Synapse Failure Reveals Vulnerability in Backend-as-a-Service (BaaS) for U.S. Senators
In the wake of Synapse's bankruptcy, concerns have been raised about the Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) model and the protection of consumer funds.
Don Apgar, Director of the Merchant Payments Practice at Javelin Strategy & Research, stated that not all fintech businesses share the same issues, but the failure of Synapse serves as a cautionary tale for all parties involved. The evolution of the BaaS model has led many banks to rely on fintech partners to share the compliance burden, a practice that has been criticized as a glaring weakness.
Synapse's collapse has raised questions about the reliance on fintech solutions for bridging the gap between traditional and digital banking. The company was responsible for managing consumer funds for various banks, maintaining them across three banks and held in commingled For Benefit Of (FBO) accounts. This led to accusations that Synapse was commingling consumer funds with operating funds and using the money to keep the company afloat.
Customer funds were held in FDIC-insured banks, but they were maintained across three banks and held in commingled FBO accounts. Commingled funds in an FBO account are ineligible for insurance, and until more details are uncovered, the FDIC doesn't know who to pay to cover the shortfall. Estimates suggest that Synapse consumers could be owed between $65 million and $96 million due to inaccurate record-keeping and noncompliance.
The senators have placed nearly equal blame on Synapse's partners and venture capital investors for misleading customers about the company's safety. U.S. senators have demanded that Synapse allow customers access to funds frozen since its May bankruptcy. The collapse of Synapse has highlighted the need for clearer regulations and oversight in the BaaS model.
Regulatory Environment and Oversight
Fintechs push frequent software updates and integrate multiple APIs, exposing them to multiple data privacy, transaction monitoring, and reporting rules across jurisdictions. Regulators now inspect the actual software logic for compliance, not just written policies. Traditional banks follow longer review cycles with stable products and compliance embedded in closed systems.
Recent bipartisan U.S. legislation aims to modernize and tailor regulatory supervision based on institution size, risk, and complexity. This move promotes risk-sensitive, proportional oversight beneficial to both banks and fintechs acting responsibly.
The U.S. Presidential Working Group recommends technology-neutral risk guidance for banks engaging with digital assets, clarifying permissible activities, custody best practices, and risk-based capital rules. This includes guidance for institutions offering banking services involving tokenized deposits, areas highly relevant for fintech partners.
Consumer Fund Protection
Traditional banks are subject to established protections such as FDIC insurance, which guarantees consumer deposits up to insured limits. Fintechs themselves often don’t hold consumer funds directly; instead, consumer funds are held by partner banks subject to regulatory oversight. This means consumer fund protection is primarily ensured via the regulated bank's compliance, rather than fintech regulatory status alone.
The FDIC places the onus on financial institutions to hold their partners accountable, a weakness in the Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) model. FDIC insurance won't cover the shortfall because one of its requirements is customer funds must be held in an account under their name.
In summary, fintech partners in BaaS models operate within a complex, technology-driven, and evolving regulatory landscape that requires agile compliance embedded in software architecture. Consumer funds managed through these fintechs are protected primarily when held by regulated banks subject to traditional regulatory protections. This contrasts with traditional banks, where direct regulatory oversight and consumer protection mechanisms like deposit insurance are well-established and form the backbone of consumer fund safety. Recent legislative and regulatory efforts are moving toward risk-based, tailored oversight that better fits both traditional and fintech institutions, supporting innovation while maintaining consumer protection.
The senators believe this weakness in the BaaS model cost consumers dearly in the case of Synapse's collapse, underscoring the need for clearer regulations and oversight in the industry.
Investing in the Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) model requires vigilance as the protection of consumer funds may hinge on the compliance practices of fintech partners. The evolving regulatory landscape for fintech businesses warrants agile compliance within their software architecture to match the technology-driven sector.
In the aftermath of Synapse's bankruptcy, concerns have grown about the BaaS model's regulatory environment and the need for clearer regulations to ensure consumer fund protection.
%20for%20U.S.%20Senators){kind=link}