Posted by walterbell 1 day ago
The examples he gives are predominantly around giving people the option, while the scams are very much pushing a requirement.
If someone wants you to get a gift card to pay them, and won't take cash or credit? Scam. If you have a gift card already and someone's willing to accept it in lieu of cash? Probably no more likely to be a scam than any other vendor?
In any case, I think this is almost a willful misunderstanding. Not only does it attack the straw man of "no one ever gets legitimately paid in gift cards", but literally the first counterexample, Paysafecard, isn't a gift card!
Most people who want to spend their money just do it using credit card, bank transfer, whatever.
In other words, you spend regular money for company-points, but thereafter you can only spend the company points on things that cannot be transferred. While there is certainly a cynical aspect to locking up customer funds, it makes it a lot easier to handle things like fluctuating currency exchange rates, and simplifies refunds within the points-store.
> As Bits about Money has frequently observed, people who write professionally about money—including professional advocates for financially vulnerable populations—often misunderstand alternative financial services, largely because those services are designed to serve a social class that professionals themselves do not belong to, rarely interact with directly, and do not habitually ask how they pay rent, utilities, or phone bills.
This resonated for me, and reminded me of the way I and my formally-banked and formally-employed colleagues sometimes struggle to wrap our minds around payday lending (sure looks like usury from the security and comfort of a formal banking relationship!), remittances, hawala, pawn shops, Cash App, gift card exchanges, video game economies… for all the normative thinking in the professional classes, people sure do develop a kaleidoscopic array of approaches to storing and transmitting value.
“Just sanction [whoever]” or “just debank [whoever]” sounds to certain circles like an appealing tool to have—the modern equivalent of exile—but I have to imagine it’s probably healthy that such a tactic is hard for a state actor to apply in a totally watertight kind of way.
I do think there ought to be some sort of fallback banking and account denial review process, if we're going to make it that critical to society.
That serves the integrity of the risk-identification system by making it harder to game or evade, but we’re rightly allergic to other forms of justice meted out “because trust me, he’s probably no good…”
[0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/debanking-and-debunki...
I don't know if this has been explored, bit I think it's an interesting follow on to "all or nothing" watertight sanctions.
This is basically what the US did to most of its "makes actual stuff" economy over the past 50yr.
When it comes to banking laws and the like it's not about being watertight. It's about holding enough water that what leaks out is small enough you can crush it with the state jackboot without enough collateral damage to really piss people off and that the cost of circumvention is high enough that you can't make "real money" outside the law at scale.
You have family you care about back in your home country, so you send them money from your better-paid foreign job - what's confusing about that?
Even if you’re such a person in the professional class, who sends money back to their family via formal means, you might not be sensitive to the means informally-employed people use to send money (or value) back to their families.
Any more than it occurs to you to go to a payday lender and pay $5 to get $50 today against your $250 paycheck next week, in order to make rent…
At least 5% (rewards and inconvenience) but closer to 10-15% in my experience.
For a 20% discount on stores I use regularly I’ll get the gift card (usually buy $50 get $10 free).
It's not all that surprising that "just like cash, but less fungible" should have a different valuation than "cash", but there aren't all that many things that mimic cash like that.
They said the CEO by name and texted my number. Of course it was a scam that had nothing to do with my CEO. I wonder how they got my number?
If someone did fall for it, the potential that your employees would spend real money that they wouldn’t get reimbursed for would definitely piss a lot of people off.
Is This Australia’s Most Easily Hacked Gift Card? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBarXDL23hs
of how thieves were abusing gift cards by imaging them in stores, waiting until purchased and "holding" value, then extracting that value with a little bit of cracking bad security
Originally I assumed it was due to customer education/fraud, however no additional signage is posted at the stores doing this. Second thought was people must think these cards are already activated, however there is tons of text stating these things are only activated at POS.
The retailers I mentioned are nationwide. However, they've only recently began to do this, and only in a few locations that I am aware of.
This guy purchased a gift card which turned out to be dodgy, and Apple locked his entire account. So there's definitely some kind of shenanigans possible with the current supply chain.
Source?
They return a previous customer’s transaction a refund to gift card, then take your cash and pocket it. There’s a ton of grifts like that.
https://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/supervision-and-examination...
You can also do stuff like get paid with someone else’s Cash App (like grandma’s) and then buy gift cards with it. If you hire “independent contractors” for casual labor or construction, many of them do that. The gift card transaction is just another CVS/Mobil purchase.
It’s not just tax evasion, sometimes they are avoiding child support or garnishments. Other times folks are just unbanked for some reason. You get blacklisted from banking you do something stupid.
I feel like that needs a "(currently but not for much longer)" caveat[0] to avoid being wildly disingenuous.
[0] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/11/trump-administratio... - "the CFPB [...] anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026.”
I can see if someone didn’t have any money and had a card and wanted to try and sell or exchange it, otherwise? Cash might have some limitations but none that are worse than a gift card.
Instead you can take your cash to any of a large number of retailers and acquire a card that sits outside the tight credit/debit-card regulations. That card, thanks to the wide reach of various multinational corporations, has broad (and cross-border) value and is suitable for electronic exchange. All that in exchange for a small(ish) tax (the price of the card plus whatever discount the recipient/exchange applies to its face value), and less recourse if you’re scammed or you screw up somehow.
Incidentally you might be interested in @patio’s description [0] of Japanese konbini (convenience store) payments. There, your remote payee gives you a transaction number. You take that number to your local convenience store and hand them the cash to complete the otherwise-electronic transaction.
[0] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/payments-in-japan/#:~...
I’m wondering if this is the primary use case and that’s why I don’t really get it? I see the online aspect, but it comes with a whole other set of problems that for most cases it’s hard to imagine are easier to deal with than exchanging cash. But a way to send money across borders without any controls I can see why that might be popular. Hard to tie that back to advice the AARP should be giving though.
In a different direction, giving cash to a partner/vendor/competitor is pretty obvious to many laws as a bribe. Giving gift cards more resembles gifting swag or paying for a meal and is sometimes considered "allowed". Different companies have different views on that loophole, but some companies do take advantage of it. Enough companies at least did at one point that the "CEO is in a high-powered meeting and needs gift cards immediately" came from somewhere and it was probably that, wining and dining partners/vendors/competitors in "legally distinct from but quite resembling bribes".