Comment by functionmouse
4 hours ago
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.
4 hours ago
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.
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
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.
> 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...
If they'd come close to such chargebacks, they'd already be kicked out of the system and blocked.
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.
You're describing the concept of insurance.
I know ;)
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