> Here, purely-async makes more sense than purely-sync:
> From a user experience perspective, the user has no need to wait around until the link is severed. They expressed the intent to sever the link, and were told this would be accomplished. Generally, that's sufficient.
That's incorrect I'm afraid. The reason the flow is synchronous for linking is so that the user can consume the service as soon as they link it. Async means they would have to wait, no user wants to wait.
Similarly, cancellation is asynchronous so that the service doesn't stop immediately. This benegits both the service and the bsnk or credit card company since users often do change their minds and resume the service during the "cool-off" period.
tl;dr, the current logic is correct, it just does not work for your use-case, which is understandably frustrating.
From the linked article:
> Linking the accounts between the bank and the streaming provider is a synchronous process, for both technical and user experience reasons. For example, it makes sense to get the user access as quickly as possible! "Click here and you're done" feels good, "click here and we'll send you an email in a few minutes" does not.