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

Do not donate to me (2013)

blog.futtta.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#31

Post by joecot »

SyneRyder wrote: post #30
joecot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Provided the merchant did not incur liability by doing something immensely stupid and insecure, the bank is on the hook. If the perpetrator is caught, they will pay restitution to the bank. Source? As someone who helps support an online credit card gateway, in my experience it is the merchant who has to shoulder the cost (plus an extra penalty fee) of the transaction. Perhaps there are different chargeback policies…

> The only system I've seen where the cost of a chargeback is on the bank instead of the merchant is if the merchant has setup 3D-Secure/Verified by Visa... Verified By Visa is a nightmare, and was killing conversion rates by up to 60%. [1] I'm not sure if it's still the case, but when it first came out Amazon refused to integrate it. [1] https://econsultancy.com/verified-by-visa-a-conversion-rate-...

Yes, that was definitely also part of the calculation. We expected clients would not use it, because every extra step destroys conversation rates, but we wanted to at least provide the option.

... But even providing the option was a non-starter, because of how many different banks had completely broken systems. We ended up ditching the feature entirely.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#32

Post by chillfox »

joecot wrote: post #28
nulbyte wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chargebacks are for disputes, not fraud. Provided the merchant did not incur liability by doing something immensely stupid and insecure, the bank is on the hook. If the perpetrator is caught, they will pay restitution to the bank.

> Provided the merchant did not incur liability by doing something immensely stupid and insecure, the bank is on the hook. If the perpetrator is caught, they will pay restitution to the bank. Source? As someone who helps support an online credit card gateway, in my experience it is the merchant who has to shoulder the cost (plus an extra penalty fee) of the transaction. Perhaps there are different chargeback policies…

I hate the MasterCard verify page.

It took me giving up buying several products over the last year and complaining to the bank every time before I eventually had the correct key to that puzzle.

The details it asks for are not much better than random. Stuff like mixing your residential address and postal address, using a neighboring postcode, including random stuff like a building number or weird artifacts like " , ,".

How anyone is expected to figure out the frankenstein address that MasterCard want's by themselves is beyond me.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#33

Post by Pristina »

endorphone wrote: post #9
snazz wrote: post #2

This seems like a very fair policy if the developer doesn’t need the money, as in this example. However, as a user, I hope that setting up a recurring donation keeps the project going and provides motivation to its author.

This particular trend -- not only not asking for contributions, but openly denying them (often in advance, and when none were ever offered) for a better cause -- is a rising tendency across virtually all of Western society. Watch any challenge with a monetary prize and invariably they'll turn the sad music on and demand that the contestants regale a tale about the old grandma in the old country, or the kid's club the…

Unfortunately the western culture is enamored in a continuation of the "white man's burden" ideology.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#34

Post by rfw »

Pristina wrote: post #33
endorphone wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This particular trend -- not only not asking for contributions, but openly denying them (often in advance, and when none were ever offered) for a better cause -- is a rising tendency across virtually all of Western society. Watch any challenge with a monetary prize and invariably they'll turn the sad music on and demand that the contestants regale a tale about the old grandma in the old country, or the kid's club the…

Unfortunately the western culture is enamored in a continuation of the "white man's burden" ideology.

Characterizing people wanting to contribute to the basic living conditions of people so pejoratively as 'unfortunate' and a 'continuation of the "white man's burden" ideology' is an extremely bad faith view of those who choose to do so.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#35

Post by throwawaymath »

pmoriarty wrote: post #25
doesnt_know wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting money isn't "free", and usually incurs a non-trivial overhead. If it's someones hobby it's easier to just not accept money and focus on the actual hobby . Some kid getting pocket money from a lemonade stand is significantly different to accepting recurring donations as an adult. Dealing with either setting up some sort of non-profit, managing tax in your country, accepting international currencies or suppor…

"Accepting money isn't "free", and usually incurs a non-trivial overhead." Is that really true? What if I say I only accept checks, or certified checks even. Wouldn't depositing such checks be trivial? Yes, you do have to pay taxes on the money (which in countries other than the United States can be very simple), but apart from that the other things you list such as setting up a non-profit, accepting international cu…

> Wouldn't depositing such checks be trivial?

It would be, yes. But getting an appreciable number of people to donate via check instead of PayPal/Stripe would be highly nontrivial :)

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#36

Post by Tharkun »

He's Belgian. Belgian taxes are awful. If you want to accept 'donations' for software, you have to be self-employed. This comes with a boatload of hassle, including paying national insurance contributions of 20%. (which are calculated based on your income from three years ago). And given that the man has a day job, he'd also be looking at a 50% tax rate for these donations. So a 100eur donation would net about 40eur and a bunch of paperwork.

Not worth the hassle unless we'rw talking at least thousands a year.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#37

Post by scarejunba »

mikekchar wrote: post #6
snazz wrote: post #2

This seems like a very fair policy if the developer doesn’t need the money, as in this example. However, as a user, I hope that setting up a recurring donation keeps the project going and provides motivation to its author.

I may be misremembering (and the situation is a bit different now, lending credence to the idea that I'm misremembering), but I think Bram Moolenaar used to request that people donate to the children of Uganda and send a post card to him. For people who would like that donation, I think that would be awesome: make the donation and send an email saying that you did it. This should provide the motivation you are lookin…

Here’s an example from what he’d send you if you sponsored vim a while ago:

> Thank you very much for your contribution towards the development of Vim! This will motivate me to spend more time on improving Vim. The money will be used to help needy children in Kibaale, Uganda.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#38

Post by 9dev »

johannes1234321 wrote: post #23

When I look a different Patreon accounts of people I know, where I have a rough understanding of their dayjob and life situation I often wonder about the sums. The sums listed are often too high to be ignored, but too little to call it a job, even jut part-time. Few hours a month. Me that would put in a strange situation. I would get the feeling of having to return some work for that, which takes the fun out of some…

> declare the axes

Forrest shivers in fear

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#39

Post by kingosticks »

m000 wrote: post #11
aboutruby wrote: post #7

Why not accept donations then redistribute them to those causes? Also I recommend https://www.givewell.org

A number of reasons. First, you may end-up paying some middle-man twice. Second, you may have to declare any donations as income and be taxed for them (more paperwork for you). Third, in order to reclaim the tax you paid for the donations, you will probably have to distribute them to charities within your (already rich) country.

And having accepted the donation, some confused doners will think you owe them something. I think it's important to entirely remove that possible misunderstanding.

Re: Do not donate to me (2013)

#40

Post by michaelt »

endorphone wrote: post #9
snazz wrote: post #2

This seems like a very fair policy if the developer doesn’t need the money, as in this example. However, as a user, I hope that setting up a recurring donation keeps the project going and provides motivation to its author.

This particular trend -- not only not asking for contributions, but openly denying them (often in advance, and when none were ever offered) for a better cause -- is a rising tendency across virtually all of Western society. Watch any challenge with a monetary prize and invariably they'll turn the sad music on and demand that the contestants regale a tale about the old grandma in the old country, or the kid's club the…

Is that a "trend" when greed has been held up as a vice for thousands of years, with ideas like "if you want to be perfect, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" ?

And of course, there are plenty of people like parents and employers who find it convenient to perpetuate these notions at times.

Post reply on HN