7 ms·

There are exceedingly few global payment systems, almost none of which, from a consumer perspective, are as trustworthy and easy to use as PayPal: When it comes

by ergo98 16y ago

There are exceedingly few global payment systems, almost none of which, from a consumer perspective, are as trustworthy and easy to use as PayPal: When it comes to small vendors, I'd much rather pay them through PayPal (where I can even pay from a bank account) than to give my CC numbers to some micro operation. PayPal, like all payment processors, deals with a large amount of fraud, yet they seem to manage to keep it low enough relative to the total cash flow that their rates are fairly reasonable for small vendors. Which is exactly why guys like this use the service in the first place. As you mentioned, these stories seem to cycle around, yet lots of people still rely upon PayPal, and there's something to that. Add in that every Western government is imposing strong anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing regiments on organizations like PayPal. Seriously, people don't know how amazingly good they really have it. Having a snag in PayPal (and going through the arduous task of providing documents) is nothing.

sankara 16y ago
I'm in India and Paypal had a tough time dealing with the central bank here. So yes, I would agree a little that these rules are most likely imposed by regulatory authorities but that doesn't mean what Paypal does is acceptable. Have intelligent rules not alarms that blaze through the roof everytime someone transacts above, say, a thousand dollars. Even after that they could very well treat sellers with a bit more dignity?
jemfinch 16y ago
> I'd much rather pay them through PayPal (where I can even pay from a bank account) than to give my CC numbers to some micro operation. Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. They have far better fraud detection than Paypal, in large part because they know my spending habits far better than Paypal does. On the single instance I've dealt AMEX's fraud detection, they called me before they even authorized the fraudulent transaction, and overnighted me a new card when I confirmed their suspicions. Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace (a well known bay area address) and now they want me to go back to Kansas and wait at my home phone number for them to call and "verify my domicile." Screw that; my account can stay locked for all I care.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. When I pay with Paypal I have recourse with both Paypal AND my credit card. It doesn't remove that right. >Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logical and of obvious value.
  - mey 16y ago
    Not if you pay with Paypal through it connecting directly to your bank account.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    > Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Which do you think seems more fraudulent? This address: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 Or this one? Hospital Road, P.M.B. 2155 Kaduna, Nigeria Which address do you think is more likely to be used for fraud? > Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logical and of obvious value. An obvious negative value, sure. I've shipped to at least 9 different addresses on Amazon. Sometimes I'm not buying things for myself. Sometimes I'm not at home and want it to get shipped to me at a hotel. Oddly, Amazon has no problem with this (maybe because they're indemnified against fraud losses by the CC company, as I noted elsewhere). But try to ship something anywhere but your recorded home address with Paypal and you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops. It's not logical at all.
    - tedunangst 16y ago
      Sounds like you have an idea for a new business. Build a database of fraudulent and non-fraudulent addresses, then sell it to paypal.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      "Which do you think seems more fraudulent?" Any corporate destination for personal purchases looks more fraudulent than any home address. Home addresses -- most notably the one correlated with the account -- have easy traceability. A package being delivered into the bowels of a place with thousands of employees, not so much. I'm quite glad that any paypal purchases made on my account can only be delivered to my home address. Seems pretty logical to me. "Oddly, Amazon has no problem with this" Amazon is the seller. They take the risks because they have a large-margin product that they are selling you. PayPal is a very small margin payment facilitator. Your comparison is not at all valid, and borders on ridiculous. "maybe because they're indemnified against fraud losses by the CC company" This is absolutely wrong. The CC company bears absolutely no burden for fraud beyond the administrative hassle, and it is wholly on the merchant's backs. Merchants have to follow the prescribed rules (e.g. taking a CCV number) or they lose their merchant account, or they fall into a tiered bin where they pay much higher rates.

by ergo98 16y ago

sankara 16y ago

I'm in India and Paypal had a tough time dealing with the central bank here. So yes, I would agree a little that these rules are most likely imposed by regulatory authorities but that doesn't mean what Paypal does is acceptable. Have intelligent rules not alarms that blaze through the roof everytime someone transacts above, say, a thousand dollars. Even after that they could very well treat sellers with a bit more dignity?

jemfinch 16y ago

> I'd much rather pay them through PayPal (where I can even pay from a bank account) than to give my CC numbers to some micro operation. Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. They have far better fraud detection than Paypal, in large part because they know my spending habits far better than Paypal does. On the single instance I've dealt AMEX's fraud detection, they called me before they even authorized the fraudulent transaction, and overnighted me a new card when I confirmed their suspicions. Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace (a well known bay area address) and now they want me to go back to Kansas and wait at my home phone number for them to call and "verify my domicile." Screw that; my account can stay locked for all I care.

ergo98 16y ago
>Really? I certainly wouldn't. I have recourse with American Express. When I pay with Paypal I have recourse with both Paypal AND my credit card. It doesn't remove that right. >Paypal, on the other hand, flagged a transaction as potentially fraudulent simply because I had the purchase shipped to my workplace Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logical and of obvious value.
- mey 16y ago
  Not if you pay with Paypal through it connecting directly to your bank account.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  > Why is the fact that it's a well known Bay Area address of any significance at all? Which do you think seems more fraudulent? This address: 1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy, Mountain View, CA 94043 Or this one? Hospital Road, P.M.B. 2155 Kaduna, Nigeria Which address do you think is more likely to be used for fraud? > Paypal demands that shipped items only go to the address on record for the account. That seems pretty logical and of obvious value. An obvious negative value, sure. I've shipped to at least 9 different addresses on Amazon. Sometimes I'm not buying things for myself. Sometimes I'm not at home and want it to get shipped to me at a hotel. Oddly, Amazon has no problem with this (maybe because they're indemnified against fraud losses by the CC company, as I noted elsewhere). But try to ship something anywhere but your recorded home address with Paypal and you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops. It's not logical at all.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    Sounds like you have an idea for a new business. Build a database of fraudulent and non-fraudulent addresses, then sell it to paypal.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    "Which do you think seems more fraudulent?" Any corporate destination for personal purchases looks more fraudulent than any home address. Home addresses -- most notably the one correlated with the account -- have easy traceability. A package being delivered into the bowels of a place with thousands of employees, not so much. I'm quite glad that any paypal purchases made on my account can only be delivered to my home address. Seems pretty logical to me. "Oddly, Amazon has no problem with this" Amazon is the seller. They take the risks because they have a large-margin product that they are selling you. PayPal is a very small margin payment facilitator. Your comparison is not at all valid, and borders on ridiculous. "maybe because they're indemnified against fraud losses by the CC company" This is absolutely wrong. The CC company bears absolutely no burden for fraud beyond the administrative hassle, and it is wholly on the merchant's backs. Merchants have to follow the prescribed rules (e.g. taking a CCV number) or they lose their merchant account, or they fall into a tiered bin where they pay much higher rates.