Dwolla has (according to Tradehill) cost me personally my preferred method transferring value between USD and BTC.
That.
Topic: Dwolla email - "We need to verify your identity!" (Read 10765 times)
That.
If it was going to be a problem, they wouldn't offer it as an option that could be enabled in the control panel, I would think.
Companies routinely offer stuff which they eventually withdraw because they find it's not economically viable for some reason. A certain amount of fraud is expected in providing any financial service but no company has the capacity to absorb unlimited amounts of fraud. Once a particular vulnerability gets exploited, it becomes well known and more people exploit it - when losses become unacceptably high, the underlying mechanism which allows the fraud is often withdrawn or heavily restricted. Small start-ups often grossly estimate the incidence of fraud they're likely to encounter.
Some companies (like one's I've worked for in the past) will be straight-up with their customers and explain why it is impossible to meet a perceived obligation no matter who's fault it is. Customers tend not to be overjoyed but can usually understand and accept the reality.
Other companies (such as Dwolla) seem to find it a more rational solution to effectively steal back the money from their customers and doctor up whatever paperwork needs doctoring.
I'd personally be delighted to see Dwolla suffer because of their business choices, but I hope they do live long enough to lose the lawsuit that Tradehill has opened against them and cough up some investor dough before going under.
Dwolla has (according to Tradehill) cost me personally my preferred method transferring value between USD and BTC.
If it was going to be a problem, they wouldn't offer it as an option that could be enabled in the control panel, I would think.
Companies routinely offer stuff which they eventually withdraw because they find it's not economically viable for some reason. A certain amount of fraud is expected in providing any financial service but no company has the capacity to absorb unlimited amounts of fraud. Once a particular vulnerability gets exploited, it becomes well known and more people exploit it - when losses become unacceptably high, the underlying mechanism which allows the fraud is often withdrawn or heavily restricted. Small start-ups often grossly estimate the incidence of fraud they're likely to encounter.
If it was going to be a problem, they wouldn't offer it as an option that could be enabled in the control panel, I would think.
I have auto withdrawal enabled, so any deposit into my Dwolla account will be pushed directly to my bank. I logged in and checked, and there is no indication that the withdrawal is suspended, or that it will be late, so I am going to delay sending anything until after the estimated time of arrival shown in the withdrawal details. Will let everyone know how it goes.
EDIT: However, I can't withdraw or send the remaining balance of $100.
I didn't really pick up on it before, but do you mean that when funds hit your Dwolla account they automatically get transferred to your bank account without any further action on your part? If that's the case, it could explain your account being flagged for enhanced verification. It's a common technique for layering transactions in money laundering (such accounts are called "walking accounts").
Although that is probably a good way to scramble money, Dwolla uses a transfer threshold.
I have auto withdrawal enabled, so any deposit into my Dwolla account will be pushed directly to my bank. I logged in and checked, and there is no indication that the withdrawal is suspended, or that it will be late, so I am going to delay sending anything until after the estimated time of arrival shown in the withdrawal details. Will let everyone know how it goes.
EDIT: However, I can't withdraw or send the remaining balance of $100.
I didn't really pick up on it before, but do you mean that when funds hit your Dwolla account they automatically get transferred to your bank account without any further action on your part? If that's the case, it could explain your account being flagged for enhanced verification. It's a common technique for layering transactions in money laundering (such accounts are called "walking accounts").
I'm glad to hear the transfer made it!
I do need to send someone $180 (my remaining bal) soon, so I hope there won't be a huge delay after I send in my info.
I do need to send someone $180 (my remaining bal) soon, so I hope there won't be a huge delay after I send in my info.
So the common denominator for those receiving this e-mail are that they've dealing with anything but trivial amounts (e.g., $100-ish range and under) and have transacted with either bitcoin exchanges or with other bitcoiners.
Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
I have auto withdrawal enabled, so any deposit into my Dwolla account will be pushed directly to my bank. I logged in and checked, and there is no indication that the withdrawal is suspended, or that it will be late, so I am going to delay sending anything until after the estimated time of arrival shown in the withdrawal details. Will let everyone know how it goes.Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
EDIT: However, I can't withdraw or send the remaining balance of $100.
This^ Just like ISP's may at most cry crocodile tears when their high-use customers threaten to walk. They just move on to the competition and cost them money.
Off-hand the only thing I could think of as a way to get revenge would be to swamp them with sock-puppet type accounts which won't gain anything and cost them in processing. Might be illegal and one would get in trouble over it though. Not sure. Don't care that much either since I never was, and never had any interest in being, a Dwolla customer. I'd love to see them suffer, however, simply on the basis of what they did to Tradehill.
For the most part, I don't believe these services start out with bad intentions. I think that in many cases they're just extremely naive about commercial realities and promise what they later find they can't deliver. Ultimately, a time comes when surviving as a business means having to do the very things their customers wanted to avoid. This often happens before the company has made sufficient profits to have more options - PayPal only survived when it was under attack from regulators worldwide (and it's still very limited in the services it can provide in some places) because e-Bay's involvement meant it was literally able to become a bank in its own right. Dwolla does not have a backer the size of e-Bay which could help it become a bank in an offshore financial centre.
I also think that BTC exchanges and payment processors alike seriously underestimate the sheer amount of fraudulent transactions they'll be exposed to on a daily basis, and the amount of money laundering attempts they'll encounter.
Boycott services that require identity verification!
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Many people don't consider bypassing regulated entities practical though. They don't want to hunt around for someone trustworthy to trade with OTC - they want the convenience of being able to have funds go to and from an exchange or merchant either directly from their bank account or through a payment processor. They also want to buy and sell with a minimum of delay. Alternative money transmission methods aren't necessarily unregulated, either. Here in Australia, even hawala dealers are required to comply with KYC/AML/CTF requirements and report suspicious matters to AUSTRAC.
AML/CFT compliance is a huge administrative burden for financial services providers. Given that they don't have the option of not complying, many financial service providers would be perfectly happy for high risk customers to take their business elsewhere (just like they're happy for people who are bad credit risks to take their business elsewhere).
This^ Just like ISP's may at most cry crocodile tears when their high-use customers threaten to walk. They just move on to the competition and cost them money.
Off-hand the only thing I could think of as a way to get revenge would be to swamp them with sock-puppet type accounts which won't gain anything and cost them in processing. Might be illegal and one would get in trouble over it though. Not sure. Don't care that much either since I never was, and never had any interest in being, a Dwolla customer. I'd love to see them suffer, however, simply on the basis of what they did to Tradehill.
Boycott services that require identity verification!
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Many people don't consider bypassing regulated entities practical though. They don't want to hunt around for someone trustworthy to trade with OTC - they want the convenience of being able to have funds go to and from an exchange or merchant either directly from their bank account or through a payment processor. They also want to buy and sell with a minimum of delay. Alternative money transmission methods aren't necessarily unregulated, either. Here in Australia, even hawala dealers are required to comply with KYC/AML/CTF requirements and report suspicious matters to AUSTRAC.
AML/CFT compliance is a huge administrative burden for financial services providers. Given that they don't have the option of not complying, many financial service providers would be perfectly happy for high risk customers to take their business elsewhere (just like they're happy for people who are bad credit risks to take their business elsewhere).
Boycott services that require identity verification!
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
What service to you recommend for this purpose?
Boycott services that require identity verification!
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
Seriously.
Well, to the extent that it is practical.
That's what I'm doing also.
So the common denominator for those receiving this e-mail are that they've dealing with anything but trivial amounts (e.g., $100-ish range and under) and have transacted with either bitcoin exchanges or with other bitcoiners.
Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
I have auto withdrawal enabled, so any deposit into my Dwolla account will be pushed directly to my bank. I logged in and checked, and there is no indication that the withdrawal is suspended, or that it will be late, so I am going to delay sending anything until after the estimated time of arrival shown in the withdrawal details. Will let everyone know how it goes. Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
So the common denominator for those receiving this e-mail are that they've dealing with anything but trivial amounts (e.g., $100-ish range and under) and have transacted with either bitcoin exchanges or with other bitcoiners.
Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
Doing both will almost guarantee that you get this letter, though it may not happen until after your transaction has already occurred. You will not be able to withdraw the next time though without verifying first.
I'm going to send them my ID tonight... hopefully they don't kill my account.
And this is precisely why bitcoin was invented. 
Ironically, a lot people seem to dislike buying and selling on a peer to peer basis and think adding additional layers to the process is a desirable thing.
I do. To me, giving anyone else control of my BTC is giving them the ability to take it and give me nothing in return...and to get away with it, unlike with most other instruments. This conception of the Bitcoin solution probably has something to do with why I've never been ripped off, or at least not ripped off for more than I expected...Bitcoinica got like $9.00 from me for example, but I anticipated it happening eventually.
Having at least the ability to destroy the BTC if I feel that the recieving party did not live up to their end of the agreement would go a long way toward my considering it a usable solution for a lot of things. Somehow that idea seems wildly unpopular with sellers...
Not content to simply whine about things, however, I posted an idea in the 'market' section the other day to have a trust web which probably has a realistic potential to allow a cash-like cryptocurrency solution to be used with some modicum of reliability. And requires zero involvement form our various judicial systems to boot.
And this is precisely why bitcoin was invented.
Ironically, a lot people seem to dislike buying and selling on a peer to peer basis and think adding additional layers to the process is a desirable thing.
hero member
Activity: 836
Merit: 1007
"How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time..."
And this is precisely why bitcoin was invented.
Jump to: