[HN Gopher] Google Play Store bans wallets that don't have banki...
___________________________________________________________________
Google Play Store bans wallets that don't have banking license
Author : madars
Score : 76 points
Date : 2025-08-13 18:47 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.therage.co)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.therage.co)
| exabrial wrote:
| Whatd be nice is to have litrally any other option besides google
| pay, as they refuse to run on Graphene
| wmf wrote:
| [Edit: Sorry, I misread Google Pay as Google Play.]
| subscribed wrote:
| Non sequitur, why would you even post that comment?
|
| Google Pay doesn't hold/process crypto, crypto wallets don't
| allow paying with payment terminals (nfc pay, tap to pay,
| etc).
| subscribed wrote:
| NFC works, so until EC processes GOS complaint you can try
| payment apps, eg Curve, PayPal in Germany, Santander allegedly
| works too.
|
| My workaround is Garmin Pay on my wrist. Works fully offline
| and I have it always handy.
| bbbbbenji wrote:
| There's Curve Pay.
|
| https://www.curve.com/
| monksy wrote:
| This is yet more corporate/government overreach on devices that
| you're supposed to own.
|
| Trying to prevent software from being available/installed that
| isn't even in the "legitimate harm" list. That's insane.
|
| I could rant a lot about where we're in a really horrible you
| don't own your phone and other people believe they own it world,
| but that would be going off topic here. (I.e. business you go to
| the store is trying to force and pressure you to install apps..
| i.e. sams club, or tours/businesses pushing you excessively to
| use whatsapp, etc )
| msgodel wrote:
| You'll be much happier if you just pretend smartphones don't
| exist and don't own one.
| reorder9695 wrote:
| Issue there is with e.g. 3DS for banking, tesco clubcard
| (read: extortion), TOTP
| monksy wrote:
| Ticketmaster with "ticketless entry" being forced. (No
| printouts/paper tickets)
| MrFots wrote:
| Stop going to events. Full stop.
| fsflover wrote:
| Why would you do that if GNU/Linux smartphones exist? Sent
| from my Librem 5.
| jrflowers wrote:
| Because I hate it when my phone auto-appends the name of my
| device onto the ends of my messages
| monksy wrote:
| Not all devices do that. -Sent from my wevibe
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Maybe it's time to start a phone that people can own, which
| inside will have a phone they they do not own but it's
| compliant with banking, govt, and other regulations
| fsflover wrote:
| It exists. Sent from my Librem 5.
| ChocolateGod wrote:
| You can use the Librem 5 to pay for things in stores? Since
| when?
| elzbardico wrote:
| I could use a bunch of nice metal and plastic cards to
| pay things in stores if I owned a Librem 5. A small price
| to pay for freedom that seem each day a bit more
| enticing.
| WA wrote:
| The status quo most software devs believe about software is: _I
| can do whatever I want_
|
| In reality, software isn't like this anymore. You, as a dev,
| gotta comply with various regulations and local laws if you
| intend to distribute software. Sure, most software in the app
| stores is still unregulated, but think of medical software
| (HIPAA or FDA in the US, MDR in the EU) or all software dealing
| with personal data (GDPR in EU), gambling (most countries), AI
| stuff (AI Act in EU), copyright (most countries) etc.
|
| This is simply Alphabet (the company) having to comply with new
| regulation. In some way, this sucks for users and for devs, in
| other ways, it helps to protect users of (shitty) software.
|
| And if you think about it, software seems to be the only thing
| you can sell without thinking for one second about regulations
| most of the time. It's kinda odd.
|
| What's the possible harm? Malicious wallet app stealing users
| crypto coins for example.
| Hizonner wrote:
| In reality, there is no such legal requirement for crypto
| wallets, at least at the moment, at least in the large
| majority of the places Google is doing this, and there is no
| reason to believe that Google even _thinks_ there 's a legal
| requirement on _Google_ to do this.
|
| So did you have any more irrelevant things to say?
| mikestew wrote:
| _So did you have any more irrelevant things to say?_
|
| That was uncalled for, and your point could have been made
| without it.
| kube-system wrote:
| Often the most expedient way to comply with regulation is
| with a heavy hand. It is easier to accurately group apps by
| cryptocurrency/non-cryptocurrency than by custodial/non-
| custodial. And pissing off a couple of crypto enthusiasts
| is better for their business than pissing off regulators.
| So this is the best side of the line for them to err on.
| kube-system wrote:
| No, this is Google choosing what to carry inside of the store
| that _they own_. Google Play is and always has always been
| curated.
| Hizonner wrote:
| OK, so this shows that Google's curation sucks and is anti-
| user, and nobody should be using Google's store. Happy?
| kube-system wrote:
| It sucks for hundreds or maybe thousands of users and is
| great for millions or maybe billions of users.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| FDroid users have been saying this for years, so they are
| probably estatic now.
|
| Hasn't hit much of their market share, though.
| NoahZuniga wrote:
| And you can still install these apps through alternative
| methods. I'd trust a wallet I downloaded from f-droid more
| than from google play anyway.
| franga2000 wrote:
| As far as I can tell, this is purely a Google thing, not a
| government thing. The cited laws apply to money services, so
| something like a custodial wallet would count, but a vendor
| that just makes a local crypto wallet and never touches your
| money doesn't fall into that. Google has simply decided to ban
| more than necessary "just in case".
| warkdarrior wrote:
| You can use alternate stores to get your desired Android apps.
| There is F-Droid, Amazon Appstore for Android, Huawei
| AppGallery, Samsung Galaxy Store, Aptoide, Uptodown, APKMirror,
| APKPure, Xiaomi GetApps, OPPO App Market, AppBrain App Market,
| 9Apps, and probably others I forgot.
| monksy wrote:
| You can't. Some apps are explicitly linked to the play
| services. This is an issue with 3rd party roms and you see
| this issue on graphine os installs.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Some apps are explicitly linked to the play services.
|
| But that's the developers problem. Literally what even is
| the point of a non-custodial crypto wallet that depends on
| Google's services?
| charcircuit wrote:
| Just because the keys reside on someone else's device, that
| doesn't mean you aren't responsible for their money when you
| control the code that is running.
| tripplyons wrote:
| Would you say the same for the encryption keys held within the
| Signal app? Why would Google be responsible for what people do
| on their own phones?
| charcircuit wrote:
| I would say the same that the developers of Signal have a lot
| of responsibility in the code they right not to leak or steal
| everyone's private messages. It's in Google's interest to
| have a healthy platform that people trust. They don't want
| people to associate Android with having your private messages
| leaked.
| tripplyons wrote:
| I still don't see why it would be Google's fault if there
| was a vulnerability in an app. Would you also say it is
| their fault if I enter my personal information into a
| vulnerable site on Google Chrome?
| kube-system wrote:
| It doesn't have to be _their fault_ to be their
| _problem_. Google does take steps to protect Google
| Chrome users from being phished, because this causes
| problems for them.
| greyface- wrote:
| Related proposed legislation that would explicitly shield app
| stores (and wallet developers) from any liability related to such
| wallets: https://saveourwallets.org/
| https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3633...
| Analemma_ wrote:
| This looks like a bill releasing providers from any liability
| if they fuck up and lose all my money via engineering
| incompetence. Which they probably will, because history has
| repeatedly shown that crypto is total amateur hour.
|
| No thanks. I'll be calling my rep to urge them to vote against
| this.
| ronsor wrote:
| The point of non-custodial wallets is that the developer does
| not have your private keys, so they don't control your funds.
| While it's possible for the software to have bugs, remember
| that almost all software is already provided AS IS WITHOUT
| ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, and that in no event with
| the authors be liable for any damages arising out of or
| related to its use.
| OutOfHere wrote:
| While that's true, even non-custodial wallet providers get
| a commission from swap providers, some of which steal money
| altogether. As per Reddit, an example of such a scamming
| swapper is Exolix. This makes it a responsibility of the
| wallet to not collude with scammers.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| You're eliding the difference between software and a
| provider of financial services. My bank is absolutely
| liable if they fuck up and lose my money, and crypto
| entities should be as well.
| ronsor wrote:
| Yes, but a non-custodial wallet isn't anything resembling
| a bank. What you're arguing is basically that a
| (traditional) wallet manufacturer should be liable if you
| misplace your wallet and have all your cash stolen.
| kube-system wrote:
| That's only because you losing a physical wallet is your
| own negligence and not the negligence of the
| manufacturer. Not because there is no possible way that a
| digital wallet manufacturer couldn't lose your money due
| to their own negligence (or even malice).
| kube-system wrote:
| Warranty disclaimers can only disclaim warranty as far as
| the law otherwise allows.
| logicchains wrote:
| >releasing providers from any liability if they fuck up and
| lose all my money via engineering incompetence
|
| If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app that
| steals their coins, they're the one at fault. How about
| trying to take some personal responsibility, instead of
| trying to get the full force of government to stop other
| people keeping custody of their own coins, just to protect
| yourself from potentially making a bad decision and
| installing a dodgy app? _Edited to remove a personal attack_
| lupusreal wrote:
| It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong
| plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge TV
| and they break in to steal it a week later. That's _your
| own_ fault, stop trying to get the government involved!
| Sheesh, I just don 't understand why simple libertarian
| principles like this get people confused.
| logicchains wrote:
| >It's kind of like when you fuck up and hire the wrong
| plumber and he tells his burglar friend about your huge
| TV and they break in to steal it a week later. That's
| your own fault, stop trying to get the government
| involved! Sheesh, I just don't understand why simple
| libertarian principles like this get people confused.
|
| That's a great example because the venue where the
| plumber posted his advertisement would not be liable for
| the plumber's actions.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Not even if they knew, or should reasonably have known,
| that the plumber was doing this?
| logicchains wrote:
| Are you implying that any app that allows personal
| custody of cryptocurrency is a scam? Because that's not a
| reasonable assumption to make; the possibility of self-
| custody is one of the main arguments made for
| cryptocurrency.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be
| liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you
| should be held responsible for losing your customers'
| money.
|
| Edit: I use grapheneos and I don't agree with google gate-
| keeping what people put on their phone. I just thinks
| crypto companies, like any company, should be held
| accountable for their actions.
| logicchains wrote:
| >This sounds a bit like arguing that doctors shouldn't be
| liable for harming a patient. If you make a shady app you
| should be held responsible for losing your customers'
| money.
|
| That's not what the issue is; the issue is that Play
| Store would ban _any_ app allowing coin self-custody,
| even if the app isn't any way shady.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| I'm not responding to the article I'm responding to this
| in the parent comment
|
| > If someone fucks up and downloads some shady wallet app
| that steals their coins, they're the one at fault.
|
| I don't agree with what google is doing. I think we
| should be able to download whatever we want on our
| phones. I think it's not a good take that the customer
| instead of the company, is the one that should be held
| responsible if a company fucks up.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| How do you reconcile these two choices?
|
| * we should be able to download whatever we want on our
| phones
|
| * not a good take that the customer [...] is one that
| should be held responsible
| blokey wrote:
| Please don't make such personal attacks, it doesn't add to
| the conversation.
|
| If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a
| company with a banking license, then could you not side
| load it?
|
| We have basic minimum standards in our food safety, why not
| have them in our financial services?
|
| You, as an expert in the field still can download any
| application you wish, but others that may not be an expert,
| are given some protection from potentially AI Slop apps
| that they wouldn't understand are dangerous.
| logicchains wrote:
| >If you want to have a wallet app that is not backed by a
| company with a banking license, then could you not side
| load it?
|
| If you haven't noticed, there's a concerted push to make
| side-loading harder and harder. Sure it's an option for
| now, but it's quite possible we're only a few years away
| from Google going the Apple route and the vast majority
| of mobile devices not supporting installing unapproved
| software.
| kube-system wrote:
| Fraud and theft is illegal basically everywhere, and the
| people who commit those crimes are at fault for them.
| Stealing money is the fault of the person who steals the
| money.
| darth_avocado wrote:
| Venmo doesn't have a banking license afaik. Do they ban that? Do
| we start using the Starbucks app as a wallet?
| solumos wrote:
| Venmo uses PayPal's MSB/MTLs, per https://venmo.com/
|
| > Venmo is a service of PayPal, Inc., a licensed provider of
| money transfer services (NMLS ID: 910457). All money
| transmission is provided by PayPal, Inc. pursuant to PayPal,
| Inc.'s licenses. (c) 2021 PayPal, Inc.
|
| See also:
|
| https://venmo.com/legal/us-licenses/
| skywhopper wrote:
| What a silly thing to say.
| mockingloris wrote:
| This move feels inevitable. I expect we'll come to see an all-
| time high in "vibe-coded" apps and services/products built with
| surface-level understanding by creators and used by people with
| even less technical awareness.
|
| Most developers in this new wave don't fully grasp the systems
| they're building, and end-users operate in total opacity. _I
| have_ personally used AI to generate code scaffolds, and spend
| hours debugging edge cases, printing GitHub issues, and feeding
| API docs back into the system to stair it right enough times that
| I end up understanding a lot more what it is I plan on
| implementing as I reach a solid implementation. The average user
| wouldn 't even know where to start with that.
|
| Google's policy isn't an overreach; more like a reaction to the
| coming tsunami of superficially functional but fundamentally
| fragile tools. This is just the first domino. Expect more
| platform-level interventions as poorly understood tech stacks
| meet real-world consequences.
|
| The era of _" move fast and break things"_ is colliding with
| domains where broken things ruin lives. I wouldn't want any
| family members/close friends getting to swallow the latter pill.
|
| |
|
| +-- Dey well; Be well
| hulitu wrote:
| > This move feels inevitable
|
| Does Google has a banking licence ? I've never heard of "Google
| bank". What is so special about Google Pay ?
| skywhopper wrote:
| Yes, here's the list of per-state licenses of Google
| Payments, in the United States:
| https://support.google.com/googlepay/answer/7160765?hl=en
| bilsbie wrote:
| Adults must be protected from themselves at all costs!
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| >The era of "move fast and break things" is colliding with
| domains where broken things ruin lives
|
| I sure wish we could tell that to the AI industry that pushed
| such changes to begin with. This is a good control factor, but
| the true perpertrators are at large.
| is_true wrote:
| In Europe and US
| miohtama wrote:
| Google backs off after the noise
|
| https://x.com/newsfromgoogle/status/1955741506440192463?s=52...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-13 23:01 UTC)