Paypal Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Paypal Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  Daniel (@Daniel3it2) reported 8 minutes ago

  @sassyasian_ I’m never going to leave you my queen pumping mindlessly into your PayPal is all that matters please use take my logins down as well

• 
  Arez (@MageArez) reported 10 minutes ago

  @JermainePercins @stripe @PayPal The cause of this was when I was doing about $500,000 revenue monthly I ran into horrible supply manufacture issues that caused my dispute rate to spike to 5%+ for an extended time.

• 
  Bands💰 (@chakidbest29) reported 12 minutes ago

  Most people would have taken the money and slowed down. Musk did the opposite. He put around $12 million into his next company, X. com, an online financial services business. X. com eventually merged with Confinity, which had created PayPal. In 2002, eBay bought PayPal for $1.5 billion in stock. Musk’s share was roughly $175 million. Instead of retiring, he put much of his money into three extremely risky ideas: SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity.

• 
  Peter (@PeterILNL2) reported 12 minutes ago

  @414magyarbirds Folks, will you fix your donation channels? PayPal and the donation page on your website aren't working for me.

• 
  Hanuska (@Hannuska2109) reported 12 minutes ago

  PART 5 — CREDIBILITY ENDORSEMENT Credibility endorsement happens when the reputation or authority of one person, organization or group is allowed to strengthen the credibility of somebody else — without necessarily verifying the thing for which that credibility is being used. It does not require dishonesty. It can happen entirely in good faith. And in an online fundraising community built heavily upon personal recommendations, it can happen remarkably easily. __________________________________________________ WHO DECIDES WHO IS CREDIBLE? Spend enough time in the pro-Ukraine fundraising world on X and you begin to recognize the signals. Trusted fundraiser. Scambuster. Investigator. Vetted. Verified. Then come the associations. Known fundraisers. Military units. Soldiers. Commanders. Charities. Established organisations. Prominent accounts. Each association can add another layer of reassurance. And eventually a perfectly reasonable human shortcut develops: ---------------------------------------------------------- “PEOPLE I TRUST TRUST THIS PERSON.” There is nothing irrational about that. None of us can independently investigate everybody we encounter. The danger comes when: “People I trust this person” quietly becomes: “THIS PERSON HAS BEEN VERIFIED.” Those are not the same thing. TOONIE TUESDAY Consider Lorelei. Toonie Tuesday publicly promoted a fundraiser involving Lorelei and described her as: “THE ULTIMATE SCAMBUSTER.” That is useful contemporaneous evidence of how Lorelei was being presented to the community. An established fundraising initiative wasn't merely interacting with her. It was publicly attaching a description to her: Scambuster. That word carries an implication. A scambuster identifies scams. A scambuster investigates questionable people. A scambuster is somebody whose judgement about potential fraud should presumably carry weight. But it isn't a professional qualification. There is no examination required to become a Twitter scambuster. No licence. No regulatory body. No published evidential standard somebody must satisfy before adopting the description. Yet when an established fundraising initiative publicly describes somebody as “the ultimate scambuster,” its own reputation inevitably adds weight to that description. -------------------------------------------------------- CREDIBILITY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED. That doesn't mean Toonie Tuesday did anything improper. It demonstrates the mechanism. -------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PERPETUA @AndrewPerpetua Andrew Perpetua provides an even clearer example — because he has publicly described how the same mechanism operated around Dmytro. According to Andrew, he was initially: “HIGHLY SUS” of Dmytro. That matters. Andrew wasn't describing blind trust. He had doubts. So he did what most reasonable people would consider sensible: He asked people he trusted. According to Andrew, he asked numerous people in the Ukrainian military about Dmytro. And: “SEVERAL VERY ENTHUSIASTICALLY SAID HE WAS LEGIT.” So Andrew supported him. Then the allegations exploded. And Andrew was angry. Not merely because of what was being alleged about Dmytro. He was angry at people who, in his view, subsequently behaved as though Dmytro's problems had always been obvious. His earlier post makes that frustration unmistakable: “If you thought he was a fraud, you should have said so.” That presents us with an extraordinarily important question. WHAT WAS ANDREW SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE? He had doubts & checked. People he considered credible vouched for Dmytro. He adjusted his opinion accordingly. The weakness wasn't necessarily Andrew's judgement. The weakness was the verification mechanism itself. Because Andrew had not established: “Dmytro's fundraising has been independently financially verified.” What he had actually established was: “PEOPLE I TRUST SAY DMYTRO IS LEGIT.” Again: Those are not the same thing. WHO VERIFIED THE VERIFIERS? Suppose a Ukrainian soldier tells Andrew: “Dmytro is legitimate. He helped my unit.” The soldier may be telling the absolute truth. Perhaps Dmytro delivered a vehicle. Perhaps he delivered equipment. Perhaps he personally risked his life doing it. That establishes something meaningful. But did that soldier examine Dmytro's PayPal records? Did they reconcile donations against purchases? Did they establish where every vehicle originated? Did they determine whether an asset was donated before money was subsequently raised for it? Probably not. So the soldier can be completely honest. Andrew can be completely reasonable in relying upon them. Dmytro can genuinely have helped that soldier. And yet the financial question can remain completely unanswered. Nobody necessarily lied. THE CREDIBILITY SIMPLY TRAVELLED FURTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE. ---------------------------------------------------- THIS IS WHY HINDSIGHT MATTERS Once allegations become widely accepted, reputation can change astonishingly quickly. People who were once publicly trusted become people whom: “Everybody knew” couldn't be trusted. People who once vouched for somebody remember their doubts more clearly than their endorsements. Old warnings are rediscovered. Old associations become uncomfortable. And eventually history can begin to look much cleaner than it actually was. That is why contemporary posts matter. They tell us what people were saying before everyone knew what they now say everybody knew. Andrew's posts matter for precisely that reason. They preserve the uncomfortable middle: “I WAS SUSPICIOUS. I ASKED. PEOPLE VOUCHED FOR HIM. I BELIEVED THEM.” That is far more informative than hindsight. -------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL ASHER Another voice from within the broader community expressed the underlying problem remarkably well: “THAT'S THE WRONG DEFAULT SETTING FOR A COMMUNITY THAT OUGHT TO ACT ON EVIDENCE IT HAS.” That sentence takes us beyond Dmytro, Lorelei, Andrew or Toonie Tuesday. Because ultimately this isn't simply a problem with individuals. IT IS A SYSTEM PROBLEM. A community raising significant amounts of humanitarian money inevitably requires trust. But trust cannot become its verification system. Reputation is not verification. Association is not verification. Endorsement is not verification. And neither is a title somebody has acquired within an online community. --------------------------------------------------------- REPUTATION SHOULD TELL US WHERE TO START — NOT WHERE TO STOP A fundraiser with years of successful deliveries deserves to have that history considered. A volunteer trusted by soldiers deserves to have that considered. An organisation with a strong track record deserves to have that considered. But when somebody asks a specific factual question: How much was raised? What was purchased? What did it cost? Who paid for it? Where did it come from? Who received it? the answer cannot be: “LOOK WHO TRUSTS ME.” That answers a different question. And this is why credibility washing matters. Because the people lending their credibility may be completely honest. The person receiving that credibility may have genuinely earned much of their reputation. The association itself may be completely legitimate. The mistake happens when that credibility is allowed to prove something it never actually verified. So perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. Not: “WHO DO WE TRUST?” but: “WHAT CAN WE VERIFY?” That standard applies to Dmytro, Lorelei, people investigating and it applies to us. --------------------------------------------------------- Trust should make verification easier. It should never make verification unnecessary. ---------------------------------------------------------

• 
  JakeOnGrowth (@jakeongrowth) reported 14 minutes ago

  I've only ever had one job in my life. It lasted a few months, and I quit on the spot when I was 17. A week before, £3,000 had landed in my PayPal account. At the time I was working a few hours a week at Morrisons for about £180 a month. Stacking shelves, standing on the till. Then I made almost 17x that in a week from something I built myself. On my own time, with nothing but my phone and an idea. So I stood there doing the maths in my head, walked up to my manager and quit on the spot. No notice. No plan for what came next. To this day, that's still the only job I've ever had. That same year I started sixth form, and instead of slowing the business down I kept it running through the whole thing. Working on it before school. During lunch instead of eating with everyone else. Last thing before bed, replying to people who wanted to join. My teachers noticed. They weren't happy. A couple of them pulled me aside and told me straight. You're distracted. This is just a phase. If you actually want to go somewhere in life, focus on what matters. I understood why they said it. I just didn't agree. So I kept going. Still came out with three A's at the end of it. Looking back, that year taught me something about myself. I've always been a risk taker. It's just how I'm wired. Everyone around me was following the same path. School, uni, grad job, climb the ladder. And I get why. It's safe. It's what we're told to do. But I kept choosing the high risk option instead. Betting on the thing that was working over the thing that was expected. And every big step forward in my career since has come from making that same trade. I remember watching an old interview with Steve Jobs where he talked about starting Apple with Wozniak. He said they realised they had nothing to lose and everything to gain. That's exactly how I felt at 17. And honestly, it's how I still feel every single day. Because the worst thing that can happen is you lose it all and start over. Except this time with more knowledge, more experience, and everything to gain all over again. That's the whole trade. Limited downside, unlimited upside. Most people never take it. Not because the risk is too big, but because the story about the risk is.

• 
  Bell ݁ ˖Ი𐑼⋆ (@SweetieBellini) reported 15 minutes ago

  @jmnationtv @PayPal @AskPayPal This is terrible. Every day it feels like PayPal gets so much scarier to use

• 
  Matthew Sheets (@MattyMattSheets) reported 16 minutes ago

  @SorenPetro @VenmoSupport @Venmo I just got one for my daughter but only for small transactions like food & drinks or if she needs cash for something I can just send it to her. I have had Venmo,PayPal & cash app for years for receiving payments & only ran into a issue once with Venmo & I got my $ back from scam

• 
  Genius Business (@GeniusBusiness_) reported 17 minutes ago

  Jack Dorsey on why Square lends to businesses banks won't even look at: "We actually see their business." Asked what data justifies extending credit to a merchant a traditional bank would reject outright, Dorsey doesn't describe a better model. He describes a better position. "They use our register. They use our payments. They enter all their employees into our system. We see all their customers. We see their competition. We have a very deep understanding of how they're doing and who they are, and we don't make a judgment until we have a pretty strong understanding to make that risk assessment." A bank sees a business through the narrow aperture of a bank statement. Square sees the register, the payroll, the customer base, and the competition. The merchant runs the whole operation on Square's rails. Dorsey states the advantage plainly: "We've built our platform in such a way that we are the tool that's being used to run the entire business. So we have an advantage that others mostly do not." Outside data exists, but it's secondary: "Outside of our walls, we look at how sellers are engaging with Yelp or Facebook or Instagram or Twitter, or all these signals that people are sending around the world." And he immediately demotes it: "A lot of our assessment comes from our own understanding, our own data itself." The same instinct, own the surface where the activity actually happens shows up in Square Cash. "It's consistently broken into the top 20 free apps in the iOS App Store, which is a huge feat for a finance app. It's consistently been the number one above our competitors, Venmo and PayPal, over the past few months." Dorsey's explanation is that they refused to accept the category they were placed in: "We haven't seen it just as peer-to-peer. We've evolved past peer-to-peer and we've observed that people are using it as a spending device. And the more ability we add and the more capabilities we add to spend it in more places, the more adoption we see and the more retention we see." The sequencing was deliberate: "We started with the most critical thing, which is sending money between two people, and then we moved on to issuing a card that could be used online and offline." Sending money between two people is a feature. It is not, on its own, a business. The card is what converts a transfer utility into something people spend from and spending is where the surface widens. Square doesn't underwrite from a credit file, because it owns the register. Cash doesn't retain users through transfers, because it moved to own the spend. Worth noting what Dorsey doesn't say. Asked directly how Square makes money on peer-to-peer transfers, he answers with rankings, adoption, and retention never revenue. Read it as a tell either way: the monetisation is the card, or it hadn't been settled yet.

• 
  tomoko☄️ (@tomoko194he) reported 18 minutes ago

  양도 태민 콘서트 selling at cost bc i'm moving down 😭💞 9/18 section 31 (center) 9/19 section 33 🍒 global ticket, meet at the venue :) 🍒 kr bank transfer or paypal ok any verification possible!!! will cancel if no one wants :)

• 
  Rich C (@RichRedVoices) reported 19 minutes ago

  @Prolific Hi. I cashed out a mixed £/$ amount today. The £ arrived but the $ have not. I’ve been cashing out both currencies for years to my PayPal without issue. Can you help?

• 
  LATE NIGHT LOBBIES TV🌃 (@healy_major) reported 21 minutes ago

  I always use the PayPal pay later option, where they break down your payments into 4 payments of like $18 per payment. It's convenient AF and it doesn't hurt as much as dropping a lump sum of $70 on a game.🤷👊🫡

• 
  jellyman (@jellymanguy) reported 24 minutes ago

  @TheeDegenBoosts @rebetapp That’s why I NEVER leave my money anywhere where it isn’t insured by the FDIC/SIPC. Not PayPal, Venmo, or a gambling site. Youre just asking for trouble. Sucks how these companies operate

• 
  VC Intern (@the_vc_intern) reported 25 minutes ago

  PayPal paid approximately $4 billion for Honey in 2020. The browser extension had 17 million monthly users, worked across roughly 30,000 retailers and gave PayPal something it normally reached only at the end of a purchase: influence over what happened before checkout. That position created Honey’s value. Shoppers installed it for discounts, merchants supplied offers to reach those shoppers, and Honey earned money through affiliate attribution when a purchase occurred. Then MegaLag alleged that Honey sometimes replaced creators’ affiliate tracking with its own. PayPal said Honey followed industry practices including last-click attribution, but the explanation did little to stop the reaction. Honey has reportedly fallen from more than 20 million Chrome users to 12 million. Merchant relationships declined from roughly 35,000 to just over 28,000, while its coupon database fell from about 90,000 codes to 50,000. This is what happens when a marketplace flywheel reverses. Fewer users make the product less valuable to merchants. Fewer merchants mean fewer working offers. A weaker product gives the remaining users another reason to uninstall it. Affiliate networks added pressure. Rakuten removed Honey before later reinstating it with new protections, while Impact and Awin also took action. A creator lawsuit has survived PayPal’s attempt to dismiss it, although that is not a finding that PayPal is liable. PayPal bought Honey because it occupied a valuable point between product discovery and payment. The same position became dangerous once shoppers and creators began questioning whose interests the extension served. A $4 billion distribution advantage turned into a trust problem sitting inside 12 million browsers.

• 
  Enzeyi Siema (@EnzeyiSiema) reported 28 minutes ago

  Zero history of disputes, No illegal connections, or links, Consistent weekly transactions, Then one day, a single transaction sounds malicious, just because it's from a new address. 2 appeals for Review, unclear responses. Is this how @PayPal handles issues @EnriqueJLores ?