Stripe raises $600M at nearly $36B valuation

So with Stripe, is it industry practice to keep the fee when refunding customers?

For example, if I return something to Best Buy, are they still paying that 2.9% fee to their CC processor?

i don't know about best buy, they might be able to negotiate something better. but for small fish, it's standard practice to keep not just the fee, but twice the fee: when you charge a card, visa charges you 2.5% on the purchase amount. and then when you refund the card, visa charges you 2.5% on the refund amount.

as far as visa is concerned, they're both just transactions, regardless of the direction, and they want their fee.

IMHO it is time to start promulgating the idea that electronic money transfer should be considered a basic human right just like free cash transactions have been since the invention of money. It already is that way in many advanced countries where electronic money transfer is a service provided by the government. It is only in the U.S. where a private monopolistic cartel is allowed to impose a private tax on all retail transactions.

I can't believe I'm going to be "that guy" but, uh, bitcoin, eh?

Rights aren't granted, they have to be taken.

To the tune of "Yellow Rose of Texas" (from the Simpsons):

    The yellow gold of Texas
    Is what I long to save.
    I will not pay no taxes
    If I hide it in a cave.

Bitcoin vs government service is a dispute over implementation, not principle. Personally I hew towards government, but it's important to be clear about what is actually being argued about otherwise the forces of evil will be able to divide and conquer.

> it's important to be clear about what is actually being argued

I agree, and I'm not arguing with you, at least not directly.

I personally think of "rights" as a kind of useful fiction that gives a kind of psychological "leverage" in politics. I understand that a lot of people think that that term has some sort of concrete real-world referent, but I don't. I've never read anything intelligible on the matter, e.g. the US Constitution says God endowed us with them. It's poetic but legally meaningless AFAICT.

So I really don't want to argue about principles. It smacks of theology to me and I believe in the separation of Church and State.

Bitcoin, for better-or-worse, already lets people transfer wealth without asking anyone for permission for very reasonable cost. One way I can interpret what you're saying is that governments shouldn't attempt to outlaw that.

But I think you mean more. I think you mean something like, constitutions should be amended to include EFT as a "basic human right", and that governments should provide the service too. Is that right?