WERO: The EU’s payment dream that could become a merchant’s nightmare

The rise and fall of local control EU bulldozer will destroy the full landscape.

a blog article written by Dirk Robert Meij

Europe has long prided itself on having some of the world’s most efficient, low cost, and fraud resistant local payment systems. In the Netherlands, iDEAL revolutionised online payments instant, final, and trusted by virtually every Dutch consumer and merchant. In Belgium, Bancontact made domestic transfers seamless and affordable. In Germany, GiroPay connected consumers to merchants directly through banks.

Each of these systems evolved within its own cultural and economic context solving local problems with local solutions.

Now comes WERO, the flagship project of the European Payments Initiative (EPI). Marketed as “Europe’s answer” to Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal, WERO promises to unify the fragmented payment landscape and offer a single wallet for all Europeans. On paper, that sounds visionary: one app, one network, one European identity.

But behind the buzzwords of “sovereignty” and “harmonisation” lies a darker truth WERO’s arrival threatens to dismantle the very systems that made European payments efficient in the first place.

It’s not building on local success it’s buying it, absorbing it, and erasing it.

The Problem: Killing local payment methods

WERO’s strategy isn’t to compete with local systems it’s to absorb and replace them. By acquiring existing payment networks, EPI is effectively erasing decades of local innovation in favor of a one size fits all system.

Why this is relevant

. Local systems work because they’re built for the culture, regulations, and trust models of their markets.

. WERO adds complexity instead of simplicity for both consumers and merchants.

. Merchants lose bargaining power once all local alternatives disappear.

EPI has made no secret of its strategy: rather than competing with local payment methods, it’s buying them. WERO already acquired iDEAL and Payconiq, effectively merging the backbones of Dutch and Belgian payments into a single corporate-controlled infrastructure.

What this means in practice is that WERO isn’t introducing choice or competition it’s creating a monopoly under the EU flag.

1. Local payment methods are community assets.
   They are co developed by banks, merchants, and consumers in their respective countries. They reflect how people want to pay not how they are told to pay. Centralising them strips away that local ownership and responsiveness.
2. WERO will increase complexity, not reduce it.
   A unified app must adapt to dozens of national banking systems, languages, consumer laws, and tax frameworks. What was once simple like a Dutch merchant using iDEAL’s flat €0.29 cost per transaction will now be wrapped in new compliance layers, integration costs, and unknown settlement terms.
3. Merchants will lose leverage.
   Once local options are gone, WERO becomes the default gatekeeper. The same dynamic that made Visa and Mastercard so dominant in global commerce could replay on a continental scale only this time, under the illusion of “European independence.”

The Cost Explosion: From cents to percentages

With iDEAL, a merchant could pay as little as €0.29 per transaction predictable, flat, and transparent.

WERO is moving toward a fixed + percentage based pricing model, aligning with credit card economics. That means:

• Higher fees for large purchases
• Variable and opaque pricing
• Ultimately, a cost shift from consumers to merchants

This isn’t innovation it’s a regression to the same high fee, risk laden system that Europe has long resisted.

For decades, local payment systems thrived because they kept costs low, predictable, and fair. With iDEAL, a merchant typically paid €0.29 per transaction fixed, regardless of transaction size. There were no hidden fees, no percentage cuts, and no long settlement times. That predictability allowed small businesses to plan and scale confidently.

WERO changes that.

According to early pricing discussions and EPI’s communications with banks, WERO plans to introduce a hybrid pricing model a fixed fee plus a variable percentage per transaction. This model mirrors credit card economics, where large transactions cost disproportionately more, and smaller ones still get clipped by base fees.

The Impact on Merchants

. Higher margins for intermediaries: Instead of the transaction being a simple transfer between consumer and merchant banks, it now routes through WERO’s infrastructure adding another layer that extracts value.

. Less transparency: Card like pricing often hides behind tiered fees and merchant categories. Expect similar complexity under WERO.

. Incentive to raise prices: As fees rise, merchants pass them on to consumers which ultimately reduces trust in digital payments.

What used to cost a few cents could now cost over 1% of a transaction, depending on volume. For an e commerce merchant with thin margins, that’s devastating.

The risk shift: From zero risk to chargeback chaos

One of iDEAL’s strongest features was its irreversibility no chargebacks, no “friendly fraud,” no disputes clogging merchant support desks.

WERO’s “consumer protection” flips this logic. By introducing refund and chargeback rights, it incentivizes fraud, creating operational headaches and losses for merchants all while being marketed as “pro consumer.”

In reality, it’s anti-small business.

Local systems like iDEAL and Bancontact are popular because they’re final.
Once a transaction is confirmed, it’s settled no chargebacks, no disputes, no clawbacks. This model creates trust and simplicity for merchants: payment received means payment secured.

WERO’s “innovation” is to introduce consumer protection a term that sounds noble, but in practice, it’s a loophole for fraud.

Here’s how it plays out:

• A consumer pays through WERO.
• The merchant delivers the goods.
• Days or weeks later, the consumer files a “dispute” or “non delivery” claim.
• WERO (like PayPal or card issuers) sides with the consumer, refunding the transaction.

The merchant loses both the money and the product and gets hit with operational costs for dispute management.

This model doesn’t improve trust it transfers risk from banks to merchants.
It creates a perverse incentive for opportunistic fraud while pretending to “protect” consumers.

Under the guise of “security,” WERO is reintroducing the very dynamics Europe worked decades to eliminate.

Why a centralised EU payment system will fail

WERO’s biggest flaw isn’t technical it’s cultural and economic.

Europe is a mosaic, not a monolith.

Consumer behavior, regulation, and trust vary by country:

The Netherlands: People are used to instant, direct bank payments. They trust speed and reliability over reversibility.

Germany: Privacy and control are paramount. A unified app storing cross border data will face resistance.

France: Consumers are accustomed to card-based systems and buyer protection WERO adds little new value there.

Nordics: MobilePay, Vipps, and Swish already dominate peer to peer and retail payments.

In other words: local systems already solve the local problem better.

The notion that one EU branded payment app can replace all of them ignores decades of behavioral and regulatory diversity. Even if WERO achieves technical success, its adoption will falter because it offers less trust, more cost, and no clear benefit.

The Bigger Picture: The politics of control

EPI’s motivation is clear: strategic sovereignty.

Europe wants to reduce reliance on U.S. payment giants like Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal a legitimate goal. But sovereignty should not come at the cost of merchant independence and market diversity.

If WERO becomes the only viable network, it effectively recreates the same concentration of power Europe claims to resist just under a different flag.
Instead of empowering local banks and fintechs, it centralises decision making into a new bureaucracy that dictates pricing, risk, and access.

We risk replacing foreign control with centralized European control and the result for merchants will be the same: higher costs, less freedom, and more risk.

What we should do: Don’t support WERO defend local payment sovereignty

WERO markets itself as the future of European payments, but it’s built on the bones of the systems that already worked. Europe doesn’t need a single wallet; it needs an ecosystem of interoperable, efficient, low cost payment options.

The EU’s goal of financial independence should be achieved by empowering local solutions not erasing them. Merchants, consumers, regulators, and payment professionals must demand transparency on:

. Pricing structure fixed, predictable fees must remain the norm.

. Risk allocation merchants should not bear the cost of fraud disguised as “consumer protection.”

. Governance WERO must not become a monopolistic gatekeeper.

If Europe truly values competition, trust, and economic autonomy, it should preserve diversity, not crush it.

Europe doesn’t need one wallet It Needs Many Choices

WERO could have been a bridge between local payment systems instead, it’s shaping up to be a steamroller.

By destroying local networks in the name of efficiency, EPI risks alienating merchants and consumers alike. The outcome will be predictable: fewer choices, higher costs, more fraud, and declining trust.

Europe doesn’t need another PayPal clone wrapped in blue and yellow.
It needs a payments landscape where innovation happens from the ground up, not from Brussels down.

Let’s not call this progress.
Let’s call it what it is: a quiet takeover of Europe’s most successful payment systems.