"Assuming consumers will be ok with only 0.5% in rewards"
And assuming they'll be OK with having ZERO chargeback rights in case the purchase turns out to be not-as-advertised and/or defective.
That second article (explaining why consumers would want to do this) best be a doozy, because so far consumers have had to swallow a requirement for them to provide a "mobile wallet", lower rewards, AND increased vulnerability to fraud all to save the merchant 0.375%.
I'm ok with not having chargeback rights on these transactions, because it's not like I'm going to do a chargeback on my local burrito place or grocery store or whatever.
Also, the article factored in a "Bitcoin discount" for customers, and .375% of revenue is a hell of a lot more that .375% in profit. That's easily 20% of profit for small margin businesses. The article was also very conservative on credit card fees.
If a Bitcoin user wants chargeback ability, they can use a third party mediator for a fraction of what credit card companies charge.
I agree that foregoing the rewards is a fairly big assumption and it might not be realistic. But I do think there are other advantages and will write about those. The I don't think people will (or should) absorb the merchant risk and that's why someone does have to take up an acquiring bank-type role (and charge for it).
And assuming they'll be OK with having ZERO chargeback rights in case the purchase turns out to be not-as-advertised and/or defective.
That second article (explaining why consumers would want to do this) best be a doozy, because so far consumers have had to swallow a requirement for them to provide a "mobile wallet", lower rewards, AND increased vulnerability to fraud all to save the merchant 0.375%.