What I said was that centralization is the problem.

Different tasks require different levels of identification. Cash (a traditional means of payment) requires no identification. I only carry up to about $200 in cash on me, which an amount I'm willing to bear if my wallet is stolen.

When I use chip&pin ("what you have and what you know") for small payments, I rarely need any authentication, and when I do it's the PIN. My wife can and has used my card, with my permission. I have my email password written down for her so she can access it, eg, if I die and my computer dies.

The banking system probably factors in my usual payment locations to make the choice of when to ask for a PIN, combined with the trust experience with the vendor.

My card, even with a PIN, has a spending limit. Years ago I had to authorize raising the limit because my client was willing to reimburse me for a business class flight across the Atlantic. Of COURSE I want more friction in the system when doing something riskier. If the way to authorize a $60 dinner and a $60,000 car are too similar, then it's easier to fool you.

For a higher amount, I can go to the bank and carry out a transaction in person, or I can authorize it through their online banking system.

"But wait, how?" you might ask. The bank figured this out years ago, when people started going online, using unpatched Windows PCs without virus scanners.

The system - whose security I trust much more than a phone's - uses a small device with a camera. The login screen shows me a pattern with colored dots. The camera reads those dots, decodes the message (and probably also validates it cryptographically) and displays a message asking me to verify I want to log in.

I enter the PIN, and it generates a response code, which I enter.

If I make a payment, or add a new recipient, or a few other things, I am required to use the device again.

This device stays at home, because I don't expect to make $10,000 payments while out.

I can use it on any web-enabled device, because the security is in "what I have" and "what I know", in a device which cannot be hacked, does not require any physical connection, and does not require network accessed.

I like this system more than a Yubikey because it does not require a hardware attachment, which isn't always possible.

Yes, Yubikeys feel like a step backwards compare to my bank's security practice. I don't understand why there is no provision for cable-free/wifi-free/mobile-system-free validation in this supposed privacy-oriented switch to passkeys, when I know such a system exists.

Furthermore, the bank has the legal obligation to ensure the system works. If the encryption system is somehow broken, they are required to update the hardware. Apple is not. Yubi is not. The cost is all on you. My bank has even shut down mobile phone banking for older hardware/OSes, claiming the security isn't high enough. But they have not needed to update my security device.

If you expect your phone to be able to do anything, and authorize anything, then I see it as a giant risk. You can be at the bar, drank to much, and be convinced to make a payment or authorization that you shouldn't of. There's no real, physical way to change your risk level depending on the circumstances if you always have your phone with you.

Centralization of identify, payment, and apps is fundamentally flawed.