Tag Archives: cryptocurrency

Scan, Pay, Boom! How QR Payments Took Over—And Where They’re Failing

Posted on by
Reply

QR code payments have become a defining symbol of the cashless economy. Easy to recognise and simple to use, these matrix barcodes allow users to pay instantly by scanning with a smartphone. By 2025, more than 40 countries have launched QR payment systems, either through central banks, private platforms, or a mix of both. However, despite this broad geographical reach, very few countries have seen these systems flourish at scale. In fact, the reality is that while QR code payments are present in many places, they have only taken hold and become truly transformative in a small number of markets.

Foto credit: Wise

All the countries where QR payments have achieved significant success are in Asia — with one important exception: Brazil. In these places, QR payments have moved from novelty to norm, integrated into everyday commerce, public transport, and peer-to-peer transactions. Elsewhere, QR systems tend to be limited to niche use cases, pilot programmes, or specific sectors such as fintech or the informal economy.

The difference in success levels reveals a deeper story about what makes QR code payments work — and why most countries have yet to unlock their full potential.

Explaining the Divide

Countries like China, India, Thailand and Brazil have not only introduced QR payment infrastructure, but also ensured that it is widely accessible, interoperable, and trusted. For example, India’s Unified Payments Interface (UPI) and Brazil’s PIX system have been spearheaded by their respective central banks and made available to any provider or user at low or zero cost. This has enabled fast, inclusive adoption. Similarly, in China, super apps like Alipay and WeChat Pay embedded QR code payments into social and retail ecosystems, making them almost unavoidable in everyday life.

By contrast, many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Europe have introduced QR systems, but often with limited reach, fragmented provider ecosystems, or without strong regulatory backing. As a result, uptake remains modest.

Trust and simplicity also play a major role. In successful countries, QR systems are easy to use, highly reliable, and generally interoperable across apps and banks. Where systems are complex, poorly integrated, or associated with high fees or security risks, consumers and merchants tend to fall back on cash or card-based payments.

Widespread Adoption Remains Elusive

Were all 40 countries with national QR payment systems to achieve the level of adoption seen in China or Brazil, over 4.5 billion people could stand to benefit. The potential is enormous, particularly for unbanked and underbanked populations. However, current estimates suggest that only 1.5 to 1.8 billion people are regular users of QR code payments — and the majority of these are concentrated in a small number of markets.

Where QR Code Payments Stand in 2025

The following table summarises the current status of QR payment systems across selected countries, reflecting their level of adoption, success, and estimated user base:

CountryNational/System NameAdoption LevelSuccess StatusEst. Users (millions)Notes
ChinaAlipay, WeChat PayVery HighYes900+World leader in QR code payments
IndiaUPI, BharatQRVery HighYes500+Government-backed, widely interoperable
BrazilPIXHighYes150+Central bank-led system with mass uptake
ThailandPromptPayHighYes60–70National initiative with broad usage
MalaysiaDuitNow QRHighYes25–30Interoperable and increasingly widespread
IndonesiaQRISHighYes40–50Mandated QR standard across providers
VietnamMoMo, ZaloPay, VNPayMedium-HighYes30–40Usage growing across sectors
SingaporeSGQRMedium-HighYes5–6Integrated multi-provider standard
JapanPayPay, Line PayLowNo10–15Card and cash still dominate transactions
South KoreaKakaoPay, Naver PayLowNo10–15QR usage remains niche
MexicoCoDiLowNoUnder 1Very low adoption despite government push
ArgentinaMercadoPago, BCRA QRLow-MediumNo10–12Fintech-led uptake with mixed results
South AfricaSnapScan, PayShapLow-MediumNo8–10Some growth, but not yet mainstream
United StatesVenmo, PayPal QRLow/NicheNo20–30Limited mainly to peer-to-peer payments
EuropeRevolut, Bank initiativesLow/NicheNo20–30Fragmented and often experimental

Fraud: A Growing Concern

As QR code payments become more common, they are increasingly being targeted by fraudsters. Fraud types vary by region but typically exploit either weak digital infrastructure or low user awareness. In many cases, scammers replace legitimate QR codes with fake ones, redirecting payments to their own accounts. Other schemes include phishing attacks where users are tricked into scanning codes from fake messages, malware disguised as QR codes, or overcharging by unscrupulous merchants.

China, India and Brazil all report frequent fraud cases tailored to their specific systems — from fake customer support codes in China, to fake UPI requests in India, and invoice fraud using PIX in Brazil. In Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, fake charity campaigns or e-wallet top-up scams are also widespread. Even in more developed economies such as the US and Europe, parking meter scams and fake refund requests have emerged.

Conclusion: Global Presence, Local Realities

QR code payments have undoubtedly transformed financial ecosystems where they have succeeded, offering low-cost digital inclusion to hundreds of millions. Yet the global picture remains uneven. Most countries with QR payment infrastructure have yet to see widespread adoption, and many face significant challenges related to trust, integration, and fraud prevention.

While the promise of QR payments remains real — and the number of countries adopting them continues to grow — the journey from presence to impact is far from automatic. Real success demands more than a QR code; it requires a combination of regulation, usability, trust, and public awareness.

The Price of Going Cashless: Privacy and Resilience at Risk

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s revelations from Publimetro are a sobering reminder of the fragile underpinnings of a fully digital financial ecosystem. The report alleges that databases held by banks, Mexico’s tax authority (SAT), and even the national electoral institute (INE) were being offered for sale on a hacker forum—for as little as $5,000. It’s a striking example of the systemic vulnerabilities that arise when cash disappears and data becomes currency.

For years, advocates of digital finance have praised the efficiency, traceability, and convenience of cashless systems. Yet few have grappled seriously with the question of resilience: what happens when the data infrastructure that underpins these systems is breached, manipulated, or simply fails?

Photo credit: Image by freepik

Chris Skinner has long argued that trust—not technology—is the real currency of digital finance. In a post on The Finanser, he explores the tension between surveillance and security, warning that the shift from physical cash to digital payments creates the conditions for both unprecedented insight and exploitation. The Mexican case makes this point vividly clear. Once transactional data becomes centralised and monetised, individuals become targets—consumers of services but also products sold on shadowy markets.

David Birch has similarly underscored the dangers of conflating anonymity with privacy. On his Forbes column, he makes the case for privacy-enhancing digital systems—ones that allow for transactional confidentiality without enabling criminality. Yet these systems require careful design and governance, underpinned by a robust digital identity framework. In contexts like Mexico, where identity data is already at risk, the dream of privacy-preserving fintech rings hollow unless it is supported by strong safeguards.

The sale of these datasets also raises questions about dispute resolution and recourse. In a cash-based system, the harm from a compromised wallet is immediate but limited. In a data-driven society, the effects of breach can be diffuse, long-term, and nearly impossible to trace. What happens when your biometric ID is leaked? When your tax history or electoral data is exploited? Who do you call? How do you prove harm?

In this light, resilience must become a core principle of cashless design. Redundancies, decentralisation, and user agency aren’t just technical concerns—they are political ones. As Birch has said elsewhere, “[cashlessness] needs to be part of an overall strategy—and that includes inclusion and identity” (Seamless Xtra).

Inclusion cannot mean surveillance. And digital convenience cannot come at the cost of civic trust. The Mexican case serves as a wake-up call, not only to regulators and fintech firms, but to all of us who live increasingly mediated lives. As the cashless society becomes reality, it is imperative we ask: whose data, whose rules, and whose responsibility when things go wrong?

When Digital Fails: Why Cash Still Matters in a Resilient Payments Ecosystem

Posted on by
2

As regulators, fintechs, and central banks inch or giant-leap towards the ideal of a “cashless society”, the conversation has rightly focused on consumer choice while conveniently side-stepped issues of cost transparency. But beyond these valid points lies a more fundamental issue: resilience.

The digital payments infrastructure that underpins modern commerce is efficient—until it isn’t. It has been designed to support far higher volumes than cash ever could. In countries like the UK, discussions around orderly rationalisation of cash infrastructure have acknowledged this reality. But to leap from rationalisation to obsolescence is not just risky—it’s misguided.

A recent post by Graham Mott (link), of the payments clearing house LINK in Linkedin, reminds us that resilience is not just about redundancy—it’s about preserving diversity in payment channels. John Howells, also of LINK (link) goes further, warning of a two-tier society in which those excluded from digital systems are left behind. Both are right—but this argument should extend beyond social access to systemic risk.

The past decade has provided compelling real-world examples where cash has proven essential when digital payments failed. These aren’t fringe cases—they span advanced, emerging, and developing economies:

1. India – Demonetisation (2016)

The rapid removal of high-value notes and a parallel push to digital platforms exposed huge infrastructure gaps, particularly in rural areas, where cash remained vital.

2. Puerto Rico – Hurricane Maria (2017)

The total collapse of power and internet left cash as the only operational means of exchange during recovery efforts.

3. United Kingdom – TSB IT Meltdown (2018)

Millions were locked out of digital services for days. The bank had to resort to manual distribution of cash and direct ATM support.

4. Sweden – IT Outages & Resilience Warnings (2021)

When supermarket tills failed, cash-only transactions became the norm. Sweden’s own civil contingencies agency has since advised households to keep cash on hand in case of cyberattacks or conflict.

5. Canada – Rogers Telecom Blackout (2022)

A national outage paralysed debit card systems and mobile networks. Many consumers found cash was the only option for fuel, food, and transport.

6. Mexico – Hurricane Otis in Acapulco (2023)

The destruction of digital infrastructure led monetary authorities to activate Plan Billetes, airlifting cash into the region to restore basic commerce and coordinate delivery with commercial banks (through mobile branches and ATMs) to ensure people could buy essentials.

7. Nigeria – Naira Redesign Crisis (2023)

A monetary policy shock and under-prepared digital infrastructure left millions without cash or functioning mobile payments. Long queues, protests, and informal exchanges ensued.

8. Spain & Europe – Power Grid Collapse (2025)

Electricity failures across parts of Spain, Portugal, and France knocked out payment systems. Authorities encouraged citizens to carry cash as mobile networks, card machines and ATMs went offline.

These are not hypothetical outlier cases—they are a feature of 21st-century economic life: almost one major event per annum during the last decade. This suggests that every advanced biometric, NFC-enabled, or tokenised payment product we build must have a failsafe that doesn’t rely on power, connectivity, or centralised databases.

Why should fintech care?

This isn’t about nostalgia or clinging to old systems. It’s about designing a truly antifragile ecosystem, where redundancy is built in and payment continuity is guaranteed in every scenario. Fintech innovators should view cash not as competition, but as a complementary anchor that underwrites trust in the system. Yet practitioners and regulators, particularly in South East Asia, have no plans for it…. risking getting caught with their pants down. There are, of course, other priorities for them, fueling super apps such as fiscal surveillance, for transactions to remain digital and the need to promote consumer expenditure.

Moreover, in a world of rising climate risk, cyber vulnerability, and geopolitical uncertainty, payment resilience will increasingly become a regulated feature, not a design afterthought. Startups and incumbent providers who build for interoperability with cash, especially in crisis response, could find themselves in a strategic sweet spot with governments, humanitarian agencies, and central banks.

In short, the utopia of a cashless future may sound sleek—but it risks turning into a dystopia of exclusion and fragility. Let’s not build a system so streamlined that it snaps when tested.

Rationalisation is sensible. Redundancy is essential. And resilience begins with respecting the role of cash.

Photo by Redd Francisco on Unsplash

Postscript

Chris Skinner has kindly pointed me to this interview of the Riksbank chief Erik Thedéen in The Banker, further arguing that “cash is the backup system for when digital goes down”.

From Spaghetti to the Finternet: A Decade of Thinking About Payment Hub Futures

Posted on by
Reply

Over a decade ago, in 2014, Fabian Markert published a paper, while modest in its scope, it offered a clear-headed analysis of the tangle that plagued banks’ internal payment architectures. Writing at the height of SEPA implementation, Markert described a world in which banks had grown up with scattered, legacy-based systems—so-called “spaghetti” architectures—that were expensive to maintain and increasingly ill-suited to a competitive European payment environment. His solution was the payment hub: a centralised structure that would allow financial institutions to untangle their systems, improve operational efficiency, and remain competitive in a world where margins on traditional payments were shrinking.

Fast forward to 2024, and Agustín Carstens, together with Nandan Nilekani, has co-authored a far more ambitious proposal under the auspices of the Bank for International Settlements. In Finternet: The Financial System for the Future, the authors sketch a vision not simply of a better bank infrastructure, but of a wholesale reimagining of the financial system as a “Finternet”—a decentralised, interoperable ecosystem where financial actors, including central banks, commercial banks, fintechs and individuals, interact through tokenised, programmable digital infrastructures. Unified ledgers and embedded policy tools are at the heart of this new model, with a strong emphasis on user-centricity, inclusion, and seamless integration of digital financial services.

There is, of course, a significant difference in tone and scale. Markert was writing in the language of process efficiency and IT alignment—his audience was the operational leadership within banks. His was a managerial, almost surgical intervention to streamline and future-proof internal systems. Carstens and Nilekani, by contrast, offer a normative, policy-oriented framework aimed at central banks and public-sector stakeholders. Their concern is not just with improving what exists, but with enabling a leap forward—a system that is programmable, inclusive, and digitally native from the ground up.

And yet, beneath the surface, both proposals speak to a common concern: the limits of legacy infrastructure in a world that demands speed, reliability and adaptability. Both recognise that meaningful innovation in the payment space depends not only on new technologies but on rethinking governance structures and system design principles. Both are also motivated by external pressures—Markert by SEPA-induced competition and collapsing fee margins, Carstens by the urgent need to integrate digital public infrastructure with financial services.

In our own reflections here on the Cashless Society blog, we’ve long argued that innovation in payment systems often comes not from the glittering promises of new technology alone, but from the careful work of redesigning the systems that underpin them. Whether it’s the creation of India’s UPI, the rise of soft infrastructure like QR code standards, or the role of central banks in convening cross-border payment solutions, these developments suggest that architecture matters. What Markert and Carstens share, despite their distance in tone and ambition, is an understanding that how we design the plumbing of the financial system ultimately shapes who benefits from it.

It’s easy to get swept up in the grand vision of a Finternet. But perhaps its future success still depends on solving the very problem Markert diagnosed a decade ago: how to move from tangled wires to intelligent flows.



References

Carstens, A., & Nilekani, N. (2024). Finternet: The financial system for the future. BIS Working Papers, 1178. Bank for International Settlements. https://www.bis.org/publ/work1178.htm


Markert, C. (2014) Establishing Payment Hubs—Unwind the Spaghetti?. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 4, 175-181. doi: 10.4236/ajibm.2014.44024.

Photo Credit

Spaghetti Junction Birmingham

Creator: Central Press | Credit: Getty Images

Copyright: 2022 Getty Images