[Keeeeeeeks]

I'm glad that this discussion is peppered with the words "charge back" and "fraud". People speaking out of their element about "banks censoring their competitors" probably haven't been on the receiving side of a frivolous charge back, lost the dispute, and been SOL for it.

Crypto companies could default to push payments and/or micro-deposits for verifying ownership of a fiat instrument, but people want their coins now and that causes friction, which shrinks user activation funnels.

Anyone using a fiat on-ramp to accept payments (including exchanges) has agreements with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/their bank to keep their charge back ratios under 1%, or else Visa/MC/the bank processing their fiat transactions will fire them (good luck running a business accepting fiat without access to the card networks or a bank).

Bank fraud analysts probably have their own bank-side metrics/reasoning to give customers the benefit of the doubt.

For example, if the fraud analyst sides with a merchant and denies filing a friendly fraud (maliciously filed) dispute, maybe the customer complains to their manager, and takes whatever sympathy-inducing narrative to social media, which would get an analyst fired and make a bank look even less sympathetic.

Through that, it's too easy for someone to maliciously load up on 2+ months of purchases, walk to their bank, state "I've never heard of Bitcoin someone hacked me and bought $6k in crypto I need that back", and win. It's not worth the headache until/unless banks and exchanges bridge the gap and determine a means of:

1. Confirming the exchange isn't providing liquidity to money launderers 2. Confirming with the bank that the KYC info requested sufficiently fulfills #1 3. Confirming with the bank that the KYC and payment instrument info (if fiat) requested sufficiently provides evidence that the owner of the instrument authorized the payment.