This whole article is one giant time sapping piece of click bait.
The author makes the unexpected claim that businesses want a non zero amount of fraud. And so as a reader you are tempted to read on because you haven't heard this before. But essentially the argument is that fraud is needed as an unavoidable byproduct of allowing trust/credit in the system to facilitate transactions. However, if businesses could have the trust without the fraud of course they would. I wouldn't be so upset if the author had been more upfront about what this was about. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are learning about the fraud and trust/credit relationship for the first time. Just don't try and spin this in a way that it isn't.
The author makes the unexpected claim that businesses want a non zero amount of fraud. And so as a reader you are tempted to read on because you haven't heard this before. But essentially the argument is that fraud is needed as an unavoidable byproduct of allowing trust/credit in the system to facilitate transactions. However, if businesses could have the trust without the fraud of course they would. I wouldn't be so upset if the author had been more upfront about what this was about. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are learning about the fraud and trust/credit relationship for the first time. Just don't try and spin this in a way that it isn't.