revise model #192
Comments
|
Taking discussion private, per #193. |
|
Okay, returning from private discussion with @copiesofcopies. Reopening to track the public side of this, I'll continue to communicate with @copiesofcopies privately. |
chadwhitacre
changed the title
|
Update: Here is a diagram to accompany this comment and another helpful diagram. Where to start? Here is a helpful glossary that sets out the following taxonomy under U.S. law:
The definition of a money transmitter is simple and broad:
There are six possible exceptions to the money transmitter definition, two of which are interesting to us:
These are the "payment processor exemption," and the "goods and services exemption." The way the latter would work is that we would insert ourselves more full into the delivery process. For example, we might verify that open source projects deliver legitimate releases before releasing funds (think: Kickstarter project completion). The former, the payment processor exemption, seems to me to be a more natural fit for Gratipay, and this seems to be the one Stripe is trying to fit us into. Here's FinCEN's comment in a big 2011 publication:
And here are the four criteria they seem to have settled on in their rulings (e.g.):
Points 3 and 4 we already have, and if we don't it should be a straightforward update to our terms. Point 2 means forgoing bitcoin (that's okay, we've only done 4 bitcoin payouts vs. 516 ACH credits and 468 PayPal payouts since we started keeping better track with gratipay/gratipay.com#3282). Point 1 is the more interesting part. This is the part where we need to attach strings, or as Stripe put it at gratipay/gratipay.com#3324 (comment), "make it clear that this is intended to support actual services." |
chadwhitacre
changed the title
|
The basic idea here with the payment processor exemption is that we would implement an application process to become a receiver on Gratipay, and we would vet applicants based on what they were receiving money for. This gives us a chance to vet for brand fit (#187). We also want to require a working payout route, and since we're going to have everyone reapply anyway we can reprompt for payout info since it looks at gratipay/gratipay.com#3379 (comment) like we won't be getting that from Balanced. |
|
This also lines up with narrowing our focus (#180). |
|
I'm not sure if it really relates, but it keeps popping in my mind, so I'll mention it here. The donation model of Vim specifically avoids a "direct relationship" between Bram's work and doners, so that Bram doesn't incur tax liability for money he passes directly to charity. Perhaps relevant as you consider how the new proposed model might impact uses.
Source: http://www.vim.org/sponsor/faq.php I'm guessing that sort of arrangement isn't what Gratipay is really about, but I figured I'd bring it up just in case it's relevant. |
|
Thanks for the brainstorm, @bayprogrammer. |
|
Concerning for sure, but excited to see where this lands. I really liked how Gratipay works! |
|
I was hoping I wouldn't have to fork Gratipay, but every day it's looking more and more like I'm gonna have to. |
|
@Changaco, without knowing much about gratiplay or the development efforts, or any of you developers, I ask that You put Your energy into constructive thinking and discussion, instead of making claims. If You want to fork it, just fork it. But please don't come here with this kind of attitude. |
|
The members of the Gratipay team know that I am never intentionally non-constructive, disrespectful or conflictive. As a matter of fact my comment was intended to be the opposite: even though I have no obligation to inform the Gratipay team of a possible fork, I feel it is more respectful and less conflictive to do so than to keep it "secret". |
#192 (comment) sure did seem disrespectful and non-constructive to me. "I'm going to fork Gratipay, I thought I'd let you know" would have been respectful and less conflictive :) |
|
It's not the matter of making a fork or announcing/not announcing it to them. That is like receiving an invitation to a friend's party. and then publicly decline it, with a paper in front of their house, saying you have better plans. It's not polite nor respectful. To be polite and respectful, you would announce it first, privately to the developers, then publicly, but not here, and not in this way, with this kind of speech. I wonder if a "here's a fork" new issue would be correct. But it's my opinion. Cheers @rohitpaulk |
|
Just came here to say that I hope this doesn't stop the project. Gratipay is exciting! |
|
Maybe the comment could have been worded better, in any case I see no point in discussing this further, Chad will delete my comments if he doesn't like them, or move them to another issue if he feels that's more appropriate. |
|
@lpalgarvio Changaco has a long history with the project, and was in fact our top developer until recently. He's well-known around here and I see no problem with his comment, nor with him forking. We've had one fork already, and we were happy to try to help them (#70). @Changaco Thanks for the heads-up. It does seem like there's room for a Gratipay alternative for the (as I'm reading it) stridently libertarian crowd. If you decide to fork, let us know how we can help. :-) |
|
@whit537 why would you want to help with the fork? |
chadwhitacre
changed the title
|
A user writes:
|
Tying ourselves to a specific platform could've been a way to preserve the genius grant idea (though it would've made sign-up harder), but as discussed at #180 (comment), "Legal concerns made us stop with our old model, but it's business vision that is driving our new model." This ticket ended up being about the legal concerns, while #180 was about the business vision. Looking back, I should've cross-posted #180 (comment) here, especially since I directed people here in "Gratipocalypse". Sorry. :-( |
|
Thanks for your suggestions @whit537, I've been receiving donations for a personal project according to what the terms were when I signed up four months ago. I call them donations because people are not expecting any particular product in return. I do contribute to the tech community, there just is not one specific app. I did marketing on my own to receive funds in my Gratipay account. I mean I was on Gratipay and didn't start getting tips until I started telling people about it. I think I know some of them and some people have contacted to tell me about their support. But all my the tips are anonymous, so I can't contact them to let them know of the changes directly. And how the relationship they have with me through Gratipay may be affected. I read how teams work on Gratipay, is that how they will still work moving forward? So if I migrate into a team the funds I fund-raised will be distributed equally among all team members? I'm very grateful for Gratipay's help with the transactions in my fund-raising for my projects. I'm just trying to be clear on my options since all these changes have really impacted my budget for next month. |
More or less. First draft of terms will drop soon on gratipay/gratipay.com#3390 and that'll have the details, so watch that ticket as well.
That's up to you. Gratipay Payroll has one distribution algorithm right now (and it's not "equal shares," it's "take what you want, kids eat first"). If you want a different distribution algorithm it's fine to do that outside of Gratipay. You'll just need to explain on your Team page what the distribution algorithm is. See gratipay/gratipay.com#3390 for more discussion of this.
Yeah, I'm sorry. We're in the same ⛵, at least. :-(
@mixolidia What's the project? What product or service is the project delivering? How can others get involved to help you with it? How will you share with contributors any revenue the project generates? As long as you've got solid answers to those questions (and can otherwise agree to our in-the-oven terms), then you can migrate your existing payments to a Team for your project. Let's find a way to make that happen! :-) |
|
First draft of new terms is up at gratipay/gratipay.com#3408. |
|
@whit537 Thank you for your response. I think I can migrate, but I guess Gratipay will be the judge of that. Also, I've been following along today. Is there going to be an email to start the migration telling how? Or do I just go into my account and change to team? |
Huzzah! Happy to discuss your application here with you if you want, or privately on [email protected] if you're more comfortable with that. Let's see if we can find a way to make it work. What's the project you're planning to apply with?
We'll share a link when it's ready. You can follow along on gratipay/gratipay.com#3399, that's where the action is and that'll be the first place we announce the application link. We are planning to run payday tomorrow with just a few teams, the ones paying close attention, such as yourself. We'll beta test the new system this week and then blast out an email and blog post ahead of next week. |
|
Thank you! @whit537 I sent an email. |
|
Okay! New terms are done, and applications for new teams are now open! |
|
With that, I'm going to close this ticket. See you on gratipay/gratipay.com#3399! |
|
I haven't been following this conversation closely enough, but in case it's relevant, the CA Department of Business Oversight has opened a new comment period on a proposed amendment to the Money Transmission Act and comments are due June 4: http://www.dbo.ca.gov/Licensees/money_transmitters/Regulations.asp It's only worth commenting on if you think check sellers, bill payers, and proraters licensed under the Check Sellers, Bill Payers, and Proraters Law (Fin. Code, § 12000 et seq.) should be exempt from the Money Transmission Act. It certainly sounds like overkill to make them get licensed twice. But I haven't looked closely enough to see how check sellers, bill payers, and proraters are defined. |
ghost
mentioned this issue
The four criteria for our payment processor exemption to regulation as a
money transmitter are:[1]
1. we must facilitate the purchase of goods or services, or the
payment of bills for goods or services;
2. we must operate through clearance and settlement systems that
admit only BSA-regulated financial institutions;
3. we must provide our service pursuant to a formal agreement; and
4. our agreement must be at a minimum with the seller that
provides the goods or services and receives the funds.
Therefore, I think it's a good idea to state right up front that we are
"a platform to facilitate payments for goods or services." This also
gives us a chance to define Work before referring to it later.
I don't believe that the "to facilitate this agreement" language that
this PR removes is entangled with our regulatory status. Instead, this
PR simplifies those clauses by referring to "any agreement."
[1] gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#192 (comment)
The four criteria for our payment processor exemption to regulation as a
money transmitter are:[1]
1. we must facilitate the purchase of goods or services, or the
payment of bills for goods or services;
2. we must operate through clearance and settlement systems that
admit only BSA-regulated financial institutions;
3. we must provide our service pursuant to a formal agreement; and
4. our agreement must be at a minimum with the seller that
provides the goods or services and receives the funds.
Therefore, I think it's a good idea to state right up front that we are
"a platform to facilitate payments for goods or services." This also
gives us a chance to define Work before referring to it later.
I don't believe that the "to facilitate this agreement" language that
this PR removes is entangled with our regulatory status. Instead, this
PR simplifies those clauses by referring to "any agreement."
[1] gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#192 (comment)
The four criteria for our payment processor exemption to regulation as a
money transmitter are:[1]
1. we must facilitate the purchase of goods or services, or the
payment of bills for goods or services;
2. we must operate through clearance and settlement systems that
admit only BSA-regulated financial institutions;
3. we must provide our service pursuant to a formal agreement; and
4. our agreement must be at a minimum with the seller that
provides the goods or services and receives the funds.
Therefore, I think it's a good idea to state right up front that we are
"a platform to facilitate payments for goods or services." This also
gives us a chance to define Work before referring to it later.
I don't believe that the "to facilitate this agreement" language that
this PR removes is entangled with our regulatory status. Instead, this
PR simplifies those clauses by referring to "any agreement."
[1] gratipay/inside.gratipay.com#192 (comment)
Stripe has raised the specter that we might be engaged in unlicensed money transmission:
Over on gratipay/gratipay.com#3321 we learned that a money transmitter is "a business, Business A, that accepts money from Person B and transmits that money to Person C, either at a later time or a different place." We also learned that it's expensive to get licensed (we certainly can't afford it), and that companies have gotten flipped over this in the recent past. Sooooo let's not be a money transmitter! :-)
Stripe suggests two properties of Gratipay that make it a money transmitter:
Is it true that these two properties put us at risk of FinCEN or NYDFS coming after us? What about other properties, such as taking in payments via credit card and paying out via bitcoin?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: