• exaybachae@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    Fund tranfering should be a gov service provided at cost and maintained as a partnership between nations to make commerce easy for their citizens.

    Profit shouldn’t even be a concern.

      • AliSaket@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        A few years back I remember who I believe was a commission leader in Brussels commenting on Pix along the lines of: Pix has given banking access to many Brazilians. We already have a very high quota in Europe, so we will not need an equivalent system… I don’t think there’s much interest in the political sphere for a publicly run solution like this.

        • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          Pix had anything to do with banking access. You need to have a bank account to have access to pix. Pix is a money transfer system, that is free for individual users and extremely cheap for companies, controlled by the central bank that works instantly 24/7.

          Edit: is also mandatory for banks and financial institutions so everyone has it

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        government = people who live in the country. So government services are literally by the people for the people. trying to profit from them is like having a parasite.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      For bank transfers this is already a thing, it’s called SEPA. Transfers are instant and free (to the user at least, no idea if the banks have to pay).

      But yes, there should be an equivalent thing for in-person payments too.