![]() Manually relaying the information (and the context behind the transaction) after being informed about a chargeback via processor or arrival bank (FN) Someone from the company overriding the order in real-time (FP) Outcome Visibility: Thinking about a traditional fraud detector built on top of checkout behavior, how would they know if they were wrong about a chargeback and adjust their model (either FP or FN)? It would involve: By sitting on top of the transaction, Bolt can manage this while only contacting the merchant if necessary shipping information is needed. That being said, account termination from the merchant's back is always a possibility which Bolt still has to be mindful of.Įase of Handling Disputes: Chargeback disputes have a lot of administrative overhead, both on compiling evidence for potential disputes as well as maintaining lines of communication with the processor on non-disputes (sorting chargeback codes, etc.). ![]() With Bolt as your processor, the risk of being terminated for true fraud chargebacks is 0, allowing for a more aggressive approach. Switching to a high-risk merchant processor also means a high rolling reserve requirement, which has a huge opportunity cost in a cash-flow poor business like retail The costs associated with having a high-risk merchant account from a processor due to excess chargebacks (conservatively 50+ BPS on every transaction) Removes False Positive Optimization: One reason that merchants are so aggressive in flagging potential fraud are the second-order effects of potential chargebacks mainly the risk of getting kicked off your existing processor or getting classified as a high-risk merchant Payment Processor: As a payment processor, Bolt gets a couple of significant advantages: ![]() API based approached (read: normalized data = better data = more efficient ML)). Having a human approval system for flagged purchases on top of the platform (both from evaluating every blocked transaction from Bolt's end and a company override window)Īllowing for minimized customization by having an iframe/plugin vs. They also claim that their anti-fraud is simply significantly better as a result ofĬoupling payments + checkout behavior (more data depth) While covering chargeback costs is a nice sentiment, it’s more of a play to get merchants to trust their aggressive approach to fraud. They absorb all first-order costs for chargeback fraud their platform misses (including friendly fraud). Confidence in checkout behavior analytics allows for the elimination of elements that a payment processor would normally need as basic anti-fraud (entering credit card address and CVV).Īnti-Fraud Detection: Bolt's primary feature is their anti-fraud protection. The biggest advantages comes from fraud service/payment processing being coupled with Checkout UI data. Part of this is just performance optimizations: pre-rendering front-end components, quicker validation/load times, etc.Īnother part is is easier usability through design (form design, autocompletion, one-click repeat checkouts, etc.) ![]() In reality, Bolt is actually a bundle of four different products that have way more value as a sum of parts and is pretty sick the more you think about it.Ĭheckout UI: Bolt has built a streamlined UI for checkout.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |