4 ms·

The theory is that there are lots of transactions where you do not have cash or check (or would prefer not to use them). Some examples: your friend owes you mo

by jmintz 17y ago

The theory is that there are lots of transactions where you do not have cash or check (or would prefer not to use them). Some examples: your friend owes you money but does not have cash (yes, it does happen). You order food with coworkers and do not have cash (or change, we bump to pay people back for lunch almost every day). Or you are buying something off craigslist and want the security of PayPal rather than just giving someone cash (oops turns out it was counterfeit). Or you are doing a large transaction where check isn't accepted (>$100?) and don't have or want to carry that much cash. Some people think this is a great idea, others not. Only time will tell. We would love for it to be successful, but have a lot of other things in the works as well. ;)

devinj 17y ago
I can't speak for some of these (like craigslist-- until recently I have lived in very out of the way places). But for others, I have existing solutions that work well. For example, in the case of being owed money I just let them pay me back whenever. Generally it works out that maybe we go to play poker and he pays my buy-in in exchange for that lunch I bought him, or he grabs me a drink when he goes outside for a smoke, or some other timely, convenient thing. Such is the case, I guess, for pretty much everything. Bump itself replaces things that already exist, but in its case it seems like it can do clearly better with few barriers to adoption (e.g. games), while with the paypal scheme it's not so clear. My reactionary tendencies pick up, "don't fix it if it ain't broke". But, you're right, time will tell. Just because the existing solutions seem perfectly fine doesn't mean Paypal's system won't become easy enough and commonplace enough for everyday use. Because, yes, it does have some advantages. It still seems so pointless to me, but then I guess, so do/did a lot of established things.

by jmintz 17y ago

devinj 17y ago

I can't speak for some of these (like craigslist-- until recently I have lived in very out of the way places). But for others, I have existing solutions that work well. For example, in the case of being owed money I just let them pay me back whenever. Generally it works out that maybe we go to play poker and he pays my buy-in in exchange for that lunch I bought him, or he grabs me a drink when he goes outside for a smoke, or some other timely, convenient thing. Such is the case, I guess, for pretty much everything. Bump itself replaces things that already exist, but in its case it seems like it can do clearly better with few barriers to adoption (e.g. games), while with the paypal scheme it's not so clear. My reactionary tendencies pick up, "don't fix it if it ain't broke". But, you're right, time will tell. Just because the existing solutions seem perfectly fine doesn't mean Paypal's system won't become easy enough and commonplace enough for everyday use. Because, yes, it does have some advantages. It still seems so pointless to me, but then I guess, so do/did a lot of established things.