3 ms·
I would willingly take the risk of default on small purchases (< $100) in return for saving 3% on the cost of the transaction. This would pay off every 50 or s
by danbmil99 14y ago
I would willingly take the risk of default on small purchases (< $100) in return for saving 3% on the cost of the transaction. This would pay off every 50 or so transactions -- and the failure rate is likely orders of magnitude lower than that.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoConsumers don't bear the brunt of the risk of a payment processor folding. The merchant with millions of accounts payable, an unsecured claim, does. I agree with the core of the post: the system is too cautious. I disagree with the call to lower the bar for starting a payment processor to parity with a photo sharing app.
- lisper 14y agoRepealing the MTA would not lower the bar "to parity with a photo sharing app". There are still a whole host of federal regulations that you have to comply with.
- JumpCrisscross 14y agoPerhaps this would be a more concise argument than the multi-series approach? In essence, federal regulation is more than enough and the California finish is superfluous.
- lisper 14y agoYeah, I probably should have said that explicitly. I'm trying to keep an awful lot of balls in the air right now, and sometimes one of them falls on the floor.
- makomk 14y agoWell, the Moneygram fraud mentioned in the blog wasn't about small purchases - they got done for knowingly providing payment processing to scammers who were swindling people out of their life savings!