4 ms·

Ask HN: Is Braintree as evil as PayPal?

16 points by kintamanimatt 11y ago

I'm thinking about using Braintree for a new project in a jurisdiction where Stripe isn't available. However, I'm turned off because they're a PayPal company and have been for a while. Does Braintree treat their customers well, or are they just PayPal 2.0?

eugenoprea 11y ago
I've had only good experiences with PayPal and also Braintree. I have an account with Braintree for about 2 years and I like them. Plus, they offer a great deal for startups, which get no fees for up to 50K in specific countries.
palidanx 11y ago
I've been using Braintree as a processor before they got acquired by Paypal and have been a customer for about 3 years now. Customer service has been stellar, and I always can get someone on the phone (note that they are on CST though). Post paypal acquisition I really haven't noticed any differences.
jayajay 11y ago
Braintree is awesome and their customer support is stellar. I don't work for Braintree, but I've used their production API in an extensive project where Stripe basically told me to go fuck myself because of this so-called jurisdiction.
- olingern 11y ago
  This. I was integrating Braintree a year ago when some of the documentation was unclear. They're technical support was amazing on the phone, and cleared anything the documentation was lacking up. Also, talking to them wasn't like talking to a tool. Didn't feel like a megacompany, but just another person on the other side of the line.
b1twise 11y ago
PayPal isn't so bad--doing millions through them a year has caused no problems that couldn't be worked out. I looked at Braintree before the acquisition and they seemed really cool. I was able to hang out in their IRC chat room and watch them work.
saurik 11y ago
I have never had a problem with PayPal, and the only stories I see of people having problems with PayPal are always doing something obviously bad, such as presales or calling a payment a "donation" or purposely lying about their location to get an account. PayPal offers cheaper pricing than Stripe for smaller sales and faster ramps for bulk discounts on large numbers of sales. It also has had a "complete" offering with APIs capable of managing chargebacks and separated authorization and capture since before Stripe existed (features Stripe didn't even seem to understand are important), and has done so with extreme API and UI consistency (which is absolutely key for any infrastructure component, and has been a complaint I've seen against Stripe, who seems to like using their customers as guinea pigs). What has been the experience you had with PayPal that has turned you off from them so badly?
- Chris2048 11y ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=paypal%20evil https://www.google.com/search?q=paypal%20evil ?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- phaus 11y ago
  Its one thing to share you anecdote of not having issues with paypal, but its a pretty shitty thing to do to try and act like anyone that does have a problem is in the wrong.
  - saurik 11y ago
    I only made a statement about "the only stories I see" and then went on to ask, in what I felt was an open and polite manner, what experience this person had that led them to this position. FWIW, I read in detail most every thread here I see that has any mention of PayPal, and I honestly and truly have never seen anyone tell a story that wasn't them effectively trying to get PayPal to provide them a loan of funds. People have a complete misunderstanding of credit, try to model it as if it were cash, and then are somehow surprised by the result. I have absolutely no sympathy for that position, and neither should you. Maybe, though, this person's experience is different: I continue to be interested in their story.

davismwfl 11y ago

Seriously? http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-settlements/306260-paypal-account-hold-class-action-settlement/ http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/open-lawsuit-... I don't know how much business you have actually done with Paypal or what you have done, but Paypal has screwed numerous good small businesses and charities with their horrid policies disguised as fraud protection. In the past 7 years I have worked with a lot of companies and done a significant amount of e-commerce work which involves payment resolution, and we almost always ran into issues with Paypal holding funds on good clients. We had a number of clients where their marketing took months to get traction and then had an above average to explosive month only to see Paypal freeze the funds as they flagged them as "fraud". We could prove legitimate orders and had the product to ship, Paypal didn't care. One company almost went out of business because of it, luckily they were able to line up some insane interest rate loans to help cover themselves while Paypal fucked them over. Paypal doesn't care, they will sit on that money regardless of what you can prove -- did you see/read the class action lawsuit? BTW -- I personally don't have an issue with Paypal doing an initial hold when the account suddenly goes from charging say $5k/month to having a $15k or $45k month, or some variation of that, but once you can show them it is for valid orders then they should hand over the funds. To the OP, I have no clue how Braintree is after the Paypal acquisition but I would never trust them to run my business from, solely because they are now subject to Paypal's corporate governance. One last point, I do not feel this was a Paypal employee issue, it is an executive level/corporate governance issue with how they decided to implement their fraud protection. It need not be this way as many banks and other providers have proven for years.

coldtea 11y ago
>I don't know how much business you have actually done with Paypal or what you have done, but Paypal has screwed numerous good small businesses and charities with their horrid policies disguised as fraud protection. And they're not really fraud protection, because? You do understand than on the internet anybody wanting to launder or cheat people from their money can set up a "charity" right?
- davismwfl 11y ago
  Yep, definitely understand that, which is why I specifically pointed out I don't have an issue with Paypal (or any clearing house/bank) enacting an initial hold, even for an existing and ongoing business when the transaction volume is vastly different then say some rolling monthly average as that is a potential sign of fraudulent behavior. What I have absolute contempt for is after going through business validation with Paypal (sending incorporation documents, owners details, passport copies proving US citizenship etc), proving the orders are real and even having suppliers provide signed notarized documents proving product is ready to ship, Paypal will still hold the funds. They will also ask for tax documents and many other banking documents that in all fairness they don't really need to make a determination, but they will still hold the funds. Hence, IMO, the policy stops being fraud protection when the business has proven it is legitimately charging clients for services provided or products shipping. Paypal is a business that has frankly been totally dishonest with their customers as the lawsuit has highlighted. Which is, at least in part, why they are being forced to change their terms of service pointing out they will freeze funds for 180 days if they deem the transaction to be potentially fraudulent. A point on this, IANAL, but from how I read the findings the transaction doesn't have to be fraudulent to be held, just if Paypal "feels"/"deems" it could be, they can hold the funds for 180 days, as long as their TOS say they do this. It also doesn't take a financial wizard to figure out that Paypal is almost surely profiting from the funds they place on hold. Just think about it, its not $50k they are holding in mass, it can be easily millions of dollars day to day that they have full control over, it is essentially a no interest loan they get to have. And do you not think it is interesting that Paypal was (don't know about now) sending out pre-approved loan emails to the very same businesses they were actively holding funds from? Seems like double dipping and a totally immoral business practice. In fairness, I think these policies were originally created to protect consumers and implemented in good faith, but they found it to be an easy profit center which has created the problem.
saurik 11y ago
1) I don't understand what you are hoping to show with that link: the court opinions seem to all side with PayPal. When companies settle out of court you can't really use that to show the side paying the money is wrong: I've settled out of court myself in situations where I was told I could win the case, but where the settlement would have been cheaper than continuing the battle. 2) I have done tens of millions of dollars of transactions over PayPal. I also once had my account put on hold back near when I was first going into business. 2) You are not allowed to capture funds from someone using a credit card until you are imminently shipping the product to the customer. You say "had the product to ship", but then I'm going to have to ask: how did the company "almost go out of business"? If they already have the product ready to ship, then all we are talking about here is a delay in compensation. If the company needed a loan, PayPal is not a company whom you are allowed to get a loan from, and money collected from sales is a loan until you deliver the product. Your worst-case scenario here is that you should be able to get the loan you need on extremely great terms given if you can really show to someone that you have a ton of money that will be coming to you in 180 days (and the fact that these people could not obtain a reasonable loan really then undermines the entire premise that they had good documentation for PayPal's underwriting...).
- davismwfl 11y ago
  1) I agree, settling a basic lawsuit doesn't mean you are the "loser" necessarily, sometimes it simply is the smarter choice over spending money on attorneys and wasting a lot of valuable time. However, two big differences in this case. 1. A judge reviewed and granted a class action status to this suit which meant s/he felt there was enough evidence that a jury could conclude that Paypal was wrong and that there were significantly enough people "injured" to warrant a class action status. 2. When a company settles to reduce risk, they almost never admit anything or pay damages to the class. They may pay court costs and agree to make non-material changes, but essentially they are just capitalizing the small risk to reduce paying attorney's fees etc. On the contrary here though, when a company agrees to change their TOS in a material way and pay damages to the entire class, it is not a minor thing and it is a signal that they also felt the risk was reasonably substantial. 2) I am glad you have such great success with Paypal. But it isn't the truth for others, so being righteous and saying other people must be doing something wrong or illegal is just really out of touch. 3. False. The truth is simple, when product sells it has to be replaced so it is available for the next order. If demand is rising it has to be replaced in greater quantities to keep up. So yes, product is going out the door, but now there are reorder points to fulfill to maintain inventory and satisfy new orders, shipping bills which must be paid, employee wages, sales tax to governments, employment taxes, rent, insurance etc, all which must be paid well before the 180 days are up. So if money is being needlessly held for long periods, a business can easily be put in jeopardy. Most e-commerce companies don't run on huge margins, so they do not have 12 months reserves saved to work from, which is essentially what it takes if they get a 6 month hold put on their funds. Worse, if they are really growing it will take much more then 12 months of reserves, which was true for a number of the business I was working with. And no, bank loans (or even factoring) to replace/purchase product are not "easy", "fast" or "low cost" for a small business, even with proven sales traction and new orders coming in. Instead these loans are generally treated as moderately high to high risk. My point about Paypal and their offering loans to the same people whom have had funds held, stands separately and on its own. It is a horrid business practice and while not illegal that I can imagine, it sure does seem immoral. Again, I do not know if they are still doing this today, but you can search google and find examples within the last year of it taking place. I really do hope you continue to have success with Paypal and your business. I also hope Paypal stops their "held funds" behavior as it relates to small businesses and give people their funds timely. I do not think it is too much to ask, banks and other clearing houses do it everyday and still provide solid fraud protection for everyone involved. As for anyone who asks me, I will continue to steer them to any provider other than Paypal, until I see that Paypal has made a change in reality not just in media speak.