“@Jill - great point. my two cents: The costs borne by those who invest in the scheme can ccertainly vary by context (e.g. build v buy v leverage open source, etc) and ability to scale based on population size and total potential market size (txn volume)). That being said, I think if you build in pro-poor objectives into scheme rules and governance models, the likelihood to incent low cost participant and low/no cost end user pricing increases (and breakevens can eventually be achieved)”
“Great point, Steve. I also think building for scale (in addition to low cost build choices) is something that helps drive low end user pricing.”
"Competition on end user pricing is the most powerful tool; it is enabled by the cost to serve, which we can do something about.
Current estimates of the cost of cash to a country’s economy, as a percentage of GDP:
Efficient eg Scandinavian .25%
Medium eg Benelux 0.5%
Uk France 0.75%
And up from there. It’s really expensive being a poor country.
So a poor country can’t afford not to try to bear down on cash use. It’s worth investing in a Mojaloop.
Cash use would cost up to 4% in poor countries (direct + indirect)
but for technology choice TCO model is flawed - it needs to be tied sublinear cost model vs low-value txn volume"
“In practice, a five-year TCO [of an application re-platform to open source] shows a cost reduction effect of 78% - 83%.”