4 ms·

Basically the defrauded doesnt notice it is occurring, at some interval, and the fraudster isnt keeping the money in the account and also using mules, and third

Basically the defrauded doesnt notice it is occurring, at some interval, and the fraudster isnt keeping the money in the account and also using mules, and third they dont get caught most of the time banks provide a user experience that makes them pretend to get the money back, a crypto bank can pretend to do the same thing, hardly a one to one comparison

woodruffw 5y ago
As of 2019 (the last year before just about every financial statistic goes sideways due to COVID), the ACH payment system has the lowest fraud rate by value of any settlement system in the US[1]. I'm not aware of similar statistics for any popular cryptocurrency, but I'm not optimistic about how any of them would compare. It's difficult to find statistics for the percentage of money recovered from fraudulent ACH transactions, but this industry survey[2] says that 92% of fraudulent transactions are discovered within two months (and 79% within one month). Given that NACHA allows clawbacks within 60 days, that offers a relatively bright prospect for funds recovery compared to an irreversible transaction. [1]: https://www.nacha.org/news/ach-payments-have-lowest-fraud-rate-fed-survey-finds https://www.nacha.org/news/ach-payments-have-lowest-fraud-ra... [2]: https://www.synovus.com/-/media/files/business/webinars/2021_paymentsfraudsurveyreport-3.pdf https://www.synovus.com/-/media/files/business/webinars/2021...
- vmception 5y ago
  Thats a nice improvement for them Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud For bitcoin I would say the data doesnt exist, but even with the headlines trying to break down just bitcoin for that year, it would be fairly low I’m thinking, even $1bn in fraudulent irrecoverable transactions would be a single digit. Percent or maybe down to a couple basis points as well just like NACHA brags about
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Yep, this is a serious problem when quantifying fraud in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It's concerning in its own right that we don't really have a reliable, standard way to quantify fraudulent behavior in cryptocurrencies. > Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud This doesn't make sense on two fronts. First, ATM fraud is ACH fraud, since ATM transactions are settled by ACH. In other words, you'd be double-counting there. Second, payment card fraud is diversified: it's either debit card fraud (which is also ACH-settled, and thus would be double-counted) or credit card fraud, which is fraud against the lending party and has its own (even simpler!) dispute resolution process. All told: we need actual numbers to make a coherent comparison here. In the absence of that comparison, ACH's performance on an absolute scale is admirable.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I would agree but the only reason I separate atm withdrawals was because your nacha article did > The Fed also reported that card fraud went from accounting for less than two-thirds of the value of fraud in 2012 to more than three-quarters in 2015. “The fraud rate, by value, of card payments and ATM withdrawals combined increased from 7.99 basis points to 10.80 basis points,” the survey found. Peculiarly about a different set of years
      - woodruffw 5y ago
        Sorry, I missed that. Yes, in that case, we should use the combined statistic.

woodruffw 5y ago

As of 2019 (the last year before just about every financial statistic goes sideways due to COVID), the ACH payment system has the lowest fraud rate by value of any settlement system in the US[1]. I'm not aware of similar statistics for any popular cryptocurrency, but I'm not optimistic about how any of them would compare. It's difficult to find statistics for the percentage of money recovered from fraudulent ACH transactions, but this industry survey[2] says that 92% of fraudulent transactions are discovered within two months (and 79% within one month). Given that NACHA allows clawbacks within 60 days, that offers a relatively bright prospect for funds recovery compared to an irreversible transaction. [1]: https://www.nacha.org/news/ach-payments-have-lowest-fraud-rate-fed-survey-finds https://www.nacha.org/news/ach-payments-have-lowest-fraud-ra... [2]: https://www.synovus.com/-/media/files/business/webinars/2021_paymentsfraudsurveyreport-3.pdf https://www.synovus.com/-/media/files/business/webinars/2021...

vmception 5y ago
Thats a nice improvement for them Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud For bitcoin I would say the data doesnt exist, but even with the headlines trying to break down just bitcoin for that year, it would be fairly low I’m thinking, even $1bn in fraudulent irrecoverable transactions would be a single digit. Percent or maybe down to a couple basis points as well just like NACHA brags about
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Bitcoin would be calculated by value deemed as being defeauded from users onchain as payments and on exchanges, that year, and compared to a portion of its.. marketcap? or by quantity of non-fraudulent transactions? Yep, this is a serious problem when quantifying fraud in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. It's concerning in its own right that we don't really have a reliable, standard way to quantify fraudulent behavior in cryptocurrencies. > Since bitcoin is all one kind of payment method (well lightning would be different), it would have to be compared to the other kinds mentioned in the nacha article too, ACH + ATM + Card fraud This doesn't make sense on two fronts. First, ATM fraud is ACH fraud, since ATM transactions are settled by ACH. In other words, you'd be double-counting there. Second, payment card fraud is diversified: it's either debit card fraud (which is also ACH-settled, and thus would be double-counted) or credit card fraud, which is fraud against the lending party and has its own (even simpler!) dispute resolution process. All told: we need actual numbers to make a coherent comparison here. In the absence of that comparison, ACH's performance on an absolute scale is admirable.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I would agree but the only reason I separate atm withdrawals was because your nacha article did > The Fed also reported that card fraud went from accounting for less than two-thirds of the value of fraud in 2012 to more than three-quarters in 2015. “The fraud rate, by value, of card payments and ATM withdrawals combined increased from 7.99 basis points to 10.80 basis points,” the survey found. Peculiarly about a different set of years
    - woodruffw 5y ago
      Sorry, I missed that. Yes, in that case, we should use the combined statistic.