Gov.uk has replaced Stripe with Dutch provider Adyen
theregister.com346 points by toomuchtodo 9 hours ago
346 points by toomuchtodo 9 hours ago
https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2026/06/02/building-for-the-future-m...
https://www.adyen.com/press-and-media/adyen-payments-gov-uk
Surprisingly small contract. It's interesting to see that a full government contract for a payment provider is a fraction of a US mid-size company's cloud bill. I am constantly surprised by things like this. Here's another: there are more foreigners in Taiwan (total pop. 25 m) than in China (total pop. 1.4 b). Interchange average in the UK was about 0.2% last time I looked (which was a few years ago), it't not much anyway. Also the government doesn't really do card transactions. I imagine this is for fairly rare things like renewing your passport, booking a driving test or buying a title copy. Oh and visa fees maybe? Small beer anyway, it's not like people are paying taxes via card. Why do you think that? People definitely pay taxes by card. But regardless this contract is _not_ for HMRC payments, its for gov.uk pay which is basically a centralised service that other services can use. > Small beer anyway, it's not like people are paying taxes via card. I do. If I’m going to give the government a big pile of money, I may as well earn some points for my trouble. Payment processing costs are a scam. They're 10x as expensive as they need to be to fund rewards programs and fund the financial system. EU max credit card transaction fees are 0.3%, in the US they can be up to 4%. It just doesn't cost 4% of a transaction to handle the exchange of funds. Just wealth transfer to finance people and the upper class who take advantage of credit card perks. Can someone explain to me if EU card transactions are capped, why Stripe charges me (US) the full ride on my EU customer's cards? In fact, I get charged even more for EU cards – perhaps as much as 2.5% extra. I just checked and I get charged ~8% in fees on a 10 euro transaction on Stripe. Of course some of that is the low transaction amount (flat 0.30), but it's brutal for a small business like myself. The EU only capped interchange fees, which is the amount that goes to the bank that issued the card. It did not cap the fees that go the your PSP. Which makes sense, since you can pick the PSP you do business with, but you can't pick the bank that issues your customers' cards. (And I don't think it applies to US merchants like you anyways) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_15_... perhaps they are capped only for EU merchants, because EU government works to protect their own companies and citizens from foreign artificial unregulated monopolies. in US, the government is more protective of private monopolies due to lobbying Yeah, you don't live in the EU. Interestingly, the EU did manage to cap interchange on US cards paid by EU merchants to pretty much the same rate as that paid for domestic/intra-EU cards, at least at the POS. Many things are possible with a regulator with teeth. You're not in EU so the full stack is happy to charge you whatever it can. The funny thing about that is that HN used to say if the fee was 4% it's because that's what it costs and if it was any lower the card networks would just abandon the country that forced it to be lower, since they'd lose money. > HN used to say if the fee was 4% it's because that's what it costs Do you have a link to the comment you're thinking of? Except in the US, it does. Depending on the card, it can cost as much as 4.5% (or more!) to run the card. You can argue that it shouldn't, but that's a different statement than it doesn't. uh, I'm including the card issuers as participants in this multi-party scam it is illegal for Merchants to charge credit card processing fees by law, they have to absorb these fees and cannot display them to the customer. This naturally protects the artificial oligopoly of visa/mc/discover systems. The moment you allow Merchants to charge cc fees (even 2-3%) and allow customer to choose low processing option (ACH/debit card/cash), the whole scheme falls apart and Visa/MC will slowly go bankrupt >it is illegal for Merchants to charge credit card processing fees by law, This is only true in 4 states. the typical Merchant<->bank agreements all have clauses forcing them to absorb these fees and explicitly barring them from separately charging customer CC fee. and most small/med businesses dont have clout to protest that, so they have to accept these terms in order to earn money This hasn't been the case for a wide variety of payment processors for quite a while now. Many of the new startup-based ones have features to help you pass through the fees even. Small business can use Stripe, Square, Clover, or one of many other payment processors that don't ban them from passing credit card fees forward to consumers. > the typical Merchant<->bank agreements all have clauses forcing them to absorb these fees and explicitly barring them from separately charging customer CC fee. These clauses would be illegal in many states and countries these days, so they don’t. The only good use case for a credit card is if you are buying something from someone you do not trust. I have a CC and it use it a few times a year. But using them to pay for groceries or ordering something from Amazon is just moronic. The way I see it: you are either rich and don't care or you are poor and need to spend money that is not in your account (no judging I grew up poor and had to hide from debt collectors when I was a kid). In some places Visa/MC is the default way to pay. Such as large parts of Europe now that the fees are capped. The cashier asks you to pay, you hold your card up to the terminal, and you've paid. Some places like Australia have their own local systems that are more commonly used by locals and probably have lower fees, but those POS also support Visa/MC. It's just the default way to pay internationally now. Third option: You have the money and like paying less than people paying with non-rewards cards. Fourth option: You use tap-to-pay and pay the balance in full every month for the convenience at zero cost. Do American debit cards not have tap? I'm in Australia, I have my credit card set up as the default to tap. Means one payment from my savings account a month to cover all daily expenses. As someone who really enjoys rewards programs, keep those scams alive! The irony is that every couple you shop with just increases the prices of their items to deal with the fees, so you're just paying more for items to feel good about getting reward program benefits. You are also being subsidised by debit card users. How many people are actually buying things on a Debit card? I imagine not a lot Most places other than the USA, when they use these card networks or their local country networks, are normally using debit cards. There's just no reason to overcomplicate a payment card by making it also a loan. Might want to think twice about that: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/21/opinion/credit-card-rewar... You are assuming they don't know about all this already when I feel like they have made it quite clear they do. I briefly skimmed this, but why are you wasting my time? What does this have to do with me earning free trips from being smart about how I buy things? does not compute. Brazil's central bank operates their instant payment network Pix [1] [2] [3] for ~$10M/year [4]. Its not that these are small contracts, but that large, inefficient, unnecessary contracts have become the norm (I argue). Similar example from India's UPI payment system [5]. The US has FedNow to move instant payments for pennies, but banking and payment system participants in the US ecosystem are avoiding it to continue to private payment system rake [6] (cc networks, Zelle commercial bank network, private wallets, etc). The evidence is clear you don't need to skim 3% off of an economy to provide instant payment capabilities. The enterprise value of US payment companies is a function of how long they hold onto this volume for, when competition is ramping up. You're just pushing ISO 20022 XML messages around a bus. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pix_(payment_system) [2] https://frontierfintech.substack.com/p/55-send-pix-brazils-i... [3] https://brazilstockguide.com/behind-the-lines/the-cost-of-pi... > This makes the American dispute more sophisticated than it may first appear. Pix certainly puts pressure on private payment models, card networks and acquirers. It also reduces friction for consumers, small businesses and person-to-person transfers. But its deeper effect is institutional. It turns the bank deposit into an even more efficient payment instrument — and, by doing so, changes the role of banks in liquidity intermediation. > There is an irony here. For decades, the United States built the narrative of private financial innovation. Brazil, through a public, interoperable and massively adopted system, produced one of the world’s most efficient payment infrastructures. The study notes how unusual Pix adoption was: more than 150 million users in its first year, use by nine out of ten small businesses, and daily volumes capable of reaching about 1% of annual GDP on a single peak day. > The reading should not be triumphalist. Pix is a powerful innovation, but it is not cost-free for the financial system. It improves the user experience, reduces transaction costs and increases competition in payments. At the same time, it requires banks to hold more liquidity and may reduce the transformation of deposits into credit. For the United States, Pix appears as a digital-trade issue. For Brazil, it is a question of financial sovereignty. For banks, it is a question of liquidity. Pix began as a button inside an app. It became a piece of financial policy — and now, of geopolitics. [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44753626 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface [6] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... The BCB in Brazil does very little to operate Pix. It's effectively a P2P system, where the BCB forces all the banks to interop with one-another (and all the banks directly call eachother). They can operate it that cheaply because they do close to nothing technically (they host the main discovery endopints). The only place the BCB actually ingests data is via their reporting mechanisms. UPI is a bit more centralized, where the NPCI does the top-level routing between banks, so their operating budget is likely much higher than Pix. It also is drastically more simple to be a participant in UPI compared to Pix. For Pix adoption: you can thank Covid for that. The Brazilian government said if you wanted to get free money from the government, you had to set up and use Pix. US Financial Innovation: I'd say the hard thing here is that the government is extremely strict (lots of regulation) when you start looking like a bank. Lots of companies have tried to innovate here, but regulation makes it really hard to do. There's a lot of regulator capture going on. Thanks for that. I am wondering if anyone have written up a high level technical comparison between different payment systems including Pix, UPI and others. In both Brazil and the US, making something like Pix mainstream requires regulation. Brazil did its part, but it’s unclear whether the US will do the same anytime soon, I don't think so, unfortunately. Technically, it would benefit the American population (the process of making pix payments is so smoothless), but payment companies may have little incentive to support it, and could lobby against it. In Brazil, the Central Bank overpowered the coordination problem. In the US, it may be the opposite: the government seems to have less power over the payment lobby, or at least less willingness to confront it directly. Feels odd that you exclude mentioning the EU, which has had instant transfers for more than a decade. More than two decades, if you include things like iDeal from The Netherlands. Some banks in some parts of the EU have - SEPA instant was only mandated in January 2025, only for Euro payments. Canadians have been able to transfer money via email for ages, only Americans think their system is unique, it is. Uniquely inefficient and costly. Wasn't intentional, I mention SEPA and Wero in other comments, not intended to be an enumeration of all instant payment systems currently active globally. My apologies! https://www.pymnts.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/PYMNTS-Rea... https://www.emerald.com/cemj/article/33/4/575/1248919/The-ri... > not intended to be an enumeration of all 54 instant payment systems currently active. Even then, not mentioning those who pretty much started / invented instant transfers still seems odd :) but no need to apologize haha, maybe I was a bit too abrasive. I get why you prioritized to mention those though. The Chinese and Indians have leapfrogged us. No more fussy legacy (digital) cards, just scan a QR and go. Even illicit food stalls and street wanderers have accounts, when they wouldn't be able to get a 'real' bank account. And the Chinese and Indians don't have to pay tribute to the Mastercard-Visa overlords either. Although Wero and the digital Euro might eventually change that for Europe too. Can you imagine how cumbersome conversations would become if people felt obligated to qualify ad-hoc statements with what amounts to a historical ledger? Every new entry would open up an opinion around “if you included that, why didn’t you include this?” In such cases we’ll always up at Kevin Bacon. The comment literally mentioned how unusual Pix adaption is and how innovative it is. It is neither of those things. Because of aforementioned history. don't centralized payment systems like this reduce the overall resilience of the ecosystem and prevent future innovation? You hint on those lines with the possible future transformation of deposits into credit. Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution. Yes, centralised payment systems reduce resilience - whether it's Visa, EFTPOS, or Pix. The alternative is cash. > Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? Why would anybody willingly lower their own margin? > It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries It’s almost like regulation can sometimes achieve good outcomes in a not very competitive (due to network effects) market… All payment systems are centralized. Zelle is owned by the largest US commercial banks ("Early Warning Services"), Congress directed the Federal Reserve to build and offer FedNow as a utility so smaller banks would not be excluded from offering instant payments. It costs $~30/month (last I checked the rate sheet) to plug into it. The instant payments are the utility, your opportunity to innovate is using this as a component of your user experience. Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation). > Why doesn't the US private ecosystem manage to lower costs similarly? (Zelle comes to mind). It is interesting that this has happened in more highly regulated countries where the free market likely could not have come up with a cheaper solution on their own due to the same overbearing system that effectively forces adoption of this centralized solution. Because it is a grift ("regulatory capture") [1] [2]. The "overbearing system" is the result of regulation to bring the consumer excess of cheap payments to an entire country's financial user population. Why does Jamie Dimon not like stablecoin yield [3]? Because JPMC makes almost $100B/year in interest income taking customer deposits and lending against them, which stablecoins would compete against by operating as a form of narrow bank, parking the underlying deposits in risk free US Treasuries [4]. As a US financial services consumer, it is hard for you to avoid the rake of the machine built to skim off of you as you hold onto fiat or move it, but the rest of the world can avoid being captured by it (as this piece demonstrates). Also, Europe can't regulate Stripe as easily as they can Adyen. You don't have to be the biggest or the greatest, it just has to work "good enough". [1] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-109-billion-bank-hust... [2] https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/the-cantillon-effect-and-... [3] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/29/dimon-jpmorgan-cryp... I loved your explanation and POV on this. > Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Well, as a brazilian who is used to pix and has also faced the bad payment ux in american, I think a possible solution should be adding the missing Pix-like layer above the existing US rails. One of the best part that makes Pix an incredible experience, It’s that the app almost doesn’t matter. I can use one bank, you can use another, a merchant can use a different provider, and it still works through the same basic language: QR code, Pix key, payment request, confirmation screen. I can even transport my "pix key" to another app/bank provider. So maybe the US opportunity is a agnostic interoperability layer on top of FedNow/RTP/Zelle/bank APIs: universal aliases, QR payments, routing, fraud checks, receipts, and reconciliation. Making instant account-to-account payments feel universal before the government forces a universal standard. I don't think consumers broadly should be the main goal first, the best initial path should be small-business, marketplaces, rent, etc. If someone could own that neutral UX/addressing layer, that seems much closer to the useful part of Pix than just another closed wallet. > Propose some innovation here, I am interested, as someone adjacent to payments in financial services. Besides instant payments, the most we've seen is closed wallets (Venmo, Cash App) no longer needed with broad instant payment access from most demand deposit accounts and Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) (and I argue BNPL is simply dressing revolving credit card debt up as innovation). UPI for instance only works with a physical SIM. Your phone number on the account must match the physical SIM on the device. This indirectly relies on India's insistence on KYC (for accounts naturally) on issuance of physical SIMs. "Innovation" here would be a player who can support VOIP based phone numbers (maybe by complying with phone number KYC in some other way). UPI also makes it quite confusing to deposit money to a particular account you own. You could share a specific identifier (string or qr) based on your account but the other party generally assumes they can send you money using your phone number, and sometimes follows through with that. (I don't have a finance background.) There any multiple instances of a one-size fits all user experience decision which strikes me as a result of the centralization and removal of competition (in efforts to drive up adoption). I don't disagree with most of your reply (thanks for the thoughtful citations too). But i wonder why the free market cannot lower cost/settlement time similarly. > UPI for instance only works with a physical SIM. Your phone number on the account must match the physical SIM on the device. This indirectly relies on India's insistence on KYC (for accounts naturally) on issuance of physical SIMs. "Innovation" here would be a player who can support VOIP based phone numbers (maybe by complying with phone number KYC in some other way). The Indian government has mandated this for strong identity assurances. Your only hope at "innovation" (ie violating financial services regulators and laws) here is cash or something like Monero. > UPI also makes it quite confusing to deposit money to a particular account you own. You could share a specific identifier (string or qr) based on your account but the other party generally assumes they can send you money using your phone number, and sometimes follows through with that. I haven't used UPI recently, but I imagine this is a UX issue around aliases (phone numbers, email, and other human identifiers that associate to an underlying account). TLDR People problems cannot be fixed with tech (in this context, regulatory requirements or alias UX, submit a public comment to the regulator if you can). > I don't disagree with most of your reply (thanks for the thoughtful citations too). But i wonder why the free market cannot lower cost/settlement time similarly. Because without regulation, it turns into Monopoly (the board game). Sometimes, competition can be encouraged, but in some cases (broad, shared infrastructure) it cannot and regulation must fill this gap to ensure the target outcome. This is why we regulate electric utilities similarly. Happy to help, I am very interested and curious on this topic. > All payment systems are centralized Except for blockchain based ones Most blockchain systems are fairly or even extremely centralized as well and amount to little other than decentralization theater. Bitcoin and Ethereum are arguably more of an exception than the norm. None of which are in production at scale. I admit crypto is optimal for less than legal transactions and speculation, but the volume for legal payment transactions is negligible. Solana mainnet was shown to have capability to handle 100k transactions per second [1]. Granted, it was a synthetic benchmark of noops, but it shows the capability is there.
For reference, Visa claim 83k TPS [2] for their system. It also has the advantage of being vastly cheaper than tradfi payment networks at ca. $0.0005 per transaction [3] irrespective of transaction amount. [1] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/08/18/solana-briefly-h... [2] https://corporate.visa.com/en/sites/visa-perspectives/securi... [3] https://solana.com/learn/understanding-solana-transaction-fe... Until it is in prod, it is a proof of concept. Blockchains solve for low trust; if you have trust, you don't need the efficiency loss of a decentralized ledger or blockchain. Central banks provide trust. As mentioned in one of my other comments, Pix in Brazil costs ~$10M/year. They process ~6-8 billion monthly transactions and roughly $6.7 trillion in payment volume a year [1]. That's roughly ~$0.0015/transaction based on the math in this comment, and we don't know what the ceiling is based on existing capacity (which would drive per transaction costs down further). Choose boring technology, when possible [2]. The innovation in this context is nuking the profits of Visa and Mastercard (their margins are ~45-50% [3] [4] [5]), replacing them with central bank instant payment systems run at cost. The reduction in their revenue is money back in the pockets of everyone paying unnecessarily to move value around. I highly recommend the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" on this topic [6]. [1] https://www.ebanx.com/en/insights/articles/five-years-on-pix... [2] https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/2023/289/arti... [3] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/visa-vs-ma... [4] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/mastercard... [5] https://aftabborka.substack.com/p/over-50-profit-margin-how-... Pix is really good but I don't think it beats Solana or Ethereum L2s. Most recent indicator of peak Pix transaction volumes I could find [1] was 227M/day (=2700 TPS). You can see yourself that Solana does 130-140M/day consistently. Pix fees you quote are still triple Solana's. Not to mention there is the entire decentralization aspect, which means the government does not control your money as with other blockchains. [1] https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/economia/noticia/2024-09... [2] https://blockworks.com/analytics/solana/solana-onchain-activ... And then we watch fraud soar. The 3% pays for a lot of bad transactions reversals and dispute management.
arjie - 8 hours ago
matt-p - 4 hours ago
martinald - 3 hours ago
bigfatkitten - an hour ago
colechristensen - 5 hours ago
switz - 5 hours ago
I guess the NA interchange is charging the card, rather than the EU? Could using a MOR reduce the fee structure? 2.9% + 1.5% (intl card) + 1% (currency conversion) + 0.30
Payment amount (€1.00 EUR = $1.15253 USD)
€10.00 EUR -> $11.53 USD
Fees
Total: - $0.93 USD
Stripe currency conversion fee
- $0.12 USD
Stripe processing fees
- $0.81 USD
Net amount
$10.60 USD
CodesInChaos - 4 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 5 hours ago
era-epoch - 4 hours ago
lxgr - 3 hours ago
colechristensen - 4 hours ago
trumpdong - an hour ago
JumpCrisscross - an hour ago
fragmede - 5 hours ago
colechristensen - 5 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 4 hours ago
colechristensen - 4 hours ago
bijowo1676 - 4 hours ago
colechristensen - 40 minutes ago
lxgr - 3 hours ago
PearlRiver - 3 hours ago
trumpdong - an hour ago
lxgr - 3 hours ago
rswail - 3 hours ago
thunderfork - 3 hours ago
rswail - 2 hours ago
enos_feedler - 4 hours ago
KetoManx64 - 4 hours ago
matt-p - 4 hours ago
DaSHacka - 4 hours ago
trumpdong - an hour ago
ArmadilloGang - 4 hours ago
lennessy - 4 hours ago
enos_feedler - 3 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 8 hours ago
kyrra - 5 hours ago
ksec - 25 minutes ago
marciob - 3 hours ago
jorvi - 7 hours ago
alibarber - 5 hours ago
x1ph0z - 3 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 7 hours ago
jorvi - 7 hours ago
dumpsterdiver - 6 hours ago
jorvi - an hour ago
actapp80 - 8 hours ago
trumpdong - an hour ago
lxgr - 3 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 8 hours ago
marciob - 2 hours ago
actapp80 - 7 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 7 hours ago
cherryteastain - 6 hours ago
lxgr - 3 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 6 hours ago
cherryteastain - 4 hours ago
toomuchtodo - 3 hours ago
cherryteastain - 2 hours ago
wbl - 3 hours ago