The operator is always visible
A customer sees the brand, and the record always names the licensed entity operating the transaction. Admitting a member to a brand and removing one are separate authorities, because they carry different risks.
Industries
Built for organisations that
carry the licence and the liability.
The obligations differ by entity type, and so does the platform. Corridor access, limits, screening thresholds, approval policy and reporting are all scoped to what your registration actually permits — not configured by hand and hoped over.
Who it is for
-
01
North America
Money services businesses
Licensed remittance operators in North America running branch, agent or digital channels. Corridor access, limits and screening scoped to your registration, with branch and teller authority bound to the permission the principal holds.
-
02
Launch
New and scaling operators
Organisations that have secured registration and now have to build the operation behind it. The compliance controls, the ledger and the evidence trail arrive already built, which is the part that takes a year and fails diligence when it is rushed.
-
03
UK & EU
Payment institutions and EMIs
Authorised institutions in the UK and EU adding cross-border payout without standing up a second compliance stack or a second set of provider contracts. Sub-ledgers stay separated per authorisation.
-
04
MEA
Payment service providers
Regional providers across the Middle East and Africa connecting outbound corridors and settling through certified local rails, with per-country and per-method certification behind each route.
-
05
Distribution
Agent and sub-agent networks
Principals distributing through agents, with every branch, teller and approval bound to the authority the principal actually holds, and agent settlement kept on its own ledger.
-
06
FX
Foreign exchange businesses
Operators quoting and settling cross-currency who need the same screening, limit and evidence discipline applied to an FX leg as to a transfer.
Why entity type decides everything
The licence is a boundary, not a label.
A principal may do things a sub-agent may not. An EMI's obligations are not an MSB's. Payzone models that hierarchy directly: authority flows down from the entity that holds the permission, and no workspace, corridor or approval can exceed it.
That is why onboarding starts with the entity you operate as, and why credentials are scoped rather than universal.
What that gets you
Groups and brands
Several licensees, one trading name.
Networks rarely map one company to one licence. A brand may be carried by many licensed operators, and many licensed operators may share one owner. Payzone models both without letting either blur who is actually responsible.
Owners see commercials, never customers
An ownership group can see the commercial position of the licensees it owns. It cannot see another operator's customers — and its settlement nets at the treasury that holds the account, not across the group by assumption.
Adjacent segments
Where we would scope carefully.
Payroll providers, digital wallet operators, government disbursement programmes and banks share most of the machinery — an entity hierarchy, screening, a ledger that holds, evidence that survives an audit. We have not yet run a production deployment for those, so we would rather scope one properly with you than claim it here. Tell us the obligation you are trying to meet and we will say plainly whether the platform meets it today.
Tell us what you operate as.
The more precisely you describe the entity and the corridors, the more useful the first reply will be.