Please remember this article the next time you're inclined to say "Why did Paypal freeze pre-orders of a promising new startup when they clearly look like intelligent, diligent founders and have not a whiff of scam risk about them?"
They are deciding whether or not to take on the risk of essentially underwriting the project. PayPal is on the hook for chargebacks; recently I got back $400 we had paid last November to a company that turned out to have been incompetent / scammy. I didn't initiate a chargeback until a couple of months ago.
Whether or not you agree with the outcome of their decisions, you can't simply huff that PayPal has no "right" to decide whether to take on those kinds of risks. They clearly have skin in the game.
But they shouldn't have skin in the game. Treating people like children without the capacity to make grown up decisions will only encourage this type of behaviour. Whytf do we need something like charge back?! To me it just seems like a poor justification for having a centralised router of money.
We need chargebacks because there are scammers out there and people get themselves into trouble with credit, so we made the democratic decision to require that mechanism.
