Talk:Chime (company)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

Remove "Wells Fargo" as founders and replace with "Chris Britt and Ryan King". Wells Fargo is not a founder of Chime. Gavinsmith976 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

First edit request

Hello, this is my first edit request. I'm here as an employee of Chime and have learned about the rules for editors such as myself that have a conflict of interest. I added my disclosure above, and on my User page. I'm learning and want to make positive contributions so please let me know how my requests can be improved.

To start, I have a suggestion for the History section.

• There are four single sentence paragraphs at the end of the section. I think the article would read better if they were combined. I drafted the version below that ties them together and clarified some details. I also removed the claim about the SF office being the "largest office space leased in San Francisco that year" because it seems not particularly encyclopedic. I also omitted the sentence on the lawsuit against the two people impersonating the company as that does not seem like a major moment in Chime's history and did not receive much coverage.

In September 2021, Chime leased 192,000 square feet of office space across six floors in a San Francisco building owned by Hines. According to a report by Forbes, Chime had planned to hold an initial public offering (IPO) in March 2022. The company delayed its IPO, however, in February 2022. The company laid off 160 positions, equalling 12% of its workforce, in November 2022.

References

Thanks for taking a look! Chime rep DB (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Done Reasonable request. - DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@DrOrinScrivello: Thanks for reviewing! 2601:240:CB00:5FD0:45B0:30DE:6E86:EFDA (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Additions from recent reporting

Hello again, I'd like to suggest some more changes to this article. Forbes recently published this in-depth story about Chime. I see some information about Chime's hybrid model, employees and customers has already been added to the History section. I think there are more details in the story that would help add context to this article. Below are some suggestions with the supporting text:

• Add: As of May 2024, Chime was processing $8 billion worth of transactions monthly. The company's customers are largely made up of young Americans with incomes ranging from $35,000 to $65,000 annually.

• Forbes: "$1.5 billion in annualized revenue and seven million customers using its cards for $8 billion a month in transactions."
• Forbes: "Chime has attracted largely young Americans earning between $35,000 and $65,000 a year to its free checking accounts and debit cards."

 Done Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Add: Chime's revenue in 2023 was approximately $1.3 billion.

• Forbes: "In 2023, Chime’s revenue grew an impressive 30% to about $1.3 billion…"

 Done Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Replace "with a mission of creating financial peace of mind." with "to serve less affluent communities and people living paycheck to paycheck"

• Forbes: "But through it all, Britt has stayed true to his mission of serving the less affluent."
• Forbes: "Yet the message conveyed in news stories about Wells Fargo’s move was unmistakable: the big banks didn’t want the sort of people Britt grew up with—the lower-middle-class Americans living paycheck to paycheck who couldn’t maintain a $1,500 balance."

 Done Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Add: Chime announced in May 2024 that it would begin offering short-term loans of up to $1,000 to customers, pending regulatory approval.

• Forbes: "Customers will be able to take out a three- or six-month personal loan of up to $1,000 instantly. There’s no credit check required to apply and no late fees, though any missed payments will be reported to the credit bureaus. Each short-term loan has a fixed dollar amount of interest that works out to an annual percentage rate ranging from 6% to 36%. Chime expects the loans to become available over the next month or two pending regulatory approval."

 Not done, not sure this makes sense to add before it's actually available, unless there's been a lot more substantive coverage of it than this one paragraph. Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Add: The company extended its Series A funding in 2016 with $9 million in venture capital led by Aspect Ventures. At the time the company was valued at $34 million.

• Forbes: "In 2016, they finally landed a “Series A extension” of $9 million led by Lauren Kolodny at Aspect Ventures, at a flat valuation of just $34 million."

Not done for now I'm not sure where you want this to go.

• Add: In 2018, Chime added the ability to access funds from direct-deposit paychecks two days early, along with savings accounts with automatic transfers, free ATM withdrawals from ATMs in its network, and removed overdraft fees for debit purchases.

• Forbes: "The most innovative was access to direct-deposited paychecks two days early—something that the banks could have done, but never had an incentive to do, since it would cost them float. Chime also rolled out a savings account; the option to automatically move part of your paycheck into that savings account; free ATM withdrawals at a network of 38,000 ATMs; and no overdraft fees, the bane of those living paycheck to paycheck."

 Not done this seems mostly redundant with the first paragraph of the products section. Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it at that for now to keep this request from getting too long.

There's another thought / question I have for editors. I noticed the article has a fair amount of redundant content about account closures related to fraud during the COVID-19 pandemic. Would it make sense to consolidate all of that to the section on account closures for neutrality and clarity? If so, the Forbes article also contains some additional context that could be used. I don't mind proposing specific changes if that's helpful.

@DrOrinScrivello: Thanks again for reviewing my last request. If you have any feedback on these suggestions it's most welcome.

Thanks for taking a look! Chime rep DB (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience! When you refer to redundant content, do you mean the Account closures section plus the Customer service section? I think the Customer service section should probably be integrated into the other sections rather than standing on its own, if you'd like to propose such a change I'd be happy to review it. Rusalkii (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Just saw your last edit request which addresses, looking at that now. Rusalkii (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Rusalkii: for reviewing this. To answer your question, I think the content would be best placed to the third paragraph of History section.

Please see the following example:

The company extended its Series A funding in 2016 with $9 million in venture capital led by Aspect Ventures. At the time the company was valued at $34 million. In 2018, Chime acquired Pinch, a startup focused on helping millennials and young adults build their credit scores by reporting on-time rent payments to credit bureaus. Pinch's co-founders joined Chime's team as a part of the acquisition.

References

Please let me know what you think of this placement. I will review your other responses below and reply there. Thanks Chime rep DB (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think this makes sense, it says "extended" but then the text never mentions the number it's extending? And I don't love lists of random funding rounds very much either. Rusalkii (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove irrelevant information

Hi, I'm submitting this request on behalf of my employer, Chime Financial, Inc.

I'd like to request removal of the section titled Illegal practices with the Sendwave app, which was added on May 30 and is about a different company than Chime Financial, Inc.

Both Forbes and Bloomberg verify that Sendwave and Chime, Inc. are unrelated to the subject of this article, Chime Financial, Inc.

I will not remove the content myself because of my conflict of interest, and appreciate editors taking the time to help keep this article accurate.

Thanks, Chime rep DB (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Righto! I moved it to WorldRemit, the parent of the other Chime. I apologize, And thanks for the references which sort it out. -- M.boli (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@M.boli: Thanks so much! I appreciate the swift response. If you're interested, I posted some suggestions above from a recent in-depth feature in Forbes. It included a good deal of historical context I think would improve the article. I'm new to Wikipedia and interested in any feedback. Thanks again, Chime rep DB (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Consolidating redundant information and balance changes

Hi, I'm submitting another request on behalf of my employer, Chime Financial, Inc.

There appears to be a lot of repetitive information on this page about account closures and I am making the following suggestions to consolidate this, which will I think will improve the article's adherence to guidelines on weight to viewpoints and reduce redundancy.

I suggest the following be removed in order to reduce redundancies:

• In the Introduction, "which may not be returned in a timely fashion." from the sentence, "Customers cannot appeal to banking regulators to retrieve their deposits, which may not be returned in a timely fashion"
  • My understanding is that the Introduction should summarize what the company is most known for, and this seems like more detail than is necessary on this topic for the Introduction.

I have rewritten that entire paragraph of the lead, which incidentally removes this sentence. Rusalkii (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• In the Customer service section: "Chime can close user accounts with no notice, it is not required to provide a reason for the cancellation to the customer."
  • This is also covered in Account closures, difficulty recovering deposits, for which I've made a suggestion below.

 Not done, I am not convinced this section should exist at all, as mentioned above, but given that it does the account closures are clearly relevant to their customer service. Rusalkii (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• In the Account closures, difficulty recovering deposits section, "Since Chime customers are not customers of any bank, their recourse is often limited"
  • This is a confusing sentence that is poorly written. It is misleading because it implies Chime customers have no bank accounts, anywhere. The source used to verify this does not have it as original reporting, but as a quote within the article.

I have added the word "directly" to partly clarify this. I am open to alternative rephrasings but I do not think it should be removed altogether. Rusalkii (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

On the subject of account closures, I would like to recommend the following edits of language for accuracy:

• In the Account closures, difficulty recovering deposits section replace "The company has no obligation to provide a reason, or even have a reason, to close an account." with "The company's user agreement includes that it may "terminate, limit or suspend your access to or use of the Chime Services at any time and for any reason or no reason""
  • The supporting sources do not directly support the content as written. Specifically, the sources do not directly verify whether Chime has an "obligation" to provide reasons for account closure, but that the company's user agreement says it may “terminate, limit or suspend your access to or use of the Chime Services at any time and for any reason or no reason.”

 Not done, I think "has no obligation" is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the statement that they can do it for no reason and the article, which states that they in fact failed to provide such a reason to customers. Rusalkii (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I will not remove or add the content myself because of my conflict of interest, and appreciate editors taking the time to help keep this article accurate.

Thanks, Chime rep DB (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: @M.boli reverted my change to the lead. My current opinion is that I am agnostic about how much weight needs to be put in the lead on whether it's a bank, but the current paragraph is in fact confusing and badly written, and also doesn't mention any of the other controversies the bank was involved in which make up a decent fraction of the lead. M.boli, do you have any thoughts on this? I have in the interim re-added the content you removed without reverting the "not a bank" paragraph currently in the lead, which I assume addresses the reason for you reverting it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

See Yotta Savings for an example of what goes wrong. It's been 2-1/2 months since the failure, I think most customers still don't have their money back. Yotta advertised customer savings were FDIC insured. However the FDIC ensures the bank's customer's against bank failure. Same as with Chime, the fintech customers are not the bank's customers, and anyway it wasn't the bank that failed. So the FDIC insurance has not helped the customers who are left hanging and unable to access the money they were told was in FDIC insured accounts.

It is quite possible that Chime does a better job than Yotta at keeping track of customer money. And perhaps Chime doesn't have an extra fintech contractor layer between it and the banks. But even if Chime is better run, the same regulatory principles and customer risks hold and sometimes customers do get burned by it. I think it would be a mistake to not say this in the lede section. Which isn't a redundancy, the lede should summarize what comes later in the article.

Addressing the question about the two paragraphs: it seems to me there is now some overlap with respect to the regulatory problems. We could probably trim down the 2nd paragraph, the one added by Rusalkii, to a single sentence to summarize the additional regulatory difficulties:

Chime has experienced several regulatory sanctions, including fines for falsely marketing itself as a bank, for poor handling of customer complaints, and for delayed return of some customer funds.

Regarding the not-a-bank paragraph, which you say is confusing and badly written. I'm open to suggestions on bettering it. One problem is the references do not explain the not-a-bank situation with crystal clarity, and I didn't want to engage in SYNTH or OR by composing my own explanation. The result, on reflection, seems clunky. Perhaps, following the failure of Yotta, we can find helpful explanatory articles.

The two paragraphs together would then summarize the regulatory issues and risks elaborated on later in the article. I feel details like year and "configuation error" are not needed for the lede summary, best left for the full recounting in the article. Rusalkii: I agree reverting your paragraph was kind of ham-handed. I could have put back the earlier material, and then reconciled the two paragraphs. -- M.boli (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the sourcing issue, that's one of the reasons I didn't think it merited more than the mention that it had been fined for not being a bank - if the sources don't strongly reflect the potential issues with this, then neither should we, no matter how big of a deal it is in practice. I also don't really have concrete suggestions off the top of my head other than the approach I already took, I'll think about it. Rusalkii (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the not-a-bank paragraph is particularly opaque, just clunky. The sources describe the problem of customers not getting their money back, and explain that this is because Chime is not a bank and Chime's customers are not bank customers. That's what the paragraph says. The missing-or-late-money problem is not the same as Chime representing itself as a bank, which presumably has been fixed.

Here is a recent Forbes article explaining the problem. The article discusses Chime a litte bit, implying that Chime has better financial controls than Yotta did, but it has the same type of risk. That can be used to improve the paragraph. I'll add the reference right now. -- M.boli (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"The FDIC bank insurance on Chime accounts does not directly protect Chime's customers." is I think the piece that was missing there - it makes a lot more sense of why exactly anyone other than regulators cares about Chime not being a bank. Thanks for adding it. Rusalkii (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your careful consideration of this article. I am keeping up with this conversation and in the meantime, I have a few ideas for how we can handle the issues presented here; I want to polish that up and ensure it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines before I suggest them here. Here's to collaborating to improve Wikipedia Chime rep DB (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Rusalkii: and @M.boli: I have a proposal for you both to review as I previously mentioned.

It largely is based on what is already in the live article. The major changes you'll find are in regards to the "Chime is not a bank" sentence. Rather than focusing on what Chime is not (since it is not many things), I wanted to add context into why it seems bank-like and how Chime functions. I have removed redundant information by consolidating the current second and third paragraphs and have also taken the proposed language from M.boli regarding various investigations and expanded it. For the FDIC sentence, I switched that up to focus on the money in the accounts being what's insured, because that's what is directly verified by sources (Forbes, Fortune, ProPublica). This new proposed language adheres better to WP:NPOV than what is currently there by placing it in historical context. Please let me know what you think.

Responding to the propose rewrite of the lede below.

* I trimmed some redundant and historical information from the lede paragraphs describing Chime's difficulties. I removed from lede that Chime had been fined for misrepresenting itself as a bank. As long as we mention clearly that it isn't a bank and what that means and keep the history information in the body of the article that will be OK. Removed the duplicated information about closing accounts. Also since the closures were in 2021-2, and have not been reported recently, there was no need to keep that in present tense. The status of customer accounts (can be closed, little recourse) is still present tense, only the 2021-2 closures are past tense. (There was nothing in the reportage that blamed Covid, by the way, so I ignored that part of the proposed rewrite.)

* Regarding the first paragraph of the lede, I will add the phrases about no monthly service fees etc. The existing "fee-free" is correct but I think the fuller elaboration is more helpful to the reader. I didn't see the point in naming the partner banks. Generally it makes no difference.

That is all for now. -- M.boli (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Chime Financial, Inc. is a San Francisco–based financial technology company that provides basic banking services through two national banks, Stride Bank and The Bancorp Bank. Chime provides certain fee-free mobile banking services which do not rely on monthly service or overdraft fees or minimum balance requirements. The money in customer accounts is held by FDIC insured banks. The company offers early access to paychecks, negative account balances without overdraft fees, high-yield savings accounts, peer-to-peer payments, and an interest-free secured credit card. Chime earns the majority of its revenue from the collection of interchange fees on debit and credit card transactions. Chime is able to offer its services via its relationships with banks despite the company not being a bank itself. During the COVID 19 pandemic, Chime was criticized for closing customer accounts without notice and not returning funds in a timely manner. The company attributed the closures to fraud prevention measures. In 2024, Chime settled investigations for its handling of the account closures and to pay fines. The company was penalized for use of the word "bank" in its marketing in 2021, following which it agreed to include disclaimers that Chime is not a bank in its marketing materials. References

Thanks to you both! Chime rep DB (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @M.boli: for the review! I would like to further discuss the sentence, "The FDIC bank insurance on Chime accounts does not directly protect Chime's customers."

The linked source does not seem to support the sentence as it is currently written and I did not see you address it in your reply so I wanted to specifically call it out. Especially because there are other sources (Forbes, Fortune, ProPublica) that establish money in Chime accounts is FDIC insured. Can we clarify that sentence a bit more?

Thanks Chime rep DB (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The linked source describes why FDIC insurance of your fintech deposits isn't the same as having a insured bank account. It also says that Chime accounts are pass-through insurance, and describes little bit of what pass-through means. Which leaves ample room for problems. If the fintech goes bust FDIC insurance wouldn't be involved. Or the fintech can screw up in other ways so even if the bank goes bust it is possible for customer to have difficulty get their insured money back. This is in the reference. The sentence in the article is a simplification which I believe is supported by this reference. It doesn't describe the scary scenarios where the customer could lose the money (or access to the money) in their fintech deposit, which also might require a much more detailed reference on pass-through insurance. It seemed at the appropriate level for the context, but possibly could be enhanced by noting customers could lose access to their money in the event of Chime failure or bank failure. -- M.boli (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Continued request

Hello, I'm submitting new requests on behalf of my employer, Chime Financial, Inc. I'd also like to revisit some previous requests that have been rejected by the community. I am checking to see if these changes are now able to be implemented:

• Add to the History section: “Chime was founded by Chris Britt (CEO) and Ryan King (CTO) in 2012[13] in San Francisco, California as an alternative to traditional banking, particularly for the 72% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck.”

 Not done No ref to back up request --Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Remove from the History section: “to serve less affluent communities and people."

 Not done micromanaging --Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Update in the History section: “As of August 2021, Chime has raised $2.3 billion in private funding and in 2022 was named one of Fortune's Best Places to Work” using existing reference #15

 Done --Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Add to the Account closures, difficulty recovering deposits section: “Customers can refute the change of their account status on the website.” using existing reference #11

 Not done ref does not back up request --Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

• Remove from the Account closures, difficulty recovering deposits section: "The company has no obligation to provide a reason, or even have a reason, to close an account."

 Not done This is true. However, I removed “or even have a reason” for copywriting purposes, as this phrasing has an edged tone. --Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks --Chime rep DB (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

References

FDIC-Insurance/Editor Gatekeeping

Appears that there is a gatekeeper editor on this page; as requested by this editor, I am calling out an issue on Talk. Upon reading references #5 and 11, it is clear that these articles discussed banking/insurance in general; yet, the FDIC-insurance content in relation to Chime specifically does not reflect the current phrasing in the lede + Customer service section. Relevant reference information is as follows:

• There’s no doubt fintechs have pushed innovation—forcing banks to up their game and providing services to moderate and low income folks the banks may have ignored. For example, Chime, the nation’s largest fintech bank, with seven million customers, pioneered such consumer friendly innovations as giving customers access to direct-deposited paychecks two days earlier than the banks did. Chime offers FDIC pass-through insurance through master accounts with two banks—Stride Bank and The Bancorp Bank. It says that within those omnibus accounts it has set up individual demand deposit accounts for customers and that it reconciles its records with the banks’ records on a customer by customer basis, daily. “When any account is out of balance the bank and Chime work to resolve it. Even a $1 discrepancy would show up on daily reporting,’’ Chime said in a statement to Forbes.
• Chime® is a financial technology company—not a bank— offering online banking services through Bancorp Bank, N.A. and Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC.
• All Chime accounts are FDIC-insured, for each ownership category, in the event of a bank failure, through its partner banks, The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC.

Therefore, the following is not substantiated by the existing references:

• "yet FDIC bank insurance does not directly protect Chime's customers"

I am removing refs #46-47 because both are not third-party, therefore they should be removed from the page. One reference is a direct link to the Stride Bank homepage, while the other directs to Chime's website. Seems like an obvious solution for improving the page. Stop reverting edits without looking into the actual changes. One editor should not be the sole authority on a given page, as this would indicate COI/bias. Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Note first that the language Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk · contribs) has now removed four times was worked out in a talk page discussion not far above this one.

The facts are clear and the Forbes reference tells them: Is Your Money Really Safe In An 'FDIC-Insured' Fintech Account?. Chime is not a bank. FDIC bank insurance does not protect a non-bank's customers against the non-bank's failures, it protects against bank failures. That is the message of the Forbes article. The claim to the contrary is a wacky convoluted rationalization. Chime is represented in the Forbes article because it a non-bank, just as Yotta was, and its customers are vulnerable.

Terrible bookkeeping was part of the Yotta disaster. Forbes gave Chime representatives the opportunity to claim they do a good job keeping track of customer money. That's not the same as saying Chime customers are protected from Chime's failure by bank insurance. There is nothing in the article which says otherwise. Language about "partner banks" doesn't change that.

Pass-through insurance is a way to organize accounts so that the customers are better protected in the event of bank failure. But it does not change the basic fact: FDIC bank insurance does not directly protect Chime's customers.

Removing this fact about the insurance is gross malpractice, a disservice to Wiki readers. When we put the language back in the article, perhaps I'll add another reference Banking with Third-Party Apps published by the FDIC.

I don't think throwing around around accusations of COI and gatekeeping was helpful. -- M.boli (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Returning back to this yet again. While this was previously discussed above, I disagree with your conclusion, and it is still my belief that you are gatekeeping this page. I see no reason why the FDIC portion is even included in the introductory portion of this entry & why it is so crucial for you to keep re-instating this.

To repeat myself, here are the following Chime FDIC-specific pieces of content substantiated by the live references:

• Forbes - For example, Chime, the nation’s largest fintech bank, with seven million customers, pioneered such consumer friendly innovations as giving customers access to direct-deposited paychecks two days earlier than the banks did. Chime offers FDIC pass-through insurance through master accounts with two banks—Stride Bank and The Bancorp Bank. “When any account is out of balance the bank and Chime work to resolve it. Even a $1 discrepancy would show up on daily reporting,’’ Chime said in a statement to Forbes.
• FDIC - No mention of Chime
• Forbes Review (are reviews even considered as WP:RS?) - Chime® is a financial technology company—not a bank— offering online banking services through Bancorp Bank, N.A. and Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC. Banking services provided by The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC. The Chime Visa® Debit Card is issued by The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank pursuant to a license from Visa U.S.A. Inc. and may be used everywhere Visa debit cards are accepted.

Seems to me that M.boli (talk · contribs) is breaking the no original research guideline, as the conclusion they have drawn was not explicitly stated in the references ("There is nothing in the article which says otherwise."). "That is the message of the Forbes article"...reference 18 begins negatively with the Yotta/FDIC information, but introduces Chimes with the following: "There’s no doubt fintechs have pushed innovation—forcing banks to up their game and providing services to moderate and low income folks the banks may have ignored" (see above for rest). If the point of the article was to unearth negative practices of financial service companies, then why isn't Chime called out while Yotta and Synapse are?

Lastly, I pointed out bias because you have not added this same content to the Yotta or Synapse entries, even though the Forbes article focuses on those two companies. That is the message of the Forbes article. This began as a simple copywriting edit for me, but, given your retaliatory response, I suspect bias on your part.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in here (pun fully intended)! I think I agree with user Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk · contribs)'s argument about no original research. The sources don't clearly backup what M.boli (talk · contribs) keeps restoring and it is confusing. Hope my feedback helps you both come to a conclusion! --24.128.103.213 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk · contribs) insists on inserting highly deceptive language into the article, removing the reliably documented statement that FDIC insurance does not directly protect Chime's customers.

As evidence, the editor snips (repeatedly) a quote from an article the whole message of which is FDIC insurance does not directly protect fintech customers. The article author explains that pass-through accounts, one of the arrangements that fintechs use with banks, can simplify bookkeeping if the bank or fintech fail. And also explains it still does not directly protect customers. Especially against fintech failure. The snipped quote presents Chime as an example fintech which uses the pass through arrangement. (And gives a Chime representative the opportunity to say they have good bookkeeping.) That's all. Chime customers are not directly protected by FDIC insurance. Advancing any other interpretation is either wackadoodle or dishonest.

The Forbes article is enough, but I have also added an FDIC consumer document which explains that customers of fintechs are not directly insured by the FDIC, and have some risk, including when the fintech deposits the money in pass-through accounts.

Not showing this in the Wikipedia article on a major fintech would be malpractice. It would be a big disservice to Wikipedia readers looking for information on Chime.

I've engaged. I've explained it. I've referred to the previous talk page discussions. I let the article sit at "the wrong version" for days to let discussion proceed and temperatures cool. Nothing makes a dent. Instead the repeated deletion of the relevant language is accompanied by flinging an increasing set of wild wacky accusations.

I'm restoring the language to where it was before. And my AGF is running pretty low. -- M.boli (talk) 13:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Chiming back in again! Via another IP, as I am enjoying a smoked helles. I am sorry if I am mucking things up further, but I actually disagree with you M.boli (talk · contribs). Similar to what Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk · contribs) said above, I don't understand why the FDIC info is specific to Chime and why you have not included the same phrasing on the other fintech companies named in the source. If anything, wouldn't it make sense to include this under Customer service? (If you feel that it is so important to explain.) I don't see the crystal clear reasoning of why tit should be a part of the introductory lede. I read through your argument, Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk · contribs)'s argument, as well as the source itself. Fair to say that, as the editor above stated, that there is no direct link between the source's overall point and Chime specifically. As for your AGF, I encourage you to remember that this is an open-user platform. Hope you both can work this out!

Words. No grounding in reality.

• The claim about the other two Wikipedia articles is irrelevant -- nothing in those other articles is remotely related to removing sourced important facts about Chime from this Wikipedia article. Nevertheless:
  • The Yotta Savings article literally says in the lede Yotta is not a bank and Yotta customers were not entitled to deposit insurance.
  • The article on Synapse Financial Technologies explains there is a "shortfall" between the banks and Synapse's customers. Nice of you to put that in! And adding the Forbes reference on fintech-FDIC insurance to the article. I'll add an explicit note about the FDIC role.
• Regarding "customer service": insurance is a banking issue. This article (as well as Chime advertising) asserts that Chime not-a-bank customer money is in FDIC insured bank accounts. A plain factual matter is the FDIC bank insurance doesn't directly protect the not-a-bank customers. As the two references plainly discuss.
• Every place FDIC insurance is mentioned it needs to be explained that the FDIC insurance doesn't directly protect the customers, there are some risks that do not occur with regular bank accounts. That includes the lede.
• "There is no direct link between the source's overall point and Chime specifically" is baldly false. Both the Forbes and FDIC articles are clear their warning applies to every fintech not-a-bank that puts customer money in US banks. Chime is a fintech not-a-bank. The author of the Forbes article then used Chime as an example. You can't get more "specific" than that.

The wholesale invention of wild accusations, the utter baselessness of the claims, all of this repeated, have gone rather past the normal point of productive discourse. That the magically appearing new IP editor repeats identical easily verified mistakes doesn't do a lot for my AGF either. -- M.boli (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)