Stripe de-couples payments from the rest of its stack
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
"Dave, I don't care that you want to use a new card, this old expired card is what I've decided you need to use."
or
"I've decided that you're the best fit for <payment method you've never heard of and is only available 3 countries away>".
- do what we want / suggest
- do what you want
The issue is that encoding human knowledge in if statements is hard to scale, so it doesn’t seem to be on the path to general artificial intelligence, but fundamentally it is still automation of cognition.
> The issue is that encoding human knowledge in if statements is hard to scale, so it doesn’t seem to be on the path to general artificial intelligence, but fundamentally it is still automation of cognition.
If so, then so are many things that automate what people do or know. Its getting very close to saying if statements are AI at least in some cases. If I ask a client what we should do at a particular step of a process, then code their response as an if statement, is that "automation of cognition"?
Expert systems are somewhat different from simple if statements because they infer from data - the steps are not rigidly defined. However they do have some advantages over things like LLMs for many purposes: they can be analysed/understood and are predictable. I would far prefer to use something something like a medical diagnostic system that used an expert system rather than an LLM.
My first paid job was a prototype expert system, and after a few weeks work it was doing a fairly simple industrial diagnostic task pretty reliably and it did lead to a production version that was used for many years.
One difference is that in a pure ES, the specific rules (if-then statement) to fire are selected at run time by the rule engine based on whether a rule's preconditions are triggered by items in the current 'blackboard'. This differs from a conventional imperative language where the possible sequence of if-then 'firings' is fixed and determined by their sequential position in the source code, even if the subset of actual firings depends on the program's state. In rule-based systems, it doesn't always follow that the sequence of rule firings relates in any way to their position in the source. Forcing rules to fire in a specific order sometimes involved painful shenanigans, rule prioritisation, etc.
And technically even, say, a credit approval system using if (rand() % 2) to approve or reject is AI. No humans involved!
The first golden era of AI was all about if else conditions
God forbid; if-else switch cases.
Stripe is now openly endorsing crypto scam coins and adding "AI" buzzword soup dujour.
They are getting heavily distracted while their customers Stripe accounts get shut down unfairly.
>Stripe is now openly endorsing crypto scam coins
This is hysteria, not a rational opinion. USDC is supported by Circle and Coinbase, both of which are audited, and there's nothing inherently scammy about accepting crypto payment methods.
Circle has given out attestations of USDC, which is not a formal deep comprehensive audit of USDC.
Attestations != Audits.
The USDC payments are pretty tame, and on the networks they have selected performance should be pretty quick and cheap too. For example, payments via ETH Polygon L2 is ~2 cents (https://l2fees.info/) and transaction time is also a couple seconds.
I personally am glad to see them reintroduce crypto now that its matured more for stable payment use cases.
We hold banks to a higher standard than just audits because plenty of audited entities collapse. (FTX was audited [1].)
> there's nothing inherently scammy about accepting crypto payment methods
Inherently, no. But statistically, you're more likely to be doing something illegal or generally be a compliance hassle than someone accepting standard payment. (On the other hand, you're also more likely to be less sensitive to high transaction costs and less financially sophisticated in general. And a lower priority for law enforcement and regulators.)
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/930c6cea-5457-4dfa-9d47-666c0698c...
It used to be easy to take the comments here at face value as you could assume it was posted by someone rational and objective.
Now I'm not so sure.
This is coming from someone who isn't "Crypto is going to change the world" but rather someone who has used it successfully to be paid, pay others, and sell assets all of which would have cost me much more to do at a bank. (e.g. Transaction fees, wire transfer fees, inflated forex prices, cost of time to go to a branch etc..)
Circle is not audited. It merely has Deloitte review its claims related to USDC reserves.
Similarly, Coinbase is not audited. They merely have their cash reserves reviewed.
Coinbase and Circle aren't audited because they would not survive an actual audit.
as much as people don’t want crypto to be useful, it is. even “solved” problems can have better solutions
"You're trying to use a US based credit card to order delivery of some product to Europe, you must be a criminal."
I can't pay for crossover wine with the card I usually use for online shopping. I have to go through paypal.
The funniest thing I know was when someone got a new credit card and EVERY transaction he tried to make with it was refused because it was 'unusal'. Of course it was unusual, because the card was 2 days old and there wasn't any 'usual' transaction in the past.
Ie. just because you tried to use that card that tripped some detector, now your account is blocked from paying with any other cards, as are the accounts of everyone who live in the same street as you, everyone who uses the same browser as you, everyone with the same phone area code as you, everyone with a similar email address to you, etc.
The worst I've seen was someone blocking entire IP ranges due to fraudulent activity. Once their overall sales started declining, they realized they managed to ban entire university campuses because one fraudsters decided to use the dorm wifi for carding
Especially low margin businesses, where you might have revenue of $20 in a transaction, but a profit margin of just $0.20, fraud is really painful if you lose the complete $19.80. You're happy to turn away a lot of custom to avoid some fraud.
Classic example: Bank loans. They might only earn 1% of the principle, so a fraudster who runs away with the whole principle has to be really rare.
It's also a volume question. If you have low margins but high volumes, you might run a very sophisticated anti-fraud setup to walk the razor thin line around compliant chargeback and refund rates.
From the consumer POV of course it's all the same and annoying at that. But the plumbing behind the system has some insane blunt tools, some programs held together by excel-sheets and duct tape while others are super complex with blackbox rulesets.
You're entering a bunch of magical numbers. There is zero verification that you are in fact the cardholder. The store can't get its goods back once they have shipped. If the cardholder does a chargeback, you've just given away the entire order for free - plus a massive chargeback fee.
The vast majority of orders will be delivered to the cardholder's home address - or at least reasonably close. The vast majority of long-distance orders are fraud. Do you expect the vendor to just eat the almost-guaranteed losses?
Fraud like this isn't possible with payment methods like iDeal - which are essentially one-way bank transfers. You can order stuff to be delivered to the White House, for all the vendor cares. But the customers don't like it because they can't do a chargeback when something goes wrong with the order...
Looking at my data, in the last 12 months, only ~60% of my sales go to the person buying the product. I don't have any fraud or refund requests for the last 12 months, so... I'm not sure if "the vast majority" is accurate.
Hell, 30% of my Amazon purchases go to family members, or friends. Some in other countries because it is cheaper to buy something on Amazon and have it ship to another country than trying to buy it locally and ship.
This is not entirely true, this is location/bank specific.
For my card, I just have to perform additional verification whenever necessary, by using 3D Secure. Currently I authorise or reject from an application.
Before smartphones, I had to use a tiny electronic token generator keychain.
I remember implementing the technology on software that I worked at in the late 2000s, when it had another name.
2FA is available with some credit cards for some transactions, but until it's mandatory for 100% of transactions the problem still remains.
What? Could you explain further? Almost anything ordered online is long distance.
I think if banks offered fraud victim insurance for payments made with digital cash, cryptocurrency and electronic cheques as standard (above and beyond that which they are obliged to provide by law, which is often scant), then VISA and MasterCard would practically disappear within the decade. With apologies to anyone in the industry, good riddance ;)
Banks get interchange fees, consumers get chargeback protection and merchants got a stronger final settlement than cheques.
The last of those is the most important. Merchants happily ate high fees and chargeback risk in the late 20th century because cards had a lower fraud risk than cheques.
No modern payment system can compete because there’s nobody willing to eat the risk for everyone else.
British banks hate bank transfers because they so often are fraud liable, consumers hate crypto because they are so often fraud liable.
Those various payment schemes do have use cases, but it’s hard for them to compete at a grocery store.
Moreover, visa/mastercard were able to get big before payments became so important governments. This has a massive advantage in tourism and international payments.
India and the EU will never be able to agree on a common payments standard to make SEPA & UPI compatible, for example.
But even inside the EU, as soon as I leave Germany, my Girocard has to magically become a "Maestro" card to be useable.
> The vast majority of long-distance orders are fraud.
I'm calling bullshit on this one. Do you think Amazon, AliExpress, Ebay, Etsy, etc only ship to the city where their warehouse is located and never over any distance?
Someone living in NYC (and thus having their card registered in NYC there) is usually going to have it delivered to their home (in NYC) or their office (also NYC, or close to it). Someone living in NYC is very unlikely to order something for delivery in London. The location of the warehouse-of-origin is not relevant here.
> PSD2 in the EU solves this with MFA (you have to open your bank app to approve the specific card transaction).
Still not solved, unfortunately. With my EU-based credit card it seems to be a coin toss whether it asks for MFA confirmation or not.
Without any supporting data, "the vast majority" being fraudulent seems like a wild claim.
Personally, I actually like this approach. My US card being used to purchase from a UK vendor and shipping the merchandise to a UK address when the immediate history of my card usage makes it really clear that I'm not currently in the UK?
That's objectively suspicious. They checked with me, I said "I authorize this" and the deal was done with little fuss. That's a win-win-win in my book.
- it should be a transaction you've already confirmed through a 3DS2 check through a secured app
- you should contact them immediately if you lose capacity to authorize your transaction, before such transactions happen
- them phoning you doesn't help if someone already has your phone unlocked and can just say "yes", while potentially glancing at your personal and banking info on it. It's already over at that point if they secured step 1.
> you should contact them immediately if you lose capacity to authorize your transaction, before such transactions happen
I don't know what you mean by this. I never lost capacity to authorize the transaction. My bank just wanted to do it a different way in this case. But if I did lose capacity, how would I know until I try to authorize a transaction?
> them phoning you doesn't help if someone already has your phone unlocked and can just say "yes"
True, that's why they wanted me to call them, where they engaged in another method of identifying me.
“Android and debit card” keep price the same.
Congrats to the Stripe folks! Metrics API is exactly what I needed.
I don't really think we have A.I. until we hit AGI.
This seems reasonable to me. AGI is something much different both technically and perhaps philosophically as well. If it ever arises, it may be virtually indistinguishable from the intelligence we have. It might not be strictly artificial in that it may actually constitute a legitimate form of intelligence. That’s why some of us worry it may also constitute a form of consciousness, but that’s a separate beast.
AGI would be real intelligence, different entirely as you said. AI should be a system trying to reproduce intelligent behaviors but not actually be intelligence.
So in my view machine learning is different in that it is not attempting to emulate intelligent behaviours, it's advanced versions of machine tasks. Invaluable technique providing a lot of value, but to call it even AI I am not sure I agree with. ChatGPT is attempting to approximate something intelligent beings will do, conversation, AI makes sense there. But mant AI labeled products are perhaps better categorized as advanced machine behaviours, not attempts at emulating intelligent behaviours.
> Stripe consolidates Payments with its other services to form Stripe One, a one-stop shop for all commerce and user-experience needs.
Their offerings for recurring billing have been lacking for a long time. I'd love to drop the recurring provider we've currently got on top of Stripe, and just use Stripe.
We ended up on Chargebee because we needed fractional unit billing. While there we've also discovered that they apply rounding at different times for different documents. So when a quote is promoted to an invoice the total changes. That was a frustrating few months trying to explain to support what the problem was for them to tag it #wontfix.
My experience with this kind of thing as not been very good. New Relic introduced a tool that would help you build NRQL queries, but most of the time it just hallucinates table and fields that don't exist. Huge waste of time.
The whole selling point was that Stripe made it easy to accept payments online. But now it's just about as hard to setup as the old payment processors were.
I don't understand that complaint, because the simple features are still simple. For example Stripe Checkout or Stripe Payment Links are even easier than setting it up back in the days.
A good example is the classic SaaS scheduled downgrade. In 99% of SaaS plans I've seen downgrading a plan happens at the end of the period. As far as I could tell such a feature didn't exist in the redirect based Billing offerings of stripe as of 6 months ago.
As a customer unable to remove a credit card from my account, despite the service being inactive and cancelled, because the service is "still active", I'd rather have someone I can contact to resolve it, rather than being pointed to the uncontactable merchant.
Fix your broken things first.
(I won't even make OpenAI et al. an exception, it just happens to be obviously the right tool. If sufficiently educated Mechanical Turkers looking through Wikipedia etc. and typing responses was cheaper than LLMs they should do that for 'ChatGPT'.)
A nice side effect then is that the huge variation in what's 'AI' (from logic & linear regression through generative NN video) doesn't seem so absurd, it's just a bundle of tools, of course there's a variety.
It's tough for Stripe to intervene here because Stripe is not aware of what contracts exist between you and the merchant, or how the merchant is integrated with Stripe. A scammer could initiate service, tell Stripe to remove the card, and still get access to the service (because the merchant isn't listening to web hooks). This is a new fraud vector that ultimately violates the trust between Stripe and the merchant.
Why say this kind of crap? Everyone knows their mission is to be profitable in the payments space.
Like imagine walking into an interview and asking what the company does and they say "Oh, we make money". Like..not helpful.
Sometimes it would be...
Of course they exist to make money, but some folks want to make money while adding something positive to the world.
From a theoretical theory, you could say that, if managed sustainably, the economy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.
"Our mission is to grow the GDP of the internet" is much better since it captures the value they are trying to create. Presumably this is mostly things that make online payments faster and more ubiquitous, bringing more commercial activity onto the internet.
With "Our mission is to be profitable in the payments space", someone might decide to open Stripe check cashing locations, which presumably is not something that upper management wants the company spending time on. With "Our mission is to grow the GDP of the internet", Stripe's activities will be much more closely focused on their core competencies.
Huh. I thought that mission statement was terrible. It's vague to the point of uselessness, and the phrase "grow the GDP of the internet" is pure cringe.
i actually think it's an interesting mission, because it differentiates them from pure value-capture of existing businesses wanting online payments. They literally want more businesses to accept more payments, even to the point of making it easier for john doe to create a business. that's not an obvious direction for a payment company to go, but still obviously benefits them
True, but that's a bit of damning with faint praise.
You see a meaning in that statement that I simply don't see, though. To me, it sounds like too vague to be useful. I'm not even entirely sure what they mean by it.
That you have clarity when I do not tells me that the statement was not aimed at me. Fair enough.
First they will move payments off of government currency and onto crypto. Then they will move payments onto their own crypto. At that point they can issue credit and modify the money supply at will.
You see the differences pretty clearly today: Adyen is a profitable payments company, but their route forward is very different from Stripe. Adyen wins many contracts for the largest companies on the internet. Stripe hands smaller companies a lot of savings in time writing infrastructure, but doesn't do so well at winning competitive bids from the eBays and Netflixes of the world.
So their mission really is informing them how to get there, and it makes a big difference in how decisions are made internally. And as long as it doesn't change, it's helpful at predicting their next strategic moves.
For example, Stripe Atlas exists because it grows the GDP of the internet, not because it makes the company more profitable in payments. Obviously, the goal is for the newly minted businesses to be Stripe customers, but the more the overall "pie" of e-commerce grows, the more the company's slice of it becomes as well.
For example: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-28/stripe-st...
Some VCs are OK with long-term ROIs, too.
The long-term and short-term nature of it is highly dynamic. If the investment is going to 2x-10x, they will make a bet with some amount of money.
Why do you think they’ve been slow?
Hi Patrick