Table of Contents
Embedded finance and banking as a service (BaaS) are not new notions. Many user-facing companies have built their apps on top of a financial infrastructure provider so they can focus on growing their product and getting more users.
The problem:
Due to increasing interest in crypto, FinTechs want to build crypto wallets, exchanges, and cards into their own apps. Unfortunately, shifting regulations and complex technology create long delays, unplanned costs, trouble with banking and financial institutions, and regulation scare.
The opportunity:
Cryptocurrency adoption has been growing at a staggering rate over the last 2 years. Early adopters in general no longer consider banking and financial services to be complete if they don’t have integration with the digital asset world.
The solution:
Enter Crypto-BaaS. A nascent industry that provides all the infrastructure for companies to integrate crypto and fiat features into their own apps. The market is starting to take shape: In the US, Solid is gaining ground against Synapse. For Europe, Striga is positioning itself to be the top player.
But enough context – The question here is: How does Striga compare to Solid?
Striga Vs. Solid:
Time to Market
Time to market is affected mainly by the features chosen to be integrated and the skill of the client’s developer team. Integrating just a wallet takes much less than launching a physical card program, where design and manufacturing are needed.
Solid: While they do not publicly disclose their time to market, they do share an onboarding diagram that paints a reasonable picture. The usual time to market for crypto-BaaS is 6 weeks to 3 months, so let’s assume that as a benchmark.
Striga: Core features can go live in under 6 weeks, with the full implementation of the platform and cards taking up to 3 months.
Verdict: Though Striga can have a faster-than-average time to market for basic features, it is similar to what Solid can be expected to achieve. Without more information, it is safe to call it a tie.
Striga
Solid (industry benchmark)
Time to Market
1.5 – 3 months
1.5 – 3 months
Striga Vs. Solid:
Financials
The usual commercial structure is broken down into two: an upfront cost, and a monthly minimum or subscription fee. Then there are transactional costs, but we won’t get into those right now, as they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, given how many and how variable they are.
Solid: The company does not publicly disclose its costs, but industry standards tend to be an upfront payment between USD 20,000 – 30,000 and a monthly minimum of around USD ~10,000.
Striga: An upfront payment of EUR 5,000 and a monthly fee of EUR 3,000.
Verdict: While a direct comparison is not possible with only public information, it is safe to say that Striga is much more cost-efficient than industry standards, likely Solid included.
Financials
Striga
Solid (industry benchmark)
Upfront Cost (EUR)
5,000
20,000 – 30,000
Monthly Minimum / Subscription Fee (EUR)
3,000
~10,000
Striga Vs. Solid:
Services Offered
All financial infrastructure providers offer standard banking services, like IBAN accounts. What usually differentiates them is having some or all of the following 5:
- Native crypto support
- White label infrastructure
- Card Issuing
- Apple Pay & Google Pay support (Tokenization)
- Product lifecycle management via a dashboard
Solid: It provides the 5 services listed above
Striga: It provides the 5 services listed above as well.
Verdict: In terms of services provided, Striga and Solid could be considered equivalents
Services
Striga
Solid
White Label Infrastructure
Yes
Yes
Native Crypto Support
Yes
Yes
Physical and Virtual Card Issuing
Yes
Yes
Apple Pay & Google Pay
Yes
Yes
Product lifecycle management via dashboard
Yes
Yes
Striga Vs. Solid:
Technical Setup
While financials and services are essential to make a product great, you need to integrate the APIs first. Ask any developer team: if the technical setup is not properly designed, a simple —even enjoyable— setup, can become a months-long nightmare.
Besides the documentation being high-quality, the 4 following elements make the technical setup friendlier:
- Publicly available sandbox (accessible without a verification process)
- The number of partners required to go live
- Interactive setup guide
- Public API Documentation
Solid:
- The company does not appear to have a publicly accessible sandbox
- It takes 1 partner (Solid itself) to launch a full crypto banking as a service platform
- The company does not appear to have an interactive guide, just a static one
- The company does share publicly its API documentation
Striga:
- Striga has a publicly accessible sandbox
- It takes 1 partner (Striga itself) to launch a full Neobank platform
- Striga has an interactive setup guide
- Striga shares publicly its API documentation
Verdict:
The documentation for both companies is relatively similar and it takes the same effort in terms of partners. The only two differences are Striga’s publicly available information and the fact that its guide is interactive.
Technical Setup
Striga
Solid
Publicly Available Sandbox
Yes
No
Number of Partners Required to Go Live
1
1
Interactive Setup Guide
Yes
No
Public API Documentation
Yes
Yes
Striga Vs. Solid:
Regulation & Compliance
Once you launch a platform with the services you want and profitable financials, the only thing to worry about beyond growing your business is compliant. There are 3 core points to consider in that regard:
- KYC: Either the provider of the infrastructure or the client that uses it has to handle the responsibility of onboarding users and recording their data
- AML: Either the provider of the infrastructure or the client that uses it has to handle the responsibility of monitoring transactions to report potential money laundering
- Licenses: Either the provider of the infrastructure or the client that uses it has to hold a license to manage and hold virtual assets
Solid: Solid handles KYC and AML for its clients (as opposed to clients being able to handle it themselves or outsourcing it). They also are the holders of the license required to manage digital assets.
Striga: Striga, too, handles KYC and AML for its clients (outsourcing it isn’t an option). It does not require them to hold any licenses or registration to handle and hold digital currencies, as the company takes care of that too*.
- Striga is currently pursuant to the newly updated (March 2022) Virtual Asset Service Provider License in Estonia.
Verdict: In terms of regulations and compliance, both Solid and Striga are equivalent.
Regulation & Compliance
Striga
Solid
Outsourceable KYC
No
No
Outsourceable AML
No
No
Licenses or Commercial Registrations NOT Required
Yes
Yes
Verdict
Is Striga better than Solid?
It depends on where you’re trying to build your company.
Solid is, potentially, the best option to build a crypto neobank in the United States, as that’s the geography in which they operate.
Striga, on the other hand, besides being potentially cheaper and having a more readily available technical setup environment, is the best option to build a neobank in Europe.
Striga Crypto-native Banking as a Service:
Your path to building and launching financial products
Join the financial businesses that use Striga’s cloud platform to delight their customers and launch their own products without the complexities that come when dealing with core banking solutions’ relationships, licensing, compliance and payments methods.
FR 
EN