4 ms·
While CoinBase needs to do this to make it easy for mainstream US customers, it is a dangerous move for them. They are at a huge risk of the ACH equivalent of
by pelle 14y ago
While CoinBase needs to do this to make it easy for mainstream US customers, it is a dangerous move for them.
They are at a huge risk of the ACH equivalent of chargebacks first and foremost.
Their banking connection will undoubtedly cut the cord as well. I'm surprised they even were able to launch this.
Their 1% transaction fee is way to low to deal with the risk.
See this article on why:
http://stakeventures.com/articles/2012/03/07/the-may-scale-of-money-hardness-and-bitcoin http://stakeventures.com/articles/2012/03/07/the-may-scale-o...
- wiredfool 14y agoRight. They're running WEBs. On one hand, they're getting pretty good authorization with the credit matching part, not sure of the legal details of the un/pw bit. That's also going to help a bit with the miskeyed account number problem. On the other hand, return rates on WEBs are bad, and the number of people who will revoke their authorization is pretty high. (Even if they have to make a signed statement under penalty of perjury, it happens.) And they have 60 days to do it. It's going to be hard for them to reverse a return even if they have all their auths in line. On the gripping had, there's the low daily limit. That limits their risk to any particular account, but it's possible that someone would wind up contesting a bunch of charges all at once, say after they got their bank statement. edit: I'd love to see their underwriting documentation and just how they're explaining this to their bank. And I'd love to see their bank's comfort level in 60 days.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]