|
 |
| | | Author: | popsicle  | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 10:47 | | Subject: | (Cancelled) | | Viewed: | 184 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| | (Cancelled) |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 12:24 | | Subject: | Re: The Best of Times Here: Revisited | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| In Announce, popsicle writes:
Since you brought up the subject of auctions ... invariably, one of the problems
with running an auction is that the winning buyer may not actually make final
payment. In one sense, that is an administrative hassle (plus it makes the auctions
feel less firm). There is a way out of this, and it is related to a suggestion
I made recently ... bidding could be restricted to those who can provide a payment
form that can be pre-authorized to the amount of their highest proxy bid
(plus shipping).
That does not mean they will be charged that amount, because they could be outbid
and/or they could be high bidder at the close, without reaching maximum. It just
means that the system, combined with the payment providers, have confirmed they
have the where-withal to make any payment up to their high bid.
This is a first blush, blue sky, thought. There are obviously a few details to
be ironed out[1] but the path can be laid out for an auction to be coupled to
IC, where when the auction closes, the winner automatically gets the high amount
(plus shipping) captured from their payment provider.
[1] Like who pays for the authorizations for one, and how to run an auction for
more than 72 hours for another. These are not unsolvable, but need to be thought
thru.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 13:06 | | Subject: | Re: The Best of Times Here: Revisited | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| In Announce, cosmicray writes:
| | In Announce, popsicle writes:
Since you brought up the subject of auctions ... invariably, one of the problems
with running an auction is that the winning buyer may not actually make final
payment. In one sense, that is an administrative hassle (plus it makes the auctions
feel less firm). There is a way out of this, and it is related to a suggestion
I made recently ... bidding could be restricted to those who can provide a payment
form that can be pre-authorized to the amount of their highest proxy bid
(plus shipping).
That does not mean they will be charged that amount, because they could be outbid
and/or they could be high bidder at the close, without reaching maximum. It just
means that the system, combined with the payment providers, have confirmed they
have the where-withal to make any payment up to their high bid.
This is a first blush, blue sky, thought. There are obviously a few details to
be ironed out[1] but the path can be laid out for an auction to be coupled to
IC, where when the auction closes, the winner automatically gets the high amount
(plus shipping) captured from their payment provider.
[1] Like who pays for the authorizations for one, and how to run an auction for
more than 72 hours for another. These are not unsolvable, but need to be thought
thru.
Nita Rae
|
Pre-authorisations could get messy for BL. They could also be a problem with
blocking amounts on the card if multiple bids are made as they always seem to
take days if not weeks to be cancelled. If someone bids $100 and has that pre-authorised,
gets outbid then bids $200 then that needs to be pre-authorised (not just the
difference, as they need to have the maximum amount in one pre-auth transaction
to convert to a real payment if successful). Then they bid $300 and later $400
then go for $500. Not only have BL made 5x pre-authorised transactions which
all need cancelling, but there are $1500 worth of pre-auths on the users card.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Tracyd | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 13:20 | | Subject: | Re: The Best of Times Here: Revisited | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| In Announce, yorbrick writes:
| | In Announce, cosmicray writes:
| | In Announce, popsicle writes:
Since you brought up the subject of auctions ... invariably, one of the problems
with running an auction is that the winning buyer may not actually make final
payment. In one sense, that is an administrative hassle (plus it makes the auctions
feel less firm). There is a way out of this, and it is related to a suggestion
I made recently ... bidding could be restricted to those who can provide a payment
form that can be pre-authorized to the amount of their highest proxy bid
(plus shipping).
That does not mean they will be charged that amount, because they could be outbid
and/or they could be high bidder at the close, without reaching maximum. It just
means that the system, combined with the payment providers, have confirmed they
have the where-withal to make any payment up to their high bid.
This is a first blush, blue sky, thought. There are obviously a few details to
be ironed out[1] but the path can be laid out for an auction to be coupled to
IC, where when the auction closes, the winner automatically gets the high amount
(plus shipping) captured from their payment provider.
[1] Like who pays for the authorizations for one, and how to run an auction for
more than 72 hours for another. These are not unsolvable, but need to be thought
thru.
Nita Rae
|
Pre-authorisations could get messy for BL. They could also be a problem with
blocking amounts on the card if multiple bids are made as they always seem to
take days if not weeks to be cancelled. If someone bids $100 and has that pre-authorised,
gets outbid then bids $200 then that needs to be pre-authorised (not just the
difference, as they need to have the maximum amount in one pre-auth transaction
to convert to a real payment if successful). Then they bid $300 and later $400
then go for $500. Not only have BL made 5x pre-authorised transactions which
all need cancelling, but there are $1500 worth of pre-auths on the users card.
|
Not paying would equate to a NPB just like placing a regular order. Excessive
shipping should still be an option to cancel a winning bid and it should fall
to the next highest bid.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 13:25 | | Subject: | Re: The Best of Times Here: Revisited | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| In Announce, yorbrick writes:
| | In Announce, cosmicray writes:
| | In Announce, popsicle writes:
Since you brought up the subject of auctions ... invariably, one of the problems
with running an auction is that the winning buyer may not actually make final
payment. In one sense, that is an administrative hassle (plus it makes the auctions
feel less firm). There is a way out of this, and it is related to a suggestion
I made recently ... bidding could be restricted to those who can provide a payment
form that can be pre-authorized to the amount of their highest proxy bid
(plus shipping).
That does not mean they will be charged that amount, because they could be outbid
and/or they could be high bidder at the close, without reaching maximum. It just
means that the system, combined with the payment providers, have confirmed they
have the where-withal to make any payment up to their high bid.
This is a first blush, blue sky, thought. There are obviously a few details to
be ironed out[1] but the path can be laid out for an auction to be coupled to
IC, where when the auction closes, the winner automatically gets the high amount
(plus shipping) captured from their payment provider.
[1] Like who pays for the authorizations for one, and how to run an auction for
more than 72 hours for another. These are not unsolvable, but need to be thought
thru.
Nita Rae
|
Pre-authorisations could get messy for BL. They could also be a problem with
blocking amounts on the card if multiple bids are made as they always seem to
take days if not weeks to be cancelled. If someone bids $100 and has that pre-authorised,
gets outbid then bids $200 then that needs to be pre-authorised (not just the
difference, as they need to have the maximum amount in one pre-auth transaction
to convert to a real payment if successful). Then they bid $300 and later $400
then go for $500. Not only have BL made 5x pre-authorised transactions which
all need cancelling, but there are $1500 worth of pre-auths on the users card.
|
Absolutely agree. This would need to be sorted out. At any point, when a specific
buyer is outbid, there is no reason to continue to hold that authorization. If
it can be actively canceled, then that should be done. My impression is that
there are two time frames on an authorization ... one is for 72 hours (3 days)
and the other is for 29 days. I need to research about the inter-relationship
between the two. Stripe documentation suggested that beyond 72 hours, a re-authorization
is required, but also mentioned the 29 days period.
Also it would probably be an excellent move to make sure the powers that be (e.g.
Visa, MC, etc) are OK with this type of usage.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | cosmicray | | Posted: | Oct 21, 2021 14:11 | | Subject: | Re: The Best of Times Here: Revisited | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Announce | |
|
| In Announce, yorbrick writes:
| | In Announce, cosmicray writes:
| | In Announce, popsicle writes:
Since you brought up the subject of auctions ... invariably, one of the problems
with running an auction is that the winning buyer may not actually make final
payment. In one sense, that is an administrative hassle (plus it makes the auctions
feel less firm). There is a way out of this, and it is related to a suggestion
I made recently ... bidding could be restricted to those who can provide a payment
form that can be pre-authorized to the amount of their highest proxy bid
(plus shipping).
That does not mean they will be charged that amount, because they could be outbid
and/or they could be high bidder at the close, without reaching maximum. It just
means that the system, combined with the payment providers, have confirmed they
have the where-withal to make any payment up to their high bid.
This is a first blush, blue sky, thought. There are obviously a few details to
be ironed out[1] but the path can be laid out for an auction to be coupled to
IC, where when the auction closes, the winner automatically gets the high amount
(plus shipping) captured from their payment provider.
[1] Like who pays for the authorizations for one, and how to run an auction for
more than 72 hours for another. These are not unsolvable, but need to be thought
thru.
Nita Rae
|
Pre-authorisations could get messy for BL. They could also be a problem with
blocking amounts on the card if multiple bids are made as they always seem to
take days if not weeks to be cancelled. If someone bids $100 and has that pre-authorised,
gets outbid then bids $200 then that needs to be pre-authorised (not just the
difference, as they need to have the maximum amount in one pre-auth transaction
to convert to a real payment if successful). Then they bid $300 and later $400
then go for $500. Not only have BL made 5x pre-authorised transactions which
all need cancelling, but there are $1500 worth of pre-auths on the users card.
|
I have been reading a VISA document titled "Authorization and Reversal
Processing Requirements for Merchants". In it, they actively encourage something
called incremental authorizations. Auctions, per se, are not mentioned
in this document. But they do talk about using the original authorization in
an incremental fashion.
It also describes Authorization reversals which is what would be used
at the end of the auction (presumably). As they want authorizations to be incremented,
then the question becomes when does an authorization become reversed ? If you
want to hold an existing authorization for the potential of an incremental increase,
then (presumably) the reversal would happen at the close of the auction. The
other path is for the buyer to willingly bail out (because they have been outbid,
and do not wish to have card funds tied up going forward). Call it a requested
reversal.
This actually sounds more palatable than either of us was originally envisioning.
The time frame for doing incremental authorizations appears to be 7 days, for
card not present transactions. As long as that is sufficient for an auction,
it seems like a possible strategy. VISA requires that a transaction be settled
after no more than 7 days.
Nita Rae
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Washington
United Kingdom, England
