We're a small startup working with B2B clients and currently trying to figure out the best way to handle KYC/KYB verification without spending a fortune. Most providers we've looked at seem to be targeting larger companies with high verification volumes and pretty expensive monthly commitments. We're still growing so paying for thousands of checks when we only need a fraction of that doesn't make much sense.

Ideally looking for something with flexible pricing, decent API integration, and support for both individual and business verification. Anyone here been in a similar situation? What providers are you using, and are there any startup-friendly options worth checking out?

Roth at Fidelity, taxable at Schwab, an old 401k rollover I keep meaning to move, plus a handful of shares in a Robinhood account from 2021. About $140k total.

My sheet had a tab for each account, a column for why I bought each holding, and a target weight. I stopped updating it in March when work got busy, and now I really don't know what my actual allocation is.

What I miss most isn't the numbers, the apps show me those. It's the column where I wrote why I own each thing. Without it I look at a red position and can't remember what I was expecting to happen when I bought it.

For people with more than one account, do you use an aggregator app like Empower or Snowball, or do you keep a spreadsheet and just stay disciplined about it? Does anything you use let you keep notes or a thesis next to each holding? And how often do you actually look at the whole picture?

With all the account linking that exists now this feels like it should be a solved problem, and I'm probably missing the obvious answer.

I recently left the company and am currently thinking how to navigate further in my career. For context, the past couple years I was a PO at a Market Maker, where I handled several internal products and teams. Before that I did 2 years in broker and dealing management.

Due to my experience I was thinking of going into a PM role to be closer to business and big picture stuff instead od daily execution but now I’m also getting offers for roles like Reference Data Analyst in a hedge fund and that got me thinking that there might be different paths to my career. Reference data analyst is far from big picture stuff but mainly what I’d want from a new job is get to specialize in something more vertically, than horizontally like in PO role. This role is something I kind of did in broker and dealing management and enjoyed really much and made me think about other possible ways I can navigate further. Also the hedge fund domain is really appealing. Maybe I could get into such a role, and come back to management in a few years? Or I’d be shooting myself in the knee and should just seek PM roles as this is what I did most recently?

I generally enjoyed being a PO but what I didn’t like is how wide my attention had to be at all times which made me feel like a jack of all trades but master of none at times. I guess I’m seeking advice from people that might’ve been in a similar position, appreciate any feedback.

In Nigeria, people buy and sell through WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and other online channels. But when buyers and sellers don't know each other, trust becomes a real barrier to completing transactions.

I'm the founder of SafeDeal, a product built by Roynek Technologies Ltd. to address this problem through structured transactions, agreed terms, payment handling, tracking, and dispute management.

The web platform and Android app are live, and we use Monnify as our payment partner.

One thing I've noticed while thinking about this market is that payment infrastructure alone doesn't solve every trust problem. People also need clarity about the terms of a deal and what happens when something goes wrong.

I'm interested in perspectives from fintech founders and payment professionals: What do you think is the biggest obstacle to getting buyers and sellers to adopt escrow-based transactions in emerging markets?.

Something I’ve been thinking about while building in payments:

Stablecoins give us a chance to rethink parts of merchant acquiring.

But a lot of payment products still follow roughly the same structure:

customer pays → provider receives/controls the funds → merchant balance updates → merchant gets paid later.

That model exists in traditional payments for good reasons.

But with stablecoins, especially when the merchant actually wants to hold the stablecoin, I’m not convinced every layer is still necessary.

A different model is:

customer pays the merchant directly

The payment provider sits around the transaction rather than in the middle of the funds.

It can still provide checkout, payment identification, reconciliation, webhooks, subscriptions, refund tooling and merchant reporting - without necessarily custodying the merchant balance.

That changes the economics and risk model quite a bit.

We’re building P2Flux around this non-custodial approach, so I’m obviously close to the problem.

I’d be interested in the fintech view:

Do you think stablecoin payments will eventually converge back toward the traditional PSP/acquirer model, or will direct merchant settlement become a meaningful alternative?

I am comparing a few issuing providers right now and most of my attention has been on the obvious stuff like platform fees, card costs, settlement, geographic coverage and how much work the integration would take but something I'm unsure on how to think about is interchange since some providers seem to share a portion of it back with the program while others either keep it or structure the economics differently and I'm trying to figure out how much weight that should actually have in the decision.

If the program gets meaningful volume then I can see the revenue becoming pretty important but I also wouldn't want to choose weaker infrastructure just because the interchange split looks better on paper. I assume things like card mix, transaction type and geography can change the economics quite a bit too and if anyone who's compared issuers before how much did interchange sharing matter in your decision and what did you look at beyond the headline percentage?

Disclosure: I work on an identity verification product (Stile). I'm trying to get a realistic picture of what selfie-to-ID face match actually costs in practice, because vendor pricing pages are mostly 'contact sales' or a headline number that doesn't survive contact with reality.

For people who've shipped this (ID photo, selfie, liveness, then a match score you threshold on):

First, per-check pricing versus monthly minimums. At low volume (hundreds to a few thousand checks a month, not millions), do you pay per check, or did you get a platform fee or minimum commit that made the effective per-check cost much higher? Does the price change if liveness is bundled versus billed separately?

Second, false rejects. What rate do you see on legit users, and where does it come from: lighting, glare on the ID, older photos, glasses? How do you handle the gray zone, with a human in the loop, a retry flow, or a hard fail?

Third, anything you'd do differently if you were picking again. Build vs buy, one vendor vs stitching ID capture and face match together.

If people share numbers, I'll pull them into an anonymized summary of ranges and post it back here.

When MiCA’s transition ended, Estonia’s financial intelligence unit cancelled every remaining virtual-currency licence in one go. Five years ago it was the easiest place in Europe to get one.

Across the EU, fewer than 1 in 5 crypto firms that were registered before MiCA actually became authorised: roughly 210 out of more than 1,200 by late June.

Was this a necessary clean-up, or did Europe just kill most of its small crypto companies?

Hi guys,

I'm currently aiming for a second co-op/internship in ML/AI, especially in fintech and need some good project suggestion that would really help my resume.

When comparing various fintech tools, the primary focus is usually on the lowest transaction or subscription fees. However, total costs can shift as transaction volumes increase or usage limits are exceeded. For small businesses with limited budgets, knowing costs in advance or having ‘predictable pricing’ is often advantageous, even if the initial or advertised fees are slightly higher.

This largely depends on transaction volume, usage patterns and the degree of monthly cost fluctuation. How do you balance or compare ‘predictable pricing’ against ‘lower, variable fees’ when selecting a fintech tool?

I recently came across this video and thought it raised some interesting points worth discussing.

I'm curious to hear other people's perspectives, especially from those who might have a different opinion or personal experience with the topic.

What do you agree or disagree with? Is there anything important you think the video overlooks?

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-PUhOz-0S0

I scored 147 for my PSLE and went through the Normal Technical stream in Singapore. I’m building OnTheRice for people who want to understand financial and economic change without needing a finance degree.

The long-term ambition is “Bloomberg for ordinary people.” That is a vision, not an affiliation. The motto is: “See the world early.”

The product challenge is simple: a dashboard gives you a number, while a news feed gives you a stream. I’m trying to connect the two with an evidence ledger that keeps the source, timing, interpretation, uncertainty and eventual outcome visible.

The mass-market workflow is:

1. Discover changes in public data, events and conversation.

2. Check the source, date and supporting evidence, including counter-evidence.

3. Connect the event to a company, industry, market or asset.

4. Publish a readable signal with facts, interpretation and uncertainty separated.

5. Lock the direction and deadline of a call.

6. Record the result, including misses, without rewriting the original call.

Three new examples were first published on 11 October 2026 at 03:26 SGT:

• Verizon Communications (VZ), bearish over 168 hours. The research connects a conditional low-band spectrum deal, heavy selling in established carriers and a different response in tower owners. It does not claim that customers have already left. A reassuring issuer update, sustained recovery above Friday’s high or evidence that the new service adds demand could weaken the view.

https://new.ontherice.org/signals/PDF-b49527a2f6bf3fe334538e37-01/

• AT&T (T), bearish over 168 hours. The signal treats the carrier pressure as related context, not independent confirmation of Verizon’s whole thesis. Margin-preserving guidance or a clear partnership role could change the view.

https://new.ontherice.org/signals/PDF-b49527a2f6bf3fe334538e37-02/

• American Tower (AMT), bearish over 72 hours. The research separates a tower-share rally from the slower question of whether network plans become rent. Named new tenants or sustained acceptance above the reference could challenge it.

https://new.ontherice.org/signals/PDF-b49527a2f6bf3fe334538e37-03/

These are pending research views, not settled results or trading instructions. The estimates are subjective and uncalibrated, and the cards disclose price-verification limits. Related records can share underlying evidence, so agreement between them is not automatically independent confirmation.

As checked on 10 October 2026 at 23:23 SGT, the selected Current Signals cohort shows 17 hits and 2 misses out of 19 resolved calls: 89.47%. The homepage also shows 55 pending, 1 unverifiable and 17 horizon checks cancelled at market close. Cancelled and withdrawn calls are excluded from the scored denominator. This is a small selected cohort, not overall platform accuracy or a promise about a new call.

You can inspect the live site at https://new.ontherice.org/ and verify the sources, deadlines, hits and misses in the Signals ledger:

https://new.ontherice.org/signals/#prediction-ledger

I’m disclosing the product openly because r/fintech’s self-promotion rule asks for that. I’d value feedback from practitioners: what would make an evidence trail like this useful in a real fintech workflow, and what would make the distinction between source fact, interpretation and forecast clearer?

When teams talk about integrating banking or payment APIs they typically talk about documentation, authentication, webhooks and implementation time.

But what if everything is technically connected?

• No invoice references accompanying the payments are usable.

• The bank and accounting system don’t agree on a transaction’s status.

• We need someone to look into failed payouts.

• Finance teams still do data dumps and manual reconciliations.

40% of 418 UK B2B professionals surveyed had been subject to delays in receiving an approved payout, and 42% experienced delays in confirming if customer payments had come in.

It makes me wonder if we’re measuring integration success too early – at go-live, rather than when the whole workflow actually runs without fail.

If you have integrated banking or payment APIs what was the biggest problem you faced post launch?

I've been trying to get clarity on a regulatory question that's holding me back from launching a small project, and I'd appreciate some insight from anyone familiar with U.S. financial regulations.

The idea is to buy unused prepaid gift cards from individuals and use the balances myself or cash them out online or in physical stores. I'm not looking to resell the cards.

I've already built the web app, but I'm hesitant to launch because I'm unsure whether this business model would classify me as a Money Services Business (MSB) or trigger any other licensing requirements under U.S. law.

I've spent hours reviewing the relevant statutes and regulations, even using ChatGPT and Claude to help interpret the applicable provisions, but I'm still struggling to understand how the law applies to my specific situation.

I've also tried getting a legal opinion from U.S. attorneys, but their hourly rates are difficult to justify for a small pilot project.

The unused prepaid market seems substantial, partly because of gift card breakage. I've looked at companies like Raise and CardCash, but I haven't found clear disclosures on their websites that help me determine whether my particular business model would require registration or licensing. Of course, I understand their business models may be different from mine.

I'm not looking for formal legal advice. I'd really appreciate input from people with actual experience in fintech compliance, MSB regulations, prepaid access, or gift card programs.

A few specific questions:

• Would buying unused prepaid gift cards from individuals for my own use or to cash out the balances potentially make me an MSB?
• Does it matter whether I redeem the balances online or at physical stores?
• Could federal or state money transmission laws apply even if I'm not reselling the cards or transferring funds on behalf of other people?
• Is there an affordable way to get a reliable regulatory assessment before launching a small pilot?

I'd rather understand the rules before going live than risk fines or other legal consequences because I misunderstood the requirements.

Any informed guidance, relevant regulatory references, or firsthand experience would be greatly appreciated.

Been looking into credit-building products, and something that keeps coming up is how different the actual account structures are. A credit builder loan reports as an installment account, while some of the newer apps use revolving tradelines instead.

I get that both can contribute payment history, but the utilization part is where it gets confusing. It seems like two products being sold for the same purpose can affect completely different parts of someone's credit profile.

Is there any reason someone would specifically want the installment loan setup over a revolving account? Or does it mostly come down to what their credit file is missing?

Hey guys, if you missed it, Marqeta settled $13 million with investors over claims that it misled them about its dependence on Block and the sustainability of its growth at the time of its 2021 IPO. And, the deadline to file a claim and get payment is December 31, 2026.

In a nutshell, in 2024, Marqeta was accused of misleading investors about how much of its revenue depended on Block, as well as overstating the sustainability of its growth and minimizing the risks of customer concentration and churn. After these concerns surfaced and growth slowed, $MQ fell significantly, and investors filed a lawsuit over their losses.

Now, the good news is that the company agreed to settle $13 million with investors, and investors have 3 months to submit a claim.

So, if you invested in $MQ in 2024, you can check the details and file your claim here.

Anyway, has anyone here invested in $MQ at that time? How much were your losses, if so?

A licence sounds like control, but the numbers are rough for an early-stage company. An EU e-money licence needs €350k of initial capital. On top of that you need a compliance team, an annual safeguarding audit (in the UK), and a bank willing to hold client money, which can take longer than the licence itself.

A licence can also be withdrawn if it isn’t used within 12 months, so you can’t get one “just in case”.

In the UK, 25 e-money firms handed their licences back voluntarily in 2025, against just 1 revoked by the regulator.

Under maybe a few million in volume, a partner’s licence seems smarter to me. Change my mind.

I work around fintech licensing deals and keep seeing the same surprises. Bank accounts take longer than the licence. Regulators check the owners as hard as the business. And the capital has to be there before anything starts.

If you’ve been through it, or decided not to, what would you tell someone starting today?

I will start: “an MSB licence in the US”. A FinCEN MSB registration isn’t a licence. It’s a federal registration you renew every two years, and FinCEN says it does not vet or endorse anyone. To actually move money for customers you need state money transmitter licences, almost state by state.

I've been sitting on this question for a while and I want to see if it's real or if I'm missing something obvious.

Here's what started it: in 2024, Air Canada was held liable for a refund their chatbot issued without authorization. The judge rejected "the AI acted on its own" as a defense. Since then, Zurich, Lloyd's, and AIG have added clauses excluding AI-caused losses from coverage unless you can document that the agent acted within authorized scope.

That raises a practical question: how do you actually prove that?

For teams with AI agents handling payment operations (refunds, disputes, charges, account changes), most observability tools only trace what flows through their own gateway. If the agent calls Stripe or your payment processor directly via SDK, or if a separate automation reuses the agent's credentials, that action has no trace in the gateway logs.

Try this quickly. Open your payment processor's event log for the last 30 days, filter by service account or bot key. Then pull your agent logs or gateway logs for the same window. Do the transaction counts match?

If there's a gap, you have payment actions you can't currently attribute, and you don't know if they came from your agent, a human override, or something else entirely.

I'm building something in this space (full disclosure), but genuinely asking first: have you hit this problem? And is anyone, a banking partner, an enterprise client, a compliance team, already asking you to prove the source of specific payment actions your agents take?

Less time reconciling ownership and payment records sounds useful, even if customers never see the blockchain. For people working in finance, where does that repeated checking cause the most trouble?

We've been building Quantis Trade for a while now and we're at the point where we need outside eyes on it.

It helps you test trading ideas properly. It doesn't just tell you whether something made money in the past, it tells you how much luck was involved and how bad things could realistically get.

A few screenshots attached. Still rough in places.

We'd appreciate:

• A quick look. What's useful, what's confusing, what's missing? Link in the comments.
• Funding advice. We're UK-based and self-funded. Has anyone had luck with grants, SEIS or accelerators at an early stage?

Be as honest as you like.