> someone has to pay to maintain the infrastructure. :shrug:

Under Indian law, companies must spend 2pc of their net profit on CSR activities (corporate social responsibility). Ask banks to use that money. The Indian banking sector made a combined profit of $40B this year. 2pc of that is $800M. Close to the $1B number.

> You've got to draw the line somewhere!

Draw it in the farm sector! They do not have to pay income tax on their income, get subsidies on fertilizers, free electricity, guaranteed prices for their crops. Small farmers cannot take advantage due to average holding size, and large farmers laugh all the way to the bank!

Is "2pc" the same as 2%?

Yes. Habit from typing on the phone where the % sign is hidden away somewhere on my keyboard!

I think you overestimate how many millionaire farmers we have. Most of Indian farm sector is small holdings and they need the subsidies. Most of the power is with intermediaries and not farmers themselves. The intermediaries fund the farmers through high interest loans and additionally they provide distribution. The situation is much more complex and needs a thorough rework.

The problem is not with the poor/small farmers. Those people are genuinely fucked over. The problem are the larger "farmers", quotations because they do not do the farming themselves, rather renting the fields out to landless laborers at extraordinary costs, in a system reminiscent of the medieval feudal systems

how does one become a farmer? seems like a good life. i'm indian btw.

> someone has to pay to maintain the infrastructure

Do you know what it costs to run the cash infrastructure? Maintaining physical branches, employees to handle cash, counting machines, counterfeit detectors, security personnel, armoured transport, theft risk etc. The costs of maintaining a centralised digital infrastructure pales in comparison to this. If anything you should get a discount for using digital.

There are other hidden benefits as well. Tax evasion and money laundering become a lot harder in a system that tracks transactions. That can be massive benefit or a dystopian nightmare depending on the people in charge, but for many governments that's something worth throwing money at.

At no point in human history did the government not try to control currencies.

But only since the digital age did the government actually _succeed_ in controlling currency on a massive scale, right up until the point cryptocurrency took off (and even that can be tracked, most cryptocurrencies are based on a public ledger after all).

> That can be massive benefit or a dystopian nightmare depending on the people in charge,

That just resolves to "dystopian nightmare", then. Any system whose proper functioning is dependent on always having the right people in charge is one that will inevitably function improperly.

While most transactions are smaller,

> Transactions above ₹2,000 account for only about 4% of total UPI transaction volume, but they make up roughly 67% of the total transaction value.

https://www.outlookbusiness.com/news/will-upi-payments-above...