FinTech is one of the few domains where 'production-ready' has a legal definition. We build payment, lending and risk platforms for funded startups and licensed financial institutions — backends where every transaction has a trail, every integration has a fallback, and every compliance question has a clean answer. Architecture-first, EU-hosted by default, designed to pass BaFin and PSP due diligence — not to be reviewed in panic two weeks before go-live.
Most FinTech engagements start at one of two moments: before the first regulated launch — when a demo integration meets real compliance — or 12–18 months in, when the architecture stops absorbing new partners, products or regulators. Both moments need the same thing: a backend that stops being the limiting factor.
Payment flows with tokenisation, idempotent retries, reconciliation and clean PSP boundaries (Stripe, Adyen, Mollie, Computop). We design payment systems where money state is explicitly modelled, not inferred from side-effects — and where a PCI-DSS scope review takes hours, not weeks.
Loan origination, decisioning and servicing backends. Risk pipelines, score integration, KYC/KYB orchestration, scheduled payments, restructuring flows. Built to support multi-product lending portfolios from day one rather than after the first refactor.
Internal tooling for AML, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, audit reporting. Event-sourced where it matters, queryable for supervisors, designed for audit queries without engineering involvement.
B2B FinTech APIs and production-grade partner integrations: account-as-a-service, card programs, BaaS partner orchestration. Versioned, rate-limited, observable end-to-end, with a sandbox that mirrors production semantics.
Five patterns we keep seeing in regulated backends — each one survives the first launch and surfaces in the first audit, the first PSP integration, or the first refund cycle.
State changes happen as a by-product of HTTP calls instead of as explicit transitions. Reconciliation fails silently — you find the gap when the PSP statement doesn't match.
There is no canonical answer to 'what does this transaction look like right now?'. Every audit becomes manual reconstruction from logs.
AML, KYC and reporting wrapped around the existing data flows instead of designed into them. Data lineage cannot be explained — and supervisors notice.
PSP, KYC and core-banking partners share state with the product. One partner outage cascades into refund, billing and onboarding failures at once.
Retries duplicate transactions, refunds and webhook processing. The bug surfaces under load, in production, on the day a regulator is in the room.
Funded EU FinTech startups (pre-licence, e-money, payment institutions, BaFin-supervised), embedded-finance teams inside SaaS companies, banks running modernisation tracks. Teams where compliance requirements already shape product decisions — not follow them.
Default answer: no. We design payment flows with tokenisation and PSP-hosted fields so cardholder data never touches our systems. PCI-DSS scope is reduced to the minimum (typically SAQ A or A-EP). When a use case truly requires storing PANs, we treat it as a separate, isolated subsystem with its own threat model and certification track.
We integrate with KYC/KYB providers (IDnow, Onfido, Veriff, Sumsub) through a uniform compliance gateway, so the rest of the system doesn't depend on a specific vendor. AML rules and reporting are first-class domain logic with audit trails, version control and replayability — not a feature flag.
Append-only event logs for state-changing money operations, plus aggregated read models for product UX. We don't event-source everything — only the parts where reconciliation, supervision or dispute handling demand a complete history. The boundary is an architectural decision made in the Sprint, not a default.
Both. We've delivered for pre-licence teams, e-money institutions, payment institutions and partners of regulated banks (Solaris, Banking Circle, etc.). The engineering rigour is the same; what changes is the depth of the compliance coupling and how early supervisors enter the conversation.
After the 5-day Architecture Sprint, a first regulated-ready release is usually 4–6 months for a focused product (payments or lending), 8–12 months for a multi-product platform. We deliberately avoid 'big bang' launches — phased releases keep audit trails clean and de-risk the first regulator conversation.
Auditability is a structural property, not a feature added later. We model money state as explicit transitions (not side-effects), keep append-only event logs for state-changing operations, separate read models from writes, and tag every record with the actor, source and reason for the change. The result: an audit query — internal or supervisory — is a database read, not a forensic exercise across logs and screenshots.
Five days. €3,500. We map your existing systems, name the compliance and scaling risks, and hand over an architecture roadmap your team — or ours — can deliver.
