Replying to @dhruvtayal
Makes sense — reduced scope is a smart way to de-risk this. One thing that matters a lot in regulated fintech specifically: partners (and sometimes regulators) do their own diligence before a call, often by searching for you or asking AI tools what they can find. If there's nothing beyond a landing page, that's a trust gap before you even reach the table. Even a few concrete artifacts — a public case study, one partner or user testimonial, or a clear compliance explainer — go a long way in that pre-meeting research phase. For the reduced-scope version, do you already have a specific regulated partner or BaaS provider in mind, or are you still evaluating options?
Yes I'm exploring couple of options with respect to US side partners. As you said it might take some time to build trust.I'm literally at cross roads now.Do you think any VC back up will unlock the gates? is it worth trying as sole?
VC backing can unlock some doors, but it doesn't replace the trust artifact question — if anything it raises the bar, because diligence now includes your investor's reputation risk too. Sole-founder + regulated fintech is doable. But the funding conversation usually goes easier once you already have one credible proof point — a pilot, an LOI, even a compliance advisor with a recognizable name attached. If you don't have that yet, I'd chase the proof point before the round — it makes both the VC and the partner conversation shorter. Are you leaning toward raising now, or locking in one pilot/LOI first and using that as leverage?