Tag Archives: visa

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 →

Understanding ApplePay in PIN Debit

Posted on by
Reply

Payment Geek detail on the EMVCO Dependencies of Debit and How Cap One Solved It

This is a technical addendum to today’s post on the reported JPMorgan/BofA/Wells/PNC exploration of buying Fiserv’s Star network. That post laid out five business and political reasons the deal is unlikely to happen. This one goes underneath the business case to the technical architecture that makes the wallet portion (ie ApplePay, GPay, SamsungPay) of the problem particularly ugly for any bank that thinks owning a PIN debit network gets them out from under Durbin.

The short version: an issuer that buys Star cannot simply route its ApplePay volume through Star. The tokenization and provisioning plumbing that makes Apple Pay work belongs to Visa and Mastercard, sits inside a standards body (EMVCo) that issuers are not members of, and is architecturally structured around the card brand on the card (not the issuer that issued it). A bank that owns Star still can’t put a Star token in Apple Pay; it is a new AID in the phone.

Continue reading →

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

Posted on by
Reply

(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

Open USD – Stablecoin’s New Gold Standard for Trust, Compliance, Governance and Economics

Posted on by
Reply

July 1, 2026

Executive Summary

  • 140+ institutions — Visa, Mastercard, Stripe, BlackRock, Google, Coinbase, and major global banks form the largest stablecoin consortium ever assembled

  • Shares reserve economics — Partners receive yield from underlying reserves, not the issuer; flips the Circle/Tether model

  • Zero-fee minting at scale — No volume limits, no enterprise penalties

  • Pre-transaction compliance — Transfer hooks block sanctioned transactions before settlement, not after

  • Burn and clawback authority — Architectural ability to freeze/burn for OFAC compliance built into Token-2022 implementation

  • Confidential transfers with regulatory visibility — ZK-encrypted balances for corporate privacy; viewing keys for auditors

  • Neutral governance — Independent board of ecosystem partners; no single corporate controller

  • Stripe default — “The default stablecoin for businesses running on Stripe”

Yesterday, we witnessed the launch of what may become the most consequential stablecoin ever: Open USD (OUSD). With over 140 financial, technology, and crypto institutions signing on—from Visa and Mastercard to Stripe, BlackRock, and Google. This isn’t merely another stablecoin entering a crowded market. This is the emergence of a new trust network architecture that I’ve been writing about for years.

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

Agentic Apocalypse — How to Stop It

Posted on by
Reply

Company Spotlight: Delta Network

June 30, 2026

In my recent posts on Agentic Data Battle: Intent and Agentic – Intent and the New Data Games, I’ve emphasized that the trust challenge in agentic commerce goes far beyond authenticating the consumer and the agent. We must verify the action itself (the fourth pillar of any transaction). But no one is willing to budge. Platforms don’t want to give out intent to banks or networks (even with explicity consumer consent), they don’t want to be measured. While networks are the right neutral party, network VAS means loss of control. Today’s blog outlines the hard data on agent intent failure (28%) and best in class example of how to fix it.

Continue reading →

Agentic Data Battle: Intent

Posted on by
Reply

Paid Content

Key Friction Point in Agent (M2M) Transactions. Example of why real agentic transactions are 2-3 yrs away. We have a new party in a transaction that everyone needs to trust: the agent. Mastercard/Google Verifiable Intent is a LONG WAY from satisfying the need. It’s a self-attestation (see the Technical Addendum at the end of the Blog).

My prior blogs have focused extensively on the trust challenge in agentic commerce: authenticating the consumer and the agent (the actor). As I discussed in EMVCo and DPCs, financial institutions must verify and authenticate the four pillars of a transaction: the User, the Instrument, the Actor (Agent), and the Action (Payment). Today, I want to dive deeper into the fourth pillar—the Action—and the emerging battle over intent data.

A New Party to the Transaction

For decades, payment transactions have involved a familiar cast: the consumer, the merchant, the issuer, and the network. Each party has well-defined roles, risk allocation, and data flows governed by established rule sets. Agentic commerce introduces a new party: the Agent.

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Stablecoin Strategy – Visa and Mastercard Are Taking Very Different Roads

Posted on by
Reply

The two dominant card networks are both committed to stablecoins. Both see digital assets as a meaningful component of their long-term growth story. Both have articulated clear strategies to their investors. But the roads they are taking could not be more different and the implications for how value-added services grow, who captures the upside, and how fast innovation moves are significant.

Mastercard is buying the infrastructure. Visa is building a network and enabling shared investment.

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?

Posted on by
Reply

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 →