Comment by kokada
7 months ago
As a Brazillian living in Europe, they're similar in concept but there are huge differences in the implementation. If I remember correctly IBAN-to-IBAN can take up to 2 days to process, Pix has a p99 of 10 seconds if I remember correctly (I worked in the implementation of Pix in one of the major digital banks in Brazil).
This is huge because it allows for all kind of use cases that it is not really possible with IBAN. For example, I just bought 3Dmark to test my new PC in Epic Games store using Pix, and my transaction was authorized almost as fast as if I had used a credit card. People in Brazil use Pix in day-to-day transactions like you would do with physical cash, so Pix also reduces the friction if you just want to start a side hustle (e.g., instead of accepting just cash or going through the trouble of getting a payment terminal, you can accept either cash or Pix and almost everyone is happy).
> IBAN-to-IBAN can take up to 2 days to process
It's getting there. Some of my transfers are instant now.
Apparently someone decided they'll fix the existing system instead of creating a whole new system with a fancy name.
However, your description of Pix still doesn't explain the ---coin fetish in the original article.
> Apparently someone decided they'll fix the existing system instead of creating a whole new system with a fancy name.
I think the approach created by Pix is probably better to be honest. Yes, I know that some IBAN-to-IBAN is instantaneous, but since this depends on both banks supporting it and also this is not always clear that it is instantaneous (I think at least when I used N26 the way they advertised this feature the wording wasn't clear if it was guarantee that the transfer was instantanous or not).
Pix is not. Everyone in Brazil knows that it is fast, so if you don't get a notification that you received the money there is probably something wrong (it is really easy to forge a receipt showing that you "paid" something). Especially for a country that has lots of issues with scams, it is really important that the system is reliable so people can trust the system.
> However, your description of Pix still doesn't explain the ---coin fetish in the original article.
I wasn't trying to, I didn't even read the article to be honest. I was just trying to clarify why the Pix experience is different from IBAN-to-IBAN, even if in concept they're the same.
Is this transaction time down to the two banks using different systems? I do vaguely recall that banks exchange a day's worth of transactions in nightly batches. Whereas a centralized system means everyone uses the same.
I wouldn't object to standardized banking software in that case.
Yep, that's the whole point. Pix transactions are designed to be instantly settled, even across different banks. The central government bank enforces this, as well as other rules (e.g. Pix between two individuals can't have fees, etc).
2 days is (almost) a thing of a past considering the implementation deadline for EU member states - https://www.ecb.europa.eu/paym/integration/retail/instant_pa...
„IBAN-to-IBAN can take up to 2 days to process“
Iirc, it is now legally mandated to perform instant transfers but some banks are slow to implement this feature. I have an account in one of German neobanks, where it’s basically 4 steps: Face ID, click transfer, paste IBAN and enter the name, enter amount, and the recipient gets push notification from their bank within a few seconds.