Only some debit cards are covered by Durbin. (Those issued by US banks with more than $10 billion in assets.) So, sure, we could break that out... but quoting "X% for most cards and Y% for Durbin-regulated debit" isn't exactly straightforward or easy to understand/model. We calculate our fees based on the blended cost of processing. (Plenty of transactions cost more than 2.9%.)
Over 60% of debit transactions are covered by Durbin.[1] For those Stripe is taking 0.05%, an extraordinarily low fee payment method, and marking it all the way up to 2.9%.
If the rationale for this is simplicity then why break out Bitcoin or ACH? Why not just fold them into the blended rate too? Of course it would defeat the whole point of them.. Just as this defeats the whole point of Durbin fee regulation.
Durbin has positioned debit to fill the role that Bitcoin has failed to: a low fee consumer payment method unburdened by reward programs. It's about as cheap as Bitcoin, but it has near universal adoption already, basic consumer protections and well oiled rails.
I seriously doubt merchants would find breaking out debit from credit too complicated especially if the rate was significantly lower. I'd understand doing a blended debit rate that combines regulated and exempt debit cards, which I'm guessing would come in well below 2%. Merchants would go bonkers for that! But blending debit and credit in the post-Durbin landscape makes about as much sense as blending Bitcoin and credit.
One price for credit, one price for debit, one price for Bitcoin.. That sounds pretty simple.
So... Is it really simplicity driving this, or is it the fear of the credit fee crossing 3% if you broke out debit? To be honest I hope it's not that you're secretly hiding a big profit center in regulated debit markup because that would not be so transparent.
