Hervé SITRUK, Chairman, FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM
FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM has successfully held its first PAY TECH DAY, and will now be posting and distributing the videos and round tables online... This new type of event, which FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM will be seeking to replicate over the next few years, aims to showcase some of our members' expertise in many areas of payments. And it is a response to the constant detractors of French and European payments. Those who do not hesitate to write: "I doubt that France will play any role in this part of the future payments landscape. The many political experts cannot compensate for the almost total lack of technologists."
But what is the state of European payments in the spring of 2023, after a year of geostrategic and economic upheaval, and on the eve of several major European regulations concerning IP, the SEPA instant transfer[1]the future PSD3, digital identity and the digital euro?
In this early spring, we will first present our analysis of three major areas:
- The deployment of IP, both within the European market and on a cross-border and international level;
- The resilience of the bankcard worldwide and even its continued growth, despite all those who predict its imminent demise;
- And the incredible " recovery ", as our British friends would say, of cryptopayments despite a year of plummeting prices, a heap of bankruptcies and all kinds of regulations aimed at framing their uses, even a very European anti-crypto "bashing", while everywhere in the world, their adoption is accelerating...
Lastly, we'll focus on the prospects for a European digital identity and electronic signature, and on central bank digital currencies, including the digital euro, with the aim of clarifying future choices and mastering decision-making processes...
*. *
- Instant Payment (IP)
As the PAY TECH DAY demonstrated, IP is the new darling of the global payments industry, and Europe is not to be outdone, thanks to the EPC's federating scheme. But Europe is still paying for the fragmentation of its market. And despite the enthusiasm of banks and PSPs, European public authorities are not taking the plunge fast enough. IP already accounts for an average of 15% of SEPA credit transfers, or around 3% of all payments. Yet few payment instruments have taken off so quickly...
We have already analyzed the causes of the difficulties encountered, which are essentially linked to an IP scheme that is essentially functional, but currently lacking in many assets. However, the European Commission, supported by the Eurosystem and national public authorities, has invested heavily in the political development of this new payment instrument, in order to make Europe a modern, world-leading payments market, to have a pan-European instrument that has been massively adopted in all European countries and to complete the integration of the single market, and finally to compete with the payment cards of international card schemes.[2].
They have seized control of cross-border card payments within the SEPA zone, and the blocking of the card component of the EPI initiative in certain European countries, which they sometimes accompanied, encouraged or incited, is helping them to maintain this supremacy, which could ultimately jeopardize European sovereignty. They have also monopolized a sizeable share of online payments, monopolizing many merchant sites, including French ones, and excluding domestic schemes, including those run by national companies, despite the fact that they have been helped by European governments, particularly in France. They are now attempting to conquer the European domestic face-to-face payment markets, including in France, an attempt which calls for a vigorous response from European banks, particularly French ones.
With this new regulation, the European Commission is trying to break the supremacy of the ICS, which is perceived as a "straitjacket" that slows down the deployment of IP and keeps the European bankcard under their yoke, especially as it accounts for more than half of all European cashless payments. And the Commission believes that the best way to achieve this is through unequal competition between payment instruments, by proposing to align IP pricing conditions with those of standard SEPA credit transfers on domestic markets, and by requiring all European PSPs to accept IP on the inbound side and offer it on the outbound side.
But this approach is a double-bladed razor, which first cuts through the fundamental principles of payments and calls into question the free arbitration of economic players and the level playing field between the various payment instruments, before really paving the way for the development of IP.
As already mentioned, for IP to develop, its scheme must be completed to cover all the facets of a modern payment instrument, particularly in terms of security. And the "Confirmation of payee" issue[3] shows that this is already not the case. But settling this point, or giving IP an economic or legal advantage by law, will not be enough. The RED WG[4] of FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM will shortly be publishing a position paper on the subject, proposing an approach to perfecting this payment instrument. And the GT Signature électronique des paiements de détail (Electronic signature for retail payments) will be outlining some ways of securing payment transactions carried out by an IP.
The other avenue of IP development concerns international payment transactions, and SWIFT has made this a major focus of its strategy, as recalled by Marianne Demarchi at Pay Tech Day. And SWIFT is trying to make it the instrument for linking international domestic markets, demonstrating its efficiency brilliantly, notably with the IXB project carried out with ABE-clearing, the American Clearing House and a number of European and American banks.
IP has thus demonstrated some of its strengths, and can be a major vector for the development of payments at European and global level, but to be competitive it must complement its strengths, particularly in terms of security, marketing....
Like EPI, we encourage "the European Parliament and the Council to rapidly adopt this new regulation, sending a signal to the market that delivering the best of instant payments to European citizens is a worthwhile investment, and that a viable business model will be granted for the developing solutions".[5]
And boosted by the relaunch of EPI and the forthcoming European regulation, IP should find a new dynamic... It could be the first rocket of a new European springtime of payments.
- The bank card
The other important topic concerns the continued growth of the bankcard in Europe. For almost 40 years, this growth has been driven by a number of factors: firstly, a complete package with bank guarantee, marketing, security and economic aspects, international openness and various value-added services... But also, and more recently, the dynamic linked to contactless payment, not forgetting the many improvements that the Groupement des Cartes Bancaires CB[6] and ICS have been making for many years. Most recently, with CB's launch of a CB Card Data Update (MDC) service, the development of tokenization, and the new "Click to pay" service being prepared by ICS, based on EMV specifications and already adopted in several countries, a service which will be massively deployed in Europe this year.
The bankcard therefore appears to be a mature, resilient and secure instrument, and remains the most practical payment instrument for face-to-face payments, especially in contactless mode, and, for the time being, for online payments, even if the latter is the preferred area for payment fraud.
Its advantages could be enhanced for online payments, on merchant sites, if they were to commit to systematically offering the choice of certain European domestic card schemes for payment, at least among the most powerful of them, such as the French CB scheme, alongside international card schemes.
To combat online fraud, it would also be a good idea to consider the contributions and limitations of the SCA, and the benefits of strengthening transaction security, for example by encrypting mobile transactions. Economic and technical conditions have evolved considerably over the past 20 years, and costs have become quite affordable. This issue must be set against the scale of online fraud, and should no longer be taboo. It's this issue of online fraud that is always highlighted by those who wish to call into question the role of the bankcard in European payments, arguing that it is an unsuitable instrument for a Europe of digital payments, whereas the dematerialization of the bankcard has already been a reality for many years. The bankcard, which is already fifty years old in France, retains a momentum that is the envy of other instruments.
There remains the question of a European card scheme. A question that was put to Philippe LaulanieGeneral Manager of Groupement CB, at PAY TECH DAY, and to which he did not provide any short-term prospects for revival, even if he did leave open the possibility of bilateral interconnections with other European players, in particular with a view to continuing to push the CPace standard.[7]as EPI did. With the abandonment of EPI's "cards" component, the short-term likelihood of such a scheme is greatly reduced.
And we already have to wait patiently for the announcement of the new members of the EPI initiative, subject to the prior approval of their central banks. Martina Weimert told us at the FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM plenary session on March 23 that this announcement would be forthcoming.[8].
However, the decision to give Visa International a monopoly on card payments around sports venues for the forthcoming Olympic Games in Paris, without offering the parallel opportunity of CB card payment, is very badly perceived and could cause the French card to lose several points of growth, instead of boosting it. It's true that there is no other European card scheme with an international vocation, unlike the USA, China, India, Japan and many others... and that things can't go on like this.
In the medium term, therefore, the subject of the European card scheme must remain topical, given that over 50% of payments in Europe are made by card. And while Groupement CB does not wish to comment on the subject, in particular to avoid interfering with the relaunch of EPI, everyone is well aware that the bankcard is not dead, and will not be, in any case, for many years to come, and like the Phoenix, could rise from its ashes in digital form at European level. And FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM will be looking into solutions and approaches to relaunch a European card scheme, so that the bankcard can also benefit from a new dynamic at European level, and make an effective contribution to the European springtime of payments.
- Cryptopayments
Finally, we need to talk about cryptopayments. Who would have thought, after the fall in the prices of the main cryptoactives, that they would recover and reach heights not seen since July 2022, and that digital assets would once again become investors' flagship assets in 2023. And who would have thought that, with the explosion in the number of frauds, money laundering and other "Ponzi scams" that have been the delight of the press, investors could retain their confidence in DeFi...? And who would have thought that with the FTX bankruptcy, and those of other companies involved in this market that followed, cryptoactives would regain momentum? And the latest bankruptcies of Silvergate Bank, followed by those of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, are unlikely to call this new momentum into question.
And besides, who would have anticipated that it would be traditional payment and market players, led by JP Morgan in the US and HSBC in the UK, who would come to the rescue of this market and these banks? JP morgan declared: " the "general unwillingness of traditional banks to engage with crypto companies following the FTX collapse and given high regulatory pressures " " will be challenging for the crypto industry ". And who would have thought that the major ICSs would pursue their double-rail strategy, to ensure that crypto asset holders have the means to spend them, smoothly, with their bank cards, without selling them, or even to open virtual accounts directly, without having to open bank accounts...? And who would have thought that commercial banks around the world would be so quick to launch their own digital currencies, following JP Morgan's example, as seen in Australia with the digital currencies of the two largest local banks, ANZ and NAB.
The other is the continuing technical and business momentum around digital currencies, Web 3, Metavers and blockchains. While there is much criticism of the relevance of using blockchains, particularly to support central bank digital currencies, functional and technical progress is continuing, and projects are multiplying worldwide: continued confidence in the strengths of blockchains and DeFi is leading to projects all over the world, and nothing has finally come to stand in the way of this proliferation. The crypto market is enjoying a new lease of life, and several editorialists are referring to "the new springtime of cryptopayments". and as the author recently wrote Hubert de Vauplane : " we need to look beyond the current crisis and consider that the use of stablecoins - whether existing or new - will continue to grow; this is my conviction, given the essential role of stablecoins in part of the digital economy, in the absence of CBDC / MNBC[9]. "And it's ours too.
It's all happening very fast, and many functional and technical advances could quickly appear, and some current technical difficulties could quickly find answers. The speed of these new developments and functional and technical advances, and the impressive number of various initiatives, give us hope that these technologies will soon reach maturity. And ignoring blockchains for digital currencies in the short term, particularly for central banks, could quickly prove to be a major strategic error. Ignoring the development of commercial digital currencies for banks would also appear short-sighted, given the strategies of ICS, banking initiatives around the world, and non-banking initiatives too.
Certainly, the development of the digital assets and cryptopayments market in Europe is bearing the brunt of all the above-mentioned bad news, widely and sometimes unfairly relayed by the media. Added to this, for the players involved in this market, is the real weight of the new European MiCA regulation, due to be promulgated shortly, which is absolutely necessary, but nevertheless restrictive, whereas until now a simple registration was sufficient for PSANs, even if the European co-legislators were careful to draw up balanced regulations. This new regulation is in addition to the previous national regulations, which have consequently been restructured and a compromise reached between the French Senate and the National Assembly, tightening up the conditions for registration in line with MiCA, and eventually imposing approval of PSANs by the competent national authorities. There are still a number of obstacles to the development of the cryptopayments market, particularly when it comes to financing start-ups, despite the new €3.75 billion European fund set up to help finance the most advanced start-ups. We need to relaunch this momentum and remove the brakes, so that cryptopayments can in turn play their part in the European springtime of payments.
On April 13, FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM will be hosting a Digital Meeting to discuss the international development of cryptopayments and digital currencies, to respond to the unjustified, if not exaggerated, "bashing" that is spreading in Europe and around the world, and to discuss the difficulties encountered in developing the European cryptopayments market and possible solutions.
*
* *
Two other subjects, on which FPF is developing its work, should be examined closely. These are the prospects for a European digital identity and electronic signature, and central bank digital currencies, including the digital euro.
- The prospects for a European digital identity and electronic signature
At the end of the 1990s, the European Parliament adopted the Electronic Signature Directive, then 15 years later, in 2014, the first eIDAS Directive, and the European Parliament has just adopted the draft revision of the Directive, known as eIDAS2, on March 16.
This directive " established a scheme for the interoperability and mutual recognition of the digital identities of the Member States of the European Union, as well as a unified regime for Trust Services, including digital signatures and stamps"[10 ] , "in order to promote the development of a digital trust market ".[11] [12].
This is a complex subject, covering not only the diversity of pan-European solutions - a fragmented market by nature - but also a wide range of functional domains, from "citizen" digital identities to identities for professional sectors with very different requirements. But this is a major project, not only because its industrial objective is central to the digital economy, but also because of its technical and legal ambitions.
The work of the various WGs of FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM and some of its members, experts in the field, has enabled us to take stock of eIDAS1 and the ambitions of eIDAS2. "To sum up, while eIDAS 1 has had only a limited impact on payments in Europe - unsurprisingly, as it was not designed with this in mind - it will no doubt have a different impact on the second iteration, provided that the technical choices currently under discussion within the eIDAS Expert Group provide positive support for the digital payment use cases currently being prepared" . And the revision of the directive lays down the principle that " digital identity wallets will have to be accepted by key service providers, including financial service providers"[13].
However, European banks have asked to be exempted from the application of this directive, given the complexity of its implementation and the specificity of the requirements in the payments field.
However, for the banking and financial sector, and in particular for the payment business, the issue of digital identity will become central in the coming years, for the development of pan-European digital services, and in particular for the digital euro, and to counter the private digital identities of the world's major digital players, foremost among which are the GAFAs, BATX and other ICS, ... who will aim to close the market.
What's more, while the security of payment transactions has benefited from major advances in the past, with smart cards for face-to-face payments on the one hand, and strong authentication for online payments on the other, still indispensable and set to remain so for a long time to come, we're probably reaching a point where we'll have to think about a qualitative leap forward, at least in the short term, for certain transactions, particularly B2B, or certain types of digital payment.
It's true that online service providers have always been opposed to strong security solutions, to avoid increasing friction in the payment chain and, consequently, customer attrition. However, we are facing the risk of a major increase in fraud in the medium and long term, with new technologies arriving on the market, notably Artificial Intelligence and Quantum, and we need to consider, as we did in the early 90s, increasing the cost of fraud for fraudsters and reducing the burden for PSPs. Without expecting any other gain, because, as we said when the smart card was launched, the gain from the solution will only cover its costs, but that's more moral. And the certification of actors, or the electronic signature of transactions, will gradually become essential, and in this area, the costs of solutions have fallen considerably.
Three principles should be established in this area:
- Firstly, the medium-term requirement for a digital identity for payments in Europe, and even a pan-European identity for payments, which can therefore be used at lower cost throughout the SEPA area; this identity must be the subject of one or more industry initiatives at pan-European level, or even of a standard at the EPC;
- Then its necessary indirect, and therefore non-bijective, reference to the citizen or social digital identity;
- Finally, its independence in terms of deployment plans, with all other projects in this field, so as not to jeopardize the chances of success on such large, complex projects.
Thus, for its digital euro project, the Eurosystem has indeed planned to use a digital identity for all digital euro "liquidity pockets", but to dissociate this identification project, at least in the short term, from the projects that will result from the eIDAS2 project.
The choice of a European digital identity for payments, a European Payments Identity, should contribute to the European springtime of payments.
The various working groups of FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM, and in particular the Perspectives, Innovations and Fintechs WG on the one hand, and the Retail Transaction Signature WG on the other, will continue their work with a view to drawing up position papers on these subjects, which will be circulated and presented at open digital meetings over the coming weeks and months.
- Central digital currencies, including the digital euro
The news in our newsletter shows this month by month. All over the world, digital currencies are the subject of numerous projects, mainly in the world of central banks, and progressively in the world of commercial banks.
MNBC projects raise many questions: technical and security issues, as well as political, economic and pricing issues, and legal questions concerning the definition of legal tender, confidentiality, territoriality, etc.
Without going into all these subjects in detail here, it is important to identify the major debates, which we will group around three main questions:
- Who is in charge of defining this future new form of currency, and therefore of money?
- What are the aims of this new currency and what are its undesirable effects?
- What are the major functional and technical choices that need to be made to frame this future central currency?
1 - Who is responsible for defining this future currency?
Let's start by recalling that the Maastricht Treaty entrusted the ECB and the Eurosystem with the task of issuing the single currency, and that, as with cash and electronic money, the form of the currency is just as important as the unit of account. This is because it determines a wide range of parameters, including legal tender, seigniorage and acceptance procedures.... And, as in the case of electronic money, it requires regulations (Treaty, Directive or European Regulation) to define its main attributes and rules of use. It is therefore the political authorities who decide whether or not to issue a new central bank currency in Europe, and what its main characteristics will be.
This is why, in the 2000s, the European Commission opposed the launch of electronic money by central banks, arguing that it was up to the market to launch these new forms of money.
With the Libra project and the development of cryptoactives, things changed, and it was the "politicians" who asked the ECB and the Eurosystem to launch a digital currency to counter what were perceived as attempts to destabilize currency, and challenge European monetary sovereignty.
Following this request, the ECB launched an investigation phase, due to end next autumn, with the possible launch of a digital currency project. Christine Lagarde recently reminded us: "In the autumn, the ECB's investigation phase will come to an end and the Governing Council will decide on the next steps. But let me be clear: that does not mean that we will then issue a digital euro."
And the President of the Eurogroup even made a point of specifying: the launch of a digital euro " has quickly moved from being a possibility to a probability. And while a final decision on whether to launch won't be made for several years, it's increasingly looking like a case of not if but when ".
In fact, the so-called investigation phase is not a phase at all, as the Eurosystem has already made certain choices, which it declares to be almost definitive. And they would have been made after consultation with the co-legislators.[14] and the various market players. Which sometimes leaves these co-legislators dumbfounded.
As far as the European Commission and co-legislators are concerned, no definitive choice seems to have been made to date, and even the question under debate is which choices should be made by them and which by the Eurosystem.
For MR PANETTAIn a recent speech to the European Parliament's Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, this role focused on a few regulatory issues, such as the possible definition of legal tender, the conditions for respecting confidentiality, the extraterritoriality or otherwise of this new currency, and the obligations which would or would not be imposed on Supervised Intermediaries with regard to the distribution of this new currency. This came as a great surprise, not to say shock, to the members of parliament present at the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, as it severely curtailed their role as co-legislators.
Ms. McGUINNESSFor her part, she confirmed that there was almost daily consultation between the teams at the Commission and the ECB, and that each organization had different responsibilities. However, she pointed out that all decisions on the digital euro were the responsibility of the co-legislators, with the Central Bank having a special reserved area in terms of defining the conditions for risk management and security of this future currency.
For its part, the Eurogroup reaffirmed in January 2023[15] that "the introduction of a digital euro as well as its main features and design choices requires political decisions that should be discussed and taken at the political level." And he added "Would require an appropriate legal basis, involving the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union based on a legislative proposal by the European Commission. ". He even insisted: "In order to be successful, a digital euro needs to be a common European and inclusive project, supported by the European public, and built on a solid democratic basis."
Ms LAGARDE has taken note of this willingness on the part of co-legislators to legislate in a broad and open way, and concluded on this subject by declaring recently that the launch of the digital euro required "a dedicated decision". of the ECB Governing Counciland only after the Parliament and the Council of the EU have adopted the legislative act". But she hoped the work would go quickly: "I am counting on this Parliament to swiftly start working on the legislative proposal which the European Commission intends to publish in a few months."
As far as market players are concerned, the ECB indicated that close consultation was taking place with all parties concerned, within the ERPB, the central consultation body, and other bodies. Indeed, various surveys have been carried out and committees set up, including the Market Advisory Group (MAG) of market experts and the new committee charged with defining the future scheme. But what "final" choices were made, and with whose agreement, is a point that remains somewhat obscure.
And in France, there's the CNMP, which is a local body, and therefore consultative in nature, whose GTA deals in particular with the digital euro. But the latter is not really a consultation structure, as no minutes are kept of its work, and we don't know what is done with the remarks made at the various meetings. The reason for this absence of minutes is that the ERPB is where the discussions take place, and that the French players in the payments world, members of the CNMP, are already represented there by various European associations. This came as a great surprise to the members of the CNMP's GTA. What remains to be done is to clarify the consultation process and the formal consideration of everyone's opinion, particularly in France.
2 - What are the objectives of this new form of currency and what are its undesirable effects?
The Eurogroup confirmed its numerous expectations with the issue of the digital euro, notably in terms of confidentiality, financial stability, legal tender, " the trade-offs with other policy objectives like countering terrorist financing and preventing money laundering, the possible business models of intermediaries, and any potential implications for the financial system "... but he also insisted on its industrial role Catalyzing innovation in the financial sector and complementarity with private solutions should be a priority. The digital euro ecosystem should leverage the strength and experience of public and private participants and build on European infrastructure. Whilst further work is needed on the precise allocation of competencies, we consider that supervised intermediaries could play an important role in the digital euro ecosystem". The President of the Eurogroup also reaffirmed that the " supervised intermediaries "the ECB was ". similar to the banks and payment service providers we have now ".
These objectives seem to be shared by all co-legislators.
Another objective seems to be shared by all the co-legislators: the desire for the digital euro to be primarily a payment instrument, and not a financial asset or savings vehicle, to avoid disintermediation by market players...
3 - What are the main functional and technical choices that need to be made to frame this future central currency?
Among the major functional and technical choices envisaged, several have recently been reaffirmed, notably by the Eurogroup. It reaffirmed that: "The digital euro could be a building block of the future architecture for state-of-the-art payment solutions ". It added: "A digital euro should be safe and resilient, ensure a high level of privacy, be easy and convenient to use and widely accessible to the public, including in terms of costs for end-users. Ministers also called for considering the environmental implications of the digital euro design." Finally, "The Eurogroup also supports the exploration of an offline functionality which would serve a wider range of use cases and also contribute to financial inclusion by facilitating the use by citizens in different scenarios.".
Thus, decisions that may seem strictly technical at first glance, such as those relating to the underlying technical solution, must respond to the political wishes of the co-legislators.
On this point, it seems that the Eurosystem has already made up its mind not to use blockchain technology. This is an issue that is being debated worldwide. Some of MNBC's projects[16]projects, such as the e-Yuan project, have started out with a now-proven technology, the one that has been used since the 2000s for various electronic money projects. But others are planning to launch MNBCs based on blockchains.
Everywhere, the debate on this subject revolves around three recurring questions:
- What does the future hold for blockchains and DeFi?
- How compatible are blockchains with payment applications, particularly for payments via off-line wallets?
- How compatible is DeFi with the security requirements of a central bank?
In the United States, three key debates are underway:
- The first on whether or not to launch a digital currency
- The second on the role of the private sector in the design of the future central digital currency?
- The last on the issue of data confidentiality.
As indicated in the "Institutional news" section of this newsletter, on the first and second points, the American Bankers Association has issued a statement confirming its position that " The risks of a U.S. CBDC outweigh any theoretical benefits "and calling on the Administration to involve the private sector more closely in the design of this possible future digital dollar currency.
On the latter, the American Civil and Liberties Union (ACLU)[17] published on March 3 a document entitled "Paths toward an acceptable public digital currency".[18] which examines a number of " design options " relating to data protection (privacy) and the accessibility of a possible digital dollar, " insists that any CBDC offer robust privacy protections " and advocates the use of cryptographic techniques: " We want a system that uses new and existing cryptographic techniques to make it, to the greatest extent possible, technologically impossible for the government (or any other party) to record ordinary transactions" and adds " As a result, there is absolutely no justification for a CBDC system not to make maximal use of all the latest and greatest privacy-protecting technologies".
And on the question of offline payments, the Bank of Canada has published a report stating that: "An offline central bank digital currency (CBDC) is a digital complement to bank notes ", and it goes on to say: " An offline CBDC offers users benefits such as enhanced resilience and better accessibility features. It could also preserve the privacy typically associated with offline payments".
Thus, the debates on CBM are far from stabilized in Europe and the rest of the world, and it is important to keep abreast of the choices that will be made, particularly within the OECD.
*
* *
All this work and reflection shows that Europe is on a major decision-making path when it comes to payment systems, and that the stakes are far from being purely technical. What is at stake is the future of European payments. FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM, which highlighted French and European expertise in payments at PAY TECH DAY, aims to encourage a " European Springtime for Payments". It will encourage debate on the strategic issues of new payment methods and the future of the card in Europe. This must be an open, " democratic " debate, in which all stakeholders, including European users and consumers, don't discover at the last minute the characteristics of what is going to be proposed. The next step for FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM will be on June 29, the day after the European Commission's proposal for the revision of the Payment Services Directive, with an essential meeting on "Europe's Digital Payment Services in the age of the digital euro, EPI 2 and PSD3" . But I'll come back to this in the coming weeks.
[1] Instant Payment or IP, the abbreviation we will use in the rest of this editorial.
[2] Hereafter referred to as ICS (International Card Scheme).
[3] "Confirmation of Payee (CoP)" is a new service launched in 2019 in the UK, aimed at enabling the payer to verify that the account number of the recipient of a payment is actually that of the real beneficiary of that payment. The term has been adopted in Europe to describe this issue.
[4] Rules, Evolutions, Deployments for Payment Flows
[5] Cf. https://www.epicompany.eu/epi-company-broadens-its-support-to-the-proposed-legislation-on-instantpayments-in-alignment-with-the-european-commission/
[6] Hereafter referred to as CB.
[7] Cf. European Card Payment Cooperation - Home of the CPACE ecosystem in the payments industry
[8] Cf. Summary of presentations at the FPF Plenary on March 23
[9] Cf. The digital dollar and the stability of American supremacy | Le Grand Continent
[10] See article by Stéphane MOUY, eIDAS 1, eIDAS 2 et paiements numériques - FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM.
[11] Cf. eIDAS regulation | Agence nationale de la sécurité des systèmes d'information (ssi.gouv.fr)
[12] Cf. Article by Eric CAPRIOLI and Stéphane AGOSTI European and national legal framework for digital identity - FRANCE PAYMENTS FORUM
[13] Cf. article by Stéphane MOUY
[14] It should be remembered that the term "co-legislators" covers the Parliament and the Council, who act on an equal footing under the Lisbon Treaty, and that a European regulatory procedure always begins with a legislative proposal from the Commission, and is finally adopted after a trialogue between the European Commission, Parliament and Council. Cf. Overview | Ordinary Legislative Procedure | Ordinary Legislative Procedure | European Parliament (europa.eu)
[15] Cf. Eurogroup statement on the digital euro project, 16 January 2023 - Consilium (europa.eu)
[16] Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) or Monnaie Numérique de Banque Centrale (MNBC) in English
[17] " The ACLU dares to create a more perfect union - beyond one person, party, or side. Our mission is to realize this promise of the United States Constitution for all and expand the reach of its guarantees" Cf. Home | American Civil Liberties Union (aclu.org)