Has Brazil Invented the Future of Money?

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope of Pix vs “Future of Money”

  • Several commenters argue Pix is a payment rail, not “new money”: it moves the same fiat currency, just faster and cheaper.
  • Confusion over why this implies anything about central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) or crypto; critics see marginal transaction-cost improvements, not a monetary revolution.
  • Others counter that the big change is ubiquity, speed, and extremely low friction in everyday life — Pix has become “liquid cash” used for everything from tips to buying property.

Comparisons to Existing Systems

  • Many note that similar instant, cheap bank transfers already exist: SEPA Instant / IBAN in Europe, UPI (India), Faster Payments (UK), PayNow (Singapore), PayID/Osko (Australia), Vipps/MobilePay (Nordics), etc.
  • Debate over how comparable these are:
    • Some say they already cover C2B/B2C/B2B and business use cases.
    • Others insist Pix is different because: enforced universal adoption, QR codes and aliases (phone/email/ID), free P2P by mandate, deep integration into e‑commerce, and use by the unbanked or lightly banked.
  • Commenters emphasize that in Brazil Pix has displaced cash and cards for day‑to‑day P2P and small business payments more than SEPA-type systems have in Europe.

Security, Fraud, and Privacy

  • Recent major fraud incident via a contractor’s compromised credentials shakes confidence; dispute over whether this reveals opacity or is just a third‑party failure using a sound core system.
  • Significant privacy concerns: some officials reportedly access Pix transaction data without court orders; critics tie this to a broader culture of acceptance of state surveillance (e.g., CPF).
  • Violent crime angle: kidnappings and coerced Pix transfers are described as a serious problem, with banks adding limits and safeguards; insurance products have emerged for forced transfers.
  • Additional fraud vectors: QR-code substitution leading to payments to attackers.

Crypto, CBDCs, and Trust Models

  • Several point out that Pix (and similar systems) already achieve what crypto promised—low costs and financial inclusion—without blockchains.
  • Core distinction stressed: crypto can behave like digital cash (more censorship-resistant, wallet-based), while Pix/CBDCs remain fully centralized and easily controllable.
  • Some see CBDCs or “digital euro” as a public, low-fee alternative to card networks and banks; others warn they will inevitably accumulate fees or be politicized.

Power, Surveillance, and Civil Liberties

  • Strong worry that CBDCs plus state-run rails concentrate too much power: easy mass surveillance, account freezes, or political punishment.
  • Examples cited: freezing of protest-related accounts in Canada, political repression in Brazil and Germany; used to argue that any additional state control over payments is dangerous.
  • Others reply that the real issue is governance and rule of law, not the payment technology itself, and that private banks are also untrustworthy; a mixed public–private system with oversight is preferred by some.

Reactions to Krugman’s Framing

  • Some think the piece undersells existing non-US systems and overhypes Pix as “the future.”
  • Others criticize the article’s political tone (especially its attacks on US Republicans) as emotional rather than analytical about privacy and CBDCs.
  • A minority defend the informal, polemical style as appropriate for a popular newsletter and agree that crypto has largely failed as a payment medium.