[amcnett]

Fraud liability absorbed by a service provider isn't "zero fraud." It is: "you don't get charged directly for chargebacks and other financial penalties, but your brand is still at risk, plus you have no control over false positives."

[rbres]

True. But it's zero fraud from your perspective as a business.

You also have full control over false positives: - First, we put txn's through several layers to ensure the highest rates of order approvals. If our algorithm is about to reject, it goes through a human review process to ensure we're approving as much as possible. - If we reject, you have a force approve time window to approve transactions if you disagree with our decision. You have final decision-making. None of our merchants use this because they end up trusting us so much :-)

Our customers (some case studies here: https://bolt.com/case-studies) have switched from top-tier providers and seen substantial order approval lift.

Furthermore, we're also your payment processor. Typically fraud providers and payment processors are separate, so if fraud providers make a mistake, payment processors will slap the merchant on the wrist with what can ultimately be serious fines + more reserve requirements. We don't, because we're also your processor.

[amcnett]

Sure, maybe you offer "zero fraud" from a chargebacks-line-item-on-the-balance-sheet perspective. The impacts of fraud on customers' perception of a company, and the effects those perceptions will have on the bottom line, however, can be significant. This is not say I assume your service is deficient in any way...the marketing is just a little snicker-inducing from someone like me who works in the field. The only sure way to have zero fraud is to turn off sales.

Final control over force-approving rejected transactions is a nice feature on its face. I understand why your merchants don't use it...they'd have to soak the expense of paying someone to monitor accepts and rejects in an attempt to optimize sales (which is what they are paying you to do).

If a merchant does not have full visibility into and control of their anti-fraud program (and the expertise to know what to do with it) approval/reject/false positive rates are always going to be in the hands of people who don't know their customers or business as well as the merchant does. That is why larger, mature businesses invest in anti-fraud people and technology. That's certainly a bridge too far for the typical small business, so services like Bolt can certainly deliver a ton of value. I just advise a merchant who thinks that just because they can't see fraud there isn't any impact to their business that they're missing a potentially crucial part of the picture.

[rbres]

It's not zero sum if you have overall greater precision. We believe we do and have proven it across dozens of case studies.

As we publish more, we hope to let data talk. If I were in your shoes, I'd be similarly skeptical. Most companies in the space overpromise and underdeliver.

[amcnett]

I would argue it is zero sum ("you've got some fraud" vs "you have no fraud") if there is any great volume of transactions and what's being sold is valuable, and/or marketable at a black market price below retail, and/or offers fraudsters liquidity options. I am skeptical because an untrained system is going to make mistakes out of the gate, even if it's trained on oodles of transactions from other businesses. Anti-fraud isn't a one-size-fits-all game.

[rbres]

We've been processing orders for a year and a half in stealth with many clients. So we have a lot of data.

The key: everyone is focused on large data sets (breadth of data). We have some of that, but not nearly as much as large processors. We have, however, much more depth (sometimes 10X-20X as much). This allows us to achieve high accuracy in short amounts of time. Often times we'll lose money in the beginning to ensure high approval rates and, in essence, pay for learning data.