[jyu]

When the entity is defined as a money transmitter, you need to abide by their legal requirements. One of those includes having photocopies of government issued id. They choose to lower the initial barrier to sign up at the expense of a bad one time user experience for getting the money out.

[dangrossman]

Dwolla does not call itself a money transmitter, and is not licensed as one. Many people feel they're wrong, but to every state that's inquired, they've argued that they're only acting as an agent for the recipient of money, and are not transmitting money themselves.

[jyu]

Wow, good point, faulty assumption on my part.

Here are some further details on their stance:

Dwolla does not receive, hold, or transmit User funds; Dwolla only maintains and manages information associated with User ownership of the funds; (3) Veridian is the entity that provides money transmission services upon instructions issued through the Dwolla software platform; and (4) Funds in the Veridian Holding Account are held in a pooled account.

Veridian, a major investor and bank processor manages the funds. In other words, all funds withdrawn from a user’s bank to be put into their Dwolla Account is placed into the pooled Veridian Holding Account. This legal loophole allows Dwolla to operate outside the state of Iowa, since it is technically never a money transmitter, merely a service provider for a processor, and therefore not subject to the expensive registration and licensing process.

http://sites.tufts.edu/costofcash/2013/03/27/dwolla/

[thinkcomp]

This is nonsense. Although I'm not a lawyer...

Dwolla is a money transmitter according to most (if not all) state statutes. Its relationship with Veridian does not satisfy any statutory requirement necessary for exemption. Veridian itself does not have a charter, and is not a credit union. In my personal opinion, Dwolla has been breaking laws since day one and continues to. Its investors are no different.

[walkon]

Veridian is indeed a Credit Union and a member of the NCUA.