Something weird happens whenever someone tries to disrupt the Visa/Mastercard mob. Even in this post, the founders alluded to being "not well connected enough". Also look at how Plaid's acquisition by Visa was cancelled by the DOJ on antitrust claims but then Plaid dropped its plans to build a pay-by-bank network. Makes no sense when compared to the lawsuits filed and dismissed in 2024 and recently July 2025 claiming that Apple tried to build a payment network but were stopped by Visa/Mastercard.

▲

rprend 6 days ago | parent [-]

I appreciate you looking out for my well being, but really there was nothing shady here. We weren’t forced out by a Visa mob or something like that. I actually wish that were the case, because that would mean that we were growing! We just aren’t well connected enough to convince established merchants to switch over to a startup’s payment network, especially since the value to them is dubious.

But it’s not like there was some shadowy Visa conspiracy. We received pre seed investment from institutional investors and built a pay-by-bank network entirely fine without anybody stopping us

▲

warkdarrior 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> We just aren’t well connected enough to convince established merchants to switch over to a startup’s payment network, especially since the value to them is dubious.

So instead of competing on merit by improving the value offered to merchants, your concern is to become connected enough to have the merchants switch to you in spite of "dubious value"??

	▲	BlimpSpike 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you read the article they do give merchants more value in the form of 2% lower fees. It's just that that's not enough.

▲

myflash13 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for the clarification in your particular case. No offence, but you were then probably not big enough to matter. There is plenty evidence of shadowy forces shutting down payment systems, however, just look at Marc Andreessen's public statements about crypto founders he invested in getting debanked.