Everything is an app on the phone now.. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an app. But running a website is the least common denominator - why would a company forego the basic win?!
Because there is - potentially - a lot of money involved and I like to do that sort of thing on an environment that I control. No smartphone here so the web is all I have. Money transmitters are operating in a heavily regulated domain and KYC/AML requirements are going to dominate the discussion, any operator that wishes to be taken serious should list up front what they are going to require and why as well as to state clearly who they are (physical location, names of execs) rather than to post from anonymous low karma accounts with urgent calls to action. Also: inside the EU money transfers are already fast and with minimal costs, I use these daily and any claims of improvement should be backed up with proof. 99% seems very strange as a claim without a comparison matrix listing prices. My immediate concern is that if their claims are true that they must have some other way of making money of the transactions that is not disclosed.
When you change an entire sector, it is always met with a lot of scepticism at first. But 99% is nothing but the truth, especially since Wise and Revolut increased their prices for biz transfers. Check out our Wise comparison we created to demonstrate the difference: https://atlantic.money/wise
Further, we are profitable on every transfer with Atlantic Money. Our whole infrastructure is built on a different concept, which is why Wise and Co. also cannot offer transfers for the same price without losing it all.
To give you a proof of our work: We transferred £160m ($200m) in our first year for private users, 16x what Wise sent back then.
You really should be more transparent about who you are and how you make money, comments with figures by anonymous accounts carry zero weight. The payment industry history is littered with corpses from companies that attempted to 'change the entire sector' not a few of those went the way of the dodo while still holding customer funds. When large amounts of money are involved a lot of skepticism is very much warranted, especially when a 'Show HN' is used by an anonymous account for what is essentially an advertisement.
It's financial. It's a lot more complicated for me to inspect an app than a website. I understand that the modern generation is pretty comfortable with this but us old folks have a lot of money and don't trust our phones with it as easily. (I beta tested Android while at Google. Smart phones aren't new to me. I just have a different level of acceptable risk than my kid does.)
Nobody capable of finding exploitable issues is going to be deterred by being an app rather than a website.
If their thought process on this is actually “security through obscurity”, then I would not go anywhere near this as it tells me immediately that they don’t give a single solitary fuck about proper security guidelines.
No, I think that mobile apps are either time killers - for example, for watching funny videos while riding a train, or messengers - to ask employee questions while riding a train.
A business app on a phone doesn't make much sense because in office you have a computer with a large monitor and a proper keyboard which is more convenient to use than a smartphone's tiny screen.
This is a business offering. I don't want to juggle my online banking and a transfer app and and and ... on my phone. I want them readily available on my multimonitor desktop where I can save data to my accounting folder.