Perspectives on Ca-Libra # 1. Getting rid of three smokescreens

This week the world has witnessed the announcement by Facebook of Calibra, a digital currency wallet and company. The wallet holds Libra, a virtual currency, with the idea to be used globally. Its distribution and use will be further promoted, organised and executed via an association of partners, called the Libra-association. The information pack (download here) also outlines more technical details on programming languages, future plans and committment to regulatory compliance.

Immediately thereafter, a storm of analysis emerged in order to understand the initiative. Quite some politicians and regulators are eager to quickly respond and that is completely understandable.

Facebook is not just the grocery shop around the corner, dabbling about with some new technology. It has allocated significant resources to the development of Libra. With a customer base of at least 2 billion (close to 25% of the worlds population) it is an entity that in itself acts as a world-wide platform and does not need others to achieve a network effect.

Perspectives as the approach for this series of blogs
As the Libra-initiative can be viewed from many angles, I plan to write this series of blogs and label them as perspectives. It's always helpful to view things from a couple of angles and that is precisely what I intend to do. This means we will be looking into definitions, regulatory regimes, business case and previous historical analogies. And as we go along I will take stock of developments and responses.

As you may notice, I will be judging Facebook by a very high standard. The reason for that is simple. If an organisation has so many resources available, I expect them to come up with careful, consistent and accurate thinking, wording and technology. And as a sneak preview: this is not what we got over the last week.

While the maturity of the exercise may look impressive to some observers, the huge inconsistencies and home-brewed interpretations of what a blockchain is cannot be a coincidence. We can see an announcement that Calibra will become available in 2020, while the state of thinking mid 2019 is 'early in the process'. This is accompanied by a PR-smokescreen on cryptocurrencies, that doesn't help our understanding the effort.

So the very first challenge that exists, when discussing the Ca-Libra virtual currency initiative, is to separate fact from fiction and to be precise in terminology. That is why this first blog seeks to get rid of the three biggest smokescreens that we were facing this week.

Smokescreen #1: libra association is not an ecosytem but a payment association with added functionalities
If we start with the source of payments revenue for Facebook, this originally all boiled down to payments related to Flash games (in 2015). But technical problems in Flash would hit their revenue. So they quickly understood the need to be more flexible and to be able to operate different business propositions and solutions. Therefore they moved towards licenses in the US (cash via messenger) and in Europe. They also moved the US e-cash system to France and UK, but announced 2 months ago that they would drop it in Europe per June 15, 2019.

And now, per June 18, 2019 Facebook essentially announce to re-up their game, but not with electronic euro's but with a self-invented world currency, backed by other currencies and liquid financial instruments. To blow away the first smokescreen, let's analyse the difference between the old Facebook e-cash or e-money with fiat currencies and the new Facebook libra, as distributed by Libra Association.

What we can see is that Facebook seeks to move the fiat-currency of its e-money system out of its direct control and responsibility as an issuer. Facebook Payments Inc is currenlty the entity that is responsible and guards all the relevant rules with respect to working with the e-currency. But in the new construct Facebook Calibra is merely one validator that can use the Libra-system under open source rules. So we see the fiat-e-currency companies of Facebook stepping aside and a new Libra association entering the playing field. At the same time, the technology shifts from in-house proprietary systems to an open-source codebase in the hands of no one in particular.

Top organisation	Facebook Inc	Facebook Inc
Type of asset	Virtual Currency	E-money
Denomination	Libra (self-invented)	Pound, Dollar
Issuer / Currency creation	Libra ‘association’	Facebook Ireland
Nature of issuing	No direct issuance to customers. Direct issuance to validators.	Direct issuance to customers Direct redemption at issuer
Secondary market	Secondary/tertiary market with reselling - disbursement via exchanges/other institutions	No reselling of e-money.
Fee structure for Reselling	Unknown, but most likely the price for validators is unequal to that for exchanges or customers.	Issuance at par and redemption Of full amount minus some cost
Issuing without Customer demand	Currency base may change without actual demand of customers.	Issuance as part of buy-transaction of the customer
Reserve pool	100% reserve in basket of currencies	100 % reserve in Denominated fiat currency
Technology	Open Source community	Proprietary
Control and use of technology	Unknown contractual arrangements and safeguards for entities in the value chain	All usage governed by contract with issuer and financial law

Bringing the currency to the public or ducking the issuance responsibilities?
Of course one could frame the above shift of roles as bringing a currency to the public. Facebook is however dumping its core-responsibilities with respect to shaping and operating a currency-system and moving a lot of activities to an ill-equipped new Libra association with no track record at all.

While Calibra states that it will comply with all relevant legislation, we can see that the actual information of the Libra Association in this respect is pretty thin. They issue a currency-like digital token/record but do not explain which legal regimes would apply. Also their actual claim as whether they are a not-for-profit organisation does not align fully with this twitter thread outlines that it is a regular company with wider statutes.

If it looks/talks/qucks like a payments scheme, it is a ...?
In payment terms - which is what Facebook says to be aiming for - the Libra Association is essentially a payment scheme. Such a scheme defines the rules for an ecosystem that wishes to transact electronically. Examples are Visa and Mastercard, organisations that need to abide with a lot of rules in order to avoid them becoming a place of illegal cartel-agreements on price and illegitimate contract terms to end users.

With payment schemes we have huge and long discussions and deliberations of price levels. There is the obligation to ensure that there is no obligation to buy processing power from the scheme itself. There are policy views and obligations that schemes should be interoperable and open. And then there is a mountain of rules that specifies how to use the brand and which technical criteria must be complied with in order to be allowed to connect to the system.We find very little of this in the current papers on the association.

What makes this payment scheme special, a payment-scheme-plus ?
What sets Libra apart from Visa and Mastercard is that the association is effectively an issuer of the currency. This means a blurring of operational roles and scheme responsibilities, which is generally considered as a bad practice in governance terms. But what is most striking is that the membership rules are not geared towards controlling/monitoring and creating a safe and sound currency. We find no mention of specific prudential licenses or governance/quality certifications required for different roles under the scheme and as a member (or shareholder).

The only thing we read is: we seek to expand, we want to incentivise the use of the token and for this we don't want the small players in the market. We aim for the big players with market power. We separate the wholesale participants from the retail participants (allowing for price upticks). And then - the devil is in the details - the customer pricing format is based on a FOMO-principle (do you want your transaction processed: please throw in some more gas).

I am curious what reasoning Facebook and its founding members have had in this respect. The whole association setup is ostensibly aimed at market dominance, without proper governance safeguards and without any guarantees as to operational security and safety and soundness of the system. If I were a competition regulator I would jump at the opportunity to wait for the founders to sign the participation agreement and deliver a letter to their doorstep, next day, to start investigating the market abuse that might be at play here.

Governance claims and reality: a scheme is a supertanker without effective governance
I have been reading all the statements on the public structure of the association with a lot of amusement. Facebook is claiming that it will bring the intellectual property into the public domain and of course all the members of the association have a voice. So this seems to be well arranged with room for consultation, discussion and changing course.

The reality is completely different, as everybody in the banking sector knows. There is sufficient experience with clearing houses and associations (even with a relatively small number of shareholders) that are unable to essentially change course, once set up. Large associations like EPC, Visa, Mastercard, are effectively orphans without parents. Stakeholders are always irritated about the fact that these associations set their own course and associations always claim their shareholders have no vision. Bottom line: if you transfer your Libra-currency design into this domain, it is quite likely to be persistent. So don't expect any radical changes after this one is live; it will be gradual evolution from here onwards.

Not just a scheme for the payment instrument, but the unit of account (and a security as well)
There is another difference between Libra and Mastercard and Visa that I would like to highlight. The regular payment schemes seek to transact efficiently, taking existing currencies/structures as a basis. But this scheme introduces a new currency itself and regulates this currency via the management of reserve assets. It demonstrates that the aim of Facebook is to design its own Facebook buck, push it into the public domain and then profit from the benefits of having their own unit of account in place, while hiding behind the members and the open source philosophy when things go wrong.

A specific element in the scheme is that the unit of account is backed by a basket of currencies and financial instruments. Effectively this means that if you buy one Libra, you buy a couple of foreign currencies. Or put differently: you participate in an open ended money market / investment fund. And you use the digital representation of your participation in this fund as a means of payment.

This is a bit of double work as this means the association and the scheme are not just subject to payments legislation but also to investments/securities legislation. But it is legally possible: the payment would legally not be a discharge of obligations via a financial payment, but via a payment in kind (currency basket).

So what do we see here?

The Libra association is a mere manager of the governance and operational arrangements and activities that come with using the virtual currency Libra and participating in the Libra scheme. This Libra scheme is a private and commercial arrangement which:
- defines a unit of account for a new virtual currency: the Libra,
- defines the asset mix that backs one currency unit,
- lays out the distribution and management rules of the currency units and reserve funds,
- lays out commercial rules and does a private placement to further promote the use of the Libra by giving them away (for free or at a discount).

The Libra association itself will be steering future technical development and is charged with the project goal to move the whole infrastructure towards a permissionless setup. This is completely impossible (as these associations act with oil-tanker dynamics) but that brings us to the next smokescreen.

Smokescreen #2: Libra is not a blockchain, not a cryptocurrency but a digital virtual currency /financial instrument
It was fascinating to see that the carefully crafted and prepared introduction of the Libra sought to position it as blockchain and as a cryptocurrency. This creates a lot of noise. Also, the use of similar words for different concepts and organisations is confusing.

We should distinguish between:
1- Calibra, the organisation, a 100 % subsidiary of Facebook, acting as a validator node,
2- Calibra, the branded digital wallet developed by Calibra to carry the Libra virtual currency,
3- Libra, the digital currency that will be in the Calibra wallet
4- Libra, the reserve pool of assets that backs the digital currency,
5- Libra Core, the Network or 'blockchain' that forms the core operating technology for clients and validators,
6- Move, the programming language developed for the Libra Network.
7- Libra, the association governing, promoting and executing the virtual currency system,
8- Libra members, big commercial players that may join the Libra association, provided that they are a validator.

What struck me in the communication is the flagrant re-definitioning by Facebook of the concepts blockchain and cryptocurrency. Facebook really wants to be seen as doing some cryptocurrency stuff. But they don't. Just for fun I will be comparing the Facebook FAQ with the wisdom of the Wiki-crowd.

Libra is not a blockchain
Facebook succeeds in not mentioning the facts that blockchains are, by definition and terminology, a chain of blocks, linked together. Wiki has it right.

What is a cryptocurrency exactly: native currency of an open blockchain
Wiki states, that the decentralized control of cryptocurrencies works through distributed ledger technologies, typically a blockchain. Personally I would not have mentioned those ledgers as the blockchain is not so much a ledger as a journal (log roll of transaction entries). And apps are creating the ledger feeling for blockchains. But let's look at the wording in the image.

The wording of Facebook is interesting. It speaks of using cryptocurrency due to the use of strong crypto. This leaves out the issue that cryptocurrencies may be native to blockchains (as in chains of blocks). And then Facebook moves on to cryptocurrencies being built on blockchain technologies.

Which is true of course, but if I use all the parts of an air plane to build a firmly grounded restaurant, this doesn't mean that my restaurant is still an operational air plane. It is built on air plane technology, but the wording matters. Facebook puts up a smoke screen here to position itself in the blockchain community.

Libra is not a cryptocurrency
The funniest part of the Facebook FAQ was the mere statement that the Libra is a new cryptocurrency designed to have a stable and reliable value. Coming from a perspective where cryptocurrencies are inherent elements of open, truly decentralised permissionless blockchains, this is an interesting statement. It demonstrates that Facebook wishes to be a cryptocurrency but it isn't.

The text above also shows that Facebook has its eyes on the stablecoins that are around. These stablecoin are, in my view, privately issued currencies, with the goal of a fiat peg. The stable-'coin' is used a lot in the cryptoworld to facilitate fiat/crypto exchanges in times when the financial system is not online. The fact that this currency is used a lot in the cryptoworld, does however not make it a cryptocurrency in the terms of an inherent currency of an open permissionless blockchain.

Libra, what is it then, in regulatory terms?
My conclusion, after quite some pondering and tweeting is the following.

Libra is a privately issued and distributed digital  and virtual ‘currency’, that is intended to function as a means of payment. It is not a true currency because its actual composition/counter value is a basket of fiat-currencies and financial instruments. It is not e-money as the Libra is not ‘monetary value’. The digital value qualifies as a financial instrument (a mini-participation in an open ended investment fund) and is used in an open source payment instrument, to be used for payment and acquiring. Both payments and securities legislation apply, as well as the relevant competition and consumer protection rules. 

The Libra association is the scheme owner and scheme operator of the Libra virtual currency. This currency/investment can only be bought directly by members of the Libra association. Other entities or customers must revert to second tier players, exchanges or peer-2-peer applications. Technical development of applications is encouraged and rules to secure the application by contract or licensing seem to be absent.

Due to the blending of scheme and operations, the Libra association cannot really be viewed as the beginning of a proper payment scheme. Functionality, pricing and membership rules make Libra and the Libra association an easy target for consumer/data protection and competition supervisors, bank supervisors and securities supervisors.

Smokescreen #3: Libra is not a charity exercise that seeks to operate a public good but a commercial enterprise
A huge amount of effort has gone into convincing the public this week that Libra is all about helping the rest of the world. Getting more inclusive finance. Making payments faster, easier and such. It is striking that these statements mirror the claims that originally come from the Bitcoin community or from the Fintech community.

Of course those claims strike a chord. People may well be fed up with their banks and the perception of banks with slow procedures and expensive fees for foreign payments are an easy target for PR-people who want to position their initiative in a friendly way to the public. Who doesn't want to take on the banks and improve the world.

Commercially, the thinking of Facebook is most likely to be that it needs to counter the We-chat Pay dangers and all other Fintech movements that lead to easy in-app payments. Payments will increasingly be an afterthought and harvesting the data in those payments will allow for even higher ad revenues, as Facebook will see what works and what doesn't. Interestingly Facebook did not increase the speed of its current developments; it chose to move up the value chain, towards setting up its own currency and hoping that it will work as a unit of account (and may stay in the system for long).

Of course, the move by Facebook is a big signal. But we must note that there are still also other players that could make the same move. Which would lead to some form of a duopoly (as with Mastercard and Visa) and the need to agree on interoperability or on open access to infrastructures of the big techs involved. I did not come across this notion a lot, so far.

The public good narrative: unbelievable coming from Facebook
What struck me most, coming from Facebook as a centralised company that is not interested in respecting democracies and laws written by those democracies, is the sketch of opportunities in the White Paper. And do have a look at the phrasing on public good.

Given that by now I hope to have convinced you that the design of the Libra association and its constituency is far below the usual standards to be expected from payment schemes, you can imagine that I was unable to reconcile these laudable beliefs with the actual proposition.

If you truly wish to create a new public good, a new worldwide currency, it is not impossible to deliver this with private sector entities. There is a whole range of public policy theories (delivery of universal services or service of general interest) that can help out here. But putting the richest, biggest enterprises of the world in one room, to distribute a world currency/investment proposition without proper safeguards or recognition and qualification of the activities of the issuing association is not the way I would go about.

Facebook cloaking its plans in cryptoterms,but why? 
Let's face it. This whole complex open source, cryptocurrency story that Facebook has published is not necessary. If Facebook Payments Inc or Facebook Ireland wishes to change its currency mechanism towards a different setup it could do so itself. Why is there a need to involve other stakeholders with a trendy and hip storyboard on decentralisation, blockchains, cryptocurrencies and such?

It can't be a money issue. Facebook has sufficient resources to fund the whole exercise itself. And the quality of the exercise could then convince other commercial partners to join. So why the need to step out of its digital currency issuing role itself?

To me it is pretty clear that Facebook seeks to move up in our lives. Doing our financial business is not enough. It is all about entering our mind at a deep level. At the fiat currency level. We should think prices in terms of Libra, not in terms of fiat currency. And there is a good power reason for it. Because as long as Facebook uses digital fiat currencies it can be under the rule of the government that issues it. Now, by having a basket of currencies, Facebook can kick out currencies/countries if need be. State regulators and supervisors lose their power.

In addition, Facebook chooses to limit its own role and hide behind am Swiss association, to cover the fact that they don't want to take the responsibilities that come with issuing a worldwide association. They are suckering/forcing partners into joining this programme, without alerting them to the obvious violations of competition rules that may arise. They leave out all mentions of safeguards and contractual arrangements that can aid in ensuring operational integrity for this worldwide currency. Rather they throw the technology in the public domain, knowing well that this means that it's use cannot be fully controlled.

It is no surprise why politicians and regulators were keen to act. Their immediate response was that this was a further extension of an a-moral company that stops at nothing. As Maxine Walters outlined in the US, when asking Facebook to stop further development:

Reversing the statements to see what's hidden in plain sight: ruthless selfishness
As a thought exercise I was wondering. If they claim that it is a blockchain and cryptocurrency, while essentially it isn't, shouldn't we also reverse the other statements to see what is truly happening here.

I leave the result for you to ponder and thank you for bearing with me in this ultralong blog.
Up next I expect blog 2 to be about EU-definitions and legislation.

THE THREAT
As we, as Facebook are in it strictly for our own goals, we intend to hide our true intentions and motivations so we can fool the community and our partners in the ecosystem to go along. 

We believe that many more people should buy financial and identity services from our company specifically, even when doing so will come at a higher cost than the available alternatives. 

We don't believe that people have an inherent right to control the fruit of their legal labour. 

We believe that global, open, instant, and low-cost movement of money will create immense economic opportunity and more commerce for us in particular. 

We believe that people will increasingly trust centralized forms of governance. 

We believe that a global currency and financial infrastructure should not be designed and governed as a public good. 

We believe that we don't bear a final responsibility ourselves to help advance financial inclusion, support ethical actors, and continuously uphold the integrity of the ecosystem.

PS. I have changed the definition on June-24, to reflect that the currency is a mini-investment fund which is used in an app/ecosystem that would qualify as a payment instrument. Definition blog will follow.

A new FAQ for PSD2 would be very useful to harmonise interpretations across Europe

Summary

The second Payment Services Directive, published end of December last year, is an important and welcome next in the further integration of payment services in Europe. In order to achieve a true European level playing field ‘on the ground’, a clarifying FAQ for those who prepare its implementation today would be very welcome.

A FAQ that explains how the PSD2 definitions will apply in all Member states to the variety of business models and transaction mechanisms observed, will enhance the purported level playing field. This harmonised guidance is just as important as the FAQ/guidance provided for the first PSD. Both regulators and the market have further developed since PSD1 and it is essential to recognise some of the underlying dynamics and developments of the payments market.  

1. Out of scope, limited network or regulated?

At present, member states use the harmonised PSD-rules to determine whether or not a certain business model defines as a payment activity or can be categorised as an exemption. Both in terms of content and process, the approaches vary considerably between supervisors. The feedback of supervisors varies from an elaborate argumentation to merely the brief outcome of an internal review process. 

Also in terms of content, the approaches vary. Business models that are out of scope in one member state may be exempt or require a license in others. The lack of a central register of supervisory statements on those matters makes this hard to identify, but the PSD2 will change this. All business activity exempted under article 3k and 3l, must be notified and the exemption decision will be published in a central register.

The practical consequence is that market participants can more easily determine which business models are exempted in which countries. This means that the supervisors must ensure that their qualifications are well-grounded and harmonised. One of the major challenges in this respect is to take into account the technological and market developments.

2. Technological developments: open and device-agnostic

Just one look at a user’s technical environment demonstrates that the major trend in payment technology development is the move from closed, bespoke systems and standards to more open structures. Whereas previously payment providers would control (sometimes own) all technological instruments to be used in a payment transaction, this is no longer the case.

The future infrastructure setting is one in which consumers and merchants will use their own technical device, and providers need to ensure that it can be used safely. We can now see card-based payments, where no plastic is used anymore, as the payment is made via a virtual card application in the mobile phone or PC. At the same time, in the back-office, the systems are opening up to the outside world via Application Programming Interface’s (APIs). Rather than having one instrument that operates as a shopping and a payments tool simultaneously, we can see that the value chain of search, shop and pay can be arranged via modularized interfacing of channels and technologies.

Therefore, when assessing the qualification of the technologies in todays payments, an open and functional approach is required. The classical approach, in which one tries to find the main device (such as a card) that services as the payment instrument and then builds the further classification of a system around that instrument, will no longer work. There will be all kinds of devices and technical tools and while some may classify as payment instruments, others may not.

Fortunately, the definition of payment instrument in the payment services directive enables this functional approach. The definition mentions both ‘a personalized device’ and/or a ‘set of procedures’ to be viewed and defined as the payment instrument:

"payment instrument" means a personalised device(s) and/or set of procedures agreed

between the payment service user and the payment service provider and used in order

to initiate a payment order;

3. Where is the commerce and where is the payment transaction?

As technology slices up the commercial value chain, we should note the relevance of the last element of the definition of payment instrument: ‘to initiate a payment order’. There is a clear difference between the commercial use of devices for purchases (apps, shopping carts on the web, nfc-identification devices) and the later moment in which aggregated purchases are actually being paid. This can be compared to the difference between the shopping cart/button on a website and the payment button.

The main question to ponder is therefore: does the technology service allow the user to make a payment to any other payee in Europe (under the SEPA-rules) and is the transaction actually a payment order, or is it merely a shopping transaction, with payments being arranged later on.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the next years, we will witness a shift away from devices as the actual payment instrument. It may be more suitable to put the (user) accounts centre stage as the actual payment instrument. When applied by retailer organisations, such a choice will enable them to build a multi-channel sales-channel in which the device used is irrelevant. The sales channel aggregates purchase transactions towards the user account at the retailer. In cases where the retailer merely aggregates these purchases and initiates a direct debit for the total sum to be paid, this remains an administrative account as the actual payment account in the process is that of the bank. Only in cases where actual payments orders are initiated from such an account, it would become the payment account as well as the payment instrument for the commercial transactions.

It is crucial to distinguish the commercial from the payment process domain when evaluating apps and identification tools on the market. The actual payments can be expected to become the afterthought of commerce, rather than a primary service. These can flow via a payment account in the background, which is provided by retailer, bank or payment service provider. It is that account that will then function as the payment instrument in the commercial transaction and not the purchase device/application used. Supervisors should thus not immediately label ‘the card’ or any specific technical tool in a commercial business model as the payment instrument.

4. Areas and definitions of interest for the application of the PSD2

We’ve seen that the democratisation of technology allowed non-bank payment service providers to enter the payment space. Among those will also be retailers that can leverage the technology to provide a better customer experience. If those retailers are to use a services and customer contract with a monthly SEPA-direct debit agreement in the background, the payment services directive will not be relevant for them.

Similarly there is the question whether the payments services directive would have to apply to intermediary web-based platform companies that help users transact among themselves. Such business models could be in or out of scope based on the interpretation whether:

- the payments are seen as a regular occupation or business activity (art 1,2b),

- the agency model applies,

- the new definition of acquiring applies,

- the limited network exemption applies.

I hope that the collective of regulatory players involved in the transposition and application of the PSD2 will succeed in addressing those scoping and definitions issues early-on. In this respect the publication of a FAQ on those issues, may be a very effective tool to clarify and ensure the level playing field.

Where and how to look for innovation in payments ?

This week I had the pleasure of joining a panel on retail payments innovation as a part of a seminar by van Doorne and Innopay on the Payment Services Directive and the future changes for the payment industry. Panel chair Gijs Boudewijn challenged me to formulate some thoughts on the future direction of retail payments. I answered that the best place to look would be in places and via perspectives that we could be overlooking right now.

1. Is it access to the account or a traceable id that matters?
There is a lot of discussion on the text of the second Payment Services Directive and on the legal and technical mechanisms that are required to make access to the account work. Due to their origin, these discussions are quite bank centric and the implementation issues surrounding this topic will drain a lot of resources of many players involved.

While being busy with this PSD2 issue, we may overlook the fact that all one really needs is a simple chip-id. In the Netherlands for example, one could use the chip-id of public transport ticket issuer TLS as a basis for use in hip and new proprietary retailer/consumer applications. These would combine the chip-id with an intelligent voucher/billing/customer system that utilises SEPA-direct debits in the back-end. It would provide a smooth customer and retailer experience while the bank only sees regular transactions.

My proposition here is that if we're all looking towards access to the account as the hot spot for innovation, we may be looking in the wrong direction. It might be more about the traceable id.

2. The retailers have landed in an interesting position
In his tomorrows transactions blog Dave Birch referred to an analysis by Peter Jones from PSE on the impact of the interchange fee regulation, published in the Journal for Payments Strategy and Systems. The main conclusion of it was that financially the retailers are the winners by getting a cap on their fees. I agree with that and would be inclined to broaden this perspective.

By tradition banks were the players with the monopoly on payments technology and security knowledge. Even in the 1980s, the collective of retailers in the Netherlands had done a feasibility study to set up their own Point of Sale system. This showed they could set it up for € 5 million euro but they didn't want to take the risk of it failing. So they left it to the banks (to complain about high fees later).

Since that time, the knowledge on processing and payments has become available to a wide range of players, to the extend that banks are now lagging in expertise and capability (while being locked into old technology solutions). The consequence is that retailers will be well able to develop or use in-house apps, customer relation services and payment mechanisms that use the bank infrastructure, without being subject to the rules of the Payment Services Directive.

The main development is therefore that the obliged intermediary role of banks in providing payment mechanisms is gone and will erode. Retailers can regain their customer relationship by themselves or in cooperation with any other ICT-provider that allows them to identify the customer and provide a processing infrastructure. Some interesting innovations can therefore be expected at the outer boundaries of the PSD, as a consequence of the possible exemptions.

I expect both physical and e-retailers to use the non-bank, non-payment space that the PSD defines to achieve exactly what they're after: increased customer retention, increased conversion and a smooth payment experience. Bottom line: we might better be looking outside of the PSD to see innovation in action.

3. On ledgers and tokens
As a final thought I would encourage everyone to try a different mindset for the developments that we are witnessing. Because in essence, anything that happens (in payments/retail) boils down to either tokens (coins, notes, points) or ledgers (private or public). Now let's see what happens if we apply this framework.

We might then appreciate the bitcoin emergence as an innovation in the area of collective ledger provision with distributed trust. We could reposition Linked-In as a privately owned, open and self-administered ledger, that logs individuals achievements that are relevant in the work domain. The same would hold for Facebook and many other e-commerce companies. We would call banks the keepers of the trusted and well protected financial ledgers and would also note that in the public domain, a whole range of ledgers are being interconnected for the sake of security, anti-fraud measures etc.

We could also look at the world of tokens, in its many variations. Tokens of shopping behaviour (saving points), tokens of access (tickets), tokens from government (coins and banknotes), tokens of appreciations (awards, prizes) and tokens that prove identity or personal characteristics. Some of those tokens might be valuable and lead to a change of some of the ledgers, while others would have a role in their own right (voucher for a free coffee).

While it is clear that there are quite a few interesting new developments in the ledger-space, could it be that it is the token-domain where the true action is going to be ?

Payments as an afterthought
In sum: the non-bank, identity-based, non-regulated commercial domain might well be the area where we can see innovations that show us how today's technology can be made to work best so that payments become the afterthought that they are.

ECB provides outlook on retail payments in Europe at EPCA-conference

Pierre Petit, deputy director general (payments and market infrastructure) of the European Central Bank, has outlined the ECB’s  views on European retail payments. He made his remarks at the EPCA Summit 2014, where he defined the role of the European Retail Payments Board (ERPB) and the follow-up on the SecurePay recommendations on access to payment accounts.

New players to be part of drive towards integrated European payments market

The ERPB is to become a forum for driving the further development towards an integrated European payments market in the post-SEPA situation. Petit confirmed that the first meeting of this group is to take place in May, and new industries such as e-money providers and payment services institutions are to join in these discussions, along with other representatives of both consumers and providers.

The ERPB will aim to further stimulate the development of the European retail payments market by working together on topics such as innovation and integration.  The group will identify  and address strategic issues and work priorities, including business practices, requirements and standards. Issues could include the development of a single e-mandate solution or the improvement of interoperability between national e-payment schemes.

Security requirements for payment account access services

The ECB announced that it would this month publish the responses and the results of the consultations on security for payment access to the accounts. The publication would be for information only, given that the European Banking Authority will be providing guidelines on security measures under the revised Payment Services Directive.

Although the ECB does not want to impose formal requirements as there is a risk that the EBA could take a different position, it is likely that the two-factor authentication model of the SecurePay forum will remain the norm for retail payments account access services and mobile payments.

Digital Money Forum 2012... 15th anniversary and lively as ever

The Digital Money Forum is an event that this year reached it's 15th anniversary. And a special event it is. My previous visit to the Forum was probably some ten years ago, when everyone was pretty much into the e-money way of life. But technology, money and society continue to develop and that's where Dave Birch and his team of Consult Hyperion come in. In setting up the forum they provide for a lively and thought-provoking event where money is dealth with from all different angles. And as before, it was a pleasure to participate.

So this years event was special in many ways. We all got a better look at the evolving phone payment landscape, delved into possible future scenario's for the world and money, we spoke about the future and death of cash, about social inclusion and lots, lots more. And, quite fascinating, I got to issue my own currency, PunkMoney, via Twitter, by promising the developer, Eli Gothill, two beers and a financial history tour in Amsterdam.

A bit more on the principles of Punkmoney (as I understand them). If we look at money it is an invention to facilitate transactions in society. But before the official money we had mutual obligations and trust relations in society. I would help my neighbours out with building their house, assuming they would do the same for me, in time. And so on. So there was this web of mutual obligations and promises that cemented the relations in society.

Now what Punkmoney does is to leave all the monetary issues and digital money aside and elegantly replicate this web of promises. With some rules as how to form proper messages, Twitter as the carrier and a software enige that scans twitter for any promises of Punkmoney. And when it finds one, it registers it and there you have it. Not the real money, but something even better: real promises. Just as trustworthy as... yourself.

After Punkmoney, we moved on to another kind of money. Monopoly money, sitting on a Samsung phone (with an application neatly developed by Easan).

Six teams on six tables started playing and as for me personally, I was literally quite lucky. I landed on 3 airports in the beginning of the game, won some lotteries and eventually turned into a big shot property owner. I turned out to be the winner of the competition, with an awesome price: this incredibly beautiful banknote (an official German forgery of a UK 20 pound note; part of the Bernhard operation):

Some more on that will follow on my financial history blog later.

The cultural side of payments: Hofstede provides an interesting picture

One month ago I had a meeting with two American visitors that wished to know more about the history of payments here in the Netherlands. And as they had just arrived and had no time for the Walking tour on the history of Dutch payments we discussed those topics over a cup of coffee and lunch. And of course we came to discuss the Why-question. Why is it that the Dutch seem to be more keen on cooperating in the area of payments than other countries?

Of course there are a number of historical reasons. And one might argue that the Dutch are of a more cooperative nature given that they have to battle the water cooperatively, but it's hard to substantiate this. But then I realized that Geert Hofstede had done quite some work differences between cultures. And the funny thing is: if you chart his data, you can indeed see that the Dutch score high on uncertainty avoidance, long term orientation and low on masculinity and power distance.

So there you have it. The reflection of our cultural mindset that stimulates us to choose cooperative solutions when developing and organizing payment methods and systems. This is not to say that everything is and was collective here in the Netherlands. But in the long run there is a strong tendency to cooperate on standards.

Fed issues rules to debit card interchange...

After a lot of thinking, the FED issued its rules for debit card interchange. Essentially they've outlined the borders beteen which the outcome in the market is acceptable. And it's a smart solution for a tricky debate, because at some point it looked as if the FED didn't really knew what they were up to.

An interesting element is that 3 party networks are excluded from the regulation (which is legally inevitable). And that a sort of competition appears to be forced upon the issuer. In any case, the markets reaction in terms of increasing share price was quite clear. Although it might also have been the short-squeeze in US treasuries that did the trick.

ING first to announce SEPA strategy for cards/terminals - all brands allowed

Yesterdays Telegraaf contained some interesting news. ING has announced that it will sell POS-terminals and contracts to retailers which accept V-Pay, Maestro and PIN, all for the low price of todays PIN-transaction. Only one condition applies: it should be an EMV compliant terminal.

Well, this is exactly what retailers wished: clarity on future prices and terms and conditions. So one would think that would now be happy.... but are they...?

Well, no of course. The instant that a retailer gets the prices and desires he wants, he assumes that he has insufficiently bargained and that there is more left to bargain for. And he will immediately start negotiating for another round of fee cuts or what have you.

Likewise in the Dutch situation. In their reply to the ING announcement the retailers didn't spend any second complimenting ING on their vision, their fee structure or on fulfilling their previous demand. The next complaint in line is now that they find it intolerable that on the issuing side (which is completely not their concern) the PIN technology is based on magstripe and the other brands on EMV. In their view PIN should move to chip-based PIN as well....

To be continued.... I would say... until banks decide to stop participating in this retailer bargaining game.

Barclays withdraws Offer for ABN AMRO

Well, another story begins to end. See the ABN AMRO Press Release that outlines that Barclays withdraws Offer for ABN AMRO.

Chipknip to disappear from manned-retail locations

Many papers and the national news discussed the ending of the Chipknip in manned retail loactions. Among them also Het Financieele Dagblad. All merchants are advised to just use the debit-card for low value payments, which is by now just as cheap as the e-purse (developed in a time when off-line payments were considered to be a smart way to circumvent the high telecommunication costs).

So, since the 10 years of its existence, the merchants didn't pick up the Dutch e-purse, which is partly due to the product characteristics. Consumers don't appear to like loading the card and keeping track of its balance. But then again, the use in parking, vending and catering niches is quite considerable. Th benefits of not having to collect coins at home for use in those machines clearly outlines the hassle of loading a Chipknip. So in these segments the Chipknip will survive.

Yet, we should also not forget the headlines of 10 years ago. Merchant lobby groups at that point of time explicitly stated that they were going to boycot the use of the Chipknip in the stores. Well, they lived up to their promise. It would be interesting to know if Neelie Kroes or any of her staff at DG Competition would also consider such collectively enacted boycots an abuse of dominant market position ?

Time for e-invoicing...?

This Planet - Multimedia column by Arjan Dasselaar outlines that it is e-invoicing time and states that direct debits and paper based bill payments should quickly move to the musea. With e-billing and the e-billing standard developed in the Netherlands, the bills and payment orders slide into the customers e-banking environment to be paid whenever you wish as a use. No more revocations of direct debit, no more typing 16 digit payment numbers when doing bill payments...

Indeed, one could question if the direct debit mechanisms (developed in the 1960s, when computer time was not abundantly available) would today be designed if we would not have it already. The answer is most likely negative. The direct debit comes with a lot of uncertainty for consumers (you never know exactly the date of the debit nor the precise amount), there is uncertainty for the companies (you never know if consumers refund the transaction) and there is a lot of work for banks (you never know when consumers/companies are going to call to ask for information/refunds).

Meanwhile one can see the European Payment Council still betting on the direct debit to be used as of 2010. Which, if this would indeed work, would become a typical case example of path dependency. This means that although rationally a technical standard does not make sense, the fact that so many people are used to it, will mean it won't be abolished.....

SanDisk and Philips join forces on cell phone payment via NFX

Tweakers.net had a post linking to this EETimes.com article that outlines that SanDisk and Philips join forces on cell phone payment:
Flash memory card supplier SanDisk Corp. has struck a deal with Philips Semiconductors to embed the Philips SmartMX smartcard controller chip in certain types of flash memory cards to allow them to be used for near-field communications (NFC) and in particular, when the cards are inserted in mobile phones, to pay for things.

SanDisk (Sunnyvale, Calif.) said the SmartMX would be embedded in TrustedFlash cards allowing consumers to use their phones as bus or train tickets and perform secure “contactless” payments and other contactless transactions by simply waving their phones near a contactless reader in a mass transit turnstile, checkout counters or drive-through windows.

TrustedFlash cards with SmartMX technology for NFC transactions are available to OEM customers in the microSD card format. SanDisk has started pilot programs and expects broader commercial rollout in 2007. The company did not state where the pilot programs are being run.

Yes, there is an interbank compensation mechanism (interchange fee) for POS in the Netherlands

For some unknown reason, I noticed that quite some websurfers seem to be interested in the question whether or not an interchange fee (for POS) exists in the Dutch retail payment systems. Well, the answer is that there are interchange fees for:
- direct debits
- bill payments (acceptgiro)
- interbank usage of ATM's
- and an interbank compensation mechanism (not a literal fee) for POS.

As for the latter mechanism, the NVB explains in its reply to the competition report of the Commission:
From an outside view it may seem that the Dutch POS scheme PIN indeed operated or operates without an interchange fee mechanism. But this was and is not the case. In fact there has always been an “implicit” interchange fee till March 2004. Card issuers received the net financial result from the acquiring operation of the only acquirer Interpay/BeaNet, to cover costs on the issuer’s side. From the moment on that the sole acquiring by Interpay/BeaNet ended (March 2004) and individual banks became acquirers for POS transactions, an explicit cost based interchange fee from acquirer to issuer was introduced that forms part of the cost base for acquirers. The underlying interbank agreement was notified to the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa). The NMa however doubted the necessity of a multilateral interchange fee mechanism. Therefore the interchange fee structure will most likely be redesigned and be replaced by a system of bilateral interchange fees. The discussions with the NMa on this topic are ongoing.

Now, why would this be interesting to the readers?

I guess that it boils down to the current hefty ideological debates on whether or not interchange fees would be necessary in payment systems. While the answer is a clear yes (most certainly to get separate initiatives all aligned to become interoperable and standardized) the regulators seem to forget about the evolution of payment systems. And wish to abandon interchange fees to the past. So they keep on continuing the myth that it is possible to do payments without compensation mechanisms and keep referring to the Dutch situation as an example.

Although every regulator might learn from studying and trying to understand the industry, they also do have a fundamental right not to take things for granted and the right to climb the learning curve from scratch by themselves. In that spirit, I would encourage those interested to start studying the situation in payments via the phone in the Netherlands. At present we have a number of initiatives going. Some use the phone and a voice-mail application, others such as Payter use NFC. And Minitix is a combination of both, while a number of trials is pending.

While the newspapers this week all announced that in the future we would pay with our mobile rather than with e-purse, let's imagine what will happens if all these initiatives grow. Suppose we end up with 3 types of schemes. The consumer and retailer lobby organisations will then say it is too messy and unorderly. You can't expect shop owners to accept all those schemes: they need to be interoperable. And consumers would also benefit from one m-payment technology rather than having to choose from three.

What will happen then is that the initiatives will work out some interoperability agreement allowing one application/device to accept all 3 schemes. But then there is the question: which scheme had the relation with the retailer and which with the customer. And how are the schemes going to be compensated for their efforts in building their customer base (which will now be accessible to all involved). Particularly if the market coverage of the schemes is different:
Scheme A: 30 % consumers ; 30 % merchants
Scheme B: 10 % consumers ; 60 % merchants
Scheme C: 60 % consumers ; 10 % merchants

The answer to this economic puzzle is of course an interchange agreement. Yet, if regulators would insist on forbidding it, they force the market into a situation where no single technology will serve the whole market in an interoperable way. Which is beautiful from a competition perspective, because there is lots to choose for all. But perhaps it may be less convenient from a customer and efficiency-perspective.

So if we would call interchange fees a 'hidden tax' the alternative is an 'open and visual tax' consisting of the burden for merchants and consumers to have a higher number of different, not-interoperable payment instruments in their wallets, on their phone's and on their pc, in order to be able to pay for all the purchases they'd like to do (and to be able to accept all the payments from consumers). That is in my view the bottom-line policy choice in the interchange debate.

And if it's the hidden cash we're after, why not start eliminating the hidden tax (or stealth tax that Dave Birch calls it) that is out there for cash?

PSP Global Collect sold for € 200 million

See the (paid access) FD-article. Global Collect is a Payment Service Provider, born out of the need to collect magazine subscription fees worldwide. This service used to be an inhouse service for TNT Post. But is was spun off and sold for € 14 million two years ago. And now it's been sold again for € 200 million to private equity firm General Atlantic.

GlobalCollect processes and reconciles payments for KPN, Skype, Nike, HP, Apple and so on. It's turnover was € 23 million in 2005 and € 37 million in 2006. And its net result last year was € 5 million. Lehman Brothers advised during the sale of GlobalCollect.

I'm curious if they would ever imagined this price to be paid....

Dutch migration & transition scenario for SEPA published

See the article here and the transition plan (in English) here.

Essentially it describes that Dutch banks will slowly start moving towards SEPA without committing to a firm deadline. Banks stress that they will not give in to political pressure to phase out instruments quickly, but prefer a gradual migration allowing time to judge developments and develop alternatives for current domestic products. In 2009 banks and stakeholders will have a further look to determine the exact future of the domestic products. For the debit-card system PIN, this means that it will stick around for some more years; thus allowing a smooth transition. Both banks and retailers explain to the media that they're happy with this decision. And the same goes for bill payment mechanisms as acceptgiro and the e-purse Chipknip.

Meanwhile the retailer lobby against banks and credit-cards continues with a new set of questions in parliament, this time about the liability shift that accompanies the migration to EMV. And once more the whole SEPA-developments are misused by retailers to complain about regular price shifts and incentive structures in the market. It is getting to become a bit boring, although one must applaud the retailers' lobbying power (considering that over the last months I think there have been three instances where almost literal retailer complaints were fed to MP's to demand a reply by the Minister of Finance).

Banks in the mean time try to explain to the public that yes, due to the new regulations in payments (which demands more clarity in pricing structures) there will be visible price increases in the future. But they refuse to be blamed for this, given that - as the Minister of Finance explains - it is the desire and effort of all EU politicians and EU parliament to increase efficiency in payments by means of more transparent, cost-oriented and transaction based pricing.

European banks agree crossborder Mastercard rival | Reuters.com

See the article here that outlines that European banks have agreed to link their national debit card systems from September in a bid to break Mastercard's grip on crossborder payments, a German banking official said on Wednesday.

On Sept. 4 banks will launch a scheme, called EAPS, to enable debit cards issued in Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Austria to work in cash machines and shops in the other countries, Peter Blatsche from German public-sector banking association VOeB said. For debit cards to work outside their country of issue, they currently need to be part of either Mastercard's dominant Maestro scheme or V-Pay operated by Visa Europe.

The pricing of the Euro Alliance of Payment Schemes (EAPS) scheme will be no more than the 0.3 percent rate changed under Germany's Electronic Cash debit card system, Blatsche said.

This will be a sort of 'good news' for the worried central banks (see my earlier post here) who have for unknown reasons decided to find themselves responsible for competition in the market rather than maintaining the European interest rate.

EBALink (Equens) extended to SEPA

See the press release of equens to see that on June 6, Equens announced it will extend its EBALink service to SEPA. This means that through Equens, Dutch banks will be able to send and receive SEPA payments (Credit Transfer and Direct Debit) to and from banks that are connected to the Euro Banking Association (EBA), but not to Equens or one of its partners such as Seceti. Within SEPA reachability is a crucial necessity. Therefore this is again an important milestone for Equens towards the realisation of SEPA reach for the Dutch community.

The Dutch Central Bank (De Nederlandsche Bank – DNB) will continue its facilitating role as direct participant in EBA. Equens will take care of the interfacing to EBA and the clearing and settlement preparation of SEPA payments to and from the Dutch banks. Furthermore, Equens will also enable other EBA participants to make use of this service.

Currence: Dutch debit card phased out gradually / ECB re-engineers policy history

The Financieele Dagblad reported on a presentation session that occured yesterday as a part of the presentation of the annual report of Currence: scheme owner of Dutch collective payment products PIN (POS-payment), Chipknip (e-purse), direct debit and acceptgiro (bill-payment). Main news is that Currence announces that it seeks to maintain the brand PIN until the future market situation (in particular fees) is clear.

Essentially this is no news, as banks had already outlined that they would not phase out PIN without looking at market developments and consulting retailers. but still this may provide some comfort to Dutch retailers. Interestingly ECB-policy department chief Ruttenberg stated that he noticed a change in banks' behaviour: while they were first eager to phase out the pin-product, they would now seem to think otherwise. He noted a change in attitude there.

Ruttenbergs' statement can be best viewed as a projection in psychological terms. He notcies a change with the banks, which tells us something about what happens to the ECB. Because the real change in attitude is not with banks but with the ECB. In 2004 the ECB had no clue as to the market reality for cards payments. This speech of Tumpell Gugerell essentially discussed anti-fraud measures and standardisation. Then came the rush to implement SEPA. Both ECB and Commission urged the banks to quickly move towards panEuropean products and phase out domestic products by the end of 2010 (see the speech here). At this time the banks strongly complained about this deadline setting by ECB and outlined the business (interchange fees etc) and customer issues (need for a gradual migration rather than big bangs) involved. So the ECB slowly understood that indeed there was something as interchange issues that could stand in the way.

Then, somewhere in 2005 or 2006, having banged the panEuropean quick migration drum for some years now, the ECB changed its mind and did no longer demand changeover to international schemes. Rather it pursued the idea of a third Euro-scheme to compete with the other schemes (needless to say that VISA already transformed their business in Europe into a European scheme; a fact that has apparently went by unnoticed in Frankfurt). So the analysis from the Frankfurt towers is now that there might be a business case for such a card scheme and that banks should not rush into migration towards US dominated international schemes take over.

It is quite interesting to note that a mere change of responsibilities and roles within the ECB also leads to a re-interpretation of reality by the ECB-policy makers. They now re-engineer the policy history as if banks wanted to go quick and they as ECB need to slow them banks down and point out a different policy option (setting up a third scheme) which some years before, was absolutely not the desired goal of the ECB.

Updated June 8: see also the speeches by the ESCB and Commission.

President of central bank spotted in New York..... why... ABN AMRO?

An interesting blog here by Gerben van der Marelm, reporter for NRC. He discovered Wellink was on the plane to New York. And asked him what he was going to do. Well, just a visit to his son, Wellink replied. Which Gerben wrote down on his blog, noting that all colleagues at home in the Netherlands said... how can you believe that...?

So the question is really, is there no business to be done at all in New York..? For example convincing Bank of America it should stop with these litigation threats... or it should not enter into a deal with RBOS....

Only in a number of months will we know what really happened...

May 25, financial analystis favour RBS-consortium bid

DFT reports that an enquiry by Reuters shows that 7 out of 11 analysts believe that the RBS bid will be more successfull. Only 3 believe with a 100 % certainty that the Barclays bid will go through.

My guess: while the majority of the analysts is right, it may not always be about being right analytically. ABN AMRO has a former DNB-manager (deSwaan) in the background and will play some regulatory cards, casting doubt as to the RBS-bid. And with a lot of doubts, a central bank will not be happy, because that may mean a lot of risk as well.