We will not be able to choose which issuers participate
Quando uma fintech colapsa, a questão mais duradoura raramente é o colapso em si — é quem, afinal, carrega o peso do que ficou para trás. Com a liquidação do Will Bank em janeiro, a Mastercard se viu responsável por bilhões em transações não liquidadas e agora propõe redistribuir esse ônus às credenciadoras brasileiras, invocando uma janela regulatória que, segundo seus críticos, já havia se fechado. O que está em jogo não é apenas dinheiro, mas a arquitetura de responsabilidade que sustenta toda a infraestrutura de pagamentos do país.
- A liquidação repentina do Will Bank deixou cerca de R$5 bilhões em transações em aberto, e a Mastercard reembolsou as credenciadoras em apenas metade desse valor.
- Agora a Mastercard propõe usar os próprios pagamentos dos clientes do Will Bank para se ressarcir primeiro, antes de repassar qualquer valor às processadoras — uma inversão da ordem de prioridades que o setor rejeita.
- Rede, Cielo, Stone e PagSeguro recusam a lógica: a Cielo declarou publicamente que credenciadoras não têm — e nunca tiveram — responsabilidade pelas garantias das operações de emissores.
- A Mastercard argumenta que, como o Will Bank foi liquidado em janeiro e as novas regras do Banco Central só exigiam adaptação até maio, o caso deveria ser julgado pelo regime anterior — uma interpretação que as processadoras contestam.
- O impasse aponta para uma disputa regulatória e jurídica que vai definir como o sistema financeiro brasileiro distribui perdas quando fintechs falham dentro de redes de cartão estabelecidas.
Quando o Will Bank entrou em liquidação em janeiro, a Mastercard assumiu o papel de garantidora de última instância para bilhões em transações que a fintech havia processado sob sua bandeira. O problema: os cerca de R$5 bilhões movimentados pelos clientes do Will Bank junto às credenciadoras brasileiras resultaram em um reembolso parcial — aproximadamente metade do valor devido. Agora, a Mastercard quer mudar as regras do jogo.
Segundo fontes e minutas contratuais analisadas pela Bloomberg News, a proposta da Mastercard é usar os pagamentos que os próprios clientes do Will Bank ainda realizaram no sistema para se ressarcir primeiro — e só então repassar o restante às processadoras. A proposta foi enviada a um amplo grupo de credenciadoras, de Rede e Cielo a Stone e PagSeguro.
O argumento jurídico da Mastercard gira em torno de uma janela temporal: as novas regras do Banco Central, que tornam as empresas de pagamento diretamente responsáveis por garantir todas as transações com recursos próprios, tinham prazo de adaptação até maio. Como o Will Bank foi liquidado em janeiro, a Mastercard sustenta que o regime anterior ainda se aplica — e que já cumpriu suas obrigações ao cobrir as faturas em aberto nos primeiros trinta dias após a liquidação.
As credenciadoras não aceitam essa leitura. A Cielo foi a mais direta: em nota, afirmou que adquirentes não têm responsabilidade pelas garantias vinculadas à operação dos emissores e que jamais tiveram poder de escolher quais emissores participam de um arranjo. A posição reflete um consenso do setor de que cabe à rede de cartões — não às processadoras — responder pela integridade das transações realizadas em sua plataforma.
A Mastercard não comentou a proposta. Stone e Rede também não se manifestaram. O silêncio contrasta com a magnitude da disputa: o que está sendo negociado é, na prática, quem absorve as perdas de uma falha sistêmica — e se as novas salvaguardas regulatórias do Banco Central são robustas o suficiente para impedir que essas perdas sejam repassadas ao longo da cadeia.
When Will Bank collapsed in January, it left a mess that Mastercard is now trying to clean up—by asking others to help pay for it. The fintech, which issued credit cards under the Mastercard brand, went under suddenly, leaving the card network on the hook for billions in disputed transactions. Now, according to people familiar with the matter and documents reviewed by Bloomberg News, Mastercard is proposing a solution that would shift much of the financial burden onto the very payment processors who handled those transactions in the first place.
The scale of the problem is substantial. Will Bank customers had processed roughly R$5 billion in payments through various payment processors—the companies known in Brazil as credenciadoras, or acquiring companies—before the fintech's liquidation. Mastercard stepped in and reimbursed these processors, but only for about half of what they were owed. Now the card network wants to change the arrangement. According to sources and contract drafts seen this week, Mastercard is proposing to use the funds that Will Bank customers themselves paid into the system to reimburse Mastercard first, with whatever remains going to the payment processors.
The proposal has been circulated to a broad group of acquiring companies, ranging from bank-owned operations like Rede and Cielo to independent payment processors like Stone and PagSeguro. It represents a significant shift in how the losses from Will Bank's failure would be distributed across the payments ecosystem.
But Mastercard's timing and legal argument face immediate pushback. Brazil's Central Bank issued new rules months before Will Bank's collapse that make payment companies directly responsible for guaranteeing all transactions, with no exceptions. The rules require these companies to use their own resources if their protective mechanisms prove insufficient. Mastercard, however, is arguing that the Will Bank case should not fall under this new framework. The card network contends that since payment companies had until May to adapt to the new rules, and Will Bank was liquidated in January, the old standards should apply. Mastercard estimates it already satisfied its obligations under the rules in effect at the time by using its own resources to cover the first thirty days of outstanding invoices after liquidation.
The payment processors are not accepting this logic. Cielo issued a statement asserting that acquiring companies bear no responsibility for guaranteeing payment operations. "Acquiring companies could not, cannot, and will not be able to choose which issuers participate in the arrangement, nor are they responsible for the guarantees tied to the operation," the company said. The position reflects a broader industry view that Mastercard, as the card network, bears the primary responsibility for the integrity of transactions on its platform.
Mastercard declined to comment on the proposal, as did representatives from Stone and Rede. PagSeguro referred inquiries to Abranet, the Brazilian Internet Association, which did not respond. The silence from Mastercard is notable given the stakes: the company is essentially asking payment processors to absorb losses from a fintech failure that occurred on Mastercard's network, using a contractual mechanism that would prioritize the card network's recovery over the processors' compensation.
What unfolds next will likely determine how financial responsibility flows through Brazil's payments infrastructure when fintechs fail. The payment processors have already signaled they will not accept Mastercard's proposal without a fight, setting up a dispute that touches on both contractual interpretation and regulatory intent. The Central Bank's new rules were designed to ensure that payment companies—whether card networks or processors—cannot pass losses downstream to consumers or to each other. Mastercard's proposal, if accepted, would test whether that principle holds when the card network itself is the one seeking to shift costs.
Citações Notáveis
Acquiring companies could not, cannot, and will not be able to choose which issuers participate in the arrangement, nor are they responsible for the guarantees tied to the operation.— Cielo, in statement
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Mastercard think it can ask the payment processors to absorb these losses? Aren't they separate companies with their own obligations?
Mastercard is arguing a timing technicality. The new Central Bank rules that would clearly make Mastercard responsible didn't take effect until May. Will Bank collapsed in January. So Mastercard is saying the old rules apply, and under those, there's more room for negotiation about who bears what.
But the payment processors already lost money, right? They processed R$5 billion in transactions and only got reimbursed 50%.
Exactly. Mastercard paid them back half of what they were owed, and now wants to use the customers' own payments—money that flowed through the system—to reimburse itself before the processors get the rest. It's a way of saying: we'll take our cut first from the pool of customer funds.
What's the processors' argument against that?
They're saying they had no control over which banks or fintechs issued cards on Mastercard's network. They just processed transactions. The guarantee of payment is Mastercard's responsibility, not theirs. They didn't choose Will Bank; Mastercard did.
So this becomes a question of who actually bears the risk in the payments chain?
Right. And the Central Bank already answered that question in May—payment companies bear it, with their own resources, no exceptions. Mastercard is trying to argue Will Bank is grandfathered out of that rule. The processors are saying no, the principle applies regardless.
What happens if Mastercard wins this argument?
It sets a precedent that card networks can shift losses to processors even when the network is the one that approved the issuer. That weakens the entire system's stability.