This question is very similar to the story above on EMV. The engineer in me recoils at the thought that a sophisticated technology (which decreases risk), would not be welcomed within a market. To understand WHY, you must answer the question: WHO benefits from the risk reduction? If your business is risk management, and someone takes risk away, what is your business?
A core “investment assumption” by TCH banks was that “regulators” were going to force the use of tokens in the US. As a primary means for meeting obligations under BSA/AML. The “value proposition” pitched to pilot participants was thus “regs are coming which will drive PayPal out of business.. everyone will be required to tokenize.. pilot participation means you can have a jump on everyone else.” Obviously this has not been the case..
We now see network resistance “Not on my rails”. Why on earth would Visa or MA want to let a Token ride on their rails? Perhaps the best example of “Rail” ownership is First Data’s refusal to support routing and processing of any Paypal/Discover BINs
Payments in the OS is perhaps best described as the intersection of the 2 major disruptive forces at work: Connectivity of Consumer and Merchant during shopping and purchase, Authentication. As I outlined in Cloud Wallet, it makes little sense to store anything in the mobile phone. If everything is connected, I should just need to authenticate my identity and payments, promotions, reminders, receipts, … everything else could happen in the background. If everything is connected, the nature of payment settlement risk changes (see credit push).
There is a payment cluster war going on right now and it is the subject in the C Suite in Banks and the Payment industry. The battle is happening at every level. I’ll be leading a panel at Money 2020 which addresses several of these items, with participation from V/MA… should be interesting. Here are a few updates.