The reason is just that it would be more risky, I think. Compare the scenarios:

1. Scammer clones your credit card with a skimmer and pays for $500 of clothes at the mall. You dispute the charges. The funds are actually not given to the store for a bit given that credit transactions take a while to settle. Upon the dispute, the store now needs to prove that you were there and bought those clothes to get their $500, or else the bank/Visa won't pay them.

2. Scammer clones your debit card with a skimmer and pays for $500 of clothes at the mall. You dispute the charges. The store already got paid though. The bank doesn't want to give you another $500 in case you are actually in on the scam, then they'll be out an additional $500. Eventually assuming they can't prove you actually bought the clothes, I think the store would have the $500 confiscated, but usually you're still liable for $50 if you reported it quickly enough, but could be more if you take too long to report the fraud.

Of course debit cards can easily be converted to even easier-to-launder money substitutes, too.

▲

tempaccsoz5 13 hours ago | parent [-]

So the protection is that debit cards take longer to pay out to merchants? An increased window to dispute charges doesn't strike me as innovative but more like an arbitrary variable from the CC company.

	▲	kelnos 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, the protection is that when you pay with a credit card, no money has left any of your accounts, and you have plenty of time to dispute the charge before it does. With a debit card, your money is out of your account, immediately, and you have to fight to get it back. For some banks, for some accounts, this isn't a big deal, and you might have it back in a few hours. But for others it might take weeks, and in the meantime you've failed to pay your rent or mortgage.