Status: discontinued. We sunset our Remittance-as-a-Service offering in 2024 and no longer sell the original RaaS product. This page is kept as a record of how the model worked and as a guide to the two routes that replaced it. If you came here looking to buy RaaS, skip to what we offer instead.
What Is Remittance-as-a-Service?
Today, almost every part of financial technology seems to be available "as a service."
There is Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS), Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) and numerous other variations.
Back around 2010, I began using another term: Remittance-as-a-Service, or RaaS.
I also experimented with the phrase Money Transfer-as-a-Service, but Remittance-as-a-Service was shorter, easier to explain, and ultimately the terminology that stuck.
The basic idea was simple:
Instead of building an entire regulated money transfer business from scratch, a company could operate a branded remittance service through the infrastructure and regulatory framework of an existing licensed money transmitter.
It was essentially a way of separating the customer-facing business from much of the regulatory and operational infrastructure required to move money.
At the time, that was a fairly novel proposition.
How Remittance-as-a-Service Worked
Under the original Remittance-as-a-Service model, a licensed institution provided most of the regulated infrastructure behind the money transfer service.
Imagine, for example, that the principal provider held the necessary regulatory permissions in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, or another jurisdiction.
A company wanting to launch a remittance product could work with that institution rather than attempting to construct every component independently.
Depending upon the jurisdiction, structure, product and regulatory requirements, the licensed institution could potentially provide or coordinate functions such as:
Licensing and regulatory coverage
Customer identity verification
KYC and KYB
AML compliance
Sanctions screening
Transaction monitoring
Fraud monitoring
Regulatory reporting
Payment processing
Banking relationships
Pay-in infrastructure
Payout infrastructure
Transaction technology
Ledger and reconciliation infrastructure
Compliance systems
API connectivity
Settlement
Operational oversight
The customer-facing company concentrated primarily on building and growing the business.
Typically, that meant handling areas such as:
Its own brand
Sales
Marketing
Customer acquisition
First-level customer support
First-level technical support
Integration with the provider's APIs
Customer experience
Funding or prefunding requirements
Distribution
In very simple terms, the licensed company operated much of the regulated machinery in the background while the client built the customer-facing remittance business in the foreground.
That was the original concept behind Remittance-as-a-Service.
Making Remittance Infrastructure Affordable
One of the objectives behind our early Remittance-as-a-Service offering was to dramatically reduce the barrier to entering the money transfer industry.
Historically, launching an international remittance company could require substantial capital, technology, regulatory expertise, banking relationships and operational infrastructure — much of what a full MTO setup still involves today.
We attempted to package much of that infrastructure into an affordable monthly service.
At one point, our entry-level pricing was only a few hundred dollars per month.
For the market at that time, this was exceptionally economical.
Instead of spending enormous amounts of money building infrastructure before processing the first transaction, entrepreneurs could concentrate on customer acquisition, marketing, distribution and developing particular remittance corridors.
The model worked extremely well for a period of time.
But the money transfer industry changed.
Why Remittance-as-a-Service Became More Complicated
Between 2010 and today, the infrastructure surrounding money movement has improved enormously.
APIs became better. Identity verification became faster. Banking infrastructure became more accessible. Cloud technology reduced technology costs. Payout networks expanded. Stablecoins introduced completely new settlement possibilities.
But at the same time, regulatory and compliance requirements became considerably more sophisticated.
What once appeared to be a relatively straightforward money transfer transaction may now involve multiple layers of:
Identity verification. Simply collecting a name and identification document is no longer sufficient in many situations. Verification systems may incorporate document authentication, facial verification, database checks, device intelligence and additional identity signals.
Transaction monitoring. Modern transaction monitoring systems examine patterns, velocity, beneficiaries, counterparties, jurisdictions, transaction histories and behavioural characteristics.
Fraud detection. Fraud prevention has developed into its own discipline involving device fingerprinting, behavioural analysis, identity intelligence, transaction scoring and increasingly sophisticated machine-learning systems.
Sanctions and screening. Transactions and customers may require screening against sanctions lists, politically exposed persons, adverse media databases and other risk sources.
Regulatory reporting. Reporting requirements have expanded considerably and can vary between jurisdictions.
Banking oversight. Banks and payment partners increasingly require detailed understanding of the underlying business model, customers, geographies, transaction flows and compliance controls.
As these requirements increased, providing a very inexpensive all-inclusive Remittance-as-a-Service product became increasingly difficult. The compliance and AML programs alone now cost more than the whole package once did.
Why We Discontinued Our Remittance-as-a-Service Offering
Eventually, the economics stopped making sense.
Customers understandably wanted more functionality. Compliance became more complicated. Technology requirements increased. Support requirements increased. Banking partners became more demanding.
Our underlying solution providers also had to assume greater operational and regulatory responsibilities.
Yet the market continued expecting Remittance-as-a-Service to remain inexpensive.
Those two trends were moving in opposite directions.
By approximately 2024, we decided to sunset our Remittance-as-a-Service offering.
We no longer provide the traditional RaaS product that we originally developed and marketed.
The terminology remains widely used within the payments industry, and other companies may continue offering products under the Remittance-as-a-Service name.
But our original RaaS program is no longer available.
Is Remittance-as-a-Service Still Possible?
Yes — but the structure has evolved.
The important distinction is that a business generally cannot simply "rent" another company's money transmitter license.
Licensing does not normally work that way.
A regulated institution remains responsible for activities conducted under its regulatory permissions, and the relationship between the licensed principal and the company operating the customer-facing service must comply with the applicable regulatory framework.
This is why modern versions of what people sometimes describe as Remittance-as-a-Service increasingly resemble formal agent, authorized delegate, representative, sponsorship, or similar regulated arrangements, depending upon the jurisdiction.
Regulators, banks and compliance departments also scrutinize these relationships far more closely than they did during the early years of fintech.
The underlying question is no longer simply:
"Can I use somebody else's license?"
The correct question is:
"Under what legally recognized structure can my business conduct this activity under the supervision of a licensed principal?"
That distinction matters.
What We Offer Instead of Remittance-as-a-Service
Today, when somebody approaches us asking for Remittance-as-a-Service, we generally examine two possible paths.
1. Obtain Your Own Money Transfer License
The first option is to become independently licensed.
Depending upon your jurisdiction and business model, that might involve applying for the appropriate money transmission, payment institution, electronic money, MSB, money services, virtual asset, or related regulatory authorization. Our licensing practice covers those pathways, and the US money transmitter license guide covers the American route in depth.
Having your own license provides considerably greater independence.
You control your regulatory relationships, banking relationships, compliance infrastructure and long-term strategy.
The disadvantage is that obtaining licenses can require significant time, capital and regulatory work.
For companies planning to build a substantial long-term payments business, however, owning the regulatory infrastructure may ultimately make the most sense.
2. Become an Authorized Agent or Delegate
The second option is what I consider the modern successor to the original Remittance-as-a-Service concept.
Rather than purchasing a generic RaaS subscription, a business becomes an authorized agent or authorized delegate of an existing licensed money transmitter, where the applicable regulatory framework permits it.
The principal license holder remains responsible for the regulated money transmission activity and establishes the compliance, operational and supervisory framework under which the agent operates.
Depending upon the program, the principal may provide access to:
Regulatory coverage
Compliance infrastructure
AML systems
KYC infrastructure
Transaction monitoring
Banking relationships
Payment rails
Settlement infrastructure
Transaction processing
Reporting
APIs and technology
The agent can then concentrate on building its product, distribution network, customer relationships and transaction volume within the parameters established by the principal.
This is much closer to how we approach the concept today.
Remittance-as-a-Service Has Evolved
I still believe Remittance-as-a-Service was an excellent product.
For its time, it solved a very real problem.
It allowed entrepreneurs and companies to participate in the remittance industry without recreating an enormous amount of financial infrastructure from scratch.
But the payments industry has matured. The compliance environment has matured. Banks have matured. Regulators have matured.
And the structures used to provide access to regulated payment infrastructure must mature with them.
So although Remittance-as-a-Service as a concept has not disappeared, our approach to it has changed.
For us, the modern equivalent of Remittance-as-a-Service is primarily the authorized agent or authorized delegate model.
Instead of asking:
"Where can I buy Remittance-as-a-Service?"
A better starting question today may be:
"Should I obtain my own license, or should I become an authorized agent of an existing license holder?"
That is the question we help companies answer.
Interested in Launching a Remittance or Money Transfer Business?
If you are looking for Remittance-as-a-Service, we no longer offer the original RaaS platform.
However, we may be able to assist you with one of the two routes available today:
Obtain your own regulatory license, or
Become an authorized agent or delegate of an existing licensed institution.
The appropriate structure depends on your business model, jurisdictions, transaction volumes, customer types, payment corridors, flow of funds and long-term strategy.
If you would like to discuss either route, use our contact form, select Licensing, and provide a brief description of the business you are trying to build.
We can then determine which path is more appropriate.
In Short
Remittance-as-a-Service (RaaS) allowed a company to launch a branded remittance product while relying on a licensed principal for much of the regulatory, compliance, payment and operational infrastructure.
We began using and developing the concept around 2010 and ultimately discontinued our own traditional Remittance-as-a-Service offering around 2024 as regulatory, compliance and operational requirements became increasingly complex.
Today, our work focuses on two alternatives: helping businesses obtain their own licenses or helping suitable companies pursue authorized agent or authorized delegate arrangements with existing license holders.
That, for us, is what Remittance-as-a-Service has evolved into.