By Maria Eduarda X. Soares and Heloísa Nogueira
The final edition of 2025 concludes with a debate that, at first glance, seems peripheral: the choice of payment methods in supermarkets. Recent news about a São Paulo supermarket that accepts neither cash nor Pix illustrates a broader trend toward the centralization of consumer relations—a quiet redefinition of the rules for market access.
Gomo Coop emerged almost as an economic experiment. The cooperative is organized around a shared consumption model—inspired by international examples—in which consumers also participate in business operations. This structure alters the traditional dynamics between customer, worker, and manager, redistributing roles and responsibilities.
From an economic standpoint, reducing operating costs through the labor of the cooperative members themselves allows for lower margins and potentially more competitive prices. However, unlike a traditional company, this type of structure requires an even higher level of engagement and preparedness to sustain itself; after all, there is no rigid hierarchy or external capital to absorb errors.
The contrast between the highly automated supermarket and the consumer cooperative reveals more about the current economic climate than about individual preferences. Both respond, in their own ways, to the same pressures: rising costs, regulatory complexity, tight margins, and increasingly price-sensitive consumers. While one model seeks efficiency through centralization and technology, the other bets on the redistribution of tasks and the direct participation of those involved.
In this scenario, the discussion regarding payment methods acts as a symptom. Within this context, it becomes evident that the exclusion of physical cash and Pix is not merely a technical choice, but a decision that redefines who can access a specific consumer space—and under what conditions.
At the same time, cooperative models raise questions regarding scale, replicability, and viability within complex, heterogeneous urban contexts—prompting us to reflect on the fact that no single approach is free from risks or contradictions.
Thus, as we look toward the end of 2025, the key question is not which model should prevail, but rather what criteria we are using to evaluate them. To what extent does convenience justify a reduction in choices? Where does efficiency end and exclusion begin? And what role does the consumer play in this process—as an active agent of choice or merely a user of increasingly closed systems?
