Talk:Dwolla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conflict of Interest: Logo Update[edit]

I'd rather not edit the entry, as I work for Dwolla, but I thought I would note the recent updated version of our logo, which can be found at http://d.pr/i/p0lO. Thanks! --Jslampe (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]

COI:Suggestions for noted inaccuracies[edit]

Can't edit the entry, as I work for Dwolla, but I thought I would suggest fixing a few factual inaccuracies. Please take the following with a grain-of-salt and do not feel obligated to add them. Feel free to fact check or reach out to me as well (jordan@dwolla.com). 1.) Dwolla launched nationally Dec. 1 2010, not 2009. 2.) Transactions under $10 are now free as of Dec. 1, 2011. 3.) As of December 15, Dwolla had 70,0000 users. Again, hope I didn't step on too many toes, I really am trying to be as impartial as possible. --Jslampe (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)  Done[reply]

social networking service?[edit]

Dwolla should be in the same category of company as Paypal, whatever that is.. not Facebook and Myspce. 72.37.249.52 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]

reflist bug!!?[edit]

Why is the reflist and half the article not showing up!!? I checked things, i did nothing wrong. NittyG (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... the bug was fixed, but I can't figure out exactly why it was happening in the first place. This could be some quality control needed by some people developing the language. NittyG (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)  Done[reply]

advertisement?[edit]

There is nothing in this article that advertises dwolla. Everything is factual. The only thing that can be seen as advertisements (the transaction fees and the instant transactions, and the one-click payments) are simply the key features that distinguish/define their products and are completely necessary to the article. I only read about dwolla today, and found all the pertinent information to start the article.

NittyG (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of response regarding the "Written like an advertisement" template, I removed it. Feel free to put it back up if there is any dispute, but also write your reasons here for discussion. NittyG (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording on this article is very bad, especially in the Bitcoin section. The fact that Dwolla links your bank account with your accounts on the bitcoin exchanges is actually very bad. I think that you meant to say that Dwolla is an inexpensive way to get money from bank accounts to Bitcoin exchanges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.239.79 (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this sentence is suppose to mean: "Users can money through their Twitter handles by following this profile." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.225.109 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never removed this template, doing that now. NittyG (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad citation[edit]

As of June 2011, Dwolla has 11 financial institutions who have signed on, providing access to 600,000 potential customers.[2]

I don't see this fact in the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meonkeys (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dwolla stealing money via forged chargebacks[edit]

http://tradehillblog.com/2012/03/06/dwollasuit/ :

an instant bitcoin exchange HomeTradeHill: Who We Are « Hosting provider Linode compromised Press Release: TradeHill, Inc. Files Suit Against Dwolla, Inc.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TradeHill, Inc. Files Suit Against Dwolla, Inc.

San Francisco, California – March 6th 2012 – As we have mentioned in previous press releases and blog posts, we at TradeHill believe we unjustifiably lost tens of thousands of dollars when we used Dwolla as our money transmitter during June and July 2011. We spent months attempting to contact Dwolla to resolve this dispute but were met with silence or obfuscations. To this day, though Dwolla has claimed these losses were due to chargebacks, we have not received any kind of documentation accounting for those losses. Regardless, Dwolla’s contracts and advertisements from the time specifically and repeatedly highlighted a “no chargeback” policy.

As a result of these losses, TradeHill was unable to pay its employees and was forced to shut down exchange operations on February 13, 2012. We did not want to do this. We believe in Bitcoin and greatly enjoyed being involved in the community in such an integral way. Though we had hoped to continue different business operations on bitcoin.com, we were contractually obligated to return that domain name (along with bitcoin.co and bitcoin.co.nz) once we stopped operating as an exchange. As such, bitcoin.com is no longer owned and operated by TradeHill.

Yesterday, TradeHill filed a complaint for damages in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Dwolla and two of its officers. In the complaint, we allege that Dwolla fraudulently reversed nearly $100,000 in supposedly “credited” transactions and unjustifiably blocked an attempt by TradeHill to transfer $70,000 of its funds from Dwolla’s control. Besides these direct damages, TradeHill is also claiming damages resulting from Dwolla’s actions, including the harm to TradeHill’s reputation and the loss of bitcoin.com, a very valuable domain.

We have received confirmation from other former Dwolla customers that they also lost money when Dwolla reversed supposedly completed and credited transactions without notice and in violation of Dwolla’s own policies. If you also believe you were treated in a similar fashion by Dwolla, do not hesitate to contact us.

Jered Kenna Chief Executive Officer TradeHill

Twitter: @jeredkenna @tradehill Please send all press inquiries to press@tradehill.com

This definitely needs to be mentioned in this page. --Lohoris (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


fix pre->code 78.107.223.117 (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above press release is presumably only one side of the story. This article[1] notes Dwolla's response: it referred to TradeHill's claims as 'specious allegations made by those who have a self-serving interest in seeking publicity'. It would be interesting to know what happened as a result of the lawsuit, though - it must have been resolved by now. Does anyone know? Robofish (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Notability[edit]

This article is not edited often, but Dwolla is certainly notable enough to warrant an article.

From the Wikipedia notability guidelines for organizations and companies:

  • An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
  • The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

There have been many articles in depth about Dwolla. Though significance is not necessarily the same as notability, in the case of Dwolla, it is notable because of its significance. As noted in these sources, its significance is not in its user base, but its alternative to traditional payment systems, a key component of the modern economy. And though it's not central to its significance, Dwolla was very prominent during the Bitcoin increase in 2013, when it was the easiest way to transfer cash from Mt. Gox. Dwolla has trouble gaining use due to the network effect; though this is the case with any social-oriented startup, the size of its user base would be misleading when judging the significance of Dwolla, as implied in these third party sources. The number of these reliable, third party sources is notable, both in depth, and the breadth of articles that mention Dwolla.

Some devoted articles:

  • Forbes: [2]
  • Business insider: [3]
  • Techcrunch [4]
  • Pymnts.com [5]
  • Credit Union Times: [6]
  • New York Times blog: [7]
  • New York Times article centered around Dwolla [8]
  • Mashable [9]

The following are brief mentions, but imply the significance of Dwolla as an alternative:

NittyG (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 2014 and 2015[edit]

This is a quick and dirty list of URLs to web sources. Forgive the sloppy urls, but the idea is let's fix this article's bias and bring it up to date with sources. The good news is most are print media sources that have both a date and a headline in the URL (feel free to improve these links, but, better, spend the time reading them an incorporating into the article):

KevinCuddeback (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dwolla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest: Company Update[edit]

I work for Dwolla so I would rather not edit the article itself, however there are several updates about Dwolla that might be beneficial to include on the Dwolla wikipedia page.

Since the page was last updated, here are three news articles relating to the new strategy Dwolla is following. https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2018/02/13/dwolla-secures-12-million-round-funding-nearly-double-workforce/330080002/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/2017/02/09/reinventing-dwolla-startup-finds-new-focus-back-iowa/96777332/

https://clayandmilk.com/2017/01/20/dwolla-announces-investment/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erynelle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dwolla&oldid=1207069143"