[miki123211]

And there's presumably also a profit-sharing agreement.

E.G. if the retailer normally pays at 300 bps to their affiliates for a particular transaction, Honey may only get 100 or 50 bps.

It's a choice between e.g. Honey giving every customer of vendor X a voucher code from a particularly valuable influencer in X's niche, which gives 30% off on first orders, versus giving them a 20% discount and taking 1.5% for itself.

This is a great deal for the retailer, they go from -30% to -21.5%, it's a great deal for Honey because that kind of money on millions of transaction is a lot of money, and it's a great deal for users, as Honey wouldn't even exist without this scheme, and they'd get 0% off instead of 20.

[MostlyStable]

It is _maybe_ a great deal for the average consumer, who might not be putting any effort into finding deals. It's emphatically not a good deal for the (probably small) group of users who _would_ have put in the effort and found the _actual_ best deal, but trusted Honey who said they would provide the best deal and then knowingly gave worse deals (lied, potentially committed fraud?).

[raxxorraxor]

It also is a bad deal for those that just want to pay the normal price, because you pay for this financial overhead as well. At least in these cases the competition is often severe...

[echelon]

Sounds like the government needs to rip PayPal a new asshole.

[tyre]

Given that one of the most powerful people with the US Government right now is a member of a group called the PayPal Mafia

well

sigh

[droopyEyelids]

Does he still own paypal Stock? Seems unlikely. And he wants X to be a competitor!

[mrguyorama]

Uh Peter Thiel basically owns JD Vance. Musk wasn't meaningful in Paypal.

[93po]

Musk was the largest shareholder in PayPal and it likely wouldn't have been successful without him - not sure how you can argue that isn't meaningful

[tantalor]

Why stop there? Anybody making deals with Honey is co-conspirator under RICO.