edit: Almost makes you wonder if it was a targeted attack.
Tone deaf in what sense? What tone should she strike? BTC is comically inefficient.
Crypto will have to grow all these other encumberances before it can become something ordinary people can use instead of a normal bank.
coincidence?
Costs at most about $35 for any size wire, shows up in a corresponding bank within a day. If the corresponding bank is not the ultimate destination, takes whatever the amount of time it takes for the end transaction to complete. In event of a bank mess up on a transfer, the wire gets rejected/credited back. For banks that do "online" FedWire rather than batched, wires show up and are credited within seconds.
What, exactly, is the problem?
P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug.
edit:
"P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. "
That may have been true/acceptable before - back when time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
AML, OFAC will absolutely take time and no interbank transfer would bypass it in any US chartered bank as they are triggered during a match in the FedWire or any other system that uses the Fed.
KYC and fraud investigations are triggered by the originating bank, most likely because the account has been flagged. Until the account is cleared any transfers out of the account would trigger them and delay them.
KYC-type and fraud investigations could also be triggered by the receiving bank if the account is either flagged or the activity is matching certain parameters - it is less likely but possible. Should that happen, no matter what is the method that was used to credit the account is likely to trigger it.
> For those 20% the banking system as it is right now, is a problem.
That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case.
> That may have been true/acceptable before, where time span between order and payment was greater. If it is a feature, it is a feature for the bank, not the user.
It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
>> That makes it 1 out of 5 wires. It is extremely unlikely to be the case.
I don't think I could honestly qualify 1 out of 5 with adverb extremely. Even unlikely feels like a stretch. Let me give you an example, if you submitted your taxes online and before you submitted it, it gave you a chance percentage of an audit, would you roll the dice at 20%?
>> It absolutely is a feature to the user - it allows for an easy rollback of journaling mistakes.
Having dealt with those mistakes, I still maintain that it is there cover the bank.
There's no such thing as 20% of international wires that get delayed. American brokers do hundreds of thousands of international wire transfers every day. If 20% of those were delayed, it would collapse the global financial system.
"P.S. Non-immediate transfer is a feature and not a bug. "
Since we are playing with words, non-immediate transfer is a delay and it is at odds at the other statement you have made:
"If 20% of those were delayed, it would collapse the global financial system. "
It wouldn't, because it didn't. But clearly that part doesn't matter, because entities and individuals affected tend not to be well-heeled and so unlikely to be able to force the bank to take some sort of action.
All that said, I am done discussing this.
The delay in the international wires that are a feature ( 1-3 business days ) have nothing in common with the 20% arbitrary delay of unknown duration that you have promoted. That's the 20% delay that would collapse the world financial system.
That is what I want.
And if you really tried to use credit/debit card for those purposes, you quickly understand their limitations ( amounts come to mind ).
This is very much so like the entire cargo/freight "Hyper-Loop" thing, or Rocketship cargo/freight, or even the Supersonic Aircraft thing... a solution in search of a problem.
There are very few scenarios were someone legitimately (and more importantly, frequently) requires sending a package to the other side of the world within minutes. Would it be nice? Perhaps... but just as Concord found out, after the novelty wears off, few actually want to drop $10K on a one way ticket.
With huge amounts of money being transferred, the delays are in fact a feature. It gives you time to cancel if there was a mistake... and it gives banks opportunity to sniff out fraud/laundering, that the money is in-fact real and not pending other transactions, etc.
I've just never heard of a scenario where someone needed $50k instantly sent anywhere for anything. When dealing with that amount of money, in a non-reversible/permanent system... being careful, deliberate and slow is pretty much what you want.
Even Bitcoin transfers are not instant...
maybe not $50k, but "deposit paycheck on same day rent is due" is a fairly common problem that people have. the person has the money to pay rent, but it might not clear before their rent check bounces. there still exist landlords that only accept payment via check.
I agree in general. wires are fast enough for most truly large transfers of money, if only because the recipient is usually willing to be more flexible with such a large amount on the line.
If you're bouncing rent checks because it took too long to clear, you have other issues and immediate withdrawal isn't going to save you anyway.
Besides, if you're cutting checks of the same amount every month, you can setup BillPay (free at most/all? banks) and let your bank handle writing/mailing the check on time.
I'm talking about people who barely make enough money to cover their monthly expenses, so yeah that financial situation is hardly ideal. someone in this situation definitely does not want to set up autopay against their checking account.
it's a sort of death by a thousand cuts for people in this situation. you generally have to pay rent in advance (ie, you pay that month's rent on the first of the month). you get "paid" at the end of a two week period, but then it takes about a week for your employer to process payroll. if your employer doesn't do direct deposit, you now have a check in hand that takes about two days to clear. that two days isn't the bulk of the problem, but it can definitely be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Two things:
1. For paper checks, this has been addressed via Check21 which took effect at the end of 2004. It enforces funds availability for even for non-local checks and/or bank drafts.
2. Writing a check against an account that does not have available funds has all the characteristics of check kiting. Check kiting is illegal.
For non-checks ACH credits settle before ACH debits or any other debit transactions.
Or, if I write a check, and they deposit it on their bank's phone app, nearly always the funds are available immediately.
$15,000 Euros is a lot of money... I honestly wonder what problem was solved by mandating that amount of money must be transferred, cleared, and available for withdrawal within 2 minutes. It seems to me nobody has a legitimate reason for that, unless you're a Nigerian Prince.
What problem did it solve and why is it considered a good thing?
And I've certainly sent somewhat smaller amounts for stuff like "Hey trip is on, we booked that holiday villa, €1000 for single rooms, €800 each if you're sharing, let me know if you can't pay this week".
I'm sure this rule would have been fine if it was €10 000 rather than €15 000 but how often do you want politicians to re-authorise? If it was €1000 by now people would be annoyed at the size limit already.
I don't have one on my keyboard unfortunately, otherwise I'd happily use it where appropriate!
> And I've certainly sent somewhat smaller amounts for stuff like "Hey trip is on, we booked that holiday villa, €1000 for single rooms, €800 each if you're sharing, let me know if you can't pay this week".
Your scenario doesn't seem to have been impacted by 2 minute mandatory transfer times in either direction.
> I'm sure this rule would have been fine if it was €10 000 rather than €15 000 but how often do you want politicians to re-authorise? If it was €1000 by now people would be annoyed at the size limit already.
Sure it's an arbitrary amount and they had to pick some amount I suppose. Even $10K is a lot for an ordinary person - potentially life changing if lost in some unfortunate instant transfer with the wrong number entered. That, of course, is a human problem (typing wrong number or whatever), but the delays we're talking about provide a safety cushion to cancel transactions in those scenarios.
If I try to give money to Victoria Smith 12-34-56 0123456789 then the backend will notice that's not Victoria Smith's account, and tell me I need to figure out what I did wrong. Maybe the problem is Victoria married, and is now Victoria Jones, you can clear that up. Maybe I got the number wrong. Maybe she's Victoria Smyth or Smithe and then it'll suggest this was just a typo using some heuristic. Or maybe it's the account of a scammer named Michael Black and the scam fails because the name doesn't match.
This was a bit awkward for my ISP because their name has an ampersand in it, and so of course this means some banks end up believing their name is "Andrews & Arnold" and similar stupidity. But it's been bedded down now a bit.
This approach leverages a reference for the payee that existed but was previously not checked, plus KYC checks already in place, it's hard these days to open accounts for names that aren't yours or with no apparent credit history for an organisation.
(b) cheques have been deprecated and stopped being accepted in the EU in 2004.
It solves the same issue as paypal, cash, venmo, etc, except the receiver can immediately use the money for any and all purposes, without fees, without yet another third party app.
This in turn allows new third party apps to be built on top of the new infrastructure.
I get a few transfers in the EU per month and sometimes I am lucky if it is same day (if done in the morning) but in most cases I get it the next day.
Heck, in same country, I have two bank accounts and transfer between them have never been faster than 4-6 hours. (Same bank is seconds though)
If your bank doesn't support it yet, the old 24h limit applies.
The more I do that - the more I want to go off into a corner and plant shit in the ground and stay the hell away from people. They are super dangerous. And honestly, I can shape the world exactly the way I want by doing it that way.
In all other efforts where people are involved, trying that for 42 years and it hasn't worked well yet.
There have actually been a few times where non of my bank cards (chase, bofa, credit union) work for cash withdrawal and I've used a Bitcoin ATM to get cash until I could get something figured out.
That's simply not the case as someone who authorizes or validates wire transfers for the companies would be able to confirm.
> There have actually been a few times where non of my bank cards (chase, bofa, credit union) work for cash withdrawal and I've used a Bitcoin ATM to get cash until I could get something figured out.
There have been several orders of magnitude more cases where standard bank cards worked in the ATMs and bitcoin ATMs did not.
I’ve never had a Bitcoin ATM fail, but I’ve had normal ATMs fail all the time even in first world countries like Japan, HK, Singapore.
Well there's your problem. Where is that $35 heading? For a $35 transaction fee, I'd expect my money to arrive instantly and to work reliably. Sounds like that's pretty far from the truth.
I'm sure there are a hundred reasons why it's not that simple and it needs to cost a lot of money, but fundamentally, you're decrementing a number in one bank and incrementing a number in another. I can see why people would want that to be cheap, fast, and reliable given that it's a pretty simple thing to accomplish on the internet.
The bank charges the service fee. It ranges from $0.00 to about $35.00
> I can see why people would want that to be cheap, fast, and reliable given that it's a pretty simple thing to accomplish on the internet.
International wire transfer is, at most, a settlement service for payments, not a payment service.