Define the wallet authority
Record which system owns the balance, how currency precision is represented and what happens when a debit, credit or combined settlement cannot complete.
An aggregator, a single studio and a direct games API solve different problems. The right fit depends on wallet ownership, engineering effort, release control, support and commercial scope.


Start with one simple game and one time-sensitive format. Run the same session, wallet, replay, interruption and reconciliation scenarios for every candidate, then compare the final records and team responsibilities.
Record which system owns the balance, how currency precision is represented and what happens when a debit, credit or combined settlement cannot complete.
Force timeouts and retries. Confirm that a repeated request reaches one final financial result and that both teams can locate it through stable identifiers.
Ask for the active configuration and round inputs. Verify what can be recalculated independently and what still depends on supplier-controlled records.

A broad aggregator can reduce the number of commercial relationships while adding another operational layer. A direct supplier offers a focused integration but still needs clear lifecycle, support and release ownership. The right choice depends on your platform, team and target markets.
Apply the same standard to FastGamesAPI: test representative games in the supplied environment and make sure the written proposal matches the technical scope.

Summarise what your team tested, which responsibilities each option leaves with you, the remaining assumptions and the owner of every open item.
Use one scoring scale for wallet fit, recovery, observability, support, change management and commercial clarity.
Repeat the accepted failure scenarios with production-like permissions and confirm rollback and escalation ownership.