[solardev]

So basically, if you use that to buy something, you have no post-purchase protections from the payment provider itself (chargebacks, extended warranties, price protections, etc.?) like the kind credit cards will often provide?

[popcalc]

Blik in Poland is another example. Every single domestic bank supports it. Marketplaces like OLX (Polish ebay) will sometimes offer a moneyback guarantee for a small percentage of the transaction amount. You can use the same system to pay at the grocery store or the local doner kebab place. We’ve been using cash for far longer than credit cards.

And in the EU if you’re buying new physical goods online the merchant is required to give you a week or two to return it for free.

[garaetjjte]

Blik now supports contactless payments by, guess what? Providing virtual Mastercard card.

[Aachen]

I never needed any of these things in the EEA

When I wasn't happy with a product, I either used the warranty or (mandatory) 14-day return option depending on the reason why the product wasn't conforming expectations

Perhaps warranty extras are more relevant outside of the EU where warranty laws may be less strict? How even does a payment system do warranty, it knows nothing of the product?

And what is price protection, it sounds like merchants would draw more from the account than you authorised? How would that even work? With iDeal at least, you approve a certain amount for a certain merchant (displayed on a second-factor device so it's not impacted by phishing) and they cannot later charge you more

[popcalc]

> where warranty laws may be less strict?

These protections don’t really exist in the US. The only thing American consumers can really use as leverage to get a return is the threat of a charge back. Even a small amount of chargebacks (merchants call it friendly fraud) can land you in serious trouble with Visa or MasterCard. If you lose the ability to process cards, your business is basically poof — gone.

[solardev]

I have a longer reply in a sibling post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41276479), but basically, yeah... in the US we have very few consumer protections, so credit cards offer some of that in lieu of a functional government.

They also have much better protections against fraud (if someone steals your credit card and buys something with it, you're not liable... the bank will pay you back).

If you get scammed with a cash-equivalent (like our Zelle or Cash App or Venmo), too bad, there's no way to get your money back. I know people who've lost thousands of dollars that way, and nobody will protect you from that.

Credit cards here obviously charge high interests (and charge the merchants too) but they offer a lot of protections you otherwise wouldn't get.

[FireBeyond]

> in the US we have very few consumer protections

> If you get scammed with a cash-equivalent (like our Zelle

Fun fact: shifting a significant chunk of liability for fraud away from banks and onto consumers was in fact one of the design goals of Zelle for the banks.

[Aachen]

Getting scammed is a problem but it's not super common and the banks have a policy of refunding the money. Society bears the cost that way, and has the incentive to prevent and educate, rather than that it ruins some individual's life

[solardev]

The banks where you live, you mean? Here they won't care, once you send it, it's gone forever even if it was a scam.

[Aachen]

Exactly, in the context I mentioned in the post above

[comprev]

Reducing charge-backs in another reason Chip & PIN was promoted by the banks.

With a signature the merchant is responsible for fraud. They are supposed to check the buyers signature against the one written on the back of the credit/debit card or cheque book. If the signatures don't match the merchant should decline the sale.

With Chip & PIN - a code only the card owner should know - the responsibility has been shifted away from the seller over to the buyer. The banks always say "NEVER share your PIN code with anybody. It's for you only"

Claiming a charge-back is much harder if YOU are the one who authorised the transaction by entering a code only YOU should know.

[_heimdall]

Correct, systems like iDeal intentionally don't support charge backs [1].

I believe the argument is that as long as they can ensure all transactions are secure and can only be initialized by those with access to the bank account, there shouldn't be a need for charge backs.

[1] https://www.mollie.com/growth/how-ideal-payment-method-works

[radicalbyte]

In a very limited form only. The fees are very low though. You still have all of your legal rights etc so as long as the retailer / manufacturer stays in business you get the warranty etc (EU law gives a warranty on "expected lifetime" but many try to limit that to 2 years - you have to sue to get more).