TradeHill - Dwolla is being scammed and reversing transactions

[indio007]

Tradehill, you're blaming the wrong person, it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction on their end.

I agree they have no choice. It's part of the terms of service for using ACH. It is Dwolla's fault for claiming no charge backs , avoiding full and timely disclosure, changing the TOS without notice. misrepresenting the TOS ex post facto, showing the credit to a third parties account ,making them eat the loss , etc...

[Big Time Coin]

However, I'm impressed by how they are handling their current issues with Dwolla.  They are making clear, detailed allegations of fraud against Dwolla backed by names, numbers, charts, etc.  They're talking and acting like a company who has the facts on their side and is confident of prevailing in court should it come to that point, but that prefers not to go to court.  In other words, they're acting like people who are telling the truth.  I believe them.

Dwolla needs to answer these allegations, publicly and in the same forums where they have been made.

qft

Here I found a pic of teh Dwolla Kids!


Trust US with your money, please!  Our parents wear suits so we don't have to.  In College, where we're from, we just wear T-shirts to work every day, even on company picture day!

[tvbcof]

Tradehill, you're blaming the wrong person, it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction on their end.

I agree they have no choice. It's part of the terms of service for using ACH. It is Dwolla's fault for claiming no charge backs , avoiding full and timely disclosure, changing the TOS without notice. misrepresenting the TOS ex post facto, showing the credit to a third parties account ,making them eat the loss , etc...

Sounds like that new outfit simply eats the losses themselves if they do not do what they are paid to do which is to reliably acquire funds from their users.  Simple enough, and more than fair given how Dwolla promoted their services.  Why cannot Dwolla do that?

[indicasteve]

I'd probably do about half of them.

And don't give me no flak about that only 4 of them are girls.

[GeniuSxBoY]

Here I found a pic of teh Dwolla Kids!

top to bottom, left to right

N HELL-N Y Y
N HELL-Y N HELl-N
n N N HELL-Y

[indio007]

This explains everything!
OMFG those pics are too much!



 Joel Katz was probably correct about the bankrupt thing. Heaven forbid anyone ruins their plans to be the newest trendy internet millionaires.

I wonder which  of these tools was the one answering a question with "If you have any questions just ask".
Even "Bob" from New York City of India has more respect than that.

[JoelKatz]

Tradehill, you're blaming the wrong person, it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction on their end.

We agree that some innocent party must bear the cost, right? So the only question is whether it's TradeHill or Dwolla.

Well let's look at the agreement between the two of them. Dwolla said their transactions would be like cash. TradeHill asked if there could be chargebacks and was specifically told no.

I agree that it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. But I disagree that Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction to TradeHill. Dwolla could eat the loss. If you don't think they can do that for some reason, please explain how that reason doesn't apply equally to TradeHill.

In fact, I don't believe Dwolla can reverse the transaction with TradeHill. That transaction was authorized by Dwolla. And Dwolla is not alleging any fraud on TradeHill's part. So I see no grounds for them to reverse it.

If I cash a check from Jack and use the money to buy a steak dinner, I can't ask the restaurant for my money back if the check bounces. I have to go after Jack for the bad check.

(As I explained in the other thread, Dwolla still doesn't claim the right to pass on chargebacks to innocent third parties. They only retain the right to chargeback the initial account and to claw back funds prior to arbitration.)

[kiwiasian]

Tradehill, you're blaming the wrong person, it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction on their end.

We agree that some innocent party must bear the cost, right? So the only question is whether it's TradeHill or Dwolla.

Well let's look at the agreement between the two of them. Dwolla said their transactions would be like cash. TradeHill asked if there could be chargebacks and was specifically told no.

I agree that it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. But I disagree that Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction to TradeHill. Dwolla could eat the loss. If you don't think they can do that for some reason, please explain how that reason doesn't apply equally to TradeHill.

In fact, I don't believe Dwolla can reverse the transaction with TradeHill. That transaction was authorized by Dwolla. And Dwolla is not alleging any fraud on TradeHill's part. So I see no grounds for them to reverse it.

If I cash a check from Jack and use the money to buy a steak dinner, I can't ask the restaurant for my money back if the check bounces. I have to go after Jack for the bad check.

(As I explained in the other thread, Dwolla still doesn't claim the right to pass on chargebacks to innocent third parties. They only retain the right to chargeback the initial account and to claw back funds prior to arbitration.)

User: Hey I'm going to scam Tradehill by transferring my money to Dwolla, transferring it to TH, buying my coins then doing an ACH chargeback with my bank.
Dwolla: We've received $50 from User. SEnding $50 to Tradehill.
Tradehill: We've received $50 from User via Dwolla.
Tradehill: Bitcoins bought and withdrew.
User: *initiates chargeback*
Dwolla: Oh no, the user did a chargeback because 1) he claims he never received the product he paid for or 2) he claims he meant to send it to someone else

1)
Dwolla: We aren't the ones selling the product, Tradehill is. Remove the funds from where they were sent (TH) and give it back to user. Not our fault.
Tradehill: What? We're not taking the loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it, even though it's not their fault.

2)
Dwolla: Looks like he meant to sent the money to someone else, but that same money has already been sent to TH. Chargeback.
Tradehill: Oh no, we don't want to take the $37k loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it.

See what I mean.

[Bitcoin Swami]

Tradehill, you're blaming the wrong person, it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction on their end.

We agree that some innocent party must bear the cost, right? So the only question is whether it's TradeHill or Dwolla.

Well let's look at the agreement between the two of them. Dwolla said their transactions would be like cash. TradeHill asked if there could be chargebacks and was specifically told no.

I agree that it's not Dwolla's fault that users are initiating chargebacks with their banks. But I disagree that Dwolla's only choice is to reverse the transaction to TradeHill. Dwolla could eat the loss. If you don't think they can do that for some reason, please explain how that reason doesn't apply equally to TradeHill.

In fact, I don't believe Dwolla can reverse the transaction with TradeHill. That transaction was authorized by Dwolla. And Dwolla is not alleging any fraud on TradeHill's part. So I see no grounds for them to reverse it.

If I cash a check from Jack and use the money to buy a steak dinner, I can't ask the restaurant for my money back if the check bounces. I have to go after Jack for the bad check.

(As I explained in the other thread, Dwolla still doesn't claim the right to pass on chargebacks to innocent third parties. They only retain the right to chargeback the initial account and to claw back funds prior to arbitration.)

User: Hey I'm going to scam Tradehill by transferring my money to Dwolla, transferring it to TH, buying my coins then doing an ACH chargeback with my bank.
Dwolla: We've received $50 from User. SEnding $50 to Tradehill.
Tradehill: We've received $50 from User via Dwolla.
Tradehill: Bitcoins bought and withdrew.
User: *initiates chargeback*
Dwolla: Oh no, the user did a chargeback because 1) he claims he never received the product he paid for or 2) he claims he meant to send it to someone else

1)
Dwolla: We aren't the ones selling the product, Tradehill is. Remove the funds from where they were sent (TH) and give it back to user. Not our fault.
Tradehill: What? We're not taking the loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it, even though it's not their fault.

2)
Dwolla: Looks like he meant to sent the money to someone else, but that same money has already been sent to TH. Chargeback.
Tradehill: Oh no, we don't want to take the $37k loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it.

See what I mean.

I think you're missing the point that Dwolla promised no chargebacks or reversals ever. 

[JoelKatz]

Dwolla: Oh no, the user did a chargeback because 1) he claims he never received the product he paid for or 2) he claims he meant to send it to someone else

That's not what happens. Someone other than the user does a chargeback because they claim that they, the owner of the funds, never authorized the transfer. TradeHill never had any contact with the person who does the chargeback.

1)
Dwolla: We aren't the ones selling the product, Tradehill is. Remove the funds from where they were sent (TH) and give it back to user. Not our fault.
Tradehill: What? We're not taking the loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it, even though it's not their fault.

I think you're missing the point that Dwolla is the product. The original ACH transfer was a deposit of funds into a person's Dwolla account. It has nothing whatsoever to do with with the subsequent transfer of those funds to TradeHilll. The user claiming they should reverse the transaction to Dwolla because TradeHill fell through is equivalent to them reversing the funds to Dwolla because they felt like it. And, again, it's between Dwolla and that user. If Dwolla wants to take money back from TradeHill, they need to make a similar claim, which they cannot do.

2)
Dwolla: Looks like he meant to sent the money to someone else, but that same money has already been sent to TH. Chargeback.
Tradehill: Oh no, we don't want to take the $37k loss. Blame Dwolla and make them eat it.

The problem is that Dwolla is charging back the transaction to TradeHill in this case for no reason. Dwolla did intend to transfer that money to TradeHill. And they have no evidence or even allegation of fraud on TradeHill's part. So again, it's a problem between Dwolla and their user.

In this case, because Dwolla's customer made a mistake, Dwolla sent money to the wrong person. Dwolla can't pass on the blame -- they're responsible for their actions regardless of who tells them to take them. So Dwolla would be responsible for any losses the mistake causes.

See what I mean.

No, I don't at all.

Dwolla is using the non-performance of a third party as an excuse to modify its agreement with TradeHill. That's simply absurd and if it were possible in general, no contracts could work.

In these cases, Dwolla would not necessarily be liable for the full amount of the transfer, but they are responsible for any unrecoverable losses. These third-party failures explain Dwolla's failure but they don't excuse it. Dwolla still has to make TradeHill whole.

[Smalleyster]

Trust US with your money, please!  Our parents wear suits so we don't have to.  In College, where we're from, we just wear T-shirts to work every day, even on company picture day!

In my email today. lol

---------
Free TShirts & Startup Weekend Scholarships
            
DWOLLA noreply@dwolla.com via mail88.us2.mcsv.net to me

August 2, 2011 | Published by DWOLLA.

100+ have already RSVP'd for our launch event next month. Join us and see what's next!
----------

100! Oooooo