Anders Rundgren’s Post

Integrating support for a payment wallet in a bank is a daunting task, involving not only the implementation itself, but also potential standardization efforts. This posting is an attempt to describe the pros and cons of different implementation strategies. The provided figures are only meant to give an indication of cost and time. 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠: As can be seen in the chart, this approach has considerable cost and time drawbacks. In addition, standardization is in conflict with possible IPR interests. 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: A proprietary solution does not need to be [publicly] standardized but the implementation cost is still high. 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠/𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Due to the many unique implementations, interoperability, bug-fixing, and testing make these alternatives suffer from scalability issues, not to mention the inertia they add for possible updates. 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐕2: In this setup the wallet integration software would preferably be supplied as a standalone application in the form of a “box”, a Docker image, or a virtual machine. The application would likely be developed by the same organization that manages the wallet. License costs must be considered as well. However, since development costs can amortized over potentially thousands of banks, they should be manageable. The ability using an Open Banking V2 “sandbox”, greatly simplifies development, concept verification, upgrades, testing, and demoing. For more information about Open Banking V2, turn to: https://lnkd.in/dTVHPkKP