FinTech Services

We build systems designed to meet PCI-DSS requirements, and the most valuable thing we usually do is reduce how much of it applies to you. Using a processor's hosted fields or tokenisation so raw card data never touches your servers moves most merchants to a far lighter SAQ level and removes an entire category of risk. To be precise: PCI-DSS compliance is an assessment your organisation obtains, not a certification a development partner holds on your behalf. We build the technical controls and provide the documentation; the assessment remains yours.

Card processors including Stripe, Adyen, Braintree and Razorpay; bank rails such as ACH, SEPA, Faster Payments and UPI; and wallet and BNPL integrations depending on market. The choice matters more than teams expect — providers differ substantially in webhook reliability, dispute handling, settlement timing and how they behave in edge cases. We will give you a straight comparison for your volume and geography rather than defaulting to whichever we integrated most recently.

Idempotency keys on every state-changing request, so a retried call returns the original result instead of creating a second charge. Webhooks are treated as at-least-once delivery and processed through a deduplicating handler, because every provider will eventually send the same event twice. State transitions are recorded in an append-only ledger rather than by mutating a status column, which means the history is always reconstructable. And critically, all of this is tested against deliberately injected failures rather than assumed to work.

Usually by integrating a specialist provider rather than building identity verification in-house, since the vendor landscape is mature and the regulatory surface is not somewhere to be inventive. The engineering work is the workflow around it: handling the review queue when a check is inconclusive, storing verification evidence with proper retention rules, re-screening against sanctions lists on a schedule, and producing the reporting your compliance function needs. We would also flag that AML obligations vary sharply by jurisdiction and licence type, which is a question to settle before design rather than during.

That is the usual arrangement. Engineers join your sprints, your repository and your review process as an extension of the team you have, rather than working separately and integrating at the end. There is a one-week trial so fit is proven on your codebase rather than on a CV, and you interview each engineer before committing.

Typically one to two weeks for common requirements. Specialised roles — core banking integration, trading systems, quantitative work — can take longer to staff because the pool is smaller, and we would rather quote a realistic date than fill the seat with someone learning the domain on your project.

Security review is part of the build rather than a gate at the end: threat modelling on money-movement flows, dependency scanning in CI, secrets management, and encryption of sensitive data at rest and in transit. For independent penetration testing we recommend engaging a specialist firm rather than assessing our own work, and we will support remediation. An auditor being told the code was reviewed by the people who wrote it is not a satisfying answer, and it should not be.

You do, on payment — source, infrastructure configuration and documentation. Repositories, cloud accounts and processor accounts should be in your organisation's name from day one. Handover to your engineers is built into the closing sprints, so nothing about running, auditing or extending the system depends on us still being involved.