Canada's Interac is anagolous to US' Zelle payment network (which is owned by the largest US commercial banks), while RTR is the US FedNow equivalent ("true" instant payment and settlement with broader use case support, operated as a utility by the US Federal Reserve).
(it should be expected that newer, utility ran instant payment systems cannibalize existing, more expensive, lower legacy payment rails; going fast and being cheap as a utility is the innovation)
What are the provisions for privacy - preventing my every financial transaction, and thus everything I do involving money, from being centrally tracked, and shared with private institutions?
And what about for preventing government from cutting people off from the financial system (without a court order)? Edit: The US government already commonly does it with non-citizens in the context of other financial systems.
At least, how does that work with FedNow if not Canada's RTR?
Access to your personal information is governed by PIPEDA for private entities and the Privacy Act for government entities. Additionally each province has its own version of the Privacy Act. Since most of the big banks are headquartered in Toronto, the Ontario's Privacy Act (FIPPA) may also have some jurisdiction but not clear.
Interac (eTransfer/EMT) is a great system that has already rolled out nation-wide.
Unfortunately its utility is curtailed severely if your bank doesn't trust your mobile OS (LineageOS, for me). For security purposes, my bank (RBC) triggers identity checks every time I try to send an EMT, and even after sending selfies, drivers licences, etc. — it still rejects the transfer.
So, security at the cost of all utility.
I have now resorted to transferring money between my accounts using paper cheques... like it's the 90s. If somehow they deny me cheque deposits I'll have to use an ATM and walk the money to the other bank. Given how there are now banks that don't even have branches, this could be a major problem in the future.
This Real-Time Rail system sounds promising, but that's not the link that'll kill it for everyone.
Unless I'm missing something I'd expect Payments Canada to have similar issues for you, since it'll still be the banks that you interact with. What changes is the settlement and messaging system between the banks.
99.999% of people don’t root and install custom operating systems on consumer hardware. The bank derives immense security value by enforcing this, at the expense of your hobby installation.
I don't think this is as unusual are you're implying it might be.
I've moved funds ranging from 10k to $1m between banks in Canada much more than once, and every single time, I go to one and get a draft and drive that draft over to the destination bank. It's just easier...and its absurd.
When you show up to get a cashier’s check, the teller has very strong proof that you’re not a scammer sitting in Malaysia. And you’re presumably OK with waiting the 1-3 days for the cashier’s check to clear.
This might be true in Canada too: the real estate industry down here is entirely dependent on wire transfers, and yet they are absolutely terrified of wire scams. Maybe if FedNow had existed when I bought my place, I could have gotten a draft slip from my bank and driven it over to the title company.
While i agree it is uncommon - i disagree that banks get much security value from this. Most banks let you do etransfers from a desktop computer just normally. I dont really see what attacks banning rooted phones stop when you can just use your normal linux desktop.
Bieng in a similar situation, my back up plan has been to keep a phone that is used exclusivly for personal banking and pull the sim and shut it off when not in use.
Currently I have a much fiddled with android phone and a browser that will interact with the banks web sites for banking.
I get a lot of paper cheques and convert to cash for much of my personal spending, and my hope is that the new system will facilitate timely clearance of paper cheques and actualy make them more atractive.
Interesting, did you try other apps if they work on grapheneos/lineageos like koho or wealthsimple? If they do, maybe you can use it as an intermediate tool.
Not so hot on the name, initially thought it was some kind of train system payment thing. But that just lends to the coverage of this out in random mainstream media confusing consumers - not really a consumer thing but an infrastructure thing on the backend for banks/institutions. On the consumer side many will immediately think of Interac eTransfers, which this has little to do with as far as consumer experience, but it will also use this on the backend for things. Carry on.
I don't know why anyone would trust the Liberal government with a payment system, after they went rogue and froze about 200 bank accounts without court orders during the convey protests using the emergencies act which has since been deemed illegal.
> Using powers granted under the Emergencies Act, the federal government has directed banks and other financial institutions to stop doing business with people associated with the anti-vaccine mandate convoy occupying the nation's capital.
> ... financial institutions are required to monitor and halt all transactions that funnel money to demonstrators — a measure designed to cut off funding to a well-financed protest ...
If you think they wouldnt abuse this, good luck to you.
While it may have been since deemed illegal, they found a few of those trucks to be armed to brim with munitions. It was strong reaction to try and prevent a violent insurrection on Parliament Hill, which was still fresh on many Canadians minds from Jan 6.
> why anyone would trust the Liberal government ... after they ... froze about 200 bank accounts ... during the convey protests
Wasn't that almost 5 years ago - was it the same government? Is there reason to believe it's the Liberals and not the prime minister at the time, or that the Conservatives would be different?
With or without this new payment system, they can order the banks to freeze your account or block transactions (as your example shows they were able to do before this payment system was rolled out).
You're conveniently leaving out that the PEO report found they were justified in using the emergency powers act since it was a complete failure of the local and provincial police to act, so they had to do something.
So FedNow for Canada, meaning you can't use this outside of Canada at all.
Crypto blockchains like Solana, XRP, Stellar and Tempo on the other hand can be used anywhere worldwide, 24/7 and sends stablecoins like USDC in seconds with extremely low fees.
Doesn't look like any of Canada's major banks are taking part?
> The initial cohort of active RTR system participants includes: Wealthsimple,
Questbank,
Peoples Trust Company,
Paramount Commerce,
KOHO,
DoBusiness.com™,
Digital Commerce Bank,
Bank of America,
Wealthsimple has 170 billion in assets under administration, while BMO, the smallest major bank, only has 310 billion. Considering WS is 100% retail, it's arguably a major financial institution at this point (though legally not a bank).
It's true they built their reputation and brand by being a robo-advisor, but I don't personally know anyone who uses it that way today and many people in my social circle instead use them as a cheap HISA and online self-directed brokerage, perhaps more like Robinhood or Ally
Isn't it legally a bank? It provides chequing and savings accounts (registered and unregistered), and it's even CDIC-backed on at least their managed products.
They don't hold a schedule 1 banking license, so not technically a bank, but a FinTech with a banking partner who holds funds in a way that allows for CDIC backing. As a WS customer, when I send a bill payment to a non-WS account it arrives as "RBC" on the other end so I assume WS holds funds through an RBC account they maintain.
This is the hope of something like RTR - for anyone who can meet the participation requirements, an ability to operate independently of a banking partner who might be your direct competition.
It is harder for major banks to update their systems for this, so it will take them a while to implement. Smaller more nimble institutions will jump on first.
I would expect the integration into the Interac network (itself a sort of consortium of the big banks that provides a number of debit-adjacent services) will mean that adoption by the big players will be pretty quick.
They'll be in later phases, once they feel confident enough to significantly ramp up volume:
> Participants will be added to the RTR in three phases to help control the volume of transactions added to the system, with the goal of including every Canadian financial institution on the rail by mid-2027.
> The major banks – which will shift massive amounts of volume onto the RTR – are not involved in the first phase of the rollout, but will join in the second and third phases.
Ah, this is the SEPA Instant problem. SEPA Instant was introduced a decade ago, and remained largely useless until bank support was made mandatory last year.
I couldn't find this info in the release, but I assume account information and transactions go through the Bank of Canada? That's how the closest analogy, Brazil's Pix, works.
RTR is owned and run by Payments Canada, which is a crown corp that also runs Lynx (large value transfer system) and ACSS (cheque clearing system.) PayCan itself is overseen by the Minister of Finance, but there is Bank of Canada oversight (risk and prudential) of the key designated systems RTR, Lynx, ACSS under the Payment Clearing and Settlements Act (PCSA)
If you look at their "about us" section, they just say they are "a corporation". https://www.payments.ca/about/who-we-are Although they were created by a law (Canada Payments Act) and have a public mandate:
Payments Canada has formed a critical part of Canada’s financial market infrastructure for over four decades. The Canadian Payments Association was created by the Canadian Payments Association Act in 1980, now known as the Canadian Payments Act (CP Act).
I think its because its a membership association (like a non profit), where crown corporations are structured like for profit companies where the crown (government) owns all the stock.
For those unfamiliar with the term, a "Crown Corp" is a private company, but wholly owned by the government.
It's not an unusual structure here, the BoC is itself a Crown Corp.
To contrast, Interac, the system used for canadian debit and person to person transfers, is a private company, with ownership by the banks.
It's a niggle upon a niggle but I do not believe payments Canada is formally a crown corporation. It's primarily a member consortium / industry governance body, though to be muddied further, Minister of Finance does have some oversight responsibilities / accountability.
I always viewed it as one of the "we will govern and regulate ourself so government doesn't fully have to" bodies, but I'm an outsider so happy to be corrected :).
Just like the EU started their independent EU-wide (500 million people) payment network to become independent of the American payment monopolists. It took a fascist US admin to get the move world-wide rolling to decouple from the US and towards smaller sovereignty, but ultimately it is for the better.
These payment systems need network effects, otherwise they just won't matter. Another private provider won't generate these effects. Just look at the list of participants, they're small players in Canada's marketplace. They won't generate net effects.
Besides, in times of renewed imperialism it is very crucial that a country has full control of their payment systems.
And, at last, they must offer guarantees that there will be no friction and won't be subject to enshitification.
So, what Canada needs is a system implemented, enforced and managed by the government, like Brazil's Pix and India's UPI.
Why not? Payments Canada isn't a "private provider" like Interac. This new payments system is also ISO 20022, as is Pix. Although high level, their list of features seems close to Pix:
* The real-time clearing and settlement component
* The real-time exchange component
* Third party exchanges flowing through the clearing and settlement component
> This new payments system is also ISO 20022, as is Pix.
This is a good step. But the devil is in the details.
And I don't see the details that matter the most:
* Network effects: will it be widespread (from city buses to fruit stands)? Compared to UPI and Pix, Interact has a pathetic history of adoption. What sets RTR apart from Interact?
* Friction: Will it be instantaneous and free of charge? Can it be used by illiterate persons? QR codes? NFC tags?
In Brazil/India those payments systems are used by the most informal of agents: fortune tellers, prostitutes, merchants in crime ridden favelas, ... This is what real mass adoption looks like.
Being from Brazil I'm well aware of the shortcomings of Interac!
Its early to say if this new payment system will be "Canada's Pix" or not, but to me it seems that's the direction they're going:
- The release statement takes great pains to make it clear the payment system is "instantaneous" or "within a few seconds", unlike Interac
- Same ISO standard as Pix
- Some sort of centralization (they just say "centralized fraud prevention"; I'm assuming that means some sort of BoC coordination. Also: "exchanges flowing through the clearing and settlement component")
And most importantly, unlike Interac (a private company), this comes from a quasi-public company with a clear government mandate.
> So, what Canada needs is a system implemented, enforced and managed by the government, like Brazil's Pix and India's UPI.
Payments Canada is a corporation fully owned by the government and overseen by the Department of Finance. It was formed by an Act of Parliament. Short of rolling it into the department of finance it couldn't be more of a government effort.
Also, the small partners are the launch partners. The Big 6 are part of the second phase of rollout in 2027. The projection is that 90% of all canadian bank accounts will be covered in the next year.
Insane that the US does not have a realtime payments network in 2026. FedNow exists but is supported by handful of banks which charge fees to use the feature.
> Outgoing transfers cost 0.75% of the transaction amount (minimum of $1, maximum of $30). SoFi does not charge a fee for incoming transactions.
> SoFi Plus members save 50%. They pay 0.375% of the transaction amount with a maximum of $15 (minimum remains $1).
FedNow is still roughly an order of magnitude more expensive than the EU's TIPS (EUR 0.002 vs. USD 0.045, last time I checked) in terms of "sticker price", but yes, at least there's some movement, and as you say I'm not sure who actually pays that sticker price in the US.
The real problem is that, even if costs were to come down to zero, there is nothing incentivizing banks to actually make RTP available to their customers. In the EU, customer-initiated "push" bank transfers are considered an essential part of a checking account; in the US, they're not.
For purchases, the US has debit cards and Zelle. Banks instantly exchange non-revocable promises to pay and the money follows at the end of the day. This is more capital (cash) efficient because it allows netting. One key here is that everybody in the US banking system is under the same regulators (Federal Reserve, FDIC/NCUA) so there's greater trust that they won't go under before the cash comes.
A very important point is that debit cards offer consumer protections (chargebacks for unsatisfactory goods). FedNow, Zelle, wires, ACH do not and people have lost money by scams this way.
If you don't need it right that second, same-day ACH is widely used, and again the delay allows more efficient netting.
The Clearing House's CHIPS is a good in-between, it's not guaranteed instant, but uses an algorithm to match transactions as fast as possible with constrained float.
Is this correct - A very important point is that debit cards offer consumer protections (chargebacks for unsatisfactory goods) - I was under the impression that only credit cards offer chargeback protection?
As far as I know, in India, debit cards don't offer chargeback protection presumably because they are PIN enabled. Which means, in practice, nobody can use your card without knowing your PIN. And so it is assumed that any transaction on it has been done with your permission. Debit cards also don't offer chargebacks for consumer protection against faulty goods.
I think you might want to check that again. If the card is Visa or Mastercard, then it should offer fraud protections in mostly the same way as a credit card. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Most debit cards today have PIN, but that doesn't waive fraud or theft protections. If I purchase something online the purchase of course has my permission. If the goods are faulty or not delivered, then that is fraud and has chargeback protection. Even if you used your PIN, even if you used two factor authentication.
I want to send money between accounts I own in real time. I want to deposit money in brokerage accounts in real time. I want to stop connecting my accounts to services like Wise to make money transfers. I want to pay off a credit card and have that payment clear instantly. FedNow could enable all of this.
Purchases are an afterthought. A system like Brazil's Pix could be rolled out on top of FedNow.
> I want to deposit money in brokerage accounts in real time.
My broker credits me for deposits immediately, switch brokers.
> I want to pay off a credit card and have that payment clear instantly.
Why? There is zero benefit to doing this, a credit card payment is applied to the account on the day you choose to pay it, whether it is removed from your checking account or not. I guess I could see if you are constantly over drafting your account, but you could just .. not overdraft.
Instant for USA banks doesn’t mean instant for USA banking customers, and deposits can be held per fed and banking policies for variety of reasons especially larger deposits. Also, it’s increasingly common to have financial routing intermediaries playing by different rules and non-insured financial accounts that result in no coverage when the money is spent/lost elsewhere and not returned to end customers. Take a look at Zelle case in New York and the nearly $100M customer funds missing with the Synapse bankruptcy.
My point is that these properly designed national systems should also be considered in the USA as well, and not dismissed because something is kind of working right now with a long list of exceptions to a good and safe experience.
> For purchases, the US has debit cards and Zelle.
Both are a very poor alternative to something like UPI or even EU-style bank transfers as a mass retail payment system. Cards are orders of magnitudes more expensive; Zelle has no standardized interface and is explicitly geared only towards P2P Payments, lest it cannibalizes the banks' golden goose, i.e. payment cards.
> same-day ACH is widely used, and again the delay allows more efficient netting.
Importantly, customer-initiated/"push" ACH is largely not a thing in the US, unlike in many other countries. This is what people unfamiliar with the US landscape often have a hard time understanding.
> A very important point is that debit cards offer consumer protections (chargebacks for unsatisfactory goods). FedNow, Zelle, wires, ACH do not and people have lost money by scams this way.
That's the crux of it: The US seems to be culturally unwilling to accept the risks (fraud) and rewards (practically free P2P and B2C payments) that come with a customer-initiated/push payment system.
For nearly 20 years the UK has had "faster payments", free instant transfers, now up to £1m, and while you can't send to a phone number, the routing numbers needed can't be used to withdraw so are generally safe to give to people.
UK system is rather inconvenient and most web sites do not have even an option to use that. And forget using that to pay in a shop. Compare that to Bizum in Spain or Vipps in Norway where one can very conveniently pay using that both online and in shops and the systems naively supports refunds and payment reservations and subscriptions similar to debit cards.
Yes, it's less about payments than more modern systems. The UK has free current ( checking) accounts with debit cards that are essentially free to use, so there's not much incentive for other payment systems. A contactless debit card is quicker and easier to use than an app anyway, although google/apple apps work with that too.
Subscriptions are often done via "direct debit" ( since 1970 ), which is safer than letting anyone take money if they have your details, so that's been a solved problem here for a while too.
The downside is the first-movers problem, where the UK having been ahead a couple of decades ago will now likely be behind for a while, because there isn't so much incentive.
Hopefully not as long as the USA has been behind though!
I get the benefit for the merchant to use an instant payment system. On the other hand, I don't understand the benefit is for the consumer. An increasing number of UK merchants use Pay By Bank (which is essentially an easy way to make a payment by pre-filling the merchant's bank details in your banking app), but if you choose to use it you're instantly losing the consumer protections that come from using a debit or (especially) a credit card: https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/pay-by-bank-warnin...
The only way I would use such a system for purchases would be if the merchant refused debit/credit cards, and even then only if there wasn't an alternative merchant I could use.
I've always paid for Airbnb type places (not actually airbnb, obviously) in the UK using the fast electronic payment system. There's usually a button on the web site or they email their account and routing number.
It mostly replaced paying with cash for people to people transactions and removed the massive delay doing online payments to people. It didn't change payments to businesses.
The Fed prints a fraction of a fraction of the actual money in circulation. Private banks in practice control the money supply. As such, they want to maintain their monopoly.
The countries that have innovated the most in regards to automated payments are the ones trying to escape US influence: look at PIX in Brazil, BRICS pay, etc...
In America, the payment system is an oligarchy, they protect their own (the bankers), what need is there for innovation when they are making a killing out of the current inefficiency?
The one place where the US haven't been slow is in stablecoins, making them dollar donominated, to ensure the monopoly the US dollar has on international trade stays strong. That way, when the US has a crisis, they take down the rest of the world too, to the joy of non-US countries.
In most part of the world, the government just force the bank to join the payment system and restrict how they charge the customer.
In the USA, no single regulator have that power. Basically only congress can do something like this.
The us Congress ain't famous for being fast, you know.
Our federal representatives are mostly incompetent and technologically illiterate. When a large project does materialize, the funding is wasted on contractors who actively scam the government.
Payment processors and banks lobby for control over this.
As usual, a service/product is bad because no one is allowed to create a better alternative, this is an almost universal rule.
Specific to this case: the government is included in the list of parties not allowed to make it better.
Mostly the curse of the first mover, with a dash of corruption for spice.
Part of it is "the curse of good enough": the US has had good credit-card style infrastructure for over a century and digital infrastructure since the POTS days. Part of it is that we lost our appetite for anti-trust in the 80s. Part of it is that the price structure of this infrastructure has wormed its way into everything in a way that is difficult to undo without causing high-visibility inconvenience for low-visibility benefit. The good-enough is the enemy of the good.
> the price structure of this infrastructure has wormed its way into everything in a way that is difficult to undo without causing high-visibility inconvenience for low-visibility benefit
I think the “recent” change allowing merchants to pass along the credit card fees is a step in the right direction.
I think a lot of people would still choose fraud protection for the extra costs, though.
I think it's mainly because they aren't forced by regulation.
Germany is another first mover with decades old banking systems and standards. German banks also dragged their feet supporting SEPA Instant or they added additional fees so that barely anybody wanted to use it.
Then the EU stepped in with regulation: If you support classic SEPA transactions, you also have to support SEPA Instant for the same price (which is almost always free for retail banking accounts). And suddenly banks did.
Yes, this could be fixed with regulation -- but whoever did the regulation would have to contend with angry fools complaining about how "the government took away my credit card rewards!!!" for years and of course the credit card companies themselves would stir and amplify those voices as much as possible.
The US also has incredibly pro-consumer regulation over credit cards, compared to most of the world. There is no such thing as "not protecting your card" as a way for the bank to get out of paying for credit card fraud. Legally, you are liable for the first $50 of unauthorized charges, and that's it (though most cards will cover all of it).
> The US also has incredibly pro-consumer regulation over credit cards
Not to take away from your example, but I was under the impression that transaction fees charged when using a credit card in the US were significantly more than in say, the EU?
Australia recently capped credit card fees. Yes, it has lead to a decline in credit points/cashback but in the end it's leaving more money in your pocket.
Mostly deficiencies of the political system: regulators see themselves, call themselves and act like "watchdogs", whereas in other countries financial regulators act like shepherds and lead the market. Hence in this country relatively minor players with interests not exactly aligned with the general public can hijack the process. That's what we are witnessing.
I've signed up for or seen the contracts for several payment processors across several companies. Rack rate for ACH debit starts at $0.25/trx and goes down to sub-penny at scale. Returns can be high though ($2 per, going down as well).
Edited to add: that's not a defense, I *loathe* ACH. It's a negative-reporting system which is such a pain to deal with.
Venmo, CashApp, Apple Pay, and Zelle are free for person to person transactions and you get the cash in your account the following day.
I’ve never been in a position where I needed a cash transfer to an account the very same day, I have tens of thousands of dollars of credit available so there’s very little need for immediate transfers, at least for me personally. I do virtually all of my spending on credit cards so I have up to 60 days to pay the loan back without interest.
Zelle is ACH, everyone else uses card processing rails. It's not the same as real instant transfers between banks. There are middlemen involved that don't need to be there.
Ever buy something from a rando, or split the bill with a colleague or friend?With real time transactions, you can confirm that you actually received the money immediately.
Banks earn money on card payments and pay (via explicit fees or implicit fraud liability without compensation) for interbank transfers, so without any external forcing function (market or regulatory), it seems pretty clear to me why they prefer one over the other.
Others have pointed out that we do have this and there are some reasons it's not the same scale as credit card infrastructure, but I'll just observe there's a cultural difference
We've had a billion discussions on Hacker News about payment rails and it's invariably always a European incredulous that Americans can't/won't do a digital payment instantly and for pennies. These Europeans are typically operating with a mental model where they have cash in a bank account and every transaction gets funded from cash on hand.
Americans - for better or for worse - want longer cycles to pay for their charges and many want rewards for their spend. I don't think it's uncharitable to describe those who pull out debit over credit during a transaction as lower income and higher credit risk than those who prefer credit. (Europeans will decry that this is Americans living beyond their means. Maybe! Maybe.)
But when it comes to business, I've never understood this argument from Europeans. Invoicing works on net-30/60/90 terms. In B2B payments you could reduce payment cost by doing invoicing with instant low-cost payment in 30 days, but incur a different "cost" in cash flow management. Credit card payments are a risk-based financial product that does a magic trick of arbitrage for merchants between a service/good sold and payment received as a net-30 invoice to the cardholder, and you should expect to pay a fee for that. An economy where businesses need to pay each other immediately out of cash-on-hand is less dynamic and less efficient than one where all that cash flow can get smoothed out via payment intermediaries. (Money you have to keep on hand for bills is not being deployed doing other things in the economy - this is inefficient!)
> Insane that the US does not have a realtime payments network
The U.S. invented real-time gross settlement electronic payments with Fedwire in 1915 [1]. FedNow is the newest real-time end-to-end payment system [2].
To be fair, SEPA instant payments only became mandatory late last year too.
The big difference is that the EU has mandated (effectively) fee-free availability to all end users, while the US is only making it available as an infrastructure layer. Most banks don't bother offering any product on top of it, or own-account-transfers for a fee at best as mentioned by GP.
Totally OT, but such a glorious name of the guy in the middle of the top photo, "François-Philippe Champagne". If I read that in a novel I'd be rolling my eyes.
Making Mr. Champagne the minister of Finance is a great nomative determinism, only slightly dulled by the fact he's been minister of like 5 other things over his career
So the quiet voice here is I think the desire to stop small businesses being the working capital providers of larger ones (“take the 90 day payment terms or go find someone else”)
Interesting it have "lower processing costs". It could be free at all like Brazilian PIX... but certainly it wouldn't be liked by Visa and Mastercard.
People in Brazil can simply generate a one time PIX code or use own key and instantly receive. It is now the most used payment mode for more than a hundred million people... this is why Trump attacked the Brazilian financial system as unfair with North American payment systems.
Yes, it can have no cost, receiver can have no cost, payer need not to have a hidden cost at price tag and it can save billions of dollars and make products and services circulate more, warming economy , reducing unemployment and avoiding money dump to external countries for the local enterpreneurs.
Canada already has Interac e-transfer for p2p which is largely free (banks are allowed to charge, but in practice they don't charge consumers).
E-transfer was launched 17 years before Pix so it runs on email addresses as an identifier. In my experience most people use e-transfer more often than cash for person to person and many small businesses like farm stands, etc.
Interac is not settled realtime - it uses the same infrastructure that was built 50 years ago but has a more modern interface. UPI, Pix and now RTR are new settlement systems that are meant to be realtime from the get-go.
Nothing is free, not even Pix. It had costs for development and has costs for running it. If it's free for the end user, then somebody else is paying.
As a physical person, you can receive 30 Pix payments per month without having to pay a fee, but send as many as you please.
A business however can be obliged to pay fees for receiving Pix payments from physical persons (ie customers), and when using the more advanced Pix features.
Banks very likely choose to not put any fees on Pix payments for their business clients for now, since it's beneficial to keep their money flowing in. But that's not different than European SEPA payments or American ACH payments being "free" for businesses.
So basically a modernized M-PESA? Where you just scan a QR code or such, and then say how much $$ you want to transfer to that account, with cash-like low effort?
The last bastion of cash, for me, here is garage sales. Absolutely everything else has gone cashless, but low-friction, low dollar transfers between individuals is still ruled by cash. Not that I haven't paid for stuff via Interac e-transfer but that has high friction (log into bank app, add one-time payee etc.) so only for cases where suitable cash isn't on hand.
The consumer infrastructure isn’t part of this agreement, so don’t expect it to be better than interac on that front. (Interac etransfer can also do the above with QR codes, but most people don’t bother. I’ve only seen street musicians set it up.) The primary benefit here is reducing interac settlement time from 30 minutes to less than 2.
Wait whats new then, dont they have interac, its at least real time on the surface and you can bind cards, bank accounts etc to it, so what am I missing?
I believe it's a show-off of "progress" on the fintech side. Not saying it's bad and for sure some good will come out of it. But a lot of government projects are just how money is created in Canada and to keep the economy moving. It makes Canada look important and enhances the "Canada" brand. This can be dangerous as it can give you a feeling of accomplishing something without really innovating anything.
High on self-approval but low on details. Are the transactions reversible? For instance, can a scammer convince an elderly person to transfer money to their account (instantaneously) and then split it and send the money to partners in crime (also instantaneously)? What is the process for conflict resolution, for cases like the product fully paid for (instantaneously) doesn’t work as advertised? How much information on payer identity is being shared with a recipient, to be recorded, cross-matched and sold to the highest bidder?
Sometimes I think that the slow speed of moving money is a feature, not a bug.
It's not instant and it relies on a private company for settlement. Even though customers typically get this for "free", the institutions themselves are paying interac for these (so the account-holders are paying for this one way or another)
From what I can tell, e-transfers will continue using interac's network, so I'm not sure if this will benefit users at all. Depends if banks integrate a new user-facing money transfer option. I suspect it'll take years if not decades for banking institutions to roll this out to users, though they may use this behind the scenes for inter-institutional transfers without Interac.
Someone who's more knowledgeable about Canadian banking and payment processing, feel free to jump in here because I'd like to know more as well.
You're correct on the first point, and it's worth adding that Interac is a closed network - Interac has no obligation to let anyone participate, and it's been a pain point in the FinTech world that you either have to convince them to let you in (e.g. Wealthsimple) or piggyback on a banking partner (e.g. most other FinTechs.) Maintaining that banking relationship is a big burden for fintechs, especially if you rise to a level where a bank views you as direct competition.
RTR's membership requirements are set by PayCan, who have a mandate to foster competition. Any FinTech who can meet requirements can, in theory, hold a settlement account on RTR and participate. Interac has an incentive to keep the club small, so to speak, and prevent new up-and-comers from cannibalizing their market share.
From a competition lens, the hope here is that RTR levels the playing field for both the big banks and fintechs and opens the door to a lot more consumer-facing innovation. That will, of course, depend on the network effect and who gets onboard.
> From what I can tell, e-transfers will continue using interac's network, so I'm not sure if this will benefit users at all.
quote from the page:
As Interac e-Transfer payments begin to clear and settle on the RTR, we will put this world-class infrastructure to work for consumers and businesses.”
Jeremy Wilmot, President and CEO
Interac Corp.
Interactive etransfers are far from instant. My last company supported etransfer payments. On a good day they would take ~10s to process, 30s was decent, and single digit minutes were normal. Legitimate payments that got flagged by Interac's fraud detection rules were often subject to delays measured in hours, sometimes days.
Good enough for consumer to consumer use and some online use cases, but definitely not good enough for retail.
When I sell things on local used sites I started only accepting cash because e-transfer is so slow and led to situations of someone standing in my entryway while we wait to confirm the money went through.
Or giving up and saying "alright, I guess I'll trust you and hope the money comes soon"
248 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadhttps://www.redcompasslabs.com/insights/why-canada-needs-ano... was something I found via a search that explains some of the nuance without writing a new post on the topic, other citations and resources are welcome.
(it should be expected that newer, utility ran instant payment systems cannibalize existing, more expensive, lower legacy payment rails; going fast and being cheap as a utility is the innovation)
What are the provisions for privacy - preventing my every financial transaction, and thus everything I do involving money, from being centrally tracked, and shared with private institutions?
And what about for preventing government from cutting people off from the financial system (without a court order)? Edit: The US government already commonly does it with non-citizens in the context of other financial systems.
At least, how does that work with FedNow if not Canada's RTR?
EDIT: (clarified and reorganized)
Looks like everything will pass through a single clear text layer managed by the Canadian Government.
Access to your personal information is governed by PIPEDA for private entities and the Privacy Act for government entities. Additionally each province has its own version of the Privacy Act. Since most of the big banks are headquartered in Toronto, the Ontario's Privacy Act (FIPPA) may also have some jurisdiction but not clear.
Unfortunately its utility is curtailed severely if your bank doesn't trust your mobile OS (LineageOS, for me). For security purposes, my bank (RBC) triggers identity checks every time I try to send an EMT, and even after sending selfies, drivers licences, etc. — it still rejects the transfer.
So, security at the cost of all utility.
I have now resorted to transferring money between my accounts using paper cheques... like it's the 90s. If somehow they deny me cheque deposits I'll have to use an ATM and walk the money to the other bank. Given how there are now banks that don't even have branches, this could be a major problem in the future.
This Real-Time Rail system sounds promising, but that's not the link that'll kill it for everyone.
I've moved funds ranging from 10k to $1m between banks in Canada much more than once, and every single time, I go to one and get a draft and drive that draft over to the destination bank. It's just easier...and its absurd.
This might be true in Canada too: the real estate industry down here is entirely dependent on wire transfers, and yet they are absolutely terrified of wire scams. Maybe if FedNow had existed when I bought my place, I could have gotten a draft slip from my bank and driven it over to the title company.
> Using powers granted under the Emergencies Act, the federal government has directed banks and other financial institutions to stop doing business with people associated with the anti-vaccine mandate convoy occupying the nation's capital.
> ... financial institutions are required to monitor and halt all transactions that funnel money to demonstrators — a measure designed to cut off funding to a well-financed protest ...
If you think they wouldnt abuse this, good luck to you.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottaw...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergency-bank-measures-fin...
https://reclaimthenet.org/court-rules-trudeau-freezing-civil...
Wasn't that almost 5 years ago - was it the same government? Is there reason to believe it's the Liberals and not the prime minister at the time, or that the Conservatives would be different?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poec-report-released-friday...
So hey, maybe we should trust the government (who does all federal payment systems) with a new federal payment system.
Crypto blockchains like Solana, XRP, Stellar and Tempo on the other hand can be used anywhere worldwide, 24/7 and sends stablecoins like USDC in seconds with extremely low fees.
So you have not made a point here.
> The initial cohort of active RTR system participants includes: Wealthsimple, Questbank, Peoples Trust Company, Paramount Commerce, KOHO, DoBusiness.com™, Digital Commerce Bank, Bank of America,
This is the hope of something like RTR - for anyone who can meet the participation requirements, an ability to operate independently of a banking partner who might be your direct competition.
> Participants will be added to the RTR in three phases to help control the volume of transactions added to the system, with the goal of including every Canadian financial institution on the rail by mid-2027.
> The major banks – which will shift massive amounts of volume onto the RTR – are not involved in the first phase of the rollout, but will join in the second and third phases.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-payments-ca...
If you look at their "about us" section, they just say they are "a corporation". https://www.payments.ca/about/who-we-are Although they were created by a law (Canada Payments Act) and have a public mandate:
Payments Canada has formed a critical part of Canada’s financial market infrastructure for over four decades. The Canadian Payments Association was created by the Canadian Payments Association Act in 1980, now known as the Canadian Payments Act (CP Act).
To contrast, Interac, the system used for canadian debit and person to person transfers, is a private company, with ownership by the banks.
I always viewed it as one of the "we will govern and regulate ourself so government doesn't fully have to" bodies, but I'm an outsider so happy to be corrected :).
Meh, just another "payment option".
These payment systems need network effects, otherwise they just won't matter. Another private provider won't generate these effects. Just look at the list of participants, they're small players in Canada's marketplace. They won't generate net effects.
Besides, in times of renewed imperialism it is very crucial that a country has full control of their payment systems.
And, at last, they must offer guarantees that there will be no friction and won't be subject to enshitification.
So, what Canada needs is a system implemented, enforced and managed by the government, like Brazil's Pix and India's UPI.
* The real-time clearing and settlement component
* The real-time exchange component
* Third party exchanges flowing through the clearing and settlement component
* Centralized fraud solution
https://www.payments.ca/systems-services/payment-systems/rea...
This is a good step. But the devil is in the details.
And I don't see the details that matter the most:
* Network effects: will it be widespread (from city buses to fruit stands)? Compared to UPI and Pix, Interact has a pathetic history of adoption. What sets RTR apart from Interact?
* Friction: Will it be instantaneous and free of charge? Can it be used by illiterate persons? QR codes? NFC tags?
In Brazil/India those payments systems are used by the most informal of agents: fortune tellers, prostitutes, merchants in crime ridden favelas, ... This is what real mass adoption looks like.
Its early to say if this new payment system will be "Canada's Pix" or not, but to me it seems that's the direction they're going:
- The release statement takes great pains to make it clear the payment system is "instantaneous" or "within a few seconds", unlike Interac - Same ISO standard as Pix - Some sort of centralization (they just say "centralized fraud prevention"; I'm assuming that means some sort of BoC coordination. Also: "exchanges flowing through the clearing and settlement component")
And most importantly, unlike Interac (a private company), this comes from a quasi-public company with a clear government mandate.
Payments Canada is a corporation fully owned by the government and overseen by the Department of Finance. It was formed by an Act of Parliament. Short of rolling it into the department of finance it couldn't be more of a government effort.
Also, the small partners are the launch partners. The Big 6 are part of the second phase of rollout in 2027. The projection is that 90% of all canadian bank accounts will be covered in the next year.
> Outgoing transfers cost 0.75% of the transaction amount (minimum of $1, maximum of $30). SoFi does not charge a fee for incoming transactions.
> SoFi Plus members save 50%. They pay 0.375% of the transaction amount with a maximum of $15 (minimum remains $1).
https://www.sofi.com/banking/instant-money-transfer
Pricing for customers varies by network participant. The network prices are cheap.
The real problem is that, even if costs were to come down to zero, there is nothing incentivizing banks to actually make RTP available to their customers. In the EU, customer-initiated "push" bank transfers are considered an essential part of a checking account; in the US, they're not.
A very important point is that debit cards offer consumer protections (chargebacks for unsatisfactory goods). FedNow, Zelle, wires, ACH do not and people have lost money by scams this way.
If you don't need it right that second, same-day ACH is widely used, and again the delay allows more efficient netting.
The Clearing House's CHIPS is a good in-between, it's not guaranteed instant, but uses an algorithm to match transactions as fast as possible with constrained float.
Worldwide.
Most debit cards today have PIN, but that doesn't waive fraud or theft protections. If I purchase something online the purchase of course has my permission. If the goods are faulty or not delivered, then that is fraud and has chargeback protection. Even if you used your PIN, even if you used two factor authentication.
Purchases are an afterthought. A system like Brazil's Pix could be rolled out on top of FedNow.
My broker credits me for deposits immediately, switch brokers.
> I want to pay off a credit card and have that payment clear instantly.
Why? There is zero benefit to doing this, a credit card payment is applied to the account on the day you choose to pay it, whether it is removed from your checking account or not. I guess I could see if you are constantly over drafting your account, but you could just .. not overdraft.
My point is that these properly designed national systems should also be considered in the USA as well, and not dismissed because something is kind of working right now with a long list of exceptions to a good and safe experience.
https://www.theclearinghouse.org/payment-systems/rtp
Zelle is pseudo real time. The settlement (mostly/often?) happens by ACH.
Both are a very poor alternative to something like UPI or even EU-style bank transfers as a mass retail payment system. Cards are orders of magnitudes more expensive; Zelle has no standardized interface and is explicitly geared only towards P2P Payments, lest it cannibalizes the banks' golden goose, i.e. payment cards.
> same-day ACH is widely used, and again the delay allows more efficient netting.
Importantly, customer-initiated/"push" ACH is largely not a thing in the US, unlike in many other countries. This is what people unfamiliar with the US landscape often have a hard time understanding.
> A very important point is that debit cards offer consumer protections (chargebacks for unsatisfactory goods). FedNow, Zelle, wires, ACH do not and people have lost money by scams this way.
That's the crux of it: The US seems to be culturally unwilling to accept the risks (fraud) and rewards (practically free P2P and B2C payments) that come with a customer-initiated/push payment system.
https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/new-payme...
Subscriptions are often done via "direct debit" ( since 1970 ), which is safer than letting anyone take money if they have your details, so that's been a solved problem here for a while too.
The downside is the first-movers problem, where the UK having been ahead a couple of decades ago will now likely be behind for a while, because there isn't so much incentive.
Hopefully not as long as the USA has been behind though!
How so? I just tap my mobile on the terminal just like tapping my debit or credit card. In Norway that works with both Google pay and Vipps.
The advantage with Vipps is that I can also pay other private individuals knowing only their mobile number and the payment is instant.
The only way I would use such a system for purchases would be if the merchant refused debit/credit cards, and even then only if there wasn't an alternative merchant I could use.
The countries that have innovated the most in regards to automated payments are the ones trying to escape US influence: look at PIX in Brazil, BRICS pay, etc...
In America, the payment system is an oligarchy, they protect their own (the bankers), what need is there for innovation when they are making a killing out of the current inefficiency?
The one place where the US haven't been slow is in stablecoins, making them dollar donominated, to ensure the monopoly the US dollar has on international trade stays strong. That way, when the US has a crisis, they take down the rest of the world too, to the joy of non-US countries.
For other examples, look at adoption of login.gov vs id.me, and tax filing software solutions.
Because why would Musk possibly be interested in saving money and making the government run more efficiently?
What an egotistical ass hat.
In the USA, no single regulator have that power. Basically only congress can do something like this. The us Congress ain't famous for being fast, you know.
The government is the only one capable of changing the rules to be included in the list of allowed parties to make it better.
Part of it is "the curse of good enough": the US has had good credit-card style infrastructure for over a century and digital infrastructure since the POTS days. Part of it is that we lost our appetite for anti-trust in the 80s. Part of it is that the price structure of this infrastructure has wormed its way into everything in a way that is difficult to undo without causing high-visibility inconvenience for low-visibility benefit. The good-enough is the enemy of the good.
I think the “recent” change allowing merchants to pass along the credit card fees is a step in the right direction.
I think a lot of people would still choose fraud protection for the extra costs, though.
Germany is another first mover with decades old banking systems and standards. German banks also dragged their feet supporting SEPA Instant or they added additional fees so that barely anybody wanted to use it.
Then the EU stepped in with regulation: If you support classic SEPA transactions, you also have to support SEPA Instant for the same price (which is almost always free for retail banking accounts). And suddenly banks did.
Not to take away from your example, but I was under the impression that transaction fees charged when using a credit card in the US were significantly more than in say, the EU?
Of course the business passes its costs right back to the consumer, but it's not visible to them, while the benefits are.
> All U.S. financial institutions (Receiving Depository Financial Institutions or RDFIs) must participate and accept Same Day ACH credit transactions.
> However, sending (originating) Same Day ACH payments is optional for banks and credit unions.
[0]: https://www.nebankmn.com/assets/files/aijt34yD
I've signed up for or seen the contracts for several payment processors across several companies. Rack rate for ACH debit starts at $0.25/trx and goes down to sub-penny at scale. Returns can be high though ($2 per, going down as well).
Edited to add: that's not a defense, I *loathe* ACH. It's a negative-reporting system which is such a pain to deal with.
I’ve never been in a position where I needed a cash transfer to an account the very same day, I have tens of thousands of dollars of credit available so there’s very little need for immediate transfers, at least for me personally. I do virtually all of my spending on credit cards so I have up to 60 days to pay the loan back without interest.
We've had a billion discussions on Hacker News about payment rails and it's invariably always a European incredulous that Americans can't/won't do a digital payment instantly and for pennies. These Europeans are typically operating with a mental model where they have cash in a bank account and every transaction gets funded from cash on hand.
Americans - for better or for worse - want longer cycles to pay for their charges and many want rewards for their spend. I don't think it's uncharitable to describe those who pull out debit over credit during a transaction as lower income and higher credit risk than those who prefer credit. (Europeans will decry that this is Americans living beyond their means. Maybe! Maybe.)
But when it comes to business, I've never understood this argument from Europeans. Invoicing works on net-30/60/90 terms. In B2B payments you could reduce payment cost by doing invoicing with instant low-cost payment in 30 days, but incur a different "cost" in cash flow management. Credit card payments are a risk-based financial product that does a magic trick of arbitrage for merchants between a service/good sold and payment received as a net-30 invoice to the cardholder, and you should expect to pay a fee for that. An economy where businesses need to pay each other immediately out of cash-on-hand is less dynamic and less efficient than one where all that cash flow can get smoothed out via payment intermediaries. (Money you have to keep on hand for bills is not being deployed doing other things in the economy - this is inefficient!)
US bank has it, Mercury does as well
The U.S. invented real-time gross settlement electronic payments with Fedwire in 1915 [1]. FedNow is the newest real-time end-to-end payment system [2].
[1] https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/fedwire
[2] https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow-servic...
> FedNow exists but is supported by handful of banks which charge fees to use the feature.
What good is inventing a feature if almost nobody can use it?
The big difference is that the EU has mandated (effectively) fee-free availability to all end users, while the US is only making it available as an infrastructure layer. Most banks don't bother offering any product on top of it, or own-account-transfers for a fee at best as mentioned by GP.
People in Brazil can simply generate a one time PIX code or use own key and instantly receive. It is now the most used payment mode for more than a hundred million people... this is why Trump attacked the Brazilian financial system as unfair with North American payment systems.
Yes, it can have no cost, receiver can have no cost, payer need not to have a hidden cost at price tag and it can save billions of dollars and make products and services circulate more, warming economy , reducing unemployment and avoiding money dump to external countries for the local enterpreneurs.
E-transfer was launched 17 years before Pix so it runs on email addresses as an identifier. In my experience most people use e-transfer more often than cash for person to person and many small businesses like farm stands, etc.
As a physical person, you can receive 30 Pix payments per month without having to pay a fee, but send as many as you please.
A business however can be obliged to pay fees for receiving Pix payments from physical persons (ie customers), and when using the more advanced Pix features.
Banks very likely choose to not put any fees on Pix payments for their business clients for now, since it's beneficial to keep their money flowing in. But that's not different than European SEPA payments or American ACH payments being "free" for businesses.
The last bastion of cash, for me, here is garage sales. Absolutely everything else has gone cashless, but low-friction, low dollar transfers between individuals is still ruled by cash. Not that I haven't paid for stuff via Interac e-transfer but that has high friction (log into bank app, add one-time payee etc.) so only for cases where suitable cash isn't on hand.
Sometimes I think that the slow speed of moving money is a feature, not a bug.
From what I can tell, e-transfers will continue using interac's network, so I'm not sure if this will benefit users at all. Depends if banks integrate a new user-facing money transfer option. I suspect it'll take years if not decades for banking institutions to roll this out to users, though they may use this behind the scenes for inter-institutional transfers without Interac.
Someone who's more knowledgeable about Canadian banking and payment processing, feel free to jump in here because I'd like to know more as well.
RTR's membership requirements are set by PayCan, who have a mandate to foster competition. Any FinTech who can meet requirements can, in theory, hold a settlement account on RTR and participate. Interac has an incentive to keep the club small, so to speak, and prevent new up-and-comers from cannibalizing their market share.
From a competition lens, the hope here is that RTR levels the playing field for both the big banks and fintechs and opens the door to a lot more consumer-facing innovation. That will, of course, depend on the network effect and who gets onboard.
quote from the page:
As Interac e-Transfer payments begin to clear and settle on the RTR, we will put this world-class infrastructure to work for consumers and businesses.” Jeremy Wilmot, President and CEO Interac Corp.
Good enough for consumer to consumer use and some online use cases, but definitely not good enough for retail.
Or giving up and saying "alright, I guess I'll trust you and hope the money comes soon"