51–60 of 63 posts
How come both the card network and Stripe get to continue operating by simply firing their bad customer, but Flurly doesn't get that chance? I don't mean "they had a chance to avoid the problem by switching everyone to Connect". I mean, how come Stripe and the card network both get to say "I'm good, just one of my customers is bad, so I'll just get rid of them now that you have told me you don't like them." But Flurl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's interesting, so you couldn't set up a contract that said "I deliver 10 units of X every 10 days, and you pay me 100 units of money. If I fail to deliver the units, I pay you 50 units of money"?
Only if 50 units of money is a reasonable estimate of the losses of the other party for failure to deliver. A judgment in 2015 clarified the test of a penalty clause: "[T]he true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innoc…
The problem in this case would be that Stripe passes on the liability for the penalties to its customers if those customers are breaking the contracts. Obviously a problem for the customer, but also not unreasonable from Stripe's perspective. If you're setting up a marketplace and want to act as a payment-provider for third parties, you're creating a very different liability environment than if you're setting up an account to sell your own products. If you start with a seller-account and then transition your product into a marketplace, someone will have to eat that additional risk, and I can't see a good argument for why Stripe would be the one.
How come both the card network and Stripe get to continue operating by simply firing their bad customer, but Flurly doesn't get that chance? I don't mean "they had a chance to avoid the problem by switching everyone to Connect". I mean, how come Stripe and the card network both get to say "I'm good, just one of my customers is bad, so I'll just get rid of them now that you have told me you don't like them." But Flurl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The meltdown is only in 'modern' things like nfts. Classic things like monero, eth, and bitcoin are chugging along fine.
So all those services that went kaput and took users funds with them don't count? And from what I can tell, BTC has lost 60% of it's USD value from the peak only a bit over a year ago. And you want people to depend on this for payments?
The rotten orgs around the service are getting flushed, which is good for honest users and uses. Don't trust other orgs with your holdings. Hold your own crypto keys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if 50 units of money is a reasonable estimate of the losses of the other party for failure to deliver. A judgment in 2015 clarified the test of a penalty clause: "[T]he true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the enforcement of the primary obligation. The innoc…
But that's very vague. Sure, you can't have a $400k penalty on a $100 delivery, but online payment handling deals with incredible amounts of money, so a $400k penalty between multi-billion dollar companies doesn't seem out of all proportion. The problem in this case would be that Stripe passes on the liability for the penalties to its customers if those customers are breaking the contracts. Obviously a problem for th…
If you've followed HN for any time, you know to avoid stripe.
Fixed that for you. This isn't a Stripe problem, it's a "you need to learn how to color inside the financial lines" problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Sell any digital product in under a minute and keep 99% of what you make after payment processing fees. No monthly fees either." How is that shady?
Not verifying the legitimacy of the merchant making the transaction. Banking and payments are very tightly regulated and there are AML-KYC laws (anti-money-laundering/know-your-customer) that need to be complied with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not verifying the legitimacy of the merchant making the transaction. Banking and payments are very tightly regulated and there are AML-KYC laws (anti-money-laundering/know-your-customer) that need to be complied with.
It's a sad state of affairs when things not verified to be legal are presumed illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a sad state of affairs when things not verified to be legal are presumed illegal.
Indeed it is a sad thing organized crime and terrorism exist, but such is the world we live in.