Cryptocurrency

TykeClone

Burgermeister!
Oct 18, 2006
25,799
2,154
113
Not sure when I said they would compete - I was saying that visa has changed multiple times over a long period of time. Bitcoin needs to change. Visa charges around 2% but there are multiple fees from the companies who do the interchanges as well. It’s going through about 3 different companies per transaction, then to the bank. Bitcoin will have to change to improve speed and fees, but there are definitely advantages to a peer to peer network.

The 2% is what is split between all entities touching that transaction.
 

Cyclone.TV

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2016
3,750
2,354
83
39
And the vendor. And the number of transactions that they are running in a month. Card transactions are all about volume.

And the contracts they have - but there are standard and set fees per transaction no matter what, and percentages that are applied no matter the charge. Also there are monthly fees from the 3rd party interchange that are charged as well.
 

TykeClone

Burgermeister!
Oct 18, 2006
25,799
2,154
113
And the contracts they have - but there are standard and set fees per transaction no matter what, and percentages that are applied no matter the charge. Also there are monthly fees from the 3rd party interchange that are charged as well.

But the risk of the transaction is not on the merchant, is it?
 

TykeClone

Burgermeister!
Oct 18, 2006
25,799
2,154
113
I would say almost never.

The merchants cause most of the risk in the credit/debit system with their inadequate security and don't pay for it as long as they follow their procedures. The interchange has to cover those losses...
 

Cyclone.TV

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2016
3,750
2,354
83
39
The merchants cause most of the risk in the credit/debit system with their inadequate security and don't pay for it as long as they follow their procedures. The interchange has to cover those losses...

Sorry - I was confused on which you were referring to. The merchant carries all the fees and all the risk. The interchange does very little as far as risk is concerned, I don’t think. Any returned charges goes back to the original merchant who took the payment. And for the most part it is a very strict and quick response time for them to keep their funds. The customer wins most of the time, I would say.

And the “inadequate security” is all based on what the credit card companies tell them to have. There are standards they have to meet, and if they don’t fees go up substantially.
 

TykeClone

Burgermeister!
Oct 18, 2006
25,799
2,154
113
Sorry - I was confused on which you were referring to. The merchant carries all the fees and all the risk. The interchange does very little as far as risk is concerned, I don’t think. Any returned charges goes back to the original merchant who took the payment. And for the most part it is a very strict and quick response time for them to keep their funds. The customer wins most of the time, I would say.

And the “inadequate security” is all based on what the credit card companies tell them to have. There are standards they have to meet, and if they don’t fees go up substantially.

There are strict rules as to what charges can be returned. If a merchant more or less follows their procedure and they get a good authorization they are not liable for any fraudulent card charges - that falls back on the banks. And on top of that, the merchants know that they have good money when a transaction is authorized - as opposed to check transactions where they can be liable for a bad check after the transaction has been completed.

The inadequate security refers to the merchants that have let millions of card numbers to escape their systems and they are not liable for the cost of reissuing those cards.
 

Cyclone.TV

Well-Known Member
Sep 3, 2016
3,750
2,354
83
39
There are strict rules as to what charges can be returned. If a merchant more or less follows their procedure and they get a good authorization they are not liable for any fraudulent card charges - that falls back on the banks. And on top of that, the merchants know that they have good money when a transaction is authorized - as opposed to check transactions where they can be liable for a bad check after the transaction has been completed.

The inadequate security refers to the merchants that have let millions of card numbers to escape their systems and they are not liable for the cost of reissuing those cards.

Sure they know they do - but not until after a completed transaction. Only if they prepay for those goods or services. You can verify a card but it puts a hold on the customers money.

And if merchants do their part the interchange and visa are also fine - if the person disputes the charges it goes back to the merchant.

Those merchants that let credit card numbers escape are very well liable for certain costs, and most likely will cost them a lot one way or another. But if it was their security system that failed, the interchange is there to enforce they are using the security correctly. If they find that they weren’t, it will definitely go back to the merchant.
 

SpokaneCY

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
13,294
8,486
113
Spokane, WA
Is it just me, or does it seem like half the posts here talk about the benefit of avoiding transaction fees by using crypto, while the other half admit it sucks as a currency because transaction fees have gotten out of hand? Which is it? You can't have it both ways here.

There's a third half that has trouble getting transactions confirmed. Nothing like buying the dip and having your winner settle weeks later for a very different price.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron