Payment solutions

No, and anyone who does is selling something else. Underwriting is a risk decision taken by a third party we do not control. What we can do is materially improve the odds — accurate classification, a consistent corporate and licensing picture, a complete file, and applications directed only at providers whose appetite actually covers the vertical. We will also tell you before we start if the model as described is unlikely to be accepted anywhere, which saves more time than any application.

It depends on volume, geography and risk classification, but the principle is simple: enough that losing the largest one degrades performance rather than stopping revenue. For a single-market moderate-risk merchant that often means two live relationships and a third prepared. For high-risk or multi-market operations it is usually more, split by geography and card scheme so that a regional withdrawal does not affect the whole book.

Usually, but only through the ratio itself. Exit requires the underlying ratio to fall below the threshold and stay there — three consecutive months in the Mastercard programmes. That means root-cause work: identifying which products, traffic sources, geographies or subscription mechanics generate the disputes, and fixing those. Representment alone improves recovery rates without moving the ratio, because the chargeback is already counted when it is raised.

Only if you hold or transmit money for third parties. Accepting payments for your own products does not require an authorisation; operating a marketplace that settles to sellers, running a wallet, or executing payouts on behalf of others generally does. There are structures that keep a platform outside the perimeter — payment facilitator arrangements, partner-managed settlement, merchant of record models — and the right answer depends on economics and control, not only on regulation.

For high-risk verticals, five to ten per cent held for one hundred and eighty days is common at the outset; moderate-risk merchants often start lower or with none. It is negotiable in two stages — at signature, where the release schedule matters more than the percentage, and after six to twelve months of clean processing history, where a reduction should be requested with the data rather than waited for.

It is not yet law: political agreement was reached in November 2025 and the text went before national representatives in April 2026, with adoption expected during 2026 and practical application anticipated from late 2027. It matters now because the e-money licence category disappears and EMIs become payment institutions subject to re-authorisation. If you are applying for or acquiring an EMI licence in 2026, the re-authorisation path belongs in the plan and in the price.

Yes, and in practice they cannot be separated. The entity that applies for acquiring is the entity a risk team investigates; the licence determines what the business may lawfully do with customer funds; the compliance framework is what the acquirer's periodic review examines. We handle company formation, licensing, banking and EMI onboarding and ongoing compliance for the same clients, which is why the payment design is built against a structure that will actually support it.