UK 
I was about to order the keychain but noticed the bracelet is recommended instead. Should I avoid the keychain for the conversion service?
Thanks 
Looking forward to seeing how you like it on a regular basis.
Received mine. Couldn’t add any bank cards to it. Downloaded curve and tried to setup an account but they want me to apply for their credit card. It won’t let me bypass the application screen. Don’t know if I can go any further on this one
1 Like
Curve is a credit card service. Basically you get a curve credit card and you make purchases with that card, which are then immediately paid off using an attached debit card. The interim transaction runs through their credit card though. It’s the only way they can act as an aggregator.
1 Like
The problem is their application errors and it’s stuck in a confirm error confirm error loop
1 Like
Yep… this is what’s happening for a lot of people with curve US… it’s part of the reason they pulled back from the US market for right now.
I already have Curve, not really using it but it works for me.
The issue is what I found in the FAQ of the application dedicated for the wearable.
This need to reactivate the payment implant every 150€ would make it way more clunky and also would result in needing to always have your phone on you. The biggest advantage of an implant - being able to have nothing with you but still open doors and pay in stores - is basically nullified by this.
Also, does it mean that you cannot make payments over 50€?
1 Like
Good find… That’s really crappy though.
1 Like
It is a deal breaker for me, I thought I would be getting one but nope. Waiting for something that just works and has no expiration or need for in-app authentication refreshes.
1 Like
Just a heads up any tokenized payment device will still require occasional provisioning of a new token, which will mean using your phone on the device. That’s the point of the tokenization system, that you can create a new one whenever the old one is compromised or at arbitrary intervals depending on the whims of the issuers and schemes
Just a heads up any tokenized payment device will still require occasional provisioning of a new token
Sure, but not every 150 euro, right? For instance with Fidesmo Pay I would not have such issues, do I understand right?
I knew that those tokens expire, I just did not think they expire this often. If that is the case and it does not get better than this I might actually decide to get one after all…
I live in the US. As far as I can tell there are no truly tokenized wearables available here. There are a few in the EU though, and they have an international directive called EU payment services directive 2 that all card issuers must comply with to operate in the EU. The original impetus behind the transaction ceiling on contactless payment was to protect consumers from their card data being skimmed and used in replay attacks. With tokenization becoming prevalent they seem to have expanded it to require retokenization of the device every €150. I’m not sure who that’s protecting. It could be to prevent some nuanced attack where the token is compromised, or it could be regulators lack of understanding about the technology.
It depends on where you live, but this
Seems like very restrictive criteria. To each their own, but I’ve had the ability to pay with implants for over 3 years now. I just want to have that functionality, and I’ll do whatever it takes to have it as soon as possible. If you’re always waiting for the perfect thing you’ll never get anything. I feel that’s the core distinction between a grinder and a consumer.
3 Likes
So it looks like all those options have this limitation, including the WalletMoor, right? I guess I will have to think this through.
Honestly the Apex line is the first one that I feel like for a very specific audience (that I am a part of) makes very practical sense. It allows you to fuse your digital identity with the physical one and allows to keep your crypto as safe as it gets, which is very good for a very specific audience. Good enough for them to get in on it without being grinders themselves.
I always loved the idea of implants and transhumanism, as well as CRISPR editing and so on, but I waited for something that had real practical implcation for me, and the Apex is exactly that.
The reprovisioning may apply to every tokenized device (I’m not positive, but that’s what curve is saying). Other devices that are not tokenized do not have that limitation. Most of the Walletmors use an iCard chip, which is at most psuedo-tokenization. In reality it’s pointing at a real card in the backend of their system, so you can use it until the expiration date without constantly tapping to your phone (I think from other posts, I don’t have one).
There are also other conversion options that count as regular cards. They expire, but it’s usually 5+years out and require no phone interaction at all. Truth be told, even truly 100% tokenized payment devices will eventually “expire” when Mastercard and Visa no longer trust the security of the technology they’re based on, but that’s hypothetically more of a 10 year timeline (unless quantum computing becomes commercially viable).
I mean I’m biased, but I think Javacard implants are really compelling, and I like the ecosystem that VivoKey has put together. The addition of the flexsecure as an option for those who want more control just seals the deal.
2 Likes
Yeah, I am really about to pull the trigger on an Apex. Just not sure if I can be comfortable with the standard Flex for range, or if I need the Mega and if I do if that works on the back of the hand… And yeah, definitely getting a flexsecure since I need a second one for key backup and having one to play more with seems fun.
1 Like
If you are in the EU then by law this won’t ever be a thing if the payment chip sent for conversion or solution offered is considered “wearable” in the context of EU law.
First hurdle is getting implants approved for use with MasterCard / Visa as legitimate payment devices, and then second hurdle is to ensure they are somehow not considered wearable devices in the EU, and third hurdle is somehow ensuring the provisioning and tokenization of these devices are properly categorized by MasterCard / Visa as an implant (not a card, not a wearable).
The context here is that cards and wearables have these additional security requirements because they can be easily lost of stolen, so if you lose your payment ring the EU law states that only 150 euro can be lost (basically) because the finder / thief would not be able to re-activate it. A true nanny state approach.
In the US, it’s the opposite… you lose your stuff, you take responsibility and you take action to deactivate it / resolve the problem. Rugged individualism… which can be harsh and even downright cruel at times… but, as they say, that’s the price of freedom 
6 Likes
I prefer individualism. Now, I wish that the IRS was more individualistic so that moving to the US was more attractive.
Collectivists don’t have a problem with turning your life into a living hell if you don’t comply, even if complying with their expectations puts you and others in danger. Just thinking about this makes me so fucking angry…
1 Like
I am an individualist myself. Still, I think that this EU norm is not really about collectivism over individualism.
In the European Union, banks generally protect individuals in cases of card cloning or unauthorized use of contactless payment chips, at least as far as I understand (I am nearly sure, but not completely sure about the exceptions.)
Payment Services Directive (PSD2): This EU directive, especially in its updated form (PSD2), lays down strict security requirements for electronic payments and the protection of consumers’ financial data. It mandates strong customer authentication and ensures that consumers are not liable for unauthorized payments, except in cases of negligence.
Consumer Rights Directive: This directive outlines the rights of consumers in the EU, including provisions for fraud and mistakes in payments.
When a contactless chip is stolen and used without authorization, the affected person can report the unauthorized transactions to their bank. The bank then investigates the claim. If it is found to be valid, the bank refunds the amount to the customer.
Those funds may be covered by insurance (sure, the money can be sometimes recovered from the criminals, but for small sums, I bet they do not even initiate investigations).
In the end, those kinds of rules do not protect the end user who was protected regardless by those other rules.
Those chargeback rules are what we may dispute here. But then again, I heard a lot of horror stories in the US of people who had their personal information stolen by a fraudster who got them into debt and the banks just told them they were shit out of luck, so I am not really against those.
The US is an interesting place, but honestly, I would qualify it way more as a plutocracy than a land of individualism. You can do as you please as long as you do not infringe on the possibility to make profits of some company, this shows more in healthcare than anywhere else.
We can debate if socialized healthcare is the best solution or not. I personally like it, and usually in countries where you have socialized healthcare you also get private offerings that are usually faster than the almost free public offerings, so why not have more options? But this is beside the point.
My biggest concern as an outsider with US healthcare is the artificially increased prices, with even simple pills that cost very little elsewhere costing outrageous sums of money. Public healthcare creating competition or regulation keeping the corporations in check would help here.
A much better example of lacking individualism is drug policy. I believe the state should have no say on whether someone can or cannot put any nonsense in their veins, but the US is a war on drugs leader. There should be no crime without a victim and anything going on between consenting adults should be fair game.
Of course, those opinions are largely based on my interpretation of individualism as freedom to choose among as many options as possible, not the complete absence of rules. I believe corporations can exercise as much control as the state and both need to be kept in check or they infringe on individual freedoms.
So my idea is for the most part that we need to keep the state in check so that it keeps minding its business and also keeps corporations in check instead of ending up corrupted by them. I for instance stand for rules like the right to repair or product ownership (against trends like companies remotely bricking products when new versions come out, for instance.)
2 Likes