Talk:Beenz.com

Lowercase - Cleanup - Non-Notable
A google search on the term "beenz" which is always most closely associated with beenz.com brings up 125,000 reponses. To suggest that this company, which was a major player during the technological boom of the 1990's, is non-notable, suggests a lack of research on the part of the individual who suggested it. Pacian 23:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

These continuing changes to the heading of this article are becoming a nuisance. There is no question that beenz.com is notable, as referenced by the below google statistic: continuing to add a non-notable tag to this article is not acceptable. If you wish to nominate it for deletion, feel free, and I assure you it will be declined. Putting a "cleanup tag" on this article is not acceptable either - this article is not in need of cleanup, it is a STUB - that is not the same thing. A STUB tag already exists. Finally, please do not remove the "lowercase" tag from this article again. Pacian 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is sufficient justification for a lowercase title. It would make more sense to rename the article just "Beenz". See details below. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Still exist?
The article is written in the past tense, the url www.beenz.com no longer points to this site. Does this company still exist? If not, that might be a contributory factor to whether it passes WP:SITE or WP:CORP. An AfD might be appropriate. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pop culture
Perhaps as a result of the company's extensive advertising campaigns, beenz.com was significant to the early dotcom zeitgeist, and the term "beenz" is still referenced as part of casual conversation the context of the collapse of the dotcom bubble, usually in an ironic fashion. --68.183.197.37 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)N.

Exuberant Tone?
While this article could very well be factually correct, one might get the impression that beenz was one of the early Internet's biggest successes, while in fact it was exactly the opposite. I don't have the insight into the beenz story to be the one who corrects it...but someone who knows better should really re-write this article and cast the beenz effort in the appropriate light.--Gmaletic 02:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Illegal?
We need a citation to confirm whether or not it's actually illegal to create a currency, and in what jurisdictions 76.22.123.186 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Exonumia
I don't believe this article is properly considered part of WikiProject Numismatics. Beenz.com never offered a tangible medium of exchange; rather all beenz were in book entry form. Beenz are no more relevant to exonumia than frequent flyer miles programs are. Blockhouse (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't: this is about an electronic currency, not a physical one. I've removed the template. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Legality issue
The article states "... launching a new currency is illegal in many countries" and immediately follows with problems with the FSA in the UK. So although it doesn't state it explicitly, it strongly suggests that the UK is one of those countries. In fact anyone is completely free to create a new currency in the UK without any kind of authorisation, whereas running a *bank* requires following a strict set of rules (including registering with the FSA, I believe). This paragraph should be updated to make this clear, and preferably these should be split into separate paragraphs. 137.73.127.104 (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be uppercase
While the brand was styled in lowercase by the company itself in marketing, references to it in the media commonly capitalized it in sentence-initial position, titles, and even in the middle of running text. Moreover, the company and the currency were commonly called "Beenz", rather than "beenz.com"; and capitalization is not significant in domain names. Since wikipedia normally capitalizes article titles, and prefers the most commonly used name over an "official" name, the article should be renamed "Beenz" (with capital "B"). Moreover, the notability of this topic comes more from the service (the currency) than from the company. The focus of the article should therefore be changed accordingly, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

FSA investigation in the UK
I made this change [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beenz.com&diff=922796897&oldid=922500589] since the claims were not supported by the source. As said in my edit summary, the source doesn't say when the investigation happened. It also definitely does not say it was a misunderstanding. It does says the people at Beenz laughed. I somewhat doubt the claim could ever be sourced since it sounds like something written by someone confused over the situation. I find it unlikely it was that simple. Plenty of modern startups seem to either not understand or not care about the law and regulations. I don't know the specifics of UK regulations in this area, but often you don't have to call yourself bank to get in trouble for operating as a unlicenced bank. And likewise using the term bank often caries restrictions, while this doesn't mean you can never do it, you also can't automatically get away with by saying it's 'just marketing'. If regulators are concerned over someone's use of the term, it's generally not because they personally are confused, but because they feel the usage may cause confusion to others or is otherwise inappropriate. And of course the laws and regulations and their application tend to be very complex and will depend a lot on the specifics. Further, with unusual startups there may be little precedent making it even harder to decide. The fact Beenz allegedly made a change does sort of support the contention there may have been legitimate (as in according to the countries laws and regulations, not how random people feel) concerns. Although at least in most countries with developed legal systems there tend to be appeals processes perhaps involving courts, which are expensive and lengthy. So for small startups it often makes sense to simply comply even if they feel they can ultimately win the case, so compliance isn't proof there was a problem. But at the same time, this being possibly the only change doesn't mean it was the only concern. Regulators may often have several concerns. These are sometimes resolved by investigation, further information and discussion and maybe giving warnings and advice on limitations (and then making sure they are followed), but it doesn't mean these concerns were simply "confusion" or without merit. Instead, regulators are often expected to be proactive over concerns and likewise can't make decisions without sufficient information which they are often entitled to receive. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)