posted on December 22, 2000 07:54:54 AM new
Since they launched the Debit card (you do believe in Santa? Tooth Fairy? Easter Bunny? Truth from PP?), I thought it would be a good idea to launch a contest for BEST logo or design for the card!
Everyone is invited to list their submissions here!
First Prize = 1 week in Philly (at YOUR expense)!
Second Prize = 2 weeks in Philly (same expense)!
GRAND PRIZE = correct instructions for removing PP & EP logos from your auctions!
My nomination: Full color portrait of Charles Ponzi.
posted on December 22, 2000 11:50:43 AM new
A great visionary who came up with a unique & awe-inspiring financial operation back in the early part of the last century! So impressive was this operation, that through the ages...
posted on December 22, 2000 02:43:37 PM new
I don't think that PayPal is involved in any "Ponzi Scheme" per se, other than using that term to refer to questionable business practices in general.
- Dan
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
posted on December 22, 2000 02:53:09 PM new
Just a little t-i-c humor! Seriously though, can't wait to get my X (whoops!), I mean Y (whoops!), I mean Z.com PayPalDebt card!
posted on December 23, 2000 04:58:04 PM new
As I understand it, the Ponzi scheme was using money from the second level investors to pay the first. Then take from the third level to pay the second. The problem is that you eventually run out of investors.
Paypal has been losing millions of dollars while signing up more and more members. They hope to eventually become profitable in a year. How? They're not exactly sure. How are they able to continue paying their expenses? Because as each new set of payments goes through, they use that money to pay the folks they owe from the week before. What happens when what they owe is more than what they're holding? Maybe they freeze a bunch of accounts to give themselves an interest-free loan. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
posted on December 23, 2000 07:07:33 PM newMaybe they freeze a bunch of accounts to give themselves an interest-free loan. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.
Yisgood, I don't understand something. If you believe that PayPal is a Ponzi scheme it seems you've come to a conclusion that all the news services covering PayPal have missed. What is even more confusing is you warn people against using PayPal yet you include it as a payment method in your auctions.
Your words and your actions are an enigma. You believe PayPal is a Ponzi scheme, yet you accept them in your auctions? That just doeosn't make sense.
posted on December 23, 2000 08:28:33 PM new
uaru, what makes you believe news organizations are actually covering PayPal?
That AP "article" is a brief rewrite of PayPal's Thursday news release.
In fact, that's what the majority of PayPal "coverage" has been. The only slight bit of legwork I've seen involved in any PayPal "news articles" involves some reporter signing up & sending one payment.. or calling some seller who's name has undoubtedly been provided by PayPal.
Heck, news "articles" as recent as last week are still reporting that PayPal is free to sellers! Yep, they sure do double-check all the facts they pull up from old articles and releases!
The next time you see an "article" announcing anything involving PayPal, go to http://www.prnewswire.com and see if there's anything in that article that's not in PayPal's news release.
posted on December 23, 2000 08:58:22 PM new
>>What is even more confusing is you warn people against using PayPal yet you include it as a payment method in your auctions. <<
Shall I explain it for the 20th time? How many times will it take until you get it? I guess I should expect this from someone who can read all the Paypal problems and still insist that they're reliable.
There are still a bunch of folks who are either too lazy to sign up to another service or can't figure out how or just have an attitude that they will stick with PP until the day that their account is frozen or they get ripped off. For the benefit of those people (as a seller, I do have to accomodate all customers, even the ones that take some effort) I will accept non credit card PP payments or payment from verified accounts. I withdraw them immediately and therefor I wont have a problem when PP shuts down. Because I warn all my customers, I have gotten 1 PP payment in three weeks, hardly anything to lose sleep over. The first level folks who were smart enough to get out while they were ahead did very well with Ponzi schemes. It's only the johnny-come-latelies and the folks who left their money in that lost in the end.
Incidentally, I'm not one of those who thinks PP will collapse in a month or two. But if they continue to operate as they have been, collapse is inevitable at some point. There is always the possibility that a change in management will correct the problem. The only question is, will they wait so long that it becomes too little too late.
posted on December 23, 2000 09:39:38 PM newShall I explain it for the 20th time? How many times will it take until you get it?
Hmmmmmm... I guess you'll have to explain it 21 times because it still isn't registering. You warn folks about getting their account frozen, you announce "Breaking News" (which your source is an anonymous post that is basically a rumor, that I could prove laughable), and you warn people not to play with fire. Then you turn right around and list PayPal as a payment option on your auctions. Gee... I guess I'm one dumb individual, or you aren't believing the drivel you write on your warning web site.
Wouldn't it be easier not to appear so hypocritical if you didn't accept PayPal instead of speaking out of both sides of your mouth?
Why don't you just close your account and follow your advice you expect others to pay attention to. The fact that you accept PayPal and have a Premier Verified Account and list is as a payment method you accept just doesn't hold with the advice you are giving to others. Show some backbone, announce on your auctions you don't accept PayPal if your convictions are that strong.
Here's a tip. If you are advocating making handguns illegal it looks bad if you've got a .38 under your coat. You don't go against your own advice. You can try and justify it, but it doesn't hold water.
posted on December 24, 2000 07:17:32 AM new
yisgood wrote: "There are still a bunch of folks who are either too lazy to sign up to another service or can't figure out how or just have an attitude that they will stick with PP until the day that their account is frozen or they get ripped off. For the benefit of those people (as a seller, I do have to accomodate all customers, even the ones that take some effort) I will accept non credit card PP payments or payment from verified accounts."
I stopped accepting PayPal approximately two months ago, and offer Billpoint, ExchangePath, WU's MoneyZap, and BidPay as payment alternatives. So far, most buyers interested in paying online have used Billpoint. I've received only one payment each through ExchangePath, MoneyZap, and BidPay. I haven't received any complaints about not accepting PayPal, nor have I observed any change in buying patterns on my auctions since I dropped PayPal.
My point is that if buyers are really interested in purchasing items up for auction, accepting (or not accepting) a certain on-line payment service isn't really going to inhibit them bidding.
- Dan
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
posted on December 24, 2000 08:48:41 AM new
>>Hmmmmmm... I guess you'll have to explain it 21 times because it still isn't registering.<<
Okay, this time I'll try to use small words. Now pay attention or have your mother read it to you.
>>You warn folks about getting their account frozen, you announce "Breaking News" (which your source is an anonymous post that is basically a rumor, that I could prove laughable), and you warn people not to play with fire.<<
Because folks have gotten their accounts frozen and PP has already announced that you can no longer withdraw to a Mastercard, so it seems that the news is more than a rumor. Should I wait until thousands of people are actually stuck before reporting it? I will state what I know and let folks reach their own conclusion.
>>Then you turn right around and list PayPal as a payment option on your auctions. Gee... I guess I'm one dumb individual, or you aren't believing the drivel you write on your warning web site.<<
As I stated many times, non credit card payment only. To a seller, this is just like getting cash.
>>Wouldn't it be easier not to appear so hypocritical if you didn't accept PayPal instead of speaking out of both sides of your mouth? Why don't you just close your account and follow your advice you expect others to pay attention to.<<
Since Paypal acted like a drug dealer, getting millions of people hooked with their lies about "always free" and "you wont be forced to upgrade" and then slyly forced sellers to upgrade if they want to accept more than $100 and then charged fees to the seller that often the buyers are not even aware of, it is difficult to get these addicts to go cold turkey. So I educate my buyers and explain why it is not a good idea and my PP payments went down from 8-10 a week to 1 in 3 weeks. But those other 20+ who would have used PP learned about it and switched to Moneyzap. I am using the same viral method of spreading the word that PP did, except I didn't pay $5 to buy people's conscience.
>>The fact that you accept PayPal and have a Premier Verified Account and list is as a payment method you accept just doesn't hold with the advice you are giving to others.<<
I became verified back when I stupidly believed the lies that verification was for MY protection. Then I started hearing about the verified folks who got ripped off, the bank accounts PP accessed without permission and I learned what a lie it was. And I do not tell folks to close their PP accounts out of hand, just not to accept PP CC payments unless you know the other party.
>>Show some backbone, announce on your auctions you don't accept PayPal if your convictions are that strong. <<
Why should I punish myself for PP's actions? If I didnt accept PP, I wouldnt be able to educate all those PP users out there who don't know what they're dealing with. This way I get them to switch to Moneyzap.
>>Here's a tip. If you are advocating making handguns illegal it looks bad if you've got a .38 under your coat.<<
And if I thought that PP was endangering people's lives, I would do just that. But the only danger with PP is accepting credit cards from unknown folks, so I don't, but I do allow non CC payments. Just like when I don't allow guns in my house, I do allow waterguns.
posted on December 24, 2000 10:04:27 AM newBut the only danger with PP is accepting credit cards from unknown folks, so I don't, but I do allow non CC payments
Gee, looking at your auctions it looks like you need to correct your wording, cause it looks like you accept credit card payments via PayPal Paypal (non credit card payments free or credit cards for verified accounts plus 2% surcharge)
I guess that 2% covers the risk you feel you're taking huh?
PP has already announced that you can no longer withdraw to a Mastercard, so it seems that the news is more than a rumor.
Excuse me, but only the international users were the only ones that were ever able to credit funds to their MasterCard credit cards, PayPal no longer allows international users to credit payments to their credit cards... there is nothing about PayPal not being able to accept MasterCard payments. Doesn't it make your "Late Breaking News" a bit of a joke when you consider that PayPal has begun issuing MasterCard debit cards?
Do you even care what you tell others? The sky is falling the sky is falling, run for cover!!!
And I do not tell folks to close their PP accounts out of hand, just not to accept PP CC payments unless you know the other party.
LMAO!!! so can you explain what the big red lettering is on your chicken little site that starts out, "Reasons to stop using Paypal". Apparently those are some pretty invalid reasons if they fail to even convince the author.
Come on, drop the hypocrisy and close your account. Give us some really neat "Late Breaking News" LMAO!!!
posted on December 24, 2000 05:49:39 PM new
I wish I understood the reason some people bother to visit this site. I come here for an exchange of opinions. On several occasions, I listened to someone else's opinion and actually changed my mind. I was against reserve auctions (and in principal I still am) but some sellers convinced me of their purpose and I accept that. I was a Paypal cheerleader until I heard too many horror stories from folks that I knew to continue accepting the excuse that all these folks are making it up or tried a fraud, etc. But some folks are here just to keep reposting their opinion over and over. They are not going to listen to anyone or offer any evidence to refute what is said or answer questions. When Paypal Damon does it, at least that is his job. Why others do it, I can't understand.
For the folks with open minds who actually read the posts, think about them and come to decisions, I have added a new page to my site called "Using Paypal More Safely" http://www.ygoodman.com/safepp.html. It is my advice on what buyers and sellers should do when faced with a hard choice:
give up Paypal and lose the business of all those buyers brainwashed into thinking it is the greatest thing or continue to use it and be subject to ever-changing, retroactive rules, charge backs and frozen accounts. It is how you can reduce your risk with Paypal while weaning your customers off of it.
posted on December 24, 2000 09:46:38 PM new
yisgood wrote: "...give up Paypal and lose the business of all those buyers brainwashed into thinking it is the greatest thing or continue to use it and be subject to ever-changing, retroactive rules, charge backs and frozen accounts."
I am not convinced that there are that many buyers out there who would refuse to bid on an item simply because the seller didn't accept PayPal, esp. if alternative credit card processing services are offered. My experience with this is quite the opposite, i.e. I have noticed no change in sales since dropping PayPal.
Thus your argument for still accepting PayPal "for non-credit card transactions" while at the same time complaining bitterly about their poor customer service and erratic policies is, at best, rather weak.
- Dan
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain.
posted on December 25, 2000 05:43:21 AM new
>>I am not convinced that there are that many buyers out there who would refuse to bid on an item simply because the seller didn't accept PayPal, esp. if alternative credit card processing services are offered. My experience with this is quite the opposite, i.e. I have noticed no change in sales since dropping PayPal. <<
The goal of a business is to increase sales, not just keep them from dropping. You have no way of knowing how many people saw your auctions and didn't bid because of the "no paypal" or no mention of paypal. I know that there are folks out there who won't bid unless PP is accepted because of PP's great viral marketing game. I know that every week I get a few new customers from my auctions or website who say, "I was going to use PP until I saw your info and have switched to Moneyzap." So I get the best of both worlds, a new customer and one who switched to a reliable service.
Since I started doing this several months ago, I did have 2 or 3 folks who insisted on PP despite the warnings. I gave them the choice of non-cc payment or paying from a verified account and adding 2%. They chose non-cc payment. So again, I was protected. I would have lost those sales if I had insisted on no paypal.
posted on December 25, 2000 01:12:04 PM newWell, if you define that as castigating a company while still using their services, I guess you're right.
That seems to describe his actions well. He boldly sets up a web site to warn people not to use PayPal via some dubious charges, and then defend his hypocrisy in accepting it because it brings customers. (very big grin)
posted on December 26, 2000 06:28:02 AM new
I have dropped Paypal completely from my auctions. I take Billpoint, MoneyZap and Bidpay. If anything, my sales have increased.
yisgood, I appreciate all the information that your website has consolidated to help folks make an intelligent decision
when looking for online payment services. I learned quite a few things about the industry that I wasn't aware of just by puruseing AW.
But to continue to offer a flawed service for ANY reason in your own auctions is the height of hypocrisy...and undermines everything you have been trying to get across to people about the problems with these services. They obviously can't be too bad if you will continue to partake of their services, can they?
posted on December 30, 2000 09:04:18 PM new
dblumenfeld
I can see where yisgood is coming from. I'm another one of those people that still wants the PayPal only bidders. I leave PayPal as an option in our actions at the protest of my partner. One very important thing to me is we have a lot of return customers who use PayPal and I would hate to lose them..
I would love to see PayPal go out of business altogether so people would stop asking to use it!
Hmmmm, seems that a lot of people castigate Ebay and continue to use them. So, if I am to take their posts seriously then I will not berate yisgood for his oppinion either..
It seems that other people here have their heads burried firmly in the sand and are thinking, "it will never happen to me". That is their right.. I, for my part, have taken steps to make sure my risk is minimal. I do not accept PayPal payments through my primary email address so people have to email before making a payment. This way, if for some reason my account is restricted, people will not be making payments into a restricted account. We don't leave more than a few dollars balance in our account so even if the account is frozen, I don't care! I will just quit using them altogether.
I've not figured out a way to keep PayPal from reversing a deposit yet, but if I keep using them I will eventually figure that out too.
posted on December 30, 2000 09:23:29 PM newI've not figured out a way to keep PayPal from reversing a deposit yet, but if I keep using them I will eventually figure that out too.
Can you name a method of accepting credit cards electronically where you aren't liable for customer satisfaction? Maybe BidPay but that isn't exactly what you'd call accepting credit cards, it's purchasing a money order (for an inflated price for US buyers).
BillPoint, MoneyZap, PayDirect, C2it, eCount, eMoneyMail, PayPal, ExchangePath, and any other you care to name aren't going to accept the loss for a buyer's chargeback. Show me a company that takes the loss in the event of a chargeback and allows the seller their services and I'll show you a company out of business a month from now.
posted on December 31, 2000 11:48:38 AM new
>>Show me a company that takes the loss in the event of a chargeback and allows the seller their services and I'll show you a company out of business a month from now. <<
Once again you have missed the point. Reliable, well run payment services do not automatically accept charge backs without making some attempt to clarify the matter. There are currently three lousy, services run by lazy folks who do just that. Paydirect will automatically charge back without contacting the seller, if the buyer makes a charge back. Exchangepath will freeze accounts for any reason or no reason at all. Paypal may or may not restrict the account, may or may not contact the seller, may or may not freeze the buyer's account, may or may not follow their own TOS depending upon which PP person handles the problem, the current level of the DOW and the configuration of the planets. These services also do a lousy job of cc validation, judging by the number of foreign scammers who have managed to open accounts and they will penalize the sellers for their own incompetence in allowing these accounts to be opened. They have also refused to give sellers an accept/reject payment. Even Paydirect will only take back the one bad payment and not freeze the entire account.
posted on January 1, 2001 03:57:20 AM newyisgoodOnce again you have missed the point.
The poster stated they were concerned about deposits being reversed.
I've not figured out a way to keep PayPal from reversing a deposit yet, but if I keep using them I will eventually figure that out too.
I tried to explain that none of these services are going to accept the loss when a chargeback is made. If there is geniune concern over deposits being reversed then he should stick with money orders and checks. When a charge is disputed the money is either frozen or withdrawn, if the charge is ruled legitimate it is given back or unfrozen. I'm unaware of any company that will investigate first on the premise that hopefully they'll get the money later if the dispute is legitimate, not even with a merchant account.
posted on January 1, 2001 07:48:55 AM new
>>I tried to explain that none of these services are going to accept the loss when a chargeback is made.<<
And I have tried to explain that only a lousy service would automatically accept charge backs without giving the seller a chance to respond.
>>If there is geniune concern over deposits being reversed then he should stick with money orders and checks.<<
Or a service that does not automatically accept every charge back.
>>When a charge is disputed the money is either frozen or withdrawn, if the charge is ruled legitimate it is given back or unfrozen. I'm unaware of any company that will investigate first on the premise that hopefully they'll get the money later if the dispute is legitimate, not even with a merchant account. <<
Wrong! I had three charge backs made when I accepted credit cards directly. In all three cases, I received a letter from the company and responded. The charge backs were denied and the money was not taken from me or held even temporarilly.
But the complaints are not about temporary holding or freezing of an amount in question. The complaint is about the automatic and permanent loss of that money without even an opportunity to respond. And worse, the freezing of the ENTIRE ACCOUNT over one charge back. Even if I had lost the decision, my merchant account would not have frozen my entire account. Only PP and EP are stupid enough to do that.
posted on January 1, 2001 09:06:05 AM newyisgoodGet my point?
<sign>
Here's the question. Divorce yourself from this being a PayPal issue, an ExchangePath issue, a frozen account issue, and endorsement or warning issue of any pay service. Stay focused.
How do you accept a credit card payments and eliminate the liability of them "reversing a deposit" should the customer dispute the charge and still be able to continue to use the service to accept credit card payments?
