Morals, generously interpretation of the usage, was just to indicate that Stripe has a more narrow risk window.
Only an idiot would think it was about actual human-grade morals or ethics. Let alone that there were actual morality police.
The tone of your original comment suggests you believe they're going to take over and start shutting off morally unacceptable money printers.
I do believe that Stripe will execute they same Stripe pattern in the merged company which will reduce choices in the market for businesses.
Correct. But do you understand why that is? What is the theory of mind you have that makes you believe Stripe would come in and shutting off paying customers?
> I do believe that Stripe will execute they same Stripe pattern in the merged company which will reduce choices in the market for businesses.
Why would they do that? This doesn't make any sense unless you actually think morals are involved.
They restrict the ones that are smaller and independent.
I think that Stripe will shut off paying customers BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THEM DO IT. That is what first hand knowledge is.
The thing that really doesn't make sense is that Stripe selectively applies their written terms of service and policies. Do you understand that?
You are overindexing on your anecdotal experience to draw conclusions that make no sense. Paypal earns roughly 6x the net revenue of Stripe while processing a similar volume of transactions. Paypal has obviously figured out how to service these businesses profitably, yet for some reason you think Stripe would throw away billions for no reason.
Make that logic make sense.
You'd ignore a pence to pick up a pound.
However, even if it were only in the hundred millions, there's no reason to throw away millions of dollars. The reason PayPal services these lines of business in the first place is because they make money doing so (since unlike Stripe, PayPal's product isn't subject to the constraints of the card rails).
Anyway, if that's the quality of conversation you're offering then abandoning the conversation makes sense. Have a good one.
Stripe is currently passing on these revenues. Stripe has been hostile to these revenue streams for more than a decade.
You seem to think their behavior will change after an acquisition. An acquisition that is also a (dangerous) market consolidation. I don't think they will.
How is PayPal not subject to MC rules when MC is used as a funding source for a PP account that purchases cannabis-adjacent services? Is it magic? Is it some plausible denial thing?
Also, if their only motivation is money - and lets assume that is true - then taking a few billions in high-risk money puts their other even-larger billions at risk.
Do you see that? Yes, they could get new revenue of ~30B adding to their existing ~5B. And assuming several billion in high-risk (4B?) now the question is...would you throw away 4 dollars of your 40 dollars to reduce the risk of the remaining 36? While also knowing you can grow into other lower risk markets? Would you throw away 4 high risk dollars to replace them in two years with 4 new low risk dollars?
No. I'm explaining that PayPal as a business has their own risk models and contractual relationships with merchants that allows them to serve these lines of business profitably. This is the reason why PayPal services these businesses in the first place.
After a Stripe acquisition, that doesn't change, PayPal's model continues to operate profitably for high risk merchants while Stripe's continues to be risky due to the fact that Stripe is just a payment processor, while PayPal operates more like a bank.
> How is PayPal not subject to MC rules when MC is used as a funding source for a PP account that purchases cannabis-adjacent services
The card networks establish strategic partnerships with large businesses in order to cater to their needs. Since PayPal has already established a profitable risk model to service these merchants, the card networks are comfortable with more permissive checkout rules since PayPal is contractually on the hook for chargebacks and fraud.
> taking a few billions in high-risk money puts their other even-larger billions at risk.
How does that money put their larger business at risk?