EDIT: I see the general problem of origination fraud. But that can be mitigated by imposing limits and requiring extra levels of authentication for bigger payments.
Fraud is already a big business, with the current security levels. With worse security? Fraud goes up some more.
A modern payment system would require at least touch/Face ID on every transaction.
Higher amounts would require 2FA, pre-authorization, delays, cool-downs etc.
It's fine if you say, yeah I can do without #2, but realistically you cannot do without #1 in any digital payment scheme that will have wide acceptance so a chargeback mechanism is required.
The only settlement methods we have that do without both protections are cash, cashiers checks, and wires. Setting aside cash the other two are a pain in the ass to originate exactly because they are non reversible.
Which are exactly the kinds of things credit cards do, but it can't be perfect so they still suffer losses, so they still have to charge a percentage.
(Of course a lot of the percentage can go to rewards programs, so we're talking about the percentage once those are accounted for.)
However there are both historical and convenience reasons at play here. It was a big transition to move to chips, for example.
So your assertion that they're not making an effort at fraud prevention is just completely untrue.
Edit: Tap pay is ubiquitous in the EU
Hopefully that contract ends soon, because wow did they shoot themselves in the foot on that one.
It would be suicide for a shop not to take it, I know many people that don't carry their bank card at all. Only their phone for Apple pay.
Because you paid with a VISA card instead of paying by cash. Hint: it says Visa on the card.
Are you saying we should somehow all go back to cash and also use cash online?
As for why you involved them, that is the actual issue at hand, because it's a choice, not something that was forced upon you. But the choice isn't the first one that comes to mind; the choice was between protecting consumers or protecting corporations. And in the US, corporations are better protected than consumers. To level that protection, you (a consumer) have to involve someone else (a corporation) to gain any practical protection.
If that method of protection wasn't needed, you'd be paying using a cheaper (or free) method where you'd be protected differently (i.e. not based on the money going from A to B, but based on the fact that you are a consumer and should thus be protected).
You could also go back to the first choice that might come to mind: protection. If you are not in a society that protects consumers directly, but you also don't want to pay a corporate provider for that protection, you could opt to forgo that protection.
And I think this means there is opportunity for disruption.
If they don't trust you enough to give you credit without a guarantor like Visa or Mastercard, then I don't think there is any way for you to force them.
There are businesses who let you purchase stuff online by bank wire.
With 99% of my transactions I don’t care one bit about the ability to do chargebacks.
I just went grocery shopping. VISA was involved and took a few percent. Why??
I got my groceries. I’m not going to do a chargeback because the salad was bad.
Earlier, I bought something on Amazon. Again, VISA took a share. Why? In 15 years of shipping with Amazon they have always hinteres my returns.