3 ms·

> with the same or better protections for account holders, then it would would be a game changer. This is really the one we need to fix on both ends. Right no

> with the same or better protections for account holders, then it would would be a game changer. This is really the one we need to fix on both ends. Right now we have a system where fraud is really easy, e.g. an incompetent merchant gets breached and the attackers get thousands of credit cards to use at innocent unrelated merchants. Then the attackers steal goods from those merchants and the merchants get chargebacks from the cardholders. This is crazy. What you want is a system where the merchant submits a payment request which is then either manually approved by the customer on their bank's website (e.g. for immediate delivery of goods) or has to be submitted and displayed on the customer's statement at least 30 days before the transfer, giving the customer that long to dispute it (e.g. recurring payments/subscriptions). That would eliminate the vast majority of fraud and also make it simple for customers to cancel subscriptions they don't want (just go to your bank's website and ban that merchant). The reason we don't have this is that the banks like getting credit card fees and chargeback fees, so they have no incentive to build it, and use regulatory capture and anticompetitive practices to keep anyone else from building it.

loeg 2y ago
We don't have this because it would increase friction per transaction, which is a bad thing. Our high-trust system largely works, despite the susceptibility to some level of fraud.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  There is no reason it would need to increase friction per transaction. Right now to make the first purchase at a merchant you have to type your bank account or credit card number into the merchant's website. Instead the merchant would redirect you to your bank's website and you would authenticate with your bank. How is that any more difficult? It's just more secure, because the merchant is no longer in possession of everything someone would need to make fraudulent charges to your account at any other merchant.
klez 2y ago
> What you want is a system where the merchant submits a payment request which is then either manually approved by the customer on their bank's website (e.g. for immediate delivery of goods) That's how it works with my current bank and my previous one as well here in Italy: the first few transactions require manual approval via app, then the system "learns" that it's you and just notifies you there's been a transaction with your card. It never happened to me so I'm only speculating, but I suspect that, as soon as it detects suspicious activity, confirmation is requested again.

loeg 2y ago

We don't have this because it would increase friction per transaction, which is a bad thing. Our high-trust system largely works, despite the susceptibility to some level of fraud.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
There is no reason it would need to increase friction per transaction. Right now to make the first purchase at a merchant you have to type your bank account or credit card number into the merchant's website. Instead the merchant would redirect you to your bank's website and you would authenticate with your bank. How is that any more difficult? It's just more secure, because the merchant is no longer in possession of everything someone would need to make fraudulent charges to your account at any other merchant.

klez 2y ago

> What you want is a system where the merchant submits a payment request which is then either manually approved by the customer on their bank's website (e.g. for immediate delivery of goods) That's how it works with my current bank and my previous one as well here in Italy: the first few transactions require manual approval via app, then the system "learns" that it's you and just notifies you there's been a transaction with your card. It never happened to me so I'm only speculating, but I suspect that, as soon as it detects suspicious activity, confirmation is requested again.