Topic: Press Release - TradeHill, Inc. Files Suit Against Dwolla, Inc. (Read 12141 times)

Well it was legal, we just couldn't operate outside of Iowa. For the first two years we built out the platform. We did a sh*tload of testing on a small scale because legally we couldn't launch Dwolla nationwide. We spent two years inside of Iowa fine-tuning Dwolla with the financial institutions, building out some of the initial models, and trying to figure out how to legally do what we do.

How'd you find a legal loophole?

Moving money is an exceptionally regulated business. We're in Iowa, which is sort of conservative — I don't know if that helped us or hurt us, but in the long term I think it helped us. We figured to do this legally, we had two options: we could take in a tremendous amount of money and go out and get licenses, which is how most people do it. But we didn't have access to that kind of capital here.

The other option was to bring in really strategic investors, which is what we did. One of our investors is a financial institution; one is a financial services company.

Our investors do credit and debit processing for banks. So when you get a credit card from your bank, it's being issued by companies like them. Our investors are also distributing our product to financial institutions. So we've been building a payment network, and we can do it legally because of who our investors are.

Right, which you start paying in 30 days or so.

Sure, at that point. But that's the non-chargeback case. That's not what happens if you reverse the charge.

No, one is not "just like" the other. When you buy a house, the seller has *no* agreement with the mortgage company. The mortgage company just pays them. When you buy something with a credit card, there is a contractual arrangement between the merchant and the credit card issuer. These two situations are simply not comparable at all.

I don't understand what you mean by "with my logic". These are two different factual situations. With a home mortgage, the mortgage company only pays the seller. With a credit card, the merchant has a contract with the bank that sets out a different relationship. This is a factual difference, it's not something you can logic out. You have to read the contracts to understand the relationship. (The contracts are not really freely negotiated though. The credit card issuer tells the merchant to take it or leave it, and Federal law sets out many of the requirements.)

To mitigate long-term risk, but not short-term risk. And to avoid having to do credit inquiries and avoid having to meet other requirements. Nevertheless, the bank's agreement with the merchant permits them to refuse to collect from the consumer on behalf of the merchant. A merchant cannot use a credit card issuer to protect themselves from the risks associated with their own non-performance and the consumer need not sue the merchant if they have not yet made payment. That's what the contracts between the merchant and the credit card issuer say.

No, the bank is extending credit to the merchant in the case of a credit card. Why do you think credit card companies bother to investigate merchants or closing down merchant accounts for fraud? The credit card company is collecting the principle on behalf of the merchant and if you do not owe the merchant the principle, you do not owe it to the credit card company. That is the way credit cards work, at least in the United States.

By the way, in the vast majority of cases, this really does benefit the merchants. Very few people would buy a camera from an online store if they had to investigate the camera and the store the way you have to investigate a real estate purchase. And, of course, the credit card issuers don't make much money if consumers are afraid to use their credit cards.

When you pay your credit card's interest rate (APY) you pay it to the credit card company, not the merchant.

That is because the credit card company is extending credit to you, and not the merchant.

The merchant is agreeing to provide you with certain goods or services in exchange of a lump sum payment, in this case disbursed by the credit card company to the merchant on your behalf, just like a bank disburses a sum lump payment to the seller of a house at the closing on your behalf. There is NO credit extended by the merchant, unless you are paying the merchant with a credit card issued by the merchant (i.e. target credit card, etc).

With your logic, the seller of a house will be providing credit "in part" to the buyer, along with the bank when a mortgage is closed. Months later, if the buyer of the house quits paying, the bank will know on the sellers door and ask for the money back.

A "credit card" is an instrument by which the issuing institution extends credit to the customer, and for which collects interests payments, service fees, etc. The whole point for the merchant (in theory) is to delegate the issuing of credit and mitigate risk to a third party.

This really have nothing to do to whom the bank is extending credit to, since in both cases the bank is extending credit to the buyer, not the merchant (or seller).

Joel,

When you pay your credit card's interest rate (APY) you pay it to the credit card company, not the merchant. That is because the credit card company is extending credit to you, and not the merchant. The merchant is agreeing to provide you with certain goods or services in exchange of a lump sum payment, in this case disbursed by the credit card company to the merchant on your behalf, just like a bank disburses a sum lump payment to the seller of a house at the closing on your behalf. There is NO credit extended by the merchant, unless you are paying the merchant with a credit card issued by the merchant (i.e. target credit card, etc).

With your logic, the seller of a house will be providing credit "in part" to the buyer, along with the bank when a mortgage is closed. Months later, if the buyer of the house quits paying, the bank will know on the sellers door and ask for the money back.

A "credit card" is an instrument by which the issuing institution extends credit to the customer, and for which collects interests payments, service fees, etc. The whole point for the merchant (in theory) is to delegate the issuing of credit and mitigate risk to a third party.

In any case, chargebacks have nothing to do with who extends credit. Chargebacks (be it ACH or Credit Cards) can occur for two reasons:

• Fraud: The issuing institution determines that fraud has been committed, so takes back the money.
• implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose (Non performance, etc which is the norm in commerce in the USA and here in Canada) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty).

This really have nothing to do to whom the bank is extending credit to, since in both cases the bank is extending credit to the buyer, not the merchant (or seller).

This has to do with the fact that Real Estate sells fall under Caveat Emptor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor) i.e. "Buyer be aware". And this brings me to the next point: Before we created a race of retarded morons that can't seem to be able to educate themselves as consumers, the world's economy traded based on Caveat Emptor all the time. You couldn't go to a fucking Roman merchant and be "Can I like ... have my salt back, I am not really feeling this fur color with my skin ....". Yep we have shat all over darwin, and this is what we now have.

Let me give you an example on Real Estate: When you go buy a house you check it out, you hire a home inspector, you have by law 45 days to withdraw or modify your offer if defects are found, you do your research (most likely pay the title company to do it) on the house title, make sure it is free of liens, etc.. etc..

This is because after closing day, if you want your money back, well, guess what? you are jolly well fucked. This is thanks to Caveat Emptor.

Bitcoin works under the premises of Caveat Emptor. The banking world works under the premises of "I freeze your account whenever the fuck I want" and "I charge you back because the customer complained that the chia pet didn't grow grass" etc ... etc... etc...

Caveat Emptor has its downfalls of course, it is not a panacea, but honestly this situation with chargebacks (I have had chargeback requests for international wire transfers dating 6 months ago) is absolutely getting out of hand.

In a true libertarian free market society there is no room to baby the inept through life.

Right, that's because mortgages are not like credit cards. In the case of a mortgage, the bank is extending credit directly to the mortgagee.

It is an extension of credit on the customer, not the merchant.

If the customer does something dumb with the line of credit, it should be their responsibility, not the merchant's.

At most, it should be a problem shared by the customer and the bank that extended the credit.

This is akin to a mortgage in a house: if you bought a 400K 1 bdr appartment in LA before the bubble bursted, you and the bank are stuck with the debt, and you pay the price, not the seller of the property.

While I do understand there should be some merchantability protection for the consumer, it seems to me that the merchant ALWAYS ends up paying for the broken dishes, not the banks, and almost never the consumer. This is by the way, after the merchant has already been pounded by some irrational "processing fee" by the credit card companies.

It is an extension of credit on the customer, not the merchant. If the customer does something dumb with the line of credit, it should be their responsibility, not the merchant's. At most, it should be a problem shared by the customer and the bank that extended the credit. This is akin to a mortgage in a house: if you bought a 400K 1 bdr appartment in LA before the bubble bursted, you and the bank are stuck with the debt, and you pay the price, not the seller of the property.

While I do understand there should be some merchantability protection for the consumer, it seems to me that the merchant ALWAYS ends up paying for the broken dishes, not the banks, and almost never the consumer. This is by the way, after the merchant has already been pounded by some irrational "processing fee" by the credit card companies.

If you mean ACH chargebacks, 100% agree. If you mean credit card chargebacks, 100% disagree. (The big difference is that an ACH transfer is an actual payment. A credit card is an extension of credit.)

Chargebacks don't protect the consumer, it protects the morons and the crooks. Back in the day when you had to pay with coins, cash or tade, people did their math before forking over the money to somebody. Another dent on darwinism. Let's keep the idiot's money safe! Learn how to secure your wealth and how to spend it, because if you don't somebody (the merchant) will have to pay for your sorry ass! Sorry I am getting all riled up here

Chargebacks don't protect the consumer, it protects the morons and the crooks.

I think they meant "Bitcoin's NO chargeback problem"... idiots!

Afterwards, they can contact a Meze Grill customer on how to get out from paying the settlement.

My prediction is that Dwolla will settle for somewhere between 100k and 500k, because it seems like there is a valid argument that they did not pass liability of chargebacks onto their customers in their original TOS.