Tinyemeka:

Very valid points raised. Especially as regards tokenization and authenticating requests. Sorry you got debited several times without service being rendered. I believe the USSD feature was introduced to deliver mobile banking to everyone including those who couldn't afford the cost of the hardware tokens.

I'm sure if they investigated deeper (core IT staff), the bank could determine where your funds went when you requested to purchase airtime using the short code. Kpele.

P.S, I'm not with GTB O. Coolu temper ejoor.

no point investigating anything, what if airtel or glo or whaeva network decides to be fraudulent,
and make the request at the background without me even requesting it?

or you mean they are big companies, they cant commit fraud?
let them introduce token since networks wont be able to guess a valid token

slightlyMad:


no point investigating anything, what if airtel or glo or whaeva network decides to be fraudulent,
and make the request at the background without me even requesting it?

or you mean they are big companies, they cant commit fraud?
let them introduce token since networks wont be able to guess a valid token

You are strongly playing the Devil's advocate here. Beaten me hands down I see no point in putting up any more defense.
But why would the telco want to expose themselves to that great risk with little reward of hitting customers' bank accounts (that's if it's even possible? *904*amt# is the exception that's got me confused). Customers are bound to get transaction alerts from their bank accounts.

My arguments aside, what do you think about the use of static PINs as against the random ones generated by tokens to Auth transactions? If customers must tokens, does it mean PINs aren't reliable?