5 ms·

> completely free payment options I thought you were going for direct bank to bank operations. I think these are currently the most practical and promising wa

> completely free payment options I thought you were going for direct bank to bank operations. I think these are currently the most practical and promising way to get out of the credit card duopoly's influence. It is more onerous on KYC check, but that sounds like a smaller price than a paid service just not existing at all.

ethbr1 1y ago
The issue with bank to bank is that consumers don’t have an intermediary willing to fight (read: chargeback) on their behalf, no? I imagine few banks are staffed and teched to replicate payment processors’ anti-fraud systems.
- dartharva 1y ago
  The solution to that is requiring your PIN, 2FA and ML-powered suspicious transaction alerts for each transaction. It's actually not as cumbersome as it sounds and takes less than five seconds at its best; UPI in India has perfected it.
  - resonious 1y ago
    Another reason for chargebacks is fraudulent merchants. If somebody sells me a fake item, I highly doubt they are going to willingly refund me when I complain to them about it.
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      That should either be handled by a court or customer protection action agency, or by your private insurance (basically like how it works with cash transactions) Baking it into the payment processing warps the whole situation.
- imtringued 1y ago
  This is an industry where chargebacks don't make sense. You either buy and pay or you don't and if you're on the fence, then don't. The only necessary intermediary is a trustworthy online shop/platform with a reasonable refund policy.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  Customer protection isn't supposed to come from private third parties in the first place. Look at it from this angle: why is VISA or Stripe the arbiter of disputes between you and Netflix ? If Netflix made you pay a fee that is not part of your contract or you didn't initiate, you should be able to retrieve that money without asking a racket business to cover you. And while banks handle fraud issues, arguably they shouldn't be the one reading your contracts and deciding how to interpret it. Some customer agency or small claims court should be more fitting ? Perhaps you're in a place where that just wouldn't work, fair enough, but the issue should be on why you don't have these laws or institution, not why there's no private middle-men fixing the deals.
  - wallst07 1y ago
    Because VISA has two customers, me and Netflix. They want that to continue so they are in a good place to be efficient arbirtrators. Anyone else will be slow/inefficient (courts) or biased (Me or Netflix).
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      > slow/inefficient I find it interesting to want speed in deciding who should get screwed in a transaction. There are economic advantages in people giving around their payment information, but the social impacts (the very existence of Visa/Mastercard and their influence on businesses or prices) aren't worth it IMHO. IMHO people should be responsible of how they handle the keys to their money, and better tools should be given to secure and manage that, instead of a Big Brother like middlemen. I mean, you don't pay cash at a restaurant with a string stuck to your money so you can pull it back three months after, because arguing with the restaurant feels too inefficient.
  - Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
    > If Netflix made you pay a fee that is not part of your contract or you didn't initiate, you should be able to retrieve that money without asking a racket business to cover you. Allowing customers to claw back money unilaterally opens the door for customers to make a purchase, receive the product, then fraudulently take their money back. There needs to be a third party in the middle to determine if a chargeback is fraudulent. Chargeback fraud already exists, and what you're proposing makes the problem significantly worse.

ethbr1 1y ago

The issue with bank to bank is that consumers don’t have an intermediary willing to fight (read: chargeback) on their behalf, no? I imagine few banks are staffed and teched to replicate payment processors’ anti-fraud systems.

dartharva 1y ago
The solution to that is requiring your PIN, 2FA and ML-powered suspicious transaction alerts for each transaction. It's actually not as cumbersome as it sounds and takes less than five seconds at its best; UPI in India has perfected it.
- resonious 1y ago
  Another reason for chargebacks is fraudulent merchants. If somebody sells me a fake item, I highly doubt they are going to willingly refund me when I complain to them about it.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    That should either be handled by a court or customer protection action agency, or by your private insurance (basically like how it works with cash transactions) Baking it into the payment processing warps the whole situation.
imtringued 1y ago
This is an industry where chargebacks don't make sense. You either buy and pay or you don't and if you're on the fence, then don't. The only necessary intermediary is a trustworthy online shop/platform with a reasonable refund policy.
makeitdouble 1y ago
Customer protection isn't supposed to come from private third parties in the first place. Look at it from this angle: why is VISA or Stripe the arbiter of disputes between you and Netflix ? If Netflix made you pay a fee that is not part of your contract or you didn't initiate, you should be able to retrieve that money without asking a racket business to cover you. And while banks handle fraud issues, arguably they shouldn't be the one reading your contracts and deciding how to interpret it. Some customer agency or small claims court should be more fitting ? Perhaps you're in a place where that just wouldn't work, fair enough, but the issue should be on why you don't have these laws or institution, not why there's no private middle-men fixing the deals.
- wallst07 1y ago
  Because VISA has two customers, me and Netflix. They want that to continue so they are in a good place to be efficient arbirtrators. Anyone else will be slow/inefficient (courts) or biased (Me or Netflix).
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    > slow/inefficient I find it interesting to want speed in deciding who should get screwed in a transaction. There are economic advantages in people giving around their payment information, but the social impacts (the very existence of Visa/Mastercard and their influence on businesses or prices) aren't worth it IMHO. IMHO people should be responsible of how they handle the keys to their money, and better tools should be given to secure and manage that, instead of a Big Brother like middlemen. I mean, you don't pay cash at a restaurant with a string stuck to your money so you can pull it back three months after, because arguing with the restaurant feels too inefficient.
- Sohcahtoa82 1y ago
  > If Netflix made you pay a fee that is not part of your contract or you didn't initiate, you should be able to retrieve that money without asking a racket business to cover you. Allowing customers to claw back money unilaterally opens the door for customers to make a purchase, receive the product, then fraudulently take their money back. There needs to be a third party in the middle to determine if a chargeback is fraudulent. Chargeback fraud already exists, and what you're proposing makes the problem significantly worse.