Interesting, I guess I always thought this applied to credit as well, just not as drastically. I stand corrected. > Increased revenue: In the US, the differen

Interesting, I guess I always thought this applied to credit as well, just not as drastically. I stand corrected. > Increased revenue: In the US, the different in interchange rates between PIN-based debit and signature-based debit transactions can be substantial for larger dollar payments. Although Regulation II (a.k.a. the Durbin amendment) caused the card networks to reduce debit interchange rates for the largest card issuers to just 0.5% plus $0.22, this still results in interchange of about $0.72 on a $100, signature debit purchase. The same PIN-debit purchase might generate about $0.25 and possibly less in a area where there's substantial competition between PIN-debit networks. To be fair, this isn't true for credit card transactions (since there is effectively no such thing as a PIN-based credit card transaction in the US today and therefore no distinct interchange rates for PIN-based payments) but is does explain why there might be a general preference not to proliferate the use of PINs as the US card population and terminal base is converted to support EMV.[0] [0] - https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-USA-adopting-chip-signature-and-not-chip-pin https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-USA-adopting-chip-signature...