[PixelB]

According to the article, PayPal claimed that it was not an automated ad and they were in fact eligible for it.

"To paraphrase: “It may seem weird that we’re holding collateral on your account and offering you a loan, but that was not a mistake! You’re still eligible. Contact me if interested.”"

[URSpider94]

They didn't claim it wasn't automated. They just claimed that it isn't a mistake. The better explanation is that the criteria for a hold and the criteria for a loan are not one and the same.

[chris_wot]

Hence the concerns over a conflict.

Whilst the risk to PayPal may be deemed acceptable to PayPal, the only reason you would need the loan is because they froze Tor funds. They are not just managing your risk, they are increasing it whilst mitigating the effects it has on themselves!

[cwyers]

> They are not just managing your risk, they are increasing it whilst mitigating the effects it has on themselves!

Well, they're passing the risk on. The risk is in chargebacks from people who bought things from the OP's company, right? If they weren't using PayPal or some other third-party payment processor, that would be their risk.

[smt88]

> Well, they're passing the risk on

Yes, but PayPal gets a (high) transaction fee in exchange for assuming that risk. The company borrowing from PayPal is charged interest for the privilege of taking that risk away from PayPal. That's insanely exploitative on PayPal's part.

[URSpider94]

My point is, I don't believe they are offering the loan because the company is in financial trouble (due to the hold). I believe they are offering the loan because the company meets certain requirements in terms of transaction volume.

Companies can reach the required transaction volume without having holds on their account.