[root_axis]

> I think that Stripe will shut off paying customers BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THEM DO IT. That is what first hand knowledge is.

You are overindexing on your anecdotal experience to draw conclusions that make no sense. Paypal earns roughly 6x the net revenue of Stripe while processing a similar volume of transactions. Paypal has obviously figured out how to service these businesses profitably, yet for some reason you think Stripe would throw away billions for no reason.

Make that logic make sense.

[edoceo]

It's not billions. My assertion is they will throw away processing millions to ensure they can continue to process billions.

You'd ignore a pence to pick up a pound.

[root_axis]

Paypal earned 30b net revenue in 2025, without any specific numbers, it's a safe bet that high-risk merchants are at least several billion of that total.

However, even if it were only in the hundred millions, there's no reason to throw away millions of dollars. The reason PayPal services these lines of business in the first place is because they make money doing so (since unlike Stripe, PayPal's product isn't subject to the constraints of the card rails).

[edoceo]

You're obviously much smarter and more knowledgeable than me. I'm just going to abandon this conversation.

[root_axis]

It's disappointing that you're now descending into sarcastic quips rather than address the substance of my reply. You could have just abandoned the conversation without the snarky announcement.

Anyway, if that's the quality of conversation you're offering then abandoning the conversation makes sense. Have a good one.

[edoceo]

Sorry. I'll try one more time then.

Stripe is currently passing on these revenues. Stripe has been hostile to these revenue streams for more than a decade.

You seem to think their behavior will change after an acquisition. An acquisition that is also a (dangerous) market consolidation. I don't think they will.

How is PayPal not subject to MC rules when MC is used as a funding source for a PP account that purchases cannabis-adjacent services? Is it magic? Is it some plausible denial thing?

Also, if their only motivation is money - and lets assume that is true - then taking a few billions in high-risk money puts their other even-larger billions at risk.

Do you see that? Yes, they could get new revenue of ~30B adding to their existing ~5B. And assuming several billion in high-risk (4B?) now the question is...would you throw away 4 dollars of your 40 dollars to reduce the risk of the remaining 36? While also knowing you can grow into other lower risk markets? Would you throw away 4 high risk dollars to replace them in two years with 4 new low risk dollars?

[root_axis]

> You seem to think their behavior will change after an acquisition

No. I'm explaining that PayPal as a business has their own risk models and contractual relationships with merchants that allows them to serve these lines of business profitably. This is the reason why PayPal services these businesses in the first place.

After a Stripe acquisition, that doesn't change, PayPal's model continues to operate profitably for high risk merchants while Stripe's continues to be risky due to the fact that Stripe is just a payment processor, while PayPal operates more like a bank.

> How is PayPal not subject to MC rules when MC is used as a funding source for a PP account that purchases cannabis-adjacent services

The card networks establish strategic partnerships with large businesses in order to cater to their needs. Since PayPal has already established a profitable risk model to service these merchants, the card networks are comfortable with more permissive checkout rules since PayPal is contractually on the hook for chargebacks and fraud.

> taking a few billions in high-risk money puts their other even-larger billions at risk.

How does that money put their larger business at risk?