You have the context sort of wrong. To do a comparable “real money” heist en masse, you would be stealing from the banks or from the customers of one, or via debit or credit cards. It’s real enough money, but those fraudulent transactions would be covered by existing protections, like FDIC insurance or chargebacks. I don’t think anyone could steal much cash from a single heist from a bank or other hard target, so your analogy is confusing. There is no analogous situation in which “real money” could be stolen from customers or financial institutions or the interchange system that would impinge end users. That’s the whole reason people use them. Even in friendly fraud situations, the money isn’t gone, it’s just frozen, so you might have to wait a month or so to get it unfrozen after the FBI et al clear the source of funds.

Sure, if someone takes my grocery money, that’s a real loss, and that’s why I don’t carry large sums of cash. But that isn’t what happened here.

Can you explain what you meant so I can understand? I think you had a point, I just don’t think that the risk of the kind of attack in TFA is comparable to someone getting their grocery money stolen, because the financial situation for that individual in-person theft can’t really occur on the same scale as the attack in TFA, and even if it could, that’s kind of on the end user for carrying more cash than they can defend.

▲

efreak a day ago | parent | next [-]

Unless they've changed something, I know at least at the very beginning Zelle had no fraud protection.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/16/zelle-users-are-finding-ou...

It appears they still have issues with (more advanced forms of) fraud:

https://thecyberexpress.com/zelle-lawsuit-2025-scam-hit-us-f... (this page won't stop reloading, but I think it's my adblock configuration) https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20241221198/mor...

▲

lmm 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> It’s real enough money, but those fraudulent transactions would be covered by existing protections, like FDIC insurance or chargebacks.

Not always. Many banks will claim e.g. they don't have to cover losses from someone who opened a phishing email, never mind that the bank themselves sends out equally suspicious "real" emails on the regular.

Also even if it's covered that money comes from somewhere - ultimately out of the pockets of regular folks who were just using their bank accounts, even if the insurance mechasims mean it's spread out more widely.

	▲	aspenmayer 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Good points all around. I don’t mean to blame the victim, as they usually don’t know what they don’t know and aren’t party to the fraud, so they couldn’t begin to know, but informed users ought to know the failure modes. Insurance rates are surely a factor in the industry push for KYC, which is mandated federally for good reasons, but in edge cases like loss of funds, the little people are often blamed for being victims by faceless corporations because they aren’t able to say what caused the issue, due to federal regulations against fraud. It’s a conundrum.