5 ms·

Sure, but we have no reason to give those details to PayPal, and very good reasons not to. Edit: Delaying payments by months is not acceptable or reasonable. T

Sure, but we have no reason to give those details to PayPal, and very good reasons not to. Edit: Delaying payments by months is not acceptable or reasonable. There are tax implications (we have to deal with multiple jurisdictions) and opportunity costs. Also, this very obviously goes against the wishes of our community of backers - they are supporting a free software development project, not buying a product.

mootothemax 13y ago
Sure, but we have no reason to give those details to PayPal You'll reduce your risk profile, and increase your chances of receiving payment inside the next year. and very good reasons not to Aside from potentially delayed payouts, what are your other good reasons? Edit, replying to your edit: Our community of backers... are supporting a free software development project, not buying a product Do you know for a fact that all of your backers 100% understand the difference? Do you also know for 100% that you will receive no complaints, no refund requests, and no chargebacks in the event that you don't deliver?
- kalms 13y ago
  I see your point. PayPal is a business partner in this setup, and they are shouldering a lot of risk on the developers behalf. I can understand not wanting to share something as intimate as a business/developement plan, but PayPal is within their rights, boty legally and morally, to ask for one. If the developers are having trouble with this, they should find another partner for their venture. (imho) That said, PayPal can be real douchebags. Too many friends, business partners and colleagues has been burnt by them in the past. If you're doing something nonprofit, move elsewhere.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > but PayPal is within their rights, boty legally and morally No and no. They're a payment provider, a utility, not a partner. They could have stated up front that they want a business plan or could have denied acting as payment provider. They could have demanded the backers to waive their refund rights. I'd even be on their side if they kept a percentage of the funds as security. The backers have a moral right to see a business plan, if any person at all has one. It's their money and they did not give it to paypal so that paypal can collect interest on it, they gave it to mailpile and they collectively are shouldering a much bigger risk than paypal in that transaction.
    - jasonlotito 13y ago
      > they collectively are shouldering a much bigger risk than paypal in that transaction. No, they are not. Financially, PayPal is the one shouldering the biggest risk. Edit: > No and no. They're a payment provider, They most likely have legal obligations in various jurisdictions and with the credit card providers to do due diligence. And looking at business plans and how payments like this will be used is an important part of that. Try getting the same funding directly from a bank rather than going through a middleman and see what they ask for. Every time a PayPal story comes up, I'm always reading at how the people are innocent and everything is fine, and yet, they are doing something shady. Here you have an organization that's effectively asking for donations to support a project, but it's not, from what I can tell, certified as a non-profit. So suddenly yes, that does become high risk. Any banker in the world is going to look at this scenario and know that it's high risk.
      - Xylakant 13y ago
        > No, they are not. Financially, PayPal is the one shouldering the biggest risk. Actually not. Let's assume a chargeback rate of 100%. The donated amount was 135 000 USD, the amount PayPal handled was 45 000 USD, so the remaining backers collectively shoulder about twice as much risk as PayPal. > They most likely have legal obligations in various jurisdictions and with the credit card providers to do due diligence. They're an official payment provider for IGG. I assume they know what IGG is by now and the risks associated with that. So they can either a) choose to forfeit that business because it's too risky. Fair enough. b) Lay out the conditions early: Hey, we'll take the money and keep it for a year. But would would IGG then still offer PayPal as payment provider? c) eat the risk and honor the implied contract. > Here you have an organization that's effectively asking for donations to support a project, but it's not, from what I can tell, certified as a non-profit. Yes, that's what they do. Every backer voluntarily decided to support that business. I backed kickstarter campaings because the project sounded nice and I wanted those people to have a chance to finish their project, because I thought it was a worthy thing to back. I never even touched the finished goods. A lot of open-source projects ask for donations without being non-profits, for example nginx do. Point is: everyone can decide under which conditions he'd like to support a project - certified non-profit or not, but that's not PayPals business. > So suddenly yes, that does become high risk. Sure. Nobody denies that crowdfunding is not inherently risky. But see above. Either don't participate or live with the risk. But PayPal is trying to eat the cake and still have it too: They happily took the money and kept the fees, but will neither refund it to the backers nor cash it out. That's shady in my opinion.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
ballard 13y ago
I support your position. This is like a bad investor trying to type on your keyboard and criticize your bikeshed's color. Paypal needs to MTOB.

mootothemax 13y ago

Sure, but we have no reason to give those details to PayPal You'll reduce your risk profile, and increase your chances of receiving payment inside the next year. and very good reasons not to Aside from potentially delayed payouts, what are your other good reasons? Edit, replying to your edit: Our community of backers... are supporting a free software development project, not buying a product Do you know for a fact that all of your backers 100% understand the difference? Do you also know for 100% that you will receive no complaints, no refund requests, and no chargebacks in the event that you don't deliver?

kalms 13y ago
I see your point. PayPal is a business partner in this setup, and they are shouldering a lot of risk on the developers behalf. I can understand not wanting to share something as intimate as a business/developement plan, but PayPal is within their rights, boty legally and morally, to ask for one. If the developers are having trouble with this, they should find another partner for their venture. (imho) That said, PayPal can be real douchebags. Too many friends, business partners and colleagues has been burnt by them in the past. If you're doing something nonprofit, move elsewhere.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > but PayPal is within their rights, boty legally and morally No and no. They're a payment provider, a utility, not a partner. They could have stated up front that they want a business plan or could have denied acting as payment provider. They could have demanded the backers to waive their refund rights. I'd even be on their side if they kept a percentage of the funds as security. The backers have a moral right to see a business plan, if any person at all has one. It's their money and they did not give it to paypal so that paypal can collect interest on it, they gave it to mailpile and they collectively are shouldering a much bigger risk than paypal in that transaction.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > they collectively are shouldering a much bigger risk than paypal in that transaction. No, they are not. Financially, PayPal is the one shouldering the biggest risk. Edit: > No and no. They're a payment provider, They most likely have legal obligations in various jurisdictions and with the credit card providers to do due diligence. And looking at business plans and how payments like this will be used is an important part of that. Try getting the same funding directly from a bank rather than going through a middleman and see what they ask for. Every time a PayPal story comes up, I'm always reading at how the people are innocent and everything is fine, and yet, they are doing something shady. Here you have an organization that's effectively asking for donations to support a project, but it's not, from what I can tell, certified as a non-profit. So suddenly yes, that does become high risk. Any banker in the world is going to look at this scenario and know that it's high risk.
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      > No, they are not. Financially, PayPal is the one shouldering the biggest risk. Actually not. Let's assume a chargeback rate of 100%. The donated amount was 135 000 USD, the amount PayPal handled was 45 000 USD, so the remaining backers collectively shoulder about twice as much risk as PayPal. > They most likely have legal obligations in various jurisdictions and with the credit card providers to do due diligence. They're an official payment provider for IGG. I assume they know what IGG is by now and the risks associated with that. So they can either a) choose to forfeit that business because it's too risky. Fair enough. b) Lay out the conditions early: Hey, we'll take the money and keep it for a year. But would would IGG then still offer PayPal as payment provider? c) eat the risk and honor the implied contract. > Here you have an organization that's effectively asking for donations to support a project, but it's not, from what I can tell, certified as a non-profit. Yes, that's what they do. Every backer voluntarily decided to support that business. I backed kickstarter campaings because the project sounded nice and I wanted those people to have a chance to finish their project, because I thought it was a worthy thing to back. I never even touched the finished goods. A lot of open-source projects ask for donations without being non-profits, for example nginx do. Point is: everyone can decide under which conditions he'd like to support a project - certified non-profit or not, but that's not PayPals business. > So suddenly yes, that does become high risk. Sure. Nobody denies that crowdfunding is not inherently risky. But see above. Either don't participate or live with the risk. But PayPal is trying to eat the cake and still have it too: They happily took the money and kept the fees, but will neither refund it to the backers nor cash it out. That's shady in my opinion.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

ballard 13y ago

I support your position. This is like a bad investor trying to type on your keyboard and criticize your bikeshed's color. Paypal needs to MTOB.