We're now charged more for dispute submissions. These costs are set solely by the card networks and we'll no longer bear those costs (bringing us inline with the market).
Having said that - I think there was a lot of room for nuance in this rollout, which kinda got shoved up into a one-size-fits-all policy.
I'll give my own business as a reference - I have a 100% chargeback "win" rate; including in cases where Stripe estimated low win success odds. Chargebacks have (so far) come exclusively from bad faith actors.
With this latest iteration - fledgling businesses like mine are massively exposed to competitors making bad-faith bookings and issuing chargebacks against us; which even if we were to successfully defend - would entirely bankrupt us.
Has Stripe explored a mitigation of a scenario such as this?
Following through on the same line of thought - has Stripe considered a more balanced approach where if merchants have a success rate of more than a certain threshold (which by all means can be high) - then they are more "protected" on chargebacks they win? It could be a much better balance in filtering out good vs bad actors on the merchant side.
Potentially also something to pitch to card networks - they will certainly not listen to individual merchants, but if I had to guess - they wouldn't ignore this sort of pitch from Stripe?
And if you were to do so - you would be building loyalty from your "good merchants" by providing a value offering beyond the market; the ones whom are less likely to encounter chargebacks to begin with (and win those they do encounter); since you'll then have a value prop ahead/better than the market. Which just seems like a sound long-game bet.
One person's thoughts etc etc - but the current version of the chargeback fee rollout - while well rationalized, also feels heavy handed and not with the usual finesse/nuance with which I've seen Stripe's usual policy modifications. Thought I'd throw my 2c into the mix.