问HN：为什么美国邮政服务（USPS）不作为支付处理商？
随着新技术的发展，比如电子邮件减少了寄送信件的数量，以及来自其他快递公司的竞争加剧，美国邮政服务（USPS）的收入正在减少。我认为USPS需要进入支付处理业务。与依赖像PayPal、Stripe等成千上万的中介相比，USPS将成为合法企业更可靠和可信赖的选择。所产生的费用不仅可以为整个机构提供资金支持，还能为美国财政部创造利润。
规则将很简单：只要您没有违反联邦法律，USPS的支付处理系统就会处理您的交易。您知道现在有多少合法企业因为这些寄生中介而挣扎或无法运营吗？
USPS可以像北达科他州银行一样运营，法律上无法在没有充分法律依据的情况下拒绝为某人提供银行服务。这个举措可以拯救该机构，消除那些 siphon（抽走）资金并偏袒特定客户的寄生中介，为许多企业提供一个可行的运营路径。
我知道在1990年代，USPS曾想提供电子邮件服务，但遭到了司法部的阻止。因此，我的想法并不像听起来那么疯狂——在三十年前，USPS内部比我更聪明的人已经在考虑扩展其服务。
查看原文
As their revenue dwindles due to new technology—such as email reducing the number of letters sent—and increased competition from other shipping companies, I think the USPS needs to enter the payment processing business. Instead of relying on thousands of middlemen like PayPal, Stripe, and similar services, USPS would be a far more reliable and trustworthy option for legal businesses. The fees generated could not only finance the entire agency but also generate profit for the U.S. Treasury.<p>The rule would be simple: as long as you are not violating a federal law, USPS payment processors would handle your transactions. Do you know how many legitimate businesses currently struggle or cannot operate because of these parasitic middlemen?
USPS could operate similarly to the Bank of North Dakota, legally unable to deny banking services to someone without strong legal grounds.
This move could save the agency, eliminate parasitic middlemen who siphon money and favor certain clients, and provide a viable path for many businesses to remain operational.
I know that in the 1990s, USPS wanted to offer email services, but the DOJ blocked it. So, my idea isn’t as crazy as it sounds—people smarter than me in the agency were already thinking about expanding USPS’s services thirty years ago.