Why couldn't they partner with another institution that already has the appropriate licensing? Or, alternatively, they seem well enough funded to be able to post the appropriate bonds.
I get your position, but with the constant whining, you're not winning over people.
Second, a lot of people consider the particular fight I've chosen to pick fairly important, as it would do a lot to corrode the monopoly that banks hold on payment processing. So one person's whining is apparently another's heroic battle (not my words).
Third, the issue of money transmission licenses is also directly relevant to this particular topic.
But I'm worried that you are starting to get into RMS territory... that most of what I read from you here is on this one issue, from a very distinct viewpoint. I'm not saying you're wrong (or that RMS is), just that such a myopic view isn't always the best way to win people over to your viewpoint. Even worse, you risk people tuning you out.
Maybe I'm just getting a sample bias because your most recent posts and comments have been on transmission licenses.
Also I'm guessing that what Square currently does already requires a money transmitter license, since transmitting money is exactly what they do.
From a cursory look, I was under the impression that they would need a license in every state that they'd do business in.
Square is exempt from the California Money Transmission Act per FC § 1805(d) (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fin...), since it's actually JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. that is moving your money.
Square does not have a license.
http://www.dfi.ca.gov/directory/mt.asp
And Square has no plans to get one as of last month.
http://www.dfi.ca.gov/publications/summaries/2011/september....
