I don't know crytpos are here for more than a decade now, maybe that's an incentive for cc companys/bank to actually do their job of securing transaction.
I think G2A adapted quite fast to the worst western standard, making money selling stuff they don't own. Wether being a platform vampirizing a fix % of a variable economy that increase or decrease based on others creativity like steam, appstore, carpool platform even ebay in a way. Or just privatising common good like science article, education, open source software, water selling company, those that sells seeds, medicines/drug ect. That doesn't make them burnt cow for everyone, since lots of people are perfectly fine or ignorant about those things and we barely know other way to do so cheap.exi2163 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:22 amIn the public opinion G2A is already a burnt cow. With companys like STEAM, EPIC, EA and Ubisoft just doing what the hell they want i dont think it seems viable for G2A to even try hard to become a clean platform because they have no support for beeing such thing. After all, G2A is just a platform for key sellers much like ebay and they earn money by processing transactions - exactly like the credit card companys
Also chinese companys (G2A) seem to have a problem to adapt to western standards fast enough. I'm very interested in how the story about those chargebacks continues.
What I don't get is why Wube is the one paying the fee in this context. The text of law in my country states that if as a seller you ask for "strong authentification" during a purchase, then you are not responsible if the cardholder is not the legit cardowner. And as so there shouldn't be any fee as it should be the legal responsability of the cc company or the bank that emited it for its legit customer to cover the cost of them not properly securing the transaction.
In this case the victim's bank should cover the loss. ( Or not depending on how much time the victim took to declare the loss, wether the victim let all the password and ID of all account on a piece of paper in the same lost waller or not stuff like that as " not cautious" ).
Now it seems that the cardowner's bank or CC company ask the seller's bank the money. Which might not be directly asked to Wube but cost them at least a fix fee per occurence that they probably pay to their own bank.( i imagine)
Some advices that are on legal websites are that the seller should proove that he delivered a functionnal product, after following the CC company procedure of authentification before the payment, this means you can claim to your bank that it was not your faulty product or attitude the cause of canceling. If the CC company doesn't/ can't provide you with a way to do the authentification, the seller cannot be held responsible.
This in case you want to contest your own bank increasing your fee ( which shouldn't exist in the first place !!). As stated, the law is part of the consumer protection after some readings; initially the fees were to prevent sellers to sell crap, the more problem the higher the fee.
Agree ; Agree ; well not logistic but potential legal costssomeone1337 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:08 amThis requires geofencing to work, which is another highly problematic idea.
You cannot sell digital goods for diffrent prices as it makes no sense...
or do you have diffrent logistic problems to solve, if you sell a key in the us or in europe, or somewhere else? I dont think so.