5 ms·
Let's just call it for what it is. Visa and mastercard innovated in an era where payment settlement was notoriously difficult and expensive but they've used th
by wagwang 7mo ago
Let's just call it for what it is.
Visa and mastercard innovated in an era where payment settlement was notoriously difficult and expensive but they've used their monopolies to entrench themselves in (by negotiating deals with merchants and bribing consumers with points) while the rest of the world moves on towards "layer 2" payment systems that are much cheaper and efficient.
- jen20 7mo agoThe real thing consumers get is fraud protection, and the ability to charge back when merchants become intransigent. Let's not pretend other systems (even the ones prominent in the US like Zelle) offer the same protections.
- wagwang 7mo agoThat's cc propaganda; merchant fraud is a tiny portion of the overall transactions so you'd save more overall if the cc fee wasnt passed onto the consumer. The counter argument is that the aggregate data allows payment processors to ban merchants if they are bad actors. But the counter to the counter is that the level 2 payments work very well in other countries (some with a lot more fraud) and data aggregation/centralized ban power is bad.
- jen20 7mo agoI have personally charged back a transaction (not fraud per se, but certainly not a service delivered) in the last month. It's not just about merchant fraud, it's about holding businesses to account in a world where individual consumers are increasingly powerless.
- ShowalkKama 7mo ago>The real thing consumers get is fraud protection I don't need fraud protection and the ability to charge back when lunch at a restaurant, I just need a skimmer-resistant payment method (which a phone is).
- apple4ever 7mo agoYou do when someone else uses your card there
- ShowalkKama 7mo agoIf the payment method is skimmer resistant then they cannot use my payment method... Also my entire point is that I don't need a card, paying with an app would be acceptable.
- mikepurvis 7mo agoI've noticed recently indie (non-franchise) merchants being much more brazen about charging extra fees for accepting a credit card payment. This includes counters at my local farmer's market, two local cafes and a sushi restaurant, and my city's public electrical utility. All of them are happy to receive cash or interac (Canadian debit infrastructure) or even e-transfers in some cases (Canadian venmo). But they'll say an extra $1-2 charge if you want to pay by credit card. Maybe I'm just remembering badly, but I don't remember encountering this twenty years ago; back then the rules were clear that you either didn't accept credit payments, or you did and it was the same price as cash.
- bigthymer 7mo ago> Maybe I'm just remembering badly, but I don't remember encountering this twenty years ago; back then the rules were clear that you either didn't accept credit payments, or you did and it was the same price as cash My memory is in accordance with yours
- MoonWalk 7mo agoBut before that it was commonplace to see discounts for cash, especially at gas stations. Then credit-card issuers started prohibiting it in service agreements, but that was outlawed during the Obama administration.
- mixmastamyk 7mo agoBecause credit card companies mandated that you couldn't raise prices to pay their fees. Believe this was later outlawed in the US and perhaps elsewhere.
- stevehawk 7mo agoin the US it was a class action lawsuit + Supreme Court decision
- MoonWalk 7mo agoIt was part of the Obama administration's banking reforms, if I remember correctly. It outlawed credit-card issuers' prohibition on giving cash discounts. It also included a number of other valuable consumer protections, such as forcing card issuers to provide clear advance notice of interest-rate increases. The financial-system reforms were some of the Obama administration's most valuable.
- satvikpendem 7mo agoIndia's UPI for example, incredible.