7 ms·

Are you serious? This is very concerning

by aliswe 4y ago

jgust 4y ago
You either die a hero or live long enough to become Paypal.
- Spivak 4y ago
  live long enough to understand why Paypal became Paypal.
  - steve_adams_86 4y ago
    Is the answer simply money?
    - aga98mtl 4y ago
      No, the answer is that credit cards allow chargebacks for up to 180 days. Stripe or Paypal is betting on your honesty by allowing you to withdraw sooner. Stray out of their secret "safe" behavior allowed and they deem the risk too high.
      - Alupis 4y ago
        Also... new accounts that experience sudden surges of transactions without well established seasonal patterns and account history are very risky for all processors. The processor has to protect themselves from being used in some sort of Carding-Farm Scheme, has to protect other merchants from the processor being cut off by issuers (for having too many fraudulent transactions/chargebacks), and protect actual Card Holder's from fraud (since the processor/merchant ultimately are responsible for the chargeback). People are always surprised when their new account with a few hundred a day in revenue suddenly surges to thousands a day in a short period, and the processor wants to investigate why... Use the tools freely provided by your processor to protect yourself. Sweep the balance into your business bank account every single day - it's usually automatable and free. There is never a reason to store more than 24 hours of revenue in a processor account... they are not a bank!
      - YetAnotherNick 4y ago
        Is there any processor which puts the funds to themselves, with the legal binding that unless customer charge backs I will get the money after the chargeback period? Seems like this could save payment processor with lot of headaches while reducing their fees.
        35mm 4y ago
        Probably not because it would be hard for most businesses to wait 180 days to get paid.
capableweb 4y ago
Absolutely, payment providers block/suspend accounts left and right, and you're out of luck to find any humans to talk to. If you manage to find a human, 99% chance is that it triggered something in their "anti fraud" systems and then they'll simply state "We can't tell you why, and we can't unsuspend your account, sorry". Best course of action I've found, is to build your initial MVP with one payment provider but as soon as you've validated there is a market and before you move on with other features, add a backup provider you can switch to at any time because chances are you will get blocked at one point. If not permanent, at least temporary. If you're clever enough when you build the initial integration, you make sure to abstract out the specific payment provider so it's easy to plug in a new one. Shouldn't add too much complexity. Sucks but the reality we live in...
- eloff 4y ago
  Completely agree, that's why this Lago is interesting to me instead of using Stripe services. I'd rather use Stripe for the bare minimum so I can implement support for a backup provider as well.
- theturtletalks 4y ago
  This works for normal payment processing, but Connect is something that doesn't have a viable alternative. Lago wants to abstract the Connect functionality and allow you to use Stripe Payments, Paypal, other processors, and get the Connect functionality to be open-source. Looking forward to their work and it is sorely needed.
- viggity 4y ago
  This happens far too often. And because stripe handles the PCI compliance, you can't even take your customer's CC info to another merchant account. This is why people need to be using a PCI tokenizer like BasisTheory. Then you own the rights to the CC, without needing to handle PCI compliance, and you can switch vendors easily.
  - jhdhjdkjdhcfnj 4y ago
    nice try mr sales person. PCI tokenizer is pure snake oil. "dear auditor, i do not store the credit card number, only an unique index to fetch it at any time on this rest service. i promisse it is totally not the same thing" good luck trying to make thay avoid compliance work.

Are you serious? This is very concerning

by aliswe 4y ago

Are you serious? This is very concerning

jgust 4y ago

You either die a hero or live long enough to become Paypal.

Spivak 4y ago
live long enough to understand why Paypal became Paypal.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  Is the answer simply money?
  - aga98mtl 4y ago
    No, the answer is that credit cards allow chargebacks for up to 180 days. Stripe or Paypal is betting on your honesty by allowing you to withdraw sooner. Stray out of their secret "safe" behavior allowed and they deem the risk too high.
    - Alupis 4y ago
      Also... new accounts that experience sudden surges of transactions without well established seasonal patterns and account history are very risky for all processors. The processor has to protect themselves from being used in some sort of Carding-Farm Scheme, has to protect other merchants from the processor being cut off by issuers (for having too many fraudulent transactions/chargebacks), and protect actual Card Holder's from fraud (since the processor/merchant ultimately are responsible for the chargeback). People are always surprised when their new account with a few hundred a day in revenue suddenly surges to thousands a day in a short period, and the processor wants to investigate why... Use the tools freely provided by your processor to protect yourself. Sweep the balance into your business bank account every single day - it's usually automatable and free. There is never a reason to store more than 24 hours of revenue in a processor account... they are not a bank!
    - YetAnotherNick 4y ago
      Is there any processor which puts the funds to themselves, with the legal binding that unless customer charge backs I will get the money after the chargeback period? Seems like this could save payment processor with lot of headaches while reducing their fees.
      - 35mm 4y ago
        Probably not because it would be hard for most businesses to wait 180 days to get paid.

capableweb 4y ago

Absolutely, payment providers block/suspend accounts left and right, and you're out of luck to find any humans to talk to. If you manage to find a human, 99% chance is that it triggered something in their "anti fraud" systems and then they'll simply state "We can't tell you why, and we can't unsuspend your account, sorry". Best course of action I've found, is to build your initial MVP with one payment provider but as soon as you've validated there is a market and before you move on with other features, add a backup provider you can switch to at any time because chances are you will get blocked at one point. If not permanent, at least temporary. If you're clever enough when you build the initial integration, you make sure to abstract out the specific payment provider so it's easy to plug in a new one. Shouldn't add too much complexity. Sucks but the reality we live in...

eloff 4y ago
Completely agree, that's why this Lago is interesting to me instead of using Stripe services. I'd rather use Stripe for the bare minimum so I can implement support for a backup provider as well.
theturtletalks 4y ago
This works for normal payment processing, but Connect is something that doesn't have a viable alternative. Lago wants to abstract the Connect functionality and allow you to use Stripe Payments, Paypal, other processors, and get the Connect functionality to be open-source. Looking forward to their work and it is sorely needed.
viggity 4y ago
This happens far too often. And because stripe handles the PCI compliance, you can't even take your customer's CC info to another merchant account. This is why people need to be using a PCI tokenizer like BasisTheory. Then you own the rights to the CC, without needing to handle PCI compliance, and you can switch vendors easily.
- jhdhjdkjdhcfnj 4y ago
  nice try mr sales person. PCI tokenizer is pure snake oil. "dear auditor, i do not store the credit card number, only an unique index to fetch it at any time on this rest service. i promisse it is totally not the same thing" good luck trying to make thay avoid compliance work.