Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The rapid growth of digital payment systems has significantly transformed the way financial transactions are conducted in India. Payment mechanisms such as the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), mobile banking, internet banking, debit and credit cards, and digital wallets have made transactions faster, more convenient, and accessible to a large population. However, the increasing dependence on digital payment infrastructure has also created significant cybersecurity and data-security challenges. Phishing, credential theft, malware, identity theft, unauthorized access, data breaches, and fraudulent transactions can compromise the confidentiality and integrity of payment-related information. Blockchain technology provides several security-oriented characteristics, including cryptographic hashing, distributed verification, tamper-evident records, digital signatures, and transaction traceability. This paper examines the potential use of a permissioned blockchain as an additional security and audit layer for digital payment systems in India. Rather than replacing existing payment infrastructure, the proposed approach integrates a permissioned blockchain layer with existing authentication, payment processing, fraud detection, and monitoring mechanisms. Selected transaction metadata can be cryptographically represented and recorded on the permissioned ledger, allowing authorized participants to verify transaction integrity and support auditing. The study follows a descriptive and conceptual research methodology based primarily on secondary sources, including regulatory publications, technical literature, and research studies. The paper discusses the proposed architecture, security features, potential benefits, limitations, implementation challenges, and future research opportunities. The analysis suggests that blockchain can strengthen transaction integrity, traceability, and auditability when appropriately designed. However, blockchain alone cannot eliminate payment fraud or protect users from social-engineering attacks. Its practical value therefore depends on its integration with established cybersecurity controls, privacy mechanisms, regulatory requirements, and secure payment practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aar et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: