8. 플랫폼 뱅킹으로서의 참조 서비스 구조

A. Microservices-based architecture: Foundation for platform banking

B. Near-term: Deploy and integrate service mesh

• In the near-term, banks with legacy core banking application architecture should prioritize building a service mesh to abstract underlying legacy platforms.A legacy core is not a limitation to support platform banking because a service mesh that can interact with legacy core through adaptors allows banks to move towards microservicesbased architecture. Service mesh, as the name implies, is a set of services, along with product configuration and orchestration logic, will interface with core platforms and expose a set of APIs to both internal and external parties for accelerated integration. For example, service mesh would receive a service call, such as underwriting decision, and will make the necessary internal services, based on product configuration, such as “get credit score” and “get underwriting options”—these would be relayed back to internal or external parties. A service mesh can minimize the number of endpoint integrations within the bank while providing a standard, well-defined, and documented interface to external platforms. In a way, service mesh acts as a gateway for external parties to connect and enables the “platform” feature of platform banking. As shown in figure 5, a combination of APIs and service mesh will help wrap a unified integration layer on traditional banking cores. The time to market for new products and services is still constrained by the underlying monolithic cores with longer development and deployment cycles. Banks may still face challenges scaling this architecture, as the entire core platform resides on infrastructure that doesn’t scale in real time. In the near term, banks can start offering their leading products and services on their own, and third-party marketplaces can stitch up partnerships with niche players in new markets to offer their products and services.

C. Long-term: Microservices-based core

• In the long-term, banks should move to a next-generation microservices-based core platform in coordination with service mesh. Banks with an ambition to build industry-leading marketplace should build a microservices-based platform that can offer and scale banking services as individual stacks categorized by product domains. Figure 6 depicts a representative microservices-based core architecture that can support a true platform banking–based ecosystem. In this architecture, the core is a combination of services organized by product domains, such as deposits, retail loans, and commercial loans. In such an architecture, services can be broadly categorized into two types: product-specific services and common services. Product-specific services are those that are unique and tailored to support a specific product; as an example, underwriting services might vary and require unique services to support retail loans against commercial loans, as the underlying risk, terms, and offers might vary across loan portfolios. Common services are crossproduct and can be product-agnostic. As an example, account services would include basic services such as creating an account, updating an account, and getting account details. These services are fundamental to typical core banking platforms and wouldn’t vary significantly across different products; only the underlying data would vary to meet a specific product’s needs. The goal of a microservices-based architecture is to help banks stitch together services from different parties to offer a unique service to customers. For example, a marketplace owner can combine industry-leading onboarding services from a fintech with inhouse underwriting capabilities and book the receivables to a thirdparty bank—a customer availing a loan from the marketplace would be shielded from the handshakes occurring among various parties in the back end. Such a proposition can be executed effectively only with a microservices-based architecture—banks can attempt to offer similar products with near-term architecture—but they will be severely constrained due to architectural limits.

디파이의 규제 모델인 레그테크 시장의 성장은 암호화폐 시장의 중요한 신뢰 체계를 수립하는데 그 역할을 크게 할 것으로 보고 있다.

스토아 네트워크는 이러한 시장의 트렌드를 고려하고 직간접 금융과 비금융 중개 거래 및 확장된 디지털 금융 거래 시장의 효과적인 인프라를 구축하고 체감할 수 있는 현실적인 디지털 자산 거래 인프라를 통해 새로운 형태의 금융 체계를 수립하고 구축하여 소외된 금융 접근 유저들에게 다양한 기회비용을 제공하기 위한 접근성 높고 편의성과 친화적인 서비스를 위한 깊이 있는 기술적 체계를 구축하고 있다.