[stego-tech]

At this point I’m fairly convinced Stripe is Paypal 2.0, at least in spirit:

* Turns a blind eye to misdeeds on its platform

* Locks out adult creators/vendors after taking their money

* Is ubiquitous, but not well liked

I love that Stripe changed the game of fintech and made it accessible to more parties in a programmatic way, but I find myself repeating “avoid Stripe” to a lot of folks asking me for advice on dealing with payment nowadays for those reasons.

[gyomu]

That’s just the nature of these industries.

1) Incumbent is slow, clunky, unpleasant to deal with due to years of accumulated constraints to deal with

2) Newcomer can differentiate themselves by being nimble and pleasant to work with, taking market share

3) Over time newcomer has to deal with increasing amount of scrutiny, fraud, overhead, CYA type practices, etc

4) Newcomer is now incumbent, goto 1)

[mattmaroon]

Who do you recommend as an alternative?

[Cider9986]

Nowpayments is good for an easy crypto payment gateway.

No affiliation, I've just seen them used–it would be better if you self-hosted a BTCPay server.

[stego-tech]

I don’t have one at the moment, at least for my circles (artisans, craftspeople, adult creators in general). Much of it has fallen back on PayPal for folks without an LLC to hide behind, or Square if they’re incorporated as a business. The trick has been discretion and operating in a gray area: “novelty goods”, “graphic design work”, and “outerwear” as item descriptors or db entries, obscuring the actual content without actually lying or deceiving the payment processor.

Most paypros, most of the time, won’t look too hard unless there’s a problem or you’re tripping some internal security measure (like raking in a lot of cash in weird amounts). Of late they’ve been more intrusive due to some weird eTeen puritans, but that’s quieting down again as they remember they like making money, and throwing legal content off their platforms can very quickly cause an exodus of customers looking to avoid having their funds seized.

[rsanek]

That's pretty clearly deceiving. Would expect to run into problems with that kind of approach regardless of the specific payment processor -- everyone has T&C that you must follow.

[stego-tech]

Problems occur either way due to a lack of regulations on these entities allowing them to dictate acceptable financial transactions regardless of actual legality. Consider the risk matrix:

* You sell legal goods or services and are entirely honest about them to the paypro; if the T&Cs change down the line, your honesty makes you a prime target for having your funds seized and ability to process transactions terminated first, posing an existential threat to your business with no reward for your honesty

* You sell legal goods and services, but don’t volunteer extraneous details about them since that’s not the business of a paypro. Should the T&Cs change, your obscurity buys you time to adapt or seek alternatives before inevitably being caught up in the paypro’s internal surveillance measures.

* You sell legal goods and services, but assume your paypro is hostile from the get go regardless of the T&Cs and hand over the minimal information necessary to process a transaction. You have maximum time to find alternatives should the T&Cs change, because your baseline operations make it that much harder to identify your transactions down the line.

Honesty is inevitably punished while obscurity is rewarded, at least for a time. It’s also worth pointing out the hypocrisy of needling paypro users to follow arbitrary and changing rules of the paypro but allowing said paypros to reject legal transactions for whatever reason they wish or selectively comply with laws because they’re “fintech” and not banks or payment card networks: why should users face more onerous restrictions than the paypro themselves?

Ultimately the solution is the same one we’ve been parroting for years ever since PayPal arbitrarily changed their T&Cs to try booting adult creators off its platform: government regulations barring these entities outright from refusing any legal transaction. It’s part of the playbook at this point for tech companies in light of its success: court adult content creators and communities to grow the platform, then shut them out once there’s money to be made.

[mattmaroon]

Well, fraud prevention requires them to block some transactions that are ostensibly legal right? To the extent that they can’t always tell if a transaction is fraudulent, any effort to fight fraud will block some number of legal transactions. And if it’s something they object to on moral grounds, they can probably always make a case (usually accurately) that the fraud rates are high.