Something Wicked This Way Comes Part 3: "CardLauncher"!

[Paul Middleton]

Can you explain more, Paul? I don't think I understand. The thing is that all projects ("clients") will be signing up for that when they run decks on CardLauncher, and the escrow is for the amount to cover production and fulfillment only, the rest is their when the deck funds + 14 days, as before.

It sounds like I may have misunderstood how Escrow works. Apologies.

[montecarlojoe]

I don't think there's any reason NOT to use Amazon - they supply pretty comprehensive guides for developers...

https://payments.amazon.co.uk/help/Chec ... on-Methods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Paul Middleton]

I don't think there's any reason NOT to use Amazon - they supply pretty comprehensive guides for developers...

https://payments.amazon.co.uk/help/Chec ... on-Methods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed, and their fraud prevention (we use checkout by Amazon on our site) is very, very good. It's probably the only method of payment we take where the work is pretty much taken off us in risk scoring, etc - if Amazon aren't happy and the card hasn't been verified with an Amazon account, they simply don't allow the payment.

[Sher]

I don't think there's any reason NOT to use Amazon - they supply pretty comprehensive guides for developers...

https://payments.amazon.co.uk/help/Chec ... on-Methods" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

Also, adding Amazon payments would ease the transition for people who have backed KS projects since they're already used to this system.

[Cbkimble]

How difficult would it be to allow multiple forms of payment? Not sure if it would be feesible or not but if you had someone that doesnt want to use Amazon payment they could use paypal with a disclaimer stating that there will be XX amount surcharge/fees/etc.

[Mike Ratledge]

Lolo - I truly do understand, but in fact CrowdEngine basically requires you to setup an external forum for support and provide a pointer to it "off site" and in our case it just really doesn't make sense to do it elsewhere. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand why people don't like the idea, and I also understand that we're probably going to look at doing something else in the long term, but for right now -strictly for practical purposes we just have to do what's easiest and least cost until we at least HAVE an income, which actually won't come until after we've been running for about two months, since the first group of project will run for 35 or 40 days each and the collection/settlement period is just like everyone else: 15 days, so we're talking about 50-55 days before we see a dime of income. I also understand that a lot of people are just plain resistant to change, and some of you don't like the idea of crossing the completely anonymous nature of the UC forums with the 'pay' nature of CardLauncher. I'm afraid it's just something that wasn't planned in advance and we had to do what we could and the most reasonable thing to do was to utilize the area here because it's already paid for, we don't (and will not!) allow ANY advertising - for CL or otherwise - ever! We're also going to do our best to minimize the usage of this forum and hope to be able to move it out from "under" UC soon, but also hope that it's a fact that BY using it, we draw a new group of people here as well. It's a win-win situation, except for the cross-over between the always free and independent UnitedCardists.com and CardLauncher - which of course is a free site pretty much from the perspective of that you can use it for free, but at the same time the actual function is to provide funding for playing card decks projects. I don't see a winning hand here anywhrere, frankly.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, how would one choose to have packages shipped together? How would that affect project funding? Seems like a lot of variables to work out and something will ultimately blow up in your face.

Unfortunately, this is something we thought about, and found that the logistics for doing such a thing is just way too complex to be worth doing, not to mention the fact that two of the three fulfillment centers came out strictly against it, one in fact saying that they could not do so at all. It's similar to the problem we created by suggesting that we allow people to pay a little more and get "Express" shipping. It can be done, but in fact KWF doesn't offer it at all, GW has it has it as an option but shows it as being FedEx only - pretty much, and that's a good bit more expensive then standard shipping, although of course you get it "next day". LMM has "all the above", and frankly looks to be the easiest for us to utilize "Express" shipping in maybe even more than one way, letting you pick "2-to-3 day" UPS or FedEx, "2nd Day Air" UPS and "Next Day AIr" FedEx. We're shooting for "All the above" and if it proves popular we'll try to make it more available across fulfillment centers.

How difficult would it be to allow multiple forms of payment? Not sure if it would be feesible or not but if you had someone that doesnt want to use Amazon payment they could use paypal with a disclaimer stating that there will be XX amount surcharge/fees/etc.

There's currently zero option for us to use Amazon Payments for funding, and in any case it's a one or the other system at present and the only other option provided by any vendor I looked at was "WePay" which I'm not familiar with, so I can't really say muich - if anything - about it. I originally surveyed 8 vendors that provided CrowdFunding software of one kind or another, narrowed that immediately down to 4 that were both responsive and reasonable to do cost-wise, and of those 4 not one offered Amazon Payments - actually none of those original 8 did, either. I suppose the reason that the "big boy" on the CrowdFunding scene uses them is hat - as usual - there's some kickback involved. We have steadfastly refused to enter into any business arrangement where there was anything of the sort involved, insisting in every single case that our very nature and goal was to pass the savings we get by combining multiple projects into basically one by using escrow and paying for every single case of production and all of the fulfillment except for the very few self-fulfilled projects that will be allowed - only to groups and artists/designers that have a proven track record of not only successful but timely self-fulfillment. A single project can not "establish a track record" of good self-fulfillment, and we truly prefer for everyone to utilize a fulfillment center for the very reason that a LOT of projects in our "Hall of Shame" ended up there for that very reason: they knew what the costs were for production but failed to allow enough money to be put away to provide for the fulfillment of the items that were produced. Actually, if you look through the Hall of Shame (and we have - multiple times) - they are almost always in there because they had spotty or non-existent fulfillment to the pledge backers. That's the very reason that we thought around all of the problems and engineered our "Guaranteed Rewards Delivery" program and almost require that you participate in it in order to run a project at all on CL.

The bottom line is that self-fulfillment is just a bad idea overall, it's not easy, and far too many projects ran into problems trying to do it. If you eliminate the problem by out-thinking it, you have already gotten a step ahead and that's the whole point of the system - to make it where it's just impossible to commit fraud on the system, and that's how and why we ended up being able to offer the "Guaranteed Rewards Delivery" that in the end will be our #1 best selling point. "We're different by design", as I've said before. We looked at every single thing that was wrong with running playing card decks projects on KS and worked around it, out-thought it, or just flat our re-engineered our way to a better solution.

Next up: Launch Calendar system for clients: it's voluntary, but we hope all of the clients utilize our launch calendar so that especially new clients can use the information to their advantage, and schedule their project to run at the best time and not try to compete with "the big boys". Nothing is perfect, and of course this being a voluntary system we may find out that in fact it doesn't help that much in the long run, but it's just another example of how we have done everything in our power to create a foolproof and better working system on CL. The hope is the peer pressure will encourage all cliets to participate and therefore we'll end up with a mostly scheduled launch plans for all projects, and therefore the load will be more consistent and also more flexible, so those project that are the 'new guys' will have a better chance by scheduling their project during a low use period. That being said, the fact is that eventually - or even soon - there really won't be a "low use period" and of course it's our goal to take over the playing card decks project campaigns entirely. That's not necessarily a reasonable goal, and in fact it might not even be do-able, but we'd love to see all future projects that involve our hobby running on CL and giving all of the pledge backers a better platform to insure there is no fraudulent activity even possible. Far too many projects ended up in that Hall of Shame not by starting out as or to be a fraudulent project, but as I've already noted ended up there from either poor planning or ultimately stupidity, frankly. We can't engineer around that, but we can make it where people simply can't do things like that any more, and even trying to run a deliberately fraudulent project on CL is going to be just about impossible because we not only check the projects to insure that they are both viable and sound before we let them launch, we also have a good, long check-list that was created from that same Hall of Shame to set off the 'red flags' that the project "looks funny" - and not in the 'haha' fashion.

[Cobretti]

Nice and long read.

Good luck Mike hope it all turns out as planned. Makes life easy finding all the projects in one location.

[Mike Ratledge]

So, if I'm understanding correctly, how would one choose to have packages shipped together? How would that affect project funding? Seems like a lot of variables to work out and something will ultimately blow up in your face.

I think I've already said, but we thought about trying something like this, but it just has too many hoops you would have to jump through to make it work properly, and my fear is that no matter how we tried to work it, we'd never get it just right because there are way too many variable things.

That being said, it would be a great thing to do, but it's just not do-able logistically. The accounting nightmare is one thing, but trying to get the fulfillment centers to be arbiters of when (and how much) of each person's rewards went out just isn't a realistic expectation. I also agree that it's counter-intuitive from the perspective of the projects funding as well - it just would be too messy, leave too much residue (i.e. 'chocolate mess & goo') and end up being way too much expense to save a couple of dollars for a very few users overall. The interest level just doesn't justify the expense nor the pain involved.

[Cbkimble]

Yeah, you answered that question in your previous statement. Maybe after being up for a while, you'll be able to coordinate projects and fulfillment centers and make that a reality.

[Strag]

Count me in on those who think the logo isn't great from a usage and marketing perspective. Already on the test site I can see that the smaller it gets the more detail that gets lost. Plus it doesn't have good identification and will make brand identity that much harder.

I have worked on teams at 3 different companies designing and approving corporate and product logos and it's a very important thing. Notice how Kickstarter has their "lime green" colour which immediately identifies KS to people once they have seen it. The font they use is also simple and easily seen and scales well.

I understand you are trying to create something distinctive and on its own as a piece of art the logo is fantastic.. it's just not a good idea from a marketing standpoint.

[Mike Ratledge]

Count me in on those who think the logo isn't great from a usage and marketing perspective. Already on the test site I can see that the smaller it gets the more detail that gets lost. Plus it doesn't have good identification and will make brand identity that much harder.

I have worked on teams at 3 different companies designing and approving corporate and product logos and it's a very important thing. Notice how Kickstarter has their "lime green" colour which immediately identifies KS to people once they have seen it. The font they use is also simple and easily seen and scales well.

I understand you are trying to create something distinctive and on its own as a piece of art the logo is fantastic.. it's just not a good idea from a marketing standpoint.

Things change over time, just like PayPal has a new logo and "look and feel" after being around for ages it seems, and it's about the 10th time they have shifted gears, models and logos.

The thing about Amazon Payments is that not one single vendor that made CrowdFunding software offered it. There has to be a reason, although I haven't figured it out (yet). If anyone knows the answer, I'd be more than happy to address the issue with my software design consultant there, but that logo is staying. I could change it later, but not now. Just like I could ask them to take a couple more thousand dollars out of the little bit the company has as a startup and insist that they make it available.

Here's the thing, though: I'm using what they offered "out of the box" for now, and if things go even half as good as it appears, I'll have them code up Amazon Payments and let people that can use it choose which payment method they want to use soon enough. Maybe even let people pay by credit card? Sounds like a plan. For now, we don't 'touch' the money,though - not until it gets counted, anyway. I kind of like that from a legal and liability standpoint for us until we get going, but "I'm listening", and I'd love to be all things for all people and add it in - soon - after we get started and actually making a cent (which takes about two months, since the projects have to run for 30-40 days and then it takes another 15 days before you have dime you can actually use.

We'll get there, it's an evolutionary thing, though.

[TGunitedcardists]

The thing about Amazon Payments is that not one single vendor that made CrowdFunding software offered it. There has to be a reason, although I haven't figured it out (yet). If anyone knows the answer, I'd be more than happy to address the issue with my software design consultant there, but that logo is staying. I could change it later, but not now. Just like I could ask them to take a couple more thousand dollars out of the little bit the company has as a startup and insist that they make it available.

Here's the thing, though: I'm using what they offered "out of the box" for now, and if things go even half as good as it appears, I'll have them code up Amazon Payments and let people that can use it choose which payment method they want to use soon enough. Maybe even let people pay by credit card? Sounds like a plan. For now, we don't 'touch' the money,though - not until it gets counted, anyway. I kind of like that from a legal and liability standpoint for us until we get going, but "I'm listening", and I'd love to be all things for all people and add it in - soon - after we get started and actually making a cent (which takes about two months, since the projects have to run for 30-40 days and then it takes another 15 days before you have dime you can actually use.

We'll get there, it's an evolutionary thing, though.

By not offering at least credit card payments and going PayPal only and not offering offering Amazon Payments, the whole launch is starting crippled and is actually a disservice to the artists and designers. They make more money by more people buying. By limiting (read: making it more difficult for people to purchase) it is costing the designers money, and in turn a percentage. If you want to start off correctly, more alternatives than PayPal must exist. Isn't it too risky not to?

For example, what happens with the first few artists launch the bottleneck is PayPal? Then what? Trouble.

Have you done any research about this issue on the forums? Even a simple poll would help shed some light.

The safest way is to offer all kinds of payment options off the bat. Hundreds one person websites can do that. No reason CardLauncher should be any different. PayPal only is a bad idea.

[lolo]

Have you done any research about this issue on the forums? Even a simple poll would help shed some light.

My humble opinion : if i have to create a paypal account in order to "fund" then i won't fund.

Paypal gives the possibility to pay directly with a credit card without account. I hope this possibility is available worldwide and implemented in CardLauncher...

[Mike Ratledge]

The thing about Amazon Payments is that not one single vendor that made CrowdFunding software offered it. There has to be a reason, although I haven't figured it out (yet). If anyone knows the answer, I'd be more than happy to address the issue with my software design consultant there, but that logo is staying. I could change it later, but not now. Just like I could ask them to take a couple more thousand dollars out of the little bit the company has as a startup and insist that they make it available.

Here's the thing, though: I'm using what they offered "out of the box" for now, and if things go even half as good as it appears, I'll have them code up Amazon Payments and let people that can use it choose which payment method they want to use soon enough. Maybe even let people pay by credit card? Sounds like a plan. For now, we don't 'touch' the money,though - not until it gets counted, anyway. I kind of like that from a legal and liability standpoint for us until we get going, but "I'm listening", and I'd love to be all things for all people and add it in - soon - after we get started and actually making a cent (which takes about two months, since the projects have to run for 30-40 days and then it takes another 15 days before you have dime you can actually use.

We'll get there, it's an evolutionary thing, though.

By not offering at least credit card payments and going PayPal only and not offering offering Amazon Payments, the whole launch is starting crippled and is actually a disservice to the artists and designers. They make more money by more people buying. By limiting (read: making it more difficult for people to purchase) it is costing the designers money, and in turn a percentage. If you want to start off correctly, more alternatives than PayPal must exist. Isn't it too risky not to?

For example, what happens with the first few artists launch the bottleneck is PayPal? Then what? Trouble.

Have you done any research about this issue on the forums? Even a simple poll would help shed some light.

The safest way is to offer all kinds of payment options off the bat. Hundreds one person websites can do that. No reason CardLauncher should be any different. PayPal only is a bad idea.

Have you done any research about this issue on the forums? Even a simple poll would help shed some light.

My humble opinion : if i have to create a paypal account in order to "fund" then i won't fund.

Paypal gives the possibility to pay directly with a credit card without account. I hope this possibility is available worldwide and implemented in CardLauncher...

"We listen!" (and because we do, we just got a LOT more flexible!) - and that being said, I agree with you both! As of now, CardLauncher accepts payment using PayPal, WePay (CrowdFunding-specific payments) and using WePay allows you to use a credit card without having an account, so you can pay with:

1. PayPal
2. WePay
3. Credit card (by way of WePay without having to sign up for an account)

We _will_ be adding Amazon Payments, but I can't promise that it will be available on "Day one", although we're certainly going to try! That would give us the ultimate flexibility, and allow people to use any of their 'favorite' payment processors, or a credit card.

IN NOT CASE DOES CardLauncher SEE YOUR CREDIT CARD INFORMATION! Only WePay uses a system whereby your credit card information is "tokenized" and we never touch the money at all until after funding.

[Mike Ratledge]

Today, we announced the sponsorship of the "Weekend Of Wonder" magic exposition in Hot Springs Arkansas from September 19th-21st. See separate announcement in the Site Information forum for details and UnitedCardists is also a sponsor. We also announced new partnerships with Jamie D Grant's "SendWonder.com" campaign providing "Impossible" Bottles", CoinsForAnything.com to provide coins, card guard and dealer buttons, Gambler's Warehouse to provide ceramic full-bleed (edge to edge) poker chips and Chessex of London to provide dice for all campaigns, and all of these items qualifty for our "Guaranteed Rewards Delivery" program, since they are purchased directly by the company at a discount and funds are kept in escrow for these items so every single one is delivered to the backers.

[TGunitedcardists]

Have a listen for a couple of minutes with crowd funding and PayPal.

Twit.tv's Security Now 462: Cloud Storage Solutions
http://youtu.be/NBtbnfZc5Nc?t=18m11s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They talk specifically about crowd funding and problems with PayPal.

Here's ProtonMail's experience with crowd funding and PayPal. There are more horrible experiences with PayPal too.

https://protonmail.ch/blog/paypal-freez ... ign-funds/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[montecarlojoe]

It's a good think Mike took the suggestions on board as We Pay and Amazon payments should also be available at go live.

Whilst not big for cards, Indiegogo seems to funtion ok with PayPal...

Caveat Emptor I guess.

[Mike Ratledge]

It's a good think Mike took the suggestions on board as We Pay and Amazon payments should also be available at go live.

Whilst not big for cards, Indiegogo seems to funtion ok with PayPal...

Caveat Emptor I guess.

PayPal HAD problems with doing pre-authorized things like CrowdFunded projects before, but not any more, period. On opening day we will take PayPal, WePay and credit cards worldwide. Amazon Payments will be done, but not before we actually have an income. If you want to pay by credit card, you just pick "WePay" and pay as a guest without even having an account. It's that simple. They "tokenize" credit cards, and WE never see anything including your card information at all, period - and never will. PayPal or WePay handle those, we do not. Now, we're setup to take PayPal mobile and Stripe payments if we're at a convention or something like that, but online - no. I have two each for my smartphone and the wife's so we can do that when we need to do so, but I don't foresee it happening any time soon. Well, that's not true: I'll use them during the 52+Joker convention here in mid-October, I'm quite certain now that I think about it.

[TGunitedcardists]

PayPal HAD problems with doing pre-authorized things like CrowdFunded projects before, but not any more, period.

Do you have proof to support this? Recent news and a past history don't support this statement.

Did you read the information I posted? I'd call a situation that happened on July 1st pretty recent. To say PayPay HAD problems is completely wrong. They still have problems. This particular situation was only fixed because they got a lot attention. Another link dates back to March 14, 2014. It's a bit shortsighted to call problems with PayPal over.

[mmiikk]

Im not an expert in branding or marketing, but purely from a visual standpoint, when I first saw the logo, I thought there was a spelling mistake. It reads to me, card iauncher, more evident in caps, CARD IAUNCHER. To me it looks like the "tail" on the capital L, is lost in the design.

[snsdmonkey]

Count me in on those who think the logo isn't great from a usage and marketing perspective. Already on the test site I can see that the smaller it gets the more detail that gets lost. Plus it doesn't have good identification and will make brand identity that much harder.

I have worked on teams at 3 different companies designing and approving corporate and product logos and it's a very important thing. Notice how Kickstarter has their "lime green" colour which immediately identifies KS to people once they have seen it. The font they use is also simple and easily seen and scales well.

I understand you are trying to create something distinctive and on its own as a piece of art the logo is fantastic.. it's just not a good idea from a marketing standpoint.

Things change over time, just like PayPal has a new logo and "look and feel" after being around for ages it seems, and it's about the 10th time they have shifted gears, models and logos.

The difference between the PayPal logo and yours is that it has been quite effective from Day 1. The only reason they have continually changed it is to keep it 'fresh', the 'in' style has changed over the years. Similarly Google, eBay and a number of other big sites have continually changed their logos but fundamentally they have remained the same.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board and keep it simple. As much as you guys knock flat and minimalist, in terms of logos and marketing, that is what is effective right now.

[JacksonRobinson]

If your logo is the size of a dime and you can still read it then it is an effective logo.

[Mike Ratledge]

What Jackson said is precisely the point: if you can resize it from a dime to a 40' wide size, like you would if you wanted to put it on an outdoor advertising billboard, it's a good logo. Now, I'm not going to waste ten minutes in Ai and prove it, but let's just look at two versions: one is the original in PNG format with translucent background so you can put it on anything and the effect is just perfect. The glossy 'shine' isn't really there, it's your mind playing tricks on you. The shading makes that happen. People that have complained about the font obviously don't realize that THERE IS NONE! It's a hand drawn logo done by someone that knows WTH they are doing. If you liked Requiem or even if you didn't, perhaps you might have preferred Heretic, or (I'm not saying - I've got a secret - again!), then you know who I'm talking about.

The second version is purposefully revamped for a logo/seal type situation where there are no shades of gray, it's all black and white - no in-between. One's stacked up on top with the two words, the original is side-to-side. Pretty much the only differences. If you don't like it, sorry -it is what it is and I've got Lorenzo busy right now - far too busy to trifle with this "I think it should have a bolder and more readable font".

Now, look at those, tell me what's wrong with them. If you say the font isn't just write, remember - there IS no font, it's all done free-hand by someone that knows what they're doing, and it's not the first try at it, even eye have a critical eye and suggested a few changes, Lorenzo is TEN TIMES as critical of his own work as anyone else is, so I didn't have to say much - if anything - and he just took it and redid it from the ground up and there's where we ended up. Is it perfect? In my mind it is. Will it ever change? Probably - down the road, but for now "it is what it is", and just like Jackson said: I can turn it from a half-dime size into a billboard and it still reads the same. That's a good logo, no - that's great logo!

[JacksonRobinson]

I didn't say it was a good or great logo either way. I do know that your typeface is a display font, and because it is a display font it makes it even harder to read. No matter how big you blow up the letters or what billboard you put it on your font is going to be hard to read.

Stacking the words doesn't help the readability.

[Strag]

I didn't say it was a good or great logo either way. I do know that your typeface is a display font, and because it is a display font it makes it even harder to read. No matter how big you blow up the letters or what billboard you put it on your font is going to be hard to read.

Stacking the words doesn't help the readability.

THIS.

Mike, you are debating a very tiny point here. By "font" I meant the type it is written in. Just because there isn't a commercially available font doesn't mean that it still isn't readable at various sizes.

It's your site and you are obviously free to implement what you like. Fact is both Jackson and myself (both of whom have experience in the area of logos) have told you that "AS A LOGO" it doesn't work. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work as a piece of art or as a cool graphic. Just means that AS A LOGO it doesn't do what it's supposed to. You can take the advice as you please but in my opinion it would be good to keep an open mind. It could be you have gone too far down the path to make a change now.

Here's a good (not great) article on logo design: http://www.wikihow.com/Design-a-Logo

[montecarlojoe]

One could argue that this ISNT a logo at all - Kickstarter's is simply a K for instance, and that a logo is something new that needs to be worked on.

A CL akin to Mike UC on his avatar might work!

[Mike Ratledge]

One could argue that this ISNT a logo at all - Kickstarter's is simply a K for instance, and that a logo is something new that needs to be worked on.

A CL akin to Mike UC on his avatar might work!

Of course all of these things will be done - in time. For now, I am quite satisfied that this will both suffice not only as our "logo" if you will, but also spark some debate, which is a good thing! Anything that elicits comments positive or negative is causing it to catch your eye, or you would not comment, right?

That being said, I never said that is was perfect, nor that the 'stacked' version was anything but an alternate format to be used in black and white print media, etc. The fact is that the original logo with the apparent sheen / shine / glossy affect is quite good, regardless of how perfect the readability is. In fact, some corporate logos these days stretch the boundaries of what is usable, to the point of absurdity.

In any case, it is identifiable as being "us", and that is the only point I need to make. Whether or not it morphs over the years is another thing, and as people have noted PayPal moves - it seems annually now - to change their branding. That's both good and bad. They have the power to make it widely dispersed overnight, and in doing so the brand shift is not as much a problem. If I were to change this dramatically overnight at this point, it would in effect be a departure from what people are already used to seeing. That would be an ignorant marketing move, and the differentiators for branding are quite an esoteric thing.

We purposefully mixed the modern with the elegant "old style", in fact this is much the same style as Expert PCC's new logo (coincidentally designed by the same artist), but the Cyberian Way logo is in opposite quite forward looking, as opposed to traditional or "old school" as some put it.

I don't use pooh for my branding, I use contrast to the fullest, for affect and effecting a diametrically opposed perspective. I made a joke of it not long ago, asking if people were "looking back" or "looking forward"...

[Mike Ratledge]

Just keeping everyone up-to-date, today we have two big announcements, and one even bigger!

First: I have found a source for custom 3D holographic seals in large numbers customized per order at around 10 cents per piece. Smaller quantities and non-standard ("Custom") designs will likely run double that, since you have to create a special solid nickel die for every single unique design. Reprints are about 25-30% cheaper, assuming you reuse that same nickel die. I looked at 30x30mm square seals with 3D holographic apparent kinematic motion (all an optical illusion, of course, even the color shift is simply playing tricks on the receptors in your eyes) - but the visual is repeatable because of the way two eyes process everything in 'stereo' if you will. We will offer these to every customer that wants them, and assuming you have the artwork and precise quantity, I can get them serialized - i.e. 0001/2750 for example. Fully custom, tamper-evident is extra, as is serialization, but if you just want 10,000 for every deck you make and use them as custom seals, they are cheap! The extreme ones are those with apparent motion between two (or more) objects, called "lenticular" motion. Laser etched serialization - no problem: (but the rights to do so worldwide are exclusive to CardLauncher and Cyberian Way, LLC - the company that owns CL, be it for playing card decks or otherwise. I have no exclusivity on security-oriented holograms in orders of 10,000+ - but custom size, shape, imagery, numbers for collectors, that is only available by "Custom to Order" arrangement from the firm. The "0001 of 2500" or more decks is required due to the nature of the nickel die requirements, anything at lower quantities must pay the price for 2500 regardless. Even with this exclusive worldwide licensing arrangement, there are certain limitations inherent to the technology. Every single 3D holo seal will contain the companies logo, although I will entertain the idea of selling them outside of CardLauncher - perhaps.)

Laser etched serial number.png (100.65 KiB) Viewed 1257 times

Second, we added "Pacful" fulfillment center of Rancho Cordera California to the partners today. They have 150,000 sq ft warehouse space and 75 truck loading docks, and the ability to ship a sustained 5000 packages per day. It will be available on "Day 1" from CardLauncher - just another one of our differentiators. Every single one makes us better - and stronger. By the way, there seems to be some confusion about how "Quantium" fulfillment fits in the system. In Taiwan, they are part of Singapore Post. ANY Expert PCC created deck will be fulfilled for Asia/Pacific/Oceania two to three weeks before we even see the boat here in the US. It's a four week float into Port of NY/NJ, and a three+ week into Oakland for Pacful destination, with trucks picking up from the docks instead of shipment by rail and then truck to the centers. Again, a differentiator. For once, they will get their decks early, not shipped to the US first only to show up six weeks later.

pacfulfillment_california.png (53.61 KiB) Viewed 1258 times

Next - the BIG one: Amazon Payments IS coming to CardLauncher. At this late date I can't say for certain it will be available on 1-August, but it's going to happen. That means that soon - if not on the first day, you can pay using PayPal, WePay, credit card (without even having an account) OR Amazon Payments. Now that's good news, and yet again - another one of our differentiators. ( I couldn't find a graphic that said "soon" )

AP_Supporting_soon.jpg (31.63 KiB) Viewed 1258 times

[TGunitedcardists]

ANY Expert PCC created deck will be fulfilled for Asia/Pacific/Oceania two to three weeks before we even see the boat here in the US. It's a four week float into Port of NY/NJ, and a three+ week into Oakland for Pacful destination, with trucks picking up from the docks instead of shipment by rail and then truck to the centers. Again, a differentiator. For once, they will get their decks early, not shipped to the US first only to show up six weeks later.

Excellent.

Next - the BIG one: Amazon Payments IS coming to CardLauncher. At this late date I can't say for certain it will be available on 1-August, but it's going to happen. That means that soon - if not on the first day, you can pay using PayPal, WePay, credit card (without even having an account) OR Amazon Payments. Now that's good news, and yet again - another one of our differentiators.

This is a huge step. And now you've put the payment "problems" to rest.

[Mike Ratledge]

ANY Expert PCC created deck will be fulfilled for Asia/Pacific/Oceania two to three weeks before we even see the boat here in the US. It's a four week float into Port of NY/NJ, and a three+ week into Oakland for Pacful destination, with trucks picking up from the docks instead of shipment by rail and then truck to the centers. Again, a differentiator. For once, they will get their decks early, not shipped to the US first only to show up six weeks later.

Excellent.

Next - the BIG one: Amazon Payments IS coming to CardLauncher. At this late date I can't say for certain it will be available on 1-August, but it's going to happen. That means that soon - if not on the first day, you can pay using PayPal, WePay, credit card (without even having an account) OR Amazon Payments. Now that's good news, and yet again - another one of our differentiators.

This is a huge step. And now you've put the payment "problems" to rest.

We aim to please - and obviously - we listen!