Several Founders, Co-Founders, CXO Bankers, CXO Fintech professional & people who participated in the ePanel discussions:
- Mr. Arun Tanksali, Co-founder & CTO, Nearex
- Mr. Ishan Vaish, India Partnership Manager- Worldwide Developer Relations, Apple
- Mr. Hemal Shah, former Technical Product Manager, Mastercard
- Mr. Ajay B Panicker, CEO & Founder, NetPay Limited
- Mr. Piush Kothari, Head of Business Operation, Walt Disney Direct to Consumer & International
- Mr. Anupam Varghese, Chief Tinkerer, Tinkerbee Innovations
- Many other CEO/CXO Bankers & Fintech professionals on FIAKS Forum requested to remain anonymous
Now check this out;
ICICI is discontinuing the @pockets UPI ID handles and asking everyone who had them (it was one of the first UPI suffixes created) to get a new one. The image posted above is an SMS from ICICI about that.
Just because it is possible to create does not mean that every app should create one, right?
- Sometimes every app creating its own ID when you start using appears more like a bane than a boon. You end up not remembering all those trails you create. Almost feels it’s a flaw by design.
- A member mentions, “Isn’t this shutting down too much? It is agreed flexibility of creation is great. But what I am trying to say by the same example of an email client is this: UPI apps should work as a container like an outlook. If I have a UPI ID like abc@upi then in any existing UPI container I should be able to use it without having necessarily create a new one by the container. If I need a new one apart from using the outlook container I can always do newabc@outlookupi
Let’s check some viewpoints of members;
- A member states, “I think the ability to create any number of UPI ids for an account is a good feature. The demise of the @pockets id is no big deal, but still a sign of the new world of UPI where a banking identifier can just disappear. This is a good thing. UPI is a completely new layer over banks and is not (and should not be) constrained by the traditional structure of payment services or the 4-party model. There will be UPI ids galore and some handles will eventually become the gmails and outlooks of the world while others go the way of yahoo or Rediff mail”
- Another member believes, “the whole idea behind UPI is loose coupling. Any debit id, any credit id, any app. The only thing common is the NPCI common library to take your authentication in.”
- Yet another member says, “I still see the ability to create UPI ids as needed as a good feature. But shutting down a @suffix is a bit like an email provider changing their domain name from @gmail to @alphabet”.
- Why should this matter to consumers at all? For banking infra and trails I am sure transaction info has client ids to identify the app.
- A member made a conjecture, “I guess these apps might be using it as a transaction identifier?
Is this have to do with revenue split? REGISTER and READ the Complete discussions