5 ms·
That's not strictly true. It doesn't cost them _much_ but holding and tracking other people's money has a cost. That said, I think the better answer is to send
by kgermino 5y ago
That's not strictly true. It doesn't cost them _much_ but holding and tracking other people's money has a cost.
That said, I think the better answer is to send it to the state as unclaimed property.
- pengaru 5y ago> holding and tracking other people's money has a cost. When you have as many users as PayPal does, in aggregate those non-zero balances are a mountain of money to play with. It's not a cost, it's opportunity for profit.
- mmanfrin 5y agoHolding other peoples money has a profit, not a cost. That float is valuable.
- Siira 5y agoIt’s called zero marginal costs for a reason, dude.
- vasco 5y agoPresumably it costs more to keep the money and process login attempts. Since logging in is enough to keep the account at zero fees, this seems like a money grab.
- halpert 5y agoIs there really a marginal cost to holding more money? Presumably they can buy treasury bonds and earn some interest off the holdings. In terms of data storage, is it really more expensive to store a positive number vs. zero?
- dghlsakjg 5y agoI suppose that compliance might cost something. I don’t know what KYC laws they have to comply with, but that is the kind of stuff that needs actual humans in the loop