Hacker News Reader

Comment by al2o3cr | Hacker News Reader

"Assuming consumers will be ok with only 0.5% in rewards"

And assuming they'll be OK with having ZERO chargeback rights in case the purchase turns out to be not-as-advertised and/or defective.

That second article (explaining why consumers would want to do this) best be a doozy, because so far consumers have had to swallow a requirement for them to provide a "mobile wallet", lower rewards, AND increased vulnerability to fraud all to save the merchant 0.375%.

View on HN

I'm ok with not having chargeback rights on these transactions, because it's not like I'm going to do a chargeback on my local burrito place or grocery store or whatever.

Also, the article factored in a "Bitcoin discount" for customers, and .375% of revenue is a hell of a lot more that .375% in profit. That's easily 20% of profit for small margin businesses. The article was also very conservative on credit card fees.

If a Bitcoin user wants chargeback ability, they can use a third party mediator for a fraction of what credit card companies charge.

I agree that foregoing the rewards is a fairly big assumption and it might not be realistic. But I do think there are other advantages and will write about those. The I don't think people will (or should) absorb the merchant risk and that's why someone does have to take up an acquiring bank-type role (and charge for it).

Assuming Bitpay, Coinbase, and company don't get into providing some sort of chargeback protection for consumers, which of course they could do.

It's also possible that merchant reputation will become key, which isn't exactly a bad thing.

Agreed on both counts. They (e.g., Coinbase) will likely have to do this, and charge for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com