> Imagine the pain that everyone has to go through in reaching a consensus when configurations or infrastructures change. It would be chaos.
Welcome to the Internet.
> Imagine the pain that everyone has to go through in reaching a consensus when configurations or infrastructures change. It would be chaos.
Welcome to the Internet.
The financial system in practically every country is already fully controlled by a central authority, and for good reason: finance is critical to national security and financial decisions are inherently political, therefore finance is controlled by political authorities.
It is more akin to a not for profit VISA than the Fed Reserve.
Fair correction. However, correct me if I'm wrong, it still plays the role of a singular national authority blessed by the central bank. I'm skeptical that its non-government status is an important distinction when it appears to be an exclusively Indian institution co-established by the RBI. I don't think Visa's status is quite the same: Visa has actual competitors and operates under many foreign jurisdictions. I'd say the NPCI is as trustworthy and protected as the government institutions that bless it.
The RBI initiated process to setup a parallel body to NPCI, but that will take eons in fintech time.
The non-government status is important because the NPCI fought a case (and won) to keep it out of the ambit of the Right yo Information act. It is an opaque institution with a government granted monopoly that is also simultaneously a cartel of sorts.
The equivalent for US would be for VISA to have a marketshare of 90% and MasterCard around.
RBI floated a paper recently trying to setup a alternative body to fix this, but this might take ages.