[nothrabannosir]

This solution is already implemented in large parts of the world and good to go! But the incentives are sometimes not right. Ultimately, I want IC payments to be cheaper, as a merchant. I want my incoming IC payments to be in a separate bookkeeping from the non-IC: increase in fees on the latter, I'd like to keep my rates for the former.

Ultimately, I can then pass these savings on to the customers.

But as long as there is no incentive to ask for IC, why would I? It's just an annoyance.

[BlackFly]

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean.

Physical merchants eliminate liability for fraud and get reduced interchange fees by accepting chip.

Web merchants get reduced fees by using 3D secure (and the other scheme's versions). It is the issuing banks decision whether the 3D secure uses a chip or not, not the decision of the merchant. Many banks use sms push, RSA tokens, OTP sent in an envelope, or just passwords.

[dlubarov]

My understanding is that

- The liability shift will pressure merchants just to use EMV-capable terminals. As long as they're using one they won't be penalized for swiping.

- However, the networks require certified EMV terminals to reject swipes from chip cards. (They can tell from the service code in the card's track data.) Unless dipping fails a certain number of times, in which case the terminal can allow swiping as a fallback.

So merchants are incentivized to get an EMV-capable terminal, issuers are incentivized to replace magstripe cards with ICCs, and terminal requirements (mostly) prevent swiping ICCs.