From patchwork to platform: How payment orchestration is becoming core infrastructure
Merchants today must manage a growing mix of payment methods, regional providers, fraud solutions and value-added services.
At the same time, they are under pressure to optimise performance, reduce costs and expand into new markets. These demands are putting serious strain on payment technology stacks, just as customer expectations for speed and reliability are higher than ever.
In response, many businesses began turning to payment orchestration. Initially used to streamline connections between multiple providers, it has evolved into something far more strategic. Today, payment orchestration enables businesses to run their payment operations more effectively. It improves resilience, enhances adaptability and supports faster rollout of new functionality.
The earliest adopters were in two camps. Some merchants were under great pressure to modernise, and others were naturally forward-thinking and focused on gaining competitive edge. In both cases, these merchants were digital-first, expanding across borders, and knew that their payment setup could not keep pace with their growth. Payment orchestration helped them simplify disconnected systems and take control of how payments were routed and managed. For many, it was a calculated risk that ultimately gave them a head start At its core, payment orchestration refers to an independent software layer that sits between merchants and their payment providers. Unlike gateways or aggregators of alternative payment methods, true orchestration is vendor-agnostic and connective rather than controlling. It enables agility while optimising payment flows and maintaining choice.
What matters most is what sits within that layer and what those features enable. Capabilities such as smart routing, tokenisation, checkout personalisation and redundancy management can be implemented without reengineering the entire stack. This model significantly reduces the burden on development teams and allows businesses to focus more on growth than maintenance.
For some time, the discussion around payment orchestration has centred on merchant needs: how to scale efficiently, manage risk and improve reliability. Increasingly, however, orchestration is proving valuable to the payment providers themselves.
In the face of the demand for modernisation, many financial institutions are now asking the same question that merchants once did: build or buy? Some are investing in the modernisation of their acquiring platforms. Others are stepping back from infrastructure ownership and partnering with orchestration providers to bring more advanced features to their customers.
Several acquirers have begun looking for white-labelled orchestration technology. The aim is to help them unify siloed systems, route volume more precisely, or serve merchants in markets where they lack direct coverage. It can give them a competitive edge without having to overhaul their entire architecture.
This shift in thinking matters. Payment orchestration is no longer seen as a disruptive force. It is being recognised as a way to retain high-value merchant relationships while expanding capabilities in a more sustainable way.
Another important shift is in how payments orchestration is being deployed. Full-stack transformation is no longer the only option. Many businesses are now taking a modular route, applying orchestration to solve focused challenges. Some implement routing logic only. Others begin with tokenisation or use orchestration for fallback and continuity.
This versatility allows for precise, high-impact improvements. A gateway might adopt orchestration to extend connectivity and routing. A travel platform may integrate it to create more reliable checkout experiences without disrupting their acquirer relationships. A financial institution could use it to bring consistency across legacy systems and regional operations. These are just a handful of very simple examples, but the potential permutations are vast.
In some verticals, payments orchestration is supporting even more advanced payment strategies. Gambling operators, for example, are using it across both pay-in and payout flows, layering in fraud prevention solutions, tokenisation and adaptive routing. In the digital goods and ticketing sectors, it is helping consolidate multiple brands under a single platform following mergers and acquisitions.
Tokenisation is now a common entry point. Several businesses begin by using orchestration to manage scheme-level token compliance or consolidate token management across providers. From there, they expand into broader orchestration use cases over time.
As payment orchestration continues to evolve, its relevance now extends far beyond early adopters. It is becoming shared infrastructure that benefits both merchants and providers.
For many in the payment providers in the ecosystem, its role is becoming more obvious. It serves as a distribution layer that encourages collaboration rather than competition. As more merchants demand the level of control and flexibility that orchestration offers, providers need to meet that demand to retain and grow those merchant relationships. But they need to do it without rebuilding from scratch.
This is not about undermining incumbents or competing on price. Sustainable orchestration works by reinforcing the connection between merchant and payment provider. That principle has to be part of the orchestration model, especially as adoption increases among more traditional financial institutions and platform businesses.
What started as a workaround for disconnected systems is now becoming foundational. Payment orchestration has shifted from patchwork to platform, from tactical fix to core infrastructure. For those that adopted early, the gamble is paying off. And as global requirements grow and payment environments become harder to manage, payment orchestration is no longer a fringe innovation. It is becoming essential.
Tom Voaden is VP of Commercial at BR-DGE
"From patchwork to platform: How payment orchestration is becoming core infrastructure" was originally created and published by Electronic Payments International, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today
Key Points Shiba Inu originally launched as a meme coin embracing humor and internet-driven virality, much like its counterpart Dogecoin. Unlike Dogecoin, Shiba Inu has rolled out a number of applications that have real-world utility beyond peer-to-peer payments. Over the last five years, the price of Shiba Inu token has fluctuated substantially. 10 stocks we like better than Shiba Inu › When most people begin investing, their portfolios consist solely of the basics -- stocks, bonds, and cash. Cautious newcomers might even sidestep individual stock picking in favor of passive vehicles like exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or mutual funds. Over time, as investors gain confidence and learn more sophisticated strategies, they might branch out into alternative assets such as real estate, commodities, or collectibles. In recent years, however, a new contender has entered the alternative asset conversation: cryptocurrency. Both prominent stock market personalities and institutional funds have embraced the idea of digital assets as a slice of diversified portfolio allocation. While heavyweights such as Bitcoin and Ethereum dominate the spotlight, a wave of highly speculative tokens have captured the attention of retail investors. Among them is Shiba Inu (CRYPTO: SHIB), a meme coin with a dedicated fanbase online, a beloved dog mascot, and playful endorsements from high-profile figures such as Elon Musk. Let's explore the dynamics of the token, and assess if buying Shiba Inu at its launch five years ago has paid off. What is Shiba Inu coin? At its core, Shiba Inu is an altcoin created in homage to another internet favorite, Dogecoin. Launched in 2020 by a team of anonymous developers collectively known under the pseudonym Ryoshi, Shiba Inu's original purpose leaned more toward capitalizing on culture-driven trends and meme-fueled hype rather than serving as a prudent investment vehicle. Where it differs from Dogecoin, however, is in its technical foundation and subsequent product ecosystem. Unlike Dogecoin, Shiba Inu runs on the Ethereum blockchain network as an ERC-20 token. This is an important differentiator, as the Ethereum architecture provides Shiba Inu with access to a broad suite of sophisticated utilities beyond simple decentralized payments. One of its major offerings is ShibaSwap, a decentralized exchange (DEX) where users can trade the SHIB token, stake their positions to earn rewards, and even engage with metaverse-adjacent projects -- including initiatives featuring non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Is Shiba Inu a good investment? In theory, Shiba Inu's expansion into numerous applications across decentralized finance (DeFi) should help position the token beyond the speculative nature of meme culture. Let's take a look at Shiba Inu's price action since it launched to get a sense if these investments have helped the token transcend its affiliation with meme culture. Since its debut about five years ago, the price of Shiba Inu token has fluctuated dramatically, with volatility levels outpacing the turbulent norms of the cryptocurrency market. Unlike mainstream opportunities like Bitcoin, Ethereum, or XRP, the price of Shiba Inu has never traded for more than mere fractions of a penny. According to data from CoinMarketCap, Shiba Inu's price when it launched hovered around $0.00001008. In 2021, the token rose by more than 770% to a whopping $0.000088 following its listing on Coinbase. As of this writing on Aug. 14, Shiba Inu trades for $0.000013, representing a 29% gain from its launch price. That means a $1,000 investment at Shiba Inu's debut would be worth about $1,290 today. While this is respectable, it vastly underperforms the gains seen across the S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) and Nasdaq Composite (NASDAQINDEX: ^IXIC) over the same time frame. Should you invest $1,000 in Shiba Inu right now? Before you buy stock in Shiba Inu, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Shiba Inu wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,155!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,106,071!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,070% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 184% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Adam Spatacco has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP. The Motley Fool recommends Coinbase Global. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. If You'd Invested $1,000 in SHIB 5 Years Ago, Here's How Much You'd Have Today was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks'
Renowned investor Peter Lynch has underscored the importance of long-term investment strategies, advising against the pursuit of quick returns. What Happened: Lynch offered his insights to those looking forward to retirement. He cautioned that the stock market is not a short-term playground. 'The stock market's been the best place to be over the last 10 years, 30 years, 100 years. But if you need money in 1 or 2 years, you shouldn't be buying stocks,' Lynch advised. He further explained that substantial returns that can significantly alter one's lifestyle demand more than just a couple of years of investment. Hence, those planning to retire within the next five to ten years should contemplate investing in the market presently. Lynch also revealed his approach of identifying excellent companies in struggling sectors. 'I'm always on the lookout for great companies in lousy industries. Also Read: Investment Guru Peter Lynch: 'Often Great Investments Are The Ones Where Everyone Else Will Think You Are Crazy' A great industry that's growing too fast, such as computers or medical technology, attracts too much attention and too many competitors,' he said. He stressed that the best investments are not always the big players like Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT), or Google LLC (NASDAQ:GOOGL). Rather, companies that are flourishing in industries facing difficulties can yield better overall returns. Lynch's advice comes at a time when many are seeking guidance on retirement planning. His emphasis on long-term investment strategies over quick returns aligns with the principle of patience in investing. His strategy of identifying thriving companies in struggling industries provides a fresh perspective, challenging the conventional wisdom of investing in big names. This could potentially lead to better returns and a more secure retirement for many. Read Next Investment Guru Peter Lynch: 'If You Can't Explain To An 11-Year-Old In 2 Minutes Or Less Why You Own The Stock, You Shouldn't Own It' Up Next: Transform your trading with Benzinga Edge's one-of-a-kind market trade ideas and tools. Click now to access unique insights that can set you ahead in today's competitive market. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Peter Lynch: 'Stock Market Has Been The Best Place To Be, But If You Need Money In 1 or 2 Years, You Shouldn't Be Buying Stocks' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
The New Talent Playbook: From Build And Buy To Bridge, Borrow, And AI
Most organizations believe they have a leadership talent pipeline. What they actually have is an illusion of readiness. Roles are being reshaped in months, not years. Succession plans expire before they're tested. And the leaders needed for tomorrow—tech fluent, adaptive and globally minded—are the very ones companies don't know how to grow. The numbers reveal the gap. The World Economic Forum reports that on average, workers can expect that two-fifths (39%) of their existing skill sets will be transformed or become outdated over the 2025–2030 period. Gallup finds fewer than a third of employees believe they have real opportunities to learn and grow and less than half received any training last year. Only one in three employees aiming for a new role feels equipped to succeed. The cost isn't abstract. Unfilled leadership roles slow growth, drain revenue, stifle innovation and erode confidence. Consider a division head retiring unexpectedly. The successor identified on paper isn't ready, and six months pass before the team regains direction—while competitors move ahead. To understand how organizations should respond, I spoke with Lynda Gratton, Professor of Management Practice at London Business School, a global advisor to Fortune 500 companies and the author of best-selling books including The 100-Year Life, Living Strategy and Redesigning Work. For more than three decades, Gratton's research has reframed how organizations think about leadership, skills and the future of work. She has watched the scaffolding of old systems loosen, and her conclusion is direct: the playbook must expand. 'For years there were two stable strategies,' Gratton explained. 'One was build—you bring people in as graduates, you move them around, they become embedded in the culture and ready for the top jobs. The other was buy—when the pipeline isn't enough, you go to the market. Those worked pretty well.' Gratton describes build and buy as cultural anchors—steady, predictable, tied to values. But, as she emphasizes, 'while they remain the core, they are no longer sufficient on their own.' What's needed now is a repertoire that preserves continuity and also builds adaptability. Build and Buy: The Anchors of Continuity From a strategic standpoint, build and buy remain the foundation of leadership systems. They preserve culture, protect institutional memory and provide a stable core for succession. But in a world where work is shifting faster than careers can keep pace, they must be complemented by approaches that reach across boundaries. Bridge: Unlocking Talent Across Boundaries 'One adaptive strategy is bridge,' Gratton said. 'There is talent within the organization, but it's not doing the job we need it to be doing in the future. So we bridge across jobs. Conversations about skills are what matter, so people can use their abilities to move into different sorts of roles.' Bridging is a response to the mismatch between current capability and future demand. A compliance leader moving into sustainability governance or a facilities manager leading an IoT rollout are not one-off shifts. They're deliberate investments in cross-boundary capacity that keep organizations competitive. But bridging fails if development remains bolted on instead of built in. Gallup reports that time away from responsibilities is the top barrier to growth, according to 89% of CHROs, 37% of managers and 41% of employees. The obsession with conventional career ladders continues. While nearly 70% of employees are looking for a new role within their organization, only 28% would consider a lateral one. Career growth inside companies still follows a narrow script—progress often defined by vertical movement alone. Borrow: Bringing in Talent Without Owning It 'The other adaptive strategy is borrow—you borrow from the external labor market for a short period of time,' Gratton explained. 'The article Diane Gerson and I wrote in Harvard Business Review about freelancers was important: 'I want your job, but not your work.'' Borrowing is a way to build agility. Contractors, consultants, gig specialists and even fractional executives give companies access to capabilities at exactly the moment they're needed. But there are risks. 'If you outsource too much, you weaken the very culture you're trying to sustain,' Gratton cautioned. 'Even the most freelance-heavy organizations have a small center that defines identity and strategy.' Fractional leadership shows the point. CFOs, CMOs and even CEOs are now hired on fractional terms. These roles can stabilize organizations in transition but don't provide continuity. Without translating that know-how into durable capability inside, companies risk dependency instead of growth. Borrowing works best when paired with bridging—capturing the practices and knowledge from external experts and embedding them into internal teams. AI: The Fifth Force in Workforce Strategy 'AI changes the way we think about talent pipelines,' Gratton told me. 'It shrinks the half-life of skills, and it lets you anticipate talent needs much faster than before.' AI is no longer just an efficiency tool. It can act as a sensor, spotting succession risks, forecasting gaps and aligning leaders to emerging priorities. 'When you use AI in succession planning,' Gratton added, 'you can see that someone is about to retire and quickly identify who could step in—with their development tailored to the job they're moving into.' That makes AI one strategy in its own right. It can augment talent management by providing sharper analytics, uncovering hidden skills and dynamically matching people to opportunities. But the debate runs deeper: what happens when AI begins to take on the critical tasks of talent itself? Some outsourcing may make sense. AI can run financial forecasts, write code, draft legal documents, generate marketing copy, simulate supply chain risks or even triage customer service inquiries. It can screen applications, model workforce needs and build learning simulations faster than humans ever could. Done well, this can unburden leaders and free people to spend more time on judgment, relationships and strategy. But there are lines AI cannot cross. Discernment, empathy, strategic choice—these are the core of leadership. No machine can substitute for an executive weighing the trade-offs of a merger, deciding whether to enter a new market or leading people through crisis. If organizations push too far in outsourcing these calls, they risk hollowing out the very capabilities they claim to be developing. The open question is impact. Will AI strip away valuable developmental experiences by taking on tasks that once helped grow future leaders? Or will it elevate human talent by removing low-value burdens and giving leaders more space to focus on what matters most? The jury is still out. As AI evolves, the question is not just how it supports talent strategy, but whether it will become part of the talent pool itself. For now, it remains a tool—powerful, indispensable, but not a substitute for human leadership. Which Moves Work Best? At this point, a fair question for any leader is: which of these strategies—build, buy, bridge, borrow or AI—will actually work in the future? The answer is not straightforward. One could argue you need all of them, or at least systems that allow each to be deployed when the moment demands it. The deeper point is that talent strategies need to be adaptable. They should be guided by business strategy and context, not by rigid ideas about roles. When companies typecast roles—assuming, for example, that senior executives must always be built internally or that technical specialists must always be bought externally—they limit how talent can be leveraged. A more powerful approach is to treat the five strategies as a variable system. That means in talent reviews, the conversation should not presuppose a single strategy. Instead, each leadership need should be examined through all five possibilities. Could this role be bridged across functions? Could it be borrowed in the short term? Could it be rebuilt through AI-driven development insights? The value lies in calibrating across strategies rather than defaulting to one. Gratton, in her work, emphasizes this danger: when talent strategies are tied too tightly to roles, organizations miss the chance to see capability in different contexts. That's where companies get stuck. The Disruptor's Advantage 'The disruptors—new entrants—build from a different model,' Gratton said. 'They use AI, operate with freelance groups and design for agility from the start. Change won't come from inside incumbents—it will be driven from outside.' Talent markets are shifting as quickly as work expectations themselves. The Great Resignation has given way to what Gallup calls the Great Detachment—fewer people moving but more disconnecting from the meaning of corporate careers. Gratton's research confirms the trend: new talent ecosystems are emerging, built for speed and flexibility. In that environment, Gratton believes the edge belongs to future-fluent leaders—those who combine technological fluency with distinctly human strengths like discernment, critical thinking and the ability to catalyze change. Companies that cling to outdated tools—nine-box grids, tenure as a proxy for readiness, succession indicators that miss real potential—risk being overtaken entirely. Disruptors hold the advantage because they aren't tied to legacy systems. Incumbents need to unlearn quickly if they want to withstand the shocks ahead. Keeping the Cultural Core Intact Moves may multiply, but culture depends on anchor leaders. 'You couldn't anticipate a culture where every single person's a freelancer,' Gratton warned. 'Because… what is this place, and how does it work?' A clear framework emerged from our conversation: The danger is not years away—it's here. Pipelines are thinning now. Successors are unready when the call comes. Promising leaders are leaving before their potential is realized. Organizations that keep postponing decisions will see their cultures wear down under the strain. As Gratton put it: 'If you're not shaping the future, you're being shaped by it.' Shaping the future of talent isn't abstract. It happens in every vacancy left open, every leader not developed, every skill gap ignored until it fractures the system. Readiness is only real when leaders build it as they go.
