What we do
Fintech Software Development
Build fintech platforms with the engineering discipline regulators, auditors, and partners expect.
MetaProject provides fintech software development for teams where every decision touches money, identity, regulation, and trust at once. A small mistake in payment idempotency becomes a reconciliation nightmare; an inconsistent identity model fails an audit; a scaling choice made for 100K users collapses under a B2B partnership's volume.
Building well here takes engineering discipline that generic SaaS playbooks don't provide. We work embedded with fintech product companies, neobanks, payment processors, and embedded-finance providers — senior engineers building the platform and codifying the practice your team owns after we leave.
Book a call
Who we work with
Neobanks and digital banks scaling from MVP to a regulated, compliant platform
Payment platforms and PSPs with high-throughput, multi-currency, multi-jurisdiction flows
Embedded finance / Banking-as-a-Service providers offering financial primitives to other products
Lending and credit platforms with complex underwriting, decisioning, and servicing
Wealth, trading, and investment platforms balancing latency, accuracy, and regulatory traceability
B2B finance products (invoicing, treasury, AP) integrating with banks and ERP systems
Crypto/Web3-native fintechs building the bridge to traditional finance rails
Whether you need full-cycle fintech software development services or focused fintech app development, our engagements are structured around leaving the capability with your team.
What makes fintech engineering different
1.
Money moves bilaterally.
A bug in a SaaS product loses time; a bug in a payment system loses money — sometimes from the wrong party. Idempotency, reconciliation, and audit trails are first-class architectural concerns, not afterthoughts.
2.
Regulators have memory.
Decisions made today are reviewed in audits years from now. The "we'll document it later" pattern that survives in product SaaS dies in fintech.
3.
Partners are part of your architecture.
Sponsor banks, payment networks, KYC providers, fraud vendors — every fintech is a system of systems, and integration architecture matters as much as internal architecture.
4.
Failure modes have asymmetric cost.
Downtime costs revenue, data exposure costs the company, and a compliance failure can cost the licence. The engineering discipline has to reflect that.
What we build
Regulatory-aware architecture.
Designed with the regulation in mind from week one — PSD2/PSD3 strong customer authentication and XS2A, PCI-DSS cardholder-data flows and tokenization, GDPR for financial data, AML/KYC transaction-monitoring flows, SOC 2 controls as build artifacts, and Open Banking standards (OBIE, NextGenPSD2, FAPI 2.0). See DevSecOps Consulting.
Payment systems engineering
Idempotency and exactly-once semantics designed correctly rather than retrofitted; reconciliation between your books, networks, and partner banks; multi-rail payments (cards, ACH/SEPA, FedNow, SEPA Instant, PIX, open-banking initiation); fraud-detection integration; and settlement/ledger design with audit-grade traceability.
High-throughput, low-latency platforms
Event-driven cores with the ordering guarantees the domain needs, database choices matched to the workload (OLTP, OLAP, event sourcing, CQRS where it earns its keep), careful caching, and performance budgets baked into the architecture. The underlying capability is covered on Platform Engineering.
Identity and access for financial products
KYC tier architecture with progressive verification, SCA flows aligned to PSD2/PSD3, OAuth 2.1 / OIDC / FAPI for open banking and B2B APIs, and segregation of duties built into the authorization model.
Core banking and ledger systems
Build-vs-buy decisions on third-party ledgers (Modern Treasury, Treasury Prime, Currencycloud) vs an in-house ledger, double-entry design that survives reconciliation, multi-currency and multi-entity accounting, and immutability guarantees that satisfy auditors.
Capability transfer
Documented architecture decisions in your repos, trained internal architects who own the platform, runbooks for incidents and audits, and a skills matrix — because in fintech, vendor lock-in is a real risk. See CoE Design & Transition.
How we work
Our engagements follow three phases — Co-execution → Transition → Self-sufficiency — and typically run 9–14 months depending on scope. More on our approach: Delivery as Training and Exit by Design.
Why teams choose us for fintech work
Senior-only
Every engineer has prior fintech or regulated-industry experience. We don't learn PSD2 on your time.
Multi-jurisdiction experience
We've worked across US, UK, EU, and selected emerging markets, and we know where they differ and where they don't.
Documentation-first
All architecture, ADRs, and runbooks live in your repos from day one.
Exit by design
Transition timelines and self-sufficiency milestones are part of the engagement.
When to bring us in
You're scaling past the MVP and realising the architecture that got you here won't get you where you're going.
You're preparing for SOC 2, PCI-DSS, or a banking-partner due diligence and need controls baked into engineering.
You're expanding internationally, adding EU, UK, or US to a single-jurisdiction product.
You're re-architecting payments for new rails, currencies, or volume.
You're migrating off a vendor platform (BaaS, core banking, processor) without freezing the business.
You're coming out of an incident or audit finding and want to rebuild the practice, not just patch the hole.
Related
F. A. Q.
We use a Banking-as-a-Service provider. Do we still need fintech engineering work?
Often, yes. The BaaS handles regulated banking primitives, but your product still owns identity, ledger reconciliation, fraud signals, customer-facing flows, and partner integration. The "BaaS handles compliance" assumption breaks down quickly under audit; we help you see where the boundary really is.
We have PCI-DSS scope concerns. Can you help reduce it?
Yes. Scope reduction through tokenization, segmentation, and architectural redesign is a common engagement — moving teams from "PCI applies to most of the platform" to "PCI applies to a narrow tokenization service."
We're entering a new jurisdiction. How do we evaluate the architectural impact?
We usually start with a Capability Blueprint Workshop scoped to the new jurisdiction. The output is a clear list of architectural changes, data-residency implications, compliance gaps, and a sequenced plan.
We're considering building an in-house ledger. Should we?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no — it depends on your economics, regulatory requirements, team size, and roadmap. We've helped teams both build in-house ledgers and consciously stay on third-party providers. The wrong call either way is expensive; we help you make it deliberately.
We're crypto-native. Does your model still apply?
Yes, with adaptations. Many crypto-native fintechs are building bridges to traditional finance, and the discipline of regulated fintech engineering becomes a requirement. We've worked on both sides of that bridge.
Surface your fintech platform's architectural risks.
In a 4-week Blueprint Sprint, we assess your architecture, compliance posture, and engineering practices — and produce a roadmap calibrated to your roadmap and your regulators.
Start your Blueprint Sprint