Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

Under Section 910 of EFTA, Financial institutions have a responsibility to their customers under any circumstances to maintain any amount of money transfer. 

Different from online virtual competitors, where you are simply trading the equivalent of virtual credits, Zelle was actual account to account transfer. It was suppose to cut out the need for a third-party dark pool, And it was FDIC insured . So if the financial institution had an issue, and that aforementioned section 910 became applicable, your customer would not lose such money. 

Heres the problem. We can pull inspiration from the collapse of XXXX XXXX. The financial institutions had to come together and set up a pool of money. They also had to drain the existing insurance account and refill it. 

When you look at the type of money missing from Zelle, assuming your standard {$250000.00}, you get about XXXX customers from the $ XXXX that is missing. Its actually a lot more customers than that because most transactions arent even close to {$250000.00}. 

Our existing Insurance, FDIC, XXXX, and NCUA, they arent enough, overlap. They all accomplished generally the same thing. For the same people. And same companies. Just for different reasons. And generally are not funded with enough money to get the job done. Thats the need for the executive fund to save the failing regional banks. Which is a good solution to me, taking it from the decision maker. 

Integration of account to account transfers and efficient insurance safety nets into our XXXX centralized baking system is ideal. Allowing for-profit competitors to drive such decisions, instead of having them privatizing the necessary infrastructure, can destabilize an otherwise balanced action. 

XXXX Tells us that these financial institutions have a responsibility. Beyond just their shareholders, beyond just their interest, beyond their loan rates. To expect your customers, the taxpayer, or the shareholder, to refill the insurance, that bail out the banks, for decisions that the bank executives make, is inappropriate. Furthermore, these fiduciaries, whether the executive or business itself, get bonuses and incentives for things like increased transfers and holdings which having said service would do. 

XXXX XXXX, My fear with Zelle, and her competitors, is that we are violating 5 CFR 2635.702, and 7 usc 9, and most importantly 18 usc 666 These XXXX financial institutions and its competitors have a responsibility due to the public funding they receive in order to maintain this banking system for us. 

So now Anyone whos lost money in this environment has a claim against those companies. For breach of fiduciary responsibility. For breach of financial institution and transactional responsibility. For breach of personal and public commerce responsibility But! by driving away this account to account transfer in order for the executives or the company to avoid liability, we are prioritizing other third-party transaction companies. Businesses like debit and credit card processing. Also uninsured Credits virtual currency trading that do not have fair market collateral value and violate 31 usc 5103. 

In certain cases, you can see where these third-party transactional companies and virtual credits, be that XXXX or XXXX ( the dark pools and virtual credits used to facilitate the transaction ), show to actually unbalance the system. They practically operate as ancillary currency. Which makes commerce difficult when you have to use one currency to get to the second currency in order to pay for the third thing.

In all of this something thats gone unanswered are companies like XXXX. In my life, I prefer external account set up rather than something like XXXX  and XXXX. Many customers use these third-party transactional companies to connect banks and connect finances. Forcing me to sell my financial transactions to this third-party, Just to simply access my money. 

Restricting currency transfers and account to accounts transfers in any capacity, or prioritizing data driven profit, would manipulate the market and stabilize our supposedly balanced XXXX XXXX 

I would be concerned our decision-makers ( who are allowed to make decisions that are equivalent to insider trading ) could easily manipulate the actual investment banks that run the stock market, our retirement accounts, our financial institutions, the tradables like currencies, commodities, and crypto. prioritizing existing XXXX XXXX companies who are poised to make money off of the sale of customers data, rather than prioritizing, safe and secure transactions That support a balanced global financial network. 

This concern extends to Under 53 usc 30114 ( a ) ( 2 ), where campaign contributions can be used for official acts of these decision-makers. Many of the aforementioned Government contracts and traded securities, Lobby for this exact reason. Its easy to see where our decision-makers can get Swayed into making the wrong decision in order to get reelected. Luckily, our laws protect them and us from that natural phenomenon that lobbyist, XXXX, and campaign contributors take advantage of. 

I dont wan na worry about my retirement account because someone elses bank couldnt figure out how to transfer a couple XXXX dollars properly. 

And I certainly Dont want it to be more difficult to spend, transfer, and receive Currency because I have to integrate a data Point- a data point of my personal information, that Im not even getting paid for. 

And lastly, I do not want to compromise an otherwise balanced system, in order to incentivize an executive, or reelect a politician, Or manipulate a share price.