[Openid-specs-fapi] EPI (European Payment Initiative)
anders.rundgren.net at gmail.com
Thu Mar 5 13:22:03 UTC 2020
I'm not an authority on the PSD2 regulation or fees banks require for SEPA transactions.
However, it seems to me that a PISP offering would have to add a fee on top of the existing fee structure in order to be of any value from a business point of view.
Based on earlier discussions on https://open-banking-global.slack.com/ (which I have been blocked from by the administrator), there seems to be quite different opinions of what a PISP does in addition to what's specified by the API. Holding funds and guaranteeing payments have been mentioned.
I'm obviously biased since I'm advocating an "enhanced" Open Banking API security model decicated for payments [*], but I don't see how systems based on current Open Banking APIs UX-wise can compete with Apple Pay. If the ECB is serious about their expressed desire to reduce dependencies on card networks and technology providers, they ought to take a fresh look at this. If introducing a new (and in my opinion redundant...), party in the game is a must, building on EMV and the established acquirers would probably be the most straightforward (but somewhat boring) path.
Hopefully we get all the answers later this month :-)
On 2020-03-05 11:42, Joseph Heenan wrote:
> The difference between SEPA & PSD2 PISP is that PSD2 PISP is free for the third party/merchant and the user. [unless there are any EU countries that charge the end user for bank transfers? They’re certainly free in the UK but countries like Japan do charge.]
> As best I can understand the article, the new SEPA scheme will charge the merchant a fee.
> PSD2 PISP does also leave open the door for long lived consents used for multiple varying payments (i.e. where the user doesn’t have to authorise each payment at the bank) - the important thing is that it doesn’t require the bank to provide those for free, it’s based on the TPP and bank forming a commercial contract where the bank will expect some form of quid pro quo or payment and liabilities for fraud may be different to PSD2 statutory access.
> There’s still a long debate going on in the UK as the CMA wants the CMA9 to support the “sweeping” use case (automatically transferring exist funds in a current account to/from savings as necessary) and the CMA9 are trying to figure out how the OpenBanking APIs can support sweeping without opening up general variable repeat payment APIs, which they really don’t want to do for free.
> Or to cut a long story short: the problem is a commercial problem, not a technical one.
>> On 5 Mar 2020, at 05:59, Anders Rundgren via Openid-specs-fapi <openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net> wrote:
>> After the European Central Bank correctly found that their prestigious SEPA payment system doesn't really work as intended, they started a project which apparently will be unveiled later this month.
>> References: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andersrundgren_according-to-httpslnkdindntuars-the-activity-6641199373445275648-b45m
>> This will be the litmus test for the PSD2 PISP concept. Since authorization of an instant payment transaction is [almost] exclusively an affair between the user (account holder) and their bank, I still don't see what Payment Initation actually brings to the table.
>> Openid-specs-fapi mailing list
>> Openid-specs-fapi at lists.openid.net
More information about the Openid-specs-fapi