6 ms·

Arbitraging fraud has always been PayPal's game. For the mass market of small-scale sellers there's a threshold, whre the cost of onboarding, verifying, underwr

Arbitraging fraud has always been PayPal's game. For the mass market of small-scale sellers there's a threshold, whre the cost of onboarding, verifying, underwriting and eating fraud exposure is greater than the revenues you could ever expect to make from them at their low volume. So these segments went un-served, same with many other segments of transactions or transactors. PayPal's model has always been to accept a higher risk tolerance, then to have just-enough compensating controls and/or liability-dodging to make that work. At least just well enough to have net-revenues bps exceed their fraud-loss bps. And when that balance is working, it kinda works, but when it doesn't... And incidentally, it's not just PayPal with the fraud problems these days. It's everybody in the banking and payments space. AI is so far quite asymmetrically helping the bad guys more. It's bad out there.

dev_l1x_be 1y ago
Ebay and Paypal are full of scam. Simply it is thei best interest to keep this up because it generates revenue for them.
- skybrian 1y ago
  That's a simplistic way of understanding "best interest." The optimal amount of fraud is neither zero nor "let it all through." Their "best interest" is a balance between allowing legit transactions to get through and blocking enough fraudulent ones that fraud doesn't become too common.
  - arn3n 1y ago
    I believe you’re referencing Patrick McKenzie’s takes on fraud, which I agree with — but when he (and others) talk about the optimal amount of fraud they’re usually referring to fraud from “losing money from the company to customers”. This is not PayPal’s case; because PayPal isn’t the victim of fraud on its platform but makes money off its use, their optimal amount of fraud is “as much as they can permit without losing customers or regulators getting up their ass”.
    - pixl97 1y ago
      >usually referring to fraud from “losing money from the company to customers”. Conversely this can affect customers by the vendor or payment platform blocking transactions that are not fraud.
  - adrr 1y ago
    This is an important concept. More you push to zero fraud, the more inconvenience you put on your customer. You can cut bunch of fraud if you only allow shipments to the billing address but then you inconvenience people who want to buy gifts, recently moved or have a vacation home. You can block all traffic from cloud providers but you'll end up blocking outbound proxies for people on military bases or corporate proxies.
    - SchemaLoad 1y ago
      Personally I'd like to see a move away from just giving your card details to a website and having them charge it for whatever they want. Because it just ends up that stolen details go around and get used for fraud easily. Should be moving to a system where setting up payments with a new provider has them request access to charge you, and then on the bank app you approve it. Australia has this as a fairly new system called PayTo, where you can approve and later unapprove individual merchants the ability to charge you.
      - greiskul 1y ago
        Brazils pix system as a similar mechanism, where a website can generate a code for payment, that you can copy or scan a qr code into your bank app, and then approve the payment. Individual merchants barely get any information from you this way, and have no way of even trying to charge you more later.
      - adrr 1y ago
        99% of e-commerce merchants don't have hand the credit card informations. Its all passed on the front side by payment providers like Stripe or Braintree. Shopify merchants go further with a hosted payment page. Handling card numbers bring on a lot regulations for PCI.
        Xss3 1y ago
        Verifying they arent capturing input is difficult even if they use a processor.
  - horseradish7k 1y ago
    and of course, confiscating the fraudster's money without refunding it
  - Aefiam 1y ago
    The optimal amount of fraud is zero. But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point. I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)
- xtiansimon 1y ago
  eBay is full of fraud? What are you buying?
SchemaLoad 1y ago
Maybe it's different by country, but I feel like fraud isn't a huge issue for the end user anymore. A couple times I've had random transactions on my account seemingly from database leaks / stolen card details, and every time the bank has either sent me a notification asking me to approve the suspicious transaction, or has refunded me the amount later. As long as you don't initiate the transaction, you get your money back easily.
- tpurves 1y ago
  Card networks have the most reliable protections and guarantees, their systems and rules are designed around consumer trust in their brand and zero-liability (to consumers).

dev_l1x_be 1y ago

Ebay and Paypal are full of scam. Simply it is thei best interest to keep this up because it generates revenue for them.

skybrian 1y ago
That's a simplistic way of understanding "best interest." The optimal amount of fraud is neither zero nor "let it all through." Their "best interest" is a balance between allowing legit transactions to get through and blocking enough fraudulent ones that fraud doesn't become too common.
- arn3n 1y ago
  I believe you’re referencing Patrick McKenzie’s takes on fraud, which I agree with — but when he (and others) talk about the optimal amount of fraud they’re usually referring to fraud from “losing money from the company to customers”. This is not PayPal’s case; because PayPal isn’t the victim of fraud on its platform but makes money off its use, their optimal amount of fraud is “as much as they can permit without losing customers or regulators getting up their ass”.
  - pixl97 1y ago
    >usually referring to fraud from “losing money from the company to customers”. Conversely this can affect customers by the vendor or payment platform blocking transactions that are not fraud.
- adrr 1y ago
  This is an important concept. More you push to zero fraud, the more inconvenience you put on your customer. You can cut bunch of fraud if you only allow shipments to the billing address but then you inconvenience people who want to buy gifts, recently moved or have a vacation home. You can block all traffic from cloud providers but you'll end up blocking outbound proxies for people on military bases or corporate proxies.
  - SchemaLoad 1y ago
    Personally I'd like to see a move away from just giving your card details to a website and having them charge it for whatever they want. Because it just ends up that stolen details go around and get used for fraud easily. Should be moving to a system where setting up payments with a new provider has them request access to charge you, and then on the bank app you approve it. Australia has this as a fairly new system called PayTo, where you can approve and later unapprove individual merchants the ability to charge you.
    - greiskul 1y ago
      Brazils pix system as a similar mechanism, where a website can generate a code for payment, that you can copy or scan a qr code into your bank app, and then approve the payment. Individual merchants barely get any information from you this way, and have no way of even trying to charge you more later.
    - adrr 1y ago
      99% of e-commerce merchants don't have hand the credit card informations. Its all passed on the front side by payment providers like Stripe or Braintree. Shopify merchants go further with a hosted payment page. Handling card numbers bring on a lot regulations for PCI.
      - Xss3 1y ago
        Verifying they arent capturing input is difficult even if they use a processor.
- horseradish7k 1y ago
  and of course, confiscating the fraudster's money without refunding it
- Aefiam 1y ago
  The optimal amount of fraud is zero. But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point. I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)
xtiansimon 1y ago
eBay is full of fraud? What are you buying?

SchemaLoad 1y ago

Maybe it's different by country, but I feel like fraud isn't a huge issue for the end user anymore. A couple times I've had random transactions on my account seemingly from database leaks / stolen card details, and every time the bank has either sent me a notification asking me to approve the suspicious transaction, or has refunded me the amount later. As long as you don't initiate the transaction, you get your money back easily.

tpurves 1y ago
Card networks have the most reliable protections and guarantees, their systems and rules are designed around consumer trust in their brand and zero-liability (to consumers).