FinTech software for payments, ledgers, reconciliation and risk

We make every payment operation idempotent and track each payment through a strict state machine. Each request carries a unique key, so a retry returns the original result instead of creating a second charge, and the ledger rejects a second entry for the same provider reference. When a call times out and the outcome is unknown, the system asks the provider for the payment's status before trying again. Anything that still slips through is caught by the daily reconciliation against provider settlement data.

If your product holds balances, moves money between parties or charges fees, a double-entry ledger is usually worth it. Every movement is recorded as balanced debits and credits that are never edited, only reversed with a new entry, so balances can be rebuilt and explained at any point in time. A single transactions table works for simple payment acceptance, but it tends to break down once refunds, holds, fees and multiple currencies appear.

Yes, we build tooling that helps your analysts find and review suspicious activity. The design combines a versioned rules engine for known patterns with machine learning scores for unusual behaviour, both feeding a case queue where analysts see why a transaction was flagged and record their decision. Rules and thresholds are owned by your risk team, every change is logged, and models are evaluated against labelled historical cases before they influence any decision.

We protect financial data at three points: storage, access and change. Ledger entries are append-only, account numbers and other sensitive fields are encrypted with keys held in a managed key service, and secrets never sit in code or configuration files. Staff access follows least privilege with multi-factor authentication, and production access is granted for a limited time against a ticket. Card numbers stay with the payment provider through tokenisation. Limit changes, manual credits and large refunds need a second approver and are written to an audit log that cannot be edited.

Yes. We build the technology and work within the controls your compliance team specifies; we do not provide regulatory advice or make compliance decisions. In practice we design features such as approval workflows, data retention and audit trails to their requirements, and supply the evidence auditors usually ask for: architecture and data flow documentation, change history from the deployment pipeline, access reviews and test results. Your compliance lead can join sprint reviews whenever a control is being built.

We test against provider sandboxes using a harness that reproduces the failures live systems produce. It sends webhooks late, twice and out of order, simulates timeouts with unknown outcomes and replays anonymised event sequences from production. After every run it checks ledger invariants, such as every journal balancing to zero and no balance going negative without an approved overdraft. After release, a few real transactions on internal accounts confirm the end-to-end path, and payment success rates per provider are compared with the previous version.

Yes, through each provider's published APIs. In the UK the practical route is usually an established open banking provider that manages bank connections and customer consent, rather than connecting to each bank directly. In Pakistan and Saudi Arabia we integrate local gateways and wallets through their merchant APIs, including mada cards and Raast transfers where your gateway supports them. Each provider sits behind your own internal payments interface, so adding or replacing one later does not mean rewriting checkout, payouts or reporting.

Usually not. A double-entry ledger in a conventional database such as PostgreSQL is simpler to build, faster to query, easier to correct with reversing entries and familiar to auditors. A blockchain earns its place when several independent organisations must share one record that none of them controls alone, such as settlement between partner firms or tokenised assets that move between them. Our blockchain solution architect can assess whether your case meets that test, and we will recommend a conventional ledger when it does not.

Fintech build costs depend on scope, so we give a fixed quote only after discovery has defined it. The biggest drivers are the number of payment providers and markets, whether you need your own ledger, the depth of risk and reporting tooling, and the testing and documentation your partners and auditors expect. Many teams start with one well-defined piece, such as reconciliation automation or a payments API in front of an existing provider, then extend in phases once it is live.