Sorry, ignore the last question - don't post when your brain is...

Sorry, ignore the last question - don't post when your brain is around 20% capacity!

Your comment is understandable and, in fact, that's what I thought and its make sense. It seems the merchants can choose whether to accept payment upfront or to have it in installments.

But the raises the question, Spit it continues to claim that it has no exposure to bad debts. Is this really the case? From your comments, it seems the merchants have nothing to lose and Spit it is on the hook for the payments. For example, say if someone buyers a $10k watch from a merchant and want to break it into 4 x $2.5k payments with Split it. But the merchant wants cash upfront - the entire $10k. Split it borrows debt to pay the merchant up front and seems on the hook for the 4x $2.5k payments taking on bad debt risk.

Is this logic right?

Secondly, the debt with Shaked pays interest of 10% p.a. This is unfavorable compared to Splitit 3% fee (which is generally keeps 70% under gross profit).... So Splitit earns less than 3% on the transaction and pays 10% interest to SHAKED.

Something seems wrong.

It's probably my understanding.

If anyone could help correct it, it would be much appreciated.