mduvall

It's a great trend going forward to see companies becoming more open about the code they write, it helps get a third party perspective on what you're building. Balanced has done a good job at documenting and keeping their code clean enough that the barrier to contribution is as low as you can ask for on GH.

I'm not sure '40% higher conversion rates' means anything pertinent. If it directly correlates to a company's revenue, this is fantastic. However, if it also contributes to a higher fraudulent payment rate (say we are funding loans, or performing a transaction where payment fraud tends to be higher), it must be taken into consideration and weigh how much the company will pay for each individual customer support case versus revenue accrued from each conversion.

That aside, customer data here is not only used for simply 'making the payment' as the writer says. This is a huge over-simplification of the problem, the payment gateway for the transaction to detect AVS and CVV is a /last ditch effort/ to catch fraud. The other fields could be used for other services that detect fraud such as ID Analytics, Experian, etc. and ultimately help mitigate credit and fraud risk for the company.

I'm lost - where in the post is the discrimination for being short, and not just having the proper credentials?

I agree here, squinting to read the barely legible text to be condescendingly met with some word that made me do a quick Google query...meh.

This price model will motivate the developers to create products that exactly tailor all the needs of their users, and the users could potentially (and probably will) save money buying a subset of the products they deem necessary. A flat fee will make the developers focus on top X priorities, leaving a segment of the user base possibly out of luck.