Provider-specific routing and exception logic accumulates across rails and corridors.
For banks and regulated payment institutions
Private previewPut one governed decision layer above a fragmented payment estate.
GIBP is designed to help institutions compare eligible banks, rails, FX, liquidity and settlement options under one policy and evidence model—without requiring a core-banking replacement.
Shadow evaluation is the current entry path. Live regulated execution remains permission-, provider- and jurisdiction-dependent.
Why organisations look for a control layer
The problem is not another rail. It is fragmentation above the rails.
Liquidity, FX, fees, capital and operational effects are often evaluated in separate systems.
Introducing a new provider can require another bespoke integration and control path.
Evidence explaining why one execution path was permitted and selected is fragmented across teams.
Without a common control layer
Provider-specific business logic
Separate policy interpretations
Fragmented liquidity and cost views
Different evidence for every execution path
With GIBP as the decision boundary
Express the financial outcome and institutional constraints once.
Remove impermissible options before economic optimisation.
Compare eligible execution plans across providers without redefining the application around one rail.
Preserve an evidence trail for the policy, options, assumptions and selected plan.
This describes the target architecture and evaluation model. Availability of specific live providers, jurisdictions and execution functions is governed by the published capability status and applicable agreements.
Engagement path
Start with evidence before authority.
The website does not imply that a visitor must hand GIBP live execution authority to evaluate the model. The path begins with architecture, synthetic data or Shadow-style evidence depending on the audience and capability maturity.
01Map current providers, corridors, policies and decision points.
02Run historical or live information through GIBP Shadow without moving funds.
03Compare observed execution with eligible counterfactual plans and disclosed assumptions.
04Validate policy, operating and integration boundaries with payments, treasury, risk and technology teams.
05Progress to recommendation or execution authority only under explicit contractual and regulatory scope.
Who inside the organisation cares
Different teams see the same infrastructure problem from different angles.
Head of Payments
Reduce provider-specific decision logic and make route choice easier to govern.
CTO / CIO
Add an abstraction layer without replacing every underlying system.
Treasury
Bring liquidity, prefunding, FX and execution economics into the same decision.
Risk & Compliance
See which options were excluded, which policy applied and what evidence was retained.
What GIBP is designed to integrate with
- • Core banking and payment hubs
- • PSPs and correspondent providers
- • FX and liquidity venues
- • Treasury and reconciliation systems
What GIBP does not remove
- • Customer accounts
- • Authorised safeguarding arrangements
- • Underlying payment rails
- • Institutional control ownership
Banks & Payment Institutions
See whether the architecture fits your actual provider estate.
Start with the systems, providers, constraints and outcomes you already have. GIBP’s value should be tested against that reality—not assumed from a generic demo.