From one trusted provider to three, a third of the volume each.

A CySEC-regulated broker had processed through the same provider for years. It had always been reliable, so a second one never seemed necessary. Then the provider's management decided to reduce its exposure to high-risk merchants, and the broker was left with nothing.

One basket

Nothing was wrong with the broker. A provider's appetite for high-risk is a business decision, made far from your account, and it can change with new management, a new partner bank or a new policy. When everything runs through one provider, that decision is yours to live with, not to make. That's the concentration risk a long, quiet track record hides.

• Every deposit depended on one provider's risk policy
• A declined payment had nowhere else to go
• When the policy changed, there was no fallback at all

What we did

We onboarded them to three providers that work with CySEC-licensed brokers. The first was live within a week, and all three within a month. Instead of naming a new favourite, we split their volume equally, so no single provider carries more than a third of it. And we set up cascading between the three, so a payment one provider declines is retried on the next.

• First provider live within a week
• All three live within a month
• Volume split equally: a third on each
• Cascading between them, so a failed payment gets a second and a third chance

Before and after

What's running today

Each provider carries a third of the volume, and every payment has two more routes behind it. If one provider changes its policy, the other two keep processing while a replacement is lined up, so the broker can't be left with nothing again. Even the safest, most reliable name in the market is one decision away from leaving, so no payment stack should live in one basket.