[uranusjr]

Trust me, you really don’t, I’m speaking in a country that did see much of the tech get adopted (Taiwan). I get how the method can be intriguing from a casual glance (I was like this when it started), but that quickly wore off when the wheels touched the ground. We spent way too much legislative resource trying to plug the holes, and I got to hear a lot of the problems from a friend of involved in regulating this (金融監督委員會 Financial Supervisory Commission). And after you finally spend enough efforts to make things work “properly” you’d basically end up duplicating the credit/debit card system. China made the method look successful and effortless because they can take shortcuts; for everyone else, just stick to cards, they are better in almost every way (if you get NFC working, which you should anyway).

[beaunative]

From what I've gathered from the news, China's regulators was never too concerned about Ant's role as a payment provider, but as a lender.

I don't doubt technical innovation would always be a burden for regulators and lawmakers, but that does not make it fit to say that such innovation are worthless, because they provide a value to the general public, and that should not be stopped because those in the power of authority needs to do more work to make it 'in control'.

Credit card wasn't invented because the lawmakers had drafted the perfect law, nor should mobile payment. The law always comes in afterward, as it should be.

[uranusjr]

I did not imply the innovation is worthless. That’s exactly how innovation should work, it is as valuable to prove something does not work as come up with something that does. But that value is only meaningful if others learn from that. In other words, the innovation of mobile payment is not worthless, but attempts to adopt it at this point would be.