A library of snippets
xxx
The average person uses 9 mobile apps per day and 30 apps per month.
If the average smartphone user has 80 apps on their phone, this means that more than 62% of those apps don’t get used every month.
What does this mean? It’s simple. People are downloading apps and not using them. In fact, 25% of apps are used only once after being downloaded, and then never used again.
From Mobile App Download Statistics & Usage Statistics (2022) – BuildFire.
xxx
xxx
When BBVA first announced their decision to increase the focus on the financial wellness of customers, they explained that they would leverage data to provide personalized insights and provide custom recommendations.
From BBVA Sees Results From Commitment to Financial Wellness.
xxx
xxx
The positive impact on satisfaction, loyalty and sales are all testament to the importance of meaningful engagement with customers. According to the bank, the NPS (Net Promoter Score) for users of BBVA’s financial health tools is 38.6 compared to 29.2 for customers who do not use them. In addition, the probability of losing customers who use the financial health functionalities was found to be 1.28 points lower than that of non-users.
Finally, between January and November 2021, BBVA sold a total of 1.4 million financial products via digital channels in one of their significant regions served (Spain). Of these, around 172,000 sales were made from the bank’s financial health tools, representing 12% of the total amount.
From BBVA Sees Results From Commitment to Financial Wellness.
xxx
xxx
A new study has found the value of transactions made over prepaid cards will exceed $4.1 trillion globally in 2026; up from $2.3 trillion in 2021 – a substantial growth of 75%.
By 2026, prepaid card transaction value will be just over 50% higher than that forecast for contactless payment transactions; illustrating the importance of this market.
The growth will be driven by the ongoing replacement of cash, as economies move increasingly towards digital payments.From Prepaid card transaction value to exceed $4.1 trillion Globally.
xxx
xxx
“For us, the business model in the metaverse is commerce-led,” Nick Clegg, Meta’s head of global affairs told the FT during a recent interview. “Clearly ads play a part in that.”
From Facebook patents reveal how it intends to cash in on metaverse | Financial Times.
xxx
xxx
only 23 to 34 percent of PPP dollars went directly to workers who would otherwise have lost jobs; the balance flowed to business owners and shareholders, including creditors and suppliers of PPP-receiving firms. Program incidence was highly regressive, with about three-quarters of PPP funds accruing to the top quintile of households.
From Where did the $800 billion Paycheck Protection Program money go? – Marginal REVOLUTION.
xxx
xxx
The COVID-19 pandemic, with its complicated developments, has given a boost to e-commerce, with non-cash payments accounting for 70 percent of total retail transactions in Vietnam last year.
According to a survey of 15,000 retailers by tech firm Sapo, cashless payments in 2021 made up 72.8 percent of total transactions, up 9 percent year-on-year.
Payments through bank accounts became the most popular method, accounting for 36.5 percent of total transactions at retail shops, restaurants and cafés followed by cash (29.8 percent), e-wallets (14.8 percent), QR code (9.9 percent), bank cards (8.5 percent) and payment gateways (0.5 percent).
xxx
xxx
Due to the help of an E-wallet, you can transfer payments anywhere, anytime, with just a smartphone having an Internet connection, so the method of payment via bank transfer has become increasingly popular in Vietnam.
Moreover, the payment method via bank transfer is currently regulated by Vietnamese law as one of two payment method types accepted on invoices in general and electronic invoices in particular.
From 6 most common payment methods in Vietnam – Vietnamteachingjobs.com:
xxx
xxx
the Payment Systems Regulator (PSR) outline that it has not seen evidence that the costs of operating payment services have increased for card issuers to warrant the recent increases in fees.
xxx
xxx
Banks in New Zealand are rejecting home-loans over minor frivolous spending, including a $187 Kmart Christmas shop and a daily drink bought at a corner store, and money spent on pets or petrol, pushing the government to investigate whether banks are overreacting to new finance rules designed to protect vulnerable borrowers from predatory lenders.
The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), updated in early December, requires all lenders to complete thorough checks to ensure loans are suitable and affordable for their customers.
But finance leaders and opposition politicians say the rules have compelled banks to take an ultra-conservative approach to lending, pushing homeownership further out of reach for many as the country battles a housing crisis.
There has been a sharp dip in home-loan approvals since the new rules were introduced – from about 30,000 a month to 23,000 in December – according to Centrix, a credit reporting agency.
xxx
xxx
After months of delay, the Federal Reserve’s much-awaited report on a digital dollar could be out soon. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking Committee Tuesday that the white paper on a planned central bank digital currency is “ready to go,” possibly in weeks.
But don’t expect a detailed blueprint for an American CBDC. The white paper will be more of “an exercise in asking questions” about how the digital dollar should work, Powell said.
From Coming up – Protocol — The people, power and politics of tech.
xxx
Way back in 2012 I wrote about the lack of understanding of the issues around online privacy. The reason was that the head of internet security at the Cabinet Office (the administration department of the British government), Andy Smith, had commented (accurately) that demanding real names and addresses in online transactions might actually make security worse. Indeed, he advised people to use fake details in Facebook at this was a “sensible thing to do”. He was apparently unaware that providing fake details was in direct violation of Facebook’s policy, which is why Simon Milner, Facebook’s head of policy in the UK and Ireland at the time, was not particularly happy with Andy and had a “vigorous chat” with him to persuade him to revise his view.
My view has always been that, however vigorous Mr. Milner’s chat might have been, there are almost no circumstances where it is necessary to use real names and we only use them now because we lack a proper identity infrastructure. By and large, we use the real name as a proxy to the attributes that are actually needed to execute a transaction. Internet security expert Andy’s 2012 comments elicited an immediate and vituperative response from internet security expert Helen Goodman MP, formerly Chief Executive of the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries, who said that “I was genuinely shocked that a public official could say such a thing”. She said that she had been contacted by constituents who have been the victims of cyber-bullying on major social networking sites by people hiding behind fake names and I don’t doubt that this is true. But so what? People bully under their real names too, and it doesn’t make any difference.
If people have broken the law, they can easily be traced, since the interweb tubes will lead the plod directly to them. Or, indeed, directly to the plod as in the case of the serving police officer arrested over claims that he tormented a mother with abusive online messages. I wasn’t cyberbullying Ms. Goodman, just using her to illustrate a point. After all, her fellow Oxford graduate and internet security expert Edward Vaizey MP agreed with her and said he “wouldn’t encourage people to put false identities on the internet”.
I wasn’t writing all of that to shill for Andy Smith. Andy and I disagreed about things from time and time, and while I make notcomment on whether he is an
Epic F***ing Secure Hero or not, he certainly is an actual internet security expert. His comments were informed and relevant and exposed a lack of policy integrity. I don’t know why politicians don’t take the time to think this through. They always reach for the same knee-jerk response: some sort of internet passport or driving licence so that you can tell who is posting abuse about the government on The Daily Telegraph web site (hint: me).
As has been clear from the earliest days of the web, if there was an Internet Driving License that you had to use to log in to web sites, that would almost certainly make the situation far worse, since these website would now know exactly who you are, and this information would then be freely obtained by perverts, the secret police, News International or whoever else wants to pry.
We don’t have to guess about whether this is true or not because there are plenty of real examples to look at. Consider the experience of South Korea as a case study. In 2007, South Korea temporarily mandated that all websites with over 100,000 viewers require “real names”, but rescinded the law after it was found to be ineffective at cleaning up abusive and malicious comments. In fact the results of the “real names” law were predictably perverse. While unwanted comments fell by an estimated .09%, identity theft went up, because real identities were stolen from the thousands of web sites that now had to ask for them and store them. And since people became used to be asked for their real identity all the time, it was easier for dodgy web sites to get them to hand them over!
If you make people smear their “real” identities all over the internet because of such a policy, thus delivering the “over–identification” noted above, then that will make identity theft worse. I wonder if we will have learn this lesson all over again when driving licences are stored in Apple wallets?
We need a better-informed public discussion and debate to determine public policy and the balancing of interests between competing pressures needs to be made explicit. How should we determine whether Mumsnet or the EFF are right? In back rooms or in public consultation? Incidentally, “public consultation” I mean consultation in public, not with the public – I don’t really care what the public think since they are almost completely uninformed. Anyway, we (ie, the public) have no idea what we want. We want anonymity for dissidents but not for pedophiles. We want anonymity for hospital nurses blowing the whistle on incompetent surgeons but not for looters. We want anonymity for celebrities in some circumstances but not others. Most of all, and most paradoxically, we want the authorities to spy on other people but not on us.
So what should the government’s policy be? What should regulators demand?
Snippings