[infecto]

Why would you think credits and cash would be treated differently? I am not a EU tax expert but it would be shocking if that’s the case because you could create some pretty interesting schemes if by turning cash into a “credit” meant it was treated entirely different.

Maybe that’s the case for the EU but it would be surprising.

[linohh]

Even with credits or tokens or whatever, it's not completely trivial to find the spot where you can accept customers payments in advance and not be subject to financial regulatory frameworks.

[infecto]

Absolutely agree. I imagine it almost all scenarios it gets tricky and at the very least puts a good bit of burden on the company to define that with regulatory frameworks.

[addandsubtract]

Probably because you can't turn credits back into cash.

[infecto]

Is that a law?

[kachnuv_ocasek]

I'd guess that's a part of the TOS.

[infecto]

TOS is not the point.

The root of this thread was surprise over rules around interest. I am saying it’s not surprising because companies could then easily create weird schemes.

[alias_neo]

I think you're overcomplicating it.

It's "ok" _because_ the credits can't be turned back into cash (thanks to their TOS).

If some business tried some clever scheme where they offer this "interest" on credits that _can_ be turned back into cash, they'd be breaking the law and would need a banking license, it's already covered.

[infecto]

I think you’re oversimplifying it. “They can’t be redeemed for cash” isn’t a universal legal test. Financial regulation generally looks at the substance of the product. Otherwise every company could sidestep banking and payments rules by calling customer balances “credits.”

Now let’s go full circle back to the original point. I don’t think it’s surprising that a company paying interest on credits may face more paperwork and rules for what is truly a gimmick that most large customers will never even care about. Which was my only point and I think the plot has gotten lost as this keeps going deeper.