> Then they are free to stop offering gift cards.

That's easy to say. [1] [2] [3] But reality is harder than that; keep in mind:

  - Fraud is complex (many moving parts, many pathways)
  - Fraud is adversarial (whack a mole, but worse)
  - Fraud and revenue are two sides of the same coin [4]

P.S. The commenter doesn't state who "they" refers to: maybe issuers, maybe retailers, maybe both?

[1]: A drive for simplicity is important, in moderation. But here the quote seems to not appreciate the complex reality.

[2]: The response pattern "Then they are free to [foo]" is often part of a rhetorical technique to shift blame and/or responsibility to another party.

[3]: See also the "nirvana fallacy" (i.e. "if you can't do it perfectly, you shouldn't do it at all.") See https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/20/the-nirvana-fallacy...

[4]: You can easily imagine a business where lowering customer friction increases both revenue and fraud. What is the ratio between them? How does it change over time?