
Walmart and Amazon looking at creating their own cryptocoins
By
Retail giants including Walmart and Amazon are reportedly exploring a bold plan to bypass traditional banks — by creating their own currency. The move to create their a so-capped stablecoin would allow the companies to handle payments with a form of cryptocurrency pegged to the US dollar. Walmart and Amazon could then cut out middlemen like Visa, Mastercard, and major financial institutions.
The shift could save retailers billions of dollars annually in card processing and interchange fees — but experts warn it could trigger a crisis for the banking system. 'Big retailers moving away from traditional payment systems would be a huge blow for banks and payment providers,' Neil Saunders, managing director of retail at GlobalData, told the Daily Mail. 'Banks and credit card providers make huge profits from things like interchange fees. That is the reason for the interest from retailers – they want to reduce these costs.'
Other companies are looking at a stablecoin too, including Expedia and airlines, according to the report by The Wall Street Journal . Any innovation currently depends on a bill , called the Genius Act, which would establish a regulatory framework for stablecoin. The cryptocurrency legislation wouldn't just enable companies to launch stablecoins — it's also key to convincing consumers the new payment system is safe. There is a level of skepticism around the safety of digital assets and currencies, including stablecoin.
The bill still needs to clear the Senate and the House if any major changes are to become a reality. Stablecoins could allow retailers to avoid traditional payment systems which cost them billions of dollars in fees every year, including interchange fees which they pay when shoppers make purchases using their debit or credit card. They could also offer merchants a quicker process for receiving proceeds from sales. Currently, payments can sometimes take days to settle. It would offer an alternative to the card-based system which is dominated by Visa and Mastercard.
Interchange fees, or 'swipe' fees, for Visa and Mastercard totaled $111.2 billion in 2024, up from $100 billion the year before, according to the Merchants Payments Coalition. The group of retailers has been meeting with lawmakers in recent months to push for the Genius Act to be made law. They believe that a regulatory framework for stablecoin could help end the 'duopoly' of Visa and Mastercard. 'More choice and more innovation is a good thing,' Doug Kantor, member of the Merchants Payments Coalition's executive committee, told the Daily Mail. 'There has been no innovation in 40 years.'
For Kantor, stablecoins are a positive step as they mean more competition for Visa and Mastercard, and they could make payments more efficient and more convenient for merchants and customers. However he notes that there are many things that need to happen before stablecoin payments could become a reality in stores across the US. Not only is regulation needed for consumers so they can see it is a safe payment method, but Visa or Mastercard could potentially take control of or kill any stablecoin venture in order to maintain their dominance, he said. 'They have an incentive to stop innovation,' Kantor explained. There could also be difficulties in convincing consumers to adopt new technology, or traditional banks could simply adapt to the changes, said Bankrate financial analyst Stephen Kates.
'A large shift from the traditional banking and payment systems would create a huge crisis for the mainstays of the industry, such as JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America in banking, or Visa and Mastercard in payments,' he told the Daily Mail. 'However, at this early stage, it is easy to assume that the banks and payment processors could shift their businesses to accommodate the changes in merchant and consumer behavior. 'However, it is not yet clear how big of a move there would truly be. The introduction of pay-by-bank options at retailers has not meaningfully reduced credit card volumes, given the entrenched use of cards and the ease and comfort of the swipe.'
He said if retailers made a forcible move towards card alternatives, such as a store-brand or third-party issued stablecoin, it would most likely be used primarily online, where there are already many competing payment options, such as PayPal or Buy-Now-Pay-Later. 'Credit card companies and banks aren't yet challenged by these new entrants and would most likely not be immediately challenged by stablecoins either,' he continued. Whether or not these changes would be good for the consumer remains to be seen, Kates added.
Third-party institutions like Visa or Mastercard offer proven security and muscle for consumers who are victims of fraud, he said, but stablecoins offer none of this. 'While companies like Walmart or Amazon have the financial resources to stand behind any future branded stablecoins, there are open questions about how stablecoin use or misuse might impact the stability of the broader financial system. 'Stablecoins, similar to other non-bank, non-FDIC insured products like money markets, are susceptible to runs, which can become panic-inducing for consumers and financial institutions when they occur.'
Plus, it is unlikely to mean that lower costs from reduced interchange fees are passed down to the consumer. 'It's possible that the overall cost of goods might fall slightly, but it is more likely that there would be a discount for consumers who use it similar to the cash discount seen at certain retailers,' said Kates. Amazon's efforts to integrate stablecoins are still in the early stages, a person familiar with the discussions told The Wall Street Journal, and some of the talks have centered on having the company's own coin for online purchases.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
33 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Empty seats, exhausted players, excess heat – the tournament that could embarrass Fifa
Judging by the stadium availability maps that present themselves on Fifa's official ticketing website for its Club World Cup, there may be many stadiums over the next few weeks in the United States where the crowds are massed in the stand that faces the cameras. Glance at the ticketing arrangements for some of the more problematic games for ticket sales, a pattern emerges. For Tuesday's collision of South Korea's Ulsan HD and Mamelodi Sundowns of South Africa, only tickets on two sides of the Inter&Co stadium in Orlando are available. Of the two greyed-out stands only the area immediately behind one of the goals is available for sale and the cheapest tickets are just $11 (£8). It may well be the same for Mexico's Liga-MX Pachuca against Red Bull Salzburg in Cincinnati on Wednesday, although the pattern is harder to read in that respect. There seem to be large parts of the vast MetLife Stadium in New Jersey that have also been retired for Thursday's game between Palmeiras of Brazil and the Egyptian club Al-Ahly, although time will tell. There were still tickets available for the opening game between Al-Ahly and Inter Miami at the latter's Hard Rock Stadium in the hours before kick-off. Just a few hours left until the FIFA Club World Cup kicks off, and less than half the tickets are sold for the opening match. FIFA partnered with Miami Dade College after poor ticket sales. Every student who buys 1 ticket for $1 gets 4 extra tickets to help pack the stadium. — Cricket Business HQ (@cric_businessHQ) June 14, 2025 Of course, closing parts of a stadium to save on stewarding and concessions – and then pointing the cameras away – is an old trick that many sports deploy when ticket sales fail to meet expectations. Fifa's dynamic pricing model – a euphemism for wringing the most out of the paying fan – means that the price in some cases is starting to shift. There have been suggestions that Fifa has been obliged to refund part of the cost paid by some supporters who bought their tickets early, only for the price to fall dramatically. As of Saturday one could watch Bayern Munich play the amateur side Auckland City, from New Zealand, on Sunday for as little as $52 (£38) in Cincinnati. But if Bayern reach the final at the MetLife on July 13, the cheapest available ticket is currently $657.71 (£484.86) as a resale on the official site. The size of the crowds has the potential to be an embarrassment for Fifa in the early rounds of the competition at least. There are many ways, when it comes to the television coverage, that a skilful match director can conceal the swathes of empty seats but nothing that anyone can do to stop those attending the game posting pictures of empty seats on social media. The Fifa president Gianni Infantino insisted that his Club World Cup project was played in the bigger stadiums rather than those smaller stadiums in the next tier, many of which were MLS only. Fifa is not saying much when it comes to ticketing other than that its biggest ticket sales have been in the US, followed by Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Canada. The sales of tickets in Britain is only 11th on the list behind France, Japan, Germany, Portugal and Saudi Arabia. At a Fifa event last week, Infantino said he expected 'a full stadium' for the opening game between Miami and Al-Ahly, and doubtless efforts were made with discounts and other offers. It is a reminder that this is a tournament that has not been driven in any way by match-going fan demand. Instead the match-going fans have been retro-fitted around it. The tournament itself, as has been well trailed, is a political play by Infantino to make an incursion into the lucrative broadcast rights for the elite club game – by which one means Uefa and the Champions League primarily. The location and the suitability or otherwise for a global, international tournament has been largely incidental. It ended up in the US because of the proximity of next summer's Fifa men's World Cup but it was originally intended in 2021 for China. There may well be big attendances at some of the games, and perhaps the latter stages might even attract the kind of sell-out crowds of big venues like the MetLife of which Infantino has dreamed. But that is not why the tournament was conceived. There was no groundswell of opinion that the fans wanted a 32-team summer tournament that would settle the argument once and for all as to whether Mamelodi Sundowns were a better side than Ulsan HD, or indeed that there must be a world champion. At least not a world champion that took four weeks and 63 games to decide. There was none of the fascination that existed, for example, in the post-war years with the relative merits of one style of European club football over another, which led to the establishment of the European Cup. This was entirely confected to demonstrate that Fifa and its president could create a tournament that might rival the Champions League. One so totally out of kilter with the rhythm of club football that it needed someone to tell Fifa that players' contracts could conceivably expire midway through it unless they changed the rules. It has been an extraordinary demonstration of the power of a Fifa president – who has pushed it through regardless of legal challenge and widespread opposition. Ideally for Infantino most of the big European teams stay in it to the end as well as a selection of the South Americans. It may suit the streamer DAZN and all its sub-licensees if the European teams dominate but, for Infantino, it will look like an unnecessary re-run of the Champions League. The best chance that challengers from South America and elsewhere might have is the indifference of some of those European-based players after a long, hard season and the punishing temperatures of the eastern US in summer. Bad for the players, but good for business. That said, the shortest-priced non-European with the bookmakers is Brazilian club Flamengo at around 33-1, placed behind nine European clubs in terms of the favourites. Either way, come July 13, one would get very long odds on Infantino declaring it anything other than a huge triumph. It does not matter how many seats are empty, how tired some of the players look or whether the wealthiest European clubs dominate the final stages – or whether some flop in the US heat. Infantino has got his tournament and all else will be secondary to that.


Geeky Gadgets
an hour ago
- Geeky Gadgets
Android 16 vs. iOS 26: The Design vs. Usability Showdown
The ongoing rivalry between Android and iOS has reached a pivotal stage with the release of Android 16 and iOS 26. These two operating systems embody distinct philosophies in design, functionality, and user experience. Both aim to deliver exceptional performance, yet they approach the balance between form and function in unique ways. This raises an important question: Which platform better aligns with your individual needs and preferences? The video below from Techmo gives us a look at the two mobile operating systems. Watch this video on YouTube. Design Philosophy: Minimalism or Personalization? Android 16 and iOS 26 reflect contrasting approaches to design. iOS 26 adheres to a minimalist philosophy, offering a clean, consistent interface that emphasizes simplicity and visual harmony. Its intuitive layout is designed to appeal to users who prioritize predictability and ease of use. This approach ensures a seamless experience, particularly for those who prefer a straightforward, no-frills design. Conversely, Android 16 champions personalization. It provides extensive customization options, allowing you to modify nearly every aspect of your device, from widgets and themes to layouts and app arrangements. This flexibility enables users to craft a unique experience tailored to their preferences. However, this level of customization comes with a trade-off: a potentially steeper learning curve, which may feel daunting for individuals less familiar with technology. Customization vs. Curation When it comes to functionality, Android 16 stands out for its unmatched customization capabilities. You can adjust app icons, fine-tune system settings, and even modify the user interface to reflect your personal style. This level of control is ideal for users who enjoy experimenting with their devices and tailoring them to their specific needs. On the other hand, iOS 26 takes a curated approach to functionality. While recent updates have introduced limited customization options, such as widgets and lock screen personalization, the platform remains focused on delivering a polished and uniform experience. This consistency ensures ease of use and reliability but limits the degree of personalization available. For users who value a streamlined and cohesive interface, iOS 26 offers an appealing solution. Performance and Optimization Both platforms excel in performance, but their strategies differ significantly. iOS 26 benefits from tight integration with Apple hardware, resulting in exceptional system optimization. This synergy enables smooth multitasking, faster app launches, and longer battery life. The close relationship between software and hardware ensures that iOS devices consistently deliver a high-quality user experience. Android 16, designed to operate across a wide range of devices, faces challenges due to hardware fragmentation. However, advancements in machine learning and adaptive performance have significantly improved its efficiency. These updates allow Android 16 to perform competitively across various devices, from budget smartphones to premium flagships. The platform's ability to adapt to diverse hardware configurations makes it a versatile choice for users with varying needs and budgets. Device Compatibility and Ecosystem Strength Device compatibility is another area where Android 16 and iOS 26 diverge. Android 16 supports a broad spectrum of devices, making it accessible to a wide audience. Whether you're using an entry-level smartphone or a high-end flagship, Android offers a solution tailored to your requirements. This inclusivity ensures that users across different price points can benefit from the platform's features. In contrast, iOS 26 is exclusive to Apple devices, creating a tightly controlled ecosystem. This exclusivity enables seamless integration between devices such as iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Features like Universal Control and AirDrop highlight the strength of Apple's ecosystem, offering a cohesive and interconnected experience for users invested in multiple Apple products. For those who value seamless device integration, iOS 26 provides a compelling advantage. Innovation vs. Refinement Both platforms continue to push the boundaries of mobile technology, but their focus areas differ. Android 16 emphasizes innovation, introducing innovative features such as advanced AI tools and expanded support for foldable devices. These advancements cater to users seeking the latest technology and experimental features, making Android 16 an attractive option for early adopters and tech enthusiasts. Meanwhile, iOS 26 prioritizes refinement over experimentation. Its updates focus on enhancing existing features, such as improved privacy controls and streamlined workflows. This approach emphasizes practicality and user-centric improvements, appealing to those who value reliability and polished functionality over novelty. For users who prefer a stable and predictable experience, iOS 26 delivers consistent performance. Choosing the Right Platform for Your Needs Deciding between Android 16 and iOS 26 ultimately depends on your priorities and preferences. If you value customization, flexibility, and a wide range of device options, Android 16 offers a compelling choice. Its ability to adapt to diverse hardware and user needs makes it an excellent option for those who enjoy personalizing their devices. On the other hand, if you prefer a cohesive ecosystem, seamless device integration, and a polished user experience, iOS 26 may be the better fit. Its focus on refinement and consistency ensures a reliable and intuitive experience, particularly for users already invested in Apple's ecosystem. Both platforms excel in their unique ways, catering to different user needs and expectations. By understanding the strengths and limitations of each operating system, you can make an informed decision that aligns with your lifestyle and technological preferences. As mobile technology continues to evolve, the balance between form and function remains a critical consideration for users worldwide. Advance your skills in Android 16 by reading more of our detailed content. Source & Image Credit: Techmo Filed Under: Android News, Apple, Apple iPhone, Mobile Phone News, Top News Latest Geeky Gadgets Deals Disclosure: Some of our articles include affiliate links. If you buy something through one of these links, Geeky Gadgets may earn an affiliate commission. Learn about our Disclosure Policy.


Daily Record
an hour ago
- Daily Record
Google Pixel 9 Pro plummets to lowest price ever in surprise sale
Google's flagship has seen a price reduction making it the cheapest it's been since launch The Pixel 9 Pro is Google's flagship phone, coming in two different sizes, the regular 6.3-inch phone and the larger XL, with a 6.8-inch screen. Renowned for its excellent camera, the Pixel 9 launched in 2024 with the latest price reductions taking it down to the lowest prices it's been since launch. There's a full £300 off the price of the Pixel 9 Pro, so it's now £699 on Amazon, beating the previous lowest price of £799. This is a great price for a compact flagship phone, and one of the only phones running brand-new Android 16 software. Pixel 9 Pro XL is down to £799, while the regular Pixel 9 is £561. While that Pixel 9 price is good, it's not the cheapest that this phone has been, with a previous low price of £549 on Amazon. Still, it's cheaper than if you were to buy it from Google direct. For those looking to get the phone on contract, Sky is offering compelling rates on the Pixel 9 models with a starting price of £14 a month. Google has just announced Android 16, the latest software to power Android phones and one of the advantages of buying a Pixel is that you're head of the queue when it comes to updates. The software was pushed to Pixels on the day Google confirmed it was ready and I've already updated my own Pixel phone. While Android 16 adds some nice new features, like live updates in your notifications for things like deliveries and a reorganised image editor in Google Photos, it's really the camera experience that gets people excited. The Pixel camera is one of the most consistent cameras you'll find on a smartphone. It takes great pictures in just about all conditions – and that's why it's one of my top choices as a smartphone expert. I'm always snapping photos, whether it's in daylight or a night, with great results. Sure, the video skills aren't as good as you'll get on the iPhone, but the Video Boost mode offered in the settings can get some incredible results. One of the great things about the Pixel 9 is the fresh new design compared to the Pixel devices that came before it. The iconic camera bar on the back became an island, and while it's a little bit bulky, I think it looks great, as the build quality of the Pixel 9 really stands out. The display on the front is nice and bright, making those photos you take really pop when you look back at them and I'd pick the larger Pixel 9 Pro XL of you spend a lot of time watching movies as the larger screen definitely helps. Don't just take my word for it, shoppers heap praise on the Pixel 9 Pro, with one saying "This is the best phone I have owned," and another commenting "The cameras are insanely good thanks to Google's AI Processing". The drawback of this phone is that the Tensor G4 hardware that powers it, designed in-house by Google, isn't quite as powerful as the Snapdragon hardware you'll get in rival devices like the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra. The battery life also isn't the best, as one shopper comments: "It's a very good phone, but the problem is the battery. It runs out too quickly." With all that said, these price reductions make the Pixel 9 Pro really competitive: getting access to the Pixel camera experience is what most people are looking for and this is the cheapest price we've seen on the Pro models so far.