When you start at the wrong premise, you typically end up in the wrong place.
The premise is that credit cards (visa / Mastercard) is broken. When actually it works really well.
For starters it works everywhere. Online. IRL. In my home country, in foreign lands.
Secondly it costs the consumer nothing. The cost goes to the merchant. If anything the customer gets rewards.
Merchants might pay 3%, (and ultimately yes, that's in the price of goods) but checkout "just works". They're in the "get paid" business, not the "teach customer new system" business. They'll accept new payment options (which the POS) just provides. But they don't drive the market.
Fixing Visa doesn't work because the people that matter don't think it's broken.
vasco · 1h ago
> Secondly it costs the consumer nothing. The cost goes to the merchant. If anything the customer gets rewards.
Sellers increase the price by the fee amount, savvy consumers with rewards cards can get back around 80% of that price increase, and regular non-credit-card-with-rewards holding consumers just subsidize the whole thing by paying the extra. It's a tax on people without rewards cards.
memco · 56m ago
Not sure how prevalent this is now, but a few years back I was seeing a lot of "cash price" advertised for stuff that was lower by whatever the merchant didn't have to pay in fees so sometimes cash may not be subsidizing the credit industry.
ameliaquining · 41m ago
In a lot of cases there are regulatory or contractual barriers to doing that.
No comments yet
didibus · 38m ago
Are you saying that even when I pay for something in cash or using debit, because of the possibility I'd use my credit-card the merchant had +3% their price?
vasco · 33m ago
Almost but not exactly, any rational merchant would estimate how much they pay monthly in credit card fees and find a way to add that back to their revenue. For most practical cases, the business is started already after the existence of credit cards, so when modeling revenue in your business plan this should already be baked in and the prices you come up with already cover it.
So it doesn't mean they increase the price of every product by 3%. One guy might charge more just for coffee, another do some other thing. But any extra cost you put on a seller of anything, the rational seller will make that back in sales somehow.
No comments yet
albiinics · 39m ago
This is like says the tarrifs are paid by the other countries, not the US citizens.
In reality, there is no competition in the payment systems. Free markets mean competition.
sampullman · 1h ago
If it's ultimately in the price of goods, then it doesn't cost the consumer nothing, no matter how you spin it. It's just cleverly hidden.
I think it's close to impossible to "fix" Visa without government intervention (e.g. limit fees to a fraction of a percent), but I'm still grateful to anyone who tries.
paranoidrobot · 1h ago
> I think it's close to impossible to "fix" Visa without government intervention (e.g. limit fees to a fraction of a percent), but I'm still grateful to anyone who tries.
The price is the same if you use cash or card. Really, after reward points, card tends to be even cheaper.
Visa/Mastercard/BNPL/Klarna etc. all have negotiated discounts for consumers, paid for by the merchant.
I'm skeptical that merchants would lower prices (stepping away from $x.98, etc) instead of pocketing the higher margins themselves.
Tor3 · 51m ago
The incentive for merchants to accept cards for payment is that it'll increase number of sales. And it does. In principle this should even out over all sales.. but cards do make it easier for consumers do purchase stuff, and I'm absolutely sure that I personally spend money way easier with a card than without (not that I spend more than I make, mind). The total number of sales go up.
I haven't used cash in my home country for the last two decades, at least. I mean, CC works even on parking meters when paying half a dollar (equivalent) for a few minutes of parking, and I can use a card in flea markets and even some garage sales.
chrismcb · 56m ago
It costs the consumers. Sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly. I would think that this is the primary motivation to come up with a new scheme.
astrange · 5m ago
Credit cards are a huge benefit to customers because of purchase protection, chargebacks, and being able to spend money before you earn it that month. The merchants pay the fees because it gets them sales they wouldn't otherwise get.
sneak · 1h ago
> Secondly it costs the consumer nothing. The cost goes to the merchant. If anything the customer gets rewards.
Just like tariffs, right?
Visa/MC is a +1% income tax on most of the economy.
poopsmithe · 26m ago
Please focus on reinventing payments and don't re-invent how your webpage page scrolls in my browser.
soared · 1h ago
Super interesting read! I work in payments for context and see tons of different payment methods every day. People tend to find a payment method they like, and really only ever use that one method. It’s very hard to get someone to switch - even if an alternative is better. It’s just so ingrained to swipe that same card, click the same autofill button, etc.
Digital wallets did somehow over come this, and those would be a super challenging but potentially valid approach #4. If Zenobia is in Apple Pay, google pay, link, etc it’s natural and easy for customers, saves money for merchants, and disrupts visa/etc without disrupting anything else (ie making people us QR codes).
Tough problem. You need a Jony Ive on your team to help solve it.
Or do like pix and give everyone $1500, but only if they use Zenobia :)
protocolture · 18m ago
This sounds like a post mortem disguised as marketing material.
ceedaxp · 1h ago
US consumers are too conservative in the way they expect payments to work—checks are still in circulation and “swipe & sign” has barely been put to rest (has it?). Any system like this would require adoption by a few diverse and large-scale retail institutions to make it worthwhile for consumers to use. Or else it would be a mere alternative to “PayPal me”…
thayne · 1h ago
It is very much a chicken and egg problem. Merchants have no reason to adopt it if there aren't very many customers that use it, and customers have no reason to adopt it unless there are a lot of merchants, or at least some important frequently used merchants that use it.
I think for a new payment system to catch on it needs to either have a significant benefit for both payers and merchants, or be pushed by government policy (for example, require all merchants that meet some criteria to accept the new form of payment).
poopsmithe · 24m ago
I'm calling it-- 5 years and this will be vaporware. We live in a world where you have to 1) compete with VISA, Mastercard and 2) compete with Bitcoin Lightning Network.
OutOfHere · 18m ago
It helps to get clued into what happened with stablecoin legalization and interest this year. Without this awareness one risks looking very foolish.
OutOfHere · 20m ago
Since they think only thieves and mobsters need this as per their self-declaration, I will stay away, and so should others unless they fit into those two categories.
The stablecoin economy is coming anyway.
ameliaquining · 1h ago
Two of the linked GitHub repositories don't have licenses.
The premise is that credit cards (visa / Mastercard) is broken. When actually it works really well.
For starters it works everywhere. Online. IRL. In my home country, in foreign lands.
Secondly it costs the consumer nothing. The cost goes to the merchant. If anything the customer gets rewards.
Merchants might pay 3%, (and ultimately yes, that's in the price of goods) but checkout "just works". They're in the "get paid" business, not the "teach customer new system" business. They'll accept new payment options (which the POS) just provides. But they don't drive the market.
Fixing Visa doesn't work because the people that matter don't think it's broken.
Sellers increase the price by the fee amount, savvy consumers with rewards cards can get back around 80% of that price increase, and regular non-credit-card-with-rewards holding consumers just subsidize the whole thing by paying the extra. It's a tax on people without rewards cards.
No comments yet
So it doesn't mean they increase the price of every product by 3%. One guy might charge more just for coffee, another do some other thing. But any extra cost you put on a seller of anything, the rational seller will make that back in sales somehow.
No comments yet
In reality, there is no competition in the payment systems. Free markets mean competition.
I think it's close to impossible to "fix" Visa without government intervention (e.g. limit fees to a fraction of a percent), but I'm still grateful to anyone who tries.
This is what Australia is looking at currently: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-15/rba-credit-debit-merc...
Visa/Mastercard/BNPL/Klarna etc. all have negotiated discounts for consumers, paid for by the merchant.
I'm skeptical that merchants would lower prices (stepping away from $x.98, etc) instead of pocketing the higher margins themselves.
I haven't used cash in my home country for the last two decades, at least. I mean, CC works even on parking meters when paying half a dollar (equivalent) for a few minutes of parking, and I can use a card in flea markets and even some garage sales.
Just like tariffs, right?
Visa/MC is a +1% income tax on most of the economy.
Digital wallets did somehow over come this, and those would be a super challenging but potentially valid approach #4. If Zenobia is in Apple Pay, google pay, link, etc it’s natural and easy for customers, saves money for merchants, and disrupts visa/etc without disrupting anything else (ie making people us QR codes).
Tough problem. You need a Jony Ive on your team to help solve it.
Or do like pix and give everyone $1500, but only if they use Zenobia :)
I think for a new payment system to catch on it needs to either have a significant benefit for both payers and merchants, or be pushed by government policy (for example, require all merchants that meet some criteria to accept the new form of payment).
The stablecoin economy is coming anyway.