posted on September 16, 2000 04:12:17 PM
Well if you really want it stopped you have to grab paypal's attention leaving messages on these boards are NOT doing it anymore. AS they have flipped is the bird. As you see most if any of the messages are not being answered. No one has time for a big long legal battle. So , the only thing you can do is try to bring it to the attention of BIG media. There are ways to do that now that are cost effective. Don't get into all the issues just get into this issue (trust me media will find the rest) One of doing that is useing the internet almost all the big shows have message boards now for Hot topics and the media, they do pay attention to these boards. For instance you could go over to the abc internet site (can't put the link here but I think everyone can figure it out : ) and there go to the view Barbra Walters daytime show very popular. The have a message board, but they also have this. A place where you can submit a problem and if it gets their eye (and if enough go over there it will) and if they pick your question they may solve it on the air. Here is what they say at the site and I have seen them do it and Barbra Walters being contacted with 20/20 doesn't hurt, "Whether you have a question about careers, relationships, etiquette or clothing, the ladies of The View are here to help you out. Submit your problems and they might get solved on the air! Click" BTW It would also be good to see what Star on the show ould have to say she is a lawyer and appears to be a darn good one. There are ways to fight back , but it has to be in numbers and has to attract the media attention. There are also other news shows that do this quite a few. it could also backfire but I doubt it since Paypal isn't that good with Public Relations.
posted on September 16, 2000 10:11:23 PM
>>"Don't you think that so many of us closing our accounts will get PayPals attention? I think they are -or should be- shaking in their business-account-boots right now."<<
I doubt they will even notice it. With 3 million or so accouts, the people who have dropped out because of this are probably just a couple of drops in the bucket. New people will sign up and they won't even miss a beat.
That's why they don't really care what we think. They don't have to!
posted on September 16, 2000 10:20:36 PMWell if you really want it stopped you have to grab paypal's attention leaving messages on these boards are NOT doing it anymore. AS they have flipped is the bird
Why do you think they have flipped us the bird? Some of the attacks on PayPal and their representative(s) have been downright nasty, and personal. I'm surprised the moderators here haven't said anything about it. I think if PayPal's absence right now is a good thing. Just fuel for the fire, otherwise.
posted on September 16, 2000 10:29:10 PM
feistyone: Well, it ain't necessarily so. It's quite possible that they're playing it on the bleeding edge, and their financial model is *completely* dependant on *every* member staying put.
A system with a *critical* balance can be thrown to havoc by a *very* tiny change of balance. Ever hear of "leverage", for instance?
Two other factors: first, it's not at all unlikely that many of the more outspoken people here represent the top of the "value scale". In other words, if you look at those three million members, you might find that *one* angry poster here is the cash flow equivalent of a thousand or more "typical" members. Sheer speculation, I'll grant you, and only PayPal knows the answer. But if it's as I speculated, they must be doing the white knuckle thing like it's going out of style.
Second, has anyone considered that the "continual growth" model may be fatally flawed? And if so, perhaps PayPal has recognized it?
Is it possible that the growth curve levelled off, and now, they've got pretty much all they're gonna get in terms of *growth*, and now will be lucky to have new membership balance out with attrition?
If so, it might explain their reluctance to "grandfather" existing users. If they did (if it were the case), it would defeat everything they're trying to do via fees!
posted on September 16, 2000 10:54:24 PM"There are ways to fight back , but it has to be in numbers and has to attract the media attention."
It would have to be a slow news day indeed before they'd report about my bank changing it's interest rates, or sending out notices that checking accounts were no longer going to be free for business accounts.
My local paper is rather small and here in Bugtussel there isn't a lot of news. The news of PayPal business account story got bumped when Mr. E. Choker found an egg with 4 yokes in it.
posted on September 17, 2000 12:06:41 AM
Everyone has been saying this issue has come up because of credit card use and abuse, and charge backs, or no charge backs.
Just because someone is using paypal does not mean that they are paying with a credit card. They may be using funds that have been sent to them, or funds that have been transfered from their own bank. Yet if I sign up as a seller I will be charged for EVERY transaction, regardless if the person is using bank funds or credit card funds.
Thus the CHEAP 1 point something percent and the $0.25 fee is no longer cheap. Why should I be charged for EVERY transaction???
We can all try to figure out why paypal has done this, but in my opinion, Paypal and paypalDamon are not going to tell us the TRUTH. They lied to us at the beginning.
They will say whatever it takes for damage control.
Does anyone here actually BELIEVE that paypaldamon is spending his time off from work posting here? Paypaldamon is PAID by PayPal, and I would guess that it is his JOB to maintain damage control.
What rules and regulations govern Paypal? Banks follow rules and regs from the Federal government. But Paypal seems to be making up the rules as they go along.
Only one thing will impact paypal: closing the accounts. Sure it will remain free for bidders. But without sellers accepting paypal where will that leave them?
I am sending my message:
My last auctions just closed. I started 2 new auctions where I will no longer accept paypal. After I receive my final payments for my last auctions I will close me paypal account.
posted on September 17, 2000 05:49:16 AM
kelly -
"Does anyone here actually BELIEVE that paypaldamon is spending his time off from work posting here?"
He has stated several times that this is part of his job. Companies have staff whose part or full-time job is to read newsgroups and chat boards. Some have their staff interact, some don't, but they ALL pay attention to the net.
I agree with you that charging for ALL incoming money into a business account as if it were a CC is unpalatable. An internal transaction from one paypal account to another is totally automatic and done by software. A transfer from a DEBIT card or a bank account does not incur CC processing fees, so why are they charging as if it did?
And they take 1.9% in fees then turn around and GIVE 1% back to certain buyers ... sort of stupid because it makes the argument that they NEED the fees to provide the service look specious.
If they want more "float", then limit withdrawals (on personal accounts) to X per X to slow the cash flow enough that the float adds up. The "hobby" sellers would not be hurt by this - they tend to let the money pile up, but the high-volume sellers who empty their accounts daily or more often by check would quickly either leave or convert to business accounts.
Thanks for the clarification. It just seems like some people were treating PayPalDamon as if he was answering questions on his time off.
I was going to use paypal as a way to collect and send funds for family members. Can't do that now. I would get charged for my brother sending me money.
One of my concerns is that if paypal can change the terms once, they can do it as many times as they want. There are no rules to govern their actions. The fact that they are not a bank just gives them the power to do whatever they want.
posted on September 19, 2000 11:16:15 PM
Something tells me that PayPal, (if they have any smart PR people at all working for them) just inflated the numbers of the amount of users, because there is an old saying..."Everyone loves a winner". People have a human nature to follow winners and figure.."well if THAT MANY people are using it, it must be good!" I really do NOT believe PayPal users are as high as they say they are.
posted on September 19, 2000 11:52:29 PM
Before this thread disappears into oblivion, I would just like to thank everyone who posted and shared an opinion. Also, thanks to AuctionWatch for hosting and allowing this type of discussion. This is the most important thread I've seen since I joined AW a year ago. This kind of thread is what the eBay Outlook is all about.
I believe Paypal misled us from the beginning. And it is the epitome of arrogance to change their terms of service and then accuse sellers (to whom they had promised "always free" ) of cheating. Paypal has lied, coddled and intimidated users, and displayed a complete and total lack of integrity.
Paypal has treated us all like marks. Some users may feel they need Paypal for their livelihood. I don't consider maintaining a stick up my kazoo part of the cost of doing business.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:08:15 AM
TOTAL BULLSH*T!
This is Marek from BidPay and PAYPALDAMON this message is directed at you!
"You, meaning PayPal mailed this information to your customers?"
AND BIDPAY CHARGES $5.00 !!!!!!!
You are waaaaaaaay "WAY" over the line here.
The context of your message is CLEAR "fee's to SELLERS"... you quote x.com (which charges fee's to sellers), you quote Billpoint (which charges fee's to sellers) and then... you quote, pardon me...
YOU MISQUOTE "and BidPay charges $5.00"
THAT IS A CROCK DAMON AND "YOU KNOW IT"
That is designed to be misleading and deceiptive and WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR A RETRACTION AND CLARIFICATION IN WRITING BY THE SAME METHODS THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE WAS DELIVERED.
COUNT ON IT !!!!
BidPay DOES NOT CHARGE THE SELLERS "ANY" FEE's.
WE NEVER HAVE
WE NEVER WILL
PERIOD, PLAIN AND SIMPLE
NO FANCY DOUBLE TALK
NO MISLEADING OR SUGGESTIVE STATEMENTS
ALL WE OFFER SELLERS IS A 100% PAYMENT GUARANTEE WITH "NO CHARGEBACKS"
Other companies charge twice as much — a $50 payment with X.com costs $1.20; with Billpoint the cost is $2.34; and Bidpay charges $5.00.
While I appreciate you are obviously upset with comments made previously, I might remind you (and everyone else at the same time) that posts should be guided at all times by basic etiquette.
Please give Damon the same consideration you receive from our Community when posting as a representative of BidPay.
Thank you for your cooperation.
MichelleG
Moderator
[ edited by MichelleG on Sep 20, 2000 03:42 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 03:44:19 AM
gomarek
LOL.....Where the h#ll did you come from?
Talk about "In your face"
Go easy on the poor fellow..he is just a grunt anyway...Go get the BIG BOYS at Xcom.
posted on September 20, 2000 06:56:35 AM
Are we ever going to hear from PayPal again??? Seems like Damon has been invisible lately. I have a few very simple
questions that I would like answered - believe me they are much simpler than PayPal's definition of a "business"!
1) If someone pays me with funds from their
Paypal account (rather than credit card),
why should there still be a transaction
charge. This is NO different that Aunt
Bessie sending me birthday money
2) If I sell an item for $5.00 and the
shipping and insurance is $15.00 (believe
me, it has happened), why do I have to pay
a transaction fee based on $20.00? Talk
about cutting into any profit margin!!!!
3) Define what a DANG business is, already!
Your silence only serves to further anger
customers. Own up to the fact that you
messed up and cant make enough money off
the float (although you site STILL says
this), tell us who has to sign up for a
business account once and for all and let
the chips fall where they may. Sure you
will lose customers, but can it be any
worse than now??? I for one, considered
staying with PP in the begining, however
your lack of concern for your customers
has changed my mind. No one likes to
deliver bad news but you only delay the
inevitable and make things worse by
ignoring it.
posted on September 20, 2000 10:53:53 AM
Having worked for both the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, closing your account is a good move. But the greatest effect would be to spend 15 minutes to file a complaint with the FTC and just as importantly the two Banking Committees of our federal government. I posted all this information earlier.
Trust me, I especially think that the Banking Committees would be all over this if they knew the lack of regualtion over this. They would be especially interested in the tatics used to grow this company and concerned with the safety and soundness of the banking system. This is the stuff that makes headlines, on-line banking, lack of disclosures, false advertising, 26 year old foreign owner grows small company into largest on-line payment company. I do not think we are reaching here based on my experience. I hope more of you file complaints and write in, they really do follow-up on this information.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:05:08 PMtoppropsects - What does PayPal's owner's age and nationality have to do with anything?
gomarek - A little unsolicited advice: if you're representing your company here you may want to tone down the nature of your posts. They come across as unprofessional and now I see BidPay as unprofessional as well.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:26:15 PM
And top of all these other PayPal problems, I have had six winning bidders email me to say they have tried to either send me funds or sign up to be able to send funds via PayPal and can't. Most have tried for a day or two.
What's with that? Anyone else have this happen? This troubles me also.
Potential just means you haven't done it yet!
posted on September 20, 2000 12:28:57 PM
Hi catryan,
Please let me know the details on this. I would like to assist. I wonder if they have a problem with their browser? They may need to clear their cache. Send me an email to [email protected] with the information.
posted on September 20, 2000 12:31:20 PM
topprospects
I think that PayPal has some legal loopholes that allow them to change their agreement on the fly. Legally they are probably in the clear. The best way to affect them is to promote the competition. Sign our buyers with other services such as PayDirect, PayPlace, Billpoint, etc.. Hit them where it counts (their user base).
[ edited by feistyone on Sep 20, 2000 12:32 PM ]
posted on September 20, 2000 01:48:10 PM
Thanks for asking. This has some importance since legitimate banks must have their ownership, change in control, Boards of Directors, etc. approved by the federal government. Non-citizens are generally not permitted to be on the Board of Directors. Additionally, qualifications are reviewed and are considered very important in the chartering of a financial institution in this country.
I believe the Banking Committees would be
interested in how easy it was to essentially establish a financial institution outside of many of the existing laws and regulations which govern this area. In particular, the Banking Committees would be very interested in how on-line financial companies such as PayPal affect the safety and soundness of the banking system. You are right age is not important, qualifications are important though and foreign nationality can be an issue.
posted on September 20, 2000 01:56:39 PM
Hmm, interesting. Thanks for the answer, topprospects. Since online payment services (and most everything online) is still so new, I'm sure there will be a lot of attention paid to future regulation. I foresee lots of new laws ahead.
posted on September 20, 2000 02:07:53 PM
Isn't x.com FDIC insured? If it is, then isn't it a "bank"? And PayPal and x.com merged, so that would put PayPal under FDIC regs wouldn't it?
posted on September 20, 2000 02:31:33 PM
Hi huskylover,
Believe me, I understand your frustration. What I can tell you:
1. A business definition will be forthcoming.
2. There will be a two-week period before the policy goes into effect.
3. There will be no forced upgrades.
posted on September 20, 2000 02:37:53 PM
Hi kellyb1,
I would like to state that I do check these issues on my time off (after work and weekends) because I am interested in your concerns. I don't have to, but I need to. Sixty to seventy hour work weeks are not uncommon. I realize this is an important issue and I do address your concerns.
posted on September 20, 2000 02:39:32 PM
paypaldamon - 1) 2) and 3) are good to know, especially 1).
I'm wondering if PayPal will have to use a grandfather clause in order to keep 1) from conflicting with 3), though, if someone meets the definition of a business but isn't forced to upgrade.
posted on September 20, 2000 03:17:20 PM
To my knowledge X.com is not a bank so it is definitely NOT FDIC INSURED. In fact it is extremely bad faith on their part to note that the money is NOT FDIC INSURED on their web site. Though X.com may have private insurance for account holders money, this insurance is certainly not as good as FDIC insurance.
I posted some questions earlier about this being a potentially illegal banking operation. I am not familiar enough with X.com to answer that. I thought X.com was going to acquire a national bank in Colorado. Why do I have a feeling that this acquisition was not permitted by the government.
Maybe PayPalDamon can address if X.com is a bank regulated by the banking laws of this country and why PayPal does not state that money is NOT FDIC INSURED on its website.
