The original premise of BNPL was for providers to bring...

The original premise of BNPL was for providers to bring customers to merchants, who would pay between 2% and 10% of the sale value to ZIP plus a small fee per transaction. I think if ZIP relied only on fees from customers it would not last long and to receive merchant fees it needs to have them signed up, otherwise the merchant only contributes the interchange fee to ZIP, which is insignificant by comparison.

ZIP does not disclose the exact amount of merchant fees, but the average charged to merchants is said to be between 4% and 6% of 'captured' sales ie: those from signed up merchants. In the last half yearly financials TTV was $5 bil and revenue was $430 mil. Revenue is ordered in importance: 1/ Merchant fees 2/ Customer fees 3/ Interchange fees and 4/ Affiliate network income from partnerships and referrals.
The only one disclosed (unofficially) was Affiliate network income, alleged to be about 26% of revenue.

Say, of the $5 bil TTV in the last half yearlies, 65% (only a stab in the dark) was transacted through signed merchants, at an average of 4%, then ZIPs income would have been $130 mil of its $430 mil.

The credit providers' argument is that customers will be driven to merchants who are partnered up with them and they have figures showing that checkout basket sizes are much bigger, etc, etc. There is no doubt that the providers need merchants for their income, but a lot of the card companies and banks are getting wiser to it and have much lower fees, so it remains to be seen how long it continues.....it seems that growth ceased a while ago.

No products until capital is procured IMO