Trust is tough when payer and payee
never meet physically. When any part of a transaction fails costs mount and
recriminations fly. If the concept of a small value gross real time payment
system succeeds it will need a mechanism other than Reg E or charge backs to
cure a failed transaction.
So the bum’s pocket (small value gross real time payment
system designed earlier in this blog) requires a method to protect both sides
of a transaction. I envisage different solutions when the world eliminates
charge backs. There might be healthy competition between shippers and financial
institutions (FI).
Shippers may offer a service similar to collection on
delivery except collection occurs before shipment. In this scenario the payer
pays shipper; shipper picks up and delivers goods; payer accepts shipment; shipper
pays payee (keeping shipping fees).If the payer or payee disputes the transaction
then the shipper picks up the goods and returns them to the payee and refunds the payer(subtracting
more fees).
Another alternate solution dictates the design of the data
protocol for a command to pay message. The message must allow for multiple
payees. In that way a FI can offer standard escrow services. The payer directs
the bum’s pocket to credit a shipper and an escrow account owned by the FI. The FI moves the funds to the payee after
notification of receipt by the payer or the passage of time. In the case of a dispute the FI holds the funds until payer and payee resolve it and both parties notify the FI they resolved the dispute.
The question arises what costs more, routine multiple
transactions, or charge backs. It seems to me that the former is more cost
effective, but without any data or actual firms providing these services it is
at best a haphazard guess. Certainly the passage of time allows for interest
charges which allows the intermediary payee a chance for income without charging
either the payer or payee.
However the payment system evolves, payees likely will be
happier, and payers will not see much difference unless they intend to defraud
their payees.
No comments:
Post a Comment