Unfortunately, I think you're just out of luck. Hopefully, other people see your post and never sign up for Stripe in the first place.
bruce511 2 days ago [-]
Stripe's problem is that they operate inside a global banking framework which is both highly regulated and obsessively monitored.
Problem 2 is that a world of crime, and hence money laundering exists. They're expected, nay required, to detect and prevent that. Which is (of course) nigh impossible.
From your side, as a customer, you are offering only the tiniest amount of value (and obviously this product even less.)
So when you (innocently) indulge in behavior which mimics a money launderer, the system complains. There's no real motivation for a human to set the "this is not a money launderer" flag because they're then on the hook when it turns out you were deliberately setting up the account for money laundering later on.
There is a lesson here. And it's a valuable one to share. Don't purchase your own stuff with your own card. Most payment processors have defined test card numbers for this purpose.
I'm sorry you encountered this issue.
josephcsible 2 days ago [-]
> There is a lesson here. And it's a valuable one to share. Don't purchase your own stuff with your own card. Most payment processors have defined test card numbers for this purpose.
This seems like victim blaming. And although the OP in this case did that, it didn't happen in the rest of the ones I linked.
Also, did you miss this part?
> We're able to continue accepting payments for your business moving forward as long as all future transactions come from customers and not from you.
He kept his end of the bargain, but Stripe didn't keep theirs.
bruce511 2 days ago [-]
Clearly one can litigate this specific case, and numerous other individual cases.
But equally clearly that approach does not scale. Even more so when this goes into a 'low value customer ' bucket.
Imagine if the list of cases above wasn't 10 cases, but 10 000 cases. How then might your approach to investigating each one be different?
It's easy yo see this case as a simple customer service issue. But in the banking industry it's a lot more complicated than that.
josephcsible 2 days ago [-]
> Imagine if the list of cases above wasn't 10 cases, but 10 000 cases. How then might your approach to investigating each one be different?
That should be Stripe's problem to figure out, and they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
bruce511 2 days ago [-]
It is Stripe's problem to figure out, and it seems they have (to their satisfaction. )
>> they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
That's certainly an opinion, and almost certainly a common small-customer opinion.
Unfortunately in the real world, that's not how it works. In the real world businesses fo not operate with a "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Quite the reverse.
Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
A small business has scope to individually vet each customer. For high value transactions we do due diligence (on both sides) looking for possible problems.
A business like Stripe at scale necessarily doesn't behave like two individuals would. You can wish it so, but that's not enough.
Understanding this imbalance between the size of the consumer and the size of the supplier is helpful. (It's one reason big customers tend to favor big suppliers. )
I too wish that my bank could bend to my needs and requirements. I wish the world treated me in good faith assuming only good intentions. Alas thats not the world I live in, and understanding that has made me more content.
josephcsible 1 days ago [-]
> Unfortunately in the real world, that's not how it works. In the real world businesses fo not operate with a "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Quite the reverse.
> Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
What you're describing is the exception. Consider that most merchandise in most stores is unlocked, and that most sit-down restaurants let you eat before paying for your food. And doors generally only work the way you do when they're mainly employee doors. Most places that customers come in all the time are just always unlocked.
DamnInteresting 2 days ago [-]
Yikes, that sure looks like a pattern. Back in 2015 when I first started using Stripe, they seemed so welcoming and easy to work with. The enshittification is real.
atmosx 2 days ago [-]
My guess is that it’s an AI-generated block and falls within the acceptable margin of error they’ve set.
DamnInteresting 2 days ago [-]
The future is now :(
v5o 2 days ago [-]
[dead]
2 days ago [-]
Rendered at 23:04:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Unfortunately, I think you're just out of luck. Hopefully, other people see your post and never sign up for Stripe in the first place.
Problem 2 is that a world of crime, and hence money laundering exists. They're expected, nay required, to detect and prevent that. Which is (of course) nigh impossible.
From your side, as a customer, you are offering only the tiniest amount of value (and obviously this product even less.)
So when you (innocently) indulge in behavior which mimics a money launderer, the system complains. There's no real motivation for a human to set the "this is not a money launderer" flag because they're then on the hook when it turns out you were deliberately setting up the account for money laundering later on.
There is a lesson here. And it's a valuable one to share. Don't purchase your own stuff with your own card. Most payment processors have defined test card numbers for this purpose.
I'm sorry you encountered this issue.
This seems like victim blaming. And although the OP in this case did that, it didn't happen in the rest of the ones I linked.
Also, did you miss this part?
> We're able to continue accepting payments for your business moving forward as long as all future transactions come from customers and not from you.
He kept his end of the bargain, but Stripe didn't keep theirs.
But equally clearly that approach does not scale. Even more so when this goes into a 'low value customer ' bucket.
Imagine if the list of cases above wasn't 10 cases, but 10 000 cases. How then might your approach to investigating each one be different?
It's easy yo see this case as a simple customer service issue. But in the banking industry it's a lot more complicated than that.
That should be Stripe's problem to figure out, and they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
>> they shouldn't get to punt by saying "guilty until proven innocent".
That's certainly an opinion, and almost certainly a common small-customer opinion.
Unfortunately in the real world, that's not how it works. In the real world businesses fo not operate with a "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Quite the reverse.
Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
A small business has scope to individually vet each customer. For high value transactions we do due diligence (on both sides) looking for possible problems.
A business like Stripe at scale necessarily doesn't behave like two individuals would. You can wish it so, but that's not enough.
Understanding this imbalance between the size of the consumer and the size of the supplier is helpful. (It's one reason big customers tend to favor big suppliers. )
I too wish that my bank could bend to my needs and requirements. I wish the world treated me in good faith assuming only good intentions. Alas thats not the world I live in, and understanding that has made me more content.
> Pretty much any security starts with "guilty" and moves up from there. For example my building has a buzzer, not an open door. I assume all visitors are nefarious unless someone in the building vouches for them by buzzing them in.
What you're describing is the exception. Consider that most merchandise in most stores is unlocked, and that most sit-down restaurants let you eat before paying for your food. And doors generally only work the way you do when they're mainly employee doors. Most places that customers come in all the time are just always unlocked.