector faces "existential crisis" says McKinsey. So there's every reason to believe that banks will benefit much more than fintechs from the new opportunities. Which is why very few fintechs have been able to attract VC funding now. I expect that trend to continue, if not intensify, going forward, which will indeed cause existential crisis for most fintechs, as predicted by McKinsey.