If you’re contending that, due to these security measures, chargeback risk is negligible, I agree. However, a bank is still liable to investigate a fraud-chargeback claim should one be raised by the cardholder and reverse the transaction if a fraud has indeed happened (despite all security measures) — they’re unlikely to publicly admit that they make the cardholder run from pillar to post when such an event occurs in actual practice. Furthermore, chargeback is only one out of three areas of acquirer risk that banks have to guard themselves against. Wikipedia collectively calls them solvency risk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquiring_bank). Personally, the way out for SQUARE-clones it to clone SQUARE completely and sign up with the acquirer bank as a master merchant, which will be easy to do, and sign up micromerchants with little or no risk assessment since all these fraud protection measures have purportedly made risk very low as claimed, or by using new-age technologies like social media signals to assess risks. I’ve come across more than one clone missing the whole point about SQUARE and trying to focus on the smartphone technology piece. In one extreme case, a clone approached me for seed funding. The startup founder had no idea about acquirer risk and kept telling me his secret sauce was going to China and sourcing a POS dongle at one-half the going rate in the market!