Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Counter to your counterpoint: the people selling you those games on eBay also know that you might be able to revoke your payment either fraudulently or because of events outside the seller’s control, thus the selling price is almost certainly higher than it would otherwise be. In other words, both buyer and seller are incurring a cost due to the existence of chargebacks. Whether that cost is worth it depends on the actual probability of fraud or problems occurring, and at the very least, it seems reasonable to have an option for both buyer and seller to agree to not support chargebacks.



> In other words, both buyer and seller are incurring a cost due to the existence of chargebacks

The cost isn't due to chargebacks. It is due to the risk of fraud. Criminal behaviour like fraud extracts a toll on society at large and we all get to pay. The overhead added from chargebacks make both the buyer and seller internalize the potential risk of fraud. Without chargebacks, yeah prices might be slightly lower but society at large would get to foot the bill for fraud.


It could still be optional for parties who trust each other. Chargebacks is not the only way to establish trust in a transaction.


Loyalty programs fill that role.


Loyalty programs, reputation systems, escrow, etc. Nothing will ever be perfect, but the status quo of chargebacks is also not perfect.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: