Use Cases of Merchant Acquiring: QR, POS, SoftPOS, BNPL and More

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/09/paisaback_m2p_blog_v8_2000x1000.webp" alt="M2P Powers Federal Bank Paisaback Co-Branded Credit Card" title="" id="azfbg8gmd" width="100%" height="451"><a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/" target="_blank">M2P Fintech</a> is powering Paisaback, the co-branded credit card launched by <a class="link" href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/federal-bank-paisabazaar-launch-paisaback-credit-card-with-7-5-cashback-on-grocery-spends/articleshow/134061265.cms" target="_blank">Federal Bank in partnership with Paisabazaar</a>. The card runs on <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/credit-cards/" target="_blank">M2P's Credit Card Stack</a>, which handles everything from issuance and day-to-day card management to the cashback at the heart of the product.The idea behind <a class="link" href="https://www.paisabazaar.com/federal-bank/paisabazaar-paisaback-credit-card/" target="_blank">Paisaback</a> is simple. Most people want a credit card that pays them back on what they already spend, without having to learn a points system or wait on a redemption catalogue. Paisaback does exactly that, offering cashback across everyday spend categories, including a distinctive cashback on everyday transactions made using the credit card. With UPI now the way so many Indians pay, from the neighbourhood grocer to monthly bills, rewarding those payments makes the card useful in the moments that matter most.Getting a proposition like this to market quickly takes more than a good idea. It needs a card platform that adapts to the product, not the other way round. That is where <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/why-switch-to-a-new-age-credit-card-system/" target="_blank">M2P's Credit Card Management System</a> comes in. It manages the full life of a card, from onboarding the customer and issuing the card to setting credit limits, authorising transactions, generating statements and processing repayments. Just as importantly, M2P's Credit Card Management System can be configured quickly to support differentiated product constructs like this one. That flexibility lets issuers design card propositions for different customer segments and interests, and bring them to market faster. For Paisaback, it meant a fast launch and a platform ready to grow with the program.<a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/6-reasons-cards-issuers-need-modern-api-based-platform/" target="_blank">APIs</a> sit at the heart of the stack, which lets it connect smoothly with a partner's digital journeys. Customers can discover the card, apply for it and manage it through channels they already know and trust, which is exactly what a digital-first co-branded card needs.The cashback itself is delivered through <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/rewards/" target="_blank">M2P's Rewards platform</a>, working hand in hand with the <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/what-is-a-card-management-system-the-complete-guide-to-modern-card-issuance-2026/" target="_blank">Credit Card Management System</a>. The rules engine decides how cashback is earned, whether by spend category, merchant, payment type such as UPI, spend thresholds or monthly caps. As transactions come through, rewards are worked out accurately and credited transparently, so customers can clearly see the value they are getting. For the issuer, the same platform makes it easy to fine-tune the program over time, whether that means running a festive offer, adding a partner campaign or shifting focus to a new spend category, all without touching the core card platform. Behind every swipe, UPI payment and cashback credit sits a set of transactions that must be matched and settled accurately. This is where <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/recon360/" target="_blank">M2P's reconciliation</a> product completes the stack. It automates the back-office work of matching transaction records across networks, processors and the bank's ledgers, and flags exceptions early so they can be resolved quickly. For a program like Paisaback, that means fewer manual checks, cleaner books and greater confidence as transaction volumes grow.<a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/why-co-branded-credit-cards-are-the-next-frontier-for-banks/" target="_blank">Co-branded cards</a> work best when the value is easy for customers to understand and the technology behind them is easy for issuers to shape. Paisaback is a great example of that. Paisabazaar knows what today's credit customers are looking for, and our role has been to give that insight a platform that can launch quickly and scale with confidence. We're excited to be part of this journey.Paisaback brings together three strengths. <a class="link" href="https://www.federal.bank.in/" target="_blank">Federal Bank</a> contributes its banking franchise and credit card expertise, Paisabazaar brings its deep understanding of consumer credit needs and wide digital reach, and M2P provides the technology that ties it all together. The result is a card that is simple, rewarding and digital-first.M2P Fintech looks forward to supporting Federal Bank and Paisabazaar as Paisaback continues to grow, and to enabling more innovative credit experiences across the BFSI sector.

M2P's Credit Card Stack Powers Federal Bank Paisaback Co-Branded CC Program with Paisabazaar

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/09/frm-banner-fraud-model-yesterdays-war_2x1.webp" alt="Your Fraud Model Is Fighting Yesterday's War" title="" id="h94ooqa0e" width="100%" height="362">Walk into most conversations about fraud and risk management, and you'll still hear the same vocabulary that's dominated the industry for two decades: chargebacks, card-not-present fraud, velocity checks, device fingerprinting. It's not wrong vocabulary — it's just increasingly incomplete.The uncomfortable truth is that a meaningful share of the FRM industry is still optimized for a fraud landscape that peaked a decade ago. Card fraud hasn't disappeared, but in market after market, it's being overtaken by categories that most legacy fraud stacks were never built to catch: authorized scams, mule networks, fraud rings that operate with the sophistication of venture-backed startups, and — coming faster than most risk leaders expect — a world where AI agents, not humans, are the ones initiating payments.This blog looks at four converging shifts that every risk leader should be thinking about right now — not as far-off, speculative trends, but as forces already reshaping what "fraud prevention" needs to mean.<h1 class="heading-node" id="bs27tteor">Why Most FRM Vendors Are Still Fighting Yesterday's Fraud</h1>For most of the last two decades, fraud prevention was built around a fairly clean mental model: a criminal steals a card number or account credential, and uses it to make an unauthorized transaction. Card networks, issuing banks, and FRM vendors built an entire architecture — 3D Secure, CVV checks, velocity rules, device fingerprinting, chargeback dispute workflows — around catching exactly this pattern.That architecture worked. Card-not-present fraud rates, as a share of transaction volume, have been broadly declining across mature markets for years as this tooling matured. But the fraud that's replaced it doesn't fit the same mental model at all — and that's the problem.Authorized push payment (APP) fraud — where the victim is deceived into initiating the payment themselves — doesn't look like fraud from a transaction-data perspective. The right cardholder authenticates with the right device from the right location and sends money to an account they were told, convincingly, was legitimate. Every signal a traditional fraud model was built to catch — mismatched device, unusual location, failed authentication — is absent. The fraud lives in the story the victim was told, not in the transaction's technical fingerprint.Mule account networks are the second blind spot. Modern fraud rings no longer rely on a single stolen identity moving money in one shot. They recruit or fabricate dozens or hundreds of mule accounts, each one individually unremarkable, and move money through them in small, plausible-looking increments before it's laundered out. A fraud system scoring each transaction in isolation — the dominant architecture for most of the last decade — simply can't see this pattern. You need network-level analysis: who's sending to whom, how often, and whether the graph of relationships between accounts looks like an organic customer base or a laundering pipeline.This is why the industry's obsession with model accuracy on historical fraud data is, in a real sense, backward-looking. A model tuned to catch card-present and card-not-present fraud with 99% precision can still be functionally blind to the categories now driving the majority of losses in many markets — because those categories were never in its training data to begin with, and they don't share the transaction-level signatures the model was built around.What this means for FRM strategy: the shift isn't "add more rules." It's a structural one — from transaction-level scoring to behavioral and network-level detection. That means modeling the victim's behavior during a transaction (hesitation patterns, unusual call activity, first-time payee additions under time pressure), not just the transaction itself. It means building graph-based mule detection that looks at the relationships between accounts, not each account in isolation. Vendors and institutions that haven't rebuilt around this shift are, quite literally, optimizing for a fraud problem that's shrinking while the one that's growing goes unaddressed.<h1 class="heading-node" id="rintx2zaq">What Fraud Looks Like in an Agentic AI World</h1>Here's a scenario that sounds speculative but is arriving faster than most risk teams have planned for: a consumer's AI agent — booking travel, managing subscriptions, comparison-shopping and checking out on their behalf — initiates a payment. No human clicks "buy." No human enters an OTP. The agent authenticates using credentials or delegated authority the consumer set up in advance, and the transaction completes autonomously.This isn't a hypothetical for 2030. Agentic checkout flows, agent-to-agent commerce protocols, and AI-driven personal assistants with payment authority are already being piloted by major platforms and card networks. And it fundamentally breaks assumptions that almost every fraud model — and almost every regulation, including PSD2's Strong Customer Authentication requirements — was built around: that the entity present at the moment of transaction is the accountholder, and that human behavioral patterns (typing cadence, mouse movement, session behavior) are a reliable fraud signal.When the "user" at checkout is an AI agent, several things change at once:<ul class="list-node" id="ijzw32q93"><li>Behavioral biometrics stop working as a fraud signal. There's no human typing pattern or navigation behavior to analyze — an agent's "behavior" is deterministic, fast, and doesn't vary the way a human's does, which means an entirely new signal set is needed to distinguish a legitimate agent transaction from a compromised or spoofed one.</li><li>Authentication needs a new model entirely. SCA's "something you know, have, or are" framework assumes a human is present to know, hold, or be something. Agent authentication needs to prove delegated authority — that this specific agent, with this specific scope of permission, was genuinely authorized by the accountholder to make this specific class of transaction.</li><li>New attack surfaces emerge. If an agent can be manipulated — through a compromised instruction, a poisoned data source, or an impersonated merchant API — the fraud doesn't require stealing a credential at all. It requires tricking the agent, which is a fundamentally different threat model than tricking a human or stealing a card number.</li><li>Liability becomes genuinely unclear. If an AI agent makes an unauthorized or ill-advised purchase, who's liable — the consumer who delegated authority, the platform that built the agent, or the merchant that accepted the transaction? None of today's card network rules or regional payment regulations have a clean answer yet.</li></ul>What this means for FRM strategy: risk teams don't need to solve this today, but they do need to start architecting for it — building fraud systems flexible enough to score a new category of "agent-initiated" transactions with their own signal set, rather than forcing agent transactions through a fraud model built entirely around human behavioral assumptions. The institutions that start this work now, before agentic commerce reaches meaningful volume, will have a multi-year head start over those that wait for the first major agentic fraud incident to force the issue.<h1 class="heading-node" id="ppzy94437">Fraud-as-a-Service: When Organized Crime Runs Like a SaaS Business</h1>If you want to understand why fraud has scaled so quickly in the last few years, look at how fraud rings now organize themselves — because it looks less like traditional organized crime and increasingly like a software business.Fraud-as-a-Service (FaaS) platforms, sold and marketed on dark web forums and encrypted messaging channels, now offer productized fraud tooling with the same packaging conventions as legitimate SaaS: tiered pricing, customer support, regular feature updates, and even reviews from other criminal "customers." A prospective fraudster doesn't need technical skill anymore — they can rent phishing kits with ready-made bank login clones, subscribe to services that generate synthetic identities complete with fabricated credit histories, or buy access to botnets that automate account takeover attempts at scale. Some platforms offer deepfake-generation-as-a-service specifically for bypassing liveness-detection KYC checks.This productization has three consequences that matter enormously for FRM strategy:Speed and scale have decoupled from skill. A single low-skill operator can now launch attacks that would have previously required a technically sophisticated team. This means the volume of attempted fraud attacks is scaling far faster than the sophistication curve most fraud models were tuned to expect.Attack patterns get shared and replicated instantly. When a FaaS platform's phishing kit successfully bypasses a particular bank's authentication flow, that exploit gets shared across the platform's entire customer base — potentially thousands of fraudsters — within days. A vulnerability that used to take months to spread through criminal networks now spreads at software-update speed.Detection needs to shift from "known fraud patterns" to "criminal infrastructure fingerprints." Because so much fraud now runs on shared tooling, the same phishing kit, the same synthetic-identity generator, or the same botnet infrastructure shows up across seemingly unrelated fraud attempts against different institutions. This is exactly why cross-institution data sharing and consortium fraud intelligence — recognizing the infrastructure behind an attack rather than just the transaction pattern — is becoming one of the highest-leverage defenses available. A single institution seeing an attack in isolation is fighting blind; a network of institutions sharing infrastructure-level signals can identify a FaaS-powered attack wave before it reaches its second or third target.What this means for FRM strategy: the response to an industrialized, productized fraud economy has to be equally systemic. That means investing in threat intelligence feeds that track known FaaS infrastructure (phishing domains, known botnet IP ranges, synthetic identity generation patterns), participating in consortium data-sharing arrangements where regulation allows, and treating fraud defense as an ecosystem problem rather than a single-institution one.<h1 class="heading-node" id="sj9n72r97">Quantum Computing and Fraud: Urgent Risk or Overhyped Threat?</h1>No thought-leadership conversation about the future of fraud is complete without someone raising quantum computing — usually with either breathless urgency or dismissive skepticism. The honest answer sits in between.The real risk is narrower than the headlines suggest, but it is real. A sufficiently powerful, fault-tolerant quantum computer could, in theory, break the asymmetric encryption (RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography) that underpins much of today's payment security — including TLS connections, digital signatures, and card network authentication protocols. This isn't the same thing as "quantum computers will let criminals hack your bank account next year." Current quantum computers are nowhere near the scale, error-correction capability, or stability needed to break production-grade encryption, and credible timelines from cryptography researchers generally place a genuine "cryptographically relevant" quantum computer somewhere in the 2030s at the earliest — with meaningful uncertainty even in that estimate.The "harvest now, decrypt later" risk is the part worth taking seriously today. Encrypted data intercepted and stored now could, in principle, be decrypted once quantum capability matures — meaning sensitive financial data with long-term value (account numbers, identity documents, transaction histories) is already at theoretical future risk, even though the decryption capability doesn't exist yet. This is why NIST finalized post-quantum cryptography standards in 2024, and why major payment networks, cloud providers, and financial institutions have begun (slowly) planning migration paths to quantum-resistant encryption.What this means for FRM strategy: this is not a "drop everything" emergency, but it is a "start the multi-year planning now" issue. Practical steps for risk leaders include asking technology and infrastructure vendors (including FRM vendors) about their post-quantum cryptography roadmap, prioritizing crypto-agility (the ability to swap encryption algorithms without a full system rebuild) in any new infrastructure investment, and treating long-lived sensitive data with an eye toward its multi-decade exposure window, not just its current-year risk. Institutions that wait until quantum computing is a proven, immediate threat will be starting a multi-year migration years too late.<h1 class="heading-node" id="5fmrbprze">The Common Thread: Fraud Prevention Has to Get Ahead of the Curve, Not Chase It</h1>These four shifts — scams and mules outpacing card fraud, agentic AI breaking today's authentication assumptions, fraud-as-a-service industrializing attacks, and quantum computing reshaping the long-term cryptographic horizon — look unrelated on the surface. They share one underlying lesson: the fraud landscape is moving faster than the architecture most FRM systems were built around, and reactive tuning of yesterday's models isn't a strategy for tomorrow's threats.The institutions that will manage this well aren't the ones with the single most accurate fraud model for today's known fraud patterns. They're the ones building FRM infrastructure flexible enough to extend to new signal types (behavioral, network, agent-authority, infrastructure-level) as fraud typologies shift — because in every one of these four areas, the next major fraud wave will look nothing like the last one.<h1 class="heading-node" id="hh2x447bq">See What a Forward-Built FRM System Looks Like</h1><a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/frm-aml/?utm_source=blog&amp;utm_medium=sept&amp;utm_campaign=ai-scam" target="_blank">M2P's FRM </a>system is built around exactly this principle — real-time network and behavioral analysis for scam and mule detection, an architecture flexible enough to extend to new transaction types as agentic commerce and new payment models emerge, and infrastructure designed for the kind of adaptability this fraud landscape demands.If you're a risk leader trying to figure out whether your fraud stack is built for today's threats or still tuned to yesterday's, <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blog&amp;utm_medium=sept&amp;utm_campaign=ai-scam" target="_blank">reach out to M2P</a> to explore how our FRM system can help you get ahead of where fraud is actually headed.

Beyond Card Fraud: Why Today's FRM Systems Need to Fight Tomorrow's War

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/08/what-dormant-credit-cards-really-cost-indian-card-issuers_2_2000x1000-copy.webp" alt="What Dormant Credit Cards Really Cost Indian Issuers (2026)" title="" id="xscjjzdn2" width="100%" height="347">Most card issuers track dormancy as a percentage. Fewer track it as a rupee figure. That gap matters, because a dormancy rate sitting in a monthly report doesn't get anyone's attention — a cost sitting on the P&amp;L does.&nbsp;If your program has issued cards that customers aren't using, this is the actual math behind why that's a bigger problem than it looks.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="bidfb6mad" style="text-align: left;">Dormancy Is Usually Treated as an Ops Metric - It's Actually a Program Design Problem&nbsp;</h2>A dormant card gets logged, monitored for compliance purposes, and mostly forgotten until someone asks why activation numbers look weak in a review. By then, the cost has already been incurred - it just hasn't been counted properly.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="c3gmjrmoi" style="text-align: left;">Why Cards Go Dormant in the First Place?&nbsp;</h2>Briefly, before the cost breakdown - dormancy usually traces back to one of a few things:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="d5qhstwi4"><li>Friction in the activation process itself (app downloads, PIN generation, physical activation steps)&nbsp;</li><li>No meaningful nudge or incentive in the first few days after the card is issued&nbsp;</li><li>A card issued as an add-on or eligibility-based offer, without genuine customer intent to use it&nbsp;</li><li>No visibility for the program team into where a customer drops off between issuance and first transaction&nbsp;</li></ul>The fix for each of these is a separate conversation. This piece is about what happens if none of them get addressed.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="p0lsabxob" style="text-align: left;">The Real Cost Breakdown&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>1. Issuance Cost That's Already Sunk&nbsp;Every card issued carries a cost - KYC verification, card manufacturing, personalization, and dispatch logistics. This cost is incurred the moment the card ships, regardless of whether it's ever activated. A card that never gets used means that cost never gets recovered through any downstream revenue.&nbsp;&nbsp;2. Blocked Credit Limit&nbsp;A sanctioned credit limit sits allocated against a dormant account, even though it's generating no interest income and no transaction volume. At a portfolio level, across thousands of dormant cards, that's real capital sitting idle that could otherwise be underwritten to customers who would actually use it.&nbsp;&nbsp;3. Lost Interchange and Fee Income&nbsp;The entire card revenue model - interchange income, EMI conversion fees, annual fees in some cases - depends on the card being used. A dormant card breaks that assumption completely. It's not a smaller version of revenue; it's zero.&nbsp;4. Ongoing Compliance and Servicing Overhead&nbsp;Dormant accounts don't disappear from the books. They still require monitoring, periodic KYC refreshes, and statement generation in many cases - costs that continue whether or not the customer ever transacts.&nbsp;&nbsp;5. Opportunity Cost&nbsp;Every dormant card represents an issuance slot, underwriting decision, and onboarding effort that could have gone toward a customer who was going to activate and use the card. At scale, this compounds.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="e8i1gvgm8" style="text-align: left;">A Simple Way to See the Scale of It&nbsp;</h2>Take a program issuing 1 lakh cards a year, with a dormancy rate of 25% - not unusual for programs without strong early-activation triggers. That's 25,000 cards where issuance cost, blocked limit, and servicing overhead are incurred with no offsetting revenue. Multiply that by even a conservative per-card cost estimate, and the number moves from "a metric on a dashboard" to a figure that belongs in a board discussion.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="no5gjiny6" style="text-align: left;">What “Good" Looks Like?</h2>Well-run card programs tend to share a few traits when it comes to activation and dormancy management:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="i8jumbmg5"><li>Activation is tracked and acted on in near real time, not reviewed monthly after the fact&nbsp;</li><li>There's a structured first-30-days journey for every new cardholder, not just a generic welcome message&nbsp;</li><li>Program teams can see exactly where in the funnel - dispatch, activation, first transaction - customers are dropping off&nbsp;</li><li>Re-engagement triggers kick in well before an account crosses into full dormancy, not after.</li></ul><h2 class="heading-node" id="xkabk432t" style="text-align: left;">What Actually Moves the Needle&nbsp;</h2>Fixing dormancy at scale usually comes down to a few structural levers, not one-off campaigns:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="jbbmfsvox"><li>Real-time activation triggers instead of static, delayed reporting&nbsp;</li><li>First-transaction incentives built into the program design, not bolted on later&nbsp;</li><li>Full visibility into the onboarding-to-activation funnel for program managers, not just aggregate percentages&nbsp;</li><li>Proactive re-engagement for at-risk accounts before they become fully dormant&nbsp;</li></ul>These aren't marketing tactics - they're program infrastructure decisions, and they tend to separate issuers who treat dormancy as an afterthought from issuers who treat it as a P&amp;L line they actively manage.&nbsp;Dormancy isn't a customer behavior problem - it's a visibility and program design problem, and most issuers only catch it after the cost has already been incurred. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/credit-cards/" target="_blank">M2P's Credit Card Management System</a> gives program teams real-time activation tracking and lifecycle triggers built in, so dormancy gets caught and addressed early, not discovered in a quarterly review. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=M2PBlogs&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=Dormancy_CC_Blog" target="_blank">Talk to us today</a> and see how issuers are reducing dormancy with real-time triggers.<h2 class="heading-node" id="j2svgj812" style="text-align: left;">Frequently Asked Questions&nbsp;</h2><ul class="list-node" id="or763dhrb"><li>What counts as a dormant credit card?&nbsp; Definitions vary slightly by issuer, but most programs treat a card as dormant if it hasn't recorded a single transaction within a defined window after issuance - commonly 90 to 180 days - or if an account that was once active hasn't transacted in 12 months. The exact threshold matters less than having one at all: without a clear definition, dormancy can't be tracked, and what isn't tracked doesn't get fixed.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="kvsx08pew"><li>Isn't dormancy just a marketing or engagement problem?&nbsp; It starts there, but it doesn't stay there. Every dormant card carries issuance cost that's already been spent, a credit limit that's sitting idle instead of earning interest income, and zero interchange or fee revenue. By the time someone in engagement or marketing notices low activation, the cost has usually already hit the P&amp;L — it just hasn't been labeled as a cost.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="7uvspuces"><li>Why does blocked credit limit matter if the money was never actually lent out?&nbsp; It's not a cash loss the way issuance cost is - it's an opportunity cost. That sanctioned limit is capital the issuer has committed and could have extended to a customer who'd actually use it. At small scale it's negligible; across a portfolio of dormant cards, it becomes a meaningful drag on how efficiently the program deploys capital.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="gjgf0crll"><li>Does dormancy cost anything beyond issuance, blocked capital, and lost fee income?&nbsp; Yes - dormant accounts still require ongoing servicing: periodic KYC refreshes, statement generation, and compliance monitoring, all of which continue whether or not the customer ever transacts. It's a quieter cost than the other three, but it doesn't stop just because the account is inactive.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="lqvqnj3jf"><li>Where does dormancy typically start?&nbsp; Almost always in the first 30 days - friction in activation (app downloads, PIN setup, physical activation steps), no meaningful nudge right after issuance, or cards issued on eligibility rather than genuine intent to use. Programs that lose visibility into this early window tend to discover the problem only once it shows up as a dormancy percentage in a monthly report.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="1fj4od46w"><li>What actually reduces dormancy -&nbsp; beyond a one-off reactivation campaign?&nbsp; Structural fixes, not campaigns: real-time activation triggers instead of delayed reporting, first-transaction incentives designed into the program from day one, full visibility into where customers drop off between dispatch and first transaction, and re-engagement that kicks in before an account crosses into full dormancy - not after.&nbsp;</li></ul><ul class="list-node" id="nylil5e70"><li>How do we put a number on what this is costing our own portfolio?&nbsp; That's exactly what a portfolio-level calculator is for - plug in your issuance volume, dormancy rate, and a few cost assumptions, and it turns the abstract percentage into your program's actual annual number.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li></ul>

What Dormant Credit Cards Really Cost Indian Card Issuers

How to Issue a Business Credit Card in South Africa Without a Legacy Banking Core (2026 Guide)

Build vs. Buy: The Real Cost of Running an In-House ACS

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/08/what-every-banks-product-team-should-understand-before-partnering_2_2000x1000-copy.webp" alt="Credit Card Stack" title="" id="gtxcd3glr" width="100%" height="347">Every few months, a new brand - an airline, a fintech app, an e-commerce platform - launches a co-branded credit card. Somewhere behind that card is a bank or NBFC, and increasingly, a Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) partner sitting in between.&nbsp;If you're on a bank's product team and you've been asked to evaluate a BaaS partnership for a card program, this piece is meant to save you a few uncomfortable surprises six months into the contract.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="spd78v11y" style="text-align: left;">What BaaS Actually Means for Credit Cards</h2>In the context of credit cards, is simple: a technology and operations layer that lets your bank issue cards through a partner's rails - APIs for card issuance, KYC, transaction processing, and often the customer-facing app - instead of building all of it in-house.&nbsp;Your bank still holds the license, still carries the regulatory responsibility, and still owns the customer relationship on paper. The BaaS partner handles the plumbing.&nbsp;That last point is where most confusion starts. Plumbing doesn't mean irrelevant - it means invisible until something breaks, and when it breaks, the bank is still the one RBI calls.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="6i1p6efqo" style="text-align: left;">Why This Conversation Is Happening Now&nbsp;</h2>Three things are pushing more banks toward BaaS-style credit card partnerships:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="obocj3dzp"><li>Speed. Building card issuance infrastructure from scratch takes time most banks don't want to spend when a competitor's co-branded card is already live.&nbsp;</li><li>Non-bank brands want in. Airlines, D2C brands, and fintech apps want a credit card product, but they're not licensed to issue one. They need a bank, and increasingly, that bank needs a BaaS layer to make the partnership operationally workable.&nbsp;</li><li>Regulatory scrutiny has increased. [VERIFY: cite specific RBI circular/guideline on co-branded cards and outsourcing of financial services, latest version] has made banks more cautious about who they partner with and how responsibilities are split — which ironically has made well-structured BaaS partnerships more attractive, not less.&nbsp;</li></ul><h2 class="heading-node" id="u58ylwkgl" style="text-align: left;">The Three Ways Credit Card Programs Get Built Today&nbsp;</h2>1. Direct issuance - the bank builds and owns the entire stack, from card issuance to servicing.&nbsp;2. BaaS partnership - the bank owns the license and compliance responsibility; a BaaS provider handles issuance infrastructure, processing, and often the co-brand integration.&nbsp;3. Full outsourcing to a program manager - the bank plays a more limited role, and a third party manages most of the day-to-day program operations under the bank's licence.&nbsp;Most large co-branded card programs in India today sit somewhere between models 2 and 3, with the exact split depending on the bank's risk appetite and the BaaS provider's capabilities.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="el6raas8g" style="text-align: left;">Who's Responsible for What - And Why This Is the Part Product Teams Skip&nbsp;</h2>This is the section that gets glossed over during the sales pitch and becomes a headache during an audit.&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="cvuv3svrx"><li>The bank is accountable to the regulator, full stop. A BaaS partner's failure is still the bank's compliance failure in the eyes of RBI.&nbsp;</li><li>The BaaS/program management partner typically owns the technology stack, uptime, fraud monitoring tooling, and often first-line customer support.&nbsp;</li><li>The brand partner (in co-branded programs) owns marketing, customer acquisition, and the reward/loyalty construct - but has no regulatory standing of its own.&nbsp; </li></ul>Before signing anything, a bank's product team should have clear, written answers to:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="k583z0caz"><li>Who is liable if a fraud incident goes undetected - the bank, the BaaS partner, or both, and in what proportion?&nbsp;</li><li>Who owns the customer data, and where is it hosted? Does this comply with (VERIFY: current RBI data localization requirements)?&nbsp;</li><li>What SLAs exist for card issuance turnaround, dispute resolution, and system uptime - and what are the penalties if they're missed?&nbsp;</li><li>Can the bank audit the BaaS partner's systems and processes on demand, or only on a scheduled basis?&nbsp;</li><li>What happens to the program (and the customer base) if the bank wants to exit the partnership?&nbsp;</li></ul><h2 class="heading-node" id="tilwhz9vi" style="text-align: left;">Common Mistakes Banks Make in BaaS Partnerships&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2><ul class="list-node" id="l2p4qjkjb"><li>Treating the BaaS partner as a vendor instead of an extension of the bank's compliance perimeter. Regulators don't make that distinction, and neither should you.&nbsp;</li><li>Underestimating the integration effort. "API-first" doesn't mean zero effort on the bank's side - core banking integration, KYC alignment, and reconciliation processes still need real engineering time.&nbsp;</li><li>Not stress-testing the exit clause. Many banks only read the exit terms after they've decided they want out - by then, negotiating leverage is gone.&nbsp;</li><li>Assuming BaaS means less compliance work. It shifts where the compliance work happens, not whether it happens.&nbsp;</li></ul><h2 class="heading-node" id="u81zeyw6c" style="text-align: left;">Where This Is Headed?</h2>Embedded finance is only going to push more non-bank brands toward wanting credit products, and BaaS is the structural bridge that makes that possible without every brand becoming a bank. For product teams at banks and <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/can-nbfcs-issue-credit-cards-india/" target="_blank">NBFCs</a>, the winning position isn't avoiding these partnerships - it's going into them with a clear map of who owns what, backed by contracts that hold up under regulatory scrutiny, not just commercial negotiation.&nbsp;Getting the technology, compliance, and program management pieces right on day one is usually the difference between a BaaS partnership that scales smoothly and one that turns into a firefighting exercise. If you're evaluating partners for a credit card program, <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/credit-cards/" target="_blank">M2P's Credit Card Management System</a> is built to handle exactly this split - issuance, compliance workflows, and program operations - so your product and compliance teams aren't left reverse-engineering responsibility after something goes wrong. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=M2PBlogs&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=BaaS_CCPartnership_Blog" target="_blank">Talk to us</a> about how a program like this gets structured. Frequently Asked Questions: 1. What is BaaS in the context of credit cards? Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) for credit cards is a technology and operations layer that lets a bank issue and manage credit cards through a partner's infrastructure — covering card issuance APIs, KYC, transaction processing, and often the customer-facing app — instead of building this stack in-house. The bank retains the banking license and regulatory accountability; the BaaS partner handles the underlying plumbing.2. Who is legally responsible if something goes wrong in a BaaS credit card partnership? The bank or NBFC holding the license is always accountable to the regulator, regardless of which partner caused the failure. A BaaS partner's system failure, fraud gap, or compliance lapse is still treated as the bank's compliance failure by RBI. This is why banks should treat BaaS partners as an extension of their compliance perimeter, not as an ordinary vendor.3. What's the difference between a BaaS partnership and a program manager model for credit cards? In a BaaS partnership, the bank owns the license and compliance responsibility while the BaaS provider handles issuance infrastructure and processing. In a full program manager model, the bank plays a more limited role and the third party manages most day-to-day program operations under the bank's license. Most large co-branded card programs today sit somewhere between these two models.4. Does using a BaaS partner reduce a bank's compliance workload? No. BaaS shifts where compliance work happens - from the bank's internal teams to a shared or partner-managed workflow - but it does not eliminate the compliance obligation itself. Banks that assume BaaS means less compliance oversight are the ones most likely to face issues during an audit.5. What should a bank's product team confirm before signing a BaaS credit card partnership? Before signing, a bank should have written clarity on: fraud liability and its proportional split, customer data ownership and hosting location, SLAs for issuance turnaround and dispute resolution (with penalties for misses), audit rights over the BaaS partner's systems, and a clearly defined exit process for the program and customer base.6. Why is the exit clause in a BaaS contract so important? Because negotiating leverage is highest before the contract is signed and lowest once a bank has already decided to leave. Many banks only scrutinize exit terms after they want out, by which point the BaaS partner has little incentive to offer favorable terms.7. Why are more non-bank brands launching credit cards through BaaS partners? Non-bank brands like airlines, D2C companies, and fintech apps aren't licensed to issue credit directly. BaaS gives them a structural bridge to launch co-branded card products through a licensed bank without either party having to build the entire stack from scratch.

BaaS Credit Card Partnerships: A Guide for Bank & NBFC Teams (2026)

The Widest Infrastructure Stack in Banking & Fintech: Every Product, Every AI Agent, One Platform

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/07/can-nbfcs-issue-credit-cards-in-india_2_2000x1000.webp" alt="Can NBFCs Issue Credit Cards in India?" title="" id="vs5m23q1o" width="100%" height="347">NBFCs have been expanding into consumer lending for years, and credit cards are the natural next step for many of them - deeper customer engagement, richer transaction data, and a recurring revenue line instead of a one-time loan. Credit cards are also one of the more heavily regulated products a lender can offer, which is why the question comes up almost every time an NBFC's product or strategy team starts scoping a card program: is this actually allowed, and if so, under what conditions?RBI's Master Directions on Credit Card and Debit Card Issuance do allow eligible NBFCs to issue credit cards - either independently, or through a co-branded partnership with a bank. The word "eligible" carries most of the weight in that sentence, and it's where most of the confusion in this space actually starts.<h2 class="heading-node" id="w0pwg0opj">Why NBFCs Are Looking at This Market Now</h2>E-commerce spending and rising card penetration in Tier-II and Tier-III cities have made unsecured digital credit a genuinely large and still-expanding market - outstanding credit cards in India stood at roughly 119 million, with monthly spends of around ₹1.97 trillion as of April 2026 (Source: RBI ATM &amp; Card Statistics, as reported by Business Standard, May 2026). NBFCs, with distribution reach that many banks don't have in these geographies, are a natural fit to serve it - provided they can clear the regulatory bar to actually issue a card.<h2 class="heading-node" id="sed2s6jjz">A Bit of Background</h2>NBFCs were historically kept out of card issuance without specific RBI permission. That changed with the current Master Directions, which lay out a structured path for eligible NBFCs to issue credit cards, either as the primary issuer or through a co-branding arrangement with a bank. What "eligible" actually requires is where most NBFCs need to start.<h2 class="heading-node" id="f9gu6vkf0">What RBI's Guidelines Actually Require</h2><ul class="list-node" id="ex6zawr6r"><li>Minimum Net Owned Fund (NOF). RBI requires NBFCs to hold a minimum NOF of ₹100 crore, along with prior RBI approval, to be eligible for independent credit card issuance (Source: RBI Master Direction – Credit Card and Debit Card – Issuance and Conduct Directions, dated April 21, 2022, as updated March 7, 2024).</li><li>Prior RBI approval. An NBFC cannot begin issuing credit cards on its own initiative - explicit prior approval from RBI is required before launch.</li><li>Board-approved policy. A public, board-approved policy covering issuance, pricing, and conduct must be published on the issuer's website.</li><li>No unsolicited cards or upgrades. Issuing a card, or upgrading an existing one, without the customer's explicit consent is prohibited and penalized.</li><li>Transparent billing. Interest rate ceilings must align with other unsecured lending products, and billing statements must be dispatched without delay.</li></ul>Not every NBFC will meet these conditions on its own, which is exactly why the co-branded route (below) exists as a practical alternative for most.<h2 class="heading-node" id="u8n00bay3">Independent Issuance vs. Co-Branded: Two Different Starting Points</h2><ul class="list-node" id="amuf7kixo"><li>Independent issuance means the NBFC meets RBI's eligibility criteria directly and issues cards under its own licence. This gives full control over the product and economics, but it also means owning the full compliance, capital, and infrastructure burden alone.</li><li>Co-branded issuance means a bank acts as the primary card issuer, handling the regulatory and capital-heavy side, while the NBFC brings its brand, distribution, and customer base. This is the faster, lower-friction route for NBFCs that don't yet meet the independent eligibility bar, or simply want to test the market before committing to a full build.</li></ul>Most NBFCs entering this space for the first time start with a co-branded model and consider moving toward independent issuance later, once volume and eligibility support it.<h2 class="heading-node" id="q13c125qw">Why This Is Worth the Effort for NBFCs</h2>Banks often apply fairly conservative, standardized criteria when evaluating creditworthiness. NBFCs typically have more flexibility to serve customers who fall outside those criteria - which means access to a segment that's underserved, not unqualified.Beyond the lending itself, a credit card is a data asset. Every transaction gives an NBFC a clearer picture of a customer's spending behavior, which feeds directly into better-targeted lending and cross-sell decisions down the line. A card also creates a recurring reason for the customer to stay engaged with the NBFC, rather than a one-time loan relationship.<h2 class="heading-node" id="ihmeqwxu8">The Operational Reality Behind the Opportunity</h2>None of the above is free. Running a card program means handling real-time fraud monitoring, automated billing cycles, and customer support that can hold up under RBI's grievance-redressal timelines. As one example, closure requests from customers must be honored within 7 working days, and issuers who miss it face a penalty of ₹500 per calendar day, payable to the customer until the account is closed (provided there are no outstanding dues) (Source: RBI Master Direction - Credit Card and Debit Card - Issuance and Conduct Directions, dated April 21, 2022, as updated March 7, 2024).This is the part that trips up new entrants - not the strategy, but the day-to-day compliance and infrastructure load that comes with actually running a card program at scale.<h2 class="heading-node" id="scayzmz4y">Common Questions on NBFC Credit Card Issuance</h2><ul class="list-node" id="29afw76jv"><li>Can an NBFC issue a credit card without partnering with a bank? Only if it meets RBI's independent-issuance eligibility criteria, including the NOF threshold and prior approval. Many NBFCs start with a co-branded model instead, since it doesn't require meeting the full independent eligibility bar.</li><li>Is RBI approval required even for a co-branded card program? Yes. RBI's guidelines on co-branded cards apply regardless of which entity is the customer-facing brand - approvals and compliance obligations don't disappear just because a bank is the primary issuer.</li><li>What's the fastest way for an NBFC to launch a credit card program? In practice, a co-branded partnership combined with a <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/why-switch-to-a-new-age-credit-card-system/" target="_blank">ready-built card management platform</a> is typically the fastest route, since it avoids both the independent-eligibility hurdle and a multi-year technology build.</li></ul><h2 class="heading-node" id="1ereowgtf">Where This Leaves NBFCs Today</h2>The regulatory path is clearer than it used to be, and the market demand isn't in question. Whether an NBFC pursues independent issuance or a <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/why-co-branded-credit-cards-are-the-next-frontier-for-banks/" target="_blank">co-branded partnership</a> largely comes down to where it stands on RBI's eligibility criteria today, and how much of the compliance and infrastructure load it wants to own directly versus share with a bank partner.The technology and compliance layer tends to be the deciding factor in how fast this actually happens. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/credit-cards/" target="_blank">M2P's Credit Card Stack</a> is built to support NBFCs through either route - independent or co-branded handling the underlying issuance, compliance workflows, and lifecycle management so the launch timeline depends on strategy, not infrastructure. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=M2PBlogs&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=Can_NBFCs_Issue_CC_Blog" target="_blank">Talk to us</a> about what launching this would look like for your NBFC.<h2 class="heading-node" id="jc28w5hmr">Frequently Asked Questions</h2><ul class="list-node" id="0ofv3ab2o"><li>Can an NBFC issue a credit card without partnering with a bank? Only if it meets RBI's independent-issuance eligibility criteria, including the minimum Net Owned Fund requirement and prior RBI approval. Many NBFCs start with a co-branded model instead, since it doesn't require meeting the full independent eligibility bar.</li><li>What is the minimum Net Owned Fund (NOF) required for an NBFC to issue credit cards independently? RBI requires a minimum NOF of ₹100 crore, along with prior RBI approval, for an NBFC to be eligible to issue credit cards independently, as per the Master Direction on Credit Card and Debit Card – Issuance and Conduct.</li><li>Is RBI approval required even for a co-branded card program? Yes. RBI's guidelines on co-branded cards apply regardless of which entity is the customer-facing brand — approvals and compliance obligations don't disappear just because a bank is the primary issuer.</li><li>What's the difference between an NBFC issuing a card independently versus through a co-branded partnership? Independent issuance means the NBFC holds the licence, meets RBI's eligibility criteria directly, and owns the full compliance and capital burden. In a co-branded arrangement, a bank acts as the primary issuer and carries that regulatory and capital load, while the NBFC contributes its brand, distribution, and customer base.</li><li>What's the fastest way for an NBFC to launch a credit card program? In practice, a co-branded partnership combined with a ready-built card management platform is typically the fastest route, since it avoids both the independent-eligibility hurdle and a multi-year technology build.</li></ul>

Tag: "Co Branded Credit Cards (16)"

Product

About

Compliance

Resources