The Indian fintech firm CRED has gained in-principle approval for a payment aggregator license, which could let it expand its product line, experiment more quickly, and provide better customer service.

Two people acquainted with the case claim that the $6.4 billion startup based in Bengaluru was granted in-principle clearance for the payment aggregator license this week by the Reserve Bank of India.

When contacted for comment, CRED did not immediately provide an answer.

Over the past year, the RBI has given numerous businesses, including Pine Labs and Reliance Payment, in-principle approval for payment aggregator licenses. After giving its in-principle approval, the central bank usually takes nine months to a year to grant final approval.

Payment aggregators play a crucial role in enabling digital transactions.

CRED has received the in-principle approval for payment aggregator license in a boost to the Indian fintech startup that could help it better serve its customers and launch new products and experiment with ideas faster.

The Bengaluru-headquartered startup, valued at $6.4 billion, received the in-principle approval from the Reserve Bank of India for the payment aggregator license this week, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

CRED didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

by serving as go-betweens for businesses and consumers. With the RBI’s permission, fintech companies can increase the scope of their products and improve their ability to compete.

Fintech businesses are forced to rely on outside payment processors to handle transactions in the absence of a license, and these players could not give such requirements priority. Fintech businesses can process payments directly, cut expenses, take more control over the payment flow, and onboard merchants directly by obtaining a license. Furthermore, licensed payment aggregators have the ability to settle payments directly with retailers.

According to an industry expert, CRED may “generally be everywhere their customers shop” and become available to more businesses with the help of a license.

The Indian central bank’s recent crackdown on various fintech business practices is in line with the in-principle license approval granted to CRED.

Payment aggregators are essential in facilitating online transactions by acting as intermediaries between merchants and customers. The RBI’s approval enables fintech firms to expand their offerings and compete more effectively in the market.

Without a license, fintech startups must rely on third-party payment processors to handle transactions, and these players may not prioritize such mandates. Obtaining a license allows fintech companies to process payments directly, reduce costs, gain greater control over payment flow, and onboard merchants directly. Additionally, payment aggregators with licenses can settle funds directly with merchants.

A license can also allow CRED to make itself available to more merchants and “generally be everywhere their customers shop,” an industry executive said.

and generally becoming more hesitant to issue companies any form of license. Earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of India made the startling decision to force Paytm Payments Bank to stop operating most of its businesses.

Tiger Global, Coatue, Peak XV, Sofina, Ribbit Capital, and Dragoneer are just a few of the wealthy clients that CRED caters to in India. Its main purpose when it debuted six years ago was to assist members in making on-time credit card payments. Since then, it has added loans and a number of other items to its lineup. It declared in February that it had achieved a deal to acquire Kuvera, a platform for investing in stocks and mutual funds.

and overall becoming more wary of giving firms any form of license. Earlier this year, the Reserve Bank of India issued an astounding order to Paytm Payments Bank to cease the majority of its operations.

Serving a sizable portion of India’s affluent clientele, CRED is backed by Tiger Global, Coatue, Peak XV, Sofina, Ribbit Capital, and Dragoneer. Since its initial inception six years ago, the platform has added loans and a number of other items to assist members pay their credit card payments on time. It declared in February that a deal to acquire the stock and mutual fund investing platform Kuvera had been achieved.


The United Auto Workers unveiled a bold plan last year to unionize employees and take control of foreign-owned auto factories in the South.

“We want to organize like we’ve never organized before,” stated UAW President Shawn Fain following the union’s historic contract victory, which included considerable salary and benefit increases from discussions with Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (previously Chrysler). “It won’t simply be the Big Three at the negotiating table when we get back there in 2028. The Big Five or Six will be there.

It’s possible that Fain underestimated the union’s goals, despite popular belief.

Thirteen automakers, including Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan, Volvo, and Tesla, who employ almost 150,000 people at 36 nonunion plants nationwide are the targets of U.A.W.

South. On Wednesday, 4,300 workers at a Volkswagen factory in Chattanooga, Tennessee, started voting on whether to form a union, posing the first significant test of its strategy. Voting expires on Friday. If it succeeds, it will be a turning point for the labor movement, which has had difficulty gaining traction in the South.

The threat of union triumph was so great that a number of Southern Republican governors declared they would oppose the U.A.W. campaign the day before the vote. The governors of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas released a joint statement stating that they were “extremely concerned about the unionization campaign driven by misinformation and scare tactics that the U.A.W. has brought into our states.” As governing bodies, we have a It is our duty to our constituents to speak out when we observe special interests attempting to enter our state and endanger our employment and core beliefs.

It should come as no surprise that conservative Republicans are against organized labor. However, given that this particular struggle is occurring in the South, it is difficult to ignore the region’s deeply ingrained animosity toward unions and any other organization or initiative that might threaten capital’s political and economic hegemony over Southern society as a whole.

Become a subscriber to Opinion Today. Every weekday morning, receive a guide to the major ideas influencing the globe and a professional analysis of the news. Have it delivered to your inbox.
The past The history of Southern political economy is largely shaped by the political and economic elites’ unshakable addiction to low- and no-wage labor. Of course, this meant slavery prior to the Civil War. An ideology that emphasized human bondage as the only firm basis for a stable society emerged from the soil of the cotton fields, rice paddies, and sugar plantations—the areas where the unusual institution was most profitable.

In a speech from 1858, South Carolina senator James Henry Hammond stated, “There must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life in all social systems.” It is the foundation of both society and political governance, therefore you might as well try to create a home in the air, so as to construct either one, aside from this mudsill.

Ten years later, the armies of freedom had smashed the slave system to ashes. The most valuable resource that the land-owning Southern elite had lost was an apparently limitless source of free labor. They would struggle to come close to it, but they would never get it back.

As part of a larger effort to dominate Southern labor, both Black and White, the following thirty years of Southern political life would be characterized by a turbulent campaign to stifle Black political and economic power. Southern elites put an end to the agrarian insurrection and populist movement of the 1890s by the turn of the 20th century, which brought impoverished Southerners of both races in a young, precarious political coalition while facing Jim Crow segregation and disenfranchisement.

As stated in “Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement,” by sociologist Jack M. Bloom

These White people also suffered a great deal as a result of the seeming loss of Populism and the subsequent denial of voting rights to Black people. They lost a lot of their voting rights. They had to abide by the strict conditions set by their employers, and they didn’t have labor organizations to challenge the wealthiest people’s continued authority. They discovered that the violent heritage of the area had turned against them when they attempted to organize unions.

Although white supremacy had won, not all white people would feel this way.

Jim Crow did not end Black political activism or class distinctions.

White people at odds with each other. However, it created a hierarchical system in which capital and land owners dominated society on both a social and economic level. Along with Robert Penn Warren’s demolished mills, grass-covered tracks, and “whitewashed shacks, all just alike, set in a row by the cotton fields,” it also created a world of destitution and underinvestment.

Southern political and economic elites fiercely opposed organized labor as it expanded rapidly in the 1930s, supported by Robert Wagner, Franklin Roosevelt, and the National Labor Relations Act, in order to protect this world. These same elites successfully blocked Operation Dixie, the Congress of Industrial Organizations’ postwar attempt to organize the South, in defense of this world.

It was defensive. In “Dollars for Dixie: Business and the Transformation of Conservatism in the Twentieth Century,” historian Katherine Rye Jewell highlights how Southern elites combined cultural traditionalism, anti-New Dealism, and free market ideology to create a new slogan of “free enterprise.” This was done to counteract a purported shift “away from individual responsibility, states’ rights, and local and community self-government,” as stated by the Southern States Industrial Council, a business organization that opposed Roosevelt’s plans for the nation.

For the political and economic elites of a region whose primary goal is to uphold a low-wage labor economy controlled by employers and the accompanying social order, organized labor has posed an existential threat. When a previous generation voiced concerns This one alerts us to U.A.W. socialism in place of C.I.O. “communism.” The Republican governors released a statement on Tuesday that states, “They proudly call themselves democratic socialists.”

I’m sure you’ve heard of the “New South.” The phrase, which gained popularity in the latter decades of the 1800s, was intended to set apart the progressive merchants and industrialists of the post-Reconstruction era from those whose eyes were fixed bleakly on the past. Historian C. Vann Woodward noted that it “vaguely set apart those whose faith lay in the future from those whose heart was with the past.”

The phrase reappeared in the middle of the 20th century to characterize the South’s development in the years and decades following World War II. The Civil Rights movement’s successes led to the creation of the New South, a more moderate region of integration and economic expansion.

Not one of the vote in Chattanooga, nor the forthcoming vote of the autoworkers at the Mercedes-Benz plant close to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, will determine whether or not the U.A.W. campaign in the South is ultimately successful. It will be a long march for organized labor, win or lose.

However, success might also imply the opportunity to reseed the ground in anticipation of a different kind of New South, much like a gardener assessing her plot for the upcoming growing season.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *