Sex Worker-Led Payment Platform Shuts Down After Being Cut Off By Processor (vice.com) 89
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Adult industry cryptocurrency payment platform SpankPay announced on Monday that it is closing down, after facing the same banking discrimination it aimed to help sex workers avoid. "After a long and difficult consideration, we have decided to close down SpankPay, our crypto payment processor that we built as a safe haven for our community," SpankPay tweeted. "Rest assured your money is safe and we'll get it to you as soon as possible."
SpankPay is the payments side of the blockchain Spankchain, a sex worker-led alternative to more mainstream cryptocurrency exchanges. Spankchain started development around 2017, and SpankPay launched in 2019. Wyre Payments, the company's upstream payment processor, terminated SpankPay's account because Wyre's new payment processor, Checkout.com, doesn't allow processing for payments related to sexual businesses, SpankPay said. In February, payments through SpankPay were suspended because Wyre indefinitely terminated Spankpay, alleging it was in violation of "third-party payment processor or network rules," according to a legal letter sent from Wyre that SpankPay posted to Twitter. "Operating SpankPay in a hostile banking environment has always been challenging, but the escalating attacks have become untenable for our small team and the niche market we serve," SpankPay tweeted in February.
SpankPay is the payments side of the blockchain Spankchain, a sex worker-led alternative to more mainstream cryptocurrency exchanges. Spankchain started development around 2017, and SpankPay launched in 2019. Wyre Payments, the company's upstream payment processor, terminated SpankPay's account because Wyre's new payment processor, Checkout.com, doesn't allow processing for payments related to sexual businesses, SpankPay said. In February, payments through SpankPay were suspended because Wyre indefinitely terminated Spankpay, alleging it was in violation of "third-party payment processor or network rules," according to a legal letter sent from Wyre that SpankPay posted to Twitter. "Operating SpankPay in a hostile banking environment has always been challenging, but the escalating attacks have become untenable for our small team and the niche market we serve," SpankPay tweeted in February.
Legal is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
They are a utility and should operate like one. Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:5, Funny)
I thought the whole point of crypto is that it is decentralized and thus doesn't NEED payment processors.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't want to convert to fiat then yes. If you do then eventually you touch banks.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't really add up. Why can't, for example, rsilvergun just take say ether or bitcoin directly from his Johns and then trade them for cash on a normal exchange like Coinbase?
Because you'd have to first listen to him rant for an hour about the dangers of cryptocurrency becoming too intertwined with the traditional finance industry and how it will inevitably lead to the economic collapse of society. That kind of talk really does a number on the ol' disco stick.
In all seriousness, getting around payment processors with a wild morality hair up their ass is one of the few legitimate arguments for cryptocurrency to exist. A similar situation could just as easily happen with things
Re: (Score:2)
You will never get cash off coinbase without wire or ach. Not in any meaningful amount.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but how are they going to know that rsilvergun is in the sex trade?
Re: (Score:2)
That was spankpay's mistake. They tried to cut out the middlemen and save on fees instead of allowing their clients to exchange tokens for something like BTC that they could liquidate elsewhere.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with any cryptocurrency is that it's only as useful as what you can buy with it. Until merchants are willing to accept it, that means exchanging it for fiat currency. That means for it to be useful, you need some kind of exchange, which in this case is the payment processor.
Unfortunately, the law in the US is incredibly hostile to sex-work. The US government has tried to shut down sex workers' access to the financial system by holding payment processors liable if they process payments for an illegal sex-related business. It's the equivalent of holding a bank liable if they have an account for a business that is found to be cheating its customers or workers.
Established porn companies, which can keep good enough records to convince the banks they aren't going to get in legal trouble, can get by, but any company that tries to process payments for a large number of individual sex workers just can't manage. There's no way they can guarantee none of the sex workers they're processing for aren't under age, being coerced into the business, actually asking for payments for prostitution, or whatever.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Established porn companies, which can keep good enough records to convince the banks they aren't going to get in legal trouble, can get by, but any company that tries to process payments for a large number of individual sex workers just can't manage. There's no way they can guarantee none of the sex workers they're processing for aren't under age, being coerced into the business, actually asking for payments for prostitution, or whatever.
That said, these problematic cases are incredibly rare and do not characterize this type of work at all. Well, except prostitution, which is legal in the sane part of the world. Forced prostitution basically does not work. The Italian Mafia stopped doing it decades ago because it does not work economically. The few cases there are (again, in the sane part of the world where prostitution is legal) usually end up with the first customer calling the police because they notice something is badly off. As to underage prostitution, well, for example in Switzerland prostitution was legal down to 16 years of age until a few year ago. Turns out it is not an issue. There were exceptionally few that did it and brothel operators universally stated that they did not really want them because they lack the maturity this job requires. They also did not fetch any extraordinary prices as well, same issue. The whole thing about underage prostitution is a wet fantasy by some especially deranged religious fuckups.
Hence, what this boils down to is suppression of regular sex work by puritan assholes that believe they have the right to force their deranged ideas of "morality" on everybody else. You know, like in a messed up theocracy were people do not get the freedom to decide themselves what to think.
Re: Legal is legal (Score:2)
>It's the equivalent of holding a bank liable if they have an account for a business that is found to be cheating its customers or workers.
And that would be right if the bank is knowingly providing services for a business whose stated purpose is to defraud its customers. Being found breaking the law isn't necessarily equivalent to being a criminal enterprise.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, the law in the US is incredibly hostile to sex-work. The US government has tried to shut down sex workers' access to the financial system by holding payment processors liable if they process payments for an illegal sex-related business. It's the equivalent of holding a bank liable if they have an account for a business that is found to be cheating its customers or workers.
And yet, y'all were fine with it when it was used to de-platform people whose politics you didn't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...maybe it's evil because it's done at all, regardless of the political narrative demanding deplatforming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...maybe it's evil because it's done at all, regardless of the political narrative demanding deplatforming.
Fancy that!
Re: Legal is legal (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. It is in no way that simple. If you offer a public service, you have to have a good reason that is relevant to the nature of your business to refuse service to anybody. Otherwise your bank could kick you out because they do not like your /. handle of "saloomy". They cannot. They can terminate your account because you commit fraud or because you overdraft too much (i.e. more than the rules allow). The same applies if you offer an industry-wide service. The only case where you can refuse anybody without
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. It is in no way that simple. If you offer a public service, you have to have a good reason that is relevant to the nature of your business to refuse service to anybody. \.
As far as I can understand it, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission established that "I refuse service because I refuse to assist an action that violates my religious morals" is an acceptable excuse to deny service.
Re: Legal is legal (Score:4, Informative)
I thought it was refusing creative art (making a special cake) rather then service such as selling a plain cake. I guess strictly speaking, it was a service that was artistic in nature.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as I can understand it, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission established that "I refuse service because I refuse to assist an action that violates my religious morals" is an acceptable excuse to deny service.
in more civilised parts of the world that stuff wouldn't fly. but hey, some countries actually do have a seperate church and religion, unlike the US
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, there are restraint of trade laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal activity is different from legal activity disfavored by your echo chamber.
Assisting the Confederacy during the Civil War would be about as illegal as you can get.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing that segment is a magnet for fraud and chargebacks
That will be the lie they are using. These are easily rectified with a tried-and-true business approach though: Higher fees.
Re: Legal is legal (Score:2)
Apparently only in countries like the US, because EU credit card companies have no issue processing sex work payments.
They do get stricter rules, since most of the brothel owners aren't exactly the most law citizens, but that's just due diligence.
Never try to scam a EU brothel with credit cards, by the way. Since the burden of proof is on them, they make very sure that any credit card transaction is done in full view of the camera.
Source: I worked for a Dutch credit card company for 6 months, in the fraud
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"As technology allows cash transfers through electronic services, and as cash is legal tender for all debts, public and private, any person or company that makes a market in such transfers shall not discriminate against any legal transaction."
They could be bought off a bit by increased protections against accidental illegal transfers, instead of opening them up as a shooting gallery for lawyers.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, but sex work is not legal in the majority of the world.
They need to set up some bank in Amsterdam or whatever if they want to do so legally. And they would still not be able to provide banking services to criminals in other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
In many places where prostitution is legal, pimping is still outlawed. I suspect there are significant risks where someone that facilitates financial transactions for prostitutes may get in legal trouble for pimping, since one of the primary functions of the pimp is handling money in prostitution.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that bad. Sure most of the world is insane and into harm amplification (obviously an utterly evil act) regarding prostitution, but for example, Germany, Austria and Switzerland are sane and looked at actual facts and numbers before making laws that do nothing but virtue signalling and making the situation worse. That is only prostitution. There is a lot of other types of sex work and legality is a lot higher for some of them.
The benefits of legalized prostitution are obvious. For example, a while back there was a case of forced prostitution in Germany. Made the news several times because this is so rare. You know what happened? The first (!) customer noticed something off and immediately went to the police. Now, how would that have gone if buying sexual services was illegal? Right. Hence when prostitution is legal, forced prostitution is basically a non-issue. When prostitution is illegal, it may or may not be an issue, but if it is that issue gets created by the illegality. And when you look at countries where prostitution is legal, you universally find that the people doing it (who _can_ talk freely because what they do is legal) are all for it remaining legal and often even organize to make sure it stays that way. Such a surprise.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Legal is legal (Score:5, Insightful)
Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
They are a utility and should operate like one. Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
"We're (not) sorry, you can't use your credit card to pay for wedding cakes that have two grooms on them."
Not acceptable.
Re: (Score:1)
Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
They are a utility and should operate like one. Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
But isn't the issue that they are not legal transactions therefore the payment processors are refusing? I only see them shy away from companies that are highly suspect of providing illicit services and may encounter legal troubles, then payment processors back away.
I mean it article is trying to play the victim card but it can be easily said, "Payment processors continue to refuse to process transactions for illegal activities."
If you want to argue what should be legal or not that's another discussion, but
Re:Legal is legal (Score:4, Interesting)
Porn and stripping are both legal in the Western world. It's perfectly legal to pay for both.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
They are a utility and should operate like one. Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
Just like any baker should not be able to refuse to bake a cake for anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just like any baker should not be able to refuse to bake a cake for anyone.
Just like any social network should not ban, shadow-ban, demote, put on "do not trend" list or otherwise suppress anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like any baker should not be able to refuse to bake a cake for anyone.
Just like any social network should not ban, shadow-ban, demote, put on "do not trend" list or otherwise suppress anyone.
No, no they shouldn't [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:3)
They don't have to do custom cakes for anyone. If you bake standardized cakes and sell them in a public store, you're subject to anti-discrimination laws just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
This needs legal clarification. People could abuse it by making some trivial customization to every product, and then refusing on that basis.
There is no good solution.
Re:Legal is legal (Score:4, Insightful)
The second that we legalize sex work, this issue will go away.
The crypto aspect of this story is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue is that sex work is illegal in most places.
Federally legal, but illegal in 49 states. Just the opposite of the weed industry. Federally illegal. But Washington State (and others) are trying to get safe banking set up for the weed shops. The alternative is to be exposed to numerous armed robberies for their cash.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. If it is legal, payment processors should be required to process payments for it. Fucking puritans think they have the right to forces others into their deranged view of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
The problem is (having worked in the industry) that payments from those kinds of sites and services are extremely risky. Not only do you have high rates of refused payments but you also have to deal with a ton of overhead from government whenever there is a CSA or trafficking issue which is practically unavoidable in this industry - the majority of sex workers have been illegally trafficked over the southern border and quite a few are underage.
So payment processors either don't take you or you have to find
Re: (Score:3)
Workers who are unwillingly trafficked are much more likely to get help if their customers are not themselv
Re: Legal is legal (Score:1)
Sex work is broadly legal, the problem is finding willing participants. The demand is simply too great and our society too rich to find participants within. Human trafficking is a big problem, the borders too porous to do anything on the demand end, sex work of their children is the price parents pay to cross the border.
I know quite a few people that are in porn for the money, but very few are in outright prostitution for the money, unless youâ(TM)re extremely attractive and can cut it in high end esco
Re: Legal is legal (Score:2)
>Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
Yeah. Payment processors enjoy legal protection from liability, should their service be unknowingly used to perpetrate crime and torts. That deal needs to be contingent on payment processors being neutral.
The alternative is to grant their apparent wish to accept responsibility use of their services.
Re: (Score:1)
Payment processing companies should not be able to refuse to process payment for any legal business transaction.
They are a utility and should operate like one. Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
your comment stinks of socialism! /s
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine if credit card processors decided to stop processing donations to specific parties or candidates.
Um ... I came here to point out that we don't need to imagine it. Ever hear of "de-platforming'?
Turns out if you can deplatform things that (most) nerds don't like, you can also deplatform things that they do like. Huh, how about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Whilst I think they should just stop being so puritanical and take sex worker payments, I still don't agree. If I ran a payment processor I might want to refuse payment for environmentally / ecologically destructive services, services which IMO ought to be illegal but aren't (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not to candidates or parties, but certainly to individuals whose politics they don't like has already happened many times.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. I'm glad this idea is taking off. If you make a market in payment transactions, you have no business cutting off legal businesses.
You are an artificial convenience for cash, which is valid for all legal debts.
Push on Congress to make such a law, in the US anyway.
Funny Money (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You'd just be adding overhead as people who want it more would trade for the funny money above the official value and people who want it less would sell for as much as they could get.
And ultimately the sex workers would trade it for standard currency because, believe it or not, they need to eat and have a place to sleep too.
Re: Funny Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A percentage of everyone's pay should be in Funny Money. This can be used on any vice: tobacco, firearms, alcohol, gambling, porn, sex by the hour, cannabis, political lobbying and fast food. I'm still working on how the legal framework fits together. But it's gotta work, we're talking about a trillion dollar market.
Found the guy who's looking to reinvent 'cash'.
The problem is that there are always troublemakers. There are people who want to buy sex from the wrong person, there are people who wish to pay for crimes to be committed, and there are people who wish to make large amounts of money illegally while preventing people from following that money. If it's private, these troublemakers will be drawn to the system...and we really don't live in a society where "these things happen" is acceptable anymore.
Consequently, F
Thanks for that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get a wad of cash and spank people with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a March 25th miracle.
They have no issue enabling cartels though. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They have no issue enabling cartels though. (Score:5, Informative)
The gov't tried to crack down on bank's money laundering for the cartels in the early 2000's before the 2008 crisis. They were actually doing so well with their efforts that they were forced to stop by an unintended consequence. Turns out that if drug cartels are unable to exchange their cash the world (or at least the Western countries) would run out of currency. All of it would eventually find it's way to a drug cartel and get stuck there. Some credible estimates were predicting within 2 years. They've had to look the other way ever since and is big reason for the push toward converting to digital currencies - which then caused them to looking the other way on crypto fraud for a decade leading the way to the disaster we have from that space now.
Re:They have no issue enabling cartels though. (Score:5, Interesting)
Drug cartels and... Argentinians.
The government of Argentina has confiscated their people's savings several times (most recently in 2001). Argentinians do not keep any significant amount of money in the bank, and since the peso devaluates like ice cubes will melt in the sahara, they exchange their pesos to USD.
It's estimated that 10% of all USD banknotes are held by middle class argentinians, as we say here, "under the mattress". Others claim it's a sum similar to the country's GDP. Anyhow, it's a LOT of money as we have learned that we need to keep our own "rainy day fund" because things can (and do) go sour very quick very often.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
Re:They have no issue enabling cartels though. (Score:5, Interesting)
It was actually the exact opposite until very recently. When all the pot dispensaries and such became legal in some states of US, banks would not deal with them. This led to the problem that FED actually noticed, that you had massive amounts of cash going out of those businesses towards whoever they were dealing with, resulting in massive problems ranging from armed robberies targeting all those vans to money laundering since many if not most of those businesses where either controlled, owned or ran by people in cartels.
So now in US, there are actual rules under which banks take that money and effectively launder it. Those were put in place to help with all the other issues that stem from partially legalized drug trade in those states, and in some ways they led to having more of the problem. As in cartels now launder some of their money through those businesses by generating fake sales. Turns out that paying sales tax, bank fees and such is really cheap compared to most other forms of money laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. That is what this basically boils down to: Too much covering cowards to go after anybody that does a lot of illegal stuff, but entirely willing to kick individuals that cannot fight back. Despicable.
Before it's too late... (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to stuff the Jesus freaks back in their kennels. They're as bad as the Taliban, but with a lot more power.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. While religion is not (quite) the root of all evil, religious people are responsible for the vast majority of it.
Re: Before it's too late... (Score:2)
+1 euphoric
Re: (Score:3)
I might go a step further, and say most of the evil can be laid at the feet of the "Desert Religions": Christianity, Islam and Judaism.
What did you expect... (Score:2)
...from religions based on a story about a senile old beardo deciding to slice his own son's throat open?
Re: (Score:2)
We need to learn a lesson from Jesus and throw the money changers out of the temple.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point!
Probably not worth the reputation hit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Money?
Re: (Score:2)
Is this a serious question? Well, the crypto-bros, sure. Nobody sane wants anything to do with them because their promises do not hold up at all, but banks? How would any type of sex work that is not in direct presence work without electronic money transfers?
Reduces the rights (Score:2)
Such harassment doesn't stop legal or illegal transactions, it reduces the rights of all sex-workers. US prostitutes will be forced into cash-only transactions, making them vulnerable to physical attacks.
If you're setting up a business that deals with ba (Score:2)
... at least try not to give it a pervy name! At least try to give it the veneer of respectability, Heffner didn't call Playboy the Jack-off Pages.
Porn (Score:3)
There are many good reasons porn is seen a social evil, akin to racism or xenophobia. In addition, a lot of porn production is the outcome of coercive control.
A business should be free to refuse to have anything to do with it
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There are many good reasons porn is seen a social evil, akin to racism or xenophobia. In addition, a lot of porn production is the outcome of coercive control.
A business should be free to refuse to have anything to do with it
And yet they take money from people literally producing and selling tools created specifically and solely for the purpose of murder. [wikipedia.org]
Somehow, I doubt they're doing it on account of moral values. You know... social evil, akin to racism or xenophobia, coercive control... yadda-yadda...
I guess nobody told the hoes about... (Score:1)
Change processors (Score:1)
"SpankPay" is not the first merchant to get cut off by their processor. They could simply change processors to one that accepts high risk merchants. There are many of them out there.