> the amount PayPal handled was 45 000 USD Which is the only part relevant to this discussion. PayPal's risk is far greater than 45,000. This depends on how

> the amount PayPal handled was 45 000 USD Which is the only part relevant to this discussion. PayPal's risk is far greater than 45,000. This depends on how much PayPal is charged for chargebacks, a rate I cannot know. > They're an official payment provider for IGG. I assume they know what IGG is by now and the risks associated with that. Yes. Hence the reason for the additional due diligence. Understanding IGG's operations, it makes complete sense that the would oversee individual projects going through on IGG, and doing additional due diligence on top of IGG. You are making a unwarranted assumption that they their diligence stops at IGG. Having dealt directly with situations like this (essentially acting as an IPSP, or basically, something akin to IGG), banks are still required to do their part. > 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. Just because you say it's not PayPal's business doesn't make it so. It's very much their business. The belief that it shouldn't be their business shows a lack of understanding of the area that PayPal operates. > Nobody denies that crowdfunding is not inherently risky. Except no one understands all the risks that are involved. Otherwise, you'd understand why PayPal should be asking for how the money will be used, the business plan, etc. These are additional steps that should be taken precisely because of the risks that exist. Stopping diligence at IGG would be horribly, horribly wrong. > Either don't participate or live with the risk. They are trying to participate. They are being denied.