Still uses the banking system, which is part of Big Finance. Banks can close your accounts if they don't want to give you service for arbitrary reasons.
One problem, you're going from one woman's top-down control to another.
Jane Larimer, President and CEO
Jane Larimer is President and CEO of Nacha, which governs the modern ACH Network, the payment system that quickly and safely moved more than 29 billion payments in 2021. Nacha also develops rules and standards, provides industry solutions, and delivers education, accreditation, and advisory services.
Jane has led Nacha since July 2019, guiding the association as it builds consensus to further innovation in the payments industry. Jane has been recognized for her work in advancing the ACH Network and for Nacha as a leader in payments education. In 2022, Jane was named one of Washington DC’s Most Influential People by Washingtonian Magazine, and in 2021, she was named one of the Most Influential Women in Payments by PaymentsSource.
During the era of checks, every federal reserve bank hosted a "clearinghouse".
This was a location where all the banks under that Reserve Bank would meet and swap checks that had been given to them. Balances would be paid out.
ACH replaced that system electronically. Instead of a paper check, an ETF record is handed around and then money changes hands.
The system is still fundamentally controlled by the government. The only ways a transaction can be refused is either because it was unauthorized/fraudulent, or because the account doesn't have the funds.
To actually kick a participant out of the ACH system would require the participating entity to be recognized as a habitual source of fraudulent or overdrafting transactions, and that determination is made by the government, and can be fought in federal court.
You set up a bank, a proper bank, FDIC insured, everything, and then you direct market it as a free speech harbor.
At that point it's MUCH harder for other companies to say they won't work with you. If the customer with the money says to transfer the money, they have to transfer it as a legitimate, authorized transaction.
Refusing at that point means going to federal court and convicting the BFS to say you're not a legitimate bank. That's a much, MUCH higher hurdle, one these leftists won't be able to clear.
It's a non-starter. Banks have capital requirements that none of us could meet. If you go under them for a second, you'll be shut down. You also need to do a lot of paperwork to operate internationally.
Also, as I edited in, ACH suffers from the same problem as MasterCard. A feminist woman pulling the strings. You're just relying on her being constrained by red tape from using the power available to her.
So don't use card processing.
Build a system on ACH clearing.
Still uses the banking system, which is part of Big Finance. Banks can close your accounts if they don't want to give you service for arbitrary reasons.
Yeah, that's why you start a bank, dummy.
Unless you're aligned with the rich oligarchs or the government (or both) and you have a big pile of startup money, that's not going to happen.
How much money do you think it takes to start up po-dunk neighborhood credit union managed by "that guy who was good in high school football".
Think about it real hard.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/ach.asp
This?
One problem, you're going from one woman's top-down control to another.
Jane Larimer, President and CEO
NACHA is an industry group, they don't make the rules.
The Bureau of Fiscal Service makes the rules. That's the Treasury Department.
Means that to shut you down, they have to get the FEDS to shut you down, they can't just blacklist you out of spite.
It says they govern it, doesn't that mean they make the rules?
ACH is honestly something I don't hear about much, so I don't understand too well how it works.
During the era of checks, every federal reserve bank hosted a "clearinghouse".
This was a location where all the banks under that Reserve Bank would meet and swap checks that had been given to them. Balances would be paid out.
ACH replaced that system electronically. Instead of a paper check, an ETF record is handed around and then money changes hands.
The system is still fundamentally controlled by the government. The only ways a transaction can be refused is either because it was unauthorized/fraudulent, or because the account doesn't have the funds.
To actually kick a participant out of the ACH system would require the participating entity to be recognized as a habitual source of fraudulent or overdrafting transactions, and that determination is made by the government, and can be fought in federal court.
Yes, that.
You set up a bank, a proper bank, FDIC insured, everything, and then you direct market it as a free speech harbor.
At that point it's MUCH harder for other companies to say they won't work with you. If the customer with the money says to transfer the money, they have to transfer it as a legitimate, authorized transaction.
Refusing at that point means going to federal court and convicting the BFS to say you're not a legitimate bank. That's a much, MUCH higher hurdle, one these leftists won't be able to clear.
It's a non-starter. Banks have capital requirements that none of us could meet. If you go under them for a second, you'll be shut down. You also need to do a lot of paperwork to operate internationally.
Also, as I edited in, ACH suffers from the same problem as MasterCard. A feminist woman pulling the strings. You're just relying on her being constrained by red tape from using the power available to her.
You are thinking the numbers are a couple orders of magnitude larger than the numbers really are.
How do you think local credit unions keep poping up and then going under?
Yes, and?
NACHA IS ONLY AN INDUSTRY GROUP, THE RULE MAKING BODY IS THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY.