Wero shows that marketing is everything. It's just regular bank transactions with a much larger fee. We could have had EPC QR codes and similar completely free technologies instead.
Usually the fee is on merchant (and it's few % depending on region regulations etc.)
Payment providers such as Wero are doing direct bank transfer, which is usually fee-less, but then they can afford to put a on-merchant fee that's much lower than what credit card companies are charging.
Thus the model is win-win-win: Consumer doesn't pay more, Merchant pays less, and Wero gets their share.
Free for individuals, but paid if you're the business it seems from what I've found? If that's the case, it seems to be the same as a card in the US and I wouldn't be surprised if some businesses try to pass it on like they do with cards.
Pix is Brazil is also paid by the merchants. ~0.33%.
Individuals is completely free. You can transfer even to people without bank accounts (and withdraw on places like corner shops and authorized merchants).
For companies certain transfers are free.
eg: my company pays nothing, since I'm not a merchant, one of the banks tried to charge once and I just changed to another that offered 0% in return for keeping investments there.
Some banks offer extra services like POS machines with instant confirmation and so on (so the POS employee don't need access to the company bank account).
As always with standards EPC QR is not only one in europe. In Czechia for example the QR codes are extremely popular but since they were introduced before EPC QR they are in SPAYD format. I think they became popular because instant payments between czech banks were introduced sooner than in the SEPA network.
Maybe that's why they were separate formats BUT afaik even SPAYD uses IBAN account numbers. So I have no idea why there are both of these, they are just syntax. The main difference being that SPAYD is key:value pair separated by * and EPC is fixed position, line delimited. I personally think SPAYD is more human readable and extensible BUT i guess less efficient. Not that it would matter i would prefer the one that's universal.
They just need to have smaller fees than Visa/Mastercard.
Paying by SEPA direct debit in a store checkout situation seems insane. Even with instant payments it can take 20 seconds which is too long. Add to that the fact that users need to log into their online banking and the unfair leveling of risk onto the consumer.
We don't support shit until the regular strongly suggests we do and then it takes about three years to do pretty much nothing, but perfectly on time (not on time actually, ts' a lie)
Not really, the UX is the differentiator. That's why neobanks like N26 are popular as you can just send money to your friends via email / phone number but it only works if they are on the same bank.
With Wero it's across all banks, building on the recent instant transfer that is being rolled out quickly while still having the same, familiar UX as PayPal or other apps like that while being a EU solution.
There's two functions of Wero: peer-to-peer and consumer-to-business transactions. TFA is about consumer-to-business.
If you look at the video for how Wero online payments work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5_X3oSgHM), you'll see that an EPC QR code could just as well be used (with a banking app installed instead of Wero).
With Wero you probably also get automatic processing of the incoming payment, without having to connect the financial transaction to a purchase yourself. But payment through bank transfers is also available through the payment service providers and costs less than Wero (at least it costs less when using Mollie; the Stripe fee is the same for Wero and bank transfer, and Adyen apparently hasn't published the Wero fee yet). So you'd still get the same service for less money.
I mean, that was always possible and many offered that. Wero offers the PayPal style integrated flow, QR code scanning from your banking app is slightly higher friction
So who is charging the fees?