The disingenuous part is that the weekly news isnt dominated by the large frequent thefts at all, if it was actually about awareness and questioning then an ACH fraud noticed would be on the news and would conventially not mention that its a tiny tiny fraction of a basis point of activity on the network

> that its a tiny tiny fraction of a basis point of activity on the network

Hence why it's not in the news...I still don't understand your point?

Because thats the standard that should apply to bitcoin and crypto

But instead no proportions are mentioned in a crypto fraud, just large dollar values paraded as if its unique

It is intended to distort perception and its silly

How much USD$ or equivalent is moved into cryptocoins and how much of that amount is considered fraudulent? Until you have numbers there, then I simply don't believe your premise.

All I want you to do is acknowledge that the same is true about the opposite premise. They don't have a way to quantify the premise that a higher, or overwhelming, or any specific percentage is fraudulent either.

The earlier information you were exposed to is simply being assigned a higher weight arbitrarily.

The fraud rate is probably fraud against ACH members where SendBank and ReceiveBank both lost the money and ACH members had to collectively bail it out (or a bank had to eat it).

Arguably, for bitcoin, the fraud rate could be said to be 0%. Every transaction was requested in accordance with the terms of request and was sent where it was expected to be sent.

PayPal used to boast of a fraud rate of something like 0.6%, but that was fraud against PayPal, and excluded payors or recipients being defrauded when PayPal just sent the money back to other.

> SendBank and ReceiveBank both lost the money and ACH members had to collectively bail it out (or a bank had to eat it).

SendBank sends $X dollars, ReceiveBank receives $X dollars. Imposter then cashes $X out of ReceiveBank (usually giving fake info). What's a scenario of fraud where this isn't the case? AFAIK there is no instance where the money simple disappears during transmission. FYI - This is why there is so much KYC done when you setup a bank account at a bank, so if you do cash out they can trace you.

> Arguably, for bitcoin, the fraud rate could be said to be 0%.

Agreed. This is exactly the problem (1) with crypto in general and (2) how difficult it would be to even calculate fraud for any cryptocoin.

> SendBank sends $X dollars, ReceiveBank receives $X dollars. Imposter then cashes $X out of ReceiveBank (usually giving fake info).

Would this be fraud against ACH or just fraud against ReceiveBank?

There's four actors here. Victim, Criminal, SendBank and ReceiveBank.

Criminal initiates $X on behalf of Victim (or tricks them into doing so) using SendBank. Criminal then gets the money at ReceiveBank and usually withdrawals it before it can go noticed. Criminal therefore commits fraud against victim.

Since both banks are in the interest of keeping Criminals out and Victims (well just normal person/biz), they usually offer the ability to safeguard the Victim against financial harm, usually by paying the Victim money their money back and eating the cost. Hence why KYC is so important on both sides.

This is all conducted through a trust system that crypto fans love to hate because it's "centralized". AFAIK no crypto coin offers this ability because the trust system is inherently built on the idea that no person would ever be tricked into sending money to someone they didn't intend to, which is, ummm a downright terrible assumption about real world behaviors.