[RickyR3712]

For what my opinion may be worth, I can say that the people at Greenbox are some of the most ethical and above board individuals I know. As I read this, they are not going out of their way to hurt anyone. They are asking only to have themselves protected from unscrupulous brokers who as we all know do exist.

As I read this, it seems they only want protection on two fronts. 1) If a merchant is double funded at the same exact time by a broker when they are not supposed to be. 2) If a merchant would breach within the clawback period.

They are not asking that each broker take on the liability of the merchant which by reading these posts it seems that is inferred. As I read it, they are asking that the broker sign a COJ in reference to paying back commissions if a breach occurs within the already established time frame that every funder establishes, and that if a broker goes out of his/her way to double fund a merchant in secret that liability be upheld.

I personally do not see the issue with this because conceivably, everyone has already agreed to this within every ISO agreement. They are simply asking that an additional document be executed to this effect. Clearly, the people who would attempt to "beat the system" would have issues with this but those of you who would do what is required anyways...I don't see the problem. I myself with varied clients had to sign documents of a similar nature but I've never had any concern because it would be inconceivable of me to subvert the contract anyways or to try something untoward.

They are not asking for you to cover the merchant's liability, only yours as already expressed within their agreement I am sure. I fail to see the issue or dilemma. Again, just one man's opinion.

Your opinion is not worth anything in this case since you will get more business.