Fintech copy fails in a specific way. It describes the product the category is supposed to have rather than the one you built, so the page promises instant transfers while your rails settle next business day and support absorbs the difference.
The right approach is to understand the documentation. Our copywriters read your API reference, fee schedule, and partner-bank disclosures before writing, as these documents contain the only information they are allowed to include from a legal and compliance standpoint.
Most fintech products require a license and are an app-based service. describing one actually breaks down who is the bank, how funds are treated during weekdays/weekends, when a hold is released/denied, and which of the steps in the process is yours versus your service provider. Users are understanding of service complexity, if said upfront. They don’t understand when a payment fails to arrive, especially if it’s due to what your provider does behind the scenes.
Copy written by generative AI is brimming with phrases like “bank-grade security” and “instant payouts” leading you to believe it can resolve all the problems you could have. However, partner-bank disclosures are written in such a way that, more often than not, the generative AI simply restates the original version less clunky.
The author outlines the actual flow before documenting it, including what the user does, what your system does, and what the sponsor bank or card network does, including the duration of each leg. Copy explains that flow in the order the user encounters it, with the client-provided wording as is.
Before sending, we verify each substantiated statement in the copy against the document it originated from, allowing a shortened review for product and legal teams who are the final approvers. Disclosures are returned as worded, and phrasing that implies you have an unqualified protection or license is also removed and flagged for your response.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical fintech content | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feature page | 400 | $40 | $0.40 | $40.40 |
| Product explainer | 900 | $90 | $0.90 | $90.90 |
| Long-form guide | 1,800 | $180 | $1.80 | $181.80 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Yes — 2 rounds are included, for 14 days after delivery, handled by the writer who wrote the piece rather than by someone new to the brief.
Yes, by assigning someone who already knows the subject rather than someone who will research it overnight. If we do not have the right specialist available we will tell you rather than take the brief and hope.
Absolutely. We like to. You can provide your agreement or use ours. Writers are under a confidentiality agreement regarding everything you provide, and unpublished materials are not repurposed, quoted, or provided in examples for other clients.
We build explanations around reference docs, including quickstarts, concept pages, explanation of errors found in the documentation and integration guides. We do not write or test code samples. We anticipate that for working code to be published, the engineers will provide it, and the writer will develop the explanation around the provided code.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Most finance writers take the metaphorical pizza slice route. Our piece explained the math slowly and correctly, using the actual numbers we charge. Compliance signed it off, and they made zero changes. That has not happened in the three years during which I have done this job.
Explaining compound interest to those who left school at sixteen is difficult and this mainly tackles the issue. I requested and was given one worked example with real numbers. I wanted three, so I made two adjustments. Your definition of APR is the most comprehensible I have come across in any context.
The proposal was written with the scoring matrix in the tender document in mind, not a general pitch. Each section corresponds with a criterion. Whoever did this has actually studied a public sector tender before, which is rare.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees