5 ms·

I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban. The last

I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban. The last straw for me was when they blocked a transaction of a few hundred dollars without any explaination. I was talking to a support rep for well over an hour, repeatedly being told that there is no security team at PayPal that can see why a transaction was blocked override the block. I was told the security system was a black box, they wouldn't transferred me to a supervisor, and the end result was a recommendation to try a different payment system like bank transfer. This happened to be on the day we were selling our house. The buyer came in with a cash offer and a 7-day close. The inspection results came back after the paperwork was already drawn up, when they asked for a few hundred for electrical repairs it should have been easier to do that as an addendum rather that completely redoing the closing settlement sheet. I guess PayPal had better ideas.

miroljub 3y ago
> I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban. I'd rather have the government enforce something like user-friendly free globally available instant payment and settlement system. Then none of these shady services would be required. Fox example, a version of SWIFT, but instant, free and distributed.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  That's not going to be possible, alone because there are countries like Iran or North Korea or maybe-countries like Palestine which are sanctioned for good reasons.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    What good reasons? Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars. Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?' Just have the money in escrow for 30 days or whatever if fraud is a concern. It is all about messing with us and showing who is in charge.
    - mschuster91 3y ago
      > Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars. Which is orders of magnitude more complex than running a SWIFT transfer, which is the entire goal of the sanctions: make it as hard as possible for the sanctioned country to do anything. Everyone knows and we've seen it over the last years that it is possible to evade any sanction - hell, even over many decades like Cuba - but it is a serious incentive for any government to do as told. > Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?' Most of that bullshit comes from the "war on drugs" and "war on sex work" which are completely different beasts than international sanctions, and I think we can agree on both of these being ripe for the scrap heap.
      - rightbyte 3y ago
        NK might be a bad example on my part as it is such a strange state. I.e. I can't buy kimshi from some NK farmer. However, I believe the right to trade is more benifitial in the long term for mutual peace love and understanding etc. The states can circumvent the restrictions by being states and it hurts mainly the populace.
      - nunobrito 3y ago
        SWIFT ain't the only game in town, you should know that. Plus, gold is redeemeable just about anywhere and easy/fast to exchange without need to identify yourself. You are right for reduced complexity when transferring small amounts, the situation completely inverses once you transfer +6 digits. Gold is fairly portable and simple by comparison to carry across a borders.
- TimJRobinson 3y ago
  This is available today and already used by millions. It's USDC/LUSD on Ethereum/Polygon/Tron (pick your chain based on desired cost and security requirements). The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
  - miroljub 3y ago
    > This is available today and already used by millions. > The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out". If I can't use it for bank to bank transfers or paying for things in a supermarket or another person, that means it is not available today.
    - TimJRobinson 3y ago
      Do you use Paypal for paying for things in a supermarket? You can transfer USDC to anywhere you need to spend it. I use it all the time for transferring between my Australian and USA bank accounts. You said you were looking for a SWIFT replacement, this is it.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I'd be happy for that system to exist in the private sector. Can't say I'd be too happy to see the federal government have a monopoly of all transaction data and censorship powers though.
ncr100 3y ago
Jokingly, I'm surprised they didn't just send you a poop emoji.
lisasays 3y ago
So is there any viable alternative to PayPal at present (for individuals and small businesses)? That doesn't have onerous documentation requirements (like submitting all your PII to some untrustworthy entity) and is not subject to the same arbitrary seizures and stonewalling?
KMag 3y ago
It's a legally mandated black box. Anti-money-laundering laws in the US make it explicitly illegal to even tell you that they suspect money laundering if they think you might be laundering money. (Source: 11+ years of anti-money-laundering training and quizzes in a Fortune 500 financial services company.) They are legally required to be vague and/or lie to you if they think you might be laundering money.

miroljub 3y ago

> I've had absolutely terrible experiences with Palpal. Lawmakers should be urging everyone to use a better service, forget worrying about PayPal's ban. I'd rather have the government enforce something like user-friendly free globally available instant payment and settlement system. Then none of these shady services would be required. Fox example, a version of SWIFT, but instant, free and distributed.

mschuster91 3y ago
That's not going to be possible, alone because there are countries like Iran or North Korea or maybe-countries like Palestine which are sanctioned for good reasons.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  What good reasons? Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars. Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?' Just have the money in escrow for 30 days or whatever if fraud is a concern. It is all about messing with us and showing who is in charge.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    > Kim Jung Un can send boats with gold bars. Which is orders of magnitude more complex than running a SWIFT transfer, which is the entire goal of the sanctions: make it as hard as possible for the sanctioned country to do anything. Everyone knows and we've seen it over the last years that it is possible to evade any sanction - hell, even over many decades like Cuba - but it is a serious incentive for any government to do as told. > Meanwhile I can't send money without the bank asking me 'what ya gonna do with "your" money little friend?' Most of that bullshit comes from the "war on drugs" and "war on sex work" which are completely different beasts than international sanctions, and I think we can agree on both of these being ripe for the scrap heap.
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      NK might be a bad example on my part as it is such a strange state. I.e. I can't buy kimshi from some NK farmer. However, I believe the right to trade is more benifitial in the long term for mutual peace love and understanding etc. The states can circumvent the restrictions by being states and it hurts mainly the populace.
    - nunobrito 3y ago
      SWIFT ain't the only game in town, you should know that. Plus, gold is redeemeable just about anywhere and easy/fast to exchange without need to identify yourself. You are right for reduced complexity when transferring small amounts, the situation completely inverses once you transfer +6 digits. Gold is fairly portable and simple by comparison to carry across a borders.
TimJRobinson 3y ago
This is available today and already used by millions. It's USDC/LUSD on Ethereum/Polygon/Tron (pick your chain based on desired cost and security requirements). The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out".
- miroljub 3y ago
  > This is available today and already used by millions. > The US government will never endorse it or allow major banks to give their full support through because they want control over the network to "keep the bad guys out". If I can't use it for bank to bank transfers or paying for things in a supermarket or another person, that means it is not available today.
  - TimJRobinson 3y ago
    Do you use Paypal for paying for things in a supermarket? You can transfer USDC to anywhere you need to spend it. I use it all the time for transferring between my Australian and USA bank accounts. You said you were looking for a SWIFT replacement, this is it.
flagrant_taco 3y ago
I'd be happy for that system to exist in the private sector. Can't say I'd be too happy to see the federal government have a monopoly of all transaction data and censorship powers though.

ncr100 3y ago

Jokingly, I'm surprised they didn't just send you a poop emoji.

lisasays 3y ago

So is there any viable alternative to PayPal at present (for individuals and small businesses)? That doesn't have onerous documentation requirements (like submitting all your PII to some untrustworthy entity) and is not subject to the same arbitrary seizures and stonewalling?

KMag 3y ago

It's a legally mandated black box. Anti-money-laundering laws in the US make it explicitly illegal to even tell you that they suspect money laundering if they think you might be laundering money. (Source: 11+ years of anti-money-laundering training and quizzes in a Fortune 500 financial services company.) They are legally required to be vague and/or lie to you if they think you might be laundering money.