If anyone knows a payment processor that takes local bank transfers from the major countries in the major currencies all over the world, and can aggregate them into a single chosen currency at reasonable rates, please suggest. As online banking now has mobile phone apps it has become easier to pay by bank transfer, but still nowhere near as quick/easy as PayPal.
Yes, in the case of a payment processor like Square, you are still at their mercy. Having a backup in place might be a good idea. Using two payment processors at the same time (e.g. by randomly redirecting payment links 50/50 processor1/processor2) would mean that if you get banned by one you can switch 100% to the working processor and the show goes on like nothing happened. The disadvantage of two at a time is a 2x higher burn rate of payment processors, assuming you continue to get banned over time. There is a limited number of decent, mainstream processors suitable for automated sales.
Another route is the high risk/offshore merchant accounts which have fees like 7-9%. Some of these are similar in function to the mainstream processors in that you're part of a number of customers having payments processed under the same "umbrella" like PayPal or 2Checkout or Square. The other type of offshore merchant account is literally your own independent merchant account that has to go through the processing bank (difficult applications, high fees, custom code required to automate online payments etc.) Combine this last option with an actual offshore bank account, in countries with actual banking secrecy remaining, which have not handed over their data to the US, and that is the least "anti-fragile" but again you are always at the mercy of the offshore bank and the bank that ultimately processes the Visa/MasterCard transactions. This is a high inconvenience, high cost (overall you'd be hit at least 10% perhaps 15% with all other costs involved) option which is usually reserved for genuine "high risk" merchants such as gambling, porn, online pharmacies (this is for porn that is completely legal, and drugs that are NOT controlled and legal to purchase online) and other stuff which is legal but not allowed by PayPal and most of the mainstream processors.
I think it's a balancing act of the probability of being banned by most mainstream processors, versus the higher cost in time, money and frustration (offshore banks and offshore processors don't make things easy). Ultimately there is no one who can be truly 100% anti-fragile. The Bitcoin exchanges, which deal with millions of dollars of trade volume every day, have consistent trouble with banks. Kraken (the leading EU exchange) until recently had a 1-2 month period where there was no way of transferring any fiat currency in or out of its accounts. This wasn't a case of a Bitcoin exchange having liquidity problems/hacks (e.g. MtGox, Cryptsy BitFinex etc.), it was just banks being difficult. At some point there has to be a bank processing transactions (in the Visa/MasterCard network for card payments, registered with a SWIFT/BIC for wires) to turn whatever you're selling into $$ in your account. Take a look at Poloniex, which unlike Kraken has no direct way of withdrawing fiat currency; all Cryptocurrency prices in theoretical USD terms ("USD Tether") are inflated by approximately 10%. Poloniex's 24 hour USD Tether volume alone is around $24 million.
It seems incredible that obscure offshore methods should even enter the discussion when you're selling e-books. Hopefully it's just PayPal being PayPal and it will be smooth sailing with a new major payment processor (or two). I don't think there is cause for extreme alarm as yet. However it does show a worrying trend in that while a payment processor can choose to do business with whomever it likes, basing those decisions on general dislike of perfectly legal content is effectively a form of "soft censorship"; they cannot ban the content but they can refuse to process sales thereof, which does keep the content from what would have been paying readers.
Yes, in the case of a payment processor like Square, you are still at their mercy. Having a backup in place might be a good idea. Using two payment processors at the same time (e.g. by randomly redirecting payment links 50/50 processor1/processor2) would mean that if you get banned by one you can switch 100% to the working processor and the show goes on like nothing happened. The disadvantage of two at a time is a 2x higher burn rate of payment processors, assuming you continue to get banned over time. There is a limited number of decent, mainstream processors suitable for automated sales.
Another route is the high risk/offshore merchant accounts which have fees like 7-9%. Some of these are similar in function to the mainstream processors in that you're part of a number of customers having payments processed under the same "umbrella" like PayPal or 2Checkout or Square. The other type of offshore merchant account is literally your own independent merchant account that has to go through the processing bank (difficult applications, high fees, custom code required to automate online payments etc.) Combine this last option with an actual offshore bank account, in countries with actual banking secrecy remaining, which have not handed over their data to the US, and that is the least "anti-fragile" but again you are always at the mercy of the offshore bank and the bank that ultimately processes the Visa/MasterCard transactions. This is a high inconvenience, high cost (overall you'd be hit at least 10% perhaps 15% with all other costs involved) option which is usually reserved for genuine "high risk" merchants such as gambling, porn, online pharmacies (this is for porn that is completely legal, and drugs that are NOT controlled and legal to purchase online) and other stuff which is legal but not allowed by PayPal and most of the mainstream processors.
I think it's a balancing act of the probability of being banned by most mainstream processors, versus the higher cost in time, money and frustration (offshore banks and offshore processors don't make things easy). Ultimately there is no one who can be truly 100% anti-fragile. The Bitcoin exchanges, which deal with millions of dollars of trade volume every day, have consistent trouble with banks. Kraken (the leading EU exchange) until recently had a 1-2 month period where there was no way of transferring any fiat currency in or out of its accounts. This wasn't a case of a Bitcoin exchange having liquidity problems/hacks (e.g. MtGox, Cryptsy BitFinex etc.), it was just banks being difficult. At some point there has to be a bank processing transactions (in the Visa/MasterCard network for card payments, registered with a SWIFT/BIC for wires) to turn whatever you're selling into $$ in your account. Take a look at Poloniex, which unlike Kraken has no direct way of withdrawing fiat currency; all Cryptocurrency prices in theoretical USD terms ("USD Tether") are inflated by approximately 10%. Poloniex's 24 hour USD Tether volume alone is around $24 million.
It seems incredible that obscure offshore methods should even enter the discussion when you're selling e-books. Hopefully it's just PayPal being PayPal and it will be smooth sailing with a new major payment processor (or two). I don't think there is cause for extreme alarm as yet. However it does show a worrying trend in that while a payment processor can choose to do business with whomever it likes, basing those decisions on general dislike of perfectly legal content is effectively a form of "soft censorship"; they cannot ban the content but they can refuse to process sales thereof, which does keep the content from what would have been paying readers.
