Paypal status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Paypal reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Paypal users through our website.

• Sign in (46%)
• Errors (34%)
• Website Down (20%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Paypal outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Amsterdam	Sign in	9 hours ago
Houston	Sign in	11 hours ago
Lyon	Sign in	12 hours ago
Paris	Website Down	18 hours ago
Échillais	Website Down	1 day ago
Cagnes-sur-Mer	Website Down	2 days ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Paypal Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Yishan (@yishan) reported 3 minutes ago

  Now is a good time to explain certain things about the mechanics of the IPO process that most people don't know. I will explain various dynamics around IPOs that you've probably wondered about (or just felt were odd but ignored). To the financially sophisticated: this post elides certain details and attempts to be simple enough for a lay audience. There's no novel reveal at the end so if you already know how IPOs work, you can skip this post. When a company wants to IPO (sell shares, then have the shares float for public trading - two separate things - hence this explainer), they don't actually just sell them to the public. Rather, they hire bankers to round up a bunch of institutional buyers or wealth investors. We'll call these "big buyers." The company does presentations to these buyers, and then the buyers indicate their willingness to buy - like how much, and at what price - and the bankers mediate this whole process and arrange the transaction. The reason this happens is because when most companies come to the market, no one really knows what price it should start trading at, and it's largely an unknown entity (to the public investors), so you need experienced bankers who understand business and equity markets to figure it out and get it approximately correct. This is the actual function of the bankers who "take companies public" and they are called underwriters. The way it works is this: The bankers go to the big buyers (often investors who already have a lot of business with the bank) and ask them to participate in this process - the one I described above. Buying the shares is risky, so the big buyers need an incentive. This is where the "first day pop" comes from. Because the bankers have the most information of any party at this stage, they are the most likely to be able to guess at the likely "real" market trading price of the stock. So they price the stock a little bit under so that when the actual offering to the public happens on opening day, the stock "pops" by about 10% - 20%. This allows the big buyers to make an instant profit flipping the stock, compensating them for taking the risk of buying an "unknown" stock with no trading history. Let me summarize: - The company sells its shares in a negotiated sale to big buyers. - The company receives cash for those shares. - Now the company is done. - The next day, the big buyers sell their shares on the open market at whatever price public buyers are willing to pay. There are, typically, rules around flipping the shares but obviously not for everyone, not for all the shares, and some big buyers just break the rule (and may not be invited to future IPOs). But obviously the shares that the public actually buys comes from somewhere, and it's these big buyers who bought them from the company in the banker-negotiated sale. They do not come directly from the company. At no point does any member of the "retail" investor public actually give money to the company itself in return for any shares. It all goes through the banker-mediated sale process (called a "road show") where big buyers get a discount for taking the risk, and make their profits on the first-day flip to the buying public. (The bankers also make a huge fee for doing this) That seems kind of like "rich people enriching other rich people" but it's only partially that. Only a small percentage of IPOs do really well. Many of them stink, or fail on the first day with no pop. So if you're a big buyer who participates in a lot of IPOs, you are taking on a real risk. If all goes well, there is a modest 10-20% pop on the first day, and the IPO is deemed a success from the standpoint of the financial industry, and in particular, the bankers who arranged it. Here are two major ways it can go wrong: If the bankers misjudge where the public price will end up and price it too low, the pop will be HUGE. The common reaction to this is "Wow, what a great IPO!" because most people just get excited when Money-Number-Go-Up. But if the pop settles to something roughly close to its peak - the first-day close is taken as a proxy for what the market considers a fair valuation of the company - it means the company left money on the table: it sold to the big buyers at far too low of a price. All the big buyers and opening-bell first-day retail buyers captured a huge part of that value. Remember that the purpose of an IPO is to raise money for the company's operations and if they just sold a bunch of stock for less than the market was willing to pay, well, that's bad for the company. Another way it can go "wrong" is if it's "priced to perfection" where the negotiated sale is arranged at exactly what the public ends up being willing to pay, and there is no pop. Even "worse," if it's priced above that, and the bankers completely misjudge the price in the wrong direction, the stock will fall on the first day and close below the IPO price. But "wrong" is a matter of perspective: this is bad for the big buyers (who didn't make money on flipping the IPO), bad for the first-day retail buyers who now own a plunging stock, and bad for the bankers, who lose credibility. But it is the best financial outcome for the company itself. The company was able to sell its shares at the maximum price the market would bear, and it walks away with the cash. When an IPO like this happens, the financial headline that dominates is "it's a failed IPO." But in terms of raising money for the company, it's the best-case outcome! This is an instance where the incentives of all the parties involved are not the same. When the bankers price the IPO for a modest pop, that's the default compromise between these interests: the company makes a little bit less than it would get from the public, the big buyers take a risk and get a profitable flip sometimes, and the bankers lend their market expertise and get paid their fees. When it skews in either direction, one or more of those parties takes a hit - but the others benefit. The reason that the "priced to perfection" scenario is often excoriated in the press is because the financial press is largely controlled by the financial industry. It's not a conspiracy, it's just that financial news will mostly ask their network (i.e. finance folks) to give their opinion, and because the finance folks (bankers or big buyers) didn't come out ahead, they think of it as a failure. But it's a Great Success for the company itself! Outlier IPOs: In my life, I've had a front-row seat to two outlier IPOs (Google and Facebook), and two "standard default" IPOs (PayPal and Reddit). I'll talk a bit about the interesting effects in the outliers, and how they compare to the defaults, and then a bit about what could happen with SpaceX. One of the ways the default IPO process can vary is when a company is already very well-known to the public. Most IPO-ing companies are unknown to the public, and that's a big reason why the bankers have to be involved: they form a bridge of trust to the big buyers and bring value in their specialized expertise about market sentiment. But a company that's already very well-known doesn't get as much value from that. Especially if there's already demand for the company's shares, the company can often find enough buyers for its offering. The contract terms (services, fees) for underwriting an IPO are always negotiable, and so certain companies can negotiate lower fees and do things differently. Google did this in 2004. Now, one funny thing that's typically true in a default IPO is that the stock will open between $15 and $25. The reason for this is that most people are not financially sophisticated and if a stock opens at $100, they will think it's too expensive. The real value of the stock is what percentage of the company it represents + the company's financial performance. So the numbers $15 and $25 are chosen because most people will think that's a reasonable price to buy - they compare it to buying something at the store. No joke. Now, because companies and their existing stock can have a large range of values, what they do prior to the offering is simply do a stock split (or reverse stock split) so that the effective per-share price falls into that range. It's entirely just optics because most people don't understand math and finance. In 2004, Google IPO'd at $85/share. If you are thinking "omg, that's a lot!" then you are one of the people I just described. It doesn't matter that it was $85/share. Google, because it was well-known and there was a lot of demand for its stock, did not have the underwriting bankers negotiate their sales to the big buyers! Because they had a lot of internal expertise (and preference for) fancy auction mechanics as a price discovery mechanism, they set up a "Dutch auction" for their shares. Briefly, the Dutch auction is an auction format that is considered better at reaching the real market value of whatever's being sold (compared to a regular auction, which seeks to maximize the buying price). They ran this Dutch auction and asked everyone who wanted to invest to submit their bids and amounts, and then assigned a price and (modulo some regulatory details) opened at $85/share. This was the first time in tech for an "unusual" IPO. It was met with positive regard because Google didn't have to pay the bankers as much money, probably got a fairer price for its shares, and the buying public got in at a reasonable price, cutting out a lot of middlemen (e.g. big buyers, though they sold to the big buyers too). And Google was known for innovation and being quirky, so this fit their brand. Today, by the way, the split-adjusted price for that offering is about $2/share. Facebook also had an unusual IPO process. Facebook engaged the underwriters from a position of absurd negotiating superiority. They were already globally known, and was probably the company most well-known at IPO (in terms of name recognition) in history. Typical banker fees for underwriting can be ~4%. Facebook reportedly negotiated an underwriting fee of 1%. Why? Because there was massive demand for its shares, and everyone already knew what Facebook was about. So who cares about the bankers? Not only that, but Facebook priced itself to perfection. It opened at $38/share, and closed at $38.23/share, implying that Facebook had exactly hit the market price and gotten the maximum amount of money, with nearly no spread between what Facebook sold for and what the public ended up paying for it. Further, over the next few months, its stock trended downwards. This caused no end of hand-wringing from people who bought on first-offering, but it implies even more strongly that Facebook got top dollar for selling its shares. (Anyone who held on for longer 16 months after that saw huge gains - today the price is at ~$590) The financial press absolutely excoriated the Facebook IPO, calling it a huge failure. This drove the mainstream conversation about it, which also depicted it as a failure, highlighting stories of investors like an old lady who'd put her life savings into the IPO (.... which you are never supposed to do). The bad press went on for months. At the same time, Facebook execs and informed insiders quietly understood that it had been a perfectly-executed IPO, in terms of raising money for the company. And, if people like the old lady held on to her stock for a couple years, she still made mad bank. Those were the outliers. Now the regular ones: One of the features of an IPO is that typically most shareholders are subject to what is called a "lockup." The default lockup is often for 6 months, but the terms can be negotiated. During the lockup, shareholders cannot sell their shares. To understand this, first realize that "shareholders in the company" are different from the company itself. In an IPO, the company (the corporate entity) issues stock and sells it to investors, taking in cash to fund the company's operations. This is different from shareholders of the company - existing investors, employees, and executives - selling stock. These parties personally own stock (i.e. ownership) in the company and if they sell it the cash goes to them, not the company. The lockup typically applies to some or all of these parties, and the reason is because when the company floats shares in its offering, if on the next day (or month) many large shareholders were to also sell their shares - some of which could be a block of comparable size to the IPO offering itself - it would tank the market. This would reflect very poorly on the company because it would mean that all the investors who bought in the IPO (big buyers, but also people who believed in the company and bought on the first day/week) would see steep declines while "insiders" made off with profits. But the exact configuration of lockups varies, because it's all negotiable. The common default is that most private company shares are locked up for 180 days. Sometimes, the shares floated (sold to the big buyers) for the IPO aren't newly issued shares by the company. Sometimes the major shareholders negotiate to sell some percentage of their holdings - say 10% - and those shares are the ones sold to the big buyers and then later into the regular market. The rest of the shares held by the shareholders may remain subject to the lockup. The negotiation ends up balancing the desire of shareholders (prior investors, executives, employees) for liquidity vs the signaling effect it has on the market - no one wants an IPO to look like insiders dumping on the market. When Reddit went public, the underwriting situation was pretty vanilla (road show, sell to big buyers, modest pop on first day). The shares offered for sale at the Reddit IPO weren't all issued by the company, a significant component were employee shares. Many employees had been at the company for a long time, so a program was set up whereby the employees could elect to sell some percentage of their vested holdings, and these were some of the shares offered to the big buyers. All of the large existing shareholders - the venture capitalists and mutual funds that had already bought into Reddit at far below the IPO price - didn't sell a single share in the IPO. (Subsequent market performance seems to have borne out the financial wisdom of that decision) One thing to understand here then is the divergent effects on the company vs existing shareholders. If the company is "priced to perfection" and subsequently the stock price falls, and existing shareholders did not participate in the IPO sale itself, they are in the same boat as retail investors: the stock value is dropping. Further, if they're subject to a lockup, they have no way to exit the stock for a long time. ==== Now that we have all that background, we can talk about the SpaceX IPO: SpaceX is an outlier, if for no other reason than the fact that size of the offering is the largest in history. When outliers happen, rules often get broken. Not because of corruption (though sometimes it's that), but because an outlier will often create conditions that are outside the anticipated range of what the existing rules were set up to handle. The first thing is that SpaceX is one of those "already really well-known" companies and one with a lot of pent-up demand for its stock. In the last few years, SpaceX funding rounds have been massively oversubscribed. This means that SpaceX is in a position to not only negotiate the sorts of terms that Facebook got with its underwriters (very low fees), but it has negotiating power on key terms like pricing, sizing, and lockup periods. Remember that in terms of "cash raised" in the IPO, the amount the company raises is simply the amount they sell to the big buyers for, NOT how much the stock trades up (or down) once the markets open. Elon's stated intention is that the IPO is necessary to raise the huge amount of funds needed to complete Starship and fund a mission to Mars. People can quibble about whether that's his main motivation or if he's just grifter unloading on the retail market, but it's a very telling point that his actual compensation package involves actual Mars-based metrics like establishing a colony with a million people on it. If he's a grifter, and he basically controls his board, he there'd be no need for a comp package like that. So if the goal of the IPO is not to cash out for insiders, but actually "raise a huge amount of money for the company to carry out its insanely ambitious goals," there would be a strong incentive to "price to perfection," i.e. push the bankers to price the stock at what they think the market really will bear, and reduce the profit the big buyers would make on the first-day pop. And if any hiccup occurs, the stock could tumble, much like what happened with the Facebook IPO - but SpaceX itself would have the cash it needs. Based on what I've explained much earlier, you can now also see that if the stock being floated in the IPO is newly-issued by the company and none of the existing shareholders are allowed to sell into the IPO, and the IPO is "priced to perfection," it's less likely that it's a dump on retail investors, because the stock will tumble before any of the major shareholders can sell. The company as an entity makes cash, but its shareholders share the fate of the market (actually slightly worse because of the lockup's effects on their liquidity). On the other hand, having learned from that, SpaceX might not want a year of bad press, with the entire financial press discussing how bad an investment SpaceX is. Elon and SpaceX already have to fight a culture war and lots of people demonize them. So there's a chance the pricing has been set up to be something like the default - a modest pop on the first day. The question is basically whether the company wants to optimize for cash or public perception - compelling arguments for both could be made. Having said all that, people are probably underestimating the degree of retail investor interest. The allure and romance of space flight, the exploration of space - all of those are long-held dreams that are older than Google or Facebook or even the internet itself. Mankind has dreamt of walking among the stars for decades. Although the smart money makes decisions on the basis of P/E ratios and the like, a regular Joe with a Robinhood account who has dreamed of space and remembers the magnificence of seeing twin rocket boosters landing side-by-side will probably want to grab a few shares if he can. A LOT of people probably feel this way, and not many of them will be able to get IPO allocation. Thus, it's possible that no matter where the offering price is set, there will be an absolutely insane, possibly record-setting pop on the first day. SpaceX is not just a selling Starlink, or compute or whatever you think - SpaceX is selling dreams. And it has been steadily making them real. Incidentally, if this happens, after the euphoria wears off, the stock will probably tumble, providing lots of fodder for negative news coverage. SpaceX's lockup policy is also unusual. Instead of either allowing some shareholders to sell immediately, or locking everyone up for 180 days, there is a staged and gradual unlock over the span of the 180 days, with a fraction of one's holdings allowed to be sold. One of the stages even requires that the stock price be over some threshold, presumably to hold the stock price in a certain range of values. It's unclear how this staged unlocking will affect price dynamics; it feels like an engineer's solution to trying to manage market volatility. (My suspicion is that the magnitude of public sentiment - both positive and negative - will drive more of the volatility than any pricing or lockup schedule) Well, now you know everything I know about IPOs. If I were to guess at outcomes, my probability distribution is: 70% likely to see a huge first-day pop (sustained for at least a week), and 30% likely that it's priced to perfection and closes below its IPO price. This situation is such an outlier and all of the conditions necessary for any of those things to happen are in play, and it's not clear which forces will dominate. Either way, good luck! 🚀

• 
  Mike Hudson Perry (Bandaid's era) (@Mikeperryhudson) reported 4 minutes ago

  @ChrisAntonacci1 I received an invite to their wedding but apparently it says in the email that Dua asked me to paypal her $3,500 for the cake which she promised to return since she has issues with her banking. I don't have extra so I sent her my rent money.

• 
  Taikupy 🐈‍⬛🔞 (CLOSED COMMISSIONS) (@taikupy_cat) reported 5 minutes ago

  I had to temporarily suspend commissions due to issues I'm having with PayPal. I want to apologize to everyone who wanted a commission from me. I would like recommendations for international alternatives to PayPal (I live in Chile)

• 
  jbsx feels radical judges should be arrested (@jbs_with_a_kiss) reported 6 minutes ago

  @codeofvets @PayPal No problem. Went right through. Hope they find the fraudster hoping to grift off you, but adding the 2026 at the end was a good move.

• 
  Vee 💫🦋 (@Dmxyz_) reported 6 minutes ago

  I just got a terrible news from my friend this morning concerning PayPal This can’t be true Omg 🥹

• 
  Akeem (@megakeemo) reported 10 minutes ago

  @thaboimanue__ @firelordmaria I was having issues with PayPal too where the Jamaican card wasn't going through.

• 
  Bennie🕊️ (@Bennieeexyz) reported 11 minutes ago

  I work click and collect. The system is simple. Buy online, bring the card you paid with, collect your parcel. It says so in the email. Second line. A man came in for his parcel. Me: Do you have the card you purchased with? Him: No. Me: Can you get the last four digits of the card number? Him: No. Me: Can you contact whoever has the card? Or check PayPal or Amazon? They display the last four digits. Him: It's my girlfriend's card. Me: I can't release the parcel without proof of purchase. I'm sorry. Him: That's MY parcel. MY name is on it. Me: I understand. I still can't release it without those digits. Him: How was I supposed to know I needed the card? Me: It's in the email we sent you. Him: No it isn't. Me: It is. Him: I'll prove it isn't. Me: Go ahead. Him: (checked his phone) Him: (found the email) Him: (read the second line) Him: Oh for ...... I never read that far down. Me: If you can get those four digits I can release it right now. Him: No. I want a refund. Me: I still need the card for that. Him: Then you know what you can do with it. Me: (completely calm) Me: I'd need the card for that too. Him: (stared at me) Me: (stared back) Me: (the parcel is still there) Me: (it will be there when he finds the card) Me: (it will be there for a while)

• 
  Junior WC Value🥶 (@Hallebarry010) reported 13 minutes ago

  21-year-old student living with her mum, single for 6+ months, openly admits she dates for money and will cheat if he doesn’t pay up Babe, you’re not looking for a boyfriend, you’re running a side hustle with terrible ROI. Loyalty isn’t a PayPal invoice, and the streets already have better rates. Men, this is your sign to stay single and invest in yourself instead. Peak 2026 dating logic " Short, savage, factual, and gets laughs while dragging the entitlement. Post at your own risk — it’ll probably cook. Want it spicier or milder?

• 
  b. (@COMMEdesARCHIVE) reported 13 minutes ago

  @LurkerLouis they had to cut off their paypal partnership years back just to cut down seller’s fees, still not enough when everyone has a side business or know someone to help co-sign for cheaper in store. they’re cooked.

• 
  💎🥭Whole Blinkin Market🥭💎 (@HighHeelEsquire) reported 14 minutes ago

  What’s the point of @PayPal being a payment processor if they don’t intervene with issues between buyer & seller????

• 
  Yoghana (@basopage) reported 19 minutes ago

  @tech_twi Expensive data that are not stable, slow, and capped. A who Ghana is sill black listed on paypal.

• 
  meowy ⊹ ࣪ ˖ theartist (@meowytheartist) reported 20 minutes ago

  @Kakaaa1ep6 @vexmlk @PayPal I had this issue like 3 times and calling them worked for me..?

• 
  Raphaël Bloch 🐳 (@Raph_Bloch) reported 21 minutes ago

  My Money20/20 🇳🇱 Takeaways: - Stablecoins are eating the room. Tokenized cash is the first real blockchain use case - and every major payments player (Stripe, PayPal, Checkout, Visa, Mastercard, Worldline, Worldpay) knows it. - A lot of crypto startups are about to get crushed - not by competition, but by irrelevance. The payments giants are building the same features. Problem is, crypto founders are still pitching at crypto conferences while the actual deals are happening at venues like this one. The ROI gap is real. Crypto conferences are loud and busy. Money20/20 is where the business actually gets done. If you're a crypto player, you need to prove you add value to a system that already works - or get out of the way. The shine is fading. Fewer attendees than previous years, two halls closed, and nearly everyone I spoke to said it's gotten too expensive - almost $5K for a ticket is a hard sell when ROI is already under pressure.

• 
  Hina's Binah (@HinasPrsnalBike) reported 21 minutes ago

  @Thunder_sensei_ Depends on how youre tryna buy it, I dont got a PayPal or cash app or any of that stuff, if youre down for like a google play gift card or steam points then I got you.

• 
  TWST Overblot Physical Zine (@TwstObZine) reported 23 minutes ago

  @Sumayya17286477 We are very sorry to announce that the pre-orders are delayed because of some issues with PayPal !

• 
  The Scambaiters (@TheScambaiters) reported 25 minutes ago

  @awscloud Thanks for your quick response to Nuking a Fraudulent PayPal Website, our other contacts shut down their Phones...

• 
  Geoff Yang (@geoffmyang) reported 26 minutes ago

  @PackFreshPapi @NewAgeCardKings @TheRealNesquik I would be interested in the phantasmal flames box, that would be $385 shipped. Are there any tears or issues and can you do paypal g&s?

• 
  Elon Musk (@elonmusk) reported 27 minutes ago

  @adeoressi True, when we were stuck in traffic on the way back to NYC, Adeo asked me what I was going to do after PayPal/X and I said I always wanted to do something to advance space, but didn’t think there was anything private individuals could do. The origin of SpaceX was doing a philanthropic mission to get the public excited about life on Mars, so that NASA’s budget could be increased to achieve that goal. There was no commercial ambition at the time. The $50M was from the proceeds of the sale of PayPal to eBay. After learning more about the limiting factors for humanity in space, it became obvious that the issue was a lack of advancement in rocket technology, in particular the failure to develop a fully reusable rocket, without which expanding consciousness beyond Earth is impossible.

• 
  kallappa (@kallappa75) reported 30 minutes ago

  @AskPayPal My account is permanently limited ..tried all the ways to solve this problem but nothing worked ....after providing all the proof I'm still facing the problem...the support team is not working properly...please solve my problem early

• 
  Juth Studio (@JuthStudio) reported 31 minutes ago

  @Maxx6a Yes, we ship internationally. DHL is our shipping partner, so delivery is fast and reliable worldwide. The main thing to be aware of is that your country may charge customs duties or import fees when the package arrives. These fees are determined by your local customs authority and are the responsibility of the recipient. Other than that, there should be no issues. We offer secure payment through both credit cards and PayPal, making it easy to place orders from anywhere in the world

• 
  ReeganJillienMarie (@SkinnyMinnyRee) reported 40 minutes ago

  I don’t play with them apps, they be closing **** down log the blue! PayPal, Venmo and chime! Aht aht run my coins to my bank! Chime already scammed me during the pandemic for 400😒

• 
  Donald J. Gorbachev (@donaldgorbachev) reported 41 minutes ago

  Thiel started a Roth IRA with a contribution of less than $2,000 in 1999  and paid $0.001 per share of PayPal and bought 1.7 million shares — a large stake for just $1,700 , then let it ride inside the tax shelter until it held $5 billion, spread across 96 subaccounts, by 2019 , all of it withdrawable tax-free at 59½. That’s the most valuable Roth IRA in America. And that — that — is the dark lord’s masterstroke. Sit with it. The antichrist cannot have the most expensive Roth IRA. It is a category error. You are supposed to be the inhuman thing that answers to no one, the man who read Girard and decided to be the scapegoat machine, and your actual signature move is the one every community-college finance professor scrawls on the whiteboard and calls genius: max the Roth, buy early, never sell, die untaxed. He did the thing in the personal-finance subreddit. The secret is that there’s no secret.  The prince of darkness ran the exact play a dentist in Tulsa runs, just with founder shares and a straight face. The kitchen had him slotted for the abyss and he turned in a tax-optimized retirement account at 59-and-a-half. Genuinely disappointed. You had the whole apocalypse queued up, Peter, and you botched it on the 401k. Some Beast — diversified, sheltered, and patiently waiting for the penalty-free withdrawal window.

• 
  KR 🟨 (@KRinweb3) reported 46 minutes ago

  @Jbn3ex PayPal feels like it still wins from habit more than product experience. Crypto payments make the most sense in moments like this when the old rails are slow, random, or just refuse to work.

• 
  Cooper (@kapchanga12) reported 46 minutes ago

  @MrKimmKE These sites are legit but slow. $5.47 from 8 surveys means ∼$0.68 per survey. Most people make $20-$50/month max if they’re active daily. Payout is usually via PayPal, PayPal, or gift cards once you hit $5-$10 minimum.

• 
  RocketSpuff🔞 (@rocket_spuff) reported 49 minutes ago

  having issues with paypal right now, i'll be creating a patreon to accept commissions for now.

• 
  YouWillBeOffended (@UWillBeOffended) reported 51 minutes ago

  @3G2point0 @CardPurchaser @eBay 1. eBay Money Back Guarantee might still help Even if you’re past the standard 30-day window from the estimated delivery date, open a “Item Not Received” request in your Purchases right away. Go to the order, hit “More actions,” and report it didn’t arrive. If the seller keeps dodging, ask eBay to step in after a few business days. They often side with buyers on non-delivery, especially with a paper trail of the seller admitting they never mailed it and promising refunds.  2. Payment method is your backup • PayPal? You usually have up to 180 days from payment for a dispute/claim. Log in and open one for “Item Not Received.” • Credit/Debit Card? Contact your bank or card issuer ASAP for a chargeback. Explain the situation with screenshots of messages, promises, and lack of delivery. Many issuers are buyer-friendly here.  3. Other steps to take now • Document everything: Save all chat messages, the original listing, tracking (if any), and dates. • Message the seller one more polite-but-firm time: “Hey, still no card or refund. Please issue it today or I’ll have to escalate with eBay/PayPal/bank.” • Check the seller’s feedback and report them if they’re sketchy. In most cases like this, buyers do get their money back one way or another – eBay hates scammy sellers too. If the amount is small, it might not be worth huge stress, but don’t let them get away with it.

• 
  Hammed Wasiu Oluwaseun (@wayzead) reported 52 minutes ago

  @paga Hello I need Nigeria PayPal and I'm seeing a lot of people complaining of getting banned after there withdrawal to PayPal have you rectify the issue now @oviosu

• 
  Kintak (@Kintakus) reported 53 minutes ago

  @memeticsisyphus I will out myself as a crypto bro momentarily. It's a bit of wishful thinking and meme magic based on the fact that we all know "real" money is fake and gay. The dollar was devalued many times over in the last few decades, and some people want a solution. For Bitcoin (and there are a LOT of crypto with different value propositions), the comparison to "digital gold" is common, but it's more of a return to the origin of money: It's a digital IOU. If we all agree to accept each other's digital IOU, then it's indistinguishable from money. Bitcoin has the added benefit (arguably) of effectively being uncontrollable, or at least difficult to control (decentralization). You don't need a bank or payment processor or any other middlemen, you can just give it to people. Many people have no problem with middlemen, society works quite well with them and they can be a safety net, but if you've ever run afoul of something like PayPal and had all the assets they were managing FOR you frozen or stolen, you start thinking "we need to get rid of these people". What turns a lot of people off of crypto, just as many or more as are turned on by it, is the speculative nature. This is just the nature of the financial beast. Should Bitcoin ever establish an actual foothold in "the real world", its value fluctuations would become substantially more limited.

• 
  Stoic Chain (@stoicchain) reported 58 minutes ago

  Stripe walked away from crypto in 2018. Said it was too slow. Too volatile. Not ready. They just came back. USDC, live, real merchants, real transactions. Not just Stripe. Visa is now settling money between banks using USDC on Ethereum. PayPal built PYUSD and loaded it into 430 million wallets. Tether and USDC move more dollars per year than Visa's card network. Read that again. Here's why this is happening: wiring money between banks takes 3 days and costs up to $25. USDC lands in seconds. Any time. Sundays. Holidays. 3am. For a few cents. Visa's current system takes 2 days to actually move the money after you swipe your card the "instant" you see on your phone is an IOU. USDC settles for real while you're still putting your wallet away. The companies that built how you pay for everything looked at blockchain rails, compared them to what they're running now, and said: this is better. So they switched. Stripe, Visa, PayPal these aren't crypto companies. They're the backbone of global commerce. And they all chose the same infrastructure. That's not a bet on crypto. That's crypto winning.

• 
  kantal (@kantallive) reported 58 minutes ago

  @dsosarod @artificialDICE @Nintendeal But nothing works. I can't do this :/ I have an info about my paypal / card not working for this region.