Continue Reading
Writing a seed check into a fintech company has always been a bet on a specific sequence: regulatory clarity comes before product-market fit, distribution unlocks before the unit economics work, and trust is earned years before it can be monetized. That sequence hasn’t changed. What has changed is what we need to believe is already true before we can make the math work.
Fintech infrastructure matured faster than most investors predicted. The primitives — BaaS, card issuance, lending origination rails, KYC at scale — moved from expensive proprietary assets to commoditized API layers. That shift is genuinely good for founders. It is also genuinely harder for investors. When infrastructure is cheap, the bet is almost entirely on distribution and timing. Those bets are harder to diligence and harder to defend when they don’t work out.
Here is the framework we use when evaluating a seed-stage fintech company today. Not a checklist. A set of questions we need honest answers to before we can get comfortable writing a check.
The distinction matters more than founders usually want to admit. A financial products company earns margin by taking risk — credit risk, insurance risk, float. Its valuation ceiling is determined by how well it manages that risk at scale. A technology company earns margin by selling access to capability. Its ceiling is determined by the size of the market it serves and how defensible its position becomes.
Many fintech companies at seed stage are technically both, and the founders pitch the technology story while quietly running a financial products business that requires balance sheet to grow. That tension surfaces at Series A when growth capital and revenue capital need to be separated. We want to understand how a founder sees this distinction before it becomes a structural problem. The companies that get it right early build two parallel tracks — software revenue and financial margin — with appropriate capital structures for each. The ones that don’t tend to hit Series A looking more like a specialty lender than a software company, and the valuation conversation gets complicated.
This question destroys more fintech theses than any other. A company can have impressive transaction volume, a beautifully designed product, and genuinely novel technology — and still be structurally dependent on a distribution channel it doesn’t control. We have seen this play out in consumer fintech, in B2B payments, and in embedded finance. The product works. The customer loves it. And then the bank partner, the employer, or the platform changes its terms, and the company’s economics collapse overnight.
The seed-stage companies we get most excited about are those where the end-user relationship is owned directly, or where the switching cost from the distribution channel is so high that the channel partner has no realistic option to disintermediate. Neither is easy to achieve. Both are worth paying for.
We do not expect seed-stage fintech founders to have a fully staffed compliance function. We do expect them to understand which regulations govern their product, which regulators have jurisdiction, and where the landmines are in their specific category. A founder who has done the work on this — who can explain the CFPB’s position on their product, the state licensing requirements they’ll face as they scale, and the sponsor bank dynamics in their space — gives us real confidence. A founder who treats compliance as someone else’s problem to be hired away later is telling us something important about how they will manage risk as the company grows.
Regulatory failure is the most common cause of irreversible damage to a fintech company. It is also the most preventable. We want to back founders who understand this at seed.
The fintech companies that have built lasting value did not treat compliance as a cost center. They treated it as a competitive advantage. The ones that didn’t either got acquired cheaply or spent years navigating enforcement actions that burned through the growth capital they raised.
Timing arguments in venture are often retrospective wisdom dressed up as foresight. But in fintech, timing genuinely matters in ways that are specific to this category. Regulatory windows open and close. Bank partner appetite for new programs shifts with the rate cycle. Consumer trust in a new financial product category builds slowly and can be set back years by a single well-publicized failure.
We want to understand what changed in the last twelve to eighteen months that makes this specific wedge available now when it was not before. Sometimes it is a regulatory change. Sometimes it is a technical primitive that just reached sufficient reliability. Sometimes it is a shift in the incumbent’s attention or strategy that opened a gap. If the founder cannot give us a specific, credible answer to why now, that is not automatically disqualifying — but it means we need to do more work on whether the window is genuinely open.
A few things that used to be exciting and are now table stakes, or worse, red flags:
Three areas where we are writing checks right now:
Vertical-specific financial infrastructure for underserved SMB categories. The largest banks are structurally unable to serve the bottom half of the SMB market at a price that makes sense for either party. A software company that already has the workflow relationship and the operating data can underwrite credit, offer insurance, or facilitate payments in ways that a generalist institution cannot. We have backed several of these and are actively looking for more, particularly in construction, healthcare, and professional services.
Compliance infrastructure. The fintech ecosystem has built excellent transaction processing, card issuance, and account infrastructure. It has not built equivalent tooling for the compliance and risk management layer. The companies solving KYB, transaction monitoring, and regulatory reporting for the fintech platforms themselves — not just for banks — are addressing a real gap, and the customers have every incentive to pay for it.
Cross-border payments for specific corridors. Generic cross-border infrastructure is a commodities business. Deep expertise in a specific corridor — where local banking relationships, FX liquidity management, and compliance complexity create real barriers — can still be a defensible position. We look carefully at the founding team’s genuine network and credibility in the target corridor before we believe the moat story.
The seed stage is where thesis meets reality most sharply. We would rather have honest early conversations about the hard questions than discover the fault lines at Series A when they are expensive to address.
Building in one of these areas? We’d like to hear from you.