This document also indicates that "to meet the time requirements of Circular 296, the overall principle is to make the WeChat, Alipay, and acquiring agencies as few as possible, so we will continue to use the existing interface and reconciliation file formats for WeChat and Alipay." However, this plan of UnionPay and Alipay, WeChat Payment (hereinafter abbreviated as "A/T") has not been determined in terms of charging standards and sub-contracting models.
For this document, Alipay, WeChat Payment, and UnionPay have not responded positively to this newspaper.
It is understood that compared with the traditional "Four-Party Model", in the program, the issuing bank's position was replaced by A/T, and the issuing bank changed from the original model. A person close to the UnionPay said, "Alipay is not a card issuer, but a barcode payment service provider."
A person close to the supervision said: "After the emergence of the network, UnionPay is under the jurisdiction of the central bank, and the two agencies are facing normal competition. Therefore, it is worthwhile to continue to observe how each plan achieves 'off the line'. Network Alliance also has its own real-life dilemma. The task of setting up a clearing institution is enormous and arduous, and it is difficult to accomplish it overnight. This is why the progress of the progress of the construction of the NetLink has been difficult to achieve.
The plan remains to be clear
The Economic Observer reported that the program presents an overall clearing logic structure.
The plan shows that after the A/T access to UnionPay, the clearing structure of the "Acquirer-UnionPay-issuer" was changed to "Acquirer-Union-A/T". Alipay, which does not have the issuance qualification, replaced the issuing bank. The role of UnionPay is through the central bank's large-scale system for fund settlement.
The general manager of the e-banking department of a joint-stock commercial bank told the Economic Observer newspaper that this has changed compared to the traditional "quartet model."
The so-called traditional “Four-Party Model” refers to a cooperation model based on card organizations, issuing banks, acquiring agencies, and merchants. After a merchant initiates a transaction, it is sent by the acquiring agency to the card organization, and the card organization completes the acquiring agency. The liquidation between card issuers is a cooperative mode most recognized by all parties in the industry so far. It is also a mode of liquidation that is actively promoted by regulators.
The general manager of the above-mentioned e-banking department stated that “in the current program, what is broken is the direct connection between the payment institution and A/T. All along, the reason the central bank does not allow payment institutions to directly connect is mainly in two aspects. On the other hand, direct connection between payment agencies will result in the central bank's inability to grasp information, making it difficult to achieve penetrating supervision, making it difficult for transaction monitoring and anti-money laundering. On the other hand, there is no risk isolation between direct payment agencies. It is easy to cause risks to spread.” “The relationship between A/T and the issuing bank is still not clarified. The debit side may be Alipay directly connected to banks for deductions, or it may be connected to banks via a network connection. The person said: "If Alipay is used as an example, if it is a true four-party model, first of all, various payment agencies that now play the role of acquiring a single account will only be able to serve as an expansion agency for A/T. The merchant key should be Return to Alipay's hands and direct management by Alipay; secondly, Alipay should act as the acquirer, send the transaction to UnionPay, and then UnionPay will implement the liquidation for Alipay and the issuing bank.”
A person close to China UnionPay said that the biggest motive for this plan is to cooperate with the “disconnected” mission of banks and payment agencies on April 1 in the Barcode Payment Practices (Trial) (No. 296). The plan also shows that “in order to meet the time requirements of Document 296, the overall principle is to make the WeChat, Alipay, and acquiring agencies as few as possible, so we will continue to use the existing interface and reconciliation file formats for WeChat and Alipay.” In addition to this, the program also announced the details of online transaction modes, transaction interfaces, clearing reconciliations, and disputed errors under each code system.
The above-mentioned business people approaching UnionPay frankly stated that changes in the back-end transaction and liquidation model will not have much impact on consumers and merchants, but they will have a great impact on UnionPay, Alipay and commercial banks. "In this mode, Alipay accounts have actually acquired the identity status of the issuing bank." A payment industry believes that banks and UnionPay have provided access.
A person close to the UnionPay said that “Alipay is not the issuer but the barcode payment service provider. This is the definition of Alipay and WeChat payment in Circular 296. In a special scenario, his role only exists in the bar code business. It will exist in other UnionPay business."
A credit-card business center of a joint-stock commercial bank told the Economic Observer that “between banks and bank card users are still separated by Alipay and WeChat barriers, and bank card users’ transaction information is still held in the hands of Alipay or WeChat, rather than the hands of banks. in."
A person close to the supervision told the Economic Observer newspaper that to a certain extent, CUP’s move was also intended to complete the “disconnected” mission of supervision before the “definition” as defined in Circular 296 and to bring A/T’s The size of the transaction is incorporated into the regulatory system.
In fact, under the regulatory rhythm of “disconnecting and connecting”, the Central Bank, China UnionPay, China UnionPay, and banks are all working together.
Previously, it was reported that Shanghai Pudong Development Bank closed all scan channels for payment on March 12. SPD Bank responded externally that it did not shut down the full scan channel, but is monitoring all the partners and pushing the scan channel to clearing. Organization migration.
At the beginning of March, at the “All-Business Function Exchange Meeting for Network Payment and Clearing Platforms” held in Beijing, Dong Junfeng, the president of Network Alliance, disclosed that as of March 2nd, the NetLink clearing platform had accessed nearly 340 banks and nearly 100 payments. Institutions, the cumulative cut volume of more than 8.3 billion, the cumulative transaction amount of more than 2.3 trillion, the highest single-day transaction processing scale of more than 100 million pens, the highest real-time peak transaction of more than 7000TPS (pen/second). Dong Junfeng stated that in order to earnestly comply with the relevant requirements for network payment services involving bank accounts starting from June 30th through the NetLink clearing platform, it is hoped that all parties in the industry will work together to achieve the objectives of the phased planning and do a good job of follow-up function development and production. Business migration and other work to ensure that the "off-line" is achieved on schedule.
Right now, there is still a lot of room for NetLink. According to the previous request of the Central Bank, banks and payment agencies should complete preparations for the access network connection platform and business migration by October 15, 2017. This shows that this goal has not been reached. According to the plan, there are only 3 months remaining for the time being left to NetLink. Behind the "full-scale cut-off" is a more rigorous test of the network's peak processing capabilities. Take "Double 11" as an example. According to the data published by Alipay, the "double 11" in 2017 has just opened 5 minutes and 22 seconds. Alipay's peak payment reached 256,000 strokes per second.databaseThe peak value reached 42 million times per second. For the current online transaction with a peak transaction rate of 7000 pen/s, it is difficult to accept such transaction volume and allow the system to run smoothly. “From the point of view of the central bank, Alipay and WeChat payment transactions can only enter the regulatory perspective if they can access the jurisdiction of the central bank. In fact, there is little difference between UnionPay and China Netcom,” said the person close to the regulator.
Previously, at the end of January this year, UnionPay's new generation of cardless service switching and clearing platform was fully launched. It also responded to the call of the central bank and cut off the direct connection mode between third-party payment agencies and banks. UnionPay said that the platform has been networked with major commercial banks, including 17 national key commercial banks and more than 180 regional banks. With the launch of the connection plan between UnionPay, Alipay and WeChat, how the future market competition situation will change will have to wait and see.access: