Pix Evolution and Implementation
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION
IDEALIZATION
EVOLUTION
NUMBERS
FUTURE
Source: BCB
0 to
99,99
Source: BCB
Chart 3.1.3 - Histogram of transactions
By value range (R$100,00)
Nov-20 to Dec-22
61.0%
14.3%
6.4%
3.8%
2.4%
2.4%
1.5% 1.0% 0.8%
100 to 199,99
200 to 299,99
300 to 399,99
400 to 499,99
500 to 599,99
600 to 699,99
Chart 3.1.4 - Histogram of transactions (only individuals)
By value range (R$20,00)
Nov/20 to Dec/22
31.4%
20.8%
13.3%
7.6%
6.4%
4,2%
3.7%
2.9%
1.6% 1.4%
700 to 799,99
800 to 899,99
0.6%
900 to 999,99
5.8%
over
1.000,00
# of transactions
(billions)
2.9
6.9%
1.4
0 to 20,00 to 40,00 to 60,00 to 80,00 to 100,00 120,00 140,00 160,00 180,00 over
19,99 39,99 59,00 79,99 99,99 to 119,00 to 139,99 to 159,99 to 179,99 to 199,99 200,00
0.0
4.3
5.8
7.2
# of transactions
(billions)
20
4
8
12
16
Fonte: BCB
Chart 3.1.5 - Histogram of transactions (only companies)
By value range (R$500,00)
Nov/20 to Dec/22
60.3%
11.3%
0.1
9.2%
6.3%
3.6%
2.9%
1.8%
1.8%
1.1%
1.1%
0.7%
0.0
0 to
499,99
500 to
1000 to
999,99
1499,99
1500 to
1999,99
2000 to
2499,99
2.500 to
2.999,99
3.000 to
3.499,99
3.500 to
3.999,99
4.000 to 4.500 to over 5.000
4.499,99 4.999,99
0.4
0.5
# of transactions
(billions)
Chart 3.1.6 Distribution of the number of transactions
By transaction nature
0.2
0.3
the total and 0.7% of the total financial amount, showing that Pix still has room
to grow in transactions involving government entities (charts 3.1.6 and 3.1.7).
20%
Pix is mostly used in transactions between individuals (P2P) while legal
entities transact greater financial volumes. Due to the easy and friendly user
experience provided by Pix, it was expected that most transactions would
be between individuals, which was the case. In November 2020, 87% of
transactions were between individuals (Chart 3.1.6). The adoption of Pix by
companies tends to be slower, mainly because it depends on adaptations on
merchants' systems. Even so, it has been already noticeda progressive increase
in the representativeness of transactions from individuals to companies (P2B):
from 5% in November 2020 to 24% in December 2022 (Chart 3.1.6).
Considering only transactions that took place in December 2022, the average
value of transactions between legal entities (B2B) was R$5.7 thousand, which
is much higher than the average value of P2P transactions, of R$257.00 (Chart
3.1.8). This difference was expected given the mostly commercial nature of
transactions between legal entities, which tend to contain higher individual
values. This fact is reflected in the high representation of B2B transfers in the
total financial amount settled, reaching 36% in December 2022 (Chart 3.1.7).
The transactions median, in December 2022, was lower than the averages for
all transaction types (Chart 3.1.8), 18 mainly on B2B transactions, which leads to
the conclusion that most transactions had lower values, with a few transactions
with relatively high values, corroborating the findings in charts 3.1.3 to 3.1.5.
Regarding transactions involving government entities, data from December
2022 illustrates that the number of transfers corresponded to only 0.1% of
0%
nov jan mar
2020 2021
may
jul
sep nov
jan mar may jul sep
2022
nov
■ P2P
P2B ■B2P ■B2B
■Others (Incl. government)
Source: BCB
Chart 3.1.7 - Distribution of the financial amount
By transaction nature
nov jan mar may jul sep nov jan mar may jul sep
2020 2021
2022
Source: BCB
P2P
P2B
B2P ■B2B Others (Incl. government)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
nov
18 P2P refers to transactions between individuals; P2B refers to transactions where the payer is an individual and the payee is a legal entity; B2P refers
to transactions where the payer is a legal entity and the recipient is an individual; B2B refers to transactions between legal entities; and "Others"
includes transactions involving government entities, both at the paying and receiving end.
40%
60%
80%
100%
19View entire presentation