[paulusthe]

> This is a loaded comment, because I think it's bullshit. The cost to process any payment of any size under the $10,000 AML threshold is constant, and functionally zero.

Your argument fails here, because you are wrong here. The cost is not zero, because what the bank does for interbank payments is subject to the same regulations and procedures as everything else a bank does. Banks charge money for transfers because there's regulatory overhead and shared liability.

What happens if they've missed you're a money launderer for the cartel and have to pay a $2bn fine because they processed your transaction for nearly nothing, instead of doing proper checks and stopping it?

Sorry, but you're just plainly wrong here. Very populist and very wrong

[ggm]

Fine, call it risk cost. Noting, the AML limits were in my statement and the post transfer processing to find multiple conjoint sub AML represent washing is sitting out there.

Functionally zero per transaction (sorry I should have been more explicit) obviously there are real world data comms and CPU and compliance costs. They are not "equal" to the amount of revenue the system is extracting. The absence of variance in system costs unsettle me when a % transaction value price is applied. under the AML reporting limits

Fund the risk side from proceeds of crime! What they've done is spread throughout the system the risk costs onto all of us.

I, not "plain wrong" we just disagree about cost assignment, risk, and benefit.

Do you disagree that the banks and fintech are profiting from their transaction cost models? Hint: in 2029, about 36% of card transactions were Debit cards, with no component of credit card interest or risk: it's money held in account earning banks profits twice: once as deposits earning far lower interest (bank gets to leverage the money) and once again as merchant fee and transaction cost.

80% or more of profit comes from the other side: credit card interest, and you can certainly assign income from card fees to a "cost" bucket for tax purposes but we and the merchants pay it!

[paulusthe]

Anyone who runs a business knows you can't just apply your overhead costs to one part of it but not another. If I have to pay the energy bill, that applies whether or not I had the gas on.

You're trying to handwave your way into saying we should care only about the specific cost of one specific bank function, which is silly.

Interbank transactions cost money for the same reason every other service costs money, because you're paying a business to do something for you. Climb off the soapbox and enter reality.