So what's up with the Google-licenses

Last weeks, we hear all kinds of stories on the Google-license, so let's have a closer look.

Google already has a license since 2007
Most people forget this, but the earliest register entry for Google dates back to 2007 for E-money, and was handed out to Google Payment Limited in London. I blogged about it then, and since then we could see a Google Wallet in the works, Google bucks. The register of the FCA/FSA still has the entry here, demonstrating that it was effective until 19/5/2011. The brand name in the register is for Google-checkout.

Passporting
Then from 19/5/2011 onwards there is the next register entry (with the register later being handed over to FCA by 31st of March 2013). The register entry is still for e-money with passports to other countries. These passports date from 18-5-2011 as our Dutch e-money register shows and the firm is also licensed to perform payments under the PSD1 definition. Offering additional PSD2 services is not part of this license.

As for trading names the FCA entry shows Google Wallet is used from 4-1-2013 to 23-1-2018 and since 20-2-2018 it has the brand names: Google Pay and Google Pay balance in the register as well. So the sum entry of all brand names in the UK register is:

• Google Pay,
• Google Pay balance,
• Google Checkout,
• Google Payment Limited,
• Google Wallet

Brexit coming: seek refuge
Now, with the Brexit coming up, there is of course the question how to manage future uncertainty. Many players have been trying to solve the puzzle and my assumption is that the recent moves towards Lithuania and Ireland are Brexit-related. Lithuania is quickly becoming a hot spot for e-money licenses and taking over the dominant role of London in this respect. The license there will allow Google to continue operating in the e-money and payments domain and also offer Payment Initiation and Payment account services.  This makes Google Brexit-proof and PSD2-proof.

Also, we should note that Lithuania does a nice job in offering a digital form of license as well. Have a look at it over here.

When checking the Dutch register, I noted that there is no passport for the Lithuanian entry, but still the UK one. I expect however that the new passporting will become effective in a couple of months, so Google can continue its operations in the EU, now under the Lithuanian passport rather then the UK passport.

As for Ireland, the license is limited to issuing payment instruments and accepting payment transactions, which would point to the fact that Ireland may be the corporate base that also has a role in shaping the future payments infrastructure for Google. It also suits the concept of PSD2 that one has to get the license in the country where it is also used.

Conclusion
Google is since many years in the payments domain and treading carefully, applying different concepts and such. They made themselves Brexit and PSD2-proof by moving to Lithuania (where they are still wating for the passport procedures to finalise) and created additional future business flexibility by applying for payments issuing/transaction acquiring in Ireland.

Google Wallet roll out.... without Google Bucks

It's about five years ago that I discovered, by accident and curiosity, that Google Payments Limited had applied for an e-money license at the FSA. Ever since, people have been wondering how Google would enter the payment space. Would they offer a wallet with virtual cards or would they issue their own new virtual worldwide currency (googles, googlets or gees)?

In good tradition, Google started out doing field tests with the wallet (which would sit in the mobile phone) and announced this in May 2011. The wallet was to contain your credit-card cards as well as a google-pre-paid card. And payment was possible with Paypass while the wallet would also facilitate the savings of loyalty-points. The card information was stored in the Secure-SIM-element in the phone and they experimented quite a bit since then.

So where do we stand now?

Well, the Google Wallet is now being rolled out and the Google development team sent out this video to further explain the wallet concept and roll-out. The most important change is that they decided to move the card-information to the cloud. This allows the Wallet to be used both via Phone and via the Web, with all your card details and important digital documents (ID's, transit pass etc) residing in a safe digital environment. So their distribution model for the application is now changing to making APIs available so that merchants and issuers can easily integrate the Wallet in their site/services.

As such, we can thus see Google moving into an integrators role, rather than a payment instrument issuer role. In fact, at some point in time, the company thought about issuing Google Bucks, according to Eric Schmidt, but abandoned the plan. The concept would consist of a “peer-to-peer” money system by which users seamlessly transfer cash to each other via a hypothetical application. However, various laws about currency and money laundering in different parts of the world made this too complicated to realize.

For now, the peer to peer payments in the Google Wallet are no longer on the agenda. And from a historical perspective (see my other blog) I think it is a good choice. Yet.... one of the developers did mention on this subject: it's impossible for now, but stay tuned for some announcements in the future.

So, are we still in for a surprise here?

Official Google Blog updates work on Google payments

On this official Google Blog you can read an update on the Google Work on Payments. It explains that at first Google needed a payment infrastructure for itself to pay out for the Ads. That used to be all checque based, but over the years Google improved towards ACH and bank-links. Having done all that, it's a smaller step to using the payments connection for users themselves as well (see an example of the purchase and payment process here on Scot Wingo's E-bay blog).

A perfect example of how new forms payments always pop-up on the back of some other primary activity:
- parking,
- buying/selling via e-Bay (Paypal)
- making phone calls (m-Payments)
- travelling (travelers cheque/ credit-card).

It wouldn't pay for anyone to develop a Google-payment product from scratch. But it does if very similar technology and the user base is already in place.

Google moving in with e-money license

Following up on all the news of Skype, I was wondering whether or not major players such as Yahoo, Microsoft and Google were up to further financial business yes or no (see also this report on Microsofts hiring choice for financial services EMEA). If so, the most likely place for them to be active would be the UK, basis of Paypal (assuming Paypal has chosen its home based an a thorough analysis of the best regulatory climate or doing cross-border banking and e-money business).

So what do you get if you go to the FSA register search and type in....:
Yahoo - 433351 - Yahoo! UK Limited - insurance mediation - not much.
Microsoft - 209864 - Microsoft Online UK Ltd ; some stuff about Egg, valid until 31/08/2005
Paypal - 226056 - Paypal (Europe) Ltd, authorised, issuing electronic money,
Skype - nothing
Vodafone - nothing, also their small e-money license has disappeared from the radar.
Google - 462517 - Google Payment Limited, authorised, also for issuing electronic money.

Well, what would they be up to?
Can we conclude that Google have gotten themselves a license, and are 'forgetting' to tell us all about it. I've tried googling the question (as Google knows ;-)) but that didn't get any results. So I guess we'll have to wait and see for further announcements.

Meanwhile I may go about checking the Dutch central registers to see if they have similar stuff in their books.

Google launches Checkout-service

After a lot of speculation Google has now launched Google check-out which aims to make repetitive payments via credit-card easier. Essentially it is a new button which does al the fill-in work for the consumer, while keeping the consumer data confidential. Merchants do not get the full credit-card number, just the ok on a transaction.

As a mechanism for the user it is similar to verified by Visa. The difference is that with verified by Visa the bank kwows that you're in the program while with Google-check-out it doesn't. So the liability rules will be different.

Paypal seeking alliance with Microsoft and Yahoo to counter Google-pay?

The Automatiseringsgids mentions that the Wall Street Journal discussed a possible alliance between E-bay/Paypal and Microsoft and Yahoo as to ensure that Google's ambitions don't go to Google's head. Or at least not to the detriment of e-bay's business. Apparently E-bay may consider moving part of its ad-business from Google to Yahoo/Microsoft.

Internet payments: credit card or Google?

While Visa and Mastercard shamefully need to acknowledge that one of their processors has not acted according to their guidelines (leaving 40M card-numbers etc in the open), Google seeks to expand its business model towards Internet payments.

Will Google succeed in competing with Paypal?
The stock market doesn't think so.
Shares fell after the word got out.

And Ian Grigg has an interesting analysis here:
Where Google will fall short is in the higher layers. Particularly, their regulatory and relationships side is likely to be their archilles heel, that being a reflection of the company as full of geeks that think there isn't a problem that can't be solved by a neat algorithm. They will shine in the lower layers and muddle along in governance and accounting.

Google Wallet May Debut Soon

See this RED HERRING article.

....Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said Google Wallet will not be a PayPal clone. Unlike PayPal, analysts speculate that transactions would be limited to ones between businesses and consumers. The service would probably not allow more personal uses, such as a friend sending money to a friend. But like PayPal, it would likely be a stored value account.

Dan Schatt, an analyst with Celent, a research and consulting firm, predicts the search giant will release the service by the end of the first quarter, if not for the holidays.

Facebook obtained its e-money license : is it the gamechanger for the bigtech disruption of finance ?

About three weeks ago, Facebook has obtained it's e-money license in Ireland. This was in the making since early 2014 and it begs the question whether or not this will mark a big shift in the banking landscape.

Bigtech going for finance?

One could argue that the move by Facebook is another of many steps of big tech players moving into the financial arena and disrupting the financial sector. Where Google has lead the pact from London (with a license in 2007), Amazon chose Luxembourg (license in 2010, passport-out in 2012). With Facebook going down the same path, could we expect Apple or Microsoft to also set up their e-money institution?

My guess is that the bigtech will indeed all move towards some form of e-money license in Europe. It will allow them a direct billing and payment relationship with their customers as well as a role in terms of payment provider for their platforms and services. This is not to say that they will move there fast. If I'm correct, my Google account payments still do not flow via their e-money institution but via a normal bank.

Now, if this happens indeed, will the bigtech further move into financial services or just stick with digital cash and consumer credit?

Bigtech won't dive deep into finance

I don't expect the bigtech to move into full finance for many reasons. We've seen some of the current players moving still quite slowly and sticking to the straightforward business of e-money.

Moving towards other business lines leads to increased complexity and regulatory burden. Bear in mind that the future revenue opportunities for financial institutions as a whole are quite limited and not so attractive. Finally, financial institutions are often held to a higher standard with respect to maintaining their customers privacy, whereas customer data are the lifeblood for Bigtech.

Further move towards less-cash society

The main impact of bigtech going e-money will therefore be the acceleration of our move to wards a less-cash society in which strong brands, platforms and retailers issue their own payment instruments and digital cash. From the outset, Facebook cash could become a big hit as it has the user base, a regular usage pattern for its users and the possibility to best integrate it's e-money functions within their own platform

Only time will tell whether Facebook is also viewed by the public - reputationwise - as a partner to be trusted with your money. But we can rest assured that their offerings will certainly contribute to a less-cash society.

Postbank uses Google to help customers find ING&Postbank ATM's

Perhaps a first in the world-innovation by Postbank this monday. On their website there is a link that allows customers to find an ING or Postbank automated teller machine on the Google map of the Netherlands. Fancy stuff and nice work. Click here to find out and experiment.

Google to hit the scene with payment functionality

Automatiserings Gids reports that Google will introduce its payment function on June 28, with a fee of approximately 1,5 - 2 percent (just under Paypal). Let's see if that works out.....

CASH-ATM.NET: prepaid off-shore Visa card scam ?

I've just been spammed:



Return-path:

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:43:32 -0800

From: Kenneth

Subject: Anonymous E-gold Visa Debit Card

X-Originating-IP: 11.19.98.138



but this time it is an interesting one. This company, CASH-ATM.NET offers an off-shore pre-paid ATM Card that needs to be funded first and can be used later. The company states that it will send the Visa Card via Post.



Now why do I think this is fishy... ?



Is it because:

- they claim that no identification is needed while e-money regulation makes these products fall under identification requirements.... ?,

- of the flashy and intriguing sounds on the website...?

- the spam-address is different from the whoisrecord (that indicates the e-mail of the owner of the site is: diwakar_sapre@yahoo.com.au),

- the terms and conditions state Lebanon to be the state of the issuers and the contact sheet on the website says Black Tree Bank in Barcelona?

- of the Account opening fee of 75 $ and depositing and transaction fee of 2,5 %?

- a Google Spain search does not show Black Tree Bank or Calle Trafalgar?



Who knows?

FATF as in: Facebook As The Foe or Facebook As The Friend ?

Dear Mr Billingslea, dear Members of the FATF and dear civil servants in the room,

As you are nearing the end of a very productive year I wish to commend you on your very hard and wise work of the last year. If we look back on the objectives that the President laid out for 2018-2019 we can see the many accomplishments of this year. It has been a very productive year and one that will be remembered for many years to come. Because you will define what FATF truly stands for. 

Of course there are some commentators that challenge the legitimacy of your work on virtual assets. They outline that your so called open-ended mandate is by definition constrained by the boundaries set by Human RightTreaties, UN Resolutions, Fourth Amendments or rulings of the EU court ofJustice (Tele2) or the US Supreme Court (Carpenter). And they outline that effectively the FATF Standards are leading to a privacy infringement under those Human Rights agreements. I leave those comments aside for now. Historians and judges may be the judge for that.

For now, I wish to draw your attention to a practical dilemma that you will be facing the upcoming week. The dilemma is: does FATF stand for Facebook As The Foe or Facebook As The Friend? 

The answer depends on your own view: which society do you wish to leave behind for your kids?

FATF: Facebook As The Foe
While you were looking out of the frame of libertarian misuse of virtual currencies for all kinds of criminal purposes, you may have forgotten to look out the other window: at bigtech players such as Facebook and Google. Widening your view is of particular relevance now that you are about to endorse a virtual asset recommendation that obliges names of citizens to be sent along with virtual asset transfers (one way or the other).

Let's take a closer look at Facebook. They have thrown the privacy hundreds of million people under the bus. They opened up their systems to developers and allowed mass scale harvesting of personal data to other companies. They have come under severe criticism for this. And they changed a lot of operations, moved people out and such, all in other to counter the criticism about their harvesting of data. Bottom line: they need to remove personal data or ensure that they have proper consent from citizens that are properly informed on the whereabouts of their personal data.

Their latest project is a cryptocurrency / virtual asset programme, with the naam Libra. It leads to the creation of a world currency, backed by a combination of assets. And Facebook will cooperate with other bigtech and Fintech players to make it happen. As the Wall Street Journal outlines:

FATF-virtual asset rule: cryponite to send and harvest personal data without caring about consent 
I am wondering if you have thought trough your recommendation on standards for virtual assets sufficiently. Are you aware that Facebook itself will become a huge Virtual Asset Service Provider? Are you aware that it is now soliciting other big tech companies to become verification nodes in their virtual asset programme? And are you aware this means they don't have to ask any consent from the users who use their coins, to add name information in or with the transaction (whichever way they see fit, as long as they oblige). And this information must also be shared with counterparts (if any) meaning that if I operate a verification node, I am sitting on the information as well? 

The unintended consequence of what you are doing with the virtual asset rules is that, in times of personal data as the economic fuel for society, you are handing out cryptonite to all kinds of private sector players that want to have a free pass for passing on and harvesting personal information. All kind of other companies may follow suit as the FATF-rule is really an easy tool in the box of companies that actively seek to engage in regulatory arbitrage to avoid privacy rules as much as possible. 

Facebook as the Friend....?
The other alternative is that the FATF effectively sees Facebook as a friend. You are aware of the above consequence and view it as a necessary consequence that will be very helpful in capturing the criminals of the future. That would mean that with the FATF-rule you have deliberately chosen to marry with bigtechs.

Now if I Imagine the biggest data-harvesting company in the world marrying the world-wide law enforcers in the world I must say I am sort of afraid to imagine what their kids will look like. This would be too big a confluence of private and public sector roles and it will have a desastrous impact on the world. Some may argue that we were already living in Orwells 1984, but with this rule you will have definitely sealed the deal. 

What you may just do when agreeing to this virtual asset rule, is outlaw all the citizens of their world. Their data are free for all to harvest and in the process you will ride along to see if you capture a terrorist every now and then. 

Historic data does show, by the way, that all the virtual transaction data will not really help as evaluations of the impact of the travel rule indicate that the number of crooks preventively caught in 15 years of its use can be counted on one or two hands. It is always other law enforcement info that gets you to detect them beforehand, never the transaction data.  

What will FATF stand for: wich kind of society do you leave behind?
Will FATF stand for Facebook as the Foe and will you reconsider virtual asset article 7b?
Or will FATF stand for Facebook as the Friend and will you outlaw all personal data of world citizens?

Next week the choice is up to you. I have a hunch you will be going for the Facebook is my Friend model. Because in your groupthink you may be driven to annihilate all kinds of perceived criminal evil even when the tools for doing so are ineffective. Or just beause your are inclined to do as is told and answer to call of your bosses as they said to approve the virtual asset rules. 

Thereafter, you may end up seeing your choice annulled by judges. This may be the result of lengthy procedures or otherwise geopolitical incidents in which one of the kids of the marriage of FATF and Facebook will have turned evil. And then, each one of you in the room will have to answer towards its citizens, politicians, children and grandchildren: how did you not see this coming? 

Don't finalise the paragraph 7b text
I call upon you to consider the above with an open mind and an open heart.
Do the right thing: vote to re-consider or postpone finalisation of the pragraph 7b text. 

Postponing allows for more time to explore all impacts and consequences and have a further debate on what you wish the true acronym FATF to stand for.

Simon Lelieveldt

Ministry of Finance comforts the public: paper based bill payment (acceptgiro) will not disappear due to SEPA

Today the Ministry of Finance responded to questions in parliament with respect to the possible disappearance of the acceptgiro from the Dutch payments landscape. The Minister of Finance Zalm (who is scheduled to make place next Thursday for Labour Bos, who didn't win the recent elections but got his party into the government anyhow) explains that there are no bank plans to abolish the acceptgiro. Banks will keep the product alive as long as there is demand. Which should be a comfort to the public.

Reason for MP van der Vlies to ask those questions was that one day a newspaper hinted in its headlines at a possible phasing out of the acceptgiro (paper based bill payment). Yet, if anyone would have cared to read the article itself, that would have made a lot of difference. Because in the original article ABN AMRO chief Mol merely explained that Dutch banks introduced a new digital form of acceptgiro, which essentially would make life easier for customers (who now type in the 16-digit identifier of the acceptgiro in their Internetbanking appliaction). Furthermore he explained that the product would coexist for a long time with the paper based acceptgiro.

Still, the media hype was quite impressive. Anyone now googling for the words 'einde acceptgiro in zicht' will get more than 70 hits describing the wrong news. And perhaps that's the most striking element of this incident. The news was actually no news at all. What would be news (and in fact quite worrying) is the speed and carelessness with which the media reacted when covering this 'hot news'. Apparently everone copy-pasted each other, with hardly anyone taking the time and effort to check the facts.

So that's another incident in the books where media try to please the public by striking the 'those evil-banks do nothing in the interest of the customer'-chord once again. It may be actually quite the opposite, but the endurance of the acceptgiro won't be likely to lead to 70 hits in Google....

Voorkant Paypal gespot..

en wel door Planet Multimedia. Ga gauw de cache van Google bekijken, daar is de door Garibalidi ontworpen voorkant nog te bewonderen.....

Paybox, wasn't that a mobile payment thing.... once...?

Economic historians may still grab the opportunity and use Google's cache to download the Paybox demo or browse the older pages. But this window of opportunities will most probably disappear quickly.

Open Letter to European regulators on the migration path to a future EU crypto-market with licensed and trustworthy companies

In this blog post, I will share the letter below, which I just sent off to a EU Commission Official from FISMA. I hope the letter speaks for itself as I don't have the time to elaborate/explain. Do note that I did redact the letter slightly by the way, to make the blog post better readable. 

=== 

It has been a while since we had contact on the infringement of the Dutch government with respect to the AMLD5. I would like to notify you that, based on the evaluation  after two years as well as the outcome of a number of legislative procedures and consultations, it seems to me that the infringement complaint might deserve some new attention.

New infringement complaint due to recent legal developments

In particular the human rights/privacy infringement that the current AMLD might already constitute ay not have been sufficiently paid attention to, which I view as a omission, given that we know the EU Court of Justice position with respect to the Data Retention Directive (2014) and most recently, with respect to the PNR Directive (verdict of this week).

In addition the European Data Protection Board has made its concerns on the legitimacy and proportionality of the AML regulations very clear. Also, the Dutch Council of State issued an advice on proposed Dutch legislation, which in essence lays out a no to mass surveillance and transaction monitoring in the financial sector.

Considering the legal clarity that has now arisen, I may re-iterate my previous infringement complaint on the Dutch implementation on the AMLD5. I hope that the recent verdict of the EU Court of Justice as well as the additional documentation and information on the Dutch situation will provide a new evidence base which allow the Commission to asess the complaint with an open mind and considering the new evidence provided after two years of the law having entered into force here in the Netherlands.

New local evidence on lack of enforcement in Netherlands

As new evidence I would like to point out that formal statements by the Dutch Ministry of Finance clarify that large international players that should comply with the AMLD5 are not sufficiently being held to the law by the Dutch Central Bank, despite the sector vehemently requesting the central bank to do so (as of November 2020) in its role of a supervisor. As such DNB is bound to ensure a level playing field and fair competition in the EU, but the failure to supervise/enforce the law distorts the market terribly.

What we can thus now see here in the Netherlands is that large international players are willingly ducking the national legislation with the Dutch central bank being unable to enforce the law and only issuing a mere warning (which in itself does not constitute enforcement action under the supervision law). It is pretty clear that some large nonEU players are biding their time until the MICAR and AMLR arrive and hope to use the EU passport regime while taking the explicit risk to be fined for past wrongdoings and actively deciding to steer clear from registration (using all their means/efforts/lawyers to stall the discussion).

Strategic objective of the EU: don't give away the crypto-market to big tech as you did with the payments market
What the European Commission may be facilitating unwillingly, constitutes the giving away of the EU crypto market to international non EU players, that can be seen to be succesfull in their strategy (see the registration of Binance in France, while under investigation and enforcement action in the Netherlands, UK and a host of other countries). We have seen millions consumer fraud shift among non-regulated players in the Netherlands while these companies use opaque structures to service the Dutch market, channel funds to their systems. Recent articles in the Dutch Financieele Dagblad reiterate the lack of enforcement and damage this does to the existing industry.

Just as the EU regulator gave away the PSD2 market to big tech companies by allowing them to misuse their monopoly position on the 3rd authentication factor (biometrics) and platform dominance to force in the Google/Apple pay type of revenue skimming new payments, the EU regulator may also unintentionally invite non EU crypto players to take over the EU market, if the current infringements of governments (that allow their supervisors to let illegal/unlawful actors to play a waiting game for EU legislation instead of enforcing those players with a strict regime) are not addressed properly.

It is time for the EU Commission to show its true colours and understand the geopolitical relevance of having a strong EU bloc of cryptocompanies rather than an invited and facilitated monopoly of non-EU big platform players. Even if you decide to lay my fourth infringement complaint aside, please take note of the strategic damage that you might be doing if you accept that companies that did not honour EU laws when they were based on AMLD5, deserve preferential treatment by taking their applications for license in a first come first serve order.

A need for clear rules / incentive structure upon the shift to licensing regimes for crypto
The EU Commission should be a proponent of a migration regime for new AML and MICA-r regulations where EU companies and non-EU companies that have fully implemented all EU regulations of the EU states since AMLD5 get a preferred fast track treatment for their applications. Those that have not done so should not be able to gain any commercial or legal advantage based on the standard financial supervisor reasoning: let's start with the crypto companies first. Such a procedure would constitute a perverse incentive structure where disobeying EU law pays off.

Instead, those big international crypto companies that have in one or more EU states not complied with the current rules can be clearly considered of insufficient reputation/standing due to this fact. They should pay off their open non-compliance debt by both paying the fines applicable to ducking the rules so far and by being the last in line to receive a license under the new rules. In particular for legislation that seeks to avoid the risks of money laundering / illicit profit making, I fail to see why major actors in the market might be condoned by EU authorities or supervisors for previous, visible transgressions of EU-based local legislation.

I hope the Commission appreciates my point of view and its relevance for a future thriving crypo-market with properly regulated companies of good standing and willingness to comply with EU rules.

with kind regards
Simon Lelieveldt

Receiving payment for Adsense

This summer I received Googles first cheque for payment of the Adsense ads. Of course a cheque, because that's the US way of doing payments. And although the cheque is an obscure payment instrument for the Dutch, I only needed a few mouse clicks to arrive at this Postbank page for information on cashing the cheque. Too bad, that the fee for cashing turns out to be € 12,3 (on a sum of € 104 euro).



It would be better for both Google and me if they would use Paypal instead. Perhaps for the next payment?

Nieuws uit de internet-wereld

Uit de Internet-wereld diverse berichten:

-de gezamenlijke winkeliers in Nederland hebben nieuwe afspraken over winkelen op internet gemaakt (aldus de Automaseringsgids) en gaan zich aan alle Nederlandse en Europese regels en code's houden,

-Sony heeft een deal met Global Collect gesloten om de betalingen te regelen voor verkoop van spelletjes (aldus Planet Multimedia),

-alltheweb zou Google in gaan halen als zoekmachine,

-Ron Onrust attendeerde mij op artikel in the Wall Street Journal van 20 juni 2002 waaruit duidelijk wordt dat Paypal stopt met samenwerken met Electronic Payment Exchange en vanaf november gaat samenwerken met Wells Fargo tbv autorisatie credit-card transacties. Reden: credit-card maatschappijen proberen zoveel mogelijk kaf van het autorisatiekoren te scheiden en reselling van autorisaties zoveel mogelijk uit te bannen.

-John Caspers wees me op het persbericht van Bibit; voor de eerste keer wordt een winst gemeld. Goed nieuws in barre tijden (de beurs heeft de gebruikelijke zomer-depressie op dit moment). Hoofdoorzaak volgens Bibit is dat ze in staat zijn zowel telefonische als Internet-transacties te processen.

Japan's Seven-Eleven operator to launch e-money service and multi-accepting terminals

Taken from this google alert:
Seven & I Holdings Co. (3382.TO) said Friday that it will set up e-money reader terminals at its group stores starting this autumn in a bid to lay the groundwork for accepting different types of electronic cash.

The Japanese retail giant, which operates Seven-Eleven convenience stores in Japan, said it will install "multi-reader writers" in registers at 11,000 of its stores. The reader system, developed by Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (6752.TO), will allow customers to pay with Seven & I's "nanaco" prepaid e-money available next year, as well as with JCB Co.'s QUICPay pay-later e-money service.

So Japan is well up to the non-cash e-money types. And in doing so the Japanese market is living proof of the inevitable interoperability and acceptance of multiple cards at one location.