Last updated: November 2026 · Reading time: about 10 minutes
 |
| A7's network can route the transaction. It cannot decide whether the bank at the other end is willing to accept it — that is a compliance decision, not a technical one. |
What this guide covers
What was actually pitched
The invitation came during the third Russia-Africa Summit in Moscow, at an exhibition of Russian technology. Putin and visiting African leaders were shown A7’s international payment capabilities, and the Russian president made the case directly .
His framing was about sovereignty and digital currency:
“Digital currencies are developing both in the United States and in Russia. Why can’t the African continent join this high-tech system? No one will cut you off. With modern technology, it is impossible to block these payments. Simply impossible.” [citation:1][citation:3]
The technical claims came from the officials around him. Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said payments are “fast, just one click, and the fee is only 0.3%” . Deputy Chief of the Presidential Office Maxim Oreshkin said Russian banks are already facilitating global payments outside the Western financial system, and that Russia is ready to share the technology .
That is the pitch in three parts: speed, cost, and unblockability. Each is worth examining separately, because they do not carry equal weight.
What A7 is
The company is not a speculative startup. It has real volume: over 10 trillion rubles processed in 2025, more than 15,000 businesses using it, and infrastructure spanning more than 100 countries . It opened offices in Nigeria and Zimbabwe in 2025, which is why those two markets are the entry point for the African pitch .
But two facts sit underneath all of that and shape how the pitch should be read. A7 was founded in 2024 — it is two years old. And it was established with the participation of PSB (Promsvyazbank), a Russian bank that is subject to Western sanctions [citation:3][citation:8].
The three promises, examined
| Promise | What was said | What it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| 0.3% fee | Siluanov: “the fee is only 0.3%, that is an extremely low transaction fee” | Whether the fee is the whole cost. FX conversion spread and settlement delay are separate costs that a headline percentage does not capture. |
| One-click speed | Payments are “fast, just one click” | No settlement-time benchmark has been published. Speed claims in payments are easy to make and hard to verify without transaction data. |
| Unblockable | Putin: “it is impossible to block these payments. Simply impossible” | The compliance posture of every bank in the settlement chain. Technology can make a transaction hard to intercept; it cannot make a correspondent bank willing to process it. |
The fee is the least contentious claim. At 0.3%, A7 is materially cheaper than a typical correspondent banking chain, and if the volume figure is accurate, the economics are real. The question is whether 0.3% is the total cost or the visible cost.
The speed claim is the least verifiable. “One click” describes the user interface, not the settlement. A payment can be initiated in one click and settle in three days.
The unblockability claim is the one that matters most, and it is the one that runs into the hardest constraint.
“No one can block this” — the compliance problem
Putin’s argument is technological: modern payment infrastructure is distributed enough that a single authority cannot cut it off. That is true of the technical layer. It is not true of the banking layer.
A cross-border payment has to move between institutions that hold accounts in each other’s currencies. Those institutions are subject to compliance regimes — sanctions screening, anti-money-laundering rules, correspondent banking due diligence. A bank that processes a transaction linked to a sanctioned entity risks losing its own access to the dollar clearing system. That risk is not theoretical, and it is the reason sanctions have teeth even when the underlying technology is decentralised.
That is not an argument that A7 cannot work. It is an argument that the unblockability promise is conditional on the participation of banks that are willing to accept the compliance risk. If African banks join because their governments have decided the geopolitical alignment is worth it, the system functions. If they join expecting to route dollar-denominated trade through it without consequence, they will discover the limit quickly.
Why Nigeria and Zimbabwe first
The choice of Nigeria and Zimbabwe for A7’s first African offices is not arbitrary .
Nigeria is the continent’s largest economy and has a large, active fintech sector with existing infrastructure for cross-border payments. It also has a history of currency controls and a business community that has learned to route around them. A payment system offering an alternative to correspondent banking is a proposition Nigeria understands.
Zimbabwe has spent two decades outside the conventional Western financial system, with its banks subject to sanctions and its economy running on a mix of foreign currencies and informal settlement. For Zimbabwean businesses, the pitch is not abstract — it describes the problem they already have.
The choice tells you what A7 is selling. It is not selling to markets that are well-served by SWIFT and correspondent banking. It is selling to markets where the conventional rails are expensive, slow, or politically constrained.
What an African finance ministry is actually choosing
The decision is not “should we use A7 or not.” It is a portfolio choice, and it has three dimensions.
| Dimension | What is gained | What is risked |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A 0.3% fee against a correspondent chain that can cost several percent | The fee is not the full cost, and the cheaper route may not support the currency you need to trade in. |
| Resilience | An alternative route if conventional rails are disrupted or politically restricted | A single-provider dependence on a two-year-old company with a sanctioned shareholder |
| Sovereignty | A settlement route that is not subject to Western sanctions enforcement | A route that is, by design, aligned with Russian foreign policy interests — which is a different kind of dependence, not the absence of one |
The sovereignty argument is the one that gets the least scrutiny and deserves the most. “Independent of external restrictions” is not the same as “independent.” A system built to route around Western sanctions is a system whose operating logic is shaped by the sanctions it exists to avoid. That is a legitimate choice for a country that has decided the trade-off is worth it. It is not a neutral infrastructure choice.
What to watch
| Indicator | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Which African banks actually join | A7’s pitch depends on banks, not governments. If the participants are small institutions without dollar correspondent relationships, the system will serve a narrow segment. |
| Whether any bank is penalised for participating | The first time a participating bank loses correspondent access, the “unblockable” claim is tested in practice. |
| Published settlement data | Volume figures exist. Settlement times, failure rates and FX spreads do not. Those are the numbers that determine whether 0.3% is a real cost advantage. |
| Central bank positions | Nigeria’s CBN and Zimbabwe’s RBZ have not endorsed the system. A representative office is a commercial presence, not a regulatory approval. |
| Whether PAPSS and A7 interconnect | A bridge between an African-governed system and a Russian company would be a different proposition from A7 operating alone. |
Frequently asked questions
What is the A7 payment system?
A Russian international payments company established in 2024 with the participation of PSB (Promsvyazbank). It operates a payment infrastructure covering more than 100 countries, serving over 15,000 foreign trade businesses, and processed over 10 trillion rubles in 2025 . It opened representative offices in Nigeria and Zimbabwe in 2025 .
What did Putin promise African countries?
He invited them to connect to A7, saying it supports transactions in traditional and digital currencies, that “no one will cut you off,” and that it is technologically “impossible to block” these payments . Finance Minister Anton Siluanov added that the fee is 0.3% and payments settle in “one click” .
Is A7 really independent of Western financial systems?
It operates outside the SWIFT network and is designed to route around Western correspondent banking. But any cross-border payment that ends in a bank account at an institution with dollar or euro relationships passes through a compliance check. A7’s technology cannot override that. The independence is at the network layer; it is conditional at the banking layer.
Why does PSB’s involvement matter?
PSB (Promsvyazbank) is subject to Western sanctions. A payment system with a sanctioned bank as a shareholder creates compliance risk for every bank in the settlement chain. A bank that processes A7 transactions may face questions about its own correspondent relationships, regardless of the technology used.
Is A7 available in Nigeria?
A7 opened a representative office in Nigeria in 2025 . A representative office is a commercial presence, not a regulatory approval or a licensed payment service. Whether Nigerian banks can participate at scale depends on CBN licensing and on each bank’s own compliance assessment.
How does A7 compare to PAPSS?
Both aim to reduce dependence on correspondent banking for African trade. The difference is governance: PAPSS is an African institution owned and governed by African central banks, while A7 is a Russian company founded in 2024 with a sanctioned bank shareholder. Putin has referenced a potential bridge between the two , but they are not equivalent alternatives.
What is the 0.3% fee actually covering?
Siluanov described it as the transaction fee. It does not necessarily include the FX conversion spread, settlement delay costs, or the compliance cost borne by participating banks. Whether 0.3% is a genuine total-cost advantage depends on those additional factors, which have not been published.
Related reading on Dedon Tech: wrong account transfer: the five-step recovery path · Nigerian banks and stablecoins: what happens to deposit protection · OPay vs traditional banks: who holds your deposit · full site map
0 Comments: