4 ms·

More likely "we managed to get a deal in place with our payment processor". The only reason why they were going to do this was their payment processor saying th

by doikor 5y ago

More likely "we managed to get a deal in place with our payment processor". The only reason why they were going to do this was their payment processor saying they would stop processing their payments.

Pxtl 5y ago
AFAIK a relevant credit card company said "we haven't done anything"
- doikor 5y ago
  Well Mastercard did update their rules. They did not specifically go and say anything to onlyfans but onlyfans investors/banks looked at the new rules and interpreted them as "well this is now super risky of being shut down at any time" and stopped pumping in more money / loans. Only way to continue from there is to get an actual promise/contract from the processor that no we will not shutdown your stuff on a whim. (or the nuclear option of getting rid of this risky content) Here are the updated rules https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting-our-network-protecting-you-preventing-illegal-adult-content-on-our-network/ https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting... Basically starting October 15th every new piece of content uploaded to OnlyFans needs to be reviewed and have age verification done for all the people involved.
- x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
  But if I'm an investor, I would be worried that Visa/Mastercard could get pressed by one of the anti-porn groups at any moment, and then poof, there goes my investment. It's better from a risk perspective to go ahead and get OF into compliance by banning adult material before buying into the platform.
  - GDC7 5y ago
    > It's better from a risk perspective to go ahead and get OF into compliance by banning adult material before buying into the platform. Except, there would be nothing left to buy.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
      Lol, you're right, but some folks don't think that far ahead. And if the owners of OF want to eat at the financial trough, their only option might be to try to see what they can get away with.
zuppy 5y ago
mastercard denied saying this. what a clusterfu*k.
- digianarchist 5y ago
  It wasn't MasterCard that was the problem rather their banking partners according to the FT.
  - zuppy 5y ago
    oh, ok. i was actually looking now for the source, I remember I read that mastercard delined forcing them,but there was nothing mentioned on that article about who actually requested this. thanks for the information edit: converting the url posted below this into archive link, to skip paywall: https://archive.is/Aqx8x https://archive.is/Aqx8x
    - digianarchist 5y ago
      https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...
  - mzs 5y ago
    Thanks for the heads-up, the article from yesterday: https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mzs 5y ago
I hope the assurances secured means that OF will verify consent per MC reqs. [edit - seems they have: “We’re already fully compliant with the new Mastercard rules, so that had no bearing on the decision” ^^] Also I suspect their biggest money makers were leaving, here's the first screen from a competitor's ^ 'join as a creator' page tailor-made from this: >Earn 100% payouts from every new user from now until Oct 1, 2021! >Sign up >Leaving another platform? Not to worry! Our team is on hand to help you transfer your content to FanCentro! ^ https://fancentro.com/sell https://fancentro.com/sell ^^ https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...
ckdarby 5y ago
With all the PR a major bank that deals with high risk would have stepped in. There is too much volume and processing to turn a blind eye from this deal. It should be noted that the cams see a lot lower chargebacks than subscriptions because of the shady tactics a lot of subscription adult sites use. Example would be not noticing a "$1 trial" addon being offered that recurs at like $44.95/month. The rest of the chargebacks can be offset with 3DS/3DS 2 to shift the liability off the merchant (In this case OnlyFans) and onto the issuing bank. I can answer any questions within reason if someone wanted to know anything more. Source: Worked/wrote code for a high risk payment processor with volume +$1B/Yr. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own and only my own.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- convery 5y ago
  Indeed, but it's odd that creditcard companies are so hard on merchants. Surely they could just offer some program where they hold payments in escrow until the transaction is final and just subtract chargebacks from the escrow account as necessary.
  - InvaderFizz 5y ago
    They already do this. Credit card transactions don't "finalize" for 180 days. Until they do, Visa can reach into the merchant's bank account and claw back the funds plus a fee.
  - floatingatoll 5y ago
    Some people who buy porn will lie to other people in their life and open chargebacks if they’re found out, and dealing with those people is a nightmare because they’re lying and they get loud and angry and litigious to try to sell the lie so they don’t lose social standing and/or in-person sex. Something like Apple Pay, that is rooted in a biometric/pin-verified payment (low fraud) rather than “enter your card number manually” (high fraud) would be a godsend for the industry, since it would detect the lie in the fraudulent chargebacks as described above. Human beings in many world cultures are such a huge pain when it comes admitting and openly talking about paying for sex and sex-tangential things, that I can understand and grudgingly concede that higher processing fees are necessary. I do not know if they need to be 25%, but they do definitely need to be higher than for other industries.

by doikor 5y ago

Pxtl 5y ago

AFAIK a relevant credit card company said "we haven't done anything"

doikor 5y ago
Well Mastercard did update their rules. They did not specifically go and say anything to onlyfans but onlyfans investors/banks looked at the new rules and interpreted them as "well this is now super risky of being shut down at any time" and stopped pumping in more money / loans. Only way to continue from there is to get an actual promise/contract from the processor that no we will not shutdown your stuff on a whim. (or the nuclear option of getting rid of this risky content) Here are the updated rules https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting-our-network-protecting-you-preventing-illegal-adult-content-on-our-network/ https://www.mastercard.com/news/perspectives/2021/protecting... Basically starting October 15th every new piece of content uploaded to OnlyFans needs to be reviewed and have age verification done for all the people involved.
x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
But if I'm an investor, I would be worried that Visa/Mastercard could get pressed by one of the anti-porn groups at any moment, and then poof, there goes my investment. It's better from a risk perspective to go ahead and get OF into compliance by banning adult material before buying into the platform.
- GDC7 5y ago
  > It's better from a risk perspective to go ahead and get OF into compliance by banning adult material before buying into the platform. Except, there would be nothing left to buy.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
    Lol, you're right, but some folks don't think that far ahead. And if the owners of OF want to eat at the financial trough, their only option might be to try to see what they can get away with.

zuppy 5y ago

mastercard denied saying this. what a clusterfu*k.

digianarchist 5y ago
It wasn't MasterCard that was the problem rather their banking partners according to the FT.
- zuppy 5y ago
  oh, ok. i was actually looking now for the source, I remember I read that mastercard delined forcing them,but there was nothing mentioned on that article about who actually requested this. thanks for the information edit: converting the url posted below this into archive link, to skip paywall: https://archive.is/Aqx8x https://archive.is/Aqx8x
  - digianarchist 5y ago
    https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...
- mzs 5y ago
  Thanks for the heads-up, the article from yesterday: https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mzs 5y ago

I hope the assurances secured means that OF will verify consent per MC reqs. [edit - seems they have: “We’re already fully compliant with the new Mastercard rules, so that had no bearing on the decision” ^^] Also I suspect their biggest money makers were leaving, here's the first screen from a competitor's ^ 'join as a creator' page tailor-made from this: >Earn 100% payouts from every new user from now until Oct 1, 2021! >Sign up >Leaving another platform? Not to worry! Our team is on hand to help you transfer your content to FanCentro! ^ https://fancentro.com/sell https://fancentro.com/sell ^^ https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca0480b https://www.ft.com/content/7b8ce71c-a87a-440e-9f3d-58069ca04...

ckdarby 5y ago

With all the PR a major bank that deals with high risk would have stepped in. There is too much volume and processing to turn a blind eye from this deal. It should be noted that the cams see a lot lower chargebacks than subscriptions because of the shady tactics a lot of subscription adult sites use. Example would be not noticing a "$1 trial" addon being offered that recurs at like $44.95/month. The rest of the chargebacks can be offset with 3DS/3DS 2 to shift the liability off the merchant (In this case OnlyFans) and onto the issuing bank. I can answer any questions within reason if someone wanted to know anything more. Source: Worked/wrote code for a high risk payment processor with volume +$1B/Yr. Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely my own and only my own.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
convery 5y ago
Indeed, but it's odd that creditcard companies are so hard on merchants. Surely they could just offer some program where they hold payments in escrow until the transaction is final and just subtract chargebacks from the escrow account as necessary.
- InvaderFizz 5y ago
  They already do this. Credit card transactions don't "finalize" for 180 days. Until they do, Visa can reach into the merchant's bank account and claw back the funds plus a fee.
- floatingatoll 5y ago
  Some people who buy porn will lie to other people in their life and open chargebacks if they’re found out, and dealing with those people is a nightmare because they’re lying and they get loud and angry and litigious to try to sell the lie so they don’t lose social standing and/or in-person sex. Something like Apple Pay, that is rooted in a biometric/pin-verified payment (low fraud) rather than “enter your card number manually” (high fraud) would be a godsend for the industry, since it would detect the lie in the fraudulent chargebacks as described above. Human beings in many world cultures are such a huge pain when it comes admitting and openly talking about paying for sex and sex-tangential things, that I can understand and grudgingly concede that higher processing fees are necessary. I do not know if they need to be 25%, but they do definitely need to be higher than for other industries.