Sorry ... Page Not Found

I'm sorry, but the page you're looking for could not be found. Below are our most recent articles. Perhaps you'll find what you're looking for there.

People Are Using AI as a Replacement for Search

Article by:

It used to always be Google when it came to search, but a recent study shared by OpenAI shows that people are using LLMs in a manner that is very similar to how they used Google.

21.3% of ChatGPT interactions, for example, are about seeking information, 28.3% are about practical guidance, and 7.5% are about technical help.

The data was based on 1.1 million sampled conversations between May 15, 2024 and June 26, 2025.

openai chart

“While users can seek information and advice from traditional web search engines as well as from ChatGPT, the ability to produce writing, software code, spreadsheets, and other digital products distinguishes generative AI from existing technologies,” the report says. “ChatGPT is also more flexible than web search even for traditional applications like Seeking Information and Practical Guidance, because users receive customized responses (e.g., tailored workout plans, new product ideas, ideas for fantasy football team names) that represent newly generated content or novel modification of user-provided content and follow-up requests.”

ChatGPT’s crossover as a search engine is already going one step further. Last week the company announced that it was partnering with Stripe on in-chat checkout.

“The flow is simple: a ChatGPT user asks for product recommendations in the chat,” Stripe said of it. “When they are ready to buy, they are presented with a Stripe-powered checkout inline in the chat.”

And just as recently, ChatGPT is now also leaning into auto-complete queries, similar to what Google already does.

Typing “line of cred” into a query box, for example, shows “line of credit options for small businesses” as a potential query for the user to choose from.

line of credit

View Post

Revenue Based Financing Continues to Spread at Global Pace

Article by:

uber eatsEarlier this month, Uber Eats joined the revenue-based financing movement by partnering with Pipe Capital.

Karl Hebert, Vice President of Global Commerce and Financial Services at Uber, said of it, “We are happy to team up with Pipe to bring working capital to Uber Eats. Restaurants are our partners at Uber, and the backbone of our communities, yet many struggle with access to capital.”

It’s an unsurprising step considering rival DoorDash rolled out a merchant cash advance program nearly four years ago, though Uber arguably began experimenting with MCAs nearly ten years ago. And Uber is hardly doing it just to do it. Uber, for example, rolled out Uber Eats Financing, a revenue based financing product in Mexico through a partnership with R2 this past January, which went so well that they also rolled it out in Chile months later.

In Chile with R2, the service is described as taking place entirely within the Uber Eats Manager App with a 5-minute application process and payments made automatically and deducted by a fixed percentage from sales made using the platform.

In the US with Pipe, it says that the Uber Eats App Manager will show capital offers from Pipe that are customized based on restaurant revenue, cash flow, and business performance.

Uber joins Amazon, Walmart, Shopify, Intuit, Stripe, DoorDash, PayPal, Square, GoDaddy, Wix, Squarespace and others in offering a revenue-based financing product.

Revenue-based financing as a product type is available in but not limited to the US, Canada, Mexico, Chile, UK, Germany, Ireland, Spain, South Africa, Nigeria, India, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, and more.

View Post

Covid EIDLs With Real Estate as Collateral Have Much Lower Default Rate

Article by:

369,588 Covid-era EIDL loans valued at $47 billion had been charged off by December 2024, according to a recent report issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).

It turns out that collateralizing real estate may have made all the difference in the outcome. For loans over $25,000, for example, the SBA relied on simple blanket liens as collateral. This allowed the agency the right to take possession of the borrower’s assets upon default, such as inventory, equipment, and any other tangible or intangible property owned by a business. If that was supposed to be a deterrent to default, it hasn’t shown considering the raw number of defaults so far.

On loans over $500,000, however, business borrowers were supposedly required to put up real estate as collateral but according to the OIG, they approved the loans regardless. Consequently, of the 58,024 COVID-19 EIDLs exceeding $500,000, only 4,718 were secured with real estate. Only five of those real-estate-backed loans had defaulted as of July 2024. Compare that with the 4,605 loans over $500,000 without real estate as collateral that have already defaulted and been charged off. The difference is clear.

As of July 2024, none of the five defaults with real estate had been foreclosed on yet.

Full OIG Report here.

View Post

Only One Month Until B2B Finance Expo

Article by:


The B2B Finance Expo is October 28-29. Returning to Wynn Las Vegas after its incredible inaugural success in 2024, this groundbreaking event will once again bring together leaders from Small Business Lending, Equipment Finance, Real Estate Lending, Revenue Based Financing, and beyond. Over the course of this exclusive two-day event, brokers, lenders, funders, and service providers alike can expect networking opportunities, insight sessions, and much more.

Sponsorships / Exhibiting: SOLD OUT
Wynn Discounted Room Block: SOLD OUT
Backup Discounted Room Block: Click Here

Tickets Still Available at: REGISTERING NOW.

B2B Finance Expo is powered by deBanked in collaboration with the Small Business Finance Association (SBFA).

b2b finance expo las vegas

View Post

The Great Concession, How the MCA Product Effectively Proved It Was Right All Along

Article by:

moneyacrossthecountryThere was no greater irony than the State of Texas banning ACH debits from sales-based financing providers at the same time that the State of Washington was celebrating the coming age of sales-based financing. In Texas, for example, the motivation for curbing sales-based financing was built on the premise that “this type of financing has raised significant concerns about predatory lending and that state attorneys general as well as the Federal Trade Commission have obtained high-profile judgments against such financing for predatory practices.” Meanwhile, in Washington, the motivation for the state holding the opposite opinion was that sales-based financing “increases access to capital for small businesses in Washington state, particularly those that have been historically underserved or underbanked.”

How did these states reach the opposite conclusion?

There’s no caveat to how the Washington State program works. The State’s Department of Commerce partnered with Grow America and the operation is backed by a federal grant (SSBCI-21031-0048) to roll out and administer a revenue-based financing program as part of Washington’s State Small Business Credit Initiative. It’s sales-based financing or in this case revenue-based financing (which is the more common phrase these days). Grow America’s revenue-based financing program utters a very familiar phrase in its marketing.

“The months you generate more revenue, you pay a higher amount, when business is slower you pay less,” the company advertises.

This was at one time the signature calling card of a merchant cash advance, but now such features have been repackaged and rebranded into something similar but different, and everybody is doing them.

The Grow America program applies a 20% holdback on adjusted monthly revenue and requires a minimum monthly payment of $1,000 if the 20% holdback does not generate at least $1,000 for the month. Merchants can get approved for anywhere from $50,000 to $1 million. The product is marketed as having a 1.24 factor rate and an estimated 14.27% APR with a 3-year term. As industry participants are aware, increasing sales would translate into increasing payments, which means a rapidly paid off loan could potentially result in a final outcome APR in the triple digits, far and away from the “estimate.”

The irony is that the notable benefits of a similar product, merchant cash advances, which have no minimum monthly payments, no fixed term, and are not absolutely repayable, are eliminated when restructured in this way and presented as “revenue-based financing loans.” Revenue-based financing loans take the underlying structure of MCAs (payments tied to sales) and then strip away the benefits. However, when structured as loans, the argument often goes that they are likely to be cheaper, which may be true on average, but is not always true.

Indeed, Grow America leads specifically with price as for why its product, similar to its privately owned competitors, are the better option:

“There are a lot of online lenders offering revenue-based loans that promise instant approvals, but their terms are intentionally confusing, and the fees are high,” Grow America advertises. “Our lenders aren’t like that. They’re mission driven.”

In Texas, the author of the bill that banned debits from such financing providers “informed the [legislative] committee that commercial sales-based financing has become a popular financing option for small businesses desperate for credit and that, unlike traditional loans, this type of financing is repaid as a percentage of future sales or revenue.”

Indeed, it is very popular. The largest providers or brokers of such financing today whether structured as a purchase or loan, are household names like Amazon, Walmart, Shopify, Intuit, Stripe, DoorDash, PayPal, Square, GoDaddy, Wix, Squarespace and more. Some structure them as a purchase and call it a merchant cash advance and some structure it as a loan and call it revenue-based financing. In either case, payments are tied to the percentage of future sales or revenue.

In egregious cases of wrongdoing one way or another, such incidents have historically been a result of deceptive marketing or payments from a merchant exceeding the contracted amount. In New York, when transactions are structured as a purchase, courts generally look to make sure that the agreements have a reconciliation provision in the agreement, whether the agreement has a finite term, and whether there is any recourse should the merchant declare bankruptcy. Legally speaking, the products have become pretty well defined and understood in the court system.

Like Washington State, GoDaddy, which recently announced its new merchant cash advance program, markets its product in an almost identical fashion.

“If your sales go up, the MCA will be paid sooner; if the sales are slow, it’ll take longer,” GoDaddy says.

Same message.

Washington State requires merchants to make a minimum payment every month and a balloon payment if not fully repaid within 3 years. GoDaddy, by contrast, advertises no minimum payment amount, no set payment schedule, no penalties, and no late fees. One’s a loan, one’s a purchase.

While the best course of action is best left to the merchants, there appears to be a near-universal concession that the underlying nature of how merchant cash advance agreements were contemplated, payments tied to sales, made strong logical business sense all along. Washington State emphasizes this fact.

“We know that your business has its own needs and loans with fixed payment amounts may not be the best option for you,” they advertise. “The revenue-based financing fund offers loans with flexible payback terms so you can grow your business immediately and pay back your loan based on your varying revenue.”

Recent studies also now highlight the benefits of cash-flow-based underwriting.

In Sharpening the Focus: Using Cash-Flow Data to Underwrite Financially Constrained Businesses, “The paper finds that adding cash-flow information substantially increases the predictive signal of models that rely primarily on the business owners’ personal credit scores and firm characteristics.”

There’s also Square, the largest revenue-based financing provider in the US, that has explained why this system just works better. Square says that they can fund more businesses and have higher payment success rates than if they were to follow more conventional methods of underwriting and repayment.

“Square Loans addresses [the credit] gap by using near real-time business data to assess creditworthiness, evaluating metrics such as transaction volume and revenue patterns to offer short-term loans — with repayment on average in 8 months,” Square wrote in a White Paper. “This allows for a more accurate and timely understanding of a business’s capacity to borrow and repay. And loan repayments are higher during periods when business is stronger and reduced when sales are lower.”

Washington Fund

doordash capital

What’s the sentiment these days on payments tied to sales revenue? The market has spoken.

wix capital

View Post

RadioShack Owners Accused of Running a Ponzi Scheme

Article by:

When the RadioShack brand was acquired in 2020 by Retail Ecommerce Ventures, LLC, the company shifted gears into a new direction, cryptocurrency. Using Twitter, now X, as its main base of messaging, the RadioShack account rapidly became outwardly controversial and hostile in order to generate eyeballs and attention. It was quite successful and piqued my curiosity to the point that it ended up on deBanked in 2021.

At the time the company said “RadioShack DeFi is focused on the early majority. It will become the first to market with a 100 year old brand name that’s recognized in virtually all 190+ countries in the world.”

When I actually inquired about information on its new DeFi platform, all I received was a digital coupon for a boombox…

But the party seemed to come to an end and the account stopped tweeting on November 17, 2022.

Now, according to the SEC, it has been revealed that the owners of RadioShack and other defunct brand names had been conducting a ponzi scheme precisely through November 2022.

Taino Adrian Lopez, Alexander Farhang Mehr, and Maya Rose Burkenroad, were charged this week for running a $112M ponzi scheme. Apparently, none of the household brand names they acquired were generating any profits, but they claimed to investors that they were in order to raise capital. “Consequently, in order to pay interest, dividends and maturing note payments, Defendants resorted to using a combination of loans from outside lenders, merchant cash advances, money raised from new and existing investors, and transfers from other portfolio companies to cover obligations,” the SEC claims.

In addition to RadioShack, the accused operated Brahms, Linens ‘N Things, Modell’s, Stein Mart, and Pier 1 Imports.

Full complaint can be read here.

View Post

Sold Out? How to Get a Hotel Room for B2B Finance Expo

Article by:


The B2B Finance Expo coming up in Las Vegas is in high demand. The discounted conference room block is entirely sold out but it is still possible to secure a room at the Wynn directly at full price. If that’s too steep, the conference has secured an additional block across the street where the rooms are approximately 80% lower in price. To take advantage of the extremely discounted rooms, use this link. The event itself is at the Wynn!

The conference is on October 28-29.



View Post

MCA Reconciliation Can’t be Reviewed as “Illusory” if the Merchant Didn’t Even Engage in the Reconciliation Procedure

Article by:

In Apollo Funding Co v Dave Reilly Construction, LLC, The Appellate Division of the Second Department of the Supreme Court of New York, reversed the lower court’s denial of the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. For background, Apollo purchased DRC’s future receivables, DRC breached the agreement, Apollo sued and moved for summary judgment, and DRC entered a defense that the agreement was actually an unlawful usurious loan. Based on DRC’s defense the lower court denied Apollo’s summary judgment motion.

Upon Apollo’s appeal in the Second Department, the Court found: “the plaintiff established that the transaction set forth in the agreement was not a loan. The terms of the agreement specifically provided for adjustments to the daily payments by DRC to the plaintiff based on changes to DRC’s daily receipts. Concomitantly, as the amount of the daily payments could change, the terms of the agreement were not finite, and because DRC did not engage in the agreement’s reconciliation procedure, our review of the claim that the process was illusory is precluded [emphasis ours]. Moreover, no contractual provision existed establishing that a declaration of bankruptcy would constitute an event of default.”

The Second Department ruled that Apollo had “otherwise established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint.”

The original case ID in the New York Supreme Court was 035156/2023. The Appellate Division’s Decision and Order was issued September 24, 2025.

View Post