New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
It means what it says, that's it's "perceived as being particulary high risk" and it's "declined more aggressively".
It also says this: "Our data suggests that US issuers might treat a 3DS request as a fraud signal itself. Issuers might believe, with reason, that US businesses are requesting 3DS because they know the transactions are higher risk, and they are hoping to shift liability to the issuer to manage this risk and authenticate the cardholders."
What the hell are you talking about? It extremely clearly states that US card issuers consider the merchant requesting 3DS to be a higher risk, which you seem to be deeply confused about, because your argument makes absolutely no goddamn sense in that case.
@maxxxxx Once again I am forced to assume you are trolling because you're just yapping about things you clearly do not really understand at all and are not particularly related to the situation that we're supposed to be discussing in this topic. This is a case where the payment processor told the merchant that accepting the payment would carry a higher than average risk and instructed them to refund it, so they did.
It also says about businesses seeing the transaction as high risk in first place and trying to shift the liability to the issuer. It's like playing hot potato.
And after all that the business asked the customer to pay by crypto. That's the issue here. Either there's high-risk of fraud, identity theft, criminal activity or there's not. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
That has absolutely nothing to do with this case, RackNerd didn't request 3DS because they have some internal system that determined a higher fraud risk. This case has nothing to do with 3DS. The customer submitted a payment, Stripe flagged the payment as high risk, attempted to verify the customer's identity, couldn't successfully do so, and advised RackNerd to issue a refund, which they did. As far as I can tell, none of that is even in dispute and you're just yapping about a surprisingly elaborate albeit entirely hypothetical situation that you made up entirely within your own mind, and it's still pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about.
For this reason, I am inclined to believe that you are a troll who is just wasting our time and trying to get this thread re-bumped to the top of the forum.
conclusions: banks and services around banks is absolute evil.
Note: crypto is still not “the solution”
And it's RackNerd who asked the customer to pay by crypto after all that happened. I already explained that more than once.
That was in my reply to @JasonM about the "norm" and to @nghialele about "Capital One". All I did was point you to that post and said what I think is "more likely" in this case. Nothing wrong with that except for your yapping that followed.
Seems your imagination is running wild and needs a reality check
I think it is already pretty well established that you are the one whose imagination has been running wild during this entire thread.
In that case it's ok if I bump this thread to the top of the forum. Tho, it's already at the top anyway and I wouldn't even see it if you didn't bump it to the top in the first place
Can you guys go make some other thread boring as fuck? I think you've reached limit with this one.