UPI: Anatomy of a Payment Transaction

https://timeseriesofindia.com/economy/reads/upi-architecture/

by prtk25 • 12 days ago

236 124 12 days ago

pzmarzly• 12 days ago

22B transactions a year mean an average of ~700 QPS for the NPCI switch. Of course the traffic is not uniform, it probably peaks at many times that number, but that still doesn't sound that bad - for comparison, a quick Google tells me Nasdaq TotalView ITCH feed peaks at 100k+ QPS at market open.

repeek• 12 days ago

22B in the month of June 2026, so 264B extrapolated annually.

thehamkercat• 12 days ago

~8.8K TPS on average

vinay_ys4• 12 days ago

Yep. Here's the accurate Month-to-date stats published daily by the network operator NPCI https://x.com/NPCI_NPCI. If you want official stats across all banks, across all payment rails, look at the central bank (RBI)'s website.

They put out a lot of useful stats here https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/Statistics.aspx

Daily payment settlement stats here: https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/docs/PSDDP04062020....

arter45• 12 days ago

A great lesson for system design job interviews - if this is a popular payment system in a country with 1.5 billion people, your theoretical system you're designing for a small company cargo culting Google interviews will not likely support millions or even tens of thousands of average TPS.

inigyou7• 12 days ago

Well, they are money-moving transactions which means each person only does them a few times per day. If your system's transactions are more like showing the weather on the home screen, it's plausible you could have orders of magnitude more traffic than a payment system.

AugustoCAS• 11 days ago

To add - I agree that payments is great question for systems designs.

Merchants need to receive the money and being able to transact with it. Imagine the merchant receiving the payment is something like Amazon or Ebay (sorry, I don't know what similar large online retailers are in India).

With the above, the problem becomes harder. Imagine receiving 2-3k TPS just on one account during a black Friday or similar day.

Now your system has to perform fine for accounts that do 30 transactions an hour for a retail customer and 3k a second for a merchant.

vinay_ys4• 12 days ago

The right comparison for Nasdaq's order processing volume or messaging volume would be India's National Stock Exchange (NSE). It does more executed orders per day than nasdaq.

I worked on scaling UPI a few years ago. Real-time Payments is vastly more complex as it is much more distributed - each transaction involves the two banks holding funds, two end-user apps (and their banks), and the network (npci) – for the payment to complete end to end, multiple message exchanges need to happen between these parties while the user at both ends are waiting. So, if you measure the scale in messages/sec it would 10-25x higher.

Real-time payment rails that works 24/7 365 days a year from any bank to any bank (domestic, no exceptions) for free is truly a game-changer. Compare that to US payment rails which is slow and expensive. Apart from UPI, India has 3 more payment rails – NEFT (similar to ACH – batch settlement), IMPS (similar to UPI, instantaneous - but different user experience), RTGS (real-time, intermediated by the central bank RBI, but only for high-value transactions) – all are 24/7/365 and free. Then, there's credit card rails – apart from Visa and Mastercard, India also has RuPay which has much lower interchange rate.

dj0k3r• 12 days ago

None of them are free, most banks now charge nominally (look at NEFT and IMPS charges). UPI itself is paid off by taxpayers.

Also RTGS is the only ISO 20022 complaint payment rail (back when it wasn't globally very common) - something that needs to be appreciated more.

People need to realise what NPCI offers is vastly different from what RBI offers. In my opinion what NPCI is offering will end up negatively impacting the general population in the long run.

areoform• 11 days ago

While I'm not an expert on the Indian system, I think fast, universal and free payments are a very desirable user experience, but they're not desirable in a financial system.

    > Real-time payment rails that works 24/7 365 days a year from any bank to any bank (domestic, no exceptions) for free is truly a game-changer. Compare that to US payment rails which is slow and expensive. Apart from UPI, India has 3 more payment rails – NEFT (similar to ACH – batch settlement), IMPS (similar to UPI, instantaneous - but different user experience), RTGS (real-time, intermediated by the central bank RBI, but only for high-value transactions)

The financial industry and central banks have done themselves no favors with their opaqueness, but sadly this has led to a state where very few people understand the mechanics of the financial system.

The systems you named aren't alike. You are (understandably) mixing together several different networks and layers that are structurally different from one another.

In the United States, there's a mix of private and public institutions and networks. Anyone is free to start their own network – a necessary freedom. There are in fact several different networks such as the Fed's FedACH, and at the private level, the ACH Network (governed / semi run (???) by National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) in a confusing amalgamation of the Fed's FedACH network and The Clearing House's private Electronic Payments Network).

The Clearing House Payments Company™® also operates one of the world's largest private settlement systems, Clearing House Interbank Payments System, which includes American entities and non-American ones in the EU, China and other places as well.

From my somewhat limited knowledge of India, there is a lot of state interference and control over access to these systems and their creation; whereas in the US, while there are some regulations, any set of institutions are free to create their own private settlement systems and networks. Note – this is different from being free to transact with each other; this is the creation of private infrastructure that allows them to transact with one another at different levels of trust.

For example, from my limited reading just now - and to quote you – "IMPS (similar to UPI, instantaneous - but different user experience)" is kinda sorta a hybrid between institutional level agreements and consumer level agreements / networks. There's an important distinction here to draw.

Just because your bank knows my bank doesn't mean that my bank trusts you to honor your obligations to your bank and then (by extension) its obligation to itself and then to me. That's the lowest level of counter-party risk present in the system. And it's where the famous consumer networks like Visa, Mastercard etc. come in.

There is an important distinction to be made here, and it sort of highlights what someone I know stated as a systemic risk inherent to one network systems like India's — within these networks, the risk of fraud / failure of settlement from the end user to the institution is taken on by the entities running the networks... which in fact brings us neatly to something I realized while studying these systems, but haven't seen it written up elsewhere — (note, this is from an older comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25951783 )

The question at the heart of the banking system is quite simple, if banks take capital from customers and use it to provide debt to others, then how much money should they keep on hand for their customers' withdrawals and transfers?

This question is hard to answer. As there is a conflict between what the bank does (i.e. provide debt), and how it is supposed to provide it (by taking savings etc.). Everything else, from central banks "offering cheap liquidity" is an add on. They are mechanisms that allow - for example, a bank to easily borrow this money so that they can cancel it out/repay it from transactions coming into their banks.

What makes it all borked is that you can't trust bankers with their grandmas. If there is a flaw, they will exploit it. Every major change has led to an exploit. E.g. In 1918, the American Government introduced the Leased Wire System that used the telegraphs and a network of 12 Reserves to allow banks to transact with each other across CONUS. It reduced the average time for cheques to be cashed in at banks across the country from 5.4 days in 1912 to just 2.4 days. Theoretically, this reduced the risk taken by banks when they transacted with unknown banks across the country, with the Government acting as the escrow. It catalysed innovation and led to an explosion of financial services across the young country.

The system was supposed to be foolproof by reducing the time "credit" was needed to make transactions. Essentially, until one bank sent the money and the other got it, they were operating on a system of credit. And they would "net" the books at the end of the day/week to physically transfer assets. FedWire (Leased Wire System) made everyone feel safe by sending notes of the transactions across great distances. But the netting still took time. All it took was one bank to misprice risk and fall behind on current obligations to other banks to cause the chain of dominos that led to hundreds shutting down in weeks and then thousands... which then led to the Great Depression.

Note - this is a highly simplified / subjective / one system view of a complicated sequence. more here https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2019/november/fina... / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1930#Bank_failures

Important people got together and made rule changes to fix the problem. But then they innovated again. The Federal Reserve started making Automatic Clearing Houses (ACHs) and Remote Check Processing Centres (RCPCs) to make settlement faster, starting in the 60s and precipitating in 1972. This made settlement faster therefore safer. And it led to great financial innovation. The magic of computers and innovation meant that people could use these same systems to transact across the world!

Until 1974, when the German lender Herstatt collapsed due to foreign exchange investments based in the Dollar, which caused the bank to fail to meet its settlement obligations...

    That day, a number of banks had released payment of Deutsche Marks (DEM) to Herstatt in Frankfurt in exchange for US dollars (USD) that were to be delivered in New York. The bank was closed at 16:30 German time, which was 10:30 New York time. Because of time zone differences, Herstatt ceased operations between the times of the respective payments. The counterparty banks did not receive their USD payments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_risk#Herstatt_risk

This is a simplified history. But the history of banking is the history of doing settlement while managing liquidity and counter-party risk.

---

    > all are 24/7/365 and free

"Free" is a poor metric on which to judge a financial system. I would argue that it is an undesirable one. There is no such thing as free lunch. The more you understand these systems, the more you realize just how dangerous that "free" line is.

Cost in these systems is only partially about the "cost" of moving the digits. All of those dollars are there to mitigate / price in the risks inherent to the system. Hence, credit card transactions have a higher percentage per transaction than debit ones and so on up and down the chain.

Real-Time Gross Settlement systems, ACHs, consumer payment systems etc. change who, where and how that risk is managed. At the end, it might fundamentally be the same "money" going from one layer to another to another (kind of like a packet) but who takes the risk at every layer changes.

And that's also why they're paid through extensive testing over literally a century; people realized that a system that has capital shored up within it / paid up by its users is a system that can handle systemic risk. A system without that...

And that's a problem with purely state-based "free" systems like the Indian network that I haven't seen highlighted elsewhere is that counter-party risk isn't balanced between entities — it's taken on by the state. Sooner or later, there is going to be a cascade failure within this system unless something fundamental is changed.

----

whew - edited tone + grammar + spelling errors after posting!

jesuswasjew• 12 days ago

Centralized, kyced, private money transaction network. Is this something good?

haskman• 12 days ago

Yes it is. It's not trying to be new money, it's your money that already works.

fragmede• 12 days ago

How is it KYCd yet also private?

globemaster99• 12 days ago

It's the intention and use case. The government want to reduce the fund leakages and reduce corruption, directly transfer the money to citizens, reduce transaction costs. Hence it works.

The government does not track all the transactions. You need a police FIR, to review these transactions.

In short, Indian government does not track or they don't have the scaling to track. But they can do it, if there is any criminal complaint.

blackoil2• 12 days ago

I think OP meant network is private. That also is wrong, it is semi govt.

ChrisMarshallNY• 12 days ago

I have heard nothing but good about it, from my Indian friends. They rave about it.

toomuchtodo• 12 days ago

Yes, it is peak developed world financial infrastructure, ran as a utility under government direction.

pixelatedindex3• 12 days ago

It’s extremely good, at least in terms of user experience and how practical it is. Adoption is massive and at small chai shops it makes transactions a breeze, allowing businesses to serve more volume. The downside is making it incredibly frustrating for foreigners to pay using this as it’s tied to your government ID that your bank has authorized.

fakedang2• 12 days ago

I mean it's not like foreigners are blocked from using cash at those stores. And if they prefer cards, it's not like the stores that used to accept them stopped accepting them.

malshe• 11 days ago

I was in India in December 2024 and visited three states. I experienced no problem in using my credit card. For smaller amounts I simply used cash. Altogether I spent less than Rs 1,000 in cash mostly for tea. In all other places a credit card was fine.

tancop• 12 days ago

way better than privately owned banks doing the same while extracting profits from users. better than todays crypto with terrible ux where its easy to lose all your money. more practical than cash (but that should still be an option).

worse than a system thats convenient and decentralized and anonymous at the same time, but we dont have one yet. maybe in 5 years when ethereum figures out native account abstraction, seamless scaling and monero level privacy.

inigyou7• 12 days ago

That's how government money works. This is the best possible system for handling government money. If you want an alternative you could buy some bitcoin with it.

rvz• 12 days ago

Is this something good?

All good for a central bank digital currency (CBDC) and for creating the digital rupee.

Horrible for your bank account.

0x1ceb00da• 12 days ago

Horrible for your bank account

Why? Are you saying that people spend much more because upi has made spending so easy?

NordStreamYacht• 12 days ago

It's the CBDC that govts lust for.

inigyou7• 11 days ago

If CBDC means this, I have bad news for you about every other country.

khriss2• 11 days ago

Centralized and KYCd, yes. Private? Not really. See https://www.bankbazaar.com/tax/tax-on-upi-transactions.html

faust2012• 11 days ago

KYC and centralisation means govt will promise your money is there. These are essential for dev country or 3rd world. Even with so much kyc often there are fraud. This has minimised fraud.

If you are looking for RMS style freedom etc then look elsewhere. This is not Iceland or Nordic.

One another overlooked issue is India was the largest printer of currency. Until UPI etc modernisation - lots of torn currency - usually caused arguments/inconveniences among population. Also often shopkeepers or transport agencies did not return proper money change upon payment.

Irrespective of privacy, now it take few seconds to pay. Just works. Even without NFC. No worry about return change.

inigyou7• 11 days ago

We've seen basically every country in the world make promises and break them. Right now your money is there, but give it less than 10 years until someone is decided to be a terrorist based on their transaction pattern, and all of their money is taken away.

wqtz• 11 days ago

It is practical. When mobile wallets was taking off a lot of people starting pitching "blockchain technogloy" in fintech and said decentralization needs to be the foundation for everything. The whole process largely become about technogical philosophical discussion about decentralization, p2p, intermediate crypto transactions, stablecoins etc. A lot of consulting firms made a shit ton of money while at the end of the government agencies and banks was scratching their head trying to find out how they "invested" millions without an iota of progress in terms of product development. The conclusion largely was fintech innovation should not be led with governments.

If you look at very large scale IT infrastructure engineering, a lot of times those technologies are developed and sold to governments by US or west EU government controled or influenced companies that does impose to some degree to the sovereignty aspect of a government.

So, with decentralization discussion most government lost a ton of money to consultants. They could wait for to buy off the shelf software that comes control risk. Or they could accept the risk and limitations and build a software that works now.

I think india made the right choice to build a system on framework that is proven and predicatable.

elendilm• 12 days ago

I have the utmost respect to people who makes UPI work. Made even the old people in the nation completely go digital for payments - a feat unparalleled in the world.

dominotw2• 12 days ago

it worked because india never had credit card payments( at scale ) . they went straight from cash to digital payments.

sometimes_all5• 11 days ago

What does this have to do with credit cards? India always had credit cards at a scale comparable to most countries, and they always were a regularly-used of payment for medium-sized "white" transactions; they just weren't that useful for day-to-day transactions in terms of most locals' ways of working where the actual India-level scale is, and not the primary way of transacting as in the US. And looking at how Visa and Mastercard work, and what they tried to do in Brazil, I think that's a great thing.

As GP says, you could _never_ get the older generation to use a credit card even when they had the means to do so. But they took to UPI just fine, and many now prefer it over cash.

Also, credit card issuance and acceptance in India is growing quite a bit right now, despite (because?) of UPI.

treenode• 11 days ago

India has a robust Debit card system instead of Credit cards.

brabel2• 11 days ago

I think it was the same with PIX in Brazil, and Swish in Sweden, and probably many more precedents.

vickychijwani• 11 days ago

Don’t know about Swish but UPI heavily influenced Pix, from its open architecture, alias-based addressing, and QR code infrastructure

dyauspitr4• 11 days ago

They are not precedents. Infact PIX heavily borrowed from UPI.

bspammer• 11 days ago

China is very similar, no one uses cash

GZGavinZhao• 12 days ago

How is this different from Alipay/WeChat Pay in China? Handling transactions of this volume is an amazing technological feat, kudos to the team! However, I don't think this mobile QR code paying system is anything novel. Alipay rose to popularity much earlier (I can't recall exact when, but it was already super popular in ~2010, and definitely ubiquitous by 2015).

repeekad• 12 days ago

Much of the world doesn’t like having a single entity own and control the process end to end, it’s more efficient but there’s only one point of trust. Multiple institutions that have to check each other means you don’t have to trust a single entity with everything.

bri3d• 12 days ago

It’s a completely different backend model; as far as I know alipay works just like PayPal where transactions are fully “internal” - the buyer pays Ant Group and the seller cashes out at a later date.

UPI is a real inter-organization payment system more akin to credit card processing, where fund requests flow from the payer, through a payer processor, through a merchant processor, and finally to their end destination, and the actual reconciliation happens through a bank transfer system. It’s a much less centralized system.

zaptheimpaler• 12 days ago

UPI is more like a routing/reconciliation layer like VISA that can work across any bank/wallet, and that core is run by a non-profit government org. It doesn't take custody of the funds and doesn't centralize the information into a private corporation. The fee is also minimal and flat-rate with no profit incentive, instead of paying a percentage of the entire countries transaction volume to some private company. I would guess that adds up to a huge amount of money saved overall.

agnishom• 12 days ago

The main difference is that the core API is public infrastructure (run by a government authority). The apps are run by different companies but the backbone is interoperable by design

dyauspitr4• 11 days ago

Alipay is the usual deal with a single company’s server and then they settle those later. Relatively basic compared to this.

colesantiago• 12 days ago

UPI is fantastic software and the pride of great software engineering from India.

Excellent engineering.

I only wish more countries would implement something like UPI in other countries and get rid of inferior and broken solutions like crypto.

khurs2• 11 days ago

Instant payment systems by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_payment#Notable_instan...

inigyou7• 11 days ago

I too want the government to monitor my transactions in real-time so they can disable access to my money if they think I'm a terrorist.

codethief• 11 days ago

Great article. I would love to see a similar article about how POS credit card / debit card payments work in the US/Europe, depending on whether you use the card's magnet stripe, chip or your phone (Apple Pau/Google Pay/…) to pay.

adithyassekhar2• 11 days ago

I like the article but “ Bricolage Grotesque” and the claude background colour just puts me off.

dyauspitr4• 11 days ago

Why? It looks pleasant.

adithyassekhar2• 11 days ago

It does. But I’ve seen it so many times now.

sometimes_all5• 11 days ago

The content is good, but the crore/billion toggle is fantastic. A great addition, I hope it catches on in India-specific websites.

I just wish it had a tooltip because its purpose was not immediately clear (CR/BN is a bit cryptic).

prtk252• 11 days ago

Thanks for the feedback! I will try to make it clearer.

OJFord• 11 days ago

Ooh that's what that is - I thought it looked like a language toggle, but I couldn't work out the languages or in what language the abbreviations were (like HI/EN), and obviously it didn't have that effect. That is a nice idea.

nocoder• 11 days ago

Question to op - Do QR based systems in other SEA countries like promptpay in Thailand also work on similar logic?

Also, great website and layout, very respectful of the reader. Clean and with zero distractions.

prtk252• 11 days ago

Thanks for the kind feedback.

I am not very familiar with the PromptPay architecture, but a quick search reveals that the user-facing app for QR scanning is bank-owned, rather than a Third-Party Application Provider (TPAP) like Google Pay is for UPI. In the case of UPI, you can link multiple accounts from the same or different banks to a single TPAP.

Another potential difference is the interbank protocol implementation. For UPI, the messages involved in a transaction are asynchronous. When NPCI calls the remitter bank for a debit request (ReqPay message), the bank is only supposed to send back an acknowledgement message (Ack) in the same HTTP request. Once the processing is done, the bank's switch sends a response (RespPay message) to a callback endpoint at NPCI (which, in turn, returns an Ack to the remitter bank). A similar flow happens when NPCI sends a request to the beneficiary bank for credit.

drewfax• 11 days ago

Yes, UPI works. But it's a terrible system for privacy and autonomy. It has so many intermediaries, requires phone number and linked to person's identity. It should not be called a peer-to-peer payment system in anyway. It is controlled by the government rather than Visa or Mastercard. That's the only the difference.

stAInley• 11 days ago

Sure, but visa and mastercard share their transactions with the US government (among others). "Hot Watch": where the US gov gets real time surveillance on a target. Bank Secrecy Act: where private networks and their issuing banks are legally mandated to act as unpaid deputies for the state. At least with UPI you're sharing with less governments?

thedelanyo• 11 days ago

Money after all is controlled by the government anyway.

brainless• 11 days ago

For those outside India and/or non-active users of UPI - it drives so many transactions that even for an engineer, I forget how often I use it:

  - Payments between family members
  - Payments for every tiny/small item - a bag a chips or a cup of tea for example
  - Payments for car mechanic, plumber, or other services
  - Payments for online shopping or services - yes web apps show the UPI QR code and I can pay from my phone by scanning. Mobile apps will simply open the UPI app's payment screen
  - Buses, flights, trams, taxis, trains - online or on road

On an average day in a city like Kolkata, me and my partner make up to 20-30 transactions. I live in a small Himalayan village most of the year and I still make roughly 6-8 transactions a day.

dolphenstein• 11 days ago

After adding UPI as a payment option to my little microSaaS, I'm finally starting to see sales in India. Was like trying to extract hen's teeth to get an Indian to sign up before that.

porridgeraisin2• 11 days ago

Yes this. Anytime a SaaS supports UPI Autopay, I'm 10-100x more likely to subscribe.

For context: it's basically a recurring payment but you open the Autopay section in Google pay or whichever app and it shows you all your subscriptions right there (which is a major +), the transaction history, and cancellation happens in the UPI app itself I don't have to faff around in the SaaS and deal with potentially some dark patterns.

miki123211• 11 days ago

Systems that are based on one-time codes instead of permanent credentials are really under-appreciated in the anglosphere.

Giving your credit card to your child / friend / spouse / subordinate, so that they can buy something with your money, is a lot more risky than giving them an OTP, valid for a single transaction, which you have to approve in your app anyway.

Poland's Blik is based on 6-digit codes, which makes this feature even more useful, as you can E.G. dictate that code over the phone to a trusted acquaintance at the ATM.

navigate83102• 11 days ago

Because those OTPs can be intercepted by any MITM unless you are using on-device 2FA generated by an app.

inigyou7• 11 days ago

Do you have plans for when the government interprets your small payments as terrorism and seizes your bank account?

I think every country goes through this and then goes back to cash, but at different rates.

lxgr3• 11 days ago

Do you have any examples?

navigate83102• 11 days ago

This is implied in an authoritarian country like India.

However, the Government is in a fix. Almost the complete stack is subsidized by the Government. This led to an explosive adoption growth for merchants as there is no MDR and payers for ease of transaction as they don't need to carry hard currency anymore. This has enabled the Government gaining complete insights into spending and earning patterns. Withdrawing this massive subsidy will again lead to people using cash. So in order to prevent "terrorism" they will subsidize for the foreseeable future.

hgoel• 11 days ago

Why would they interpret a system being used for the purpose it was designed for as terrorism? Using it for small purchases is one of the intended use cases, e.g. allowing street vendors to accept digital payments, incentivising them to have a bank account and reducing the risk of theft.

mndgs• 11 days ago

So? Read the article, and? Some pretty basic payment flows.. Nothing about settlements, payment card messaging flow (you see a simplified logic in the article), nothing about other payment rails.. Come on.

filleduchaos2• 11 days ago

Maybe you just don't know what you're looking at? UPI is an inter-bank system, why on earth would you expect an article on it to contain a payment card messaging flow discussion?

larodi• 11 days ago

I can sense Claude behind all interactive graphics here, yet it apparently does great job to further make the point and interestingly TimesOfIndia is a major media outlet.

gowthamgts12• 11 days ago

it's nowhere related to TimesOfIndia. It's `Time Series of India`.

from their footer:

Time Series of India is an open-source project charting India's public data. All data belongs to the publishing agencies; charts and text may be cited with attribution.

shscs911• 11 days ago

It's Time Series of India, not Times of India. https://timeseriesofindia.com/about https://github.com/time-series-of-india/tsoi

I also thought it was from Times of India initially

teyc• 11 days ago

What funds the UPI system? I assume that it’s cheaper than MC/Visa rails?

filleduchaos2• 11 days ago

It's an industry-owned initiative, i.e. all licensed banks, including the central/apex bank (pretty sure this is the Federal Reserve in American parlance?) are stakeholders. The funding comes almost entirely from these banks, and the transfers themselves are free (between personal/individual accounts, at least). I'm pretty sure the government partially reimburses the banks to soften the cost, so I suppose you could say it's also funded by government subsidy?

Some similar systems have transaction fees and run as for-profit organisations, but the fees are tiny compared to card transactions. For instance Nigeria's NIP has a maximum fee of ₦53.75 (roughly four cents), with most banks allowing you to transfer up to ₦5 million in a single transaction.

Superbowl5889• 11 days ago

Great Read ! Thank you for such detailed introduction to UPI, I'm lookingfor such articles for mastercard or VISA

bsa33• 11 days ago

I am Indian. I dont use UPI. Never have. Has not effected my life in any way.

ksec2• 11 days ago

PIX from Brazil which is extremely similar to UPI.

Are there any reason why we can't have a global UPI system? Open Source with each Government running their own instances.

HexDecOctBin• 11 days ago

UPI has been adopted by eight countries and a few dozen are in progress [1]. Additionally, UPI has started to integrate with other nation's similar system (Singapore's PayNow [2] for instance).

[1] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2224505&re... [2] https://www.nipl.com/how-it-works/frequently-asked-questions...

ksec2• 10 days ago

Oh nice so this is really happening!

koe123• 11 days ago

UPI is cool! Anyone can put numbers to how this affects the growth of india? Formalizing parts of the economy perhaps?

UPI: Anatomy of a Payment Transaction

Related Stories