The optimal amount of fraud is neither zero nor "let it all through." Their "best interest" is a balance between allowing legit transactions to get through and blocking enough fraudulent ones that fraud doesn't become too common.
Conversely this can affect customers by the vendor or payment platform blocking transactions that are not fraud.
Should be moving to a system where setting up payments with a new provider has them request access to charge you, and then on the bank app you approve it. Australia has this as a fairly new system called PayTo, where you can approve and later unapprove individual merchants the ability to charge you.
Individual merchants barely get any information from you this way, and have no way of even trying to charge you more later.
But fraud prevention is not free and has negative returns at some point.
I dislike it when people use "the optimal amount of fraud isnt zero", because it is wrong and makes the underlying problem harder to understand, which is that people like to overoptimize a single desirable property(fraud prevention) without considering other desirable properties(like ease of use and a low rate of false positives for legit transactions)