I work at Plaid. Plaid's KYC product doesn't ask for bank login credentials. (EDIT: I originally had a line in here saying "nor do any of our competitors' KYC products, that I know of." but then someone in this thread linked to Stripe documentation saying that Stripe does use this method of age verification in Australia, so TIL.)
I almost swore here but I think that'd not get my message across. So I'll be calm. You're a liar (edit: or ignorant). I tried with Plaid. Plaid explicitly required my bank login credentials. I went in physically and talked face to face to my US bank's employee that handled Plaid.
Plaid does have products that do request bank credentials, but those products are not used for age verification. It's very common that a given customer-facing flow will use multiple Plaid products together to handle multiple different customer needs, so it's likely that the flow you were working with was using multiple Plaid products and requesting bank credentials, but for a different reason than to perform age verification (for example, KYC + bank account ownership verification or KYC + bank account validity verification).
Right. This boils down to you saying you were wrong but trying to avoid saying it directly. Basically,
>"Requiring a bank account credentials is common and yes, Plaid does it, despite what I said before, when the company buying Plaid services wants even more legal butt covering as is common in the wild."
My heuristic is that if your interlocutor asks follow-up questions like that with no indication of why (like “why do you want to do X?” rather than “why do you want to do X? If the answer is Y, then X is a bad approach because Q, you should try Z instead”) then they are never going to give you a helpful answer.
I work at Plaid, so this got me curious about who their provider was -- per Wikipedia, Mint used Intuit's internal account aggregation tools from ~2010-2024. It's possible that Mint swapped out to some other third party provider and Wikipedia doesn't know about it, but based on both internal and external records, I'm pretty sure it wasn't Plaid. (Intuit's Credit Karma, which was marketed to Mint customers as a replacement after Mint shut down, does use Plaid.)
From the article, it's not clear that the prevailing reasonable meaning was Connected Parties. In fact, it sounds like the author thought the meaning was connected parties -- otherwise he would not have bothered to disclose the relationships of the two shareholders who were connected parties (lowercase) but not Connected Parties (uppercase).
These were popular at my workplace maybe seven years ago, and while I was into the idea at first, IMO it was impractical most of the time. Turns out it's a pretty unreasonable burden to place on people that they should read and follow instructions in a document in order to communicate with someone and to personalize their work approach for every person they interact with.
The main context these make sense in is when written by a manager (or maaybe by a direct report for their manager). They can be useful to establish expectations for a team around things like "is it ok to message me on the weekend" and "here's what you should have prepared for our 1:1s".
I find that I never know what to write about myself in these. I had to make one for work also a few years ago for similar reasons to you. But when I would read it I could see it represented a part of me, but it's hard to say "talk to me like this" because it depends on what the subject is and who the person is. I found it was interesting to do as a team building exercise because we all did them together and read them to each other as teams but I never found myself or others getting back to it. And at some point I would've preferred if the document disappeared because years later some new joiners would read it and think something I wrote in 15mins in a workshop 6 years ago still represented who I was at the present time.
> it depends on what the subject is and who the person is
bingo.
> because years later some new joiners would read it and think something I wrote in 15mins in a workshop 6 years ago still represented who I was at the present time.
As with any other documentation, you need to spend time keeping it up to date. If you'd upgraded some libraries and added new ones, but still had docs you gave to new team members referencing the outdated libraries... how productive could they possibly be?
There is also that I have different expectations for different types of work relationships.
I don't want a manager pinging me 7 times a day with questions. But I am OK with a coworker messaging me 15 times about their progress on something we're trying to get done together for that manager. One disrupts the maker cycle and one is two makers making together in the same cycle.
> "here's what you should have prepared for our 1:1s"
Tangentially, I'd like to survey attitudes about this kind of 1:1. I'm of the opinion that my 1:1 with my manager is my time to discuss my thoughts and needs. If a manager is assigning me homework so I can "come prepared" for yet another status update, they can sacrifice their time to make that meeting happen.
Some modern-day teams will do a simplified team building exercise where they determine what "colour" people are, idk which one it is exactly, might be Hartman Personality Profile
This is honestly for a subset of the population the needs special catering. I can see things like disabilities, pronouns, and trigger words going into something like this.
I also can see this a hinderence to our general interpersonal communication.
one might also position it this way: “most people probably don’t feel the need for a document like this because they believe their preferences are the default for most people.”
The context isn't fully spelled out, but Powell is describing the inspiration for "The Interrogative Mood: A Novel?" Those lines are the beginning of his novel and the novel itself is entirely in the form of questions.
I can't speak to the Plaid/Square integration specifically and why transaction history is requested in that case, but in general, a common reason Plaid would want transaction history for an ACH transfer is to do risk assessment for ACH returns. The product marketing page for Signal explains what the merchant is getting out of it: https://plaid.com/products/signal/
It's not. But an article explaining the real reasons why your resume was immediately thrown out (you have none of the required qualifications; you live in Australia and the job is only open to US applicants; you applied for the same position a month ago and were rejected then) would be too boring, I guess.
I work at Plaid. The basic, non-discounted rate for the Transactions API is like 30 cents per connected account per month (or 45 cents per month if you're buying some optional add-ons to go with it), and any customer the size of Intuit would definitely be getting some kind of huge volume discount. I can't speak for other companies in this space, but I assume they have similar pricing.
