Isn't this the flip side of the same proactivity? PayPal is paranoid that someone is going to try to regulate them as a bank. As a result, they'll shut down anything that doesn't look 100% legitimate.
I hate to be the devil's advocate here, because it looks like HFC was truly wronged. But still: an off-shore not-quite-yet-a-charity with no paper trail, no office, and no contact info beyond a web site is hardly a paragon of transparent legitimacy. Put "hacker" in the title and things get worse for the poor PayPal pencil pusher to figure out. I'm not surprised at all that someone got cold feet and pulled the plug. That doesn't mean PayPal is "right" to do this. But their motivations are pretty clear to me.
One lesson here is that organization is your friend. A few weeks spent filling out 501c3 forms and establishing banking records (maybe finding a pro bono accountant, too) would have obviously been a good idea in hindsight. Charging off to Africa shouting "Give me money!", not so much.
Comments
Isn't this the flip side of the same proactivity? PayPal is paranoid that someone is going to try to regulate them as a bank. As a result, they'll shut down anything that doesn't look 100% legitimate.
I hate to be the devil's advocate here, because it looks like HFC was truly wronged. But still: an off-shore not-quite-yet-a-charity with no paper trail, no office, and no contact info beyond a web site is hardly a paragon of transparent legitimacy. Put "hacker" in the title and things get worse for the poor PayPal pencil pusher to figure out. I'm not surprised at all that someone got cold feet and pulled the plug. That doesn't mean PayPal is "right" to do this. But their motivations are pretty clear to me.
One lesson here is that organization is your friend. A few weeks spent filling out 501c3 forms and establishing banking records (maybe finding a pro bono accountant, too) would have obviously been a good idea in hindsight. Charging off to Africa shouting "Give me money!", not so much.