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

Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

lemonsqueezy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 220 posts

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#161

Post by sanswork »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #160
sanswork wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>No Starting like that, writing that whole paragraph and you completely misread what I said. "No, merchants have risk with credit cards". That is literally what I said in the post you are replying too. Sloppy and rude. >Cryptocurrency does not have this problem because you don't have to give your private keys to everyone you pay and even if you fail to protect them yourself Credit card fraud isn't a problem for consu…

> "No, merchants have risk with credit cards". That is literally what I said in the post you are replying too. Sloppy and rude. What you said was that it was moving the risk from the merchant to the consumer, but it isn't moving that risk, it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with. > Credit card fraud isn't…

>it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with.

It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there.

>This is called "chargeback fraud" and is dishonesty on the part of the customer.

No it isn't. Chargebacks aren't only for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the retailer they are for any situation when you don't believe you received what you paid for.

>Which is another form of fraud by the customer, because in that circumstance you are a creditor.

No because again the bankrupt company hasn't provided the service they took money for. Taking back the money isn't fraud.

>They're a payment system you can't be denied the use of and isn't operated by an industry dedicated to capturing the government in order to covertly extract a vig from everything you buy.

So you can be denied the use of most crypto in practical terms by having you address blacklisted in which case no mainstream exchange will accept your coins.

>What if you do want to hide your identity?

Then use crypto, but that isn't a concern for very many legitimate transactions.

>it's like paying for things in cash generally

It's like paying in cash remotely, hence mailing money. Paying in cash in person is fine because you are right there to collect your goods or confront the thief standing in front of you.

You believe the reason people don't pay for things by mailing cash is because of the cost of postage? Besides being ridiculous maybe check the cost of a bitcoin transaction during modest volume events.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#162

Post by carlosjobim »

qingcharles wrote: post #137
carlosjobim wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to go into details here, but it is something very traditional and unexciting that all kinds of people buy. We offered Bitcoin payment just as prominent as other forms of payment, but nobody was interested.

How are you taking Bitcoin payments? Every time I'm forced to pay for something using crypto it ends up making me want to self-harm and I've been a dev for 40 years. When I have to try and talk friends and relatives through crypto payments it is insanely painful. Just the other day I was buying an NFT and I realized I bought the currency on Ethereum instead of Polygon. Coinbase didn't differentiate. Imagine trying to…

In the first step, the customer would just select between card, bank transfer and Bitcoin. Nobody selected Bitcoin in the first step.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#163

Post by plastic_bag »

wubrr wrote: post #116
input_sh wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from a country not supported by Stripe, it is annoying how frequently I find some tool that I might want to use, only to discover Stripe's the only payout option.

Out of curiosity - which country?

Not the OP, but Stripe disabled verification and payments for new accounts in India. The only way to receive international payments is through an MoR like Lemon Squeezy or Paddle. PayPal should work too but my experience with it is limited.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#164

Post by AnthonyMouse »

sanswork wrote: post #161
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "No, merchants have risk with credit cards". That is literally what I said in the post you are replying too. Sloppy and rude. What you said was that it was moving the risk from the merchant to the consumer, but it isn't moving that risk, it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with. > Credit card fraud isn't…

>it's removing it because the consumer doesn't have to give every merchant something that enables that (very common) form of fraud to occur to begin with. It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there. >This is called "chargeback fraud" and is dishonesty on the part of the customer. No it isn't. Chargeb…

> It doesn't remove anything. The consumer is accepting the risk that they pay for something and don't receive it. You are just shifting the risk it is still there.

The risk the merchant is trying to avoid is actually removed, not shifted to anyone. The risk that the customer pays for something and doesn't receive it is irrelevant for many transactions, because the seller is trustworthy and allows easy returns, so the risk from them isn't any higher than the risk of the credit card company not crediting your payment or sticking you with a surprise fee.

It also isn't inherent to cryptocurrency. There is no reason you can't use escrow if you feel the need to. But you could avoid the cost of that escrow, implicitly built into credit card networks and non-optional there, when you don't feel you need it.

> Chargebacks aren't only for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the retailer they are for any situation when you don't believe you received what you paid for.

https://chargebacks911.com/credit-card-chargebacks/

> No because again the bankrupt company hasn't provided the service they took money for. Taking back the money isn't fraud.

Taking back money from a company in bankruptcy is typically illegal (and unethical) because their other creditors also have a claim to the money, so you're really taking it from them rather than the company who owes it to you. This is why bankruptcy courts exist; to fairly allocate the bankrupt entity's assets. You're not allowed to skip the line.

> So you can be denied the use of most crypto in practical terms by having you address blacklisted in which case no mainstream exchange will accept your coins.

Anybody can trivially get a new address and transfer their coins to it without the use of an exchange. Blacklisting every address that has received coins from a blacklisted address doesn't work because you don't need someone's permission to send them coins, so it would grant anyone with a blacklisted address the power to blacklist anyone else. Also, a blockchain is global and countries that don't respect the blacklist would cause the number of affected addresses to constitute the entire network within a short period of time.

> Then use crypto, but that isn't a concern for very many legitimate transactions.

Isn't it? Why would I want the credit card companies to even know if I'm buying a toothbrush? Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7258

> It's like paying in cash remotely, hence mailing money.

That's assuming you're using it remotely. If it wasn't made purposely inconvenient then you could use it to buy coffee or gas.

> Paying in cash in person is fine because you are right there to collect your goods or confront the thief standing in front of you.

People are perfectly willing to pay cash to someone who is bigger than them, or armed, so that can't really be it. Also, confronting them like a vigilante is hardly necessary when you know who they are and they're subject to legal process, which is the same over the internet.

And again this only seems to apply to someone you expect to rob you. Microsoft accepts cryptocurrency. You may not trust them at all, but if you pay them with it for a Windows license, what are you afraid will happen? Anything that couldn't also happen three months later after the chargeback window is closed?

> You believe the reason people don't pay for things by mailing cash is because of the cost of postage? Besides being ridiculous maybe check the cost of a bitcoin transaction during modest volume events.

If you're making a $2 transaction, spending $0.73 on postage and then waiting several days to be credited is ridiculous, not to mention most merchants don't accept it because it requires manual processing and presents an insider theft risk.

Bitcoin has high transaction costs because it's the oldest (and some of the ingroup likes it that way). There are several other cryptocurrencies where the transaction costs are trivial, it's not inherent to the technology.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#165

Post by cqqxo4zV46cp »

nailer wrote: post #147
tonynator wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number one justification for cryptocurrency in my book, even if it's less safe or convenient or even has small fees. Your business being subject to the whims of payment processors is ludicrous. Even with this being the justification, they could just say they won't be working with the customer in the future, not literally steal their customer's already earned money.

current generation blockchain networks will absolutely have lower fees than traditional finance

Current-generation blockchain networks also don’t seek to do what “traditional finance” does. The usual list of things that crypto enthusiasts point to tends to be mostly comprised of things that consumers actually want. The entire premise is different. Apples and oranges.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#166

Post by cqqxo4zV46cp »

jiggawatts wrote: post #136
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Stripe has a history of shutting down legit businesses and blocking payouts of their rightfully earned income, whilst also profiting off those frozen funds by investing it. Almost every case I've seen, it's almost always because they were dabbling with NSFW, Cannabis, or another card-network-restricted category. And when you confront them about their story, they almost always respond with weasel wording: "It wasn't…

Most of it I get, but... "Genital prosthetics"!? What on Earth?

As someone that isn’t working in payment processing, it’s no surprise that you don’t get all of it.

Every single thing about these lists always reeks of ‘this has been put together reactively, over time, based on experience’. But it’s so cool and trendy and complain about this stuff on HN and similar, everyone just elects to forego critical thinking for a little bit.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#167

Post by virgildotcodes »

moneywoes wrote: post #146
Crier1002 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this! im selling a subscription with this pricing model and it’s quite painful to swallow. having that said i really enjoy using lemon as my payment processor

Are there no alternatives

Paddle is the other big one I'm aware of.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#168

Post by eropple »

localfirst wrote: post #114
ilrwbwrkhv wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally and this is the problem with startup founders of today. Their minds are filled with liquidity and an exit event. Steve Jobs had famously said how pathetic that is. And Zuckerberg, love or hate him, turned down billion dollars. Selling your startup is not a good plan. Make it big, change the world, and swim in money.

Your comment being downvoted is quite telling of the founders that are joining YC they are looking at quick exits especially in this high interest rate environments and so are the backers Very few entrepreneurs are looking to create companies that will provide its workers with forever jobs It's sad but those few that are grinding it out and creating jobs, helping economies in those countries run proper are the unsung…

Sure--if you're looking to do that, you're probably not taking VC and almost definitely not using YC.

VC does then choke out nascent companies in the "mid-sized, actually employs people" space if they think there's the potential for a quick buck, by driving it to zero, but the founders trying to do as you describe aren't anywhere near Y Combinator in the first place.

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#169

Post by jfoster »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #158
sanswork wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you're doing is moving the risk from the business to the consumer with crypto which is why it will never succeed. Consumers like all the things businesses hate about credit cards because they can get their money back if something goes wrong and when it comes to payments the customer decides who wins.

> All you're doing is moving the risk from the business to the consumer No, most of the merchant's risk with credit cards is from the design of credit cards. You have to give your payment info to every merchant but if any one of them loses it then anyone who gets it can use it at any other merchant. Then some merchant you've never heard of has bad security, criminals get cards from there and use them to buy things fr…

> If you pay $3 for something and get ripped off, the ability to do a chargeback isn't that relevant to your life and you're just not going to patronize them anymore.

That's true. How about if you're paying $3000? Would you like to pay with Bitcoin or a credit card?

Re: Stripe acquires Lemon Squeezy

#170

Post by ilrwbwrkhv »

eropple wrote: post #168
localfirst wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment being downvoted is quite telling of the founders that are joining YC they are looking at quick exits especially in this high interest rate environments and so are the backers Very few entrepreneurs are looking to create companies that will provide its workers with forever jobs It's sad but those few that are grinding it out and creating jobs, helping economies in those countries run proper are the unsung…

Sure--if you're looking to do that, you're probably not taking VC and almost definitely not using YC. VC does then choke out nascent companies in the "mid-sized, actually employs people" space if they think there's the potential for a quick buck, by driving it to zero, but the founders trying to do as you describe aren't anywhere near Y Combinator in the first place.

I don't know why you're saying midsized companies where what I am saying is that you can become the largest companies on this planet by not selling out.
Post reply on HN