Hacker News Reader

Comment by jen20 | Hacker News Reader

The 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.

View on HN

That'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.

I 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.

>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).

You do when someone else uses your card there

If 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com