Hypothetical Scenario — Using Star as Entry Point for Zelle at POS

Summary. This is my best case scenario for a STAR acqusition and as a banker I still wouldn’t do it. PIN networks are archaic. I would externalize Zelle for POS and sell it to merchants based on value (ex instant funds availabiltiy, liability shift at POS and eCom). For the tech, I would subcontract the service to Visa while I own the network.  Don’t bother reading this blog unless you are a payment geek that wants to think about the macro options on a “new debit network”. Remember, even if the top 3 banks moved to a new debit network, it would only be a 2% revenue hit to Visa. This is almost noise.

Background

I’ve spent this week writing about what a top‑4 bank consortium buying Fiserv’s Star network would and wouldn’t accomplish. On Monday I laid out five business and political reasons the deal is unlikely to happen. Tuesday’s blog explained how ApplePay/PIN-debit works within a technical deep-dive. This blog outlined why owning Star doesn’t buy the tokenization and provisioning path that Visa still controls. Yesterday’s retailer and industry feedback captured what I heard from the merchant and processor side stakeholders. One of the stakeholder ideas surfaced with a new idea worth sitting with: what if you didn’t buy Star to run PIN debit at Durbin-exempt rates — but instead as the on-ramp for accepting Zelle at the POS?

Continue reading

FISV: Star Sale? Retailer and Industry Feedback

Short update on my industry discussions yesterday (in very brief form). 

Retailers

  • Convinced US Banks would attempt to follow COF/Discover model and that Banks were not concerned about the politics. 
  • Emphasize banks want control, with most seeing that BAC/WFC would make sense as owners of STAR
  • Agreed that retailers would react to price increases, but only top 20 retailers have payment teams with enough depth to act on a plan (ex turn off Star).
  • Believed acceptance rate and processor incentives would be a key hurdle, but that if pricing was around 125bps there was room to create superior processor incentives. 
  • Loss of Tap to Pay and eCommerce (ie no PIN Debit) were consensus consumer impacts with no clear workaround. 
  • Agree that retailers would strongly lobby OCC and CPFB that this was an obvious effort to end run Durbin. May seek to block acquisition. 
  • Discover is an EMVCO member with most tools that would allow conversion of Pulse to dual message. No path for STAR (or EMVCo membership)
  • Bank Consortium could use this as a path toward Zelle acceptance at POS (for 125 bps). This was probably the biggest “new” insight I gained

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Are US Banks Really Considering a Durbin End Run with FISV’s Star?

(Paid Subscriber Research)

Yesterday’s WSJ story that JPMorgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and PNC have held “preliminary and tentative” talks to buy Fiserv’s Star debit network is being read as the opening shot in a big-bank campaign to escape Durbin. My first reaction: this is a bit of old news. Fiserv and its private equity suitors have been shopping Star as a spin-off for the better part of four years. Every time the pitch surfaces, the same five objections surface with it. Nothing about the current version of the deal has removed those objections; if anything, the political climate has made them harder.

Before I get to why I don’t believe it will happen, a quick refresher on the business logic, because that logic is real, and it explains why Fiserv can keep the pitch alive.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Can Processors Win a Role in Agentic?

Member only content

Adyen’s stock is down over 40% this year. Investors aren’t just punishing one company; they’re repricing the entire processor category as agentic commerce threatens to restructure who controls economics and merchant relationships. The market sees what I’ve been writing about for 18 months: processors are at risk of becoming dumb pipes.

Yesterday, Adyen announced Adyen Agentic a suite of modular APIs encompassing Agentic Feed (product/inventory), Agentic Cart (checkout orchestration), and Agentic Payments (authentication, fraud, tokenization). The positioning is explicit: a “universal translator” that lets merchants integrate once and participate across every agent platform, protocol, and payment method.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Merchant Litigation Settlement – Good News for V/MA

For anyone who has followed payments industry equities or competitive dynamics over the past two decades, yesterday’s ruling from Judge Brian Cogan felt like a long-exhaled breath. After 21 years of litigation, multiple failed settlement attempts, and a high-profile 2024 rejection, the Visa/Mastercard merchant interchange lawsuit finally has a path forward. Judge Cogan granted preliminary approval of the amended settlement on June 9, 2026 — and on balance, this is good news for the networks, for merchants, and for the broader ecosystem.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Is Know Your Agent (KYA) Really Necessary?

Is “Know Your Agent” (KYA) Really Necessary? The tale of an Orphan Signal Short Blog | June 2026 A new category of startup has emerged around “Know Your Agent” (KYA) — the idea that merchants and payment platforms need a framework to verify the identity, authority, and auditability of AI agents acting on behalf of consumers. PYMNTS has covered the space extensively, and KnowYourAgent.xyz is already pitching merchants on “identity, policy controls, and evidence for every AI-agent transaction at checkout.” The framing is intuitive: if a bot is buying something, shouldn’t you know who sent it? I want to push back — not on the problem, but on whether KYA, as a standalone service category, is the right solution. Continue reading

MPP (and X402) – Solving the Internet’s “Original Sin”

Yes another agentic payment acronym. This one is important enough to remember. Where AP2 and ACP address agents acting on behalf of humans, X402 and MPP are about agents paying agents. My friend Simon Taylor just put together one of his all-time best posts on MPP and The Intention Layer. Today’s blog is a follow-up with a bit more of a comparison, and why this is a big deal from a payment and economic perspective. My key takeaways from Simon’s post

  • The “Skinny Master Account”: Taylor suggests that humans will grant “intent” (a budget and a goal) to an agent. MPP’s Session model perfectly mirrors this: a human “locks” $50 into a session (the intention), and the agent autonomously spends it in sub-cent increments (the execution).
  • The Substrate of AI: Taylor points out that AI thrives on Structured Text (Markdown). Ironically, legacy finance (ISO 8583, NACHA files) is essentially structured text. MPP acts as the “translator” between the agent’s markdown-based intentions and the rigid requirements of the global banking system.
  • The Outcome: The winner won’t be the protocol that is “most decentralized,” but the one that most effectively manages Trust and Permissioning. Stripe and Visa, as the incumbent trust-layers of the internet, are better positioned to solve the “Agentic Spend” problem than a pure-crypto protocol.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

Stablecoin Scenarios

Summary

The digital asset ecosystem has graduated from a decade of speculative experimentation to a decisive phase of infrastructure modernization. For fifteen years, the discourse surrounding blockchain technology has been dominated by the volatility of crypto-assets, effectively obscuring the underlying utility of the technology. That era has concluded. We are now witnessing the industrialization of the sector, where stablecoins have emerged not as a new form of money, but as a fundamental settlement innovation (see blog).

The GENIUS Act has provided the regulatory clarity required to transition stablecoins from the periphery of finance to its very core. This legislative milestone has catalyzed a geopolitical shockwave, prompting European finance ministers to declare U.S. stablecoins a greater threat to monetary sovereignty than trade tariffs. But while the Genius act codified “trust” in an instrument (reducing settlement risk to stablecoin issuer balance sheet), it does not address disputes and broader governance issues associated with managing participants across diverse processes and regulatory regimes.

The maturation of stablecoins is not a revolution that overthrows established banks and payments system; it is an evolution that upgrades it. The rails are being replaced while the train is moving, and those who understand the mechanics of the new tracks will determine the destination of global capital.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us

V/MA Settlement – Tiered Acceptance

Quick Take on WSJ – V/MA Near Deal w/ Merchants

Merchants have long expressed frustration over card costs, but it’s critical to separate signal from noise. Their issue isn’t with network fees—those average just 5 to 7 basis points and fund the global infrastructure that securely moves trillions. The real pressure point is interchange, often 250 basis points or more for premium rewards cards. That imbalance has shaped years of litigation, and now a potential reset is emerging.

You need to be logged in to view the rest of the content. Please . Not a Member? Join Us