Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

check.supply

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 109 posts

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#81

Post by deathanatos »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #9

If you can find customers more power to you I guess, but I just can't see the use case here. Having a checkbook, envelopes and stamps is a basic part of being a functional adult. It's not hard or expensive to do, so why on earth would anyone want to pay you to handle basic adulting for them?

> Having a checkbook, envelopes and stamps is a basic part of being a functional adult.

I haven't had a checkbook for well over a decade. I seem to function.

> It's not hard or expensive to do, so why on earth would anyone want to pay you to handle basic adulting for them?

It costs money / banks charge for checks. I don't have any use for them (nearly anything I could write a check for can be handled by ACH or card) … so why pay for a service I'm not using?

(The lone check that I did need to write in the last 2 decades, in theory the procedure is "go to bank, ask for check, receive check". The bank managed to screw that up, so it took a bit more than that, but that's par for the course for companies these days.)

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#82

Post by lxgr »

j0hnjjun9 wrote: post #59
BeetleB wrote: post #52

$6.99 per check? That's expensive! I have envelopes. I have stamps. And I have a checkbook. The only thing this is saving me is the (minor) physical labor? Not worth $6.99 per month. More for the times I have to write checks for other things (e.g. paying contractors). Besides, when I bought my house I bought one of those 300 address label sticker thingies. How else am I going to use those?!

Yup our target market is for people who are busy and want instant gratification that something got done. Envelopes, checks, postage, gas / your time trip to the post office - agreed isn’t a lot of money probably about $3 + your time.

When abroad and close to a payment deadline, I can easily see myself paying $7. International express mail is often more expensive and sometimes less reliable.

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#83

Post by miki123211 »

lxgr wrote: post #55
pintxo wrote: post #38

Good to see that there are things where Germany is not behind the US when it comes to digitalization. I haven’t seen a check for at least 20 years now. Financial transactions are all nicely digitalized by now.

Even long before banking became digital, most European countries had an efficient bank transfer system in place in parallel to checks. Both have their advantages, and I accordingly find it baffling that the US only got one, but not the other, and even more baffling that this has largely survived the transition to digital transfers (consumers usually can't initiate ACH credit transfers to third parties directly).

Meanwhile, most European countries are now left with nothing but a bank transfer system.

This is mostly fine, but the ability to essentially give somebody cash in-person without actually having the cash would come in handy sometimes.

I know checks can bounce, but I always feel a bit uneasy when I tell people "hey I just send you a transfer I promise, it's friday so it'll probably arrive after the weekend, here's the transfer confirmation PDF that I so totally couldn't forge in 10 minutes."

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#84

Post by lxgr »

miki123211 wrote: post #83
lxgr wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even long before banking became digital, most European countries had an efficient bank transfer system in place in parallel to checks. Both have their advantages, and I accordingly find it baffling that the US only got one, but not the other, and even more baffling that this has largely survived the transition to digital transfers (consumers usually can't initiate ACH credit transfers to third parties directly).

Meanwhile, most European countries are now left with nothing but a bank transfer system. This is mostly fine, but the ability to essentially give somebody cash in-person without actually having the cash would come in handy sometimes. I know checks can bounce, but I always feel a bit uneasy when I tell people "hey I just send you a transfer I promise, it's friday so it'll probably arrive after the weekend, here's the…

Checks don't achieve that, though. As the payee, I have no way of knowing whether the check will bounce, so to me, it's really roughly as good as a promise that the payer will transfer me the money once they get around to it.

Also, unless you're in an area without Internet connectivity, the payer can these days just initiate a SEPA instant transfer, right?

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#85

Post by lxgr »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #42

I’m curious, what’s an example of a “neo bank” that you say doesn’t offer bill pay? I’m sure they exist, just wondering who they are. Bill pay sends a bank check which is covered by the immediate withdrawal of funds from the customer’s account. In most cases, the customer would be fine with that or even prefer it, to ensure they don’t accidentally bounce a check. However, I’m wondering if another customer base can be…

> Maybe they don’t have the actual funds yet but want to write a check against funds they expect to have soon (risky but people do it).

It's not risky at all when using "overdraft protection" via a linked savings account.

And why would I want to not receive any interest while a physical object representing the payment (I'm still not over how bizarre that is in 2025!) is making its way to the payee in the mail?

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#86

Post by unsnap_biceps »

j0hnjjun9 wrote: post #66
mikeryan wrote: post #3

Not to rain on your parade, but my Chase app already has this ability. Don’t other banks as well? Whats the upside of this option?

Have you ever lost a bill pay check or have someone follow up and say they didn’t receive it? With BillPay, they deduct the amount you pay on the day of, the banks take their sweet time to send the check because they want to slow down the money. If you lose the check, it’s a lot more overhead to cancel and get your money back.

My bank does not take the money out before it's cashed by the receiver

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#87

Post by pfista »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #42

I’m curious, what’s an example of a “neo bank” that you say doesn’t offer bill pay? I’m sure they exist, just wondering who they are. Bill pay sends a bank check which is covered by the immediate withdrawal of funds from the customer’s account. In most cases, the customer would be fine with that or even prefer it, to ensure they don’t accidentally bounce a check. However, I’m wondering if another customer base can be…

Varo is one. But even the ones that do support it like "Chime" have online comments like this:

"Chime is great for everything else, but their check features are absolute trash and will cause you frustration. Just don't do it and find another option."

> Do you restrict writing checks that are for an amount greater than the current account balance? Lastly, I’m wondering how you handle deliberate check fraud. Victims will try to sue all associated parties. How does your liability work in those cases?

That is one of our fraud signals. We have systems in place to review payment amounts, address, frequency, etc that can cause additional KYC checks to be preformed via Plaid before we'll send the check.

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#88

Post by lxgr »

ceejayoz wrote: post #43
manishsharan wrote: post #37

I see you are using Plaid for Bank integration. The last time I checked Plaid , there were security issues with regards to how it handled passwords by copying Bank login screens. I believe TD was suing Plaid for this reason. I wish you best of luck but I avoid any service that uses Plaid.

Plaid, when able, uses OAuth or similar APIs; they (and all the other financial aggregators) use screen scraping only when that's not a possibility. A lot of the big banks have already made a deal with Plaid in this regard. If you have a Capital One or Citi account, both use a direct integration.

That doesn't solve the problem of Plaid granting access to an absurd amount of financial details to their users (i.e. the companies to which I'm "verifying my bank account").

My account number is fine (and the entire point). My balance and last n transactions? That's just absurd and shows both how broken the US retail banking landscape is in many aspects, and the level of Stockholm syndrome exhibited by a large fraction of their depositors.

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#89

Post by pfista »

sneak wrote: post #15

Why does it need to be connected to your bank at all? It just needs the account, routing, and check numbers. I can order paper checks with arbitrary account and routing numbers on them. Also, for people with printers: checks don’t need to be with special ink or on special paper.

> Why does it need to be connected to your bank at all? It just needs the account, routing, and check numbers.

To prevent fraud

Re: Show HN: Check Supply – Send Checks in the Mail

#90

Post by johnjungles »

lxgr wrote: post #82
j0hnjjun9 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup our target market is for people who are busy and want instant gratification that something got done. Envelopes, checks, postage, gas / your time trip to the post office - agreed isn’t a lot of money probably about $3 + your time.

When abroad and close to a payment deadline, I can easily see myself paying $7. International express mail is often more expensive and sometimes less reliable.

Yup, we’ve been seeing all sorts of interesting use cases - based on feedback here we’ll iterate

If you buy a pack of 12 it goes down to ~$5

Post reply on HN