Giving money that can only be spent on what it was meant for
Parents, employers, NGOs and government programmes all face the same problem: money given for one thing gets spent on another. A wallet that refuses the wrong purchase solves it without anybody checking receipts.
A parent sends a student money for fees and books. An employer advances money for travel. An NGO distributes money for seed before planting season.
In every case the money is given for something, and the moment it lands it is just money.
The usual control, and why it fails
Collect receipts afterwards.
This is slow, it is humiliating for the recipient, it arrives far too late to change anything, and it is trivially defeated by anybody who wants to. It also poisons the relationship: the student is a suspect, the employee is audited, the farmer is inspected.
Refuse at the posting
A restricted wallet carries what it may be spent on — which merchants, which categories.
A purchase outside that is refused at the posting. Not recorded and reviewed. Not flagged for somebody to chase next month. Refused, at the moment, before anything moves.
Nobody collects receipts because there is nothing to check. The control happened instead of the purchase.
The holder knows
This is the part that decides whether the feature is dignified or insulting.
The holder of the wallet can see what it is for. So when a purchase is refused, the phone says this wallet is for school expenses — and the person understands immediately, rather than standing at a counter with a payment that failed for no visible reason.
A control the subject can see is a rule. One they cannot is a trap.
It is honestly paternalistic
Worth saying plainly, because pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
Restricting how somebody may spend money is a constraint on them, and whoever creates the wallet should think about whether it is warranted.
The counter-argument is simply that restricted money frequently exists where unrestricted money does not. An employer who cannot hand over cash can often give an expense wallet. A donor with reporting obligations can fund a restricted programme and not an unrestricted one. For the recipient the real comparison is usually not restricted money versus free money — it is restricted money versus nothing.
Still an ordinary wallet
A restricted wallet sits on the same ledger as every other, with the same statements and the same reconciliation. The restriction is a policy on the posting, not a separate system with its own books.
What it costs
Nothing to create or hold. Payments from them carry the ordinary rate.
What you can check
These are facts about the running platform, not adjectives. Each one is visible in the product, in the API reference or in the ledger.
- The restriction is enforced as a posting policy, so a purchase outside it is refused rather than recorded and reviewed later.
- The holder can see the restriction, so a refusal explains itself instead of looking like a fault.
- A restricted wallet is a wallet on the same ledger, with the same statements and the same reconciliation.
- Restrictions are configuration on the wallet, so a programme can change what is permitted without a release.
What it costs
No charge for creating or holding restricted wallets. Payments from them carry the ordinary rate.
Is it switched on?
Whether this is available depends on the authorisations in place and on what the administrator of a given deployment has switched on. That changes, and an article does not — so the live answer lives on the feature page, which reads it from the platform itself: Restricted wallets on the features page.
Read next
- Wallets and transfers — Money that arrives the moment it leaves.
- Virtual cards — A card number, without a bank card.
- Goal savings — Money with a name on it.
Frequently asked questions
Is this not paternalistic?
It can be, and whoever creates the wallet should think about that. It is also what makes some money exist at all: an employer, a donor or a programme that cannot give cash can often give restricted funds. The alternative is frequently nothing rather than unrestricted money.
What does the holder see?
What the wallet is for. A refusal then explains itself — "this wallet is for school expenses" — instead of looking like a broken payment, which is the difference between a control and an indignity.
Can the restriction be changed later?
Yes, by whoever administers the wallet. It is configuration, so a programme can widen or narrow what is permitted without waiting for a software release.
Send with a QR code, add money by card or mobile money, issue a virtual card. Sandbox balances let you explore before any real money moves.
Keep reading
Donner de l’argent qui ne peut être dépensé que pour ce qu’il était destiné
Parents, employeurs, ONG et programmes publics affrontent tous le même problème : l’argent donné pour une chose est dépensé pour une autre. Un portefeuille qui refuse le mauvais achat le résout sans que personne ne vérifie de reçus.
The problem with sending somebody a code
A voucher code in a message can be forwarded, screenshotted and redeemed by whoever gets there first. A voucher recorded on the ledger can be redeemed once, by one person, and you can see when it was.
Connecting a bank account without signing away the keys
Bank connections let you pay by bank and prove income without uploading statements. The question worth asking is what you consented to, for how long, and how you take it back.