Non-Contracted Provider Payment Appeal Process: Fill & Download for Free

One of the many potential solutions blockchain offers is greater cost efficiency.Blockchain is the buzzword of the day for businesses. But as company managers figure out what blockchain is, that doesn't mean they understand what it does.Blockchain can solve a lot of problems, including security and record keeping. But something far more appealing to many is how it can cut costs.Finance and insuranceMuch has been made of how blockchain will cut costs in the financial industry. The primary way it will do this is by replacing legacy systems and record-keeping infrastructure and reducing IT costs.Blockchain will also reduce the need for payment intermediaries – stock exchanges, payment networks, money transfer services – of which 45 percent suffer economic crime every year, according to PwC.Blockchain can also cut costs in these ways:Claims management – Fraud is a significant problem in the insurance world, and blockchain can track whether a claim has been paid, preventing multiple payouts for the same event and reporting suspicious behavior.Smart contracts – This digitally signed agreement would initiate an action based on predefined conditions. For example, one company is creating flight insurance policies that pay out automatically if a flight is canceled.Other fraudFraud is a challenge in many industries. A report from Foreign Affairs says $455 billion of the world's healthcare spending each year is lost to fraud and corruption, often as money changes hands on its way to those in need. Blockchain's non-central ledger could reduce or eliminate such fraud, providing a public picture of what money has been collected and where it is supposed to go.The pharmaceutical industry is no stranger to fraud, which is why pharmacies have been reluctant to let go of paper. Blockchain could streamline and digitize the prescription process, making it nearly impossible for people to alter the doctor's orders and get more pills than necessary.Environmental and manufacturing wasteBlockchain may have a future in cutting waste of other types, such as product and environmental waste. A few companies are starting to use blockchain to track food from its source to the shelf, ensuring that products' claims of being fair trade or locally sourced are accurate.Blockchain apps could also help companies manage and monitor their own supply chains, identifying gaps and inefficiencies, streamlining a process now burdened by contract negotiation, payment disputes and endless email exchanges.A study published by Cognizant Reports found that three-quarters of manufacturers who responded to the survey expect blockchain to be critical to the business going forward, especially in the area of supply chains. As the report explains, suppliers could issue smart contracts with product details, and manufacturers could search the blockchain for product contracts that meet their criteria. The transaction would be executed over blockchain, as well as a smart contract with the carrier that delivers the product.After much investigations and research i have made about how to earn more profit on cryptocurrency legitimately, I will recommend CryptoExchangeFX Cryptocurrency Investment Platform (www.cryptoexchangefx,com) as it is relatively on for a while now (launched at mid-summer 2017) but has become the largest Cryptocurrency Investment Platform right now (total volume over 120 million dollars) where you get 20% profit of your invested cryptocurrency after every 10 days. It supports variety of cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash and Litecoin and other Altcoins. I find that it has a really nice UI and support.

IntroductionFirst, I am going provide a little bit of context around interchange fees.Interchange fees are also called as "inter-bank" fees. They are charged by a cardholder's (the buyer's) bank to a merchant's bank (also referred as the acquiring bank) for every single sales transaction made at a merchant outlet with a payment card.In an e-commerce scenario, this usually means when a person is buying something and is paying through a payment gateway offered by the e-commerce website, their credit/debit card's provider (usually the bank) is the 'issuing bank', and the bank of the merchant to whom their money is sent to - is the 'acquiring bank'.How are interchange fees agreed upon?Bilaterally: One issuing and one acquiring bank agree upon particular fees structure.Multilaterally: Multiple banks participating in a payment card scheme agree upon a particular fees structure.Multilateral Interchange Fees - called MIF's - are the most prevalent ones.There are three types of MIFs: a percentage (% of the whole transaction amount), a flat fee, or a combined fee (percentage and flat fee).The whole process is explained very well in the article I have referenced below (I included the part explaining the MIF scenario):When a customer uses a payment card to buy from a merchant, the merchant receives from his bank (the acquiring bank) the sales price less a 'merchant service charge', the fee a merchant must pay to his bank for accepting the card as means of payment for that transaction. A large part of the merchant service charge is determined by the interchange fee. The customer's bank (the issuing bank), in turn, pays the acquiring bank the sales price minus the MIF and the sales price is deducted from the customer's bank account. The MIF is therefore a cost that is finally charged to the merchant (through the reduction of the purchase price) who passes the costs on to consumers in the price level of the good or service.Now coming to the question.As Roger stated in his answer, there are more players involved in cross-border transactions. Therefore, the number of pieces of the pie wanted by all the players is more - resulting in more fees.There's more to this.Why are cross border interchange fees higher than the domestic ones?1. The first scenario is when you pay for a purchase in a foreign currency.The bank that issued your card will first take the foreign currency and convert it to your domestic currency. There are fees charged for this conversion. Then they add a small % of transaction on top of the converted amount and charge the whole amount as the fee.For example, if you are a British cardholder and bought something in the USA for $100 USD, the card issuer will take the $100 USD and convert it into GBP, showing you the exchange rate on your statement. It’s important to note that that exchange rate you pay may be relatively higher than the mid-market rate on the day of the transaction. Card issuers typically charge between 3% to 5% of the value of the transaction in currency conversion fees.The biggest hurdle for cross-border retailers, however, has to do with the bottom line. The cost and complexity of cross-border pricing and payment processing remain the most significant barriers to entry – and are currently preventing many merchants from entering global markets.The complexity of managing multiple acquirer relationships and optimizing processing fees on a per-transaction basis - while still maintaining competitive pricing and service - has led many retailers to simply abandon efforts for strong cross-border penetration, concentrating instead on local sales.Among the challenges cross-border retailers are struggling with is local payment preferences. To appeal to customers and maximize sales in a new country, merchants need a deep understanding of local payment preferences. For example, credit cards in common use in some localities may not be international, and may necessitate a relationship with a local acquirer to accept and process. Moreover, alternative payment methods like e-wallets and mobile payment methods must be taken into account.2. The second scenario is when you purchase from a foreign merchant in your local currency.In this scenario, some card issuing banks charge an extra fee. It might total up to 3% of the total purchase amount.For example, if you are a US based cardholder, and purchase from a foreign merchant in USD (in other words you purchased from a foreign merchant in your native currency of USD), the card issuer may charge an extra 3% as a second line item on your credit card statement as a foreign transaction service fee.Note: Not all card issuers charge this fee.3. The third reason for cross border interchange fees being higher is because of the tax burden on the parties involved. Duties and taxes differ from country to country and that is also taken into account when charging the fees for cross border transactions.4. The fourth reason is related to Risk and Compliance.For retailers, cross-border transactions can mean back-office administrative headaches, regulatory and compliance woes, steep processing fees, currency conversion overhead, and a markedly increased risk of consumer fraud. The EU study cited above found that the most-mentioned obstacles to cross-border trade are the costs of compliance with different consumer protection rules and contract law (41 percent) and potentially higher costs of fraud and non-payment (41 percent).In addition to global regulatory issues like PCI DSS and regional compliance challenges like SEPA, cross-border retailers need to ensure compliance with local regulations for the various countries in which they do business. Consumer rights laws governing returns, complaints and refunds differ from country to country. Similarly, countries differ in their privacy and data protection laws for account, address and payment information that merchants can retain.Since the risks associated with cross-border transactions and the percentage of fraud activities that happen, the kind of compliance rules that the parties involved in the transaction (the banks, the payment processor, etc.) have to fulfill, the kind of money the parties have to lose in the case of both buyer & seller fraud, the cross-border interchange fees are usually higher than the domestic ones.5. The fifth reason, especially specific to e-commerce has to do with the IT involved. All e-commerce payments are electronic payments and since all of it is done online, it requires connectivity to the relevant payment processing organizations/banks, which is essentially implemented on checkout pages or points of sale. The general assumption is that the burden of IT involved in providing connectivity to payment processing organizations/banks domestically involves much lesser cost compared to doing that cross-border.To answer the question:Cross border interchange fees are not going to decrease in most cases. If anything, there's a good chance that it might get higher.Why? The first four reasons will always continue to exist. The shift might happen because of the 5th reason - the IT related one. The IT burden and the cost related to IT (connectivity and other related things) will increase as the number of countries, and the methods of payments increase. With some major player emerging every year, the number of methods of payments available out there is not going to decrease.With the significant rise of major players in the recent years - like Google, Apple, Samsung, and so on - internationally, the methods of payments have only gotten more and more. Imagining the kind of IT burden on the payment processors and banks with the emergence of this trend of new payment systems arising every other quarter, the fees may not get any lesser in the next decade.Maybe with the advancements in technology, the IT burden on the parties involved could be alleviated sooner or later, in the next 10 years, and can result in reducing the fees by part - with whatever percentage of it is related to the cross-border IT related costs that the parties have to incur.References:For Ecommerce Retailers It's Still a Rough Ride Across International BordersPayPal Merchant Fees: Current Rates for All Merchant Accounts - PayPalWhat are cross border fees?What Are The Cross Border Fees On A Credit Card Processing Statement?Everything You Need to Know about Cross Border FeesCommission makes Visa Europe's commitments binding - frequently asked questionsYour Source for Ecommerce Payments

What does the future hold?Investors that enter the cryptomarket will inevitably discover that it's necessary for them to determine, on their own, what the future may bring, given different circumstances, risks, and contingencies.None of us were given a pamphlet on what to expect; none of us knows how the market will behave; and most of us are not benefiting from inside information about market gyrations.But we all must imagine the future.None of us would have purchased digital assets if we didn't believe they would rise in value. So at a minimum, each of us has gone through the process of imagining the future with respect to digital assets.In addition, there are some business and political developments that can substantially impact these projections; and knowing how outcomes might be materially different based on these possibilities is important for making effective investment decisions ... or for achieving a level of serenity and confidence in your holdings no matter what the market reflects in the short-term.When it comes to XRP, there are a few different scenarios that may happen; some are lower-probability while others are higher-probability. I'm going to zero in on one scenario for purposes of today's article: Ripple Goes Public.There are so many cryptocurrencies that people do not tend to pay much attention to. Investing in these cryptocurrencies would bring about maximum profits and also would bring less worries in the fluctuations of their prices as they have really stable prices. Cryptocurrencies like ripple,monero,dash,binance coin,bitcoin cash,bitcoin sv, litecoin,ethereum and so many more can be invested on the platform (www . libraforex .io) where you get from 25% to 100% ROI on whatever is invested.Going PublicSilicon valley has plenty of examples of how much money can be raised from an initial public offering. Examples stretch back to the nineties and early two thousands, during the golden age of technology and Internet IPOs.What's An IPO?If you're completely new to financial topics, the term 'IPO' stands for 'Initial Public Offering,' which is when a private company, owned by perhaps a small number of people, decides to raise money by creating new company shares and then selling them to the public.Private companies are (mostly) reluctant to go public, because there are many more reporting and regulatory requirements for public companies. Hence, it's much easier to run a private company. Private companies don't have as much 'compliance baggage,' and are typically able to respond quicker to different business conditions.However, private companies do sometimes go public, because of the massive amount of money they receive for these additional shares. This process of raising money through sales of shares is called 'equity financing,' and it's the biggest incentive for private companies to 'go public.'"𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘦𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵."This comment is no small factor in the decision-making by executives. My guess is that some of the initial Ripple founders would become fantastically wealthy, based only on the value of their original shares in the company.Capital Gushes During an IPODespite the fact that Ripple raises money from their software revenue and sales of XRP, both of these are no comparison to the amount of cash that would be raised by an initial public offering for the company.In my estimation, Ripple's IPO should be viewed equivalently to, let's say, Uber, because Ripple's business use case should be just as wide-ranging in terms of market. While Uber claims that it's total addressable market is 12 trillion based on entering new markets like mobility, food delivery, and freight shipping, Ripple's market share should also be a very sizable share of the remittance and payment market, including P2P, replacement of Nostro-vostro accounts, and B2C and B2B payments.But perhaps it's better to look at a collection of IPOs to get a sense of the capital raised:- Uber: $8 billion- Facebook: $16 billion- Visa: $18 billion- Tradeweb: $1 billion- Avantor Performance: $4 billionWhere would Ripple end up in terms of money raised?The analysts and underwriters involved will normally set an IPO price that is loosely (some would say very loosely) based on fundamental business factors of the underlying company.In the case of Ripple, I think of its valuation based on a combination of its future total addressable market, with an eye towards payment processing software, micropayments, tokenization, payment streaming, and smart contracts. In addition, the analysts would need to account for Ripple's ownership interests in potentially dozens of other companies as part of the Xpring initiative.In short, Ripple's IPO would be sizable.I'd say it should be judged equivalently to VISA or greater, but to be conservative, we should probably judge a future IPO as an average of the above list, minus a specific percentage.The Math- The average of all of the mentioned IPOs is $9.4 billion dollars.- Let's assume that Ripple will conservatively pull in half of that number in capital: $4.7 billion dollars.- So, roughly $5 billion dollars cash.That's a lot of cash.And this amount purposefully excludes the market value that would be related to the 'value of the XRP' that Ripple holds. I imagine that IPO marketers would attempt to include that in the price, but we will ignore it during our analysis.What could Ripple do with $5 billion dollars? Well, for one thing, a massive influx of capital will sometimes create unanticipated outcomes. Unexpected wealth could prompt some executives to retire or scale back their work. Usually, however, this influx of capital from an IPO is used by the company to expand and achieve far greater levels of growth than they otherwise would.Thus far, Ripple has been able to access capital from its consulting revenue, software sales and licensing, and its sales of XRP from its treasury.But these sources don't compare to what an IPO could provide. Here's an interesting comparison:All Ripple Sales of XRP, ever: $1.1 billionPossible IPO cash influx: $5 billionAs you can see, an IPO would dwarf what Ripple is able to do on its own through sales of XRP; not only that, but the fact that Ripple is able to sell XRP might actually increase its IPO price. The world of high finance can yield some surprising possibilities.An IPO FutureSo what would a post-IPO future look like for Ripple, and for XRP holders?Well, for starters, life would be more annoying for Ripple. The money and cash from an IPO has strings attached, and mainly, they take the form of enhanced reporting requirements for the company. Quarterly reports must be prepared. Official audits must be conducted. Financial statements must be reviewed and published.And a post-IPO company is almost always held to a more strenuous measure of accountability by its shareholders than a private company.So there will be a cost - and many annoyances - to the executive team at Ripple.What About The XRP?A public company would be faced with the same dilemmas that 'Private Ripple' is.However, one key difference is the level of financing and credit. A post-IPO company normally has access to a wider array of credit than a private company, and may have more options to raise cash than merely to 'increase sales' of either services or XRP.So I think XRP programmatic sales would either decline or cease entirely.I think wholesale sales of XRP to banks and market makers would continue, however, because that involves directly growing the network of RippleNet member institutions that utilize XRP. Selling XRP to these participants is not only expected, but necessary. Programmatic sales are not.Next Level MarketingOne very positive aspect of having a pile of cash from an IPO would be to spend it on things that grow the market value of either the company, or XRP.Unlike all the other companies quoted in this article as examples of an IPO, none have had a digital asset that comprises billions of dollars of value.Currently, Ripple is not speaking a lot about XRP or its ability to grow XRP's value, because there are ongoing legal matters - both lawsuits and regulatory questions - that necessitate a more circumspect communications strategy.Once these legal outcomes are etched in stone, the company may see fit to ramp up its marketing; after all, there's nothing prohibiting a company - whether public or private - from promoting the ownership of an item in their inventory, right?And this marketing might be phenomenal.With $5 billion dollars, no amount of potential marketing is out of reach, and the days of Superbowl advertisements about digital assets may be upon us.To date, the only participants in the cryptomarket that have engaged mainstream advertising and its participants have been the exchanges; and they make money no matter if the market goes up or down.My favorite ad so far is Kristian Nairn's advertisement for eToro:Just imagine if Ripple could afford to hire him for XRP-related promotions in a post-IPO, post-legal-issues world!Acquisitions GaloreEven now, we can see clearly that Ripple has an appetite for acquisitions.Back when Ripple first hired Ron Will, I thought that it was a sign that the company was telegraphing its intention to go public sooner rather than later.I was wrong.What became clearly apparent was that Ripple was more interested in acquiring other companies rather than attempting to create 'curb appeal' prior to an IPO. This is great news, as it speaks of even greater levels of confidence by Ripple's executive team than even I had foreseen; they had clearly mapped out a strategy to acquire companies that represented any possible 'missing pieces' to their market rollout of software and services.They acquired portions of companies through Xpring, although for the most part, these ownership levels are kept private through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).And of course, they purchased a chunk of MoneyGram, in exchange for an ownership interest in that company, along with the transformation of MoneyGram's payment flows to include usage of XRP as a bridge asset.One thing is for certain; if Ripple has an opportunity to make more deals to integrate the use of XRP, they will do it. Not only that, but because the cost savings have allowed MoneyGram to survive and thrive, my guess is that other remittance processors will be wanting to go the same route and use XRP for settlement.In short; an IPO would enable Ripple to make dozens of more deals in short order.Free PublicityThe amount of free publicity surrounding an IPO is substantial.While some part of the process is certainly paid for and is a formal part of an IPO marketing strategy, another measurable part is unplanned, and takes place with the mainstream media outlets providing their unscripted opinions about the event.Even without an IPO, Ripple has received a large amount of publicity due to its leadership role as the largest private 'blockchain technology' related business in the United States. I've lost track of how many times news outlets have interviewed Chris Larsen, Brad Garlinghouse, David Schwartz, and others.With an IPO, the company would receive even more free coverage leading up to its offering.Orders of MagnitudeWhen I think of what Ripple would do with the increased amount of capital, it's reflective of the same types of things they're doing today, only on a greater scale - and with much larger results.Ripple is:- Sponsoring educational programs with UBRI- Funding XRP-related businesses with Xpring- Making major business deals to expand XRP's ecosystem- Engaging with government and political leadersThe results thus far have been amazing.Ripple is a company that does a lot with very little, and when you think about it, it's not that they'd do a lot of additional, new activities, but that they'd ramp up their existing plans with huge amounts of capital:What Factors Dissuade or Prevent an IPO?One of the goals of an IPO is to achieve the highest-possible company valuation prior to the offering.If Ripple waits until any pending lawsuits have been settled, it may enhance their ability to achieve a higher-than-average IPO share price.In addition, an IPO would necessarily distract Ripple's executive and board staff during times of industry turmoil or change. A private company is able to devote all of its resources to problem solving and business tasks; a public company has to manage its image, prepare financial statements, and interface with thousands of public stockholders.Essentially, Ripple's ability to 'be nimble' would decrease with an IPO; both before and after.From an XRP Owner's PerspectiveMost of us - especially readers of this blog - own some amount of XRP.From our perspective, a Ripple IPO is good news. It allows the company to continue the incredible work they're already doing, and it eases the pressure off of programmatic sales if they need additional levels of capital. It provides the company with more options for using credit if it needs to.And the results they've already achieved could be considerably enhanced by an immediate infusion of billions of dollars.While reporting requirements are annoying for the company, my guess is that they're probably willing to pay that price if it means accelerating adoption of their payment processing software and its preferred digital asset.