I went straight to the build side because Meta has the scale and the data, but I realized midway through I hadn't actually argued against it.
Start by clarifying the strategic objective—why Meta would need a payment solution—and then evaluate build vs. partner against criteria like speed, control, cost, and strategic fit. Recommend a hybrid approach: partner for immediate needs while building core capabilities in-house over time, and justify with trade-offs and risks.
Pro tip: Acknowledge that Meta's core competency is not payments, but owning the payment layer could unlock valuable data and reduce dependency; however, regulatory and fraud complexities often make partnering the pragmatic first step.
Define what problem the payment solution solves: is it for ads, commerce, peer-to-peer transfers, or a new revenue stream? The answer shapes the build vs. partner decision.
Assess whether payments are core to Meta's long-term strategy. If payments enable unique experiences or data advantages, building may be worth it; otherwise, partnering is likely better.
Analyze trade-offs: build offers control, customization, and long-term cost savings but requires significant investment, time, and regulatory expertise; partner offers speed, compliance, and scalability but reduces control and margins.
Propose a phased strategy: partner initially to launch quickly and learn, while investing in building core components (e.g., fraud detection, user experience) to eventually bring more in-house.
Make a clear recommendation based on the analysis, and outline key risks (e.g., regulatory, dependency, cost) with mitigation plans.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.