3 ms·
While is commentary makes an excellent case for dishonesty on Zidisha's part, I wonder if some context is necessary. Looking beyond the dishonesty, this comment
by jfasi 13y ago
While is commentary makes an excellent case for dishonesty on Zidisha's part, I wonder if some context is necessary. Looking beyond the dishonesty, this commentary talks about a 25 percent interest rate in the implicit context of the credit environment of a developed country. In that context, these practices and interest rates are extremely suspicious, morally dubious, and possibly illegal.
This raises the question of why Zidisha is making these statements. To assume a developed-world business context excludes the possibility that these practices are accepted and commonplace in the markets Zidisha serves. I have no experience with those markets, but it's worth excluding this possibility before expressing distaste for these practices.
Consider the following plausible scenario: Zidisha performs research into the market and discovers that these practices and rates are acceptable. One can even imagine they are preferable to the status quo. The issue is that Zidisha as a company has to generate press and justify its business to a developed-world audience whose gut reaction to such practices would make the company look like a pack of usurers, when in fact they could very well be doing a lot of good.
To me, this communication seems a compromise response to this conflict: translate the numbers and practices as best you can into language and terms developed-world audiences understand. Perhaps the company took some liberties with labeling and conversions along the way, and if this is the case they would do well to be more conservative, but overall I give the benefit of the doubt that this communicate is the result of a tricky conflict of business environments rather than deception.
- potatolicious 13y ago> "is the result of a tricky conflict of business environments rather than deception." Can't it be both? Intentional misrepresentation in the pursuit of a worthwhile goal is still intentional misrepresentation. I look forward to seeing Zidisha's response, but as it is this looks highly intentional and highly deceptive. This ultimately comes down to the classic "do the ends justify the means" debate. It also leads to immediate suspicions of a slippery slope - if the founders of this startup are willfully misrepresenting the core nature of their business in furtherance of their goals, what else about them is negotiable?
- unclebucknasty 13y agoThis. People seem to assume that the target audience is too unsophisticated to understand anything beyond flat rates. Zidisha itself implies as much through their claim that flat rates are simpler to understand. In fact, flat rates are more confusing because they are misleading. So, not only is Zidisha joining in on this customary practice, they are promoting it. Instead, they should educate their clients, re-express competitive rates in terms of APR, etc. So, the net is that it does appear to be intentionally misleading, which is made no better by the fact that such misleading may be common practice in some parts of the world.