5 ms·

Yes, but it's a statistically negative sum game for the customer. Visa wouldn't offer such a service if they weren't winning out in the long run, collecting ren

Yes, but it's a statistically negative sum game for the customer. Visa wouldn't offer such a service if they weren't winning out in the long run, collecting rent on every one of your purchases.

SomeUserName432 5mo ago
I am sure they gain something from it. My Brazillian bank charges me 600% yearly interest on credit card purchases. However, the cost of a lawsuit can quickly offset the costs of a CC. Depending on the state, there may not be a maximum cap on expenses, making lawsuits incredibly expensive. (Whereas having paid by card you could ask for a chargeback instead of needing to sue) It's also a very time consuming ordeal having to sue vendors in these instances.
- dormento 5mo ago
  Am I mistaken or hasn't that been capped to 100% for a while?
  - SomeUserName432 4mo ago
    The maximum they can take in fees in a 12 month period is 100% of the original sum, having a 600% interest rate just means they get to the 100% cap that much faster. Ensuring that the consumer does not have sufficient time to pay off the debt before it doubles.
californical 5mo ago
That’s like telling people not to get homeowners insurance for the same reason Like, yes, it’s technically a bad deal. But it’s still worth the extra cost for most people
- hvb2 5mo ago
  > But it’s still worth the extra cost for most people. Is it? You charge back over 2% of your transaction volume? If you don't then just removing the middleman will make everyone happier. If you do, I have questions as to why...
  - izacus 5mo ago
    If they'd come close to such chargebacks, they'd already be kicked out of the system and blocked.
- amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
  Insurance like that is normally because if the potential size of the loss. Losing a house is way more than most people could stand. A closer example might be buying the extra service contract on every electronics purchase you make: that's usually a bad deal.
BurningFrog 5mo ago
You're describing the concept of insurance.
- functionmouse 5mo ago
  I know ;)
  - Aachen 5mo ago
    I can't imagine in what world it sounds like a good idea to attach an extra insurance product as a mandatory step to use cash online. Feel free to take out insurance for every 5€ product you buy online but I don't want to pay an extra % of my income to the finance industry just to use the money I've earned
    - iamnothere 5mo ago
      This one, apparently, based on how the CC duopoly keeps freezing out legitimate businesses based on the concern du jour. Payment providers should be dumb pipes with other services bolted on top as needed.

Yes, but it's a statistically negative sum game for the customer. Visa wouldn't offer such a service if they weren't winning out in the long run, collecting rent on every one of your purchases.

SomeUserName432 5mo ago

I am sure they gain something from it. My Brazillian bank charges me 600% yearly interest on credit card purchases. However, the cost of a lawsuit can quickly offset the costs of a CC. Depending on the state, there may not be a maximum cap on expenses, making lawsuits incredibly expensive. (Whereas having paid by card you could ask for a chargeback instead of needing to sue) It's also a very time consuming ordeal having to sue vendors in these instances.

dormento 5mo ago
Am I mistaken or hasn't that been capped to 100% for a while?
- SomeUserName432 4mo ago
  The maximum they can take in fees in a 12 month period is 100% of the original sum, having a 600% interest rate just means they get to the 100% cap that much faster. Ensuring that the consumer does not have sufficient time to pay off the debt before it doubles.

californical 5mo ago

That’s like telling people not to get homeowners insurance for the same reason Like, yes, it’s technically a bad deal. But it’s still worth the extra cost for most people

hvb2 5mo ago
> But it’s still worth the extra cost for most people. Is it? You charge back over 2% of your transaction volume? If you don't then just removing the middleman will make everyone happier. If you do, I have questions as to why...
- izacus 5mo ago
  If they'd come close to such chargebacks, they'd already be kicked out of the system and blocked.
amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
Insurance like that is normally because if the potential size of the loss. Losing a house is way more than most people could stand. A closer example might be buying the extra service contract on every electronics purchase you make: that's usually a bad deal.

BurningFrog 5mo ago

You're describing the concept of insurance.

functionmouse 5mo ago
I know ;)
- Aachen 5mo ago
  I can't imagine in what world it sounds like a good idea to attach an extra insurance product as a mandatory step to use cash online. Feel free to take out insurance for every 5€ product you buy online but I don't want to pay an extra % of my income to the finance industry just to use the money I've earned
  - iamnothere 5mo ago
    This one, apparently, based on how the CC duopoly keeps freezing out legitimate businesses based on the concern du jour. Payment providers should be dumb pipes with other services bolted on top as needed.