Is there existing research on the pricing of #FinTech API's?

I've used outsourced services several times successfully. I don't think using geographic location is necessary a good indicator for outsourcing value. In my experience it depends on the type of service you are seeking. For example, I've used crowdsourcing services for logo and web designs and discovered creativity has no geographic boundaries. Neither is the skill level necessarily the only indicator for the best creative. Some designs have been submissions from design student or freelancers with no formal training. As for technical work, I seek service based on the following criteria: - technical competency and skills - communication skills - Process skills (to manage overall risk of project) - references from existing clients. Country is secondary to the above list.

I would suggest the first question to ask is "what problem do I solve?" And of those people I solve problems for "who do I create the most value for?" In the non-profit world you need to add "How does my business help the non-profit run better and/or help the group the non-profit focuses on?" For example, if you've created a platform that drives donations, your company "has created a platform that helps you reach fundraising goals faster." What you don't want to do is market and sell to B2B and B2C audiences simultaneously. They have different ways of buying - a B2B audience needs to have their benefits quantified (using your thing makes me x amount more) - and it's extremely hard for a startup to be able to do both well. Better to start with one, execute really well and move into the other. Feel free to give me a call and we can dig into who your most valuable audience is.

If you and this person, *know* they won't be the CTO, then absolutely not. If there's an understanding that the engineer you are working with is going to "cap out" soon beyond the MVP, why would you ruin your cap table? This *should* help you get a reasonable amount of equity. http://foundrs.com/ The most crucial question is where this current contributor is likely going to be out of their element. Are they only front-end and have no back-end ability? If so, you really should raise (from a friend or family member) or borrow the money necessary to pay this person a reasonable cash rate. If on the other hand, they can take a successful MVP and build a reasonable back-end but will cap out on scaling it past 100,000 users, or for example, you're an enterprise company and you know you'll require a technical person to be part of closing early sales, then it's ok to give up meaningful equity. But another key question is: Are you ok to let this person define your company's engineering culture? If this person isn't capable of or comfortable managing your tech team in the early-days, this person should have no more than 10% equity. Of course, your shares and theirs (whatever you decide) should be subject to a vesting agreement (minimum 3 years and preferably 4). It's easy to give away equity when it's worth very little but as I've said here before on Clarity, imagine your company today being worth $100,000,000. Can you imagine this person contributing $20,000,000 worth of value to achieve that outcome? $30m? $50m? Here's the thing though. If this person can grow into a CTO, and wants the chance, and there's no warning signs that it will be a tough slog for them to get there, and they're a passionate believer in what's been built to date, then it's entirely reasonable to bet (with equity) that they can get there. I know a lot of CTO's of great Series A and beyond companies with amazing traction that started off as lacking a lot of the criteria of a great CTO candidate. This is an area I've helped coach a lot of startup CEOs through and have experience in myself. Happy to talk through in a call to understand the specifics of your scenario and provide more detailed advice.

As someone who has worked in pricing for almost 30 years, I know that one of the biggest myths of pricing is that you should only offer one pricing model. Offer two - both subscription & transactional. Customers will self-select &/or the market will segment, and you will quickly find out what is their preferred pricing model. As an aside, another pricing myth is that you can low-ball your pricing and raise prices later. Its successful in ~10% of attempts. By default, the choice of pricing models also states the obvious. Its not about what you want. Its about what the customer wants. And yes, you should have three choices. One choice gives you a 50:50 chance of closing the sale. Two choices forces the customer to make a price-based decision. Three choices, and the customer says "which one do I buy?" not "do I buy from this outfit?" and secondly they are forced to make a value-based decision. Also think about creating a decoy product, and on the pricing page on your website, lay the packages out dearest on the left, cheapest on the right. Happy to chat further about any of the above...or more!

For me personally, no. However, what you really need is a larger data set. Gumroad just did a post on prices ending in "9": http://blog.gumroad.com/post/64417917582/a-penny-saved-psychological-pricing 37signals started with prices that ended in 9: http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1287-ask-37signals-how-did-you-come-up-with-pricing-for-your-products ... but they later did research and found it didn't matter (for them). The answer for YOU will likely be to test these things for yourself on your SaaS app.