EU to build no-fee payments service like Visa/Mastercard and Apple/Google Pay

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

The EU’s plan for a “digital euro” and a no-fee payment network aims to reduce dependence on US-dominated systems like Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay and Google Pay, framing payments as critical public infrastructure similar to roads or power grids. Supporters see it as a way to cut merchant fees, strengthen monetary sovereignty, and offer privacy-protecting alternatives to surveillance-driven fintech, while critics warn of increased centralization, regulatory overreach, and the risk of programmable, easily controlled money. Many comments also question the slow pace and complexity of EU initiatives, noting existing systems like SEPA, national QR-based instant payments, and projects such as Wero that already address parts of the same problem.

Motivation: Sovereignty and US Dependence

  • Many see an EU-run payment rail as overdue “public infrastructure,” like roads or power.
  • A key driver discussed is insulating EU citizens from US political sanctions and corporate decisions (e.g., ICC judges cut off from Visa/Mastercard).
  • Some frame it as shifting from a “US grip” to an “EU grip,” with concern that this further erodes national sovereignty inside the EU.

Architecture, Platforms, and Scope

  • The initiative is understood as both a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and a card/app payment scheme, not a cryptocurrency.
  • It will support physical cards (no phone required) and apps that likely rely on Apple/Google ecosystems and remote attestation, which worries people using de-Googled or FOSS devices.
  • Several note the irony of “built by Europeans only” while still depending on US mobile OSes and Chinese/Taiwanese hardware.

Privacy, Control, and CBDC Fears

  • Supporters argue GDPR and EU law provide stronger privacy protections than US tech firms, and prefer one secure state-level database to many leaky corporate ones.
  • Critics warn CBDCs enable fine-grained control: programmable money, spend restrictions, expiry, targeted account freezes for political dissent, and perfect transaction tracking.
  • Some would rather be tracked by EU institutions than US corporations; others reject both.

Banks, Fees, and Competition

  • The promise is zero interchange for merchants, undercutting Visa/Mastercard; banks would get standardized, lower fees.
  • Skeptics note the EU itself bans card surcharging, making it hard for merchants to steer customers to the cheaper option, contrary to official rhetoric.
  • Debate on whether this is meant to “get rid of banks” or simply provide a parallel public rail most people access via banks anyway.

EU Governance, Regulation, and Timing

  • Mixed views: some see this as necessary integration and a peace-preserving project; others see mission creep toward a federal superstate with heavy regulatory burdens (GDPR, AML, AI rules).
  • Frustration that smaller or less affluent regions (e.g., Brazil, India, Thailand, national QR/instant systems) moved faster, while the EU is seen as late and slow.

Existing Systems and Special Use Cases

  • Comparisons to SEPA Instant, Wero, Pix, Swish, and QR-based schemes; some argue the EU should just standardize and interconnect what exists.
  • Chargeback protections may be weaker than with current credit cards.
  • Some welcome relief from US payment morality filters (e.g., sex work, adult content) if EU rails don’t impose those restrictions.