I just read an article in Yahoo Finance by Bethany Mclean on MCA. There seems to be a coordinated assault via the media lately but this one had an interesting part, I quote:

" Merchant cash advances technically are not loans (although often even industry participants will use the lingo of “borrowers” and “lenders.”) Rather, they are akin to something called factoring, which is when a funder advances cash against an invoice, generally at a discount to the face account and is paid when the invoice is paid. In an MCA, a funder buys a specified percentage of a company’s future receivables. It’s riskier for the funder than factoring is because the receivables, unlike an invoice, don’t yet exist. The risk to the merchant is supposed to be less than that of a loan, because the payment is not supposed to be fixed, but rather is supposed to be tied to the actual business they do. Although MCAs at their best carry enormously high annualized interest rates, advocates argue they can be useful in certain circumstances — say, a seasonal retailer needs to stock their store with merchandise before the holidays or a business needs to purchase a piece of equipment to win a contract.'

Other than the part about payments not being fixed I don't see much I can disagree with. In fact, it almost sounds borderline complimentary! I do think use of the words "Lenders" and "Borrowers" can cause confusion but funders look and act like high risk, accredited investors with the resources and sophistication (mostly) to evaluate and underwrite risk.