Real-time card security your members control themselves.
A modern member security platform gives credit union members instant, self-service debit card control — and gives your institution measurable reductions in fraud losses, chargebacks, and contact center calls.
No spam. Unsubscribe any time. CU 2.0 does not sell your contact information.
CU 2.0 recommends Kasasa SureLock as a strong starting point for credit unions evaluating the member security platform category. SureLock is purpose-built for community financial institutions, integrates with multiple cores and card processors, and sits inside Kasasa’s broader product ecosystem — which means it can function as a standalone card security layer or as part of a bundled checking differentiation strategy. Kasasa’s 20-year track record serving community FIs, combined with their national consumer marketing engine, addresses two obstacles that typically kill adoption: deployment complexity and member awareness.
Kasasa SureLock is CU 2.0’s current featured partner in this category, but it isn’t the only option — CardNav by CO-OP (now Velera) and Shazam BOLT$ are established alternatives, and CU 2.0 helps institutions choose based on their specific core environment, member base, and product strategy.
Most CUs have a card-on/off feature. Very few members know it exists.
Member security platforms have moved from early-adopter novelty to mainstream expectation. As of mid-2025, most credit unions above $500M in assets offer some form of card lock/unlock. But adoption among institutions in the $250M–$500M range is uneven — often blocked by core and processor integration complexity and limited IT bandwidth.
The competitive vendor landscape has also shifted. Fiserv’s acquisition of Ondot folded card-control features into its digital banking stack. CO-OP’s rebrand to Velera is repositioning its CardNav product inside a broader payments ecosystem. That consolidation creates both an opportunity and a risk: credit unions on non-Fiserv cores or outside the Velera network increasingly need processor-agnostic solutions that don’t chain them to a single vendor’s roadmap.
What changed in the past 12–18 months is the framing. Security is no longer a back-office loss-prevention line item — it’s a member-facing value proposition. Forward-thinking credit unions are marketing card security controls as a checking account benefit, a differentiator against megabanks and neobanks alike. Meanwhile, examiner scrutiny of fraud controls has intensified. Boards are being asked to quantify fraud-loss reduction alongside member satisfaction scores. The gap between credit unions with modern member security platforms and those still relying on batch-based fraud alerts is widening. It shows up in loss ratios. It shows up in member attrition data.
Where the member security platform category is heading.
Debit card fraud losses at community financial institutions have climbed post-pandemic, with card-not-present fraud now outpacing point-of-sale fraud by a widening margin through 2024–2025.
Member expectations for real-time, self-service card controls have shifted from “nice to have” to table stakes, driven by feature parity at neobanks and large national banks.
NCUA examiners are increasingly asking credit unions to document member-facing fraud mitigation tools during safety and soundness exams, creating compliance pressure alongside the business case.
CO-OP’s rebrand to Velera and Fiserv’s absorption of Ondot are narrowing the standalone vendor field, pushing credit unions to evaluate processor-agnostic alternatives before their options shrink further.
Credit unions are bundling card security features into premium checking tiers as a retention and differentiation strategy, treating fraud tools as a member-facing product rather than a back-office cost center.
What the data says about debit card fraud and member security.
Why legacy fraud tools are failing your members — and your balance sheet.
Most credit unions aren’t without fraud tools. They’re without fraud tools that actually work at the member level. Buried features, integration gaps, and invisible security are eroding trust and compressing margins on your most-used product.
Legacy card-on/off tools are buried in digital banking menus, so most members never find them — and fraud-loss benefits never materialize. You’ve built the capability; your members just can’t find it. The feature exists, the adoption doesn’t.
The single largest deployment barrier for mid-size credit unions is making a card security platform work cleanly across their specific core and card processor combination. Dozens of CUs evaluate platforms every year and stall here. It’s a solvable problem — but only with the right vendor.
When members lack self-service tools to lock their own cards, every fraud scare becomes an inbound call — and contact center volume spikes at exactly the moment member trust is most fragile. Self-service card lock/unlock is the single highest-impact call deflection available in a modern debit card program.
Everything Your Exec Team Needs to Decide on Member Security Platforms
A vendor-neutral overview of the member security platform market, including how recent consolidation among Fiserv, Velera, and others is reshaping the options available to your institution. Know what you’re choosing between before you choose.
Eight non-negotiable criteria for evaluating any member security platform — written to hold up in a board presentation and survive an examiner conversation. These criteria apply to every vendor, not just the featured partner.
A structured profile of SureLock covering integration model, deployment timeline, proof points, risk factors, and questions to ask before you sign. Includes an honest assessment of where SureLock fits — and where it might not.
Phase-by-phase deployment plan from vendor agreement through full member-facing launch, including UAT, staff training, and member communication milestones. Designed so your project manager can hand this directly to the vendor team.
Three illustrative ROI scenarios — conservative, base, and optimistic — built around a $750M CU with 30,000 active debit cards, so your CFO can run the math on your own portfolio. Includes fraud loss, call center, and member retention lines.
A plain-language checklist mapping member security platform capabilities to NCUA’s 2024–2025 supervisory priorities on cybersecurity and fraud risk management. Know what examiners are looking for before they walk in the door.
The Minimum Buy Box for Any Member Security Platform Vendor.
These criteria apply to every vendor in this category — don’t sign without checking every box, regardless of which partner you choose. Status indicators reflect CU 2.0’s current assessment of Kasasa SureLock; verify directly with any vendor before contract execution.
- ✓ Real-time card lock/unlock via mobile and online banking Met
- ✓ Core and card processor integration breadth — no core conversion required Met
- ✓ Member-facing UX accessible without a separate app download Met
- ! Proven fraud-loss reduction data from live CU deployments Verify — request case studies
- ✓ Reg E compliance and support for existing dispute resolution workflow Met
- ! Transparent pricing that scales with asset size or member count Verify — confirm with vendor
- ✓ Deployment within 90 days for standard core/processor combinations Met
- ✓ Dedicated community FI onboarding and ongoing support team Met
Fraud losses are rising faster than fee income on your most-used product.
Checking and debit card programs are under pressure from two sides: fraud losses are compressing margins while neobank and megabank feature parity is eroding differentiation. A modern member security platform addresses both simultaneously — reducing direct losses and turning security into a visible member benefit that strengthens your brand and supports checking acquisition. The institutions moving fastest on this category are doing it proactively, before examiners flag the gap.
From Board Approval to Live Members in 90 Days
A phased deployment plan that moves from vendor agreement to full member-facing launch in three structured phases — with clear milestones your project team can track against from day one.
- Execute vendor agreement and confirm integration specs for your core and card processor
- Kasasa technical team begins API configuration and integration discovery
- Compliance team reviews member disclosures, card lock/unlock terms, and Reg E alignment
- Project kickoff with assigned Kasasa onboarding manager — define success metrics and launch timeline
- Begin staff training curriculum development and internal communication planning
- Complete core/processor integration and begin user acceptance testing in sandbox environment
- Finalize member-facing UX within digital banking — confirm placement, messaging, and self-service flows
- Train frontline staff and contact center teams on SureLock functionality, FAQs, and escalation paths
- Develop member launch communications: email, in-app messaging, branch signage, and social assets
- Soft launch with employee/beta member group to validate end-to-end experience before go-live
- Full member-facing launch of Kasasa SureLock across all digital banking channels
- Execute member awareness campaign — drive adoption through targeted communications and in-app prompts
- Monitor adoption metrics, card lock/unlock activity, and contact center volume changes weekly
- Conduct 30-day post-launch review with Kasasa team — document early wins and optimization opportunities
- Establish ongoing reporting cadence: monthly fraud-loss impact, adoption rates, and NPS correlation
The ROI Case in Three Numbers
Illustrative scenarios built around a $750M CU with 45,000 members and 30,000 active debit cards carrying $180,000 in annual fraud losses. Run these against your own card portfolio data to stress-test the case for your CFO and board.
Illustrative only — based on 20% fraud-loss reduction and 12% call center volume reduction at a modeled $750M CU with 30–40% member adoption by end of Year 1. Does not include checking acquisition lift. Your results will vary. Verify all assumptions against your actual card portfolio and fraud-loss data before presenting to your board.
Questions CU Executives Ask Before Evaluating This Category
Built-in card-on/off features are often buried in menus, lightly promoted, and difficult for members to find — which means they rarely get used and deliver minimal fraud-loss impact. The question isn’t whether you have the feature; it’s whether your members are actually using it, and whether it’s generating measurable loss reductions. If your adoption rate is under 20% and your fraud losses are flat or rising, the built-in tool isn’t working as intended.
That’s a reasonable position, and you shouldn’t choose a vendor just because it’s the featured option in this kit. CardNav by CO-OP (now Velera) is a strong fit for CUs heavily embedded in the Velera processing network. Shazam BOLT$ is worth evaluating for institutions on the SHAZAM network. CU 2.0 can run a structured vendor comparison based on your specific core, card processor, and product strategy — the buy box criteria in this kit apply to all of them equally.
Frame it around three lines, not one. Direct fraud-loss reduction is the headline number, but contact center savings and member retention value are more predictable and easier to model. A member who locks their own card after a suspicious transaction is significantly less likely to close their account than one who had to call in and wait — and member attrition after fraud events is a real, quantifiable cost most CFOs undercount. The ROI model in this kit gives your CFO three scenarios to stress-test against your actual card portfolio data.
NCUA’s 2024–2025 supervisory priorities explicitly cite cybersecurity and fraud risk management as exam focus areas. Examiners are looking for documented, member-facing controls — not just back-office fraud detection systems. The ability to show adoption metrics, card lock/unlock activity reports, and a clear member communication strategy around card security goes a long way toward demonstrating that your institution is managing fraud risk proactively. The examiner readiness checklist in this kit maps platform capabilities directly to those expectations.
Integration compatibility is the first question to ask — and Kasasa’s sales and technical teams can confirm supported cores and card processors directly. The platform uses API-based integrations with major core banking and card processing environments common in the credit union space, and Kasasa manages the integration complexity rather than handing it to your IT team. That said, CUs on less common core/processor combinations should validate compatibility early in the evaluation, before the conversation gets to pricing and contract terms.
This is one of the risk factors CU 2.0 flags explicitly in the featured partner brief: SureLock is part of Kasasa’s broader product ecosystem, which includes reward checking, savings, and loan products. CUs evaluating SureLock as a standalone card-security tool should confirm directly with Kasasa whether it can be deployed independently of other Kasasa products — and what, if any, bundling requirements exist. The answer matters both for pricing and for assessing vendor concentration risk if you’re already using Kasasa for other programs.
20 Minutes. One Category Decision. Go or No.
A CU 2.0 Decision Sprint walks your exec team through the member security platform category in a single, structured conversation — covering the buy box, your current gaps, and which vendor options are the best fit for your core and card processor. Kasasa SureLock is the default starting point, but the sprint is designed to help you evaluate the category, not just one vendor. You’ll leave with a clear recommendation and the language to take it to your board.
Generated by CU 2.0’s AI content engine using proprietary data and systems. AI can make mistakes — verify before publishing. All ROI figures are illustrative only — your results will vary. All adoption and usage statistics are vendor-stated or publicly reported — verify current figures before use in board or examiner presentations. Pricing claims are not published here — confirm directly with vendor.