That would be quite a play. Stripe, PayPal, Venmo, Braintree, Xoom all under one umbrella. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for online card-not-present (CNP) checkout on that is going to be absurdly high and this will take a lot of convincing to beat antitrust. They will probably have to unwind Venmo and Braintree.
The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index is a measure of the concentration of a market based on the market-share of the firms participating in it. Very much like the Simpson's index that tells you the probability of two organisms in a place being of the same type when randomly drawn.
It's just \sum_i^n h_{i}^2 sum of squares of market-share.
States have the ability to sue to block mergers as well as the federal government. See the recent 11 state lawsuit seeking to block the WarnerMount merger.
Just a couple of months ago, someone was still suing[1] to block Alaska Air/Hawaiian. This is a merger that already entirely went through. I would predict equal likelihood of some state lawsuit derailing a merger like this.
Nevertheless, I have very little faith in states somehow blocking big mergers. Can you cite an example where this has happened? We've had basically every airline, several supermarket chains, and every major media company go through 1-2 rounds of megamergers. Which, specifically, have been successfully blocked by states?
In 2017, Valero tried to acquire some energy infrastructure owned by Plains All American. The FTC cleared it but California's AG filed to block the deal, which was ultimately abandoned before the trial could begin.
Considering that California is one of the states and it’s Warner Brothers and Paramount, both entertainment companies based in California, the bark has a lot of bite.
Which is funny because regardless of whether or not those states succeed in blocking the merger, those legacy video entertainment businesses will become irrelevant whether they are one business or two, due to the fierce competition from TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/Youtube/Whatsapp/computers/anything on the internet in general.
It's probably the most inconsequential merger, from a consumer standpoint.
If it isn’t red states the current admin won’t care at all. If it’s mostly or entirely blue states, they’ll just default to siding with the merger out of spite.
You think they'd only have to go through antitrust in the US? These are global payment processors, and the EU loves getting involved in this kind of thing. And no they can't just ignore it if they want to keep the majority of their customers.
Quite true. Or honestly, it's really barely about direct financial bribery anymore[1] - all the recent ones have just hinged on incredibly naïve (and easily manipulable) readings of how a merger might affect culture war / red vs blue partisanship.
For instance, CNN really doesn't matter, and was a tiny part of WB/Discovery, but of course Trump cares deeply about (hating) CNN, so all that was needed to win over Trump and guarantee his approval was for the acquirer to whisper to him that they'd do a housecleaning there. This lifehack would work for acquiring any company that happens to control any media property that hasn't established itself as a Trump cheerleader.
Note: I'm not even a Democrat today, but the pure and petty corruption on display definitely sickens me.
[1] though, back when it was, the bribes were astoundingly high ROI due to how cheap they were!
Do you have any evidence that you can just bribe your way past antitrust regulations (which are enforced by hundreds or maybe even thousands of attorneys across the political spectrum) or is this just how you feel because you don't like who is in the White House right now?
Added up all the free market enterprise section completed deals where the purchaser was indicated as US based
Obama era:
2009: 6,
2010: 1,
2011: 4,
2012: 1,
2013: 4,
2014: 5,
2015: 7,
2016: 6
Trump term 1:
2017: 4,
2018: 8,
2019: 13,
2020: 7
Biden term:
2021: 4,
2022: 4,
2023: 7,
2024: 4
Trump term 2 so far:
2025: 11*,
2026: 9*
Obama average: 4.25 / year
Biden average: 4.75 / year
Trump term 1 average: 8 / year
*Most of the last two years are indicated as still pending, so not sure if they will go through or not.
Not exactly the most scientific data gathering or study. But it does suggest that large mergers and acquisitions have generally been made more frequently under Trump.
"More business happens under comparatively pro-business Administration" is certainly a revelation.
I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.
It’s honestly a howler to imply that this isn’t a deeply corrupt regime that’s openly doing crimes. The burden of proof is frankly on the argument to the contrary at this point.
The president is making a genuine, serious attempt to install his personal attorney to the office of Attorney General and he has a good chance of succeeding. This country is cooked.
If it's a card-not-present transaction, Visa or MasterCard is making the bulk of the commission and forcing the vendor to take on the risk of a transaction without a PIN or password.
At least the others offer the hope that maybe some customers will pay directly from a Stripe/PayPal account, without the high commission and high risk of a Visa/MasterCard network transaction.
>If it's a card-not-present transaction, Visa or MasterCard is making the bulk of the commission and forcing the vendor to take on the risk of a transaction without a PIN or password.
I can recall when we first tried 3DS in the US and it went over like a lead balloon. Let's jump out of the middle of checkout and go to a page which looks like they're trying to phish your bank account to continue, and by the way, you can just skip it. So customers did, and then merchants followed, except in countries that effectively required it because they cared about fraud.
One of the major selling points of 3DS2 was basically "we can guesstimate fraud with magic black-box logic behind the scenes so most of the time the customer is not disrupted."
But it's still lipstick on a pig because there are plenty of outs where you don't strictly need 3DS even in "countries that required it", and it's still window dressing around the idea that we're giving merchants an unscoped credential and hoping desperately it doesn't get misused or stolen elsewhere.
When we finally decide we don't want to get lapped by India and Brazil in payment tech anymore, I hope the camel-designed-by-committee it spawns is a push-only paradigm. If I want to buy something, let Newegg render a HTML microformat that browsers can detect and turn into a big clicky link to my bank's website/app with a pre-configured outbound transaction. Just as easy for the customer as a stored card, with less risk of abuse/compromise.
Not true. Visa and Mastercard don't make the bulk of the commission. When a merchant pays a standard 2.9% + $0.30 fee on a credit card transaction the issuing bank gets roughly 1.5-2.5% for interchange, which is the bulk. The processor or acquirer gets anywhere from 0.2-0.5% and the card network gets only about 0.1-0.15.
Also, PayPal does not lower a vendor's commission. If they pay with a PayPal cash balance, PayPal still charges the merchant a premium flat rate (often 3.49%) and simply pockets the entire spread. They don't pass the savings down. And consumer's don't have a Stripe account to pay from, Stripe is probably aiming for PayPal wallets via this move.
Gosh, with such efficiency of operations consumers will win because pricing of their services will be more efficient! Todays Feds will try selling that story.
So consolidation of these legacy players is not unexpected - their revenue whilst sizeable is going to continually decrease every year as people use cards less (Many countries have/are rolling out their domestic app2app or bank2retailer payment system).
Not good. Stripe makes restrictions that PayPal allows (cannabis adjacent, adult adjacent) that Stripe blocks. Many vendors will be negatively impacted by Stripes morality police and selective application of their policies.
Stripe can be ridiculously restrictive. A few years ago at a psychiatric company that (among other things) offered therapy, TMS, and also esketamine/IV ketamine that was only offered in office, prescribed by a psychiatrist that has determined it is a medically prudent treatment, and closely monitored. They also offered some seminars during the year that other doctors could pay to attend that counts towards their CE credits per year.
We wanted to use Stripe to process credit card payments from doctors who would attend our conferences. Stripe flagged our account for review because they saw "ketamine" on the website. After an investigation, they closed our account because they said they can't allow us to sell ketamine online. I tried, multiple times, to explain that we don't do that and that it would be massively illegal for us to do that. For a month I tried to talk to them, but they wouldn't budge. They would not move away from the idea we were trying to sell ketamine online. They were convinced a 20 year old psychiatry business in 4 states and tens of thousands of patients a year with doctors who were recognized as leaders in their fields wanted to sell illegal drugs online.
In my experience, having worked at several large PSPs, it is Mastercard and Visa who are the morality police. Stripe are just enforcing the rules insisted on by them, and PayPal forgot about them 3 layoffs ago.
Why do people think this? Since when do giant corporations care about morals?
As usual, everything is about money. You can be sure that part of the interest in a paypal acquisition is paypal's consumer wallet product which allows them to extend into lines of business that are currently constrained by Stripe's model.
There are many bank and bank-adjacent companies who contractually enforce morals standards. It doesn't matter if the underlying reason for the morality is profit maximization, the effect is the same.
You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it. We know that a company is not a person. It doesn't have a consciousness. It doesn't have a singular morality to work with. It borrows the decision making of its employees and contractors. We know that the "morality" of a bank or credit card company is really just a layer of abstraction for a group of decisions it makes to avoid bad press/sentiment/oversight/regulation. But if you analyze why people have morality, it's not that different; there are LOTS of things people would do that they currently don't if there was no underlying consequence.
> You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it.
Excuse me for interpreting the comment as written, but either way, the comment only makes sense if you believe that Stripe is going to take over paypal and shutoff profitable lines of businesses based on moral principles - otherwise, what's the problem?
If you actually understand that this is all about money, then it's obvious that this is not going to happen.
As written Stripe has "morality police" - do you think that is a real thing?
We all know it's a risk thing; we all know it's a money thing.
And from experience I think it will happen. It will match Stripes current behavior pattern - regardless if their motive is money or morals. In fact, I think it will happen because it's obvious it is about money.
It's not about morals, it's about regulatory heat and risk. Cannabis in the US remains illegal on the federal level, and the chargeback rates on adult services are through the roof.
No, chargeback rates are not the only reason banking companies like Mastercard are dubious about adult content. In 2021 they added contractual terms to ensure that adult content uses age verification, has the consent of the participants, and to remove illegal content before it is published at soon after it is reported.
But also, the financial industry has a history of discriminating against their customers based in moral reasons (or at minimum bowing to regulatory pressure which stemmed from upstream morality decisions).[1]
Or, because as you say it's money (I agree) the Stripe will put their "morals" in place - with the financial result they reduce risk, get less chargebacks and lower costs - then pass the savings on to the C-suite.
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.
> I'm sure that PayPal does serve them (first hand knowledge). I'm sure that Stripe selectively restricts them (first hand knowledge).
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.
> I think that Stripe will shut off paying customers BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THEM DO IT. That is what first hand knowledge is.
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.
Paypal earned 30b net revenue in 2025, without any specific numbers, it's a safe bet that high-risk merchants are at least several billion of that total.
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).
It's disappointing that you're now descending into sarcastic quips rather than address the substance of my reply. You could have just abandoned the conversation without the snarky announcement.
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?
It's pretty easy, you get hit with a surcharge on your other transaction volume if you allow something that V/MC don't want you to allow, and if you keep doing it you could get cut off which effectively makes you irrelevant to many of your customers.
As others have said, it's about perceived brand risk (V/MC allowed X terrible transaction to take place) and regulatory risk.
This presumes that they won’t maintain those, which would be a valid choice to maintain PayPal’s market penetration (if that’s the goal). Diverse offerings etc
I'm not sure I like this idea. Braintree is a legit competitor to Stripe. I'm guessing they have some informal agreement to keep transaction fees about the same but if they become 1 company, what's to stop Stripe from raising fees even more?
I'm not a fan of either to be honest, PayPal once told me I was wrong with something related to taxes and a bunch of different reps told me what I was saying and reported was impossible. Their tax division specialists also replied by email with big bold red letters outlining how it's not possible and that I'm wrong multiple times. They were contacted through support cases I opened with other reps on the phone since they aren't directly accessible on phone.
Then I said I was canceling my account with them if this wasn't resolved since it would have resulted in me needing to pay $400 to have my taxes amended. Long story short, after being ghosted for 3 months they replied to me saying I was right and they indeed had the impossible problem, then fixed their tax forms a week before taxes were due.
It's really bad that a random person on the internet discovered a huge issue with one of their partners and their instinct was to require ~10 hours of back and forth phone calls, multiple emails, me giving them the likely problem and solution on day 1 only to be lead on and ignored for months until the very last second.
I remember about 10 years ago I switched our billing / subscription code from paypal to braintree. Braintree was better than paypal but that wasnt saying much. Then paypal bought Braintree and started fucking around with it, asking for conference calls because they wanted us off one of their old flows so they could get us on webhooks that preformed worse and were a pain to implement.
Anyway we switched to stripe. Don't love stripe and they take a big cut but I hate paypal.
They've been abysmal and borderline criminal since the start.
They randomly withheld £20k from a business I was involved with for no stated reason and no direct means to talk to a human about it. It took months to resolve.
Why would you keep any money on PayPal. It’s just a pass-through to your bank account, accepting payments without giving your bank details to strangers on the internet.
Once you start doing frequent business through PayPal, they begin 'holding' some of your money to form a buffer against chargebacks and fraud. This doesn't happen often at the consumer level, but dominates within the small business world.
PayPal isn't a bank. They're a processor. People run afoul when they keep large amounts in their processor account instead of doing free nightly sweeps. They also run into trouble when they do weird things - like new accounts receiving large funds from international sources, etc. PayPal (and all processors) are required to investigate those instances until you have an established relationship with them - and they'll temporarily hold the suspicious funds while that happens. Business accounts have predictable, established patterns.
99% of the horror stories you hear fall into one of these categories, or both: 1) New Account 2) Unusual Account Activity
PayPal processed millions in annual payments for my previous company, without any issues.
> They randomly withheld £20k from a business I was involved with for no stated reason and no direct means to talk to a human about it. It took months to resolve.
If only there was a regulatory framework to turn that into an extremely simple court case, and to also punish attempts of PayPal to ban users who stand up for access to their money.
If they’re a near-monopoly they shouldn’t be allowed to set their own rules.
Of course, but that's the thing about "informal" agreements: presumably there's no record of it. Price collusion happens way more than most realize. I was at a trade show for my employer when a competitor walked up to our booth and out loud proposed that we should all fix our prices. We didn't of course, but the brazenness of saying something like that out in the open like was what surprised me.
Read the DoJ’s case they recently closed on price fixing in the egg market. Apparently those videos are like that because that’s how it goes down in real life. You would think people would be smarter but maybe we only see the stupid ones that get caught.
The good thing about price collusion is that it's hard to coordinate. If even one competitor defects (and they have every advantage to, as they'll win big), then the cartel falls apart.
One of the big rules of commerce is that competing on price is generally a no-no for large markets. Usually, the powers that be would rather compete on a perceived value; that is how “informal price collusion” works.
Price/cost is the last thing you compete on unless you have a wholesale advantage, which nobody in this particular industry does (visa/mastercard set core rates)
Source: I’ve worked with higher ups in numerous commerce operations.
Commerce is actually even worse than many realize. Look up pepsi and walmart as a small example.
* it instantly brings them a ton of consumers
* they have capacity to serve those customers
if they don't competitor can just keep higher price (especially if it is just small middleman fee most people might not care that much about)
And even if both of those are true worst possible case is them expanding to handle influx of customers and then competition following in few months, making their investment moot
Easier with a duopoly for sure (if there's something restricting new entrants to the market, that's a big problem in its own right), but even so, it's a prisoners dilemma.
They are better off cooperating, but if one defects first they can screw the other one, so it relies on trust.
Nah, I hate them with a passion as a merchant but I absolutely love them as a buyer and customer.
There is a reason why after all these years and other solutions they're still everywhere, and it's not because of their great tooling, their low fees or their awesome support for merchant. It's not because of market lock in either, at least here in Europe they're merely a middle man between my credit card or sepa bank account and the merchant. It's because buyers trust it.
Buyers don't trust stripe. Stripe is for the merchant.
As a buyer I don't trust Paypal. They use dark patterns to try to get me to sign in, then make it hard to sign out, and for whatever reason my account is wedged and even though it has the correct payment details, the payments all fail. The UI is antiquated and the embedded version that has the animated progress bar GIF is sketchy at best. The Venmo app (which Paypal owns) is jammed with crappy ads and an often-broken UI.
The advantage that PayPal offers me as a buyer is a middleman between the vendor and myself that I control. The vendor does not get any of my card or bank info, and if it’s a subscription I can easily cancel it at any time on the PayPal side without having to go through whatever dark patterns the vendor might have to prevent you unsubscribing.
Nah I thought I liked PayPal as a customer until I found out that they favor large merchants against the consumer. I had a problem with a product and the company was playing games with the warranty. I only had it for 3 months and it was already falling apart. I made a complaint with PP and it was auto denied.
I don't know about recently, but for many years paypal automatically sided with the customer.
We had many customers that would buy a 1 month sub then chargeback the whole amount after using it heavily for a few days or right before renewal, with a nonsense reason like "item not as described" or "unauthorized charge".
I also had this issue. PayPal said to gather more data like proof of use, IP addresses, etc, and I still lost every time. I even had a couple of people be surprised that their account stopped working after they did a chargeback…
PP has worked amazingly well for me over the years, second to Amex. It's weird they wouldn't side with you, 3 months is well within their 180 day period.
Yep I had a case where I bought something online and it was not as described. The merchant didn't respond to emails, I filed the PayPal chargeback and the case was taking ages as the merchant wasn't responding. They finally responded on the last day to basically say I got my item. Despite all my evidence I provided it didn't seem to matter. So I again would have to respond and now wait for PayPal to rule. I was getting so sick of it, I just filed a chargeback with my credit card company instead and they gave me the money back right away upfront and did their own investigation after the fact and ruled in my favour.
I have had PayPal work for me for refunds many years ago, but the problem is often how long the whole process takes and how long your money is held hostage. By the time you maybe get your money back, you've already had to pay off that money on your credit card (if you used credit for the PP transaction). I've found that when I do a chargeback via my credit card, they often give me the money back right away and then do an investigation. If it were to not go my way the money would get taken back. I think this feels more fair depending on the case. Some cases are pretty clear cut and there is no reason to hold your money hostage while they confirm what you said is truthful.
I did until October 2022, when PayPal published an update to its Acceptable Use Policy that threatened to fine users $2,500 for promoting "misinformation".
Like they were the arbiters of what is misinformation and worthy of economic penalty. While it was later rescinded, it was beyond the pale. It's proof that something is corrupt and completely out to lunch in their management, and I won't sign up again after deleting my account in protest.
Edit: So apparently they only removed the misinformation clause, and they may still seize $2,500 of your money if they alone decide you are guilty of "...the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime...". People are worried about authoritarianism, yet meekly cede such powers to a corporation? It boggles the mind.
For sure, on both counts. I'm just a bit astonished at how many people continue to do business with them, especially anyone who strongly denounces authoritarianism.
Yeah, any subscription I can push through PayPal, I do so, because I can cancel it directly on their end. I don't need to go through a ten click justification process with the merchant.
As a buyer, I like something that's good for the merchant, because 99% of the time I'm buying from merchants who I trust way more than I trust the other buyers. Don't even want credit card middlemen if I have the choice.
And as a consumer, I especially hate PayPal because they always try to screw me with their currency conversion rates by hiding the toggle button (and it happens that I sometimes forget to toggle over to my bank's currency conversion)
And only once have I ever won a payment dispute there (and that was as a merchant, not a buyer... lol)
For better or worse, PayPal is the only service that works for my business, and it has worked flawlessly for upwards of 2 decades. I casually look for alternatives to PP once every couple of years.
My business ships a physical product, and has a completely passive web page. It's about as bland as boring as it gets. My page has a "buy" button with a link to PayPal. Then you complete your transaction within PP's site. That way, I don't need to maintain a server anywhere, write any code, or be responsible for handling your private information.
What I find weird about this is that JohnC has been saying for decades that large mergers are pretty bad for both companies. You spend 2,3 years in limbo, figuring out what in the world to do with the other large organization. When Stripe makes acquisitions it's historically been small companies, doing things Stripe isn't doing. It's the kind of situation where pc is unlikely to speak publicly here, but I sure would love to understand what the plan is, if just as a shareholder.
On the other hand, reducing competition and consolidating the market within the combined organization is good for the misshapen franken-org that comes out at the end...
The question is whether or not they can weaponize the regulatory system to prevent smaller competitors from taking advantage of their confusion.
If I worked for PayPal right now I'd be printing résumés. Stripe recently laid off 300 of their IT people. To paraphrase Petey Greene, I wouldn't trust them to wash my car.
I typically use paypal for paying contractors, but try to "load balance" across a couple competitors because you never know when one of them will flag your account, nor for how long it will be flagged.
Consolidation in this industry puts my ability to transmit money at greater risk.
Logging into PayPal is easy except on one of those days when it is not.. and nothing can fix it other than waiting ~24h.
With a proper bank account, strong authentication with some dongle or code generator means if I have it, I can depend on being able to pay. No regard for the number of bots currently pestering them.
With PayPal trying to guess whether its me, maybe I can pay. Maybe I'll get a captcha loop. Maybe there will be a nondescript error message beginning with "Oops". Or maybe the error message will ask to call.. a rep that is not trained and/or authorized to do anything other than password resets. Which is not exactly a useful solution for account lockouts unrelated to the correctly entered, unique password.
I don't get why you pointed out that, to be honest. I'm not a merchant. I am a consumer.
As a consumer I would like to avoid Master Card / Visa as much as possible and also giving numbers out as much as possible. Paypal allows that and I don't need to use my phone to approve payments. Moreover payment systems that prioritize the needs of merchants usually are horrible for consumers. If Wero becomes such a platform, I will avoid it.
In most countries, Wero is still in incubating stage. i.e., banks anouncing that in the next 3 years they will support it.
Of course it's not widely used by vendors when it's still in development. I am hopeful that it will take off to some degree in the nearest 5 years though.
That is what keeps confusing me when people hype wero. It essentially (I think some limited trials?) doesn't exist for B2C, and sending money to friends is a very minor use case.
So once it has really broad support and can be used as merchant, is when it'll maybe become interesting.
Which is pretty much the case with Visa and MC too. There's little card payment fraud in Europe thanks to mandated strong authentication, and very low transaction fees as interchange is capped by the EU; card issuers don't initiate chargebacks so easily.
It is not. Wero has charge back support and therefor higher fees. There is quite some interest in Pay by Bank via PSD2 APIs. This is much more similar to iDeal and can work for the entire EU.
I've never used iDEAL but I assume the confusion comes from the fact checkout widgets (e.g. from Adyen) are transitioning from iDEAL to "iDEAL | Wero". I assume UX is the same, i.e. scan a QR code with your mobile wallet app?
If I understand correctly it's developed by the same people: Payconiq.
I'm not sure how this is a good thing. There are already very limited options to accept payments online, consolidating two of the major ones is not a great thing.
What I find interesting about this isn’t acquiring the flow from PayPal but the fact that PayPal has a bank charter and stripe doesn’t (not a real one, all that Georgia bank stuff is shenanigans). Properly structured this gives stripe a lot of interesting opportunities that they’ve had to delegate to partners and that dilutes not just their margins in the fee stack but restricts the types of transactions and merchants they can host, beyond the minimal regulatory constraint.
The next move would be to offer a stripe managed card network that captures the full MDR interchange fee stack, from issuance to processing to network to bank. They could offer deep discounts to merchants hosting their accounts on their bank issuing cards through them and processing through them by cutting out every middle man. It would instantly become the third largest network in terms of points of sale behind visa and Mastercard. They could further carve out heavy rewards for customers through direct relationships with airlines, hotels, and merchants through their existing issuer services. They would become the first fully integrated vertical in payments, and the efficiency that would give them in fees would allow them to crush the hodge podge payment stacks out there that exist. I’d wager in five years they would dominate the market.
Not necessarily - the compliance side would open up stripe entirely unless they very carefully structured as a bank holding company. Stripe has been trying to gain a charter in Georgia for years and just got it last year. I think this taught them it would be easier to acquire one. Additionally PayPal has been a EU bank for 12 years and just recently got its US banking charter. A global bank is pretty compelling.
>Privately held Stripe is among the industry's most valuable companies. It was valued at $159 billion in a tender offer for employees and shareholders in February, a more than 70% jump from a similar share sale a year earlier.
In some ways, I would rather Stripe have the market power here to negotiate against Visa & Mastercard than Visa/Mastercard holding the reigns over a fragmented digital ecosystem.
I will support this idea if they allow changing your PayPal handle! When they first introduced that feature, PayPal made it seem more frivolous than a username. In fact I don't even think they called it a username at the time. I decided to use it for a side project that didn't work out, then came to discover that the handle had become my permanent username for my personal account with no way to change it whatsoever. If you call your small ballpoint pen business @penisland but realize the lack of wisdom behind that handle, you're stuck with it for life. Paypal does not care and will not provide you with support.
I'm no longer a fan of Stripe, but if they fix that one issue I will happily use PayPal again.
What's so important about retaining your existing account? Remove payment methods, change the account email address, then close the account and open a new one.
Back when selling online tech courses was viable (pre-AI), about 30% of transactions in the US were from folks using PayPal on the platform I used. There's a huge of people who use PayPal, it's even more outside of the US.
It's the same argument why Google isn't never considered a monopoly to the online ads space. Because the whole ads industry is much larger.
Same thing with card payments. There are online card payments and in-store card payments and other kinds of payments. Stripe + Paypal volume is considered a fraction of it.
I agree with this for in-person payments. But surely stripe has a monopoly on development api payments and PayPal on e-commerce. What i would expect is that visa Master card try to buy the stripe/PayPal.
In the US, PayPal has nowhere near the adoption of other countries, for making payments directly between accounts, and Visa and Mastercard have enough regulatory capture to ensure it stays that way.
If there wasn't a regulation-ensured duopoly, everyone would be switching to RTP or FedNow which each charge 4.5¢ per transaction, without an additional commission.
There is no recourse if something goes wrong with FedNow, right? Like you get scammed, and the scammer just keeps the money. Seems like a pretty big difference (in theory anyway) to PayPal. Although I'm apparently not the right guy to ask, since I really don't see the use case for PayPal vs. credit card.
Only for unauthorized payments, i.e. for transactions you did not consent to.
This does not cover products/services not received at an online merchant, for example, just like how you can’t retroactively cancel a check. Cards do allow chargebacks in this situation.
Yea, I think you have this one backward? it's lack of regulation that allows Mastercard and Visa to say "if you do try to use some other payment process you can't use us". Since MC and Visa own all of it, no business can take that hit to their customer base
Some other countries don't have this issue for various reasons.
With wechat in china, pix in south america and wero in europe, I think it's quite the opposite. All continents want to see visa and mastercard dead so they can bring back those transaction fees in house and it will work as the phone is the low friction payment method now.
Wero in the EU is fantastic, albeit still very young. Once it's mature and deployed everywhere, I see no reason to use something else in my country.
In fact, in France, the CB system endured despite visa and mastercard for 4 decades, so we know how to do it already.
The deal that a low regulatory executive administration is supporting, while states attempt to prevent it (acting in place of what one would expect from an appropriately functioning Dept of Justice and FTC) until regime change. Midterms are approaching, and this admin has a bit more than two years left. Some folks involved are either at, or beyond, human life expectancy as well. Sort of but not quite similar to Brexit, which barely eeked by, and now all of the old pensioners who supported it are dead after a decade and the country is ready to consider getting back into the EU.
TLDR This low regulatory period of the US political timeline will eventually end, and there will be a lookback/clawback period. Nothing is permanent. Rules can be changed at any time.
Except the general trend has not been equal degrees of snap back but rather a general trend towards market consolidation, deregulation, lowering taxes and eliminating anti trust enforcement. If we went back to the regulation immediately post world War this country would feel profoundly different.
Paypal was worth near $50 when it IPO again in 2015, and it is still worth $50B today?
And this isn't some inflated market cap either, apart from 2021 and 2022 they have been making $5B+ Net income in the past 6 years. I would love to dive into how Paypal makes money because that is an order of magnitude bigger than I thought. There must be some market in which Paypal is popular and culturally accepted as by default payment.
Which also makes me want to rethink how much Apple Pay is worth if it was a separate business.
For starters, they could have made at least every website related to customer-facing payment flow as fast as stripe managed to deliver pretty much right from the start.
Reading about Stripe’s stablecoin ambitions is funny. X uses Stripe, but Stripe on X doesn't accept my Bybit stablecoin cryptocard for a Pro subscription, ads, or boost purchases.
This would be amazing! Its such a pain having to set up two payment solutions as a merchant and as a buyer it would be great if I could use my paypal credit on whatever purchase I want. Consumers want paypal and merchant want stripe. I really want this to happen.
PayPal has been a payment option offered by Stripe for merchants for a while now. I don't know if there's more setting up than clicking the activation button.
Why, what is the play here? I know PayPal is used extensively in some countries (like Brazil?) but in most countries there are other/local services that have substantial market share and I do not think that PayPal can compete.
Don't forget Venmo - PayPal smartly gobbled that up many, many years ago, and it has a great amount of mindshare (though I don't know how profitable it is). Zelle popped up later and somehow has plenty of users, but unlike Venmo, Zelle is a steaming pile of sh*t of user experience, due to it being a consortium of all the famously-tech-backwards big banks, which stood it up out of fear and jealousy that those "Internet" guys might find a way to disintermediate them somehow.
1. Bank apps are terrible, slow, and poorly organized, because banks. They suck at software. Venmo and Cashapp are good at software.
2. (Insert healthy amount of distrust of anything the banks all want, because there's zero chance it's in consumers' best interest)
3. We don't control anything, Zelle does. I have 5 bank accounts (multiple banks). I have one cell phone number, and of COURSE Zelle, like the banks that run it, insists on using cell phone numbers as basically their primary key and only identifier. When someone pays me by putting in my number, where will the money go? F--k if I know!
If I'm buying something from a website and they don't offer Apple Pay, I'll opt for PayPal instead since I already have my credit/debit cards saved there and don't want to hand over numbers to a random website. Also, when I used to do more freelancing, all of my clients preferred to be invoiced and pay through PayPal (who skimmed a decent chunk of change off the top).
Not sure if either of those reasons would be what Stripe wants here, but just my two cents. I'm American fwiw.
Interesting that you'd mention Brazil. I consider it one of the very few examples of countries successfully replacing PayPal with a publicly owned service. Pix is ubiquitous in Brazil and has been for years. It has not only displaced PayPal but also cash and (in large parts) Visa/MasterCard, even in the face of US tariff threats.
It's actually pretty common for local payment systems to exist, it's not just Brazil. I've seen such systems in Europe, Asia, Africa and I'm sure they exist in other places I've never been to
PayPal was worth 5x this a few years ago... Even pre-pandemic it was worth far more. Hell, just a year ago it was valued at ~$80 share.
$60.50 per share would value them at just 11x their current earnings. I get PayPal isn't exactly a growth company anymore, but I'm not sure I understand why shareholders would agree to this offer?
The more time goes on, I'm starting to come around to paypal's original vision of decentralized internet-native money as being the future.
The more the international system breaks down and countries abuse their power via the banking system (especially the US, and from both parties), my opinion of cryptocurrencies transitions from "annoying scam infrastructure for hucksters" to "actually...you might have a point." Still a ton of growing up that needs to be done by the industry.
But no company or country should be able to tax the global economy via payments monopoly and you should not be able to be arbitrarily banned from the economy by these global supra-national intermediaries that have no court system and no democratic levers to pull to reign in their overreach in your country outside of desperate social media posts.
Stripe brags incessantly about how much of global GDP they facilitate...which, cool. I don't doubt there's an insane amount of work required to herd all those global cats and make payments just work. But, they're literally taxing the entire world as a % of GDP due to this dystopian legacy system? Is that the best outcome for humanity?
PayPal is sort of the Facebook of digital payments: they stopped being directly relevant years ago, but own many of the things that you or someone you know continue to use. Venmo being the obvious one, but also Braintree, Xoom, Honey, Bill Me Later, etc.
I've been thru 3 or 4 'lifetime' bans with PayPal. Just ask to be reinstated during the next big shakeup (now) and they'll let you back in. They want your money. They want your business. The exact same things you couldn't sell 25 years ago, the things that got you banned, are now listed online without care. They literally forget.
It's just \sum_i^n h_{i}^2 sum of squares of market-share.
Enjoyed that. Thanks for the discovery.
[1] https://viewfromthewing.com/passengers-demand-court-undo-ala...
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2017/10/futur...
It's probably the most inconsequential merger, from a consumer standpoint.
For instance, CNN really doesn't matter, and was a tiny part of WB/Discovery, but of course Trump cares deeply about (hating) CNN, so all that was needed to win over Trump and guarantee his approval was for the acquirer to whisper to him that they'd do a housecleaning there. This lifehack would work for acquiring any company that happens to control any media property that hasn't established itself as a Trump cheerleader.
Note: I'm not even a Democrat today, but the pure and petty corruption on display definitely sickens me.
[1] though, back when it was, the bribes were astoundingly high ROI due to how cheap they were!
https://www.propublica.org/article/paramount-mergers-fcc-ken...
The high level of financial corruption of the current administration is very well documented.
Let’s not forget that the president is a convicted felon, and his felonies were all financial crimes.
Well... we certainly know that preemptive appeasement is a thing [1]. IMHO, this is equivalent to a bribe - a favor, just not in monetary form.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/26/kimmel-controv...
Added up all the free market enterprise section completed deals where the purchaser was indicated as US based
Obama era:
2009: 6,
2010: 1,
2011: 4,
2012: 1,
2013: 4,
2014: 5,
2015: 7,
2016: 6
Trump term 1:
2017: 4,
2018: 8,
2019: 13,
2020: 7
Biden term:
2021: 4,
2022: 4,
2023: 7,
2024: 4
Trump term 2 so far:
2025: 11*,
2026: 9*
Obama average: 4.25 / year
Biden average: 4.75 / year
Trump term 1 average: 8 / year
*Most of the last two years are indicated as still pending, so not sure if they will go through or not.
Not exactly the most scientific data gathering or study. But it does suggest that large mergers and acquisitions have generally been made more frequently under Trump.
I don't mean to be snarky but "I counted things on Wikipedia" is not exactly slam dunk proof when the GP was all but saying Trump is selling antitrust immunity on the open market.
The president is making a genuine, serious attempt to install his personal attorney to the office of Attorney General and he has a good chance of succeeding. This country is cooked.
At least the others offer the hope that maybe some customers will pay directly from a Stripe/PayPal account, without the high commission and high risk of a Visa/MasterCard network transaction.
3DS2 is the solution to that problem.
I can recall when we first tried 3DS in the US and it went over like a lead balloon. Let's jump out of the middle of checkout and go to a page which looks like they're trying to phish your bank account to continue, and by the way, you can just skip it. So customers did, and then merchants followed, except in countries that effectively required it because they cared about fraud.
One of the major selling points of 3DS2 was basically "we can guesstimate fraud with magic black-box logic behind the scenes so most of the time the customer is not disrupted."
But it's still lipstick on a pig because there are plenty of outs where you don't strictly need 3DS even in "countries that required it", and it's still window dressing around the idea that we're giving merchants an unscoped credential and hoping desperately it doesn't get misused or stolen elsewhere.
When we finally decide we don't want to get lapped by India and Brazil in payment tech anymore, I hope the camel-designed-by-committee it spawns is a push-only paradigm. If I want to buy something, let Newegg render a HTML microformat that browsers can detect and turn into a big clicky link to my bank's website/app with a pre-configured outbound transaction. Just as easy for the customer as a stored card, with less risk of abuse/compromise.
Also, PayPal does not lower a vendor's commission. If they pay with a PayPal cash balance, PayPal still charges the merchant a premium flat rate (often 3.49%) and simply pockets the entire spread. They don't pass the savings down. And consumer's don't have a Stripe account to pay from, Stripe is probably aiming for PayPal wallets via this move.
So consolidation of these legacy players is not unexpected - their revenue whilst sizeable is going to continually decrease every year as people use cards less (Many countries have/are rolling out their domestic app2app or bank2retailer payment system).
We wanted to use Stripe to process credit card payments from doctors who would attend our conferences. Stripe flagged our account for review because they saw "ketamine" on the website. After an investigation, they closed our account because they said they can't allow us to sell ketamine online. I tried, multiple times, to explain that we don't do that and that it would be massively illegal for us to do that. For a month I tried to talk to them, but they wouldn't budge. They would not move away from the idea we were trying to sell ketamine online. They were convinced a 20 year old psychiatry business in 4 states and tens of thousands of patients a year with doctors who were recognized as leaders in their fields wanted to sell illegal drugs online.
We signed up for Paypal and never had an issue.
Simply put: Stripe selectively applies their own policy about "restricted" transaction types.
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-26/how-to-bu...
Perhaps you are confusing cannabis with cannabis-adjacent business (grow lights, compliance solutions, etc)
As usual, everything is about money. You can be sure that part of the interest in a paypal acquisition is paypal's consumer wallet product which allows them to extend into lines of business that are currently constrained by Stripe's model.
You seem to care more about the aesthetics of the sentence than the meaning behind it. We know that a company is not a person. It doesn't have a consciousness. It doesn't have a singular morality to work with. It borrows the decision making of its employees and contractors. We know that the "morality" of a bank or credit card company is really just a layer of abstraction for a group of decisions it makes to avoid bad press/sentiment/oversight/regulation. But if you analyze why people have morality, it's not that different; there are LOTS of things people would do that they currently don't if there was no underlying consequence.
Excuse me for interpreting the comment as written, but either way, the comment only makes sense if you believe that Stripe is going to take over paypal and shutoff profitable lines of businesses based on moral principles - otherwise, what's the problem?
If you actually understand that this is all about money, then it's obvious that this is not going to happen.
We all know it's a risk thing; we all know it's a money thing.
And from experience I think it will happen. It will match Stripes current behavior pattern - regardless if their motive is money or morals. In fact, I think it will happen because it's obvious it is about money.
I'll take the bet that you're totally wrong.
No, chargeback rates are not the only reason banking companies like Mastercard are dubious about adult content. In 2021 they added contractual terms to ensure that adult content uses age verification, has the consent of the participants, and to remove illegal content before it is published at soon after it is reported.
But also, the financial industry has a history of discriminating against their customers based in moral reasons (or at minimum bowing to regulatory pressure which stemmed from upstream morality decisions).[1]
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa8xy9/is-the-doj-forcing-ba...
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?
As others have said, it's about perceived brand risk (V/MC allowed X terrible transaction to take place) and regulatory risk.
I'm not a fan of either to be honest, PayPal once told me I was wrong with something related to taxes and a bunch of different reps told me what I was saying and reported was impossible. Their tax division specialists also replied by email with big bold red letters outlining how it's not possible and that I'm wrong multiple times. They were contacted through support cases I opened with other reps on the phone since they aren't directly accessible on phone.
Then I said I was canceling my account with them if this wasn't resolved since it would have resulted in me needing to pay $400 to have my taxes amended. Long story short, after being ghosted for 3 months they replied to me saying I was right and they indeed had the impossible problem, then fixed their tax forms a week before taxes were due.
It's really bad that a random person on the internet discovered a huge issue with one of their partners and their instinct was to require ~10 hours of back and forth phone calls, multiple emails, me giving them the likely problem and solution on day 1 only to be lead on and ignored for months until the very last second.
Anyway we switched to stripe. Don't love stripe and they take a big cut but I hate paypal.
They randomly withheld £20k from a business I was involved with for no stated reason and no direct means to talk to a human about it. It took months to resolve.
And as for their actual website...
PayPal isn't a bank. They're a processor. People run afoul when they keep large amounts in their processor account instead of doing free nightly sweeps. They also run into trouble when they do weird things - like new accounts receiving large funds from international sources, etc. PayPal (and all processors) are required to investigate those instances until you have an established relationship with them - and they'll temporarily hold the suspicious funds while that happens. Business accounts have predictable, established patterns.
99% of the horror stories you hear fall into one of these categories, or both: 1) New Account 2) Unusual Account Activity
PayPal processed millions in annual payments for my previous company, without any issues.
Bird law in this country is not governed by reason.
If only there was a regulatory framework to turn that into an extremely simple court case, and to also punish attempts of PayPal to ban users who stand up for access to their money.
If they’re a near-monopoly they shouldn’t be allowed to set their own rules.
This would be like, ridiculously illegal. It's also not practical; if you can steal customers, the incentive to undercut is very strong.
Price/cost is the last thing you compete on unless you have a wholesale advantage, which nobody in this particular industry does (visa/mastercard set core rates)
Source: I’ve worked with higher ups in numerous commerce operations.
Commerce is actually even worse than many realize. Look up pepsi and walmart as a small example.
* it instantly brings them a ton of consumers * they have capacity to serve those customers
if they don't competitor can just keep higher price (especially if it is just small middleman fee most people might not care that much about)
And even if both of those are true worst possible case is them expanding to handle influx of customers and then competition following in few months, making their investment moot
The price is artificially high -> there's a ton of demand waiting to be unlocked by the "potential energy" gated behind the unnatural price
Capacity is easy to plan around; get too much and you can just raise the price again.
They are better off cooperating, but if one defects first they can screw the other one, so it relies on trust.
Not if you pay a bit of dividends to jared or dtj
There's a big amount of competitors for card processing. Just because they aren't well known within tech circles doesn't mean they don't exist.
There is a reason why after all these years and other solutions they're still everywhere, and it's not because of their great tooling, their low fees or their awesome support for merchant. It's not because of market lock in either, at least here in Europe they're merely a middle man between my credit card or sepa bank account and the merchant. It's because buyers trust it.
Buyers don't trust stripe. Stripe is for the merchant.
I will never use PP for a large purchase again.
We had many customers that would buy a 1 month sub then chargeback the whole amount after using it heavily for a few days or right before renewal, with a nonsense reason like "item not as described" or "unauthorized charge".
We lost every single case.
I have had PayPal work for me for refunds many years ago, but the problem is often how long the whole process takes and how long your money is held hostage. By the time you maybe get your money back, you've already had to pay off that money on your credit card (if you used credit for the PP transaction). I've found that when I do a chargeback via my credit card, they often give me the money back right away and then do an investigation. If it were to not go my way the money would get taken back. I think this feels more fair depending on the case. Some cases are pretty clear cut and there is no reason to hold your money hostage while they confirm what you said is truthful.
If you want purchase protection you need to use a card that offers it.
But yes, it's my mistake for assuming the purchase protection would... protect my purchase.
And now I won't make that mistake again. The value isn't there, neither with their aggregation service nor their credit product.
I can just use Google Pay with a credit card, both of which are more convenient and offer better protection than PayPal does respectively.
I did until October 2022, when PayPal published an update to its Acceptable Use Policy that threatened to fine users $2,500 for promoting "misinformation".
Like they were the arbiters of what is misinformation and worthy of economic penalty. While it was later rescinded, it was beyond the pale. It's proof that something is corrupt and completely out to lunch in their management, and I won't sign up again after deleting my account in protest.
Edit: So apparently they only removed the misinformation clause, and they may still seize $2,500 of your money if they alone decide you are guilty of "...the promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory or the financial exploitation of a crime...". People are worried about authoritarianism, yet meekly cede such powers to a corporation? It boggles the mind.
The libertarian answer is that corporations cannot threaten your freedom because you always have a choice of whether to deal with them or not.
The libertarian answer is also mostly bullshit, but there is a kernel of a seed of a nugget of truth in there somehow.
And as a consumer, I especially hate PayPal because they always try to screw me with their currency conversion rates by hiding the toggle button (and it happens that I sometimes forget to toggle over to my bank's currency conversion)
And only once have I ever won a payment dispute there (and that was as a merchant, not a buyer... lol)
My business ships a physical product, and has a completely passive web page. It's about as bland as boring as it gets. My page has a "buy" button with a link to PayPal. Then you complete your transaction within PP's site. That way, I don't need to maintain a server anywhere, write any code, or be responsible for handling your private information.
We save almost US$0.25 per $1 transaction because of PayPal.
The question is whether or not they can weaponize the regulatory system to prevent smaller competitors from taking advantage of their confusion.
Consolidation in this industry puts my ability to transmit money at greater risk.
With a proper bank account, strong authentication with some dongle or code generator means if I have it, I can depend on being able to pay. No regard for the number of bots currently pestering them.
With PayPal trying to guess whether its me, maybe I can pay. Maybe I'll get a captcha loop. Maybe there will be a nondescript error message beginning with "Oops". Or maybe the error message will ask to call.. a rep that is not trained and/or authorized to do anything other than password resets. Which is not exactly a useful solution for account lockouts unrelated to the correctly entered, unique password.
But we aren't there yet.
As a consumer I would like to avoid Master Card / Visa as much as possible and also giving numbers out as much as possible. Paypal allows that and I don't need to use my phone to approve payments. Moreover payment systems that prioritize the needs of merchants usually are horrible for consumers. If Wero becomes such a platform, I will avoid it.
But I’ve only ever seen a single vendor offering it. 0 for Wero so far.
Of course it's not widely used by vendors when it's still in development. I am hopeful that it will take off to some degree in the nearest 5 years though.
So once it has really broad support and can be used as merchant, is when it'll maybe become interesting.
But it's been confirmed they are merging with companies that are already B2C in their own countries to bring a european B2C system
If I understand correctly it's developed by the same people: Payconiq.
The next move would be to offer a stripe managed card network that captures the full MDR interchange fee stack, from issuance to processing to network to bank. They could offer deep discounts to merchants hosting their accounts on their bank issuing cards through them and processing through them by cutting out every middle man. It would instantly become the third largest network in terms of points of sale behind visa and Mastercard. They could further carve out heavy rewards for customers through direct relationships with airlines, hotels, and merchants through their existing issuer services. They would become the first fully integrated vertical in payments, and the efficiency that would give them in fees would allow them to crush the hodge podge payment stacks out there that exist. I’d wager in five years they would dominate the market.
When did it get one?
https://stripe.com/gb/pricing
I'm no longer a fan of Stripe, but if they fix that one issue I will happily use PayPal again.
Same thing with card payments. There are online card payments and in-store card payments and other kinds of payments. Stripe + Paypal volume is considered a fraction of it.
European business pay a "hidden" tax to the US on everything, in the form of Visa & Mastercard commissions.
I hate feeling as if I'm defending Visa or Mastercard, but if we're going to attack them, let's get our storytelling correct first.
If there wasn't a regulation-ensured duopoly, everyone would be switching to RTP or FedNow which each charge 4.5¢ per transaction, without an additional commission.
There is no recourse if something goes wrong with FedNow, right? Like you get scammed, and the scammer just keeps the money. Seems like a pretty big difference (in theory anyway) to PayPal. Although I'm apparently not the right guy to ask, since I really don't see the use case for PayPal vs. credit card.
https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/navigating-...
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...
This does not cover products/services not received at an online merchant, for example, just like how you can’t retroactively cancel a check. Cards do allow chargebacks in this situation.
Some other countries don't have this issue for various reasons.
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
Wero in the EU is fantastic, albeit still very young. Once it's mature and deployed everywhere, I see no reason to use something else in my country.
In fact, in France, the CB system endured despite visa and mastercard for 4 decades, so we know how to do it already.
TLDR This low regulatory period of the US political timeline will eventually end, and there will be a lookback/clawback period. Nothing is permanent. Rules can be changed at any time.
And this isn't some inflated market cap either, apart from 2021 and 2022 they have been making $5B+ Net income in the past 6 years. I would love to dive into how Paypal makes money because that is an order of magnitude bigger than I thought. There must be some market in which Paypal is popular and culturally accepted as by default payment.
Which also makes me want to rethink how much Apple Pay is worth if it was a separate business.
If this passes antitrust review (unlikely imo), Stripe is about to be destroyed by a culture virus that they *paid* for.
And as much trump friendly the ftc is, theres still the state attornies like we see with the paramount deal
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/about....
At least for me, Zelle is something I can do in my bank app, so I don't need to work with anything I wasn't already using.
It feels a lot easier to use than Venmo, but I dunno. It's one of like 7 options I have to transfer in the bank app.
2. (Insert healthy amount of distrust of anything the banks all want, because there's zero chance it's in consumers' best interest)
3. We don't control anything, Zelle does. I have 5 bank accounts (multiple banks). I have one cell phone number, and of COURSE Zelle, like the banks that run it, insists on using cell phone numbers as basically their primary key and only identifier. When someone pays me by putting in my number, where will the money go? F--k if I know!
Not sure if either of those reasons would be what Stripe wants here, but just my two cents. I'm American fwiw.
Will Stripe move customers from PayPal to Stripe or will they fix PayPal?
PayPal was worth 5x this a few years ago... Even pre-pandemic it was worth far more. Hell, just a year ago it was valued at ~$80 share.
$60.50 per share would value them at just 11x their current earnings. I get PayPal isn't exactly a growth company anymore, but I'm not sure I understand why shareholders would agree to this offer?
The more time goes on, I'm starting to come around to paypal's original vision of decentralized internet-native money as being the future.
The more the international system breaks down and countries abuse their power via the banking system (especially the US, and from both parties), my opinion of cryptocurrencies transitions from "annoying scam infrastructure for hucksters" to "actually...you might have a point." Still a ton of growing up that needs to be done by the industry.
But no company or country should be able to tax the global economy via payments monopoly and you should not be able to be arbitrarily banned from the economy by these global supra-national intermediaries that have no court system and no democratic levers to pull to reign in their overreach in your country outside of desperate social media posts.
Stripe brags incessantly about how much of global GDP they facilitate...which, cool. I don't doubt there's an insane amount of work required to herd all those global cats and make payments just work. But, they're literally taxing the entire world as a % of GDP due to this dystopian legacy system? Is that the best outcome for humanity?
It doesn't have assets? It's not a bank
Is it because PayPal is integrated already into so many websites?
Wouldn't it take decades to make back $50 Billion in fees?
They also hold a lot of financial data of its users, which is certainly worth more than anything that could ever make sense to my pleb brain.
Cool, awesome, that's gonna be a great monopolistic picture for those that get unbanked across the entire Internet.