7 ms·

The specific callout of restricting "cryptocurrency purchases" in the title is click-bait. Actual context from the article: >And according to Reuters, it will

The specific callout of restricting "cryptocurrency purchases" in the title is click-bait. Actual context from the article: >And according to Reuters, it will also come with a ban on purchasing cash advances and cash equivalents, with the latter including cryptocurrencies, casino chips, and lottery tickets. >>It would seem neither Apple nor Goldman Sachs has anything in particular against cryptocurrencies, but Bitcoin and other digital tokens would seem to fall under the cash equivalents umbrella.

jbverschoor 7y ago
This is to protect from a loophole of getting a 1% Apple Cash over cash purchases, which you could theoretically do unlimited times
- zxcvbn4038 7y ago
  No, this is a fairly standard clause in credit card contracts to limit risk. Crypto currency values are extremely volatile. Not everyone can handle gambling (have you ever watched a card counting video on YouTube? Mostly bellyaching because some other player got “their” card). Cash advances are always loan shark rates (though I’m not clear how cash is considered high risk and a consumed meal is not). You’ll find similar clauses in many card agreements these days. Everyone is hungry for Apple Card details or this wouldn’t be news. There is a separate clause where Apple reserves the right to close the account of anyone reselling or gaming the system (doing something Apple didn’t think of).
  - vineyardmike 7y ago
    I think part of the concern or risk around cash is that the CC company cannot 'undo' the transaction or get their money back the way they can in other transactions.
  - sitharus 7y ago
    The cash advance penalty is to protect the system cut. When you pay $50 for a meal the credit card system takes a 2-6% (some countries/regions limit this to sane amounts like 0.5-1%, eg EU countries and Australia) cut depending on the card, split between the network (visa, MasterCard etc) and the source and settling banks. If you take a cash advance for $50 you only see $50 on your statement and the network doesn’t get its cut. If there’s no penalty for using a cash advance you’d find many businesses would have an in-house ATM so you could pay in cash and they could avoid the cost of accepting cards. You actually see this in places like New Zealand where we have unregulated credit/debit card interchange rates but also have an established fee-free(ish) card system. Almost all smaller retailers accept EFTPOS card transactions but not credit/debit cards.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      What is a way to get money from a card into a bank account? Or conversely, is there a way to have a virtual "bank account" that is accepted by credit cards as a source of payment (e.g. via Plaid or whatever) but is actually backed by a credit card? I am asking because being able to use credit cards to pay off credit cards, without taking cash advances, can provide a lot more options for a person or company. Obviously you can have two companies controlled by the same entity that each purchase a product from one another, paying only the merchant fee. But does that violate the credit card issuer's policy, or do they really care?
      - the_seraphim 7y ago
        get a paypal card reader and charge yourself?
      - sitharus 7y ago
        Not that I know of. You can certainly take advantage of balance transfer offers that some card providers have to bounce the credit around, but most only do that for new accounts.
        EGreg 7y ago
        What’s wrong w my suggestion of having a friend’s company charge you and then do a wire?
        amdavidson 7y ago
        Sounds pretty close to wire fraud to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud#Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud#Elements
        0x0 7y ago
        In many/most places this would trigger a loss of a significant amount of money to sales tax, income/revenue tax etc.
      - 7y ago
rolltiide 7y ago
JP Morgan Chase currently lost their motion to dismiss a lawsuit against their policy of treating cryptocurrency purchases as cash advances But their terms of service didn't spell out cryptocurrencies, lets see how it plays out I’m betting cryptocurrency purchases will begin accurately falling under a consumer goods framework sooner rather than later, indistinct from buying a cryptographic accesstoken for any saas product which powers your user session.
- kelnos 7y ago
  > JP Morgan Chase currently lost their motion to dismiss a lawsuit against their policy of treating cryptocurrency purchases as cash advances Just a note for people reading this who might not understand the nuances of the American tort system: this merely means that JPM's lawyers tried to "short circuit" the process by asking a judge to decide the case has no merit, and throw it out before going through the whole process. The judge disagreed, thinks there might be merit to the case, and wants to see it go to trial (or, more likely, see JPM settle with the plaintiff).
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  Why wouldn't they be treated as cash equivalents? Do you believe cryptocurrency is not currency?
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    They are hashes secured by repeatable cryptography which are stored on a distributed database The monikers are skeumorphs to be more relatable to a nearest prior elementary concept Some of those hashes are used for payment, some of those hashes are used for a record of fractional ownership of an enterprise, some of those hashes are used to access a good or service. A credit card company would therefore be misapplying their policy, when there isnt enough information in their transaction detail and also no rationale for charging higher fees for this type of transaction. If any actual risk was higher they should make a third category. Otherwise treat a crypto transaction like any purchase of consumer goods.
    - 7y ago
gigatexal 7y ago
Good to know. Unfortunately I've had to use a CC or two via TransferWise to help me out during cashflow issues especially when a large expected tax return was delayed.
- gigatexal 7y ago
  Lol, downvoted for being poor or making dumb money decisions? Nice HN.

jbverschoor 7y ago

This is to protect from a loophole of getting a 1% Apple Cash over cash purchases, which you could theoretically do unlimited times

zxcvbn4038 7y ago
No, this is a fairly standard clause in credit card contracts to limit risk. Crypto currency values are extremely volatile. Not everyone can handle gambling (have you ever watched a card counting video on YouTube? Mostly bellyaching because some other player got “their” card). Cash advances are always loan shark rates (though I’m not clear how cash is considered high risk and a consumed meal is not). You’ll find similar clauses in many card agreements these days. Everyone is hungry for Apple Card details or this wouldn’t be news. There is a separate clause where Apple reserves the right to close the account of anyone reselling or gaming the system (doing something Apple didn’t think of).
- vineyardmike 7y ago
  I think part of the concern or risk around cash is that the CC company cannot 'undo' the transaction or get their money back the way they can in other transactions.
- sitharus 7y ago
  The cash advance penalty is to protect the system cut. When you pay $50 for a meal the credit card system takes a 2-6% (some countries/regions limit this to sane amounts like 0.5-1%, eg EU countries and Australia) cut depending on the card, split between the network (visa, MasterCard etc) and the source and settling banks. If you take a cash advance for $50 you only see $50 on your statement and the network doesn’t get its cut. If there’s no penalty for using a cash advance you’d find many businesses would have an in-house ATM so you could pay in cash and they could avoid the cost of accepting cards. You actually see this in places like New Zealand where we have unregulated credit/debit card interchange rates but also have an established fee-free(ish) card system. Almost all smaller retailers accept EFTPOS card transactions but not credit/debit cards.
  - EGreg 7y ago
    What is a way to get money from a card into a bank account? Or conversely, is there a way to have a virtual "bank account" that is accepted by credit cards as a source of payment (e.g. via Plaid or whatever) but is actually backed by a credit card? I am asking because being able to use credit cards to pay off credit cards, without taking cash advances, can provide a lot more options for a person or company. Obviously you can have two companies controlled by the same entity that each purchase a product from one another, paying only the merchant fee. But does that violate the credit card issuer's policy, or do they really care?
    - the_seraphim 7y ago
      get a paypal card reader and charge yourself?
    - sitharus 7y ago
      Not that I know of. You can certainly take advantage of balance transfer offers that some card providers have to bounce the credit around, but most only do that for new accounts.
      - EGreg 7y ago
        What’s wrong w my suggestion of having a friend’s company charge you and then do a wire?
        amdavidson 7y ago
        Sounds pretty close to wire fraud to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud#Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_and_wire_fraud#Elements
        0x0 7y ago
        In many/most places this would trigger a loss of a significant amount of money to sales tax, income/revenue tax etc.
    - 7y ago

rolltiide 7y ago

JP Morgan Chase currently lost their motion to dismiss a lawsuit against their policy of treating cryptocurrency purchases as cash advances But their terms of service didn't spell out cryptocurrencies, lets see how it plays out I’m betting cryptocurrency purchases will begin accurately falling under a consumer goods framework sooner rather than later, indistinct from buying a cryptographic accesstoken for any saas product which powers your user session.

kelnos 7y ago
> JP Morgan Chase currently lost their motion to dismiss a lawsuit against their policy of treating cryptocurrency purchases as cash advances Just a note for people reading this who might not understand the nuances of the American tort system: this merely means that JPM's lawyers tried to "short circuit" the process by asking a judge to decide the case has no merit, and throw it out before going through the whole process. The judge disagreed, thinks there might be merit to the case, and wants to see it go to trial (or, more likely, see JPM settle with the plaintiff).
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Why wouldn't they be treated as cash equivalents? Do you believe cryptocurrency is not currency?
- rolltiide 7y ago
  They are hashes secured by repeatable cryptography which are stored on a distributed database The monikers are skeumorphs to be more relatable to a nearest prior elementary concept Some of those hashes are used for payment, some of those hashes are used for a record of fractional ownership of an enterprise, some of those hashes are used to access a good or service. A credit card company would therefore be misapplying their policy, when there isnt enough information in their transaction detail and also no rationale for charging higher fees for this type of transaction. If any actual risk was higher they should make a third category. Otherwise treat a crypto transaction like any purchase of consumer goods.
  - 7y ago

gigatexal 7y ago

Good to know. Unfortunately I've had to use a CC or two via TransferWise to help me out during cashflow issues especially when a large expected tax return was delayed.

gigatexal 7y ago
Lol, downvoted for being poor or making dumb money decisions? Nice HN.