Surprisingly small contract. It's interesting to see that a full government contract for a payment provider is a fraction of a US mid-size company's cloud bill. I am constantly surprised by things like this. Here's another: there are more foreigners in Taiwan (total pop. 25 m) than in China (total pop. 1.4 b).
Brazil's central bank operates their instant payment network Pix [1] [2] [3] for ~$10M/year [4]. Its not that these are small contracts, but that large, inefficient, unnecessary contracts have become the norm (I argue). Similar example from India's UPI payment system [5]. The US has FedNow to move instant payments for pennies, but banking and payment system participants in the US ecosystem are avoiding it to continue to private payment system rake [6] (cc networks, Zelle commercial bank network, private wallets, etc).
The evidence is clear you don't need to skim 3% off of an economy to provide instant payment capabilities. The enterprise value of US payment companies is a function of how long they hold onto this volume for, when competition is ramping up. You're just pushing ISO 20022 XML messages around a bus.
> This makes the American dispute more sophisticated than it may first appear. Pix certainly puts pressure on private payment models, card networks and acquirers. It also reduces friction for consumers, small businesses and person-to-person transfers. But its deeper effect is institutional. It turns the bank deposit into an even more efficient payment instrument — and, by doing so, changes the role of banks in liquidity intermediation.
> There is an irony here. For decades, the United States built the narrative of private financial innovation. Brazil, through a public, interoperable and massively adopted system, produced one of the world’s most efficient payment infrastructures. The study notes how unusual Pix adoption was: more than 150 million users in its first year, use by nine out of ten small businesses, and daily volumes capable of reaching about 1% of annual GDP on a single peak day.
> The reading should not be triumphalist. Pix is a powerful innovation, but it is not cost-free for the financial system. It improves the user experience, reduces transaction costs and increases competition in payments. At the same time, it requires banks to hold more liquidity and may reduce the transformation of deposits into credit. For the United States, Pix appears as a digital-trade issue. For Brazil, it is a question of financial sovereignty. For banks, it is a question of liquidity. Pix began as a button inside an app. It became a piece of financial policy — and now, of geopolitics.
Feels odd that you exclude mentioning the EU, which has had instant transfers for more than a decade. More than two decades, if you include things like iDeal from The Netherlands.
Wasn't intentional, I mention SEPA and Wero in other comments, not intended to be an enumeration of all instant payment systems currently active globally. My apologies!
> not intended to be an enumeration of all 54 instant payment systems currently active.
Even then, not mentioning those who pretty much started / invented instant transfers still seems odd :) but no need to apologize haha, maybe I was a bit too abrasive.
I get why you prioritized to mention those though. The Chinese and Indians have leapfrogged us. No more fussy legacy (digital) cards, just scan a QR and go. Even illicit food stalls and street wanderers have accounts, when they wouldn't be able to get a 'real' bank account.
And the Chinese and Indians don't have to pay tribute to the Mastercard-Visa overlords either. Although Wero and the digital Euro might eventually change that for Europe too.
don't centralized payment systems like this reduce the overall resilience of the ecosystem and prevent future innovation? You hint on those lines with the possible future transformation of deposits into credit.
Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution.
All payment systems are centralized. Zelle is owned by the largest US commercial banks ("Early Warning Services"), Congress directed the Federal Reserve to build and offer FedNow as a utility so smaller banks would not be excluded from offering instant payments. It costs $~30/month (last I checked the rate sheet) to plug into it. The instant payments are the utility, your opportunity to innovate is using this as a component of your user experience.
Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation).
> Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution.
Because it is a grift ("regulatory capture") [1]. The "overbearing system" is the result of regulation to bring the consumer excess of cheap payments to an entire country's financial user population. Why does Jamie Dimon not like stablecoin yield [2]? Because JPMC makes almost $100B/year in interest income taking customer deposits and lending against them, which stablecoins would compete against by operating as a form of narrow bank, parking the underlying deposits in risk free US Treasuries [3].
As a US financial services consumer, it is hard for you to avoid the rake of the machine built to skim off of you as you hold onto fiat or move it, but the rest of the world can avoid being captured by it (as this piece demonstrates). Also, Europe can't regulate Stripe as easily as they can Adyen. You don't have to be the biggest or the greatest, it just has to work "good enough".
> Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation).
UPI for instance only works with a physical SIM. Your phone number on the account must match the physical SIM on the device. This indirectly relies on India's insistence on KYC (for accounts naturally) on issuance of physical SIMs. "Innovation" here would be a player who can support VOIP based phone numbers (maybe by complying with phone number KYC in some other way).
UPI also makes it quite confusing to deposit money to a particular account you own. You could share a specific identifier (string or qr) based on your account but the other party generally assumes they can send you money using your phone number, and sometimes follows through with that.
(I don't have a finance background.) There any multiple instances of a one-size fits all user experience decision which strikes me as a result of the centralization and removal of competition (in efforts to drive up adoption).
I don't disagree with most of your reply (thanks for the thoughtful citations too). But i wonder why the free market cannot lower cost/settlement time similarly.
Well, obviously it’s cherry-picked. It’s an example of something that challenges my intuition. Most things align with my intuition because I’m in my late 30s and have seen enough of the world to have a fairly good idea of the rough numbers. Here’s another one: the London Underground is older than the telephone.
There’s a light board game called Timeline where you have stuff like this and there are so many surprises. Temporal stuff is hard to reason about and the game catches that. But with large numbers one loses intuition easily: NYC’s subway vs. all domestic and international US air travel is closer in total passengers than one would think. The median American did not fly last year.
Stuff like this. It’s just Gladwell-fodder but numerically fun.
I misinterpreted your intent here, and that’s on me. Thank you for explaining, you clearly picked the sample as a comparison of fact, not as narrative. Apologies
Stripe allows for these kinds of payments, we've been updating our store to support Wero etc. It should give better conversation and processing rates than the US credit cards.
A big reason Stripe got big was because they got their YC cohorts to use it. Payments before that was complicated and even though PayPal existed, most people didn’t know you could process credit cards like Stripe, you don’t need a PayPal account or wallet. It’s why they bought Braintree and that added even more confusion.
The lesson is, marketing to developers works. And the best way to market to them to by making their job easier.
Another reason is their competitors didn't get it the value prop because everyone had been competing on rates, and little thought given to developer experience... early on a lot of Stripe's competition's apis used fixed field text as the format for transactions.
The solution to all these expenses is to just have the user pay the transaction costs. Then everyone will start using bank transfers.
Surprisingly small contract. It's interesting to see that a full government contract for a payment provider is a fraction of a US mid-size company's cloud bill. I am constantly surprised by things like this. Here's another: there are more foreigners in Taiwan (total pop. 25 m) than in China (total pop. 1.4 b).
Brazil's central bank operates their instant payment network Pix [1] [2] [3] for ~$10M/year [4]. Its not that these are small contracts, but that large, inefficient, unnecessary contracts have become the norm (I argue). Similar example from India's UPI payment system [5]. The US has FedNow to move instant payments for pennies, but banking and payment system participants in the US ecosystem are avoiding it to continue to private payment system rake [6] (cc networks, Zelle commercial bank network, private wallets, etc).
The evidence is clear you don't need to skim 3% off of an economy to provide instant payment capabilities. The enterprise value of US payment companies is a function of how long they hold onto this volume for, when competition is ramping up. You're just pushing ISO 20022 XML messages around a bus.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pix_(payment_system)
[2] https://frontierfintech.substack.com/p/55-send-pix-brazils-i...
[3] https://brazilstockguide.com/behind-the-lines/the-cost-of-pi...
> This makes the American dispute more sophisticated than it may first appear. Pix certainly puts pressure on private payment models, card networks and acquirers. It also reduces friction for consumers, small businesses and person-to-person transfers. But its deeper effect is institutional. It turns the bank deposit into an even more efficient payment instrument — and, by doing so, changes the role of banks in liquidity intermediation.
> There is an irony here. For decades, the United States built the narrative of private financial innovation. Brazil, through a public, interoperable and massively adopted system, produced one of the world’s most efficient payment infrastructures. The study notes how unusual Pix adoption was: more than 150 million users in its first year, use by nine out of ten small businesses, and daily volumes capable of reaching about 1% of annual GDP on a single peak day.
> The reading should not be triumphalist. Pix is a powerful innovation, but it is not cost-free for the financial system. It improves the user experience, reduces transaction costs and increases competition in payments. At the same time, it requires banks to hold more liquidity and may reduce the transformation of deposits into credit. For the United States, Pix appears as a digital-trade issue. For Brazil, it is a question of financial sovereignty. For banks, it is a question of liquidity. Pix began as a button inside an app. It became a piece of financial policy — and now, of geopolitics.
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44753626
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface
[6] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Feels odd that you exclude mentioning the EU, which has had instant transfers for more than a decade. More than two decades, if you include things like iDeal from The Netherlands.
Wasn't intentional, I mention SEPA and Wero in other comments, not intended to be an enumeration of all instant payment systems currently active globally. My apologies!
https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/PYMNTS-Rea...
https://www.emerald.com/cemj/article/33/4/575/1248919/The-ri...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_payment
> not intended to be an enumeration of all 54 instant payment systems currently active.
Even then, not mentioning those who pretty much started / invented instant transfers still seems odd :) but no need to apologize haha, maybe I was a bit too abrasive.
I get why you prioritized to mention those though. The Chinese and Indians have leapfrogged us. No more fussy legacy (digital) cards, just scan a QR and go. Even illicit food stalls and street wanderers have accounts, when they wouldn't be able to get a 'real' bank account.
And the Chinese and Indians don't have to pay tribute to the Mastercard-Visa overlords either. Although Wero and the digital Euro might eventually change that for Europe too.
don't centralized payment systems like this reduce the overall resilience of the ecosystem and prevent future innovation? You hint on those lines with the possible future transformation of deposits into credit.
Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution.
All payment systems are centralized. Zelle is owned by the largest US commercial banks ("Early Warning Services"), Congress directed the Federal Reserve to build and offer FedNow as a utility so smaller banks would not be excluded from offering instant payments. It costs $~30/month (last I checked the rate sheet) to plug into it. The instant payments are the utility, your opportunity to innovate is using this as a component of your user experience.
Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation).
> Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution.
Because it is a grift ("regulatory capture") [1]. The "overbearing system" is the result of regulation to bring the consumer excess of cheap payments to an entire country's financial user population. Why does Jamie Dimon not like stablecoin yield [2]? Because JPMC makes almost $100B/year in interest income taking customer deposits and lending against them, which stablecoins would compete against by operating as a form of narrow bank, parking the underlying deposits in risk free US Treasuries [3].
As a US financial services consumer, it is hard for you to avoid the rake of the machine built to skim off of you as you hold onto fiat or move it, but the rest of the world can avoid being captured by it (as this piece demonstrates). Also, Europe can't regulate Stripe as easily as they can Adyen. You don't have to be the biggest or the greatest, it just has to work "good enough".
[1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-109-billion-bank-hust...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/29/dimon-jpmorgan-cryp...
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48331082
> Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation).
UPI for instance only works with a physical SIM. Your phone number on the account must match the physical SIM on the device. This indirectly relies on India's insistence on KYC (for accounts naturally) on issuance of physical SIMs. "Innovation" here would be a player who can support VOIP based phone numbers (maybe by complying with phone number KYC in some other way).
UPI also makes it quite confusing to deposit money to a particular account you own. You could share a specific identifier (string or qr) based on your account but the other party generally assumes they can send you money using your phone number, and sometimes follows through with that.
(I don't have a finance background.) There any multiple instances of a one-size fits all user experience decision which strikes me as a result of the centralization and removal of competition (in efforts to drive up adoption).
I don't disagree with most of your reply (thanks for the thoughtful citations too). But i wonder why the free market cannot lower cost/settlement time similarly.
Why bring up Taiwan and China? This feels incredibly cherry picked?
If you know Taiwan’s history, and you understand China - there’s no surprise to be..
Well, obviously it’s cherry-picked. It’s an example of something that challenges my intuition. Most things align with my intuition because I’m in my late 30s and have seen enough of the world to have a fairly good idea of the rough numbers. Here’s another one: the London Underground is older than the telephone.
There’s a light board game called Timeline where you have stuff like this and there are so many surprises. Temporal stuff is hard to reason about and the game catches that. But with large numbers one loses intuition easily: NYC’s subway vs. all domestic and international US air travel is closer in total passengers than one would think. The median American did not fly last year.
Stuff like this. It’s just Gladwell-fodder but numerically fun.
I misinterpreted your intent here, and that’s on me. Thank you for explaining, you clearly picked the sample as a comparison of fact, not as narrative. Apologies
Stripe allows for these kinds of payments, we've been updating our store to support Wero etc. It should give better conversation and processing rates than the US credit cards.
I wish Adyen was as good at marketing and hype as Stripe was.
Stripe is really good at making themselves look like a way bigger deal than they are.
A big reason Stripe got big was because they got their YC cohorts to use it. Payments before that was complicated and even though PayPal existed, most people didn’t know you could process credit cards like Stripe, you don’t need a PayPal account or wallet. It’s why they bought Braintree and that added even more confusion.
The lesson is, marketing to developers works. And the best way to market to them to by making their job easier.
Another reason is their competitors didn't get it the value prop because everyone had been competing on rates, and little thought given to developer experience... early on a lot of Stripe's competition's apis used fixed field text as the format for transactions.
Which part that makes them look bigger than they are? Which services are larger than stripe?
Stripes revenue is ~$20B seems pretty big to me...
Stripe has a useful tool and markets it well. With that said, I'm glad there are other options.
I'm curious whether this will materially reduce costs for local authorities or whether the benefits are primarily in expanding payment options.
So maybe it'll stop taking three requests, 1-2 months, and a certified letter every year to receive your tax refund?
HMRCs digital services in general are pretty good, but refunds not so much.
My self assessment refund came through within days of submitting my assessment.
Forcing people through all that means they collect more interest and I assume some people don’t bother.
https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2026/06/02/building-for-the-future-m...
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/182de6c9-d...
https://www.payments.service.gov.uk/roadmap/
https://www.payments.service.gov.uk/performance/
Associated Adyen post: https://www.adyen.com/press-and-media/adyen-payments-gov-uk