And if you are a $MegaBigCorp customer of them, you can customize even more.
these debit like credit cards put a different light on the statistics. as some people here have said, europeans don't use creditcards, and then someone contradicted that with a statistic of how much is paid with credit cards. how much of those credit card payments are made with debit like cards like mine?
europe doesn't want their people to get into credit debt. possibly protection for people is stronger and makes it harder for banks to recover if people fail to pay? but most likely countries just want people to be able to protect themselves from overspending.
like i can get an overdraw limit on my bank account. it is set to a default value based on my income. but i deliberately reset that to zero. i don't want an overdraw limit. if i really need to overdraw i'll change the limit at that time and i think i can even set that it is valid only for a short time and then it resets automatically.
IIRC, bunq in the Netherlands issues Mastercard "credit cards" (with no "debit" annotation as on true Mastercard debit cards). They're treated as credit cards for Mastercard purposes but are backed by deposits.
as i said, it is possible that i can actually get a real credit limit on the card, or possibly the bank has other credit card products.
Things have been changing a bit in recent years. Since the "debit" and "credit" nature of the card is now written on them, French folks have started to request "credit" ones for travelling (to rent a car for instance).
My understanding is that for car rental purposes, anything using Visa/MC (and not a national debit network like Visa Debit in the US) will work, it doesn't actually need to be backed by a revolving credit. At a US gas pump, a Frenchie needs to select "credit" even though the card has "debit" written on it. Still, should the clerk refuse the card because it reads "debit" without running it... better have this "credit"-labeled one.
Many companies will refuse all debit cards, or all cards with "electronic use only" restriction, at least for the deposit, irrespective of the payment network involved.
American Express is big in this market - what looks like a normal Amex Business Platinum card can very well be a charge card that needs to be paid in full at the due date every month.
There are minor differences but the big one is no carried balance between months is allowed. Payment in full due each month.
In fact just today I read this article in my EU country that sounds almost identical to what this comment describes:
“ If, for example, the payment was made by credit card and the product has not been delivered, the consumer can contact their credit card company directly and request a refund.
Credit card firms can usually refund the money quickly, Beurling-Pomoell noted, whereas consumers who paid by debit card must try to claim their money back from the bankruptcy estate.
"Unfortunately, [reclaiming money from a bankruptcy estate] is usually a very long and difficult process. Consumers are generally in a relatively weak position when a company goes bankrupt," he said.
Beurling-Pomoell added that consumers should always consider using a credit card when purchasing a product that they do not immediately receive.”
Their self-harming has been impressive.
https://www.ft.com/content/837a7b40-f534-11e3-91a8-00144feab...
users can even avoid interest if they pay that card off every month
I pay everything with my credit card (bills, stores, online, etc) and pay it off at the end of the month. Even my tap-to-pay is tied to the credit card. I never use my debit card anywhere but an ATM. I have never had my bank account violated but I have had the credit card stolen from a store I visited (card company caught it as there was a bunch of fraud from the same store, they let me know and they proactively replaced my credit card)
I have never had my ATM card compromised as it is for one purpose, the ATM
best part of all is my credit score loves the large payments I always make on my credit card
Yes that's what I'm talking about too, and it's called misuse. Liability is capped at 50€ as I said. We also don't have any fixed overdraft fees, only a compared to credit cards low interest rate, but this would also be the banks problem in this case. Also you still need a pin to pay or 2FA when paying online for European Cards. So that scenario seems very unlikely anyway.
> I have never had my ATM card compromised as it is for one purpose, the ATM but I have had the credit card stolen from a store I visited (card company caught it as there was a bunch of fraud from the same store, they let me know and they proactively replaced my credit card.
I have never had my card compromised, as it only uses the EMV Chip for payments in the civilized world, which you can't clone, and even then you would still need the PIN to pay, or the second Factor. I also never had my Debit card (what you mean with ATM card) compromised, because it's the same thing.
When a card is stolen or cloned, it is usually discovered really fast. Either by the victim or by the bank. It's probably in most cases a matter of hours or even minutes.
If your CC is stolen, you are not out all the cash in your account until the dispute is resolved.
If your debit card is stolen, you lose that cash, making it more difficult to pay whatever other obligations you have that period.
But the more concerning fraud is when you purchase something and don't receive what you should have received from the merchant. Whether it is due to outright fraud or not. In these cases you will also have your money reimbursed by your credit or debit card.
This may be what the letter of the law says but this isn't reality. Using debit puts you at greater financial risk.
What how? Surely the US populations credit card debt dorf even the global populations debit card fraud numbers. So while my whole family in a combined 200 years of adulthood have indeed lost some 1000 euro total in fraud, it's not thing compared to the average Americans credit card bills.
I'd rather risk the street criminals with my debit than the suit wearing ones with their credit.
With a credit card, if the card is compromised, its not my money being stolen - its the card issuer's money from my line of credit, and they were planning on settling up with me when my monthly statement closes. I still have to launch a fraud case with the issuer, but critically, _all of my money is still in my bank account_ and I can continue to pay my other bills and obligations as normal.
I think its reasonable to consider giving up that buffer to be additional risk for the debit card approach, setting aside any other advantages or disadvantages between the two.
Your bank lacks proper security protections then. Here most banks have limits on debit card transactions. If you want to do a very large transaction, you have to increase the limit for a short time period in your banking app, and there is a delay of a few hours (they'll warn you when the spending limit is increased).
IANAL, but also consumer protection is much stronger in Europe. E.g. in NL if you stick to 5 basic rules, which are sensible things like not intentionally giving away your banking card or PIN code, the bank has to refund stolen money:
https://www.consumentenbond.nl/betaalrekening/bankvoorwaarde...
Just a quick Google... Wells Fargo's policy is 10 days to either case resolution OR provisional credit. I assume that's typical for American banks. For somebody living paycheck to paycheck, 10 days is a long time to go without access to what little cash they might have.
Not to mention the per-purchase (online/in-person) limits, mandatory PIN entry, and daily maximums...
I've never had a web shop use an API to deduct from my bank account - the closest thing is PayPal, which as far as I can tell is basically ACH under the covers, just though an intermediary. Pretty sure more Americans use their CC or debit card for online shopping.
But even if it were - most people operate one checking account, and most folks don't keep an especially large balance. If your debit card gets compromised or there is an erroneous charge, it will process up to your balance. It is incumbent on you to notice the fraud and take action. If the bad dip is today, and tomorrow morning my mortgage and other payments bounce or hit overdraft, I have a mess to clean up.
With a credit card, you're typically hitting a larger credit line that isn't fully utilize -- you may not notice the bad charge for a month, but there's no impact to you... the thief stole the bank's money.
Also how would someone misuse it? You need a PIN Code for every transaction anyway, and the EMV Chip can't be cloned like Magstripes.
Online Payments need a mandatory 2 Factor Authentication
The text on that link of yours is sneaky though:
"...you MAY be asked to..." (Emphasis mine)
https://svenskforfattningssamling.se/sites/default/files/sfs...
Edit: Page 28 to be precise.
The law explicitly states that funds have to be reimbursed to the victim immediately or at latest on the same bank day.
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...
The law 2018:175, which I previously linked to, is crystal clear and protects consumers against unauthorized use of their digital payment means, including but not limited to all types of card transactions. Otherwise, please let me know which chapter excludes debit cards.
Even bank transactions are protected by this law. And it has been all the way to the supreme court, which ruled in favour of the fraud victim against the bank. The victim had voluntarily handed over their digital banking credentials to scammers, and the bank refused to reimburse the stolen money. However, the supreme court ruled that the bank was indeed bound by law to reimburse the money:
https://www.domstol.se/hogsta-domstolen/avgoranden2/2022/115...
But even so, if the law is not enough and if the supreme court ruling is not enough for you, then at least empirical evidence should be enough? Just ask around with family and friends and you'll find at least a few people who have been the victims of having their debit card stolen or cloned. They will let you know that the bank returned their money swiftly.
It’s sort of true in a legal sense, but not a practical one. If you find yourself in a dispute (even outright fraud sometimes) you might end up stuck for weeks or months with your disputed funds frozen.
If you are a highly paid software engineer with considerable assets and transaction volume at your bank it’s likely you will never experience hardship with disputing a transaction. If you are someone scraping by and that $200 depends on you paying rent on time that month you will find your experience to perhaps be different.
I’ve helped friends and family with such disputes in the past. Credit cards even when it “goes wrong” are much better to deal with. Your credit limit being reduced a bit is immaterial to your life most of the time. Having your own money tied up during an investigation that demands more and more paperwork like police reports etc. can be incredibly damaging and if nothing else quite stressful. The experience some of my friends had in these matters is nothing like I had when I had my wallet stolen and I no longer recommend anyone use debit if they can avoid it.
Heck, I had a friend who doesn’t even have a passport dispute an ATM transaction in a country he never visited. The bank initially denied it and it took weeks to eventually get it resolved in his favor.
In the end having the banks money tied up vs your own money at risk is always better if you can handle the responsibility of a credit card.
Was that an introduction to the rest of your comment?
Explain to me please how a dispute with a vendor on a purchase makes a difference for your ability to pay rent? If the purchase was not fraud, then you have used that money anyway with your purchase. Unless you're planning to pay rent by bartering your Amazon order.
If you're instead talking about a stolen or cloned debit card, then that money is refunded usually as soon as you've made a police report and sent it to the bank, which is a matter of two days at most. The paperwork is not difficult, because cards get stolen and cloned all the time.
But the fraud protection is the same, even if procedures and timelines might differ.
I wrote about outright fraud taking weeks (in one case, months) to resolve. From my own personal direct experience.
> I had a friend who doesn’t even have a passport dispute an ATM transaction in a country he never visited.
Does this sound like a dispute with a vendor or outright fraud?
A dispute with a vendor can also mean an overcharge or something like a renewal fee for a yearly membership that is under dispute. It's not just marginal items you bought and the vendor refuses a return or it never shows up or whatever.
Like I said - if you are a highly paid professional you likely will never have a problem with this. It's an invisible part of the economy to you. If you are working class you are much more likely to have a wildly different experience. Banks have what is effectively an internal credit score system for each customer. For those with serious assets with the bank you get a lot more leeway and benefit of the doubt until you start abusing it.
I've had my own bank account emptied by card cloners. And the bank reimbursed the money swiftly after having made a police report. The same for everybody else I know who have fallen victim to the same. None of us with any kind of impressive assets when it happened.
As for disputes with vendors, sure, I give you that there is a difference in time frame when paying by credit instead of debit.
A cloned or stolen card should never take weeks or months to resolve. In that case, you've been the victim of a criminal bank. It's not the experience for most victims, whether rich or poor.
It is not risk taking, it is a system that not just normalized the debt, but punishes people for not taking it. When you are recommended to use credit card, so you can function on debt, so that you can get better mortgage later on, then the thing in play is not just "risk aversion".
My European business banks have never offered any kind of line of credit. Of course they probably would if I needed, and went there to grovel and prostrate myself. In contrast, my American business bank just sends unprompted e-mails sometimes asking if I would like to borrow a bunch of money.
American trust is based on rationality and intuition, while European trust is based on rules and authority. That's why business can flourish much more in the USA.
And look where that's gotten you.
> American trust is based on rationality and intuition
Just remind us where the 2008 subprime crisis started again?
It makes much more sense too.
The financial system is built to stimulate that. For example if you'd buy a house you need to pay about 30% in cash and you can't loan that money somewhere else. This way you get people that know how to deal with money. And also the bank doesn't run a big risk if there's a market slump.
The minimum 10% deposit is mainly there to cover taxes, which cannot really be recovered by the bank in the event of default.
And the fixed-rate mortgages are a good thing (though only when the rate is low hehe)
This is a uniquely American viewpoint. In most of Europe you don't buy anything on credit ever.
By December 2025, consumer credit in the Euro area alone stood at an estimated €812 billion.
Sure, in Europe people will subscribe to a credit to buy a car or materials to improve their home.
But buying your groceries or lunch with a credit card is quite a rare exception.
It also varies greatly by country, but all major European countries still have significant credit card (not consumer, so excluding e.g. car loans) debt, with the most "credit willing" countries like the UK reaching around 1/3 the US average credit card balance (but you'd also want to adjust for average salaries before comparing these). There is no single attitude to this across Europe.
You could draw all of it and put in a a 2x leveraged SP500 ETF :-D for 3 month and then return the money :-D
Imagine if all the shares in Bank X were paid for by loans issued by Bank X.
1) physical card, which works like a credit card. 2) You can flex payments you made on your regular card.
The rules are the same. If it was a card purchase it will more than likely flex (it will if you used the Flex card, account it will depend on the type of transaction.) But it needs to be used for purchases. I guess you could set up a CC processing unit and pay yourself, but it somehow doesn't seem worth it. You can't flex a bank transfer for example.
When you Flex, it gives you the option to "pay on next payment cycle", "pay in 3 installments with 0 interest", "pay in 6/12 installments with the usual big interest". But you can at any point pay it off and so you could do it over 4 months and only pay minimal interest and you could pay over the amount due and make it pay off quicker.
Airbnb reservations I also tend to do on credit.
Anything related to company expenses I also do on credit and receive reimbursement prior to having to pay it myself.
The only time I even considered it was to build a credit score in the UK to eventually apply for a mortgage, but even then it's not really necessary.
Not having a credit score isn't necessarily a big problem, as banks use it for context rather than making decisions purely based on it, but I did see some advice online about getting a "credit builder card" [1] (essentially a high interest and low credit limit card) as a way to build up credit history.
I decided that getting in debt just so I can prove I can get out of it is a stupid system, and didn't do it. Last time I checked (with Experian), I had a perfect credit score, so I don't know what happened in the meantime.
1: https://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/credit-cards/types/credi...
From your nickname it sounds like you are from Romania so if that's so there might be a dose of xenofobia included there as well. That is kinda big in the UK right now, the whole Brexit was fuelled by it, sadly, especially concerning eastern Europe. I was on the receiving end of some of it myself too, being called 'a non-national' and eyed with distrust. I'm sorry.
There are also official debt registries, where you (and prospective lenders) can look up how much debt you have.
A bit different than the credit score concept.
In Moldova where I'm from, only 8% of adults have one.
Besides, if you want insurance just get a 30€ per year rolling package.
My credit card has a yearly fee of €36 (and it’s not like having a debit card instead would have been free). The total annual insurance premiums of all insurances that it includes (travel, third party liability, purchase) would exceed €200 from the same provider.
The widespread use with "buy now pay later" also counters your wildly baseless claim. Klarna, PayPal 30 days etc.
They fought tooth and nail against cash discounts OR credit surcharges and they finally lost. In some areas it's rampant that you get a pretty substantial discount - often 4 or 5%, better than cash-back - and many places post "cash prices".
You can get even more if you're willing to ride the hassle of the gift card train.
The credit card companies know people spend more if they use credit cards, and they turn around and sell that to the merchants.
Credit card companies are allowed to run cashback for using them.
All in the name of "consumer rights": https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/payment-surcharge...
Colorado law recently changed permitting merchants to pass on the actual cost of processing, except for cash, check and debit payments.
https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_5-2-212
This law overrides any prior contractual agreements with banks/processing companies that prohibit surcharges. This is previously how MasterCard and VISA coerced merchants into absorbing the processing fee, by contractually requiring credit same as cash pricing.
I'm confused - is it not the issuing bank that gives you the loan, and the credit card company just provides the infrastructure?
Btw. having an overdraft limit of a few hundred Euros is quite typical for those liquidity issues. You don't need a credit card for that.
1. Merchant (bears little fraud risk but a lot of chargeback risk)
2. Payment Gateway (little direct risk but some liability risk)
3. Merchant Acquirer (more direct risk but mostly if merchants become insolvent)
4. Card Network (Visa/MC/AmEx - less risk but significant underlying costs managing a global technology that spans the financial system and needs to be distributed to almost every merchant of any scale in America)
5. Issuers (Banks + AmEx - most risk but get a big share of interchange fees)
I've surely missed something here that the very smart (and increasingly grumpy these days!) HN community will doubtlessly pile-on to correct, so I apologize in advance for errors or omissions... and I bow down if @patio11 swoops in to tell me about the complexity I've missed in either payments or Japanese economic/cultural conventions
Will also add that the benefit of credit is not overdraft but smoothing cash flow... if I'm living paycheck to paycheck and get paid every two weeks, I will incur essential expenses at the beginning of the fortnight that I can afford but lack cash in my account to pay now. I can't overdraft because I won't have the funds to deposit into that account for another two weeks. I'm getting a service that smooths my cashflow and there's a small premium added to reflect that. (Could you save up enough to avoid needing this? Is that a uniquely American way of living? I don't know! I'm making a descriptive claim not a normative one!)
This is so true, the EU countries are super diverse, and yet EU citizens tend to believe that whatever happens in their country is common across the Union.
This is really much less of a thing in Europe, or at the very least in Germany and Spain. Mostly it's the overdraft from banks that you can use as what you call a revolving loan. Most of the visa and mastercards I've had in my life simply debit from my main account.
Neither Visa nor MasterCard are loaning customers their money. It's the European banks that hold the bulk of the risk for European credit card transactions.
Chip and pin and NFC transitions took off much quicker outside the US because merchants generally owned more of the chargeback risk than in the US, and therefore were willing to update their POS equipment accordingly.
Risk (like debt) is another place where a US-centric view will likely lead you to misunderstand the purpose of Visa/MC.
Not really. The risk of all fraud is initial borne by banks issuing the cards, after all they’re only parties that have an actual financial relationship with the person providing the cash/debt. If something which results in that person cash/debt being stolen, it’s between that person and their bank to figure out who’s liable for the lost money. Chargebacks are just a mechanism for banks to recover some of that lost money, once the liability between the card holder and the bank has been settled.
One of the big reasons why Chip and PIN etc took off outside of the US, is that the US is very accepting of fraud, and charging crazy high interchange rates (up to 10x what they are in Europe) so the cost of fraud is spread over many individuals. Other parts of the world have regulations capping interchange rates, and providing better consumer protection, demanding that banks and payment networks tackle fraud, rather than increase the cost of everything by 1-2% to cover fraud losses.
I have no idea what policy made the US hold into signatures for that long. But the seller and the buyer are the least powerful people on that entire chain, so I don't think it reasonable to look at them.
And the bulk of the fees from credit card transactions goes to the bank(s) since they hold the risk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee#:~:text=The%20...
I think there's plenty of money to back all the activity.
Especially if there are central banks willing to back them
Visa/MC make about 0.1-0.13% of each transaction, not a 1-2%. The rest of the interchange (the vast majority) goes to the issuing bank.
Patio11 doesn't name names or give precise figures, but: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/how-credit-cards-make...
If I take a random loan with the bank and use those funds to do the same purchases using debit, then I'm the one taking the loss.
I lost 3 credit cards INSIDE an airplane (hello AirAsia!). I only realized it when I turned on my phone while queuing at immigration and was bombarded with dozens of "Successful transaction" messages. That's ~30min from stepping off the airplane. When I checked my statements, I saw dozens of physical transactions (swipes/taps) with different merchants in different cities from the airport.
All 3 cards have different PINs. All require a PIN for transactions above ~USD200. Yet the banks rejected my disputes because "it's a physical transaction, so you must be the one doing it." Apparently, they all think I could fly to different cities, buy different items, and fly back to wait in immigration, all in 30 minutes.
https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/nfc-gate-relay-attacks-2026/5...
Err, no - for _all_ businesses managing cash flow is the _only_ NR 1 crucial thing, because if they dont, they will disappear by tomorrow :)
Their risk is covered multiple ways (as reflected in their profits). You pay an annual fee to have a card. You pay per transaction, you pay for paywave, you pay 21% in interest.
They cover their risk by hitting every possible angle.
Some of the services include: - Consumer Credit - Fraud protection - Payment network - Discount service (rewards, etc) - Concierge services - Rental/Ticketing services - etc
No one is denying the utility of what they have created. The problem is they’ve built monopolistic walled gardens where these are all bundled together which raises overall costs while also prevents competition.
These services can easily be unbundled (for example in India the payment network is open and cost free, so anyone can provide those other services on top of the payment network).
What has made this far more urgent, however, is that these companies are located in the U.S. which has recently leveraged the power these networks have to attack EU citizens for frivolous reasons.
So even if the MC/Visa business model was perfect, it would be foolish for even American allies to rely on them given the actions of the current administration.
Disagree. Credit has its uses, but debit is superior for the vast majority consumer transactions: lower fees, lower risk, instant settlement, easy P2P transfers, and broader accessibility. That we've become used to credit card payment system in the West is largely a historical aberration that needs correcting.
Also, I'm a bit biased since I live in China, but WeChat Pay and Alipay are so far superior to the credit card system that I can hardly find a single redeeming quality in the latter. China was lucky in that it leapfrogged the traditional credit card system since it didn't have that historical baggage.
I don't want some asshole to be able to instantly drain my bank account. If I did, I'd be carrying a suitcase of cash around with me.
That's ridiculous. Why should I, as a consumer, care about the merchant's "risk?"
In the EU, debit cards are pretty common, and largely its a network effect. You need to get terminals that are supported by your payment provider.
A lot of merchant terminals are provided by banks, and frankly they are itching to get a sweet sweet cut of each transaction. Not only the information, but the cut of each transaction. Something like 0.2-1.5% of each transaction. (I'm sure mastercard and visa give them a cut)
For Credit cards, the banks/operator already handle most of the risk, and then pay visa a percentage for the privilege of charging usury like rates
Also bank transfers are easy, instant and free.
> For many _businesses_ managing cash flow is existential -- as merchants they want to be paid as quickly as possible, but as B2B customers they want to have 30-60 days to sell the input goods they've purchased so they can pay for them upstream. There is a premium for that flexibility that gets reflected in processing fees.
Yes those businesses use a bank loan for this, no need for a credit card again.
> If you want to switch the world to a debit-based system where economic transactions are limited by cash on hand, I'd argue that's a poorer and less dynamic world than the one we're operating in today.
Thinking that the world doesn't have credit just because they use debit cards is one of the most idiotic things I've read today
Payment networks don’t provide credit or any kind of liquidity whatsoever, that entirely provided by the various financial entities that communicate via the payment network. The reason Visa and Mastercard haven’t been easily replaced is simple network effects, nobody wants to integrate with a payment network where there’s nobody to transact with.
Not saying that's the case, just given circumstances not sure if risk is needed to explain the result in this case.
> Full coverage for deposits for payment and settlement purposes, bearing no interest, being redeemable on demand, and providing normally required payment and settlement services
There’s nothing special about Mastercard and Visa rails that prevents you recreating all the functionality that the broader ecosystem provides, without Visa and Mastercard. Hell all of that functionality could be provided by exactly the same companies and banks that provide it for Visa and Mastercard networks.
That’s not how chargebacks and refunds work. Mastercard and Visa are not involved in the vast majority of disputes at all, it’s entirely handled by the card issuer and card acquirer. Mastercard/Visa only get involved in cases where network party has broken one of the technical rules of the network. For cases of missing or faulty goods etc, Mastercard/Visa do nothing except transport the messages used by bank/merchant to litigate the dispute.
When Mastercard/Visa are forced to step in and make an arbitration decision, they charge a hefty fee (hundreds of dollars) to the losing side to do so. So they have no issue with people raising disputes, it makes them a lot of money.
> Amex can see what I purchase but knows very little about me otherwise. I like this separation, and I like that it's hard for the government to get a complete picture of my financial affairs.
This is naive, all banks and credit card issuers are required by law to perform KYC (Know Your Customer) to ensure they know exactly who they’re transacting with. It’s trivial for the state to buildup a complete image of your financial situation by sending a small number of court orders to banks and financial entities to turn over all their records on you. That’s ignoring the automated tax reporting that banks also have to do.
This is not meant as a personal attack, or meant to be defamatory. I am detecting a familiar pattern, that is entrenched culturally.
Further, I identify this cultural trait as one of the obstacles or reason for many European problems.
It’s an opinion I have.
I have credit cards for decades with various institutions, but NEVER EVER went to minus, see no reason to change it. Just a bit of discipline. We don't have public credit score or similar dictatorial stuff here. The only loan I will ever have on my name is called mortgage on real estate, and beyond that is a line I'll never cross. Same goes for everybody I know - family, friends, coworkers.
This comes from somebody working for a bank so not some clueless fool.
- For many consumers there isn't sufficient money in the account to settle all the one-time and ongoing transactions they are liable for -- credit cards are giving you a revolving loan, there's risk it will not be repaid, and that risk ends up reflected in processing fees
- For many _businesses_ managing cash flow is existential -- as merchants they want to be paid as quickly as possible, but as B2B customers they want to have 30-60 days to sell the input goods they've purchased so they can pay for them upstream. There is a premium for that flexibility that gets reflected in processing fees.
- For both consumers and merchants, fraud risk is real and while it's the most solvable part of all this it's a real (and costly!) factor today. That risk for fraud gets moved upstream to the networks/acquirers/processors/issuers and that premium shows up in (you guessed it) processing fees.
If you want to switch the world to a debit-based system where economic transactions are limited by cash on hand, I'd argue that's a poorer and less dynamic world than the one we're operating in today.