> If it's true that 90% of fraud comes from mobile despite all of the restrictions

Statistics on mobile vs. desktop banking will really shock you; the mobile usage penetration is easily well upwards of 90% in many markets. There's also a skewed distribution for fraud-vulnerable users and scenarios.

> I think it would be reasonable to disable those specific features on mobile while leaving the rest of the app accessible.

I agree with you in an idealist sense; it would be awesome to be able to use GrapheneOS and have 80% app functionality instead of 0% app functionality. I also completely understand why nobody does it; supporting what's probably <0.001 (if not lower)% of legitimate users in exchange for development time and fraud risk isn't a particularly appealing tradeoff. If I were in a situation to advocate for such a trade-off, I probably would, but I don't think it's evidence of a sinister conspiracy that nobody does that.

> Statistics on mobile vs. desktop banking will really shock you; the mobile usage penetration is easily well upwards of 90% in many markets. There's also a skewed distribution for fraud-vulnerable users and scenarios.

But if my goal was to commit fraud, wouldn't I go to wherever it was easiest to commit fraud? The actual market penetration of each platform shouldn't matter.