4 ms·

Of course it is painful to implement a seconds provider for backup, but payments are their lifeline. And PayPal has a track record for stuff like that. Never re

by snackai 10y ago

Of course it is painful to implement a seconds provider for backup, but payments are their lifeline. And PayPal has a track record for stuff like that. Never rely your whole business on PayPal!

iaintnohacker 10y ago
We didn't, but cc transactions were the only ones growing from all other options of payment we have in the app...
ellius 10y ago
I saw a talk at the MRC conference by the woman who heads up payments for Facebook. They put a bunch of development effort into a tool that allows them to switch providers at will for exactly this reason. It not only gives them security, it allows them to seamlessly direct traffic to whomever is providing the best rates at any given time.
- th0raway 10y ago
  If you are Facebook, Amazon or someone like that it can make sense, but their level of sophistication is insane for someone that isn't making millions a month. At a smaller scale, the best that you can do is just to have bindings for the processors that do easy integration, but it's still a bunch of work that isn't going towards making more money, but towards insurance. So putting sophistication on your payments platform is something that you should only care about once you are very successful anyway.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ellius 10y ago
    Yeah my bad, I didn't mean to suggest that their approach makes sense for everyone. I was just trying to support his point that reducing dependence on a single processor can be a beneficial practice.
arjie 10y ago
This is what you'd spend time on, eh? If you had a startup you'd split payments between two providers and write payment processing for both, in case one holds your money. Presumably you'd also hold three months worth of cash expenditures so you can maintain cash flow. But in two separate banks? In two separate currencies?

4 ms·

Of course it is painful to implement a seconds provider for backup, but payments are their lifeline. And PayPal has a track record for stuff like that. Never re

by snackai 10y ago

Of course it is painful to implement a seconds provider for backup, but payments are their lifeline. And PayPal has a track record for stuff like that. Never rely your whole business on PayPal!

iaintnohacker 10y ago
We didn't, but cc transactions were the only ones growing from all other options of payment we have in the app...
ellius 10y ago
I saw a talk at the MRC conference by the woman who heads up payments for Facebook. They put a bunch of development effort into a tool that allows them to switch providers at will for exactly this reason. It not only gives them security, it allows them to seamlessly direct traffic to whomever is providing the best rates at any given time.
- th0raway 10y ago
  If you are Facebook, Amazon or someone like that it can make sense, but their level of sophistication is insane for someone that isn't making millions a month. At a smaller scale, the best that you can do is just to have bindings for the processors that do easy integration, but it's still a bunch of work that isn't going towards making more money, but towards insurance. So putting sophistication on your payments platform is something that you should only care about once you are very successful anyway.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ellius 10y ago
    Yeah my bad, I didn't mean to suggest that their approach makes sense for everyone. I was just trying to support his point that reducing dependence on a single processor can be a beneficial practice.
arjie 10y ago
This is what you'd spend time on, eh? If you had a startup you'd split payments between two providers and write payment processing for both, in case one holds your money. Presumably you'd also hold three months worth of cash expenditures so you can maintain cash flow. But in two separate banks? In two separate currencies?