3 ms·
No, it's a good argument for better regulating organisations like PayPal that function as banks but pretend they're anything but.
by Sakos 4y ago
No, it's a good argument for better regulating organisations like PayPal that function as banks but pretend they're anything but.
- jdietrich 4y agoPaypal Europe have a banking license. The problem is regulation, or at least the interaction between strict KYC/AML regulations and a business model that allows basically anyone to accept electronic payments. Banks and money transmitters are substantially deputised to enforce a raft of laws regarding the conduct of their customers. Either you're choosy in who you accept as a customer, or you're liberal in who you accept as a customer but have a hair-trigger response to any transaction that looks even vaguely suspect. Any alternative strategy will eventually lead to jail time.
- zajio1am 4y agoThese kind of issues are mostly because of regulation (KYC laws).
- Idiot_in_Vain 4y agoIn this case they are acting as a payment processor. Payment processors are not banks usually. More regulation can only help in forcing PP to have a human that you can talk to after the algorithms have banned you.
- nicoburns 4y agoPayment processors also don't usually hold funds on your behalf. Visa can refuse to process your transaction, but they can't hold your money hostage because they never have it the first place. IIRC, in order to avoid banking regulations, Paypal claims that legally the balance you hold with them is owned by them. So if they want to close your account and just keep your money then they can (and do). Which is bullshit and a state of affairs should absolutely be regulated out of existence.
- gobip 4y agoYes, those same banks, that are "regulated" yet they decide what they do with your money, just like PayPal. Bonus: they collapse.
- Eduard 4y ago"No, " → "Also, "