• Go to page :
  • 123 4
  • Text Only
huh.
I"ve only used for billpay, no problems yet.

imbatman said:   huh.
I"ve only used for billpay, no problems yet.


Hope it'll last a while for you. If I wanted to utilize the GB, I still could by using SOs' names...once criteria for shutdowns are determined, I might give it a try again.

Oh, yes, it might have something to do with GC loads...I can't get MPs since no RA around here.

I've also only done GC load

imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load

Trying to understand criteria...assuming it's done by 'system' (all algorithm), not a manual review & shutdown (reviewer's mood matters). So far, no clue. There exist a person who far exceeded what I've done and not getting shutdown. So, there has to be something I did they didn't like.

i'd love to know the criteria if you have anything. so far i haven't seen AA on my account, but i just registered wife and have started to ramp it a bit more with a few $500 GCs. previously, i was loading with only $100 and $200 GCs and a moneypak here or there. I also used my personal card for a lot of transactions (probably close to $1000 total). don't think i loaded more than $5k in any month. we'll see if there's any connection.

makinbutter said:   i'd love to know the criteria if you have anything. so far i haven't seen AA on my account, but i just registered wife and have started to ramp it a bit more with a few $500 GCs. previously, i was loading with only $100 and $200 GCs and a moneypak here or there. I also used my personal card for a lot of transactions (probably close to $1000 total). don't think i loaded more than $5k in any month. we'll see if there's any connection.

The only way to come up with the criteria is to share data...but I don't know how useful the data be...there is no guarantee that people are actually reporting the truth...and to detect that, more data are needed. Honestly, I should let it go and never touch it again.

imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load
Please explain what you mean by a "GC load". I'm confused, since if it is what I think it is I fail to see how it could remotely be a factor.

Glitch99 said:   imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load
Please explain what you mean by a "GC load". I'm confused, since if it is what I think it is I fail to see how it could remotely be a factor.


Say, if there is a chance using MP can extend the shutdown. That door is closed. That be OK? Not much is known for the shutdown.

vagrants said:   imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load

Trying to understand criteria...assuming it's done by 'system' (all algorithm), not a manual review & shutdown (reviewer's mood matters). So far, no clue. There exist a person who far exceeded what I've done and not getting shutdown. So, there has to be something I did they didn't like.


I think it has something to do with the number of loads more than the $ value. On FT you reported a pretty high # of loads compared to your total $ value (using $200 and $100 denomination GCs I assume). I've heard that GB has to pay WM a fee for each load, so especially if you did those at a kiosk, one at a time, that might have made your account stand out more.

It would be a fairly simple algorithm for GB: did customer do more than X separate loads within Y time period? Someone loading 1 or 2x $500 at the kiosk in a visit might pass, where someone loading 5 x $200 or 10 x $100 would get flagged. GB's target customers aren't going to have any reason to load more than once during a single trip to WM.

Of course it could also be that GB is manually reviewing these accounts. Everyone getting shut down was part of the Beta (since it hasn't been out of Beta long enough for anyone to run a full statement cycle). It's possible that for the Beta, they are manually reviewing all or a large percentage of the accounts. As their customer base grows, they'll have to rely more on algorithms to flag accounts for review, but part of the Beta process could be figuring out what triggers to look for.

If you've already been burned by GB, I'd wait on using your spouse to set up a new account. Give them a few months to grow their customer base, see what others are able to get away with, and THEN jump in.

Glitch99 said:   imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load
Please explain what you mean by a "GC load". I'm confused, since if it is what I think it is I fail to see how it could remotely be a factor.


I don't think it's a factor. Vagrants mentioned it as a possible factor, loading w visa GC has not been as issue for me.

Mithrin said:   
I think it has something to do with the number of loads more than the $ value. On FT you reported a pretty high # of loads compared to your total $ value (using $200 and $100 denomination GCs I assume). I've heard that GB has to pay WM a fee for each load, so especially if you did those at a kiosk, one at a time, that might have made your account stand out more.

It would be a fairly simple algorithm for GB: did customer do more than X separate loads within Y time period? Someone loading 1 or 2x $500 at the kiosk in a visit might pass, where someone loading 5 x $200 or 10 x $100 would get flagged. GB's target customers aren't going to have any reason to load more than once during a single trip to WM.

Of course it could also be that GB is manually reviewing these accounts. Everyone getting shut down was part of the Beta (since it hasn't been out of Beta long enough for anyone to run a full statement cycle). It's possible that for the Beta, they are manually reviewing all or a large percentage of the accounts. As their customer base grows, they'll have to rely more on algorithms to flag accounts for review, but part of the Beta process could be figuring out what triggers to look for.

If you've already been burned by GB, I'd wait on using your spouse to set up a new account. Give them a few months to grow their customer base, see what others are able to get away with, and THEN jump in.


I was using PrePaids more than GCs. No, I didn't go crazy on the OM deal if that's what you are implying.

That is for 'real' GreenDot PrePaid. $3.74(?). It was at first mistakenly reported by the member. He/she didn't know the difference between GDPP & GB when he/she went to WM to load. He/she heard it's free to load and was surprised he/she was charged. So, he/she reported it. Nobody knows what's happening behind the door for the GoBank. This goes to BB as well...now that many probably switched to GC loads instead of the VR.

Please look into the shutdowns reported on the FT...look for how much others were loading. And, when calculating, assume $500 was used if possible, if not, switch to other domination. One that's done, your argument wins.

If they want to lose money that way, I don't mind. We don't know how many were accepted into the Beta and how many of them were let go...and these customers let go can never return to the GB at least for now...in the future, they may reconsider.

vagrants said:   Mithrin said:   
I think it has something to do with the number of loads more than the $ value. On FT you reported a pretty high # of loads compared to your total $ value (using $200 and $100 denomination GCs I assume). I've heard that GB has to pay WM a fee for each load, so especially if you did those at a kiosk, one at a time, that might have made your account stand out more.

It would be a fairly simple algorithm for GB: did customer do more than X separate loads within Y time period? Someone loading 1 or 2x $500 at the kiosk in a visit might pass, where someone loading 5 x $200 or 10 x $100 would get flagged. GB's target customers aren't going to have any reason to load more than once during a single trip to WM.

Of course it could also be that GB is manually reviewing these accounts. Everyone getting shut down was part of the Beta (since it hasn't been out of Beta long enough for anyone to run a full statement cycle). It's possible that for the Beta, they are manually reviewing all or a large percentage of the accounts. As their customer base grows, they'll have to rely more on algorithms to flag accounts for review, but part of the Beta process could be figuring out what triggers to look for.

If you've already been burned by GB, I'd wait on using your spouse to set up a new account. Give them a few months to grow their customer base, see what others are able to get away with, and THEN jump in.


I was using PrePaids more than GCs. No, I didn't go crazy on the OM deal if that's what you are implying.

That is for 'real' GreenDot PrePaid. $3.74(?). Nobody knows what's happening behind the door for the GoBank.

Please look into the shutdowns reported on the FT...look for how much others were loading. And, when calculating, assume $500 was used if possible, if not, switch to other domination. One that's done, your argument wins.

If they want to lose money that way, I don't mind. We don't know how many were accepted into the Beta and how many of them were let go...and these customers let go can never return to the GB at least for now...in the future, they may reconsider.
the vast majority of my loading has been $100s and $200s. we'll see if i get shut down any time soon.

Glitch99 said:   imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load
Please explain what you mean by a "GC load". I'm confused, since if it is what I think it is I fail to see how it could remotely be a factor.


GC load=Loading using a pin-enabled Visa/MC Gift Card at WM (either cashier or kiosk).

It could be a factor because loading multiple GCs in a row sets up a distinct pattern. GB may or may not be able to distinguish between a cash vs debit load, but 5+ loads within 15 mins isn't "normal" use.

I'm still waiting for my GB debit card to arrive, so my plan is to load it with single $500 cards at a time (when I'm at WM to load BB). Probably once a week as suggested on FT so my pattern could look like loading part of a weekly paycheck. I'll Billpay my mortgage and CC and see what happens. Could also load at a cashier using multiple swipes to load 1K or 1.5K per visit in one transaction to ramp up somewhat.

The other school of thought is since most don't seem to get shut down until after the monthly statement, just go crazy with loads until they shut you down. If you had the ability to move large amounts quickly, you could move more in a one month blaze of glory than in several months of trickling, all the while worried they'll cut you off anyway.

Mithrin said:   
It could be a factor because loading multiple GCs in a row sets up a distinct pattern. GB may or may not be able to distinguish between a cash vs debit load, but 5+ loads within 15 mins isn't "normal" use.

I'm still waiting for my GB debit card to arrive, so my plan is to load it with single $500 cards at a time (when I'm at WM to load BB). Probably once a week as suggested on FT so my pattern could look like loading part of a weekly paycheck. I'll Billpay my mortgage and CC and see what happens. Could also load at a cashier using multiple swipes to load 1K or 1.5K per visit in one transaction to ramp up somewhat.

The other school of thought is since most don't seem to get shut down until after the monthly statement, just go crazy with loads until they shut you down. If you had the ability to move large amounts quickly, you could move more in a one month blaze of glory than in several months of trickling, all the while worried they'll cut you off anyway.


I never done that. 2x load max/day. But, yes, 5x within 15 min don't seem normal...but there aren't data, I can't say.

There were shutdowns before...just magnitude is different this time. Shutdowns reported were at the end of the month...I think it's always been...but I'm 50% sure on this one. Shutdowns before were people who went crazy on the MP loads. I thought I became a loading whore, thus the shutdown; but again, there is a person who far exceeded of what I did and surviving.

Mithrin said:   Glitch99 said:   imbatman said:   I've also only done GC load
Please explain what you mean by a "GC load". I'm confused, since if it is what I think it is I fail to see how it could remotely be a factor.


GC load=Loading using a pin-enabled Visa/MC Gift Card at WM (either cashier or kiosk).

It could be a factor because loading multiple GCs in a row sets up a distinct pattern. GB may or may not be able to distinguish between a cash vs debit load, but 5+ loads within 15 mins isn't "normal" use.

That's what's confusing about all these comments - 5+ loads in 15 minutes causing issues (which is perfectly understandable) would have nothing to do with GCs. The results would be the same if you walked in with 5 $100 bills and loaded each one separately as well....

Glitch99 said:   That's what's confusing about all these comments - 5+ loads in 15 minutes causing issues (which is perfectly understandable) would have nothing to do with GCs. The results would be the same if you walked in with 5 $100 bills and loaded each one separately as well....

That's assuming they can't tell the difference between cash & debit load. Only one member confirmed it at least on our end. And, since I said it there, I say it here. To extend the question, would you see the difference between cash or debit or Mobile Deposit? Yea, probably I get an argument of that takes the usefulness away, but if that's what reduces the shutdown, I'll gladly take that way. If they want to be treated like a real bank, I shall.

Sorry to switch the topic, but while in Beta, I think I tried 3x GC loads and all failed online. I think 2x were US Bank VISA/MC GCs...and I can't remember the 3rd one. That may have something to do with it...if only 'selected' beta people were let go.

vagrants said:   To extend the question, would you see the difference between cash or debit or Mobile Deposit?
Well obviously there's a difference between an in-store WM load and an online mobile check deposit - two completely different interfaces.

Glitch99 said:   vagrants said:   To extend the question, would you see the difference between cash or debit or Mobile Deposit?
Well obviously there's a difference between an in-store WM load and an online mobile check deposit - two completely different interfaces.


Done it? How does it show up? Can you fake it like a pay check deposit?

vagrants said:   Glitch99 said:   vagrants said:   To extend the question, would you see the difference between cash or debit or Mobile Deposit?
Well obviously there's a difference between an in-store WM load and an online mobile check deposit - two completely different interfaces.


Done it? How does it show up? Can you fake it like a pay check deposit?

Are you being belligerent for the sake of being belligerent? Are you seriously asking if you can somehow make sending in a picture of a check look like a card swipe at WM?

Glitch99 said:   Are you being belligerent for the sake of being belligerent? Are you seriously asking if you can somehow make sending in a picture of a check look like a card swipe at WM?

If they don't take a look at carefully on the image on a manual review or something, why does it matter if it's MO or real pay check? Aren't they all be digitized and processed electronically (auto) or individual checks/MOs must go under manual review before they are digitized/processed? If former is true, then as long as I don't set a flag on the auto, I should be able to exploit. I don't know that...do you? And, if you feel how I talk is hostile, I don't know what to say but let's end discussing 'cause that's how I discuss. And, I'm sorry sometimes you or anybody else can't see my points...I connect lots of dots in my head, and I sometimes go ahead/behind of what I should be talking about. Also, I don't describe things well. At the moment, all I care is about how to avoid shutdown. With MO, you can go above the $1.1k limit as long as it doesn't look suspicious...and it can reduce the # of loads if that's what shutting people down...the GB FAQ says Mobile MO deposit OK, but nobody confirmed it yet. And, if there was a problem, would it be caused by MoneyGram MO...it has to be postal MO...I don't know that...if you have done it, you are the first one to report. I just found that a person who far exceeded what I've done hadn't yet had 2 month period...# of loads is back into the list of what not to do.

What? WM ATM swipe reloads show as "Reload Swipe"

brawa said:   What? WM ATM swipe reloads show as "Reload Swipe"

Yes, and supposedly real cash, the paper cash, shows up as Reload Swipe at least on our end.

vagrants said:   Glitch99 said:   Are you being belligerent for the sake of being belligerent? Are you seriously asking if you can somehow make sending in a picture of a check look like a card swipe at WM?

If they don't take a look at carefully on the image on a manual review or something, why does it matter if it's MO or real pay check? Aren't they all be digitized and processed electronically (auto) or individual checks/MOs must go under manual review before they are digitized/processed? So, as long as I don't set a flag on the auto, I should be able to exploit. I don't know that...do you? ...
You just questioned if there was a difference between a WM card swipe and a mobile check deposit, and you got all defensive when I pointed out that obviously there was a difference. Now you respond by rambling on about something completely different....

Glitch99 said:   You just questioned if there was a difference between a WM card swipe and a mobile check deposit, and you got all defensive when I pointed out that obviously there was a difference. Now you respond by rambling on about something completely different....

No, it's my problem describing things. Again, I go through lots of thoughts before I put into words. But, not describing the thoughts well. All of my writings are in a draft...even worse free-flow writing. Once I post it, I start reading it and then modify the hell out. Even then, things are not clear.

Mobile Deposit is another way of trying to exploit. I didn't meant to be defensive. If it appears nothing more than rambling, then not sure what to say, but please think about it and connect dots for yourself so that you can exploit using what' I'm saying. Probably Imabatman can translate me well. The point was really @ WM load = cash load = PIN load = appears the same to us. Mobile Deposit = regular check = MO = Pay Check, does it look about the same? If so, there is a hole to attack.

So, have you used the Mobile Deposit to deposit personal check/MO? Will you please confirm how Mobile Deposit is present to us? I don't even know the description of it. All I know is Reload Swipe.

vagrants said:   Glitch99 said:   You just questioned if there was a difference between a WM card swipe and a mobile check deposit, and you got all defensive when I pointed out that obviously there was a difference. Now you respond by rambling on about something completely different....

No, it's my problem describing things. Again, I go through lots of thoughts before I put into words. But, not describing the thoughts well. All of my writings are in a draft...even worse free-flow writing. Once I post it, I start reading it and then modify the hell out. Even then, things are not clear.

Mobile Deposit is another way of trying to exploit. I didn't meant to be defensive. If it appears nothing more than rambling, then not sure what to say, but please think about it and connect dots for yourself so that you can exploit using what' I'm saying. Probably Imabatman can translate me well. The point was really @ WM load = cash load = PIN load = appears the same to us. Mobile Deposit = regular check = MO = Pay Check, does it look about the same? If so, there is a hole to attack.

So, have you used the Mobile Deposit to deposit personal check/MO? Will you please confirm how Mobile Deposit is present to us? I don't even know the description of it. All I know is Reload Swipe.


Even if GB doesn't notice that your Mobile Deposit is a MO, not a personal check or a paycheck, how does that help? Once you've gotten a MO, why not just deposit into your existing bank account?

Mithrin said:   
Even if GB doesn't notice that your Mobile Deposit is a MO, not a personal check or a paycheck, how does that help? Once you've gotten a MO, why not just deposit into your existing bank account?


I know nothing. Nobody knows at this point in time if even a single swipe load @ WM may get your GB account closed after 2 statement cycle (many were shutdown at the end of a month after 2 statement cycles passed) since the lowest is now $900 with 3x swipe loads @ WM.

Edit: I was thinking along a line of MO deposits biweekly to fake pay checks assuming # is all they care. And, then swipe loads a couple of times before next fake pay check deposit. But, that's not gonna work according to the FT. This product does not like load-load-load-pay type of sequences. Load-pay-load-pay type of sequences works or acceptable.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014