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!

I'd probably do about half of them.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.