3 ms·

Not quite. Yours is a simplistic interpretation of a complex problem. The problem is that the large sum of money is not $500K, which is the amount written in t

Not quite. Yours is a simplistic interpretation of a complex problem. The problem is that the large sum of money is not $500K, which is the amount written in the statute, or $500K "in the bank," which is different from $500K in net assets. It's some other much higher number that isn't in writing and is completely up to a single bureaucrat's discretion. (See http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/176_126/think-computer-mobile-payments-california-1039623-1.html http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/176_126/think-computer-.... "A department spokeswoman says the actual amount needed is 'more than $1 million.'" I was told in person that the number is between $1 million and $80 million.) Even the Senior Counsel for the California DFI admitted that this dynamic reminded him of an authoritarian regime--but he's powerless to change it. I didn't "decide" to shut down my startup to protest a law. The law shut down the startup. Corruption in the United States looks different than it does in other countries. In other countries bribes are overt and expected. In the United States bribes are written into the law to serve an upper class that prices legal services out of most people's reach.

jessedhillon 15y ago
I also have researched requirements for becoming a licensed money transmitter, while considering starting a payments solution. From looking over your website and your company's topic in Quora, you are clearly more educated in this than I am. However, from what I know, I believe that you are mischaracterizing the law. Perhaps this is because you feel that you have been victimized by a bureaucratic process. If what you say here and elsewhere is true, I think that it should have been possible to reach a solution that both satisfies the law and allows you to continue doing business. It's very surprising that, in so many places across the web, you have been unable or unwilling to vocalize the possibility that the law has a legitimate intent. Even the language you use to describe your company's lack of presence in CA is misleading: The California Money Transmission Act has forced this merchant to stop accepting FaceCash payments. You can still pay with other payment methods. No. You have decided not to comply with the law because you object to its passing, to the entities you perceive to be backing the law, to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. As evidenced by the fact that other startups do tackle the payments space, and will in the future, we can conclude that the situation has more to do with you than with the Act.
- thinkcomp 15y ago
  You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2789_cfa_20100628_154447_sen_comm.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab...; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1258/R-1258_11_1.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1...), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply with the law," which is quite a charge to levy. Just to compare notes, I'd like to see your list of startups that have applied for and are licensed under the California Money Transmission Act. As far as I can tell, based on the DFI's monthly summaries (see http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/ http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/), one startup (Venmo) has applied, and zero startups have licenses to date. This is now ten months after the law went into effect. As for the law's intent, the statute claims that it's "consumer protection." I doubt anyone who claims that a money transmitter needs $1 million to $80 million of net worth and $750,000 of surety bonds in order to safely transmit $1. Good luck with your startup. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations.
  - hahaonlysirius 15y ago
    Let's be clear: the multi-billion dollar financial corporations didn't shut you down. The state did. They're the ones with the guns.
    - zizee 15y ago
      The financial corporations are the ones with the lobbyists.
      - hahaonlysirius 15y ago
        Personally, I would rather be lobbied than shot.
  - 15y ago

jessedhillon 15y ago

I also have researched requirements for becoming a licensed money transmitter, while considering starting a payments solution. From looking over your website and your company's topic in Quora, you are clearly more educated in this than I am. However, from what I know, I believe that you are mischaracterizing the law. Perhaps this is because you feel that you have been victimized by a bureaucratic process. If what you say here and elsewhere is true, I think that it should have been possible to reach a solution that both satisfies the law and allows you to continue doing business. It's very surprising that, in so many places across the web, you have been unable or unwilling to vocalize the possibility that the law has a legitimate intent. Even the language you use to describe your company's lack of presence in CA is misleading: The California Money Transmission Act has forced this merchant to stop accepting FaceCash payments. You can still pay with other payment methods. No. You have decided not to comply with the law because you object to its passing, to the entities you perceive to be backing the law, to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. As evidenced by the fact that other startups do tackle the payments space, and will in the future, we can conclude that the situation has more to do with you than with the Act.

thinkcomp 15y ago
You're right: I do object to the law's passing, to the entities that have been documented to be backing the law (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2789_cfa_20100628_154447_sen_comm.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab...; the members of The Money Services Round Table are clarified at http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1258/R-1258_11_1.pdf http://www.federalreserve.gov/SECRS/2006/August/20060829/R-1...), to its constitutionality, and to its implementation. That doesn't mean that I "have decided not to comply with the law," which is quite a charge to levy. Just to compare notes, I'd like to see your list of startups that have applied for and are licensed under the California Money Transmission Act. As far as I can tell, based on the DFI's monthly summaries (see http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/ http://dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/), one startup (Venmo) has applied, and zero startups have licenses to date. This is now ten months after the law went into effect. As for the law's intent, the statute claims that it's "consumer protection." I doubt anyone who claims that a money transmitter needs $1 million to $80 million of net worth and $750,000 of surety bonds in order to safely transmit $1. Good luck with your startup. You should do some more research. Right now you sound like an apologist for multi-billion dollar financial corporations.
- hahaonlysirius 15y ago
  Let's be clear: the multi-billion dollar financial corporations didn't shut you down. The state did. They're the ones with the guns.
  - zizee 15y ago
    The financial corporations are the ones with the lobbyists.
    - hahaonlysirius 15y ago
      Personally, I would rather be lobbied than shot.
- 15y ago