Managed Payment Methods.

[vettefever17]

After being paranoid and registering for MP in different ways, I have compiled every way I have registered accounts. Will these accounts get checked upon and flagged, maybe. But I have done the following angles of registration:

1. Matched bank name, sole prop, matched ssn beneficial owner. (complete matches)

2. Non-matched bank name to account name, sole prop, stealth address- real name.

3. matched bank with beneficial owner ssn, EIN- LLC different name.

Whether a bot or person will reconcile these differences, I do not know. I TRULY believe eBay has assigned bots to do the work, and humans are not digging through the data. Basically, you will only be discovered just like a bot crawling ads or you raise red flags.

If you think about it, imagine the workforce it would require to dig through every single MP sign-up over the whole eBay database. It would take thousands of humans to plug the data in for years. Even if they programmed a system to scan this information, would they REALLY want to do that? I'm leaning towards, no.

Let's check the stats of that argument. Say, eBay has 25 million active sellers. 1 percent of the active users are stealth. 250,000 accounts. If those 250,000 accounts made just 100 dollars each per quarter, that would equal 75 million in revenue. This would scream on a stockholder's quarterly report if they disappeared.

[Hank]

By my calculations 250,000 stealthers at 100 a quarter is 100 million p.a not 75.

In any event, there are 19 million seller account apparently. Lets say 0.5% are stealthers, that's 95,000 stealth accounts. Lets run with your $100 per quarter revenue, that a total of 38 million. Lets say the fee income is 12%, that a lost income of 4.5 million. Probably miles off the true figure but we're all guessing here.

Regardless of the numbers, If I was a shareholder then I'd happily forfeit this to rid the site of that 0.5% which caused a disproportionate amount of workload, dodgy sales, counterfeits, dodgy codes etc not forgetting the benefit in buyer confidence and market confidence and credibility. You also keep law enforcement scrutiny at bay.

They don't want low grade sellers and rightly so, look at the Amazon approach.

If you are a decent person selling decent wares and were wronged by ebay then you'll get back. A second or even third good quality 'normal' account is easy.

Ebay want rid of the scammers, fraudsters and low grade crooks. So do I, so do the true stealthers as defined by this forum if you take your selling seriously.

[slokor]

Originally Posted by Hank

By my calculations 250,000 stealthers at 100 a quarter is 100 million p.a not 75.

In any event, there are 19 million seller account apparently. Lets say 0.5% are stealthers, that's 95,000 stealth accounts. Lets run with your $100 per quarter revenue, that a total of 38 million. Lets say the fee income is 12%, that a lost income of 4.5 million. Probably miles off the true figure but we're all guessing here.

Regardless of the numbers, If I was a shareholder then I'd happily forfeit this to rid the site of that 0.5% which caused a disproportionate amount of workload, dodgy sales, counterfeits, dodgy codes etc not forgetting the benefit in buyer confidence and market confidence and credibility. You also keep law enforcement scrutiny at bay.

They don't want low grade sellers and rightly so, look at the Amazon approach.

If you are a decent person selling decent wares and were wronged by ebay then you'll get back. A second or even third good quality 'normal' account is easy.

Ebay want rid of the scammers, fraudsters and low grade crooks. So do I, so do the true stealthers as defined by this forum if you take your selling seriously.

I wholeheartedly agree (not with the figures necessarily but certainly with the general sentiment of the post).

[murdered_by_ebay]

Originally Posted by Hank

By my calculations 250,000 stealthers at 100 a quarter is 100 million p.a not 75.

In any event, there are 19 million seller account apparently. Lets say 0.5% are stealthers, that's 95,000 stealth accounts. Lets run with your $100 per quarter revenue, that a total of 38 million. Lets say the fee income is 12%, that a lost income of 4.5 million. Probably miles off the true figure but we're all guessing here.

Regardless of the numbers, If I was a shareholder then I'd happily forfeit this to rid the site of that 0.5% which caused a disproportionate amount of workload, dodgy sales, counterfeits, dodgy codes etc not forgetting the benefit in buyer confidence and market confidence and credibility. You also keep law enforcement scrutiny at bay.

They don't want low grade sellers and rightly so, look at the Amazon approach.

If you are a decent person selling decent wares and were wronged by ebay then you'll get back. A second or even third good quality 'normal' account is easy.

Ebay want rid of the scammers, fraudsters and low grade crooks. So do I, so do the true stealthers as defined by this forum if you take your selling seriously.

yet a lot of sellers have disappeared from amazon , the selection went down , prices for many items are substantially higher than on ebay.

the problem on ebay is not stealthers , this is them supending people randomly without checking documents etc. , even amazon check documents and on ebay new accounts get suspended randomly with lots of legitimate people caught up. same for active sellers , lots of suspensions for nothing incl. many legitimate accounts. all this happens because ebay do not want to do real research on sellers and allow their employees to suspend as they like

[Steveo036940]

To think EBay is losing money by ridding itself of stealthers is just ludicrous. If 1% of eBay Stealth sellers, (25 million in all) paying $100 in fees per month go away... EBay revenues remain the same! NO LOSS to ebay or their shareholders.... NOT a penny.
How? Consumers are still buying the same amount of goods from the 99% of the sellers still remaining. Goods still sell, fees are fees regardless who's selling. Unless the stealth accounts are selling something really unique that nobody else sells (unlikely), consumers simply buy from other sellers.
Here's a fact that only the smart people will understand:
The fewer sellers ebay has, the more profit they earn. It pays for them to suspend and rid themselves of sellers, both stealth and legit.
How?
It's simple math. 100 sellers sell gidgets on ebay. The high competition forces sellers to sell them at $10 each. Ebay earns $1 per gidget sold on their platform.
Now, EBay suspends some of the gidget sellers, therefore it creates less competition and allows sellers to sell these at $11 each.
Ebay's profits increased 10% to $1.10 each. If consumers purchase a million gidgets a month site wide, that's $100,000 in extra profits per month for ebay...just in gidget sales alone.
Shareholders are happy with higher revenues which result in higher stock prices, and EBay's loyalty is to them, NEVER to their sellers, so don't ever think they'll ever care about you. You'll cost them nothing if you go away.

[vettefever17]

Sorry for the wrong figure. I was a few deep in some decent whiskey. But I still stand by my argument. Ebay DOES wrongfully kill sellers from a bot not being able to weigh a situation past 1s and 0s. Do I condone scammers and shady stealth? Absolutely not.

Just as stated above, inflationary pressures come about from demand and fewer sellers. It is not an efficient market. Why? They killed off some decent businesses. (ie. Ebay acting just like Amazon)

Anyone that thinks that every single dime doesn't matter to eBay's situation is playing a blind eye. Why did they go to MP? To lean up. Yes, they have a footprint online as an original marketplace. But Amazon could easily acquire them. What would stop them? Amazon doesn't own an auction house-style business as far as I know.

On another note, eBay's buyers are VERY specific. They are usually a little more bargain-conscious. Amazon caters to royal treatment and ease of use. If eBay doesn't have a ton of offers and price war sellers, then the buyers will eventually just leave eBay for Amazon and join the masses. So, every seller and sale technically counts for eBay. They are no longer the lone wolf that rules the pack. Let's just be frank, eBay is now the red-headed step child in the grand scheme of things.

[rsot]

Originally Posted by vettefever17

On another note, eBay's buyers are VERY specific. They are usually a little more bargain-conscious. Amazon caters to royal treatment and ease of use. If eBay doesn't have a ton of offers and price war sellers, then the buyers will eventually just leave eBay for Amazon and join the masses. So, every seller and sale technically counts for eBay. They are no longer the lone wolf that rules the pack. Let's just be frank, eBay is now the red-headed step child in the grand scheme of things.

Amazon really changed the game, true

[bjammin]

Originally Posted by Hank

By my calculations 250,000 stealthers at 100 a quarter is 100 million p.a not 75.

In any event, there are 19 million seller account apparently. Lets say 0.5% are stealthers, that's 95,000 stealth accounts. Lets run with your $100 per quarter revenue, that a total of 38 million. Lets say the fee income is 12%, that a lost income of 4.5 million. Probably miles off the true figure but we're all guessing here.

Regardless of the numbers, If I was a shareholder then I'd happily forfeit this to rid the site of that 0.5% which caused a disproportionate amount of workload, dodgy sales, counterfeits, dodgy codes etc not forgetting the benefit in buyer confidence and market confidence and credibility. You also keep law enforcement scrutiny at bay.

They don't want low grade sellers and rightly so, look at the Amazon approach.

If you are a decent person selling decent wares and were wronged by ebay then you'll get back. A second or even third good quality 'normal' account is easy.

Ebay want rid of the scammers, fraudsters and low grade crooks. So do I, so do the true stealthers as defined by this forum if you take your selling seriously.

I disagree that they want to get rid of fraudsters. If they did then they should start with all the foreign drop shippers who say they ship from California (for the most part) with a 2 week delivery time and usually have less than 99% positive feedback. If the foreign drop shippers, who claim to ship from the US, are easy for me to spot then it should be cake for eBay..... if they cared

[vettefever17]

Originally Posted by bjammin

I disagree that they want to get rid of fraudsters. If they did then they should start with all the foreign drop shippers who say they ship from California (for the most part) with a 2 week delivery time and usually have less than 99% positive feedback. If the foreign drop shippers, who claim to ship from the US, are easy for me to spot then it should be cake for eBay..... if they cared

Kudos, to this observation. eBay clearly knows where revenue comes from. Let's be honest, if they could get away with it, the VERO program would not even exist, it is a legal cop-out. eBay knows EXACTLY what goes on on their platform. They make it the ip rights owner's job to remove it as they throw their hands up as if they didn't know.

Let's not get started on the massive amount of Chinese sellers they know are diluting the market and not following policy.

In a nutshell, eBay doesnt have enough MEGA sellers or "immune sellers" to support their ecosystem of sales. They know Amazon or a big retailer could swallow them. Why would anyone shop on eBay if it is exactly like Amazon with slower shipping. The math and logic does not match.