3 ms·

RIP free money transfer is what that means - the service can't be both free and liable for people falling for scams.

• lxgr 3y ago
  Where are you hearing this from? The article claims no such thing: It suggests that banks will attempt clawing back the money in case of disputes. That obviously can't be the entire truth, though – unless there's some mechanism to arbitrate claims, it would effectively make Zelle unusable for many of its current uses.
  • pxmpxm 3y ago
    Any money transfer mechanism where the sender has recourse means the transfer agent is looking at a liability - both by having to have a whole dispute department like any credit card processor and/or paypal and an actual dollar liability where they have to refund someone that got scammed without being able to recover the money. The obvious conclusion is they'll have to start charging everyone transfer fees to pay for the people that fall for stupid scams.
    • lxgr 3y ago
      > an actual dollar liability where they have to refund someone that got scammed without being able to recover the money I think you're being much more optimistic about what banks will actually be doing than me. I hope it's not, but based on the article, it might just be "we'll try to claw back your transfer with no questions asked; if the money is still in the recipient's account, you get it back; otherwise you get nothing". From the article: > Zelle simply "implemented a mechanism that allows banks to claw back funds from the recipient's account and return them to the sender."