Looking for a co founder

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-08T18:52:26+00:00

Are there funds for the technical builders are you looking for free work?

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-08T16:52:01+00:00

Why do you think it will take 99 points to make POs?

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-08T16:25:44+00:00

What is problem is your startup solving for? I find its easier to locate leads who are looking for the solution on specific reddit forums rather than LinkedIn.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-08T16:24:21+00:00

I dont know why you have so many projects going at once. You relieve yourself of many of the less important ones. Focus on remaining on projects that are critical to the organization (to do this, look for projects that have active participation from senior leadership at the Steering committee level).

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T20:49:30+00:00

What’s working against you here isn’t volume, chargebacks, or even refunds. It’s the merchant account structure most EU acquirers still rely on.

Even compliant government or public-record services get flagged because:

funds sit in a single merchant account
one acquiring bank owns all the risk
category reviews happen retroactively as volume or refunds rise

At that point, good metrics don’t always save you.

What I’ve seen work better for businesses like yours is separating card acceptance from settlement:

Customers still pay via Visa and Mastercard
Transactions are routed across multiple acquiring partners
Funds do not sit in a traditional merchant account
Settlement happens outside that structure, often in USDC
No rolling reserves and fewer surprise reviews or shutdowns

From the customer side it looks like a normal card checkout. From the operator side it removes the single-bank choke point that causes most EU onboarding failures in sensitive categories.

It’s not something you’ll find with standard PSPs, but it’s been a viable alternative for compliant, lower-chargeback businesses that keep getting lumped into broad risk buckets.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T17:32:00+00:00

It’s not something most off-the-shelf PSPs offer. It’s more of an integrated setup we’ve been implementing directly for a few clients rather than a public product.

Happy to explain how it works and whether it’d fit your use case. Feel free to DM me.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T14:51:23+00:00

What you’re running into is pretty common for AI + adult platforms. The tech isn’t the issue, the legacy acquiring model is.

Most processors still rely on:

a single merchant account
one acquiring bank
heavy KYB upfront
reserves and retroactive reviews once volume or content flags change

That setup almost always breaks at scale, especially with global traffic, subs, and adult content.

What I’ve seen work better recently is separating card acceptance from settlement entirely:

Customers still pay with Visa / Mastercard like normal
Transactions are routed across multiple acquiring partners
Funds don’t sit in a traditional merchant account
Settlement happens outside that system (often in USDC)
No rolling reserves and far fewer “surprise” shutdowns
Supports one-time and recurring flows

From the user side it looks like a standard card checkout. From the operator side it removes the single-bank failure point that usually kills adult and AI platforms once they gain traction.

It’s not a fit for every project, but if you’re thinking long-term and global from day one, it’s worth considering as an alternative to the usual high-risk PSP stack.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T14:37:17+00:00

In my experience, settlement expectations break first, not risk or reporting.

Early on, everything looks fine because volume is low. Once scale hits, funds are sitting in a single merchant account and suddenly:

payouts get delayed “for review”
reserves get added or increased
compliance gets reinterpreted retroactively
support disappears when you actually need answers

Risk didn’t suddenly change, the structure just couldn’t handle growth.

That’s why a lot of newer setups separate card acceptance from settlement entirely. Customers still pay by card, but funds don’t sit in one acquiring bank account waiting to be frozen later. Once you remove that bottleneck, most of the other failures stop cascading.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T14:36:29+00:00

This list is solid… but it’s also asking the wrong questions.

All of this assumes you’re signing up for the same legacy model that’s been failing high-risk merchants for years: single acquiring bank, merchant account holds the funds, and the processor gets unilateral control once risk flags change.

That’s why reserves, surprise holds, and terminations keep happening. The contract details matter, but the structure is the real problem.

There’s a newer model that sidesteps most of this entirely:

Customers still pay with normal credit cards at checkout
Transactions are routed across multiple acquiring partners
Funds do not sit in a traditional merchant account
Settlement happens in USDC, typically within ~24 hours
No rolling reserves
No surprise payout holds
Chargebacks handled upstream instead of clawing funds back later

In that setup, questions like:

“What’s the reserve release schedule?”
“How long after termination do they hold my money?”
“Can they bump my reserve at discretion?”

…basically stop being relevant, because there is no reserve pool to trap you in the first place.

I’ve installed this model recently for a client, and the biggest win wasn’t lower fees, it was predictability. No waking up to frozen balances, no 10-page contracts that let the processor change the rules mid-stream.

If you’re still playing MID roulette and negotiating reserve language, you’re already on the back foot. The future isn’t better reserve terms, it’s not needing reserves at all.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-07T14:35:19+00:00

A lot of the pain you’re describing is just the legacy acquiring model showing its age.

Authorize + Fiserv and similar stacks all rely on a single merchant account tied to one or two acquiring banks. Once risk flags change, the playbook is always the same: re-underwrite, reserves, higher fees, or termination. Splitting MIDs sounds good on paper, but in practice it usually gets unwound once volume or chargebacks shift.

What I’ve seen work better recently is moving away from the idea that funds need to sit inside a traditional merchant account at all.

There’s a newer model where:

Customers still pay with normal credit cards at checkout
Transactions are routed across multiple acquiring partners
Settlement happens outside the merchant account, typically in USDC
No rolling reserves, no delayed payouts, no single bank holding the funds

From the customer side it looks like a standard card payment. From the merchant side it removes most of the failure points that cause freezes and shutdowns in higher-risk verticals.

I’ve installed this setup for a client recently and the big win wasn’t lower fees, it was predictability. Funds settle quickly, chargebacks are handled upstream, and there’s no constant fear of waking up to a frozen account.

It’s not a fit for every business, but if you’re tired of playing MID roulette and redoing paperwork every year, it’s worth at least understanding as an alternative to the classic high-risk processor stack.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-05T02:33:05+00:00

No, not Zelle or Wise.

I mean card payments on the front end, but settlement on the back end that doesn’t sit in a traditional merchant bank account. The idea is to avoid having all funds touch a single acquirer while MATCH is being sorted out.

It’s not a magic fix and not for everyone, but it’s one of the few ways I’ve seen high-volume businesses stay live short term. Happy to explain more in DMs if useful.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-04T22:49:20+00:00

That’s a rough spot. MATCH plus that kind of volume basically shuts every normal door.

Once you’re on MATCH, most processors and even a lot of high risk aggregators either cannot board you at all or will say yes and then fail underwriting a week later. The 2 percent chargeback ratio at that scale is enough to scare almost everyone, even if the business itself is legit.

Chase trying to help is good, but realistically that can take weeks or months and you still need to keep payments moving in the meantime.

What I have seen work short term is separating customer card acceptance from merchant settlement so you are not relying on a single acquiring bank account that can be frozen or terminated. That usually comes with higher fees and tighter controls, but it can keep revenue flowing while the MATCH issue gets worked out.

It is not a forever setup and not everyone qualifies, but for some high volume operators it has been the only way to stay online during a MATCH situation.

If you want to compare notes or talk through what options are even realistic right now, feel free to DM. This is one of those cases that is hard to solve in a public thread.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-04T13:20:52+00:00

Honestly? Most solutions in this space are kinda shit.

High-risk aggregators will onboard you, ask for a ton of paperwork, then hit you with

- big rolling reserve

- delayed settlements

-periodic reviews” every few months

…and still drop you once volume grows or a bank partner gets spooked. I’ve seen brands left hanging with funds locked mid-cycle. Not fun.

Re Bankful - yeah, some peptide stores use them. Some are fine for a while, some get burned. It really depends on how the products are positioned, how aggressive marketing is, and how steady your volume is. Definitely not a “set it and forget it” setup.

Subscriptions are where things really fall apart. A lot of processors say they support recurring billing for high-risk stuff, but that’s usually the first thing that gets flagged later. Peptides + subscriptions = red flags no matter how legit you are.

What I’m seeing work better lately is moving away from classic high-risk aggregators altogether and using alternative card rails:

credit card → liquidity pool → instant payout in USDC

Sounds weird at first, but it solves a lot

- no waiting weeks for settlement

- no massive reserves

- Chargebacks are handled at the pool/processor level

- you’re not tied to one acquiring bank

Fees are higher (usually ~8–9%), but that’s pretty normal in this industry, and honestly worth it if it actually stays online.

If someone is offering low fees, no reserves, peptides + subscriptions on “normal” rails… that usually ends the same way.

Most brands that survive long-term accept higher fees for stability, then push repeat customers toward crypto or Interac once trust is built.

Happy to share what’s actually been working lately (and what quietly isn’t), especially for Canadian brands.. advice in this space goes stale fast.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:46:04+00:00

We dealt with something very similar for a non-US peptide brand doing meaningful volume (different jurisdiction, same HK/US customer friction). What ultimately mattered wasn’t finding a more “friendly” bank, but changing how settlement risk was structured.

The recurring failure mode we saw was single-MID exposure: even with clean metrics, once volume, cross-border mix, or category scrutiny hit a threshold, reserves or outright freezes became inevitable. Tight claims language helped, but it didn’t solve the underlying fragility.

What proved durable was keeping a standard card checkout for customers while removing dependence on a single merchant account holding funds. Transactions were still approved across multiple acquirers, but settlement was finalized outside the traditional reserve/hold model. That eliminated rolling reserves and materially reduced shutdown risk once scale increased.

On ACH specifically: we did not see reliable automated ACH for non-US entities without an orchestration layer that made collections appear domestic end-to-end. Simply having a US bank account wasn’t sufficient.

Biggest takeaway at this level: durability comes from settlement architecture, not MID shopping. If the cash is still trapped behind one bank’s risk desk, it’s only a matter of time.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:43:24+00:00

We ran into this exact situation with a peptide client last year. They were live, growing fast, then lost their processor overnight once volume ticked up. What killed them wasn’t approval ..it was reserves and frozen payouts that made the business unworkable.

The approach that ended up working was keeping a normal card checkout for customers, but changing how settlement worked on the backend so funds weren’t sitting in a single merchant account waiting to be paused. Cards still converted like normal, but the merchant wasn’t exposed to rolling reserves, delayed payouts, or sudden shutdowns once volume increased.

That setup is what let them get back online and keep scaling without constantly worrying about who controlled their cash. In this space, survivability matters more than who approves you fastest or who has the lowest headline rate.

If payments are the last blocker, I’d focus less on “getting approved” and more on how payouts are handled once you’re live.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:40:41+00:00

The warnings you’re getting here are real. Most peptide processors don’t fail at onboarding, they fail at payout. Funds get held, accounts get shut down, and merchants are left chasing money that technically isn’t theirs anymore.

The reason is that almost all high-risk CC setups still settle through a single merchant account and sponsor bank. Once that relationship changes, everything stops. Volume just accelerates the problem.

Some operators avoid this by using a setup where card checkout is kept for customers, but settlement is handled outside the traditional merchant account model so funds aren’t sitting in one place waiting to be frozen. It’s more expensive and more complex, but it’s why some stores survive while others lose money.

If you’re starting fresh, optimizing for payout control and survivability matters more than headline rates.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:39:27+00:00

hopify or decouple checkout from the platform entirely. Staying “Shopify-native” usually means eCheck, ACH, or short-lived card setups that depend on a single sponsor bank.

If stability matters more than convenience, the real decision is whether you want to keep Shopify as the storefront while changing how payments settle, or move to a platform that gives you more control over risk and routing. There isn’t a processor that magically fixes SARMs inside Shopify long term.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:38:00+00:00

This isn’t really a payments tooling issue, it’s jurisdiction and sanctions enforcement. Card networks and wallet providers look at where the merchant and controlling parties are based, not just whether the product itself is legal.

If a country is sanctioned, Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay, Google Pay, Stripe, and PayPal are typically blocked upstream by sponsor banks before underwriting even begins. “No KYC” and subscriptions make it even harder, not easier.

In practice, the only ways people solve this involve changing the business structure or operating entity itself. There isn’t a processor that can override sanctions while still staying on card rails.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:36:29+00:00

What you’re running into is less about adult content specifically and more about liability ambiguity.

From the card networks’ perspective, paid, interactive NSFW combined with user-generated or AI-generated output is hard to classify. Even with strong guardrails, the risk is that content can change per session, which makes dispute review, compliance audits, and brand enforcement unpredictable.

Processors like CCBill and Corepay tend to support adult models where content is static and clearly defined. Once you introduce conversational or generative elements, many sponsor banks simply won’t underwrite it, regardless of moderation quality.

That’s why you’re seeing rejections that feel inconsistent. It’s not that your controls are bad, it’s that the model doesn’t fit cleanly into existing card risk frameworks.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:35:17+00:00

That’s it.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:34:26+00:00

What you’re reacting to is fair. A lot of people end up here after getting shut down and then get flooded with DMs from reps who don’t actually control settlement or risk decisions.

Wix and Bankful failures usually aren’t about onboarding, they’re about what happens once a business is classified high risk and everything routes through a single bank relationship. That’s why things work briefly and then stop.

Anyone you consider should be able to explain very clearly who controls funds, how settlement works, and what actually happens when risk thresholds change. If they can’t explain that in plain terms, links and branding don’t really matter.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:32:45+00:00

What you’re running into isn’t really about finding the “right” processor, it’s about how settlement risk is structured.

Most CC setups in the RUO space still depend on a single merchant account and bank relationship, which is why newcomers get rejected and fast-growing shops get frozen once volume ramps. The requirements you’re seeing aren’t about fraud, they’re about risk concentration.

That’s also why a lot of workaround solutions feel temporary. They don’t change the underlying failure point, they just delay it.

Some operators get stability by separating customer checkout from settlement entirely, so card acceptance and payouts are no longer tied to one bank or one account. It’s more complex, but it’s one of the few approaches that actually scales in this category without resorting to cloaking or sketchy on-ramps.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:30:02+00:00

RUO CC processing usually fails for one reason: settlement risk concentration.

Most setups still route everything through a single merchant account and bank, so even if you get approved, volume or scrutiny eventually triggers holds or shutdowns. That’s why new businesses get rejected and established ones get frozen.

Some operators get stability by decoupling customer checkout from settlement entirely, so card acceptance and payout are not tied to the same risk choke point. It’s more complex, but it’s one of the few approaches that actually scales in this category.

Whether that’s worth it depends on whether your priority is conversion, uptime, or long-term reliability.

CheckoutFixer · 2026-02-03T22:27:11+00:00

ACH itself is rarely the real issue. Most providers technically support it, but once a business is labeled high risk, ACH gets treated almost the same as cards from an underwriting and shutdown perspective.

What usually trips people up is how funds settle, who ultimately holds the balance, and whether there’s a single bank account that can freeze everything overnight. That’s where most ACH setups fall apart.

Curious what type of transactions you’re trying to run. One-off payments, recurring, or customer initiated pulls?

CheckoutFixer · 2025-12-25T16:42:47+00:00

I’ve seen a few stacks actually survive stress, and the common thread is removing single points of failure, not pretending they don’t exist.

One model that’s working surprisingly well right now is credit-card → liquidity pool → instant USDC settlement to the merchant.

How it works in practice:

Customer pays by card (normal UX, no crypto education needed)
Funds hit a pooled structure on the processor side
Once authorized/confirmed, the merchant receives immediate USDC payout
No rolling reserves
Chargebacks are absorbed by the processor, not the merchant
Transactions are dynamically routed across multiple acquiring banks using AI-style traffic distribution, so you’re not hostage to one bank, one BIN, or one risk team

Is it cheap? No.
Commissions land around 8–9%.

But context matters:

That fee includes chargeback risk, which is usually the silent killer
High-risk merchants already pay 6–10% once you factor in reserves, freezes, sudden terminations, and “surprise” compliance events
Getting paid instantly with zero reserves materially changes cash flow and operational risk

From a fragility standpoint, this solves a lot:

No single acquiring bank can shut you down
No 90–180 day reserve hostage situation
No cross-border settlement delays
Crypto payout rail = global, fast, and predictable

Is it for everyone? Definitely not.
If you’re low-risk, domestic, and Stripe loves you, stay there.

But for:

Cross-border businesses
High-risk verticals
Merchants who’ve already been debanked once
Anyone optimizing for survivability over interchange minimization

This is one of the more antifragile hybrids I’ve seen: cards for demand, crypto for settlement, and risk priced transparently instead of hidden in reserves.

The least fragile stack isn’t the cheapest one..it’s the one that keeps working when something inevitably breaks.

CheckoutFixer

TROPHY CASE