redotpay locked the account halfway through a supplier order — $6,800 held

Posting this while it is still happening rather than after, because the after-the-fact versions of these threads always leave out the timeline.

I use RedotPay for supplier payments — the whole reason I picked it is the hundred thousand per transaction ceiling, which nothing else in this comparison comes close to. Full KYC done last year, physical card, about fourteen months of clean history.

Monday I split a supplier order across two charges, $4,200 and $2,600. The first authorised. The second declined, and forty seconds later the app logged me out and came back with additional verification required. Card is dead, app is read-only, and the $6,800 is showing as held rather than as balance.

So: has anyone in this region been through their additional verification, and what did they actually ask you for? I have the invoice and the supplier contract. I would rather not send a bank statement.

splitting a payment is the thing that triggers it, not the size. you told their engine you were avoiding a threshold

The threshold is a hundred thousand. I was at seven.

their published threshold is a hundred thousand. the one the engine uses is not published

Why two charges and not one? Genuinely asking — was it the supplier's limit or yours?

Supplier's checkout caps at five thousand per order. Nothing to do with the card.

Then say that in the ticket, in the first line, with a screenshot of their checkout. That one sentence is the difference between structuring and shopping and nobody will infer it for you.

Fourteen months of clean history on a personal card doing supplier payments. That is the thing they flagged, not the split.

This is the point I usually get told nobody cares about, so I will keep it short.

Supplier payments on a personal card are a reporting problem before they are a compliance problem. You have no invoice trail on the card side, the counterparty sees a consumer BIN, and when a reviewer asks what the money is for, the honest answer sounds exactly like the dishonest one.

RedotPay does issue in a business capacity. It is more onboarding and it is genuinely tedious, but the review you are in right now is the alternative, and it recurs.

Or stop routing supplier payments through a card at all. Pay the invoice in usdc and settle on chain. Every card is a consumer rail wearing a business costume.

Her supplier takes cards. If they took stablecoins she would not be in this thread.

Correct. I have asked. They will not.

any update on this

Yes, sorry — I said I would keep it live and then did not.

Week one: nothing but the autoresponder. Week two: they asked for proof of income, not proof of the payment. I sent the supplier contract and the checkout screenshot anyway.

Week three they released $4,200 back to spendable and left $2,600 held. No explanation for the split, and the released amount is exactly the charge that had already authorised, which I do not think is a coincidence.

Card works. $2,600 still held. Seven weeks now.

The releasing-what-already-authorised part is the interesting detail and I think it explains more than the rest of the thread has.

My read: the first charge cleared and settled, so it is a completed transaction they can evidence. The second never settled, so the funds are sitting in a state they have to make a decision about rather than one they can simply unwind. Those are different objects to a reviewer and it is not surprising they moved at different times.

Which also means the limits are real. Nobody in this thread has produced a case of RedotPay declining inside the published per-transaction ceiling for being over a hidden one — grindstone's hidden threshold is an assumption and I have not seen it evidenced. What I have seen, across four accounts I have visibility on, is that this outfit samples for AML rather than tripping on amounts, and a supplier payment from a personal card is the highest-scoring thing you can hand a sampler.

n=4, which is nothing. But it is four more than the alternative theory has.