Quite a few, but to give an example from high on the list, it appears that a SaaS company would warrant that software sold through Paddle is always bug-free, accept unlimited liability via the related indemnification requirements if it isn't, and yet have no right participate in or even know about any relevant process if something goes wrong. That's a toxic combination and hardly looks like a healthy basis for a mutually beneficial business relationship.

Other concerns related to the considerable flexibility Paddle appear to give themselves in terms of how they represent, price and provide access to whatever is being sold, again apparently without necessarily requiring the consent or possibly even the knowledge of the underlying provider. We're unclear about how much this might be necessary because of merchant of record legal model, but it has little to do with what we'd actually want to use Paddle for or why we'd choose them over other services for collecting payments.

For context, this is a new business but run by a team who have collectively founded multiple others before. Several of us are very much over wasting time and effort on the mechanics of taking money from our customers and complying with whatever rules accompany that. Obviously fees charged by a payment service do matter, but a moderate difference there is still insignificant to us if the service we use can offer enough flexibility for our needs and easy integration, and otherwise takes on as much of the mechanical implementation and regulatory burden as we can shift.