LIMASSOL, CY / ACCESS Newswire / November 2, 2026 / Lunovil Limited has published findings from an anonymous survey of 150 professionals who make or influence payment decisions at digital platforms. Five decisions stand out. The results identify five early payment infrastructure decisions that platforms are most likely to revisit after launch, and they point to a consistent pattern: decisions made for convenience at the start are the most expensive to correct once a platform is live.
Getting them right matters more as the market grows. According to Statista, the global digital payments market is projected to reach $26.89 trillion in transaction value in 2026. Lunovil Limited notes that as payment volumes and complexity increase, the cost of revisiting foundational infrastructure decisions rises accordingly. The five decisions identified in this research are not edge cases. They are the ones that appeared most frequently across the 150 survey responses as sources of avoidable rework.
About the Survey
This survey was conducted from August to October 2026 and received responses from 150 people holding positions such as founders, technology heads, product managers, and payment/operations leads. The companies that took part in the survey employed between 5 and 500 people and had been operational and receiving payments for at least one year. This survey was anonymous and was done online. Lunovil Limited points out that the figures below are based on respondents' experiences and should be viewed as such.
Five Decisions Platforms Get Wrong Early
Decision 1: Launching With Too Few Payment Methods
- 38% of respondents said customers "often" or "sometimes" left because a preferred payment method was unavailable, and 44% added at least one major method within a year of launch.
- 41% said the payment provider's default settings shaped their initial method list, compared with only 29% who had relied on customer research before making those choices.
Lunovil highlights that the list of payment methods at launch is frequently one that the platform did not design, built around provider defaults rather than actual customer behavior.
Decision 2: Having No Plan for Failed Payments
Fewer than 40% of participants track the causes of failed payments, and fewer than 30% estimate that over 5% of their payments have failed. For platforms using recurring billing systems, three weaknesses are regularly identified by the survey:
- Expired cards: the most common preventable cause, yet addressable before the charge is attempted if card update prompts are triggered ahead of expiry
- Insufficient funds: predictable at the account level from prior decline history, yet rarely used as a signal for pre-emptive retry timing
- Missing card update process: 47% of survey respondents had automatic retries in place, but only 33% had a process for updating expired cards before they lapsed
The gap between having retries and having a card update process is something that Lunovil's team identifies as one of the more straightforward fixes available to subscription platforms, because the failure cause in a large share of cases is predictable in advance.
Decision 3: Treating Provider Redundancy as Optional
57% of respondents had no documented plan for a payment provider disruption before launch, and 43% reported at least one payment disruption that affected customers in the past 12 months. Only 34% of respondents use more than one payment provider. Lunovil Limited points out that redundancy is something considerably easier to design into the infrastructure at the start than to add once transaction volumes and integrations have grown. The majority of platforms in the survey are making that design decision by default rather than by intention, and discovering the consequences after the fact.
Decision 4: Adding Fraud and Security Controls Late
About 46% of respondents adopted the fraud detection process specifically after the product's release, while about 35% noted that a vendor occurrence or requirement led to its adoption. Lunovil notes that payment security should now comply with PCI DSS version 4.0.1, whose remaining requirements became mandatory on 31 March 2025.
Decision 5: Treating Payment Provider Setup as a Launch-Week Task
About 52% of survey respondents encountered requirements from their banking or payment partners during the setup stage or after launch - meaning those requirements arrived after the platform had already committed to a go-live date. A further 41% reported that payment infrastructure setup directly pushed back their launch timeline.
The three areas most commonly responsible for those delays were:
- Account approval - 48%
- Documentation preparation - 39%
- Understanding ongoing operational requirements - 27%
Lunovil Limited notes that payment infrastructure setup involves several sequential stages - establishing banking relationships, preparing required documentation, and satisfying ongoing operational requirements - that most platforms underestimate when planning a launch. Because these stages depend on external parties, timelines are less predictable than internal development work. Building payment setup into the early project schedule, rather than treating it as a final pre-launch step, is what separates platforms that launch on time from those that do not.
Summary: Five Decisions at a Glance
| Decision | Platforms Affected | Key Survey Finding |
| 1. Too few payment methods at launch | 44% added a method within a year | 41% let provider defaults decide the method list |
| 2. No plan for failed payments | 28% have failure rates above 5% | Only 33% update expired cards proactively |
| 3. Provider redundancy treated as optional | 43% experienced at least one disruption | 57% had no disruption plan before launch |
| 4. Fraud and security controls added late | 46% put fraud detection in post-launch | 35% acted only after an incident or provider requirement |
| 5. Payment infrastructure setup started too late | 41% experienced a launch delay | 52% first encountered banking requirements during or after setup |
What the Results Mean
Together, these five decisions share an identifiable thread stressed by Lunovil Limited during its platform support work: all the problems are much cheaper to solve before launch than after, and they affect both customer experience and internal operations. The survey results also show a noticeable gap between knowledge and action: failed payments, provider downtime, and exposure to fraud are well-known risks, yet many respondents had no formalized solutions for them.
Lunovil Limited is a provider of digital payment and platform solutions, specializing in secure transaction processing, platform support, and performance-driven user acquisition. The company handles the full payment lifecycle, from initial infrastructure setup to continuous operation, helping digital platforms maintain secure, efficient, and reliable payment systems.
Contact: lunovil.com; info@lunovil.com; Limassol, Cyprus.
SOURCE: Lunovil Limited
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
