The Southeast Asian region has developed one of the most vibrant digital payment systems in the world. Real-time payments have become a daily routine in most markets due to mobile-first adoption, high wallet penetration, and fast innovation. However, payments continue to be made in a fragmented system throughout the region, with wallets, QR standards, regulators, and closed systems. And this fragmentation may be a logical consequence of developing financial infrastructure in different markets, policy regimes and financial maturity levels.

The real-time payments process in India started at a highly different point. It did not start with any tremendous amount of digital abundance, but was influenced by institutional constraints: unequal connectivity, distrust in formal finance, and the necessity to serve users at a population scale in the first place. Real-time payments were meant to be public infrastructure, and not a premium layer, starting to be reliable across banks, geographies, and use cases on day one.

With Southeast Asia on the path of increasing interoperability and cross-border real-time payment, the experience of India can be learned not only in the field of technical architecture. The principle of scale fundamentally alters the nature of risk, governance and
trust. Failure becomes systemic and not single. Conflicts, cheating and turnover have to be resolved in the present rather than in the past. The challenges can be seen only after the real-time payments have become a daily infrastructure.

The two territories started at disparate limitations, though they are drawing near to similar questions. It is more important to know what to embrace, as well as what not to copy.

Dissimilar origins, common goals

The real-time payments environment of Southeast Asia has been developing in a diverse environment. The presence of several sovereign markets, different regulators and different degrees of banking maturity has stimulated wallet-based innovation and blistering experimentation. In this regard, fragmentation has been a virtue, not a vice — enabling local ecosystems to optimise speed, incentives and user experience.

India, in its turn, treated real-time payments as one population-level infrastructure problem when it launched the real-time payment mechanism, Unified Payments Interface (UPI). Having little space to run parallel systems, and a lack of standardisation, interoperability was a governance option and not a market event. It was not so much about competition among networks but rather ensuring that any participant who met the requirements could access any user.

Also Read: Digital payments: Adapting to a changing world

Take the case of a local neighbourhood store that takes in QR payments. That QR can take a path through a particular wallet or closed-loop system (often tied to platforms such as GrabPay, ShopeePay, or similar super-app environments) and is optimised to be faster, more loyal and user experience in that ecosystem, which is the case in much of Southeast Asia.

If you look at the Indian situation, the QR has been tested to work across banks and apps, irrespective of the origin of the customer. Both are solutions to inclusion, albeit in different aspects, one adopting competition as the means of quick adoption, the other imposing interoperability to make it universally applicable to begin with.

Scale deranges everything, and what fractures

Once the real-time payments leave the niche use and scale to the population, the weakest assumptions of the system become apparent soon. The operation of processes which worked satisfactorily at smaller volumes starts to fail with velocity, resulting in delayed reconciliations, manual inspection, or post-factum dispute processing. The scale level transforms error cases into edge cases, but they are actual recurring experiences of regular users.

Take an example of a failed transaction at peak time. A payment is recorded in real-time, but credit confirmation is delayed or not done. In low-volume systems, these cases can be fixed by batch reconciliation or customer support processes in days. When scaled, that latency is a trust problem in minutes. Users demand immediate transparency: the payment is made or not. Confidence is lost much quicker than failure.

Scale also reshapes fraud. With rising volumes of transactions, trends change to organised, high-velocity exploitation. Limits, blacklists or rule-based flags are examples of static controls that can not keep up with the transaction settlement of transactions that settle immediately. Risk, refunds and remediation should thus work as fast as the payments themselves. These dynamics are already visible in markets across Southeast Asia and in India, as real-time payments become default rather than optional.

Speed without trust is incomplete infra

Since real-time payments are no longer an exception but a default, speed is no longer a differentiator. More important is how the systems respond to situations of uncertainty, failed transactions, delays in credits, debits in question, or even suspected fraud.

Under these circumstances, user trust is not determined by whether a system is perfect or not, but by whether results are transparent, prompt and responsible. In the UPI platform in India, where there are more than 700 million transactions daily, only 0.7 per cent get declined for all these reasons these days, which used to be more than 10 per cent in 2016, in their early days, which is an indicator of the maturity of digital infra over time.

Also Read: Optimising cross-border payments for seamless APAC expansion

Dispute resolution in high-velocity settings can not be managed as a back-office activity any more. In the case of instantaneous money transfer, resolution times have to shrink. Ambiguity, even for a few hours, can destroy trust more quickly than an outright failure, especially to users who depend on digital payments as part of their everyday business.

Being able to see the status of transactions, the ability to reverse them predictably, and the ability to point to a clearly defined responsibility among the participants are as important as throughput and uptime. In their absence, quick payments will pose a danger of increasing frustration instead of convenience. Infrastructure, which is not able to resolve failures in real-time, is not complete.

What SEA can learn to borrow, but not copy

The experience of real-time payments in India does not provide a template to be emulated, but it does uncover principles to travel across markets. The most prominent of them is the fact that the moment the payments turn into important public infrastructure, the governance decisions become as significant as innovation. Interoperability, dispute resolution and accountability are not optimisations that can be added in later stages; they determine user trust initially.

In the case of Southeast Asia, it is not the gains of experimentation through the market that should be reversed, but rather to understand when coordination should be prioritised over differentiation. With increased volume and complexity of use, the same fragmentation that had facilitated speed can start to limit reliability. To design to scale, we need to have clarity of responsibility, predictable redress, and system-wide awareness of failure even in multi-market environments.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

The post Fragmentation to scale: What the payment journey of India portends to Southeast Asia appeared first on e27.