redyellowblue5031 t1_jeah39q wrote on March 30, 2023 at 4:27 PM

For various p2p payment apps this is a huge problem.

On the one hand customers can finally pay whoever they want pretty much instantly by removing the a majority of checks and balances in more conventional slower forms of money transfer.

If the problem with that isn’t clear, it’s no wonder scammers are able to leverage these systems to do their business.

Often times, these systems aren’t insured like a debit or credit card would be either. Essentially, you make a mistake and it’s on you.

rukioish t1_jeba975 wrote on March 30, 2023 at 7:33 PM

How are there no laws binding these types of money transfer applications from having liability? I would assume the trade off of convenience is the application accepting the risk, but oftentimes there are no downsides for the provider.

redyellowblue5031 t1_jebdnwc wrote on March 30, 2023 at 7:54 PM

There are some laws, but given the relatively young age of the tech, regulations haven’t caught up and it is a hard topic to broach.

If someone tricks you into giving them money, right now there isn’t a way to really do much because you pushed the send button. And should there be? This is part of the question.

One way to reduce this is to make it harder to join these types of P2P payment platforms and put other authentication and authorization “road blocks” in place. How many need to go on to strike a balance between security and keeping the service relevant? That’s yet to be seen.

Fred2620 t1_jearelv wrote on March 30, 2023 at 5:32 PM

> by removing the a majority of checks and balances in more conventional slower forms of money transfer.

But then again, there's a reason why these checks and balances exist in the first place.

redyellowblue5031 t1_jeauimf wrote on March 30, 2023 at 5:52 PM

For sure. People bemoan the fact they can’t send and access money instantly but also don’t like getting scammed. Somewhere, there’s a trade off like in all other forms of security.