atlantic.money
But this is a lie - I checked. At time of writing, you claim 100k GBP is equal to 131390 USD, while Google claims it's 131620 USD, a difference of nearly $300!
Even saying "the live rate" is a lie. There is no one "live rate" (and therefore no "the" live rate). The price depends on your liquidity providers. IBKR shows "the live rate". Revolut shows "the live rate". Wise shows "the live rate". Google shows "the live rate". Despite all of them showing "the live rate", all of them have subtly different prices because all of them are part of slightly different markets.
Claiming otherwise is a lie. It'd be more honest to say "we pass on the prices from our partners without markup" or something like that.
You should also make clear which rate you're talking about. The market has a spread, how do you handle it? Do you give clients the mid-price or do you just pass through the bid/ask?
The "Learn more" next to the rate info doesn't actually tell me anything more as well. I'd expect it to show me a page with more detailed information about your liquidity and how you determine the price. The box I already saw at the top of the page isn't "more".
We have worked hard not to have any middle-men that mark up rates in our liquidity provision, and are quite certain that our rates are fair and extremely competitive.
I do think that the takeaway from your comment is that we could build out a part of our page that allows a customer to dig deeper to validate this themselves. We understand the sentiment as there is still a lot of mistrust given the opaque nature of the market, and we need customers to believe that we are truly 3 GBP to succeed.
Our core thesis in building this product is that we will win with a fixed fee on larger transactions, given the variable fee nature of the current industry incumbents(either transparently disclosed, or embedded in the FX spread).
Or you could remove or change this statement, if it is indeed misleading. (But I have not checked this personally).
"We always convert your money at the live rate: the rate on Google."
Trust is important and the right wording does matter a lot.
So if people read this on your website and then check for themself on google and see it is wrong - well sure, expect people to not trust your service.
My first question (with only reading your text here) would be: why and how are you cheaper than the competition?
Right now my takeaway would be: because there are possible dark patterns and hidden fees like suboptimal conversion rates included.
I think this is actually a good shakeup for Money Transfer, they don't even need to rely on putting Googles name in their marketing to sell the product as so many new startups seem to want to do as an appeal to authority or try to present more stability in their marketing.
That’s fairly far off of the expectation you set by saying you offer “the interbank rate”. Which is a pure marketing fiction.
For context the FX desk at JP Morgan by itself provides about the same volume as any of those aggregate platforms.
[later] fwiw I don’t think how you get to your rates particularly matters so long as they are competitive and your service seems like a valuable addition to the mix of consumer options. I get hung up on this because the fx market is notoriously opaque because the major players want it to be and I think leading people to believe there is some sort of benchmark rate adds to that morass.
It's verifiably false that you use the same rate shown on Google so you should remove that entirely. If I can't trust you to honestly describe your service, how can I trust you with large sums of money? I wouldn't be surprised if that caused you legal issues too.
As for "the live rate", I think it just needs to be reworded such that there's no mention of a single rate. Something like "we give you the same price the big banks use".
Overall I think your service looks good but based on how that section is worded right now, I'd actively discourage friends and family from using it, if asked. If you updated it to be more honest, I think you'd have a service I'm happy to recommend.
If this is truly fixed cost, it would definitely be the first, but it's right to be skeptical.
The only reliable way to discover the actual cost is to do a round trip.
Convert a million X to Y, then convert whatever Y you get back to X, and the difference between that and the original million, divided by two, is the real cost.
Naturally this website won't show you that, because you can only convert from pounds but not back to pounds.
What, exactly, is that?
Do you mean the rate your provider charges you for the transaction in question? (Do you do your internal FX transactions as one upstream transaction per client transaction or do you group them? That will affect the rate.).
Do your rates have a spread? (Your website makes it sound like you only convert one way, so it’s easy to pretend spreads don’t exist.)
Do you actually believe that the best pricing comes from an interbank rate on a global exchange? That’s an interesting theory.
For what it’s worth, for major currency transactions under normal circumstances, the actual market spreads are tiny and not worth worrying about. Certainly for any transaction of reasonable size for a service like this, they are likely to be in the noise. But FX is not free, and if you let people move $100k at a time, it matters.
I really don't want to sign up to the newsletter, this is basic information that in my opinion should be freely shared on the web site.
It is the avg. of the "live rate for buy" and the "live rate for sell"
This is what google shows
But every provider has a spread. As tiny as it might be
(Not to mention volatility, difference between exchanges, etc)
And if an average of prices on different exchanges, which exchanges are included in the average?
How do you know how Google is doing it?
There is no such thing as a "live rate" or "market price"
In other assets, like equities, there often is a single central exchange. If you want to buy CURI for example, it's only listed on NASDAQ, so the price on NASDAQ is The One True Price as far as a normal person is concerned.
There's no such central exchange for currencies.
In fx it’s the law of whoever has the most information because there is no benchmark market at all. It’s why fx pricing is so hard to do right.
If you talk to 3rd party institutional FX providers, they'll immediately mark up rates because its how they make all of their money.
All currency exchanges track each other extremely closely, because it's extremely easy to arbitrage between them.
Forex is essentially the largest, most liquid market there is.
I'd agree with you if it were unavoidable but I don't think that's the case here. There's no need to make a statement that there's a single rate.
For example: "we give you the best price we can find on the international market, without markup". It still states the goal without raising the falsehood of a single price.
A financial company playing fast and loose with the law, and especially data protection law, does not bode well.
One to avoid methinks.
That escalated quickly.
Pfft
The company clearly had poor legal advice and/or didn't think things through, yet they want my money and personal data? At the very least, you should consider this error analogous to the Van Halen 'no Brown M&Ms rider', in that it flags sloppy practice elsewhere [1].
[1] https://www.insider.com/van-halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9
Also, their About Us page suggests that they are staffed by people from relevant financial services companies. Plus they are backed by some VCs who would not take risks by handing money to a company if they thought the legal side wasn't up to par.
We don't know why there wasn't an annoying cookie popup. So assuming that the company in general plays "fast and loose" doesn't seem warranted.
Frequently satirised in Private Eye [1] as the 'Fundamentally Complicit Authority' :-)
And I, like many, avoid business with any such companies who display a contempt for personal data.
If my ISP did such a thing, they would be very quickly reported to the Information Commissioner. Also, I think you will find the UK is beholden to the GDPR. It isn't simply an "EU cookie" law as you seam to imply.
What else would you expect? The amount of flack people get they post a Show HN is getting out of control.
GDPR is not a new or surprising thing, and the absolute basics should be known by any developers working with private data. It's frankly shocking if they didn't know while starting a company in the UK, and I don't know if it's worse if they didn't know or didn't care.
This is a business that it will be vital that they are following regulations, and if they're skipping this, why should I trust they're following the rest?
Wise does this properly which makes me trust them straight away.
Edit. Don’t want to come off too harsh, just saying the cookie approach doesn’t help me trust the company compared to the main competitor.
It's worth noting that the rates you see on the pages often have a bit of delay - I believe both Wise and Atlantic would end up having very similar underlying FX rates, since there's no markup on either.
However, with Wise, the more you send, the more you pay in fees - so there's a break-even where it starts to become more economical to use Atlantic.
Seems to me that the biggest risk to Wise and Atlantic is growing so large that the incumbents will change their pricing.
When trying to enter an established market to compete on price as your primary differentiator it's often better to keep your margins higher to start with than offer the steepest cut you think you can afford, and then drop your prices slowly as you build up volume and a war chest.
Here's a little comparison by amount received (incl. all fees) with the cheapest provider found on Monito.com (comparison site I co-founded) vs Atlantic Money:
Sending £1000 to:
- EUR: €1,199 vs €1,196.83
- CAD: CA$1,693 vs CA$1,686
- PLN: zł5,737 vs zł5,826.58
- USD: $1,311 vs $1,310
As we can see, the competition on pricing for popular routes will be quite intense! Do you plan on mainly focusing on customers who need to send larger amounts? Or are you planning on developing other differentiators (New routes, customers service, user experience etc...))
Who is the alternative in this case? So Atlantic is saving me $1?
And before you tell me that this doesn't cover all currencies and countries: Ok, but it just shows that this is not technology problem (i.e. can be done with existing and better tech than blockchain), but a business model / regulation problem.
What if they just support cryptocurrencies that are "environment friendly", would that change your mind about that point?
Money will always enable scammers and fraudsters, there is simply no way around that. Every single network that handles money (including Visa), enables scammers and fraudsters, even more so than cryptocurrencies.
Based on your last point, I feel like the environment point you raise is just trying to add more juice to your argument while in reality, your argument is mostly based on not liking cryptocurrencies emotionally.
I don't like cryptos because of their negative externalities, not the other way round :-)
As long as the majority of crypto transactions have these negative externalities, any action that promotes crypto is bad. As software engineers, you should already know that blockchain tech is inferior to existing technologies, and that it won't be relevant in the long-term. So why help promote cryptos now?
I agree with other commenters: stay away from cryptocurrencies. Aside from the negative environmental externalities, there are, in practice, very few legitimate uses for them. Your supporting them might bring undue shady business that could jeopardize the service. Also, cryptocurrencies are just really stupid.
Amazing that you can send almost any amount you want (up to £1 million) to another county and that it can arrive in just a matter of days.
Plus there is the added benefit that sanctions and restrictions for specific countries/individuals can be imposed when neccessary to prevent war.
This blows blockchain out of the water.
This transfer may take days, as they say on their website. Even slow bitcoin takes only 10ish minutes, or 60 minutes if you want to be safe. More modern blockchains can take seconds.
That doesn't mean blockchain is always the answer, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Hopefully all the questions end up on an faq on their site (with links and credits). As a frequent money-mover, i enjoy disruptors in the market...but if basic questions have still to be asked, and answered, then its only thanks to naysayers that there is any chance of transparency and clarity.
"If what you say remains true....."? Escape clause in the tos and eula, much?
E.g if £/$ drops from 1.94 to 1.92 can someone aware of this before you convert £ to $ on your platform?
Sounds open to abuse!
If so, can I see it?
If the rate moves in the opposite direction I cancel the trade and retry in half an hour.
I don’t know enough about forex to determine whether that’s a reasonable premium, but it seems like a pretty good deal at its face
Oh - and it's £3.
If you are majorly adversely selecting their liquidity provider, they will just shut you off.
It’s not an exchange.
Their overall risk to an individual account is a few 100, and very few accounts will try to do this.
So you will tie up your 1MM for a day or more to earn a small few pounds? Surely you can do better with some other investment scheme.
Also, chances are instant delivery costs (much) more than 3 pounds.
I wouldn't like to be banned and lose access to my $1M (even temporary) but you do what you want with your millions.
Imagine if you buy apartments and rent them for thousands $. Haha, sounds open to abuse!
No need to actually move anything.
You know, I have a Capital One bank account that I opened because it advertised no foreign transaction fees.
And yet whenever I make a foreign transaction on the debit card, I pay 1% more in dollars than I get in FX. That 1% number is eerily consistent.
I still use it. 1% is a reasonable fee. But I'd be a lot happier if they admitted they were charging it. It takes a lot of effort to tell the difference between "ZERO foreign transaction fee! (but your prices are 1% higher than they should be)" and "ZERO foreign transaction fee! (but your prices are 8% higher than they should be)".
Most companies offering FX services will charge both.
Most consumers are not sophisticated enough to do the calculation to blend the fee into the quoted rate to get the true rate. Institutions will be.
The risk of a “no fee” pricing scheme (or why there are fees in the first place) is to avoid getting wiped out by lots of small transactions, where your per-transaction overhead dominates. OP clearly has automated enough that they are not worried about this. And given the amount of manual work still involved in FX (do not get me started on some of the process hell I saw running international payments globally over an “api” payment provider), there is also a lot of room to reduce total cost through automation.
But in summary, everyone is making money from the FX rate spread, and you are always getting charged more than the provider is paying for the currency. The question is just whether fee or spread dominates.
Would be nice to see currency pairs not currently supported by other services (like wise, etc.)
If I was going to transfer 4 or 5 digits of $$, even if I save a couple bucks of fees, I would choose the more trustworthy option (e.g. Wise has thousands of reviews across websites, social media, etc.), even if it means an extra bit in fees. But if you can support currency pairs that aren't supported by the existing players in the space, would give potential customers a very good reason to try out a new app like this.
Gotta start somewhere. They can't have a track record until they have some history.
The low flat transfer price will make them more attractive than Wise, so that should help them get some following (and reviews).
1. Support self-custodied 2FA: TOTP/U2F. Do not require phone-number/SMS "for your own protection".
2. Be honest with your customers and users. Don't succumb to dark UX for the sake of control, engagement and growth. Allow setting separate notification settings for marketing/"news"/functionality/security, and don't silently add and enable new marketing channels.
3. Full functionality even on devices without Google Play Services/SafetyNet/Apple. Preferably I should be able to do everything through the web UI, without requiring involvement of a native iOS/Android app.
4. Adhere to a strict interpretation of the GDPR, regardless of where users/customers are geographically residing or located; No sharing PII with third-parties (above what you are legally required to do). No loading assets from third-party servers.
5. Allow access over anonymized channels (mainly tor/paid VPNs)
It looks like you're aiming for a USP of competitive fees but I think I'm not alone in being very happy to not get the absolutely cheapest rate compared to Wise/Revolut/Paypal/N26/PS/MG et al if you stay aligned with the above.
/ Someone who's fed up with the existing landscape
We're excited to bring a fresh perspective and better pricing to a landscape with a lot of providers doing approximately the same thing. We'd love for you to try out the app once it's available - if you decide to register on our site we'll be sure to keep you updated.
> We follow a "trusted devices" model, where you 2FA using your phone number for the first login on a device
It sounds like associating and verifying a phone number is required to sign up and use the service - is this something you're open to changing?
> I assure you there won't be a "refer your friends" badge blinking on the home page of the app
That's great! And TBH I wouldn't mind terribly as long as it can be permanently disabled after a first view.
> We hear from most people that iOS or Android are their preferred platforms, so we have to start there
Understandable. At the very least it would be a huge boon if we can expect to run the Android app without hickups on a fully degoogled Android device (e.g. GrapheneOS).
Will keep an eye on how things develop :)
>It sounds like associating and verifying a phone number is required to sign up and use the service - is this something you're open to changing?
Are you looking for something like Authy or Google Authenticator here?
Precisely! Both are implementations of TOTP[0] - it's a simple protocol which doesn't rely on any particular implementation.
The other common one with that same characteristic would be Fido U2F[1] (for hardware keys such as Yubikey and Google Titan). If/when you do implement it, make sure to support adding more than one token to facilitate users sorting out their own backups.
Both are open standards that are well-supported with both proprietary and open implementations across platforms.
If you have to initially only pick one of the two I'd go with TOTP.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_one-time_password
While many will raise concern with the UX of having to carry around hardware, in the fintech world I think it's a good tradeoff and raises the bar for the industry (I always shudder when I see "we use industry-standard protection"). :)
A lot of people, in the tens to hundreds of millions, not through choice of not wanting to use Google Play Services (or knowing what it is) cannot access Play Services on their locally purchased / locked device.
These people are largely outside North America / Western Europe, potential customers for whom a service such as that of OP may be very attractive.
This is cheaper for GBP->EUR transactions over £800, but a lot slower (arrives "Friday" instead of within 5 hours. In practice I've found that Wise transfers are normally nearly instant). It's quite substantially cheaper for large transfers (e.g. about £2000 for transfering near their max) and possibly faster. I can't tell if you can lock in a rate like with Wise.
Good luck!
https://assets.revolut.com/legal/terms/International_Payment...
> They also charge additional fixed fees just for the international payment.
This seems new. I have done international payments before and wasn't charged.
I have interests in three currencies, and revolut has been a godsend compared to Wise and direct bank transfer fees.
I guess, their service is cheaper if you are converting hundreds of thousands of dollars and more and can wait, but this would be few normal people.
Slightly better for bigger transfers if you don't get a Revolut subscription, that seems to be true.
£1000 to EUR
Atlantic: €1,195.77, Revolut: €1.198,50
£2000 to EUR
Atlantic: €2,395.14, Revolut: €2.391,02
Revolut transfers are instant and have no forex fees if you are on their paid plans which include other features as well. If you transfer up to 1000 GBP, it is free without a paid plan. How do you plan on competing with them?
https://www.revolut.com/legal/standard-fees ("A fee applies for international payments on our Standard and Plus plans")
https://assets.revolut.com/legal/terms/International_Payment...
If you're a die-hard Revolut user that subscribes for other reasons or do all your global banking with them, it's possible you'll end up with better overall economics with them. That segment of customers is fairly narrow and we're excited to offer everyone else a world-leading service.
Got it, this seems new and significant. I had transferred money to Germany before in January and it was free without a paid plan too.
This does add an edge to your product, if the person can wait. Best of luck with your product.
The atlantic.money option looks great for larger transfers, however - will definitely bookmark this for the future.
I am not a fan of "...but what if you're copied..." argument against the viability of a business, because often the easy-to-copy outward expression of a business is only possible because of difficult-to-copy underlying business strategies. However, in this case, Wise do share the same underlying business strategies as Atlantic (that is, transact efficiently and take a small fee) so the only differentiator (as far as I know) is the product decision to offer cheap + slow (and therefore be able to transact even more efficiently).
There's lots of room for different players in the space and so "there's room for us alongside Wise" is a very valid answer, I am guessing there's a different answer though, so I'd love to understand what you imagine the future to be: maybe you have some insight into why, actually, there are operational complexities that mean Wise aren't going to ever offer this service in the same way.
Thanks!
I’m very much in agreement that this is a win for customers either way, and I think it’s a very clever idea — challenging the assumption that speed is more important than cost — I’m just super curious to understand their long term thinking.
That said, I could be completely wrong about Wise: maybe they are banking a lot of profit off big transactions, in which case, this is a challenge to the model Wise are pursuing and would definitely be a significant competitor.
> Please note that you may only send funds to the country of the national currency. For example, you may only send US dollars to the United States
This seems fairly restrictive. I send USD to Colombia, for example, to pay my staff. The Colombian banks then convert that to COP on arrival. Is there any particular reason why this limitation is in place? Makes it significantly less useful than, say, Worldfirst.
Our outbound payments are all domestic bank transfers, so if your Colombian bank can receive a USD ACH payment by routing and account number it should work.
But I'm guessing your USD to Colombia is delivered by international SWIFT wire? The cost of a SWIFT wire is orders of magnitude higher than a domestic bank transfer, and we wouldn't be able to support that in our fixed fee.
Isn’t TransferWise already pretty cheap?
Is there a way to get notified when you will add support for other currencies?
> × 1.199473 live rate
Turn the "live rate" into a link that shows where you get the live rate from.
Why are other services so expensive?
1. Needs comparisons against other players by size (as others on this thread are having to work out)
2. It seems better for larger size but that's where the user will start to question the service and trust comes into play i.e. do I trust it enough to warrant the saving of X. I think you need to work on this point via messaging in the design and site in general. For me I would stick with Wise for now.
I'm not sure how this is 'the world's first fixed fee money transfer product'? Wise guarantees a rate for 2h (which swings both ways so isn't really a markup IMO) - are you claiming to offer closer to spot pricing?
Maybe you should show that off with a different homepage example? Since Wise also defaults to £1000, and at that price point isn't very different to you (and tbh more compelling, given the speed).
Not sure how I feel about one company sweeping up so many GTLDs, but that's beside the point. The business seems serious, so not sure what you have against the .money GTLD? Is it a principle thing or something else?
When you say "working on your EU license" is this something that is an extra steo due to Brexit that would have been automatic before? (i.e. you would only need one license for UK and EU)
And then you can leverage the international bank network, swift being one, and set a fixed price fee, because in reality the fee is actually much lower than 3GBP.
As long as your conversion rates stick then this should be a good business.
Good job
Could you please elaborate a little bit more about your interbanking network, your connection to these etc.? How do you route from UK to Australia, e.g.? To EU?
Do you support instant payments on any of yours connections? If yes, which scheme(s) do you support?
We support the fastest possible domestic rails (GBP Faster Payments, EUR SEPA Inst, USD ACH Same Day, etc). Unfortunately most domestic rails aren't instant (like USD) - and we can't make them any faster - but for those that are (like EUR) we support instant transfers.
Our default delivery speed is two business days - this incurs no cost of capital to the business. But we know customers are sometimes transferring money urgently, so we offer an Express delivery. This is instant for EUR and as fast as the schemes support for other currencies. Express incurs a cost of capital equal to the currency forward rate, which is a true uncapped variable cost. So we have to pass that on to customers through a separate fee (0.05%), as it's something our signature fixed fee just can't cover. But it's always optional - and customers can always make a transfer regardless of size for just £3.
There is Revolut, which can do this free or low cost, but lately this service seems to be akin to swift transfers and can be fee deducted by interim banks. Our circle has been using Revolut for similar transfers up until some of us fee deducted by huge amounts.
So this leaves us with Transferwise. And Transferwise only does exchange transfers across borders.
This is not really something we are happy with because there are exchange taxes applied in Turkey to move it into the Euro account back.
It's important to notice that we're the only product that combines a fixed fee and zero FX markup. Banks are charging you a fixed fee, but marking up the FX rate by 1-3% typically. So you're actually paying 8 EUR explicitly + 1-3% hidden fee which, in total, is a (very high!) variable fee.
But as others wrote, saing 'zero FX markup' is opaque and nonsensical. Proper way to is just to annonuce your spread. Even companies that have some FX markup can offer smaller spread than 'zero FX markup' if they have balanced flows between currencies and can pair most of their transactions internally.
Is it possible to send money on the web - or is it iOS only?
Best of luck with the launch.
We're going to start with iOS, and then move to more platforms. Thank you for your kind words!
Love the site and product otherwise.
My assumption of what you & Neeraj are doing based on your backgrounds: You've decided to build a smart order router for retail FX hence the slow transfers because you need to wait for the spot order to settle T+2.
Story at Wise Funnily enough Wise started in the early days with a fixed fee of £1!
Since all Wise did was match orders between customers so no money was actually moving borders hence no need for conversion or transfer fees etc.
But that fixed fee model was quickly scrapped when Wise started making the market between customers and improving the product experience by introducing rate locks (hedging costs), instant transfers (buffer costs) and actually started considering all the other cogs that go into making an international FX payment.
But there's one significant cost of high value transfers that's been a struggle for both Wise & Revolut to bring down even at scale:
The transaction monitoring, AML & support costs of high value transfers - a single high value transfer can easily cost £3 - £150 for all the due diligence needed to get it done.
If you're going to keep the product fixed fee - this is where you'll need to focus in terms of innovation.
The Story at Revolut Revolut has an Unlimited Zero Mark up FX with a single free SWIFT transfer (every additional international transfer is capped at £5) on the £6.99 premium plan.
But international payments is relatively a recent addition. The vast majority of the time when people are sending money to each other on Revolut, it's a Revolut-to-Revolut or Revolut to local own bank account payment.
Revolut's core strategy is to be the everywhere wallet so that when you're sending money to your family member in Romania from the UK - you just do it as a Revolut to Revolut payment which is bit different to the gap you're trying to fill.
And, there's very little interest at Rev to deal with high value transfers because the AML, transaction monitoring and support costs are too prohibitive when transfers between users are free or capped at £5 for SWIFT payments.
Is there a market for this product? A resounding YES.
This is something we realised at Wise - we weren't as competitive as we liked to be on high value transfers and even though they committed resources to improving this - in typical Wise fashion the progress is very slow.
Now I'm not convinced you'll stick at the £3 mark for long but there's definitely a large untapped market here.
I'm confident that you & Neeraj have what it takes to win in this market & will be rooting for you from the outside!
P.S. The app doesn't seem to be available in the UK app store?
That being said, we have made two observations that we are looking to explore by launching Atlantic Money:
1. By deliberately going the super-app route, and trying to be something for everyone, super apps are crappy user experiences, and they aren't a very strong business (outside of south-east Asia).
We are looking to be a focused product, and are committing to not building a bunch of additional features into our app over time that customers probably don't want and are likely going to make the experience adversarial.
2. Super apps are not targeted.
We believe that costs can pile up if you don't have a target customer. Our thesis is that we want to be a very good option for customers moving larger sums of money, and we've explicitly focused on that segment in terms of corridors, and our fixed pricing.
We'll see how it goes with the launch, but would welcome any feedback - either here, or feel free to reach out directly.
£3 flat sounds basically impossible become profitable on. Especially considering you're going for higher volume customers. Yes you have chosen a segment with low overheads (bank to bank transfers), but you will still have the burden of costs that scale very poorly with the volume of £ moved and number of customers served (e.g. CS, AML, KYC etc). Usually revenue (and some costs) that scales with volume is the route to profitability here, but you've explicitly forgone it!
So, in my opinion, your prices will have to rise substantially (most likely) or you will do something akin to what Robinhood did with PFOF and make the customer the product, which is to say, exploit them without them knowing. Sorry if this sounds harsh but your setup currently falls into the category of things that sound too good to be true, would love to hear how you plan to overcome it.
Having said all this I wish you the best of luck, hope to be proven wrong!
(edit: to clarify, i'm considering a business model without significant cross subsidisation - in which case this transfer product would still be loss making in isolation)