amcnett

I would argue it is zero sum ("you've got some fraud" vs "you have no fraud") if there is any great volume of transactions and what's being sold is valuable, and/or marketable at a black market price below retail, and/or offers fraudsters liquidity options. I am skeptical because an untrained system is going to make mistakes out of the gate, even if it's trained on oodles of transactions from other businesses. Anti-fraud isn't a one-size-fits-all game.

Sure, maybe you offer "zero fraud" from a chargebacks-line-item-on-the-balance-sheet perspective. The impacts of fraud on customers' perception of a company, and the effects those perceptions will have on the bottom line, however, can be significant. This is not say I assume your service is deficient in any way...the marketing is just a little snicker-inducing from someone like me who works in the field. The only sure way to have zero fraud is to turn off sales.

Final control over force-approving rejected transactions is a nice feature on its face. I understand why your merchants don't use it...they'd have to soak the expense of paying someone to monitor accepts and rejects in an attempt to optimize sales (which is what they are paying you to do).

If a merchant does not have full visibility into and control of their anti-fraud program (and the expertise to know what to do with it) approval/reject/false positive rates are always going to be in the hands of people who don't know their customers or business as well as the merchant does. That is why larger, mature businesses invest in anti-fraud people and technology. That's certainly a bridge too far for the typical small business, so services like Bolt can certainly deliver a ton of value. I just advise a merchant who thinks that just because they can't see fraud there isn't any impact to their business that they're missing a potentially crucial part of the picture.

Those aren't interchange fees. Those are payment processing fees...Bolt is paying the interchange.

Fraud liability absorbed by a service provider isn't "zero fraud." It is: "you don't get charged directly for chargebacks and other financial penalties, but your brand is still at risk, plus you have no control over false positives."

I use five little 4oz paper cups (also not a joke).

I think that's a bit of a reach. That malaise may have contributed to certain aspects of the conglomeration of groups/sounds that came to be called grunge, but let's not forget the vigorous marketing efforts around it at the time. Economically-speaking, the decline of the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest may have as had as much or more to do with music-impacting unhappiness.

Fun. It'd be nice if there were some kind of transition to display the bot's shots.

My kingdom for a sarcasm detection algorithm!

Imagine, or hope?

Disorganized pseudo-infantry (i.e. pissed off individuals with guns) will always be inferior to organized paramilitary forces with armor.

Probably not t-shirts at Gators games.

Maybe the MRAP was requested in the event that the Puyallup Fair (the WA state fair for the uninitiated) gets totally out of control.

RE: the meth labs, etc. it would be interesting to see usage data for the equipment. Who knows...if an occupied meth lab is raided every week, the vehicle could make sense (not that I have any tactical expertise in the slightest).