Hi smca - this helps, I was under the impression that Stripe is refunded the fees in scenarios where disputes are won. That seems to have been a misundertanding.

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.