is there any company that uses your project ?
how many company ?
At the moment no company uses PKB.
Looks like they have mobile solutions already..might not be interested..Might be, if some of them are enthousiast BTC traders.. And dont know about PKB yet...
Thats right, there are a few mobile solutions already. The idea is for them to add an additional payment method to their service, they won't have to do much development as they can use the ParkByte generic app, we will integrate into their system to aid adoption.
The whole solution is aimed to reduce their (or their clients) handling fees by around 75%, I estimate that the UK councils pay around £15-20m in handling fees a year, its a huge micropayment business ideal for blockchain tech.
The companies with mobile solutions may not be interested, and it doesn't need bitcoin enthusiasts to be in their company. Adoption will happen when their clients (Government Councils) apply pressure on them to reduce their credit card handling bill once a cheaper solution is available, money talks.
Crypto is becoming readily available and as more services start to accept it, the demand to use it should increase.
Page 4 of this document is what the car park operators are faced with ...
http://rds.eppingforestdc.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=20409&ku=kuThe proposal from Cobalt has three alternatives for the method by which the card transactions are
processed. As this is a service that is not currently offered it is not possible to set out a robust
financial model that evaluates each option. Depending on the level of take up, the split between
debit and credit cards, the split between the different stay periods and tariffs and other key variables
situations can be constructed under which each of the three options would provide the best
outcome for the Council.
The first option is for the Council to deal with the payment service provision and channel payments
through existing card handling arrangements. This would leave the Council to deal with chargeback
enquiries on disputed payments and the Council would not receive either the convenience or
reminder fees. It is also a concern that the Councils current handling cost for debit cards of 18p per
transaction is more than the charge for a 30 minute stay, 10p, and 22.5% of the charge for a one
hour stay, 80p. The main advantage to the Council with this option is that there would be no delay in
the Council receiving the income, both the other options involve a monthly transfer from Cobalt
which will have a negative effect on cash flow.
The second option is for Cobalt to provide the payment service provision. Here the card charges are
consolidated at one rate, although the rate has not been specified in the proposal. This would
benefit the Council if the majority of payments were made on debit cards but may not be beneficial if
the majority were on credit cards, which the Council would pay a 2% handling charge on under its
own arrangements. This option would also not give the Council the convenience or reminder fees
and leaves the Council with responsibility for chargeback enquiries.
The third option is for Cobalt to provide the payment service provision, but card charges are made
as a percentage of transaction value, 8.8%, rather than as a charge per transaction. This would
benefit the Council if the majority of use was in the up to two hour range and paid by debit cards, as
the 18p per transaction charge is 12% of the 2 hour charge of £1.50. Conversely, if the majority of
payments were made on credit cards the Council would be paying 6.8% more in handling charges
than if it was the payment service provider. This option has two significant advantages in that it is
the only one under which the Council receives the convenience and reminder fees and is not
responsible for chargeback enquiries.
Given the lack of hard data on which to construct a robust financial model there would be concerns
if the proposal was for a longer period than the 15 month trial. Currently the third option appears the
most favourable, primarily due to the council receiving the convenience and reminder fees, but a full
appraisal of the data should be undertaken after 10 months to establish how the payments service
should be provided if the service is to continue.
So if we use the 8.8% of revenue to calculate the fees; From 1st April 2015- 25th April 2016 London Borough of Islington took £6,128,815.08 over 1,578,480 payments using their PayByPhone service. 8.8% of £6,128,815.08 = £539,335.73.
I have calculated that if all those transactions used PKB instead of card the council could have daily settlement of FIAT for around £140,212.15 rather than £539,335.73, thats a £399,123.58 saving a year. Obviously all those transactions would have to go through PKB but as blockchain tech starts to dominate the financial industry I wouldn't expect this to be a problem.
This project is aimed at the UK to start with but it is not limited to the UK and I would like it to be used globally, the current mobile solution providers already operate globally
Why would people use ParkByte over BTC?
Bitcoin is expensive in transaction fees, slow confirmations and the companies who dominate what payments the industry accept (car park operators/mobile solution providers) could take 5% of the total supply for partnering up.
