How does Striga compare to Crypto as a Service solutions?
How does Striga compare to Crypto as a Service solutions?
- Mousser R.
- 8 min read
Table of Contents
There’s multiple types of financial institutions and service providers out there. A subgroup of them focus not on investments, but on providing infrastructure. Crypto-as-a-Service (CaaS) and Crypto-banking-as-a-Service (Crypto-BaaS) —like Striga’s platform— fall within that category, and though they sound quite similar, they are in fact quite different.
What is CaaS?
Crypto-as-a-Service (CaaS) traditionally refers to companies that allow other companies to use their their exchange platform to trade as a company. The client company can then break down its own account into multiple smaller accounts to provide exchange features to their own users. So, in brief, CaaS provides exchange features and the liquidity to back it up.
Examples of them are Bitstamp, Bitpanda, and Zero Hash, though there’s many others.
What is Crypto-BaaS?
Crypto banking-as-a-service refers to companies that provide banking infrastructure —usually both crypto & fiat— for other companies to integrate into their own products. Crypto-BaaS usually offer features regarding:
- Crypto
- Echanges de crypto-monnaies
- IBAN accounts for individual users
- Virtual and Physical Cards
- KYC & AML controls
Examples of them are Striga, Solid, and Synapse
Where do they overlap?
They share the exchange features, but not in the same way. For the most part, Crypto-BaaS actually partners with a CaaS to be able to provide this features. The Crypto-as-a-service provider is usually the one who holds control over the liquidity and sets the spread for exchanging it, while the Crypto-BaaS acts as an intermediary and integrator.
Striga Vs. CaaS:
Time to Market
CaaS: The time to market of an average CaaS depends on two things: Going through a round of calls with a provider to get approval, and developing the technical integrations. The expertise required to do the latter is usually high. The full process usually takes between 2 and 6 months, and the size and experience of the client’s developer team plays a big role in it.
Striga takes between 6 weeks and 3 months to fully deploy a product, from the moment you make the decision, through the integrations, until going live.
Verdict: Striga is the faster option, though these two categories are the fastest among financial infrastructure providers in general.
Striga
CaaS
Time to Market
1.5 – 3 months
2 – 6 months
Striga Vs. CaaS:
Financials
CaaS: The revenue model of a CaaS company is usually reliant on exchange spread or fees. They tend to charge no money either upfront nor as a subscription.
Striga: The Crypto-BaaS platform of Striga charges EUR 5,000 as an upfront/integration cost, plus EUR 3,000 monthly.
Verdict: CaaS takes the win. Though they can get expensive at a transactional level, they are free to start with.
Financials
Striga
CaaS
Upfront Cost (EUR)
5,000
0
Monthly Minimum / Subscription Fee (EUR)
3,000
0
Striga Vs. CaaS:
Services Offered
CaaS: As mentioned above, a CaaS company focuses exclusively on providing crypto liquidity and infrastructure to grant exchange features.
Striga: On the other hand, Striga’s Crypto-BaaS has a full list of services including, but not limited to:
- White label infrastructure
- Native crypto support
- Crypto Wallets
- Crypto exchange features
- Individual IBAN accounts
- Physical and Virtual Card Issuing
- Apple Pay & Google Pay support (Tokenization)
- Product lifecycle management via a dashboard
Verdict: Striga far outstrips a CaaS in terms of number of services, which is expected, given the differing business models. When it comes to exchange features though, the CaaS are likely the experts.
Services
Striga
CaaS
White Label Infrastructure
Yes
No
Native Crypto Support
Yes
Yes
Crypto Wallets
Yes
No
Crypto Exchange Features
Yes
Yes
Individual IBAN accounts
Yes
No
Card Issuing
Yes
No
Apple Pay & Google Pay
Yes
No
Product lifecycle management via dashboard
Yes
No
Striga Vs. CaaS:
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: Striga offers one, CaaS usually don’t, at least not without a series of calls for vetting and authorization
- Number of partners required: Assuming you start from scratch, to go live with a full crypto banking platform, you need the CaaS plus another 6 or 7 partners (Wallet provider, BIN Sponsor, Processor, Card Bureau, IBAN provider, KYC provider, and AML provider). Striga, on the other hand, is already connected with all of the above, so you only need the connection to Striga.
- Interactive setup guide: Though all companies have setup guides, they tend to be static. Striga is the only one with a guide that actually connects to its servers interactively, so clients can test and learn in real time each step of the guide.
- Public API Documentation: All CaaS have publicly available API documentation. Striga does as well.
Verdict: Connecting to Striga requires considerably less effort given the availability of resources and simplicity of connecting to only one partner, as opposed to 6 or 7.
Technical Setup
Striga
CaaS
Publicly Available Sandbox
Yes
No
Number of Partners Required to Go Live
1
6 – 7
Interactive Setup Guide
Yes
No
Public API Documentation
Yes
Yes
Striga Vs. CaaS:
Regulation & Compliance
So, integrations were easy to connect, the app has all the features your users love, and it is actually making you money due to great financials. The only thing that could put a stop to it is making a regulatory mistake and getting shut down.
There’s 3 things to know if you want to stay in business: Know your customer (KYC), Anti money laundering (AML) and Licenses. The big question here is “who handles the KYC/AML process and holds the licenses”. Being in charge allows for more flexibility, but requires more resources and responsibility.
- On KYC: Neither CaaS nor Striga permit KYC outsourcing. This means that it will be handled by them, not the client.
- On AML: Neither CaaS nor Striga permit AML outsourcing. This means that it will be handled by them, not the client.
- On Licenses: Striga does not require their clients to hold virtual asset licenses or commercial registrations. CaaS, on the other hand, does require one of those two. Basically, having direct access to the digital assets comes at the price of greater oversight and the need for a license.
Verdict: Though equivalent in KYC & AML, CaaS does have one extra roadblock when compared to Striga due to requiring a license to operate.
Regulation & Compliance
Striga
CaaS
Outsourceable KYC
No
No
Outsourceable AML
No
No
Licenses or Commercial Registrations NOT Required
Yes
No
Verdict
Is Striga better than the average CaaS?
It really depends on what you are looking for.
If what you exclusively want is direct access to crypto funds for greater flexibility, you have a good development team to back you, and can wait up to 6 months, a CaaS probably makes sense.
If what you want is to build a full-fledged banking platform or integrate banking features into your own product, and you want to deploy it quickly, then your best bet is Striga.
