Wirecard has been repeatedly and very credibly accused of fraud and of cooking their books for the past decade. Clearly customers don't care otherwise they wouldn't have had any.
Wells Fargo fraudulently created millions of fake checking and savings accounts. Did it break the "utmost trust" you assert is required? No.
RBS was found insolvent after the 2008 financial crisis. Surely insolvency violates this "utmost trust" benchmark? Haha. No.
Barclays was found guilty of fixing interbank interest rates (Libor). Massive scandal that was all over the newspapers. And yet, same question, same answer.
I recall someone saying a couple of years later that RBS was a Bank, in the same sense that the Heritage Railway Association was a Train Operating Company. Harsh and funny, but with some truth to it.
Or they don't know.
Many banks were insolvent after 2008. The government fixed that.
Libor fixing us too complicated for most to understand and it mostly hurt you if you didn't ship around.
I'm fine with fraud as long as it mostly hurts those who can't be bothered. Still a happy client of Wells Fargo.
Wirecard has the problem of impacting diligent people who will actually take action against them.
Any company that only offers payment via PayPal is a lost sale. One of the reasons why I don't use Gumtree or eBay anymore
I am not a big fan of Paypal and heavens know it has some major issues to address, but the entire field kinda sucks in its own unique way.
Its a terrible experience overall. It has gotten better but still leaves a lot to be desired
So if your service is friendly to that group of customers, no matter if accidentally through some process flaw or intentionally (because you're not treating criminals creating accounts as potential criminals), then you can (and will) suddenly get a lot of criminal activity. For a small service, as soon as organized criminals notice that your policies allow them to use you for making fraudulent transactions, they can quickly bring in much more transactions that any of your marketing activities.
The general result of doing what you propose is that it works until criminals notice a particular vulnerability in your processes/policies caused by excessive trust in users, and then suddenly you get a LOT of fraudulent activity which makes all your operations unviable. I've seen small merchants get a tenfold increase in transactions over a single week, with all of that increase being fraud, enabled by some weakness that is massively exploited until they close the weakness. Or close their business - for a small business, a single major fraud campaign can easily be enough to bankrupt them.
Nobody really wants to give out details of their credit card (except maybe in the US) to random sites, and there is no alternative to PayPal.
PayPal succeeded because they rode the eBay wave. Millions of people hit the site in its "online garage sale" phase, PayPal had three or four things that went for them: * As a seller, you could provide an experience less terrible than mailing a postal order with a basically instant and free onboarding process (compared with a real gateway) * As a buyer, it was typically easier and faster than postal orders, and they developed a reputation of being pushovers for fraud, which was important when dealing with "garage sale" tier merchants. * They were very aggressive with signup bonuses to acquire market share. $5 for new account + $5 for referral. * A lot of handwaving about the eventual revenue model. I recall wne it was "we'll survive on the float of customer balances, nobody will ever pay a credit card fee" and then a series of market shocks where they changed course-- all of which took place long after they had a critical market base.
This got them a major market presence-- to the point where I can recall Citibank being curbstomped with a similar product (c2it) despite even richer recruitment bonuses.
Eventually, they merged and sailed under eBay's flag and it was the default payment method there until quite recently. This created an :installed base" nobody else could compete with.
They then pushed their marketing towards "you don't have to give the merchant a card number" playing off security fears, but I suspect major secondary factors are "it's basically LastPass for payment methids" convenience (from before browsers offered to save card info) and that some people keep a PayPal balance as an "off the family books" way of financing their hobbies and such without the wife seeing your purchases on the statement.