Comment by tecoholic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tecoholic | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Thanks for the additional info. But I want to clarify one thing - I didn’t say anything about cash being a better choice. Both the comments to my response are making it out to be a cash vs digital thing. I am not sure why.

Next, NPCI is a PSU. So what? They are taking govt money to function aren’t they? The costs are borne by the banks which get allocations every budget to keep the system running. So whatever “profit” this PSU is making is literally just the government’s money paid through banks as transaction costs.

It helps with GST surveillance? Okay great. What about suitcases of cash that get passed around during land and property transactions?

2FA, velocity checks…etc., are things that came after the fact. For years no-one took responsibility for lost money. There was no redressal mechanism. ~Even today, does NCPI offers nothing as a redressal mechanism for scam transactions, it leaves it to the banks and individuals to sort it out. Which probably involves police complaints and follow up.~

Edit: I learnt that a redressal mechanism was finally introduced in 2025. So the above statement is invalid.

I genuinely have to ask, why is it hard to accept the shortcomings of the system and acknowledge the cost of running the system?

You’ve literally stated that you are “not knowledgeable enough to debate if it’s a net negative or positive.” and then you’re wondering why someone who has a significant amount of knowledge about the system in question is finding it “hard to accept the shortcomings of the system and acknowledge the cost of running the system”.

The real question is that given that you don’t know anything about the system, why would you find it so hard to accept that maybe your claims are incorrect? Further, the other poster is not stating that there are no costs of running the system. They’re claiming, correctly, that the costs are far lower than alternative mechanisms.

This is not even hard to see. The cost of running NCPI is trivial compared to VISA/Mastercard’s network, not least because being a private company trying to maximize profits VISA/Mastercard overload their core network costs with the costs of running a massive concierge, gift card and loyalty points business, which is where their profits lie.

If it is acknowledgement that you ( and others, I have spoken to various people on this topic) seek that UPI incurs costs, then here you go - I, a fellow tax-payer, acknowledge that the UPI must incur costs.

I find it acceptable to allocate tax money for a system that we as a country can use as an alternative to the Visa and MasterCard duopoly. With UPI as it is today, there are no margins added and passed to the customer, no transactions that are denied, no commissions cut. Payment is very fast, transactions can be proven. We are not at the mercy of any economic attack that the US would subject us to. Many are able to bank, are able to receive payments.

I find it not necessary that the UPI must show a profit. The direct and indirect benefits to the nation are far more important.

Also, "whataboutism" does not help. The suitcases and paintings and other such corruption examples that you cite require a separate investigation and redressal. One must not stop UPI or start charging the everyday person because some of the rich are corrupt. They will continue to exchange suitcases of cash for favours regardless of whether the UPI is chargable or if it even exists.

Hello everyone. I am really not sure what I was ranting about yesterday. I have some bones to pick with the system. The crux of it is - it’s not a technological miracle. It’s the government’s will that makes the system function. It’s good for what it does. But I was annoyed by the propaganda like manner people seem to talk about it in discussions.

I didn’t channel them properly and got into an argumentative fit. I apologise for wasting all your time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com