Not all online collection pots protect your money in the same way 

If you use an online group collection, every platform will tell you the same thing: 

“Your money is safe.” 

The problem is that those words don’t mean the same thing everywhere. 

Some platforms protect money in the way the rules expect when a company is holding electronic money. Others rely on looser structures, third parties, or wording that distances them from that responsibility. 

That difference isn’t obvious — but it matters. 

Do you really know how these platforms are holding your money? We couldn’t find any built to the same standard as Collection Pot.

What’s actually happening when you use a collection pot 

When people chip into a group collection, the money: 

• is stored digitally 

• sits with the platform for a period of time 

• and doesn’t belong to the platform 

In the UK, money held like this is generally treated as electronic money, which comes with clear expectations about how it should be protected. 

Those expectations exist for one reason: 
to make sure customer money is kept separate, protected, and not exposed to business risk. 

Two very different approaches to keeping your money safe 

Across group collection platforms, there are broadly two ways this is handled. 

Some platforms accept that they are holding electronic money and build their product around that responsibility. 

Others structure themselves so they can say they are not an electronic money product, often relying on payment processors, agency models, or third parties to sit between them and the money. 

Both approaches can exist in the market — but they offer very different levels of clarity and accountability. 

How Collection Pot handles your money 

Collection Pot takes a direct approach. 

In our terms, we clearly state that: 

• Collection Pot works with Modulr FS Limited 

• Modulr is authorised and regulated by the FCA as an Electronic Money Institution 

• customer accounts and payment services are provided by Modulr 

• customer funds are held separately and safeguarded under electronic money rules 

There’s no attempt to distance ourselves from the fact that customer money is being held. 

We accept that responsibility and build the product around it. 

How other platforms describe holding money 

Below is a plain-English summary of how other major platforms explain this themselves. 

Collctiv 

Collctiv’s own terms say: 

“We are not regulated or authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).” 

They also explain that: 

• they do not directly handle payments 

• payment services and any e-money accounts are provided by third-party providers 

• Collctiv transmits instructions to those providers 

Collctiv does reference safeguarding in places, but it is clear from their wording that Collctiv itself does not present as the regulated e-money holder. Responsibility sits with partners. 

GiftRound 

GiftRound explains in its terms that: 

• payment processing is carried out by Ryft, a regulated payment provider 

• GiftRound acts as an agent, helping to collect and pass on payments 

Their wording focuses on: 

• processing payments securely 

• moving money from contributors to an organiser or gift 

GiftRound does not describe its service as an electronic money account or say that it holds safeguarded e-money balances for customers. 

Thankbox 

Thankbox states that: 

• payments are taken using Stripe 

• funds are held in a separate company bank account 

In its public documentation, Thankbox does not describe: 

• an electronic money account 

• an EMI partner providing safeguarded accounts 

• or electronic money protection applying to customer balances 

The emphasis is on secure payment processing and internal handling, rather than regulated electronic money safeguarding. 

What this shows 

All of these platforms talk about security. 

But only one of them: 

• clearly accepts that it is holding electronic money 

• explicitly partners with a regulated Electronic Money Institution 

• and builds its product around electronic money safeguarding rules 

That platform is Collection Pot. 

The others: 

• position themselves as platforms, agents, or intermediaries 

• rely on third-party processors to handle regulation 

• and use wording that avoids being classed as holding e-money themselves 

That’s a real, documented difference — not opinion. 

Why Collection Pot chose a harder path 

It is easier to structure a product so you can say: 

• “we’re just a platform” 

• “we don’t hold the money” 

• “payments are handled elsewhere” 

Collection Pot chose not to do that. 

We accepted that if people trust us with group money, we should: 

• take responsibility for holding it properly 

• meet the standards expected for electronic money 

• and be clear about how that protection works 

That’s why Collection Pot is built around a regulated e-money partner, not around workarounds. Because when people trust you with group money, doing the minimum isn’t enough. 

Why this matters to you 

Most of the time, everything works fine. 

But protection matters when: 

• money sits longer than expected 

• something goes wrong operationally 

• or a company faces difficulties 

That’s when it becomes important to know: 

Is this money protected because the platform is built to hold e-money properly — or because it’s relying on indirect arrangements? 

The takeaway 

Every platform will say your money is safe. 

What matters is whether that safety comes from: 

• a product built to meet electronic money standards 
  or 

• a structure that steps around them 

Collection Pot chose the first path. 

That’s why we believe it sets a higher standard for online group collections — and why people who care about where their money sits choose Collection Pot