How I helped Synapto choose its product model, size a £20–22B UK opportunity, benchmark Stripe, Ryft and Unipaas, and design a hybrid pricing model projected to double or triple revenue per client.
Synapto is a UK-based embedded-payments platform for enterprise service marketplaces. Those platforms deliver a service first and get paid later, so they lose working capital in the gap between service delivery and payment. Three things make it worse: late invoicing, manual reconciliation and zero cash visibility.
Industry benchmarks from the sources listed at the foot of this page. Implication: cash arrives late, costs are inflated, and finance teams lack control over liquidity.
| Competitor | What they do well | Where they have gaps | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stripe | Global, scalable infrastructure; strong marketplace tools (Connect, Treasury) | No AR or post-delivery billing; no reconciliation or DSO visibility | 2.9% + $0.30 (£0.22) per card transaction; about 3–4%+ effective take rate for marketplaces |
| Ryft | Strong compliance (FCA, KYC/KYB); fast onboarding, split payments | Requires held funds; no AR workflows or reconciliation | No public pricing; custom volume-based quotes |
| Unipaas | Simple API and fast integration; good for basic payment flows | No AR or financial-ops layers; no workflow-based payouts or visibility | No public pricing; custom volume-based quotes |
The target customer is a platform-based service marketplace that sits between enterprise clients and contractor networks, invoices after delivery on 30–60 day payment terms, and still reconciles manually. The addressable market is UK annual transaction volume across two segments:
Using the £21B midpoint, here is what different levels of market penetration would generate at a 1% fee:
| Market penetration | Transaction volume | Revenue at 1% fee |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5% | £105M | £1.05M |
| 1% | £210M | £2.1M |
| 2% | £420M | £4.2M |
| 5% | £1.05B | £10.5M |
At 1% penetration with a 1% fee, Synapto generates about £2.1M a year, a strong early-stage foundation. A much higher fee (the deck tests 8%) yields far more but sits above competitor pricing and would need strong sales justification.
| Model | Assessment | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Same as Stripe, Ryft and Unipaas: no differentiation | Rejected |
| Model 3 | Requires banking licences and capital: not realistic yet | Rejected |
| Model 2 | The only option that solves all three pain points, is buildable now, and owns a position no competitor holds | Recommended |
Model 2 is a receivable-to-payout orchestration layer. A job is approved, the invoice is generated automatically, and Synapto’s intelligence layer analyses payment terms, tracks receivables and DSO, and feeds a cash-visibility dashboard. When the enterprise client pays, payments are reconciled automatically. Optional financing partners can turn receivables into early cash, with the partners (not Synapto) carrying the capital risk.
Customer validation: interviews, feedback sessions and pilot usage with early customers, converted into testimonials and case studies to build credibility.
A 1% fee with a £500–1,500 monthly subscription per client doubles or triples per-client revenue, closing much of the gap with the 8% scenario while staying competitive against Stripe’s 3–4% effective rate.
Outcome: the operational backbone connecting invoice creation, enterprise payment collection and contractor payouts in one automated workflow.
Related: full experience · BMW equity pitch
Sources for industry statistics, as cited in the original deck: Quadient; Artha Job Board; Resolve Pay; Mosaic Corp; Symtrax; Atradius Collections (UK B2B payment practices 2025); UK Small Business Commissioner (late payments research).