
On Cash - mpweiher
https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2018/10/11/On-Cash
======
henrikschroder
Another point is that cash allows you to buy unethical things and illegal
things. It allows economical activity on the edges of society. Some of those
edges are bad, but some are good.

How could you run a gay bar, in a place where gay bars are illegal, and the
government could just block your payments? How could you sell marijuana and
build the legalize movement, if government could just block those payments?
How could you run a whistleblower leak site on the internet through donations,
if the government can just block all payments to you?

Deciding what people can buy and cannot buy sounds _great_ if you're the one
in power. But if you're not, it will pretty quickly turn into another form of
tyranny.

~~~
smnrchrds
_How could you sell marijuana and build the legalize movement, if government
could just block those payments?_

It is even worse than that. In Canada, cannabis is going to become legal this
week. Government stores will sell it in some provinces, regulated private
stores in others. Despite this, experts are warning people to buy it with
cash, and never ever with a credit card. You see, Visa, MasterCard, and Amex
are American companies subject to American data protection law. Because
cannabis is illegal in the US, buying it with a credit card means the US
government can learn about the transaction and ban you for life from the US.

Credit card is only an option for the intersection of international laws. As
soon as you want to do something that is not legal in some countries, you
better switch to cash.

~~~
tobylane
I paid for alcohol in multiple countries between 18-21 years old. Do you think
the US Gov cares that much about anything non-terror to seek foreign
transactions?

~~~
smnrchrds
Maybe. Maybe not. Getting banned from the US is a pretty big inconvenience for
most people living in southern parts of Canada (i.e. most people in Canada).
It is unwise to play Russian roulette with that. Even if the current
administration is cool with it, there is no guarantee that the next one will
be.

Canadian media thinks it is not worth the risk [0], especially in the light of
the statements made by US officials [1].

[0] [https://globalnews.ca/news/4140898/legal-pot-data-banned-
us-...](https://globalnews.ca/news/4140898/legal-pot-data-banned-us-border/)

[1] [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/canada-weed-pot-
bo...](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/13/canada-weed-pot-
border-783260)

------
metildaa
Avoiding tracking (which credit/debit networks, banks & credit unions actively
leverage against you) is another reasonable use for cash.

I don't want Chase knowing I shop at Goodwill, if they choose to pass that
along to one of the credit agencies (there are hundreds of small ones in the
USA FYI), it would nreflect poorly. Same for using anything bbesides cash when
buying liquor, cigarettes or other low class/socially questionable items.

Edit: Using credit cards at thrift stores may affect your credit report:
[http://www.wistv.com/story/10670982/warning-shopping-at-
thri...](http://www.wistv.com/story/10670982/warning-shopping-at-thrift-
stores-could-affect-your-credit-rating)

~~~
throwaway76543
Using credit cards at thrift stores cannot affect your credit score. That
article is poorly written and is discussing impact to credit issued by the
credit card issuer. It may impact models run by the bank which issues your
credit card but it will not impact lending from any other source and will not
impact your credit score.

No one can share individual purchase data with other lenders, that sort of
data sharing is prohibited.

~~~
metildaa
The data is up for sale, notably Google buys this data (see link below). If
Google can buy it, so can one of the hundreds of credit agencies out there,
ditto for potential lenders. It is obviously priced low enough for non-lenders
to buy transaction history in bulk, seeing as Google is willing to plunk down
for a massive amount of transaction data:
[https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/google-mastercard-
data-...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/google-mastercard-data-track-
offline-purchases.html)

~~~
throwaway76543
No, the data is not up for sale. As the article you linked clearly states the
data is anonymized and cannot be tied to individuals.

It's simply not a thing. It would violate PCI-DSS.

~~~
nickpsecurity
"As the article you linked clearly states the data is anonymized and cannot be
tied to individuals."

You should never believe that for two reasons:

1\. Companies often get away with lying about that.

2\. De-anonymization techniques, esp if having multiple sources of data to
cross-compare, are improving every year thanks to an active, research
community.

Most incentives work against your privacy. Most companies act on incentives.
Best to just not share your data if you're concerned about where it might end
up.

~~~
StudentStuff
With regard to #2, I covered in my comment to the poster your replying to that
correlating partial names and the store location with registered voters from
your state's freely available voter registry would de-anonymize most
transactions in the dataset.

Nevermind that Google has location data for Android users (and Google Maps
data on Android), and better profiles of people than the voter database has.
Their attempts at user de-anonymization will likely be even more accurate.

------
clamprecht
For me, Cash is freedom. No one can block my transaction, record what I
purchase, or tell me who I can and can't give money to. I live part of the
year in Argentina, and when I'm there I don't even carry a wallet. Just a
pocket full of cash, maybe my bus card if I need it. I love it.

~~~
sxg
Cash is also a liability. It makes you a target for muggings if anyone notices
you have a significant wad of cash on you. If you misplace your cash, you have
no recourse like if you misplaced a credit card. With cash, it's difficult to
track your own transactions and budget appropriately. I live by YNAB to
monitor my spending and saving habits, and it wouldn't be possible to use as
effectively with cash.

~~~
clamprecht
Freedom has risks and responsibilities, I accept them.

Edit: BTW, I'm not saying one needs to be 100% cash. I use credit cards too.
The important thing is that I have a choice.

~~~
aesh2Xa1
I find this position generally attractive because I believe that good
principles and ethics requires some effort on everyone's part, especially when
the benefit is towards not oneself. Technically, though, I would not believe a
claim that anonymous electronic currency is impossible to implement. You can
have the benefits of cash and the convenience of technologies.

~~~
sokoloff
> You can have the benefits of cash and the convenience of technologies.

Cash is instant, does not require power, does not require connectivity, and no
one takes of cut of the transaction.

Cash also leaves a trail so faint that it requires a substantial investment in
resources to trace it.

I think those hurdles will be difficult to overcome in order to match the
benefits of cash in an electronic currency.

------
adriand
I've been pondering the plight of homeless people and buskers and panhandlers
lately too, for the same precise reason, which is now that tap to pay is
almost universally accepted I find I'm rarely carrying cash. I went in a
different direction than the OP, however: I've been thinking that buskers and
panhandlers should consider signing up for Square's tap to pay reader so they
can easily accept card payments.

I know it might seem odd, especially in the case of panhandlers, who may have
difficulty persuading people that the transaction is secure in addition to the
fact that some people will be judgmental and assume that if they can afford a
smartphone, a card reader, and a bank account, they must not need the money.

But what's the real alternative? It sure isn't trying to persuade people to
carry cash because of "The Man" or so that they can keep buskers and
panhandlers in business. If people who earn money on the street can't accept
card payments, they're screwed, plain and simple.

There might even be a non-profit startup idea here: something like Square, but
optimized for panhandlers and buskers. Something that people get used to, that
clearly communicates that the transaction will be secure and small (e.g. $1 or
$2 every time), that charges absolutely minimal fees (or none if possible),
and perhaps that works without a real bank account - e.g. money goes onto the
device, and then the device itself can also be used to pay for things, like
Apple Pay.

~~~
DoreenMichele
_There might even be a non-profit startup idea here: something like Square,
but optimized for panhandlers_

That sounds to me kind of like this (only available in Seattle currently,
iirc):

[https://www.samaritan.city](https://www.samaritan.city)

I was homeless for nearly six years. Instead of panhandling, I worked at
developing an online income. I'm trying to support and promote that approach
for others. Some of my work:

[https://www.pocketputer.com](https://www.pocketputer.com)

[https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com](https://sandiegohomelesssurvivalguide.blogspot.com)

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com)

[http://writepay.blogspot.com](http://writepay.blogspot.com)

~~~
nowarninglabel
Samaritan is doing good work and making it easy to get digital credit or other
credit to people rather than directly handle cash. Where things really shine
though I think is with surfacing the stories of the people you are giving to.

~~~
StudentStuff
Samaritan City seems like an interesting concept, but as a Seattlite I have
never heard of them, and they appear to be app only, which makes me question
what they're actually doing.

The website talks a good game, right up until the point that you look at the
claimed partner list. I tried to find a couple of the supposed partners
linking themselves with Samaritan City in any way, but AFAIK there is no
public announcement I can find from King County Metro and other partners
mentioning this outfit.

To add to that, it appears money donated is easily locked away from those you
supposedly donated to (with mandatory 30 day check-ins), and it can only be
spent at select partners. The straightjacket on permitted places to spend
donations is similar to EBT, but even more restrictive as you seemingly can't
use this anywhere besides at mega-chain markets and restaurants.

I don't give Mutual Aid to exclusively support chains & mega-corps, this
business practice of only allowing purchases at select partners is very
scummy, and hurts the value of the supposed support donors are attempting to
provide via Samaritan City.

[https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/homeless/homeless-...](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-
news/homeless/homeless-seattle-startup-has-an-app-for-that/)

------
osrec
I really like the points made about the international payments cartel.
Something needs to happen to challenge them, as they really are holding back a
tonne of potentially viable businesses, a lot of which could seriously change
our world for the better. I don't think companies like Stripe are the answer
either, as they sort of pander to the cartel.

It's funny that the electronic payment industry is a direct result of
innovation, but because of the stranglehold it now has on society, it's begun
to limit the potential for new innovation.

~~~
wycs
You would need Wechat for America. I actually think Apple is well placed to do
this, but it would go against their hardware-first culture.

If they released iMessage and ApplePay on Android, added a Wechat style P2P
payment system, and started cannibalizing the AppStore/Playstore through a
WeChat style API I think they could pull it off.

~~~
wishinghand
Apple already doesn’t like things that are too political or erotic being
bought and sold on their App Store. I wonder how well pornography or
solicitations for programmers unions would do in there.

------
newscracker
I keep sharing this article on Aeon, titled "In praise of cash" [1], and
encourage people to use cash. This was discussed then (March 2017) on HN. [2]

It is almost impossible in many countries to use cash for large purchases, but
many routine purchases that people do can easily be done through cash (this
may vary by country, as there are some countries that have adapted to being
hostile to using cash).

Within the constraints of a government issued and recognized fiat value
exchange system, cash is freedom. Period. Everything else is a bunch of people
sitting between you and the seller, taking a cut on every transaction and
imposing more restrictions on what you can do with your knowledge or labor.

[1]: [https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-
is...](https://aeon.co/essays/if-plastic-replaces-cash-much-that-is-good-will-
be-lost)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13782561](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13782561)

------
niftich
Though it's hardly the author's point, carrying a bit of cash for outages,
emergencies, and incidentals is probably smart, and then you have a bit for
the exceptional busker. You can still do your day-to-day spending from a card.
Or cards, whichever gives better perks for the store in question.

And there's the rub: most payment networks charge the merchant, and through
the elaborate tendrils of corporate ownership kick a proportionally smaller
amount back to the customer. Still, it's a reward that's nice to have, and
coupled with fraud protection, three weeks of delay in due dates, single-item
usability, and a built-in credit line, credit cards are winning out among
those who can obtain them.

Card surcharges are one way a merchant can pass on the cost of credit card
acceptance to the customer, and are currently a state-by-state issue, but big
retailers don't want to surcharge lest they create friction and lose shoppers
to a competitor. This furthers the price pressure on small merchants or moves
them further upmarket where price is less of a factor. Companies like Square
(physical) and Stripe (online) able to make headway by simpler fee structures,
ease of use, and a welcoming attitude towards small businesses.

Meanwhile, Google's much-rebranded payment network, Apple Pay, and Samsung's
me-too Pay are an attempt to leverage the market penetration of cell phones to
gradually ease people into different payment habits. It's not hard to envision
a situation where in a few years, the cellphone-making companies of the world
have cut out the likes of Visa and Mastercard from payments, giving them
negotiating power with banks, merchants, and other payment networks. This is a
particularly plausible outcome for Amazon, who is extremely intent on being a
complete end-to-end solution for customers for anything that they'd want to
buy.

In a world like that, cash becomes an instrument of those for whom lenders
don't want to extend a line of credit, or those who can afford to use other
payment instruments, but are paying extra for their privacy.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Still, it's a reward that's nice to have, and coupled with fraud protection,
> three weeks of delay in due dates, single-item usability, and a built-in
> credit line, credit cards are winning out among those who can obtain them.

Fraud is a _cost_ of credit cards, not a benefit. Even with "protection" it's
an ordeal when it happens -- or when it doesn't but the credit card company
wrongly suspects it has and abruptly disables your card.

And putting off the payment for three weeks can also be problematic. If you're
just spending money which is already in your checking account it makes little
difference which day the transfer posts, but if you're spending money you
don't have, what happens when you still don't have it by the due date?

Or even if you do have the money, wait until first time you forget to make a
payment and all the supposed financial benefits of credit cards instantly
evaporate into a nasty late fee and 15+% APR.

> Card surcharges are one way a merchant can pass on the cost of credit card
> acceptance to the customer, and are currently a state-by-state issue, but
> big retailers don't want to surcharge lest they create friction and lose
> shoppers to a competitor.

The alternative is a cash discount. The advertised price would be no higher
than it would be by charging the same price for cash and credit, you just give
two thirds of the credit card fee to the customer (instead of the one third
the credit card company does) and pocket the other third. And take more
customers from the competition once they realize you're offering the discount.

~~~
gruez
>Fraud is a cost of credit cards, not a benefit. Even with "protection" it's
an ordeal when it happens

wait what? making one phone call (5-10 min) is hardly an ordeal, and is better
than the cash alternative - losing a couple hundred dollars

>Or even if you do have the money, wait until first time you forget to make a
payment and all the supposed financial benefits of credit cards instantly
evaporate into a late fee and 15+% APR.

this is a non-issue for me because I already have multiple bills I have to
remember to pay, so adding a few credit cards to that routine is trivial

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> wait what? making one phone call (5-10 min) is hardly an ordeal

It's a pretty good sized ordeal when your card gets declined due to fraud and
you look like a schmuck in front of your date/boss/client/etc.

> and is better than the cash alternative - losing a couple hundred dollars

There is no cash alternative to credit card fraud. You can't steal the cash in
someone's pocket or make it unspendable by cracking a third party website or
taking a customer service job and skimming cards.

The closest alternative is physical theft, but that's much less common in most
areas, and credit cards can be stolen too as an independent threat. Even then
it's easier to replace $100 in cash than spend time ordering and waiting for
all new credit cards with different card numbers and then update that info in
multiple places etc.

> this is a non-issue for me because I already have multiple bills I have to
> remember to pay, so adding a few credit cards to that routine is trivial

The problem is human fallibility. One month you're preoccupied with some
family drama, or the bank's new website is hot garbage, or you just miss a
typo, and you schedule a payment for November when it's due in October. That
whole system is set up to stick it to you for minor honest mistakes.

------
thinkloop
Cash can be expensive to use. There is a hidden tax on all goods and services
of a few percent to offset the payment fees merchants have to pay to
processors and to support the loyalty programs arms race. By using cash, you
miss out on the 1%-2% rewards/cashback that offset the elevated prices. That's
supposed to be your prize for having helped pressure the merchants into
accepting your payment method.

~~~
shorttime
Not true. It's illegal for something to cost more if you use cash.

~~~
jefftk
It effectively costs more, since you pay the same but don't get cash back.

If I buy something for $100 cash it would have cost me $98 (after cash back)
via credit card.

------
shorttime
I always carry cash. I'm surprised when people don't. Came in handy when the
hurricane hit, gas stations only took cash. Cash is also good for negotiation.

~~~
metildaa
Avoiding payment fees, negotiating a discount by having cash ready to fork
over, etc. Its always good to have $100 or so in your pocket, quick way to
smooth over small fender benders/paint nicks if you accidentally damage
someone else's car in a minor way.

I say this as someone who lives in part of the US where shops and medical
practices are starting to go card only. Having cash is still really handy,
though many people here can get by without touching cash for months.

~~~
irrational
"quick way to smooth over small fender benders/paint nicks if you accidentally
damage someone else's car in a minor way"

Anytime I've had a body shop repair dents or paint nicks it has cost so much
more than $100 that I would literally laugh in the face of anyone that tried
that with me.

~~~
metildaa
If your driving a car 5+ years old that was $30k or less, a small nick such as
the one I mentioned isn't apt to be repaired. All one is trying to do is
satiate the party that had their car damaged, and that is generally possible
for a fairly reasonable cost.

~~~
sokoloff
Agreed, but I'm not giving over any significant amount of cash to an
individual without getting a signed release. $50 and hope I never hear from
them again? Sure.

~~~
metildaa
$100 and we don't exchange info/I made sure no pictures were taken or license
plates studied is generally baseline IMO. Even if they're at fault, if it's
minor I do not want my insurance to know about the accident. It will boost the
premiums much moreso than paying off those involved.

------
forapurpose
If we only had electronic payment methods (credit cards, etc.) and someone
invented cash, we'd be very impressed:

No communication with a server, no approval (for either party), no contracts
and agreements, no cut taken from the seller (and partly passed on to the
buyer), no third party involved at all - just a direct transaction between
buyer and seller, no chips, not even electricity is needed. Imagine just
handing someone a piece of paper.

Nobody is excluded, no matter their income or background. It's frictionless,
anonymous, and it's very simple (for the user); the complexity is all handled
by the cash-issuing party. Of course some will complain about government
intruding into the payment processing marketplace.

~~~
ken
We would also hate it.

I have to do math at every transaction? There's different denominations (which
make no sense), and some are paper and some are metal? How do I authenticate
that it's a real bill? What happens when it wears out? Are you really going to
keep inventing new designs every couple years as criminals learn to make their
own? What if I want to buy something and I have enough cash but the vendor
can't "make change" (actually happened to me the other day)?

Cash is one of those great ideas, like bicycles and music, that I'm glad we
invented long ago, because I doubt it'd ever get invented/discovered in
today's ROI-above-all-else environment.

~~~
forapurpose
> I have to do math at every transaction? There's different denominations
> (which make no sense), and some are paper and some are metal? How do I
> authenticate that it's a real bill? What happens when it wears out? Are you
> really going to keep inventing new designs every couple years as criminals
> learn to make their own? What if I want to buy something and I have enough
> cash but the vendor can't "make change" (actually happened to me the other
> day)?

In practice, these won't be significant problems for the user. I haven't seen
the focus group testing, but I'm comfortable predicting that. Some of those
issues are problems for the cash-issuer, not the user.

------
pteredactyl
I'm with you 100%. Makes me feel more connected to local businesses. Also, I
know they get more when I pay cash.

I've carried thousands of dollars around and no one was none the wiser. So
while the security argument is true. It's overblown. At most someone will
probably steal $100 from me. And that's never happened, thankfully. (I live in
a dodgy part of SF)

~~~
lotsofpulp
Similarly, when I pay electronically, I know the business owners have one less
option for tax fraud.

~~~
ken
I've been told that the unwritten rule of small businesses is that nobody pays
all the taxes they owe. Nobody would be able to afford to stay in business if
they did. They depend on cash for this.

There's a small business (owner and 1-2 employees) here in Seattle that
regularly gives me a huge cash discount. He'll print an exact price on the
bill, to the penny, and when I pull out cash, he'll notice and just make up a
much smaller number, rounded to the $10. On a $50-$150 purchase, it's usually
a 30-50% discount. They've been in business for many years so I assume he
knows what he's doing.

(I wonder if this comment will get people to start offering cash at Seattle
area small businesses, in the hopes of getting a discount!)

------
latchkey
A huge issue with getting rid of cash is tourism. In China, cash is becoming
more rare. It is all WeChat. Except that I can't put my credit card into
WeChat... they only accept Chinese cards.

~~~
throw940day
Yes, this was very annoying when visiting China. I had to resort to giving my
friends cash so they could send "red envelopes (virtual credits)" to my
account.

I really hope WeChat does better on this. Either letting us use our foreign
cards or have some type of top off card where you can buy at convenience
stores or the airport and load that into WeChat account.

I know there are some services that can do this, but I'm not sure how reliable
they are.

------
buckminster
There is a hierarchy of payment convenience. Barter < cash < card with
signature < card with PIN < tap card < tap phone. As you move up people think
less about the reality of their payments and spend more. When tap to pay was
introduced in the UK the banks predicted and saw a small uptick in bad debt
amongst the poorest for this reason.

More transactions are good for the economy but not necessarily for the
individual. I use cash because it's easier to not spend it.

------
LiamPa
In London it’s not uncommon to see buskers with contactless readers for
donations. There is even an app to donate to homeless people which details who
they are and where the money will go.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-45102437/would-you-
sca...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-45102437/would-you-scan-a-
homeless-person-s-barcode-to-give-them-money)

------
antonkm
I make decent pay each month, and when the money shows up on my account, I go
"sweet" for 1 second then get back to normal. I once withdrew my whole salary
in cash, and wow, the relationship to money is quite different.

I didn't spend as much. I felt insanely rich. And I had bucks for the buskers
and homeless.

Digital money isn't money. It's just Numbers with no relationship to reality
to me (and many others).

------
kasey_junk
Just as a anecdotal point, I’m in the states and I largely only use the touch
pay stuff.

~~~
galonk
That's actually interesting, I wonder where you are, because I was in freakin'
NYC last year and every store STILL didn't even take chip cards, much less
tap. Don't even get me started on having to deal with pennies ;)

~~~
sontek
I'm in Puerto Rico and almost all of shops that take card take chip. I feel
like you may have been frequenting some odd places if you were having a hard
time finding chip in NYC :P

~~~
akvadrako
What does Puerto Rico have to do with chip in NYC ? Americans have one of the
most antiquated banking systems in the world.

~~~
Frondo
Puerto Rico is a part of America, just not a state; Puerto Ricans are American
citizens.

~~~
akvadrako
Of course but how is that relevant? Lots of places in the US don’t have chip
and pin. Just because PR does means little about NYC.

------
the_imp
The current Finnish solution for this problem is to use one of the two mobile
payment services that allow person-to-person payments using a phone number as
the identifier:

[https://siirto.fi/](https://siirto.fi/)

[https://www.mobilepay.fi/](https://www.mobilepay.fi/)

Admittedly these aren't anonymous as the recipient will get your name and
phone number, but the convenience is arguably even greater than what's
possible with cash.

------
Animats
At least in Silicon Valley, Google Pay and Apple Pay came and went. Is Google
even still serious about Google Pay, or is that on life support like Google
Fiber and Google Phone?

~~~
lern_too_spel
I use Google Pay but only because it is the only option on my device. It's
another one of those Google products with PMs looking for the next big thing
instead of making all the little things work. For example, there is no way to
name your cards, so I have a few cards named Visa [last four digits]. There is
no way to say that you prefer to use particular cards at particular merchants.
I used to be able to load library cards into Google Wallet and name them, but
now there are only a few fixed name options for loyalty cards, they are all
named Library Card, which isn't helpful to people like me who use multiple
library systems.

------
billfruit
In higher interest rate countries it may be better to use credit cards for
payments, since you get to accrue interest on cash you would have otherwise
spent, for the 50 day interest free duration of the credit card, so it is like
the credit card helps to earn a bit of money.

Also credit cards offer rewards program, so in effect, most purchases are tiny
bit cheaper with a credit card than cash, and over a long term these tiny
savings can add up.

------
nkjoep
In Berlin, and in Germany in general, cash-only is the normality for most of
the shops.

I thought it was a bad and inconvenient idea at the beginning, maybe I should
rethink.

------
Osiris
I hate using cash because I hate change (coins). Also, what do you do for big
purchases? Most ATMs have a $200 limit.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I hate using cash because I hate change (coins).

Coinstar has a deal where you can exchange your coins for an Amazon gift code
with no fee. So just dump them in a bucket and go exchange them once a year,
then use the gift code for whatever you would have bought on Amazon regardless
-- and use your credit card even less.

> Also, what do you do for big purchases? Most ATMs have a $200 limit.

Most ATMs have a $500 limit. For some banks it's $1500 or more. And you can
get more by going inside the bank.

How often do you make such a large in-person purchase anyway?

~~~
projektfu
Yeah, I recently bought a motorcycle with cash. Price obviously too high for
ATM so I went to bank drive-through. Apparently too high for the drive through
so they asked me to come into the store. There they gave me the cash, I felt
nervous carrying it the rest of the day, and then I picked up the motorcycle
and counted out the bills. This was after we couldn't find a working venmo,
Zelle, PopMoney or PayPal solution. That much is increasingly rare.

------
botverse
Living in UK I can tell this situation is even more extreme. I always wondered
why decentralised payments apps in crypto aren’t a bigger thing. This would:
workaround big player’s commissions for small payments and stop the tracking
of the transactions. An example is status.im

------
dna_polymerase
IMHO the only worthwhile competition to the "international payments cartel",
as the author puts it, could be something Blockchain based. Decentralized and
by some algorithm protected from a sudden surge in fees. I know lots of people
have an opinion on what cryptocurrency could be the one but I think we simply
aren't there yet. Personally I feel that Vitalik Buterin of Ethereum has the
best project at hand to accomplish anything as big as an VISA/Mastercard
killer (in terms of scalability) but at the moment we are not there.
Decentralisation however just makes so much sense in order to protect both
sides from shady behaviour from the middleman. Just take a look at the adult
entertainment industry, who are mostly unable to process credit cards without
giving up enormous chunks of their revenue, just because the big two refuse
their business.

That said, cash will always have the advantage of relative easy and effective
anonymity. I find it troubling that people are so eager to give up on such an
essential feature of their money.

~~~
hakfoo
I always pictured there would be some "assertive" state actor involved to
create a true Visa/MC/etc-killer. You could say something like "our central
bank offers a basic push and pull payment API, and there's an account created
for every citizen/resident. It's going to be used to disburse social security
and accept tax payments, so everyone's going to have to learn to work with
it." Maybe add some sort of plastic-card based infrastructure for convenient
transactions without smartphones or PCs. Adding credit-based products on top
of that feels like a fairly trivial endeavour.

This would seemingly be a feasible sell to many governments with the right
spin (reduction in processing costs for their own payments, fraud control,
data gathering, reducing reliance on foreign-controlled payment services,
adding another means of capital control) It also seems reasonable within the
same sort of "government needs to provide the basic infrastructure for a
modern financial system" scope that allows for government "lenders of last
resort", bank insurance, and clearing houses for cheques.

Then the question for Visa/MC/etc becomes "what can you offer these consumers
and retailers that the local service doesn't except higher fees?" aside from
the corner case of "you can use it abroad more easily".

------
decentralised
Relevant as to why cryptocurrencies are the natural evolution of cash:
[https://phys.org/news/2018-10-bitcoin-
dollar.html](https://phys.org/news/2018-10-bitcoin-dollar.html)

------
hprotagonist
Carrying cash makes it easier to give to people who ask for it.

On the other hand, I've had some interesting meals with people because i
couldn't give them cash so I picked up the tab instead.

------
beefield
To me, biggest issue with cash is that it prohibits central banks making sound
monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) in certain situations where
that would be needed.

~~~
uncle_d
Negative interest rates and sound monetary policy - allow me to invoke the
Chinese ambassador talking to Nixon on that one..

------
stuaxo
Funny, I've been conciously carrying cash for the same reasons. Still i should
probably be more disciplined about using it as opposed to contactless.

------
rrrazdan
Cash also causes corruption. Part of the way India is trying to curb
corruption is to move people off of cash. Not that it is working.

~~~
khuey
Cash enables petty corruption perhaps, but not the big stuff.

~~~
freddie_mercury
I live in developing country that does quite poorly on the Transparency
International Corruption Index.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Cash enables big corruption, too.

------
esotericn
The primary benefit I see with cash is that it's simply trivial to accept.

A store owner, market stall holder, hawker, beggar - anyone can accept cash,
trivially. You hold out your hand, someone gives you some coins, done.

None of the other payment mechanisms are that simple. Generally at a minimum a
lengthy sign up procedure would be required involving identification;
accepting credit card payments is going to further require purchasing or
owning physical hardware.

Cryptocurrencies come close (no registration, authentication, etc and so on
required), but they don't (yet?) have the market penetration required to
function as cash does.

I'd say this is reflected in the cost of cash-only establishments vs. non-
cash-only. All of the cheap takeaway-style establishments are cash only for
good reason - it's the only way to just transfer funds without associated
baggage.

