Distyra

Financial data shouldn't be the product, and European infrastructure shouldn't answer to a foreign government. Distyra started with the US CLOUD Act. Anyone building on European bank data - a banking app, an accounting tool, a credit decision - is buying that infrastructure primarily from vendors with American parents. European transaction histories end up inside a legal system nobody involved opted into. I wanted a version of this category with no American parent and no American back door, so I built one: EU-resident end to end, no US sub-processors, with drill-proven cross-region recovery. The second half is the business model. Most vendors in this space warehouse transaction data and find a second way to monetise it. Connect hands transactions back instead of retaining them, and we charge for the work - the API calls, the enrichment, the decisions - never for the data underneath. The try-it tool on our site stores nothing you paste. Most of this industry is built the other way round, and I don't want to add to it.

If you build on European bank data, you inherit a wall of cryptic descriptors. "PRLV SEPA URSSAF 4938201" is a mandatory French social charge. "Knab" is a Dutch retail bank. A repayment to Bpifrance is debt service. Generic engines built on US data read these as a discretionary payment, a Latvian state bureau, and a vendor payment respectively. None of these throw an error. The number just comes out wrong and you find out later. In a credit file, invisible debt makes a borrower look less leveraged than they are and DSCR comes out flattering; misread statutory flows make real fixed obligations disappear and every ratio built on them drifts. In a banking app it's an unrecognisable feed. In an accounting tool its vendor names a finance team doesn't recognise. Same misread, different symptom. The pattern underneath: a generic engine reaches for the famous global answer every time, and in Europe the counterparty that decides the case is almost always the local one. The regulatory half compounds it for lenders specifically. Automated processing in a credit decision is a high-risk AI system under the EU AI Act - Annex IV documentation, Article 9 risk management, human oversight, post-market monitoring, DPIA, DPA - for the vendor's component as much as the lender's own. Most vendors hand over a marketing PDF and leave the customer to reverse-engineer the rest. So European teams choose between infrastructure that misreads European data, and infrastructure that makes them carry the compliance and jurisdictional risk alone.

Bank data in, and you choose the output. Statement files or a live PSD2 connection go into one pipeline, read the European way. Three products, stackable or standalone: Connect - a clean, normalised transaction feed straight into your systems. Eight European statement formats, PSD2, or send the end user a link to upload their own. Transactions are handed back, not warehoused. Enrichment - every counterparty resolved, categorised and role-tagged the European way, with merchant logos for consumer-facing feeds. Corrections you make stick to your data immediately. Underwriting - cash-flow features a credit model scores on: turnover, recurring obligations, DSCR. Every number traceable to the transactions behind it. That serves neobanks and PFM apps, expense and accounting tools, lenders and credit teams, and product teams who want a bank feed without building PSD2 plumbing.