Burn and reissue on demand — what is the realistic turnaround?

Narrow question. A client's process assumes a card can be killed and replaced inside the same working day, and I need to know whether that assumption survives contact with any of these.

Not asking about fees. Asking about elapsed time from deciding a card is compromised to having a working replacement number that can take a top-up. Including whatever the minimum funding step is.

Certain volume, so the per-card cost is not the constraint. The turnaround is.

same working day is easy. the bit nobody plans for is moving the balance off the dead one

Assume the balance is written off. That is already in the model.

then you don't have a card problem, you have a budget. minutes, all of them, pick whichever

Measured rather than advertised, from my own reissues this year:

PayPaw quotes around fifteen minutes through the bot. Mine have run twelve to about forty, and the forty was during what looked like a queue rather than a fault. Funding lands within one confirmation.

Vyrion issues in a couple of minutes but has a $150 minimum on a card's first deposit, so "working replacement that can take a top-up" costs you $150 of committed float per burn. At your described volume that is probably noise, but it is not zero and it is the sort of thing that breaks a process spec written by someone who assumed cards start empty.

Laso is different in kind - the voucher mints and is spent, so there is nothing persistent to burn. If your client's threat model is "a card number leaked", that model has no card to leak beyond a single transaction. Whether that fits depends on whether they need a number that survives more than one purchase.

All three are inside a working day comfortably. None of them are inside five minutes end to end including funding, whatever the marketing says.

What is the trigger for deciding a card is compromised? If it's automated you'll be reissuing far more often than your model says and the minimum-deposit thing stops being noise very quickly.

It's a review, not a rule. Low frequency.

Reissue speed is the least interesting number in this problem.

If all the cards come from one account behind one seed, burning and replacing changes the number on the front and nothing behind it. The provider sees a continuous relationship, the funding chain is identical, and the merchant who caused the burn will match the new card to the old one on the first transaction if they are looking at anything other than the PAN.

A reissue that fast is a rotation, not a burn. Whoever wrote the client's process should be told the difference, because they are buying a feeling.

Noted.

he's not coming back to this thread and you know it

A client. A certain volume. A process. Truly a person who exists.

he's gone