It accumulates, so there is no money lost. It does kinda suck though that as you start, even though you can make money and did make a bit you don't get to see it yet

[–] Halosheep@lemm.ee 27 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It does make sense from a payment processing standpoint. It doesn't make sense to spend more money on creating the transaction than is actually being sent.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I used to pay a particular company by purchase order for this exact reason. CC takes 2-3% of the payment, but purchase order - they've got to get themselves into the company system, track the PO, invoice, track the payment...at the time, a common estimate was $50 to process a PO, and if you're only buying $100 batches, that's a big hit. Did not like that company, but they were the only place to get whatever it was I had to buy.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sending a simple transaction like this costs a couple cents though, which they could in theory bill to the developer as well. Setting the threshold at 100 is probably more to accrue additional interest on Steams bank accounts.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I think in the US I’ve heard ETF/ACH transaction fees are usually around $2.50? It might be possible to have that apply across a batch, though, as in if you submit 10 payments to 10 different people as a single transaction it’s still just $2.50, or 25¢ per person. I’m only getting this from hearing accountants complain at companies I’ve worked with, so I don’t understand the details. But I’ve seen it pretty common with companies doing payouts to want to see a minimum amount before they actually send the payment, otherwise it’s not worth doing.

[–] Zoot_@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago

Absolutely. It's got to be the way it is. Just kinda feels bad at first