@DarrenZuckerman
Account based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Hot take, built on LegitScript's own numbers from a couple weeks ago:
Telehealth applications for LegitScript certification doubled in the past year. LegitScript puts the increase at 101%.
Founders now treat certification as step one. At @frame_payments , we worry about step two.
Certification gets you ads on Google and Meta and a path to card acceptance. But..it does not keep your merchant account open.
Your payment provider keeps watching after you pass:
-Where your prescribers are licensed, and where you ship.
-What your ads claim, and what the label says.
-How hard you make it to cancel a refill subscription.
Fail one and the seal in your footer will not save the account.
A year from now every serious telehealth brand will be certified. The winners will be the ones who kept doing the work after the seal arrived.
Telehealth founders: which was harder, getting LegitScript certified or getting a payment provider to approve you?
Darren Zuckerman retweeted
"Pay for what you use" sounds fair until finance has to forecast it.
Usage pricing without a predictable bill just relocates the fight from seats to reconciliation.
If your buyer cannot ballpark next month before the invoice lands, the meter is not a feature. It is a support ticket.
Been on a lot of calls this year with telehealth & peptides operators. It's the same story every time.
Processor approved them months ago. Then without notice, their account gets flagged or frozen, and now they're scrambling for a new provider.
Meanwhile they're paying a KYC vendor, a fraud tool, a chargeback company and a billing platform on the side. 5+ contracts. 5+ integrations. Nobody owns the whole thing or knows what to do when it breaks.
That's the problem we built Frame for.
One API for the entire payments & compliance infrastructure. Cards, ACH, RTP, patient identity, 3DS, monitoring, disputes, subscriptions. Compliance is built into the stack, not stitched on after. And we underwrite telehealth up front, so the freeze isn't coming after you get through.
Curious how many vendors are in your stack right now. Bet it's more than you think... ✌
as we go deeper working with these platforms, one thing I keep coming back to is how much signal we see. we see more than most processors because we also handle compliance for a lot of these platforms. we see payouts patterns, spend behavior, location, and the identity data. when you put this together, it’s a fuller picture of a user. it can flag when someone might need limits imposed before it becomes a real problem.
it's a realllllly fine line though. protecting users from fraud is our job. protecting people from themselves isn't. we're not deciding how someone spends their paycheck, but we can make sure platforms have the information to make that call themselves. the signal only matters if it turns into something they can act on.
A 29-year-old pest control salesman says he bets on sports every day, wagering between $80,000 and $120,000 a year — as much as or more than his $97,000 salary.
He tells @JimAxelrod he sometimes puts an entire paycheck on his bets. cbsnews.com/news/sports-bett…
the struggle described in this piece makes sense. as a founder, your instinct is to remove friction and grow. I think there's a happy medium between being overly sensitive to risk and being reckless about it.
prediction markets are a unique fraud surface because a win pays out in cash. we process payments for one at Frame and see the same patterns. stolen cards, card testing, velocity attacks, etc.
we think the approach should be to push verification upstream. we combine device signals, KYC, $0 3DS auth, card/address name matching, and more into onboarding to tie the user to the payment method before they transact.
this is what a good UX looks like…verification happens before the first transaction so you have fewer actual fraud losses (friendly fraud is another story).
wsj.com/business/polymarkets…
Darren Zuckerman retweeted
to be clear, anyone of any race can be named Laderian. the man in this ID photo is certainly not... Laderian.
this is the kind of tacit knowledge that’s hard to train into a risk model. sometimes everything technically passes, but a human looks at it for three seconds and knows something is off.
at @frame_payments , our underwriting models recommend decisions, but a human still confirms them before we set a customer live. human-in-the-loop still matters a lot in risk.
we’re sponsoring a builder house in Austin. mostly to make sure nobody says “we’ll just use Stripe.”
sign up to attend and we’ll throw ya $100k in processing credits for whatever you’re building.
Everyone is flying in from around the country for our 18 person builder house Oct 4th-10th.
Sponsored dinners and lots more by
@concentrateai @rhobusiness @obvious @frame_payments
luma.com/0l4a3kvp
this is what fraud prevention becomes when the same bad actor can keep trying the same thing and nobody changes the rules.
card testing, velocity attacks, repeat attempts, refund abuse. every vertical gets hit differently.
we tune rules and custom AI/ML models by industry, then give merchants access to our risk team to help them actually use the infrastructure, not just turn it on.
@cultured from @whop reached out and covered the costs of fraud payments refund fees
thanks for this but i still can’t trust to switch back to whop bcs how do i make sure it will not happen again
bcs last time this situation was really fucked up
i mean that guy was doing $500 fraud transactions like test cards
i refunded him 4 times
still whop was allowing same dude to pay again and again
i mean there is something seriously wrong with how the fraud detection has been implemented in the backend systems at whop
i would really suggest @cultured to hire better engineers so this doesn’t happen more often
if i had not refunded those transactions and was sleeping
@whop would have been declared me as fraud and could have shut down my account and blacklisted me
thankfully i got to know this asap and refunded those payments asap bcs i am
in the game for too long and i see when a transaction is fraudulent or not
Darren Zuckerman retweeted
My GTM team uses a lot of these systems (Claude & Attio). Been hearing a lot about goji. Will try it out this week. @DarrenZuckerman
building in high-compliance means the risk team @frame_payments has seen some… stuff. we’re going to start sharing more insights.
one of the most surprising things we found supporting creator economy companies is how many have almost no system for detecting when their platforms are being used to facilitate sex work. their terms ban it, but the infra often isn’t there to enforce it.
so we built it.
we are absolutely going for it. Stripe is king today… but I think they’re distracted.
we want to build the best payments + compliance for every customer, in every geography, across every vertical.
the king is vulnerable. we’re coming for the crown.
telemedicine has had one gatekeeper for far too long.
LegitScript gates access to both payments and advertising. acquiring banks and ad platforms treat its certification as the single source of truth.
we’re building the alternative at Frame. a product supercharged by AI that automates verification of licensure, products, prescribing practices, and compliance evidence so certification moves from weeks to near real-time.
we want the best people in compliance, pharmacy, and telemedicine to come build it with us. who should we be talking to?
auto-accepting every dispute is crazy. merchants should be creating evidence before the transaction even happens. things like card verification, card name matching, AVS/CVV, device signals, etc.
the best dispute defense starts at sign up, not when the chargeback shows up.
NO MORE AUTO ACCEPTING DISPUTES. I AM FIGHTING BACK. evidence collected from DB usage through read only claude MCP access. submitted through AI dispute access token fighter. if you want a refund just ask, i am not paying the $15 dispute fee anymore as a "nice guy" for this crap
we think merchants should treat adding a card during signup as a verification event. authenticate it, then match the cardholder name and billing details. you get the friction out of the way before checkout and start building evidence before a dispute ever happens.
