Consumers can be partially protected through reverse transaction tools. FI’s can raise the bar by putting burden of proof on the recipients after a customer claims a fraud occurred. These tools are already in place for many types of transactions. The risk exposure then is sophisticated tools that beat those burden of proof criteria, presuming a scammer would go through that extra effort versus directing resources towards more consumer victims. Then at that point, I would imagine it’s a risk the FI’s insurer assumes.

Zelle and wire transactions are fast and convenient. We are messaging on a technology that is built upon a literal better example of how to handle instantaneous transactions. If the TradFi system wants to be able to maintain the right to reverse a transaction, they can do that with cryptocurrencies (₿ isn’t a crypto). So why haven’t they?