Affiliate disclosure. When you sign up via our links we may earn a commission. Rankings stay independent. Read full disclosure →
Up to 25% APR
EN
Riga old town rooftops — Latvia's two largest P2P platforms head-to-head.
Comparison

Mintos vs Twino: 2026 Comparison — Two Latvian MiFID II Platforms

Mintos vs Twino in 2026: both Latvian MiFID II licensed, but very different risk profiles. 50+ originators vs 100% in-group, Russia exposure, Trustpilot, returns.

By Daniel Brenner, Senior Editor · Updated 2026-05-19

Mintos vs Twino: 2026 Comparison — Two Latvian MiFID II Platforms

Both platforms are based in Riga. Both are licensed by Latvijas Banka under the EU’s MiFID II rulebook (the EU’s main investment-firm regulation). Both have been operating since 2015. And from there, the similarities mostly end.

This guide compares Mintos and Twino across the dimensions that actually matter to a retail investor in 2026: who originates the loans, what the regulation really covers, what’s still in recovery from the 2020 and 2022 shocks, and how each platform looks in public reviews. It’s not a vote for one over the other — they sit in different places on the risk-reward map and can coexist in a portfolio. But the structural differences are big, and a lot of investors miss them because the regulatory labels look similar at first glance.

TL;DR

  • Both are Latvijas Banka MiFID II licensed, but Mintos holds an Investment Firm license (license 06.06.08.719/534, August 2021) while Twino holds an Investment Brokerage Firm license (license №06.06.08.720/536, August 2021). In practice, both come with the EU investor compensation scheme of up to €20,000 per investor — but only for platform failure, not for borrower default.
  • Mintos is a loan-originator marketplace with 60+ independent loan originators across 33 countries. Twino is a 100% in-group platform — every loan is originated by a subsidiary of FINNO AS / Twino Group. Same beneficial owner sets the borrower rate, originates the loan, and earns the spread.
  • Mintos worked through most of its 2020 COVID and 2022 Russia loan-originator crises. Around 18.7% of its current portfolio is still in recovery (~€122–130 million) — meaningful, but largely understood and disclosed per originator. Twino has not fully closed its 2022 Russia exposure — by January 2026 the remaining open Russia portfolio was about €1.9 million (down from €60M+), with a buyback offer at 80% of capital plus 100% of interest, meaning legacy investors recover most but not all of their principal.
  • Mintos Trustpilot ~4.6/5 across thousands of reviews. Twino Trustpilot 2.4–3.0/5 across roughly 75 reviews — the lowest among MiFID II licensed P2P peers.
  • Returns: Mintos advertises ~11.5%, longer-term reviewers report ~9% net (Jean Galea, 9 years, €150K invested). Twino advertises 10–13%.
  • Our editor’s pick over both is Maclear for higher yield with direct origination — see why below.

Editor’s Pick: Maclear (★★★★★ 9.4/10) — If you want the highest-yield direct-origination platform in Europe (14.5–14.9% historical), Maclear is our #1 in 2026. It originates SME loans directly to borrowers (no loan-originator middleman, no in-group conflict) and the CEO covered a €150,000 default from personal funds in 2025. Regulation is Swiss SRO membership (anti-money-laundering scope only — no €20K investor compensation scheme), so it complements rather than replaces a MiFID II core position. Visit Maclear →

Quick Comparison Table

FieldMintosTwino
CrowdIndex Score8.7 / 10 (Highly Rated)6.3 / 10 (Worth Considering)
Rank on CrowdIndex#3#13
Founded20152015 (group: 2009)
HeadquartersRiga, LatviaRiga, Latvia
RegulatorLatvijas Banka (MiFID II Investment Firm)Latvijas Banka (MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm)
License number06.06.08.719/534 (August 2021)06.06.08.720/536 (August 2021)
Investor compensationUp to €20,000 (EU Directive 97/9/EC)Up to €20,000 (national MiFID II fund)
Cumulative funded€12.4B+ since 2015€1.125B+ since 2015
Current outstanding~€500–654M~€35–37M (Aug 2025)
Active investors700,000+~20,000
Loan originators60+ independent, across 33 countries100% in-group (FINNO AS subsidiaries)
Advertised return~11.5% (long-term net ~9%)10–13%
Minimum investment€50 per Note€10 per loan
Secondary marketYes, 0.85% seller feeYes
AutoInvestYes, 0.29%/year fee on new investmentsYes
Funds in recovery~€122–130M (~18.7% of portfolio)Russia ~€1.9M open (Jan 2026)
Trustpilot~4.6/52.4–3.0/5 (~75 reviews)
Languages11+6
Product breadthLoans, Smart Cash, ETF, Bonds, RE, Crypto ETPsConsumer, business, short-term rentals, invoice

Mintos at a Glance

Mintos is the largest peer-to-peer investment platform in Europe by lifetime volume and the only one operating under a full MiFID II Investment Firm license. Since 2015 it has funded over €12.4 billion in loans, has 700,000+ registered investors, and currently runs an active portfolio in the range of €500–654 million (sources differ slightly).

The business model is a marketplace: Mintos itself does not originate loans. Instead, 60+ independent lending companies across 33 countries fund borrowers (consumer, SME, car, agricultural, mortgage) and list Notes — regulated securities backed by underlying loan portfolios — on the Mintos platform. You buy Notes, you get a working secondary market for exit before maturity, and you sit inside an EU-regulated investment-firm wrapper.

Since 2022 the platform has expanded well beyond P2P loans into adjacent regulated products: Smart Cash (a BlackRock money market fund for uninvested cash), ETFs, corporate bonds, high-yield bonds, real estate funds, and crypto ETPs. That makes Mintos in 2026 closer to a multi-asset EU broker than a pure P2P site.

Mintos is currently applying for a full banking license — a process expected to take 12–18 months. That would further strengthen the regulatory wrapper but is not a sure thing.

Strongest points: EU investor compensation scheme up to €20,000, deep secondary market liquidity, public Risk Score methodology for each originator, diversification across 60+ independent counterparties.

Weakest points: Two crises — 2020 COVID took down 17 originators (€118M at risk per Kristaps Mors / ExploreP2P), 2022 Russia-Ukraine froze 8 Russian originators — left a recovery overhang of ~€122–130M (~18.7% of current portfolio). And major shareholder Aigars Kesenfelds (~30.5% of Mintos) also holds ~43% of Eleving Group, parent of Mogo, which is itself a sizeable originator on the platform — a structural conflict of interest that Mintos has not publicly addressed in detail.

For the full picture, see our full Mintos review.

Twino at a Glance

Twino was founded in 2015 as a peer-to-peer platform by Armands Broks, who had built the underlying consumer-lending business FINNO AS / Twino Group starting in 2009. Cumulative funded volume is over €1.125 billion across 11 years — a long track record by P2P standards — but the current active portfolio is small, around €35–37 million as of August 2025 (the last public snapshot at time of writing).

The business model is the structural opposite of Mintos. There are no external loan originators on Twino. Every loan funded through the platform is issued by a subsidiary of FINNO AS / Twino Group — Twino’s Latvian operations, Fincard in Poland, and Twino VN in Vietnam. The same beneficial owner assesses the borrower, sets the interest rate, originates the loan, lists it on the platform, and earns the spread between borrower rate and investor yield.

Twino received its MiFID II Investment Brokerage Firm license from Latvijas Banka on 31 August 2021 (license №06.06.08.720/536) — one of the first European P2P platforms to do so. The license required restructuring the investment instrument from a legacy “claim right” contract to a bullet bond with monthly interest, a registered security under MiFID II rules.

Strongest points: MiFID II IBF license with €20K national compensation fund (for platform failure), 11-year operating history (only Mintos has longer), securities-based bond structure since 2021, six-language platform.

Weakest points: 100% conflict of interest (platform = originator), 2022 Russia exposure not fully closed (€1.9M still open at January 2026, buyback at 80% of capital meaning some loss is locked in for legacy investors), Trustpilot 2.4–3.0/5 across 75 reviews (the lowest among MiFID II licensed P2P peers), CEO turnover (Helvijs Henšelis stepped down April 2025, replaced by Nauris Bloks), no mobile app.

For the full picture, see our full Twino review.

Regulation — Both MiFID II IBF Latvia, What Differs

Both platforms are regulated by Latvijas Banka, the central bank of Latvia, under the EU’s MiFID II framework (Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II — the main EU investment-firm rulebook). Both licenses give access to the EU investor compensation scheme of up to €20,000 per investor under Directive 97/9/EC.

The license categories are different but related:

  • Mintos holds an Investment Firm license (license 06.06.08.719/534, issued August 2021) plus an Electronic Money Institution (EMI) license for handling client funds in segregated accounts. The Investment Firm category is the broader and stronger of the two — it allows Mintos to offer a wider range of regulated products (Notes, ETFs, bonds, money market funds) and carries more demanding capital and reporting requirements.
  • Twino holds an Investment Brokerage Firm license (license №06.06.08.720/536, issued 31 August 2021). The Investment Brokerage Firm category is a more focused MiFID II scope — sufficient to issue and intermediate securities (Twino’s bullet bonds) but narrower than the full Investment Firm scope.

What the €20K compensation actually covers is the same in both cases, and worth understanding precisely:

  • Covered: If Mintos or Twino itself becomes insolvent, commits fraud, or fails to return your cash and securities held on the platform, the EU compensation scheme pays out 90% of net losses with a €20,000 cap per investor.
  • Not covered: Losses from borrower defaults on the underlying loans. Losses from loan originator failures (highly relevant for Mintos, less so for Twino since the originator is the group itself but still a credit-risk question). Losses from currency moves, interest-rate moves, or business-strategy failures that do not amount to insolvency or fraud.

P2P Empire publicly called the IBF investor compensation framing “of limited value” in the Twino context, precisely because the credit risk on the underlying loans — which is where most P2P losses actually happen — stays with the investor. The same critique applies to Mintos. The compensation scheme is real and meaningful for the specific scenario it covers, but it is not a guarantee against losing money on the loans themselves.

In practice: regulation is genuinely stronger here than on platforms like PeerBerry (unregulated as a CSP) or Maclear (Swiss SRO membership, which is an anti-money-laundering license rather than an investor-protection regime). But the regulatory wrapper does not change the credit risk inside it.

Conflict of Interest — Mintos LO Marketplace vs Twino 100% FINNO Captive

This is the single biggest structural difference between the two platforms, and it deserves a careful read.

Mintos: Marketplace model with 60+ independent originators

Mintos does not lend money to borrowers itself. Loan originators do — companies like Mogo (car loans), DelfinGroup (consumer), IuteCredit (consumer), and dozens of others operating across Europe, Africa, and Asia. These originators raise funding by issuing Notes (regulated securities) that they list on Mintos for retail investors to buy. Mintos earns fees from listings, the secondary market, and AutoInvest management. The originator earns the spread between what they charge borrowers and the yield they pay investors.

The strength of this model is diversification across independent counterparties. With 60+ active originators across 33 countries, an investor using AutoInvest can spread exposure across many independent lending businesses rather than concentrating on one. When one originator fails — and several have — investors with diversified portfolios lose a slice, not the whole.

The weakness is the loan-originator middleman concentrated risk in two crises:

  • 2020 COVID: 17 loan originators failed with roughly €118 million at investor risk (per Kristaps Mors / ExploreP2P research), including Capital Service, Cashwagon, Aforti, and Finko (Varks).
  • 2022 Russia-Ukraine war: Mintos immediately froze 8 Russian originators (Creditter, DoZarplati, EcoFinance, Kviku, Lime, Mikro Kapital, Mokka, SOSCREDIT) and excluded Belarusian loans, putting another large slice of investor money into recovery.

As of April 2026, about €122–130 million — roughly 18.7% of the outstanding portfolio — remains in recovery (per P2P Empire April 2026 monthly update and p2pmarketdata). The buyback obligation that originators offer is exactly that — an originator obligation, not a Mintos guarantee — and when the originator itself defaults, the buyback does not work and investors enter the recovery queue.

There’s also a softer conflict of interest worth flagging: major Mintos shareholder Aigars Kesenfelds (~30.5%) also holds ~43% of Eleving Group, parent of Mogo (car loans), which is itself a sizeable originator on Mintos. Independent analyst Kristaps Mors has documented this pattern across several 2020 defaults where multiple failed originators traced back to Kesenfelds-linked structures. Mintos publishes a Risk Score for each originator, but that score is set by a platform whose largest shareholder profits when investors fund related-party originators. Mintos has not publicly addressed this conflict in detail.

Twino: 100% in-group, no external originators

Twino is the structural opposite. Every loan on the platform is originated by a subsidiary of FINNO AS / Twino Group — Twino’s Latvian operations, Fincard in Poland, Twino VN in Vietnam, and (historically) Twino Russia. There are no external loan originators.

This means the same beneficial owner — Armands Broks — controls every step of the chain: setting the borrower’s interest rate, assessing creditworthiness, originating the loan, listing it on the platform, and earning the spread. There is no independent counterparty checking that the pricing reflects real risk, and no external originator that could fail “while Twino itself remains healthy” — if FINNO AS has a problem, both the platform and the entire loan book have a problem at the same time.

The structural analogs to Twino in our review are Robocash (UnaFinancial group) and Lendermarket (Creditstar group) — both single-group consumer P2P models where the platform and the originator are the same beneficial owner.

Which model is “better” depends on what you’re optimizing for:

  • If you want diversification across independent counterparties, Mintos wins decisively.
  • If you want consistent underwriting standards across all loans with no surprises from a rogue third-party originator, the Twino model has a (narrow) advantage — you only have to trust one group.
  • If you want the conflict of interest to be as small as possible, neither wins outright. Mintos has the Kesenfelds/Eleving structural conflict on a subset of originators; Twino has the conflict baked into 100% of the platform.

Russia Exposure — Mintos 2022 LO Crisis (Largely Worked Through) vs Twino Unclosed Exposure

Both platforms had material Russia exposure when the war started in February 2022. The two responses, and the four-year aftermath, look very different.

Mintos: 8 Russian originators frozen immediately, sanctions navigated through legal channels

When the EU sanctions regime came in, Mintos froze 8 Russian loan originators on the same day or in the days that followed: Creditter, DoZarplati, EcoFinance, Kviku, Lime, Mikro Kapital, Mokka, and SOSCREDIT. Belarusian loans were also excluded. Mintos publicly committed to defending investor interests against the affected originators (the platform’s own July 2023 announcement: “Mintos defending investors’ interests in battle against Russian originator”) and pursued legal recovery channels.

By April 2026, the residual Russia/Ukraine exposure has been largely worked through — most of the €122–130M in recovery now relates to the original 2020 COVID cohort and slower-resolution legacy positions, with the 2022 Russian originator crisis now mostly in the rear-view mirror in terms of new freezes. Recoveries are partial and slow (some money comes back, some is written off — typical for these processes), but the active situation is closed.

Twino: Russia portfolio still being wound down, buyback at 80% of capital

Twino took a different path. When sanctions hit, more than €60 million of Twino’s loan portfolio was frozen in Russia. Rather than fully exit through legal channels, Twino chose to wind the position down gradually — moving funds out through the Russian Central Bank’s limit of 10 million rubles per month per entity (an outbound currency cap), which physically constrains how fast the position can close.

By January 2026, the remaining open Russia portfolio had been reduced to about €1.9 million. Twino then offered investors a buyback at 80% of capital plus 100% of interest — meaning investors who accept the offer recover most but not all of their original principal. This is the longest-running open recovery situation among Tier 2 European P2P platforms.

What this means for new investors today:

  • Mintos: If you invest in 2026, you are not exposed to the 2022 Russian originator crisis — those positions are walled off in legacy recovery. You are exposed to the ongoing risk profile of the marketplace (60+ originators, country and sector diversification, future shocks) and to the fact that current Mintos statistics still include €122–130M in recovery in the headline numbers.
  • Twino: Same logic applies — new loans originated after February 2022 in non-Russian markets are not directly exposed to the wind-down. But the recovery overhang is still on the platform’s books, the buyback haircut is now a public reality, and the slow resolution has driven a chunk of the negative Trustpilot reviews (see next section).

In short: both platforms are reasonably “clean” for a 2026 new investor, but Twino’s recovery story is still being actively written, while Mintos’s is mostly written.

Trust Signals — Mintos Trustpilot vs Twino 2.4–3.0

Trustpilot reviews are not a perfect measure of platform quality — they are skewed toward complaints and toward periods of operational stress — but the size of the gap between Mintos and Twino is striking enough to be worth a careful look.

Mintos: ~4.6/5 across thousands of reviews. The volume of reviews is large enough to be statistically meaningful, and the rating reflects (a) a large base of investors with stable everyday experience and (b) ongoing complaints about specific recovery cases that are well-known and originator-specific rather than platform-wide.

Twino: 2.4–3.0/5 across roughly 75 reviews (Q1 2026 snapshot). The distribution is polarized: 43% give five stars while 32% give one star. The recurring complaints in negative reviews are slow Russia portfolio recovery, weak investor communication around buyback timing, and frustration with the wind-down pace. The recurring positive reviews cite the long track record, regulated status, and the successful 100% recovery of the Philippines loan portfolio (a positive outcome that does not get headlines but does happen).

Comparison context — Trustpilot scores across MiFID II / ECSP / regulated EU P2P peers:

  • Mintos: ~4.6/5
  • PeerBerry: ~4.3/5
  • InRento: ~4/5
  • Nectaro: ~4/5
  • Twino: 2.4–3.0/5

This means Twino sentiment is materially worse than every other regulated peer, including platforms with similar or weaker regulatory cover. Some of that is structural (the Russia recovery dominates the small review base), and the new CEO (Nauris Bloks, since April 2025) has increased communication frequency, which some recent reviewers cite as an improvement. But the gap is real and is part of how we score Twino at 6.3 versus Mintos at 8.7 on CrowdIndex.

Which Should You Choose

The honest answer is that most investors with both Mintos and Twino in their portfolio treat Mintos as the diversified core and Twino as a small concentrated allocation — and that mirrors how we’d frame the decision.

Choose Mintos if you want:

  • The strongest EU regulatory cover in retail P2P (full MiFID II Investment Firm license + EMI license).
  • Diversification across 60+ independent loan originators in 33 countries.
  • A working secondary market with real liquidity for early exit.
  • Multi-asset exposure inside one regulated wrapper (loans, money market cash, ETFs, bonds, real estate, crypto ETPs).
  • The platform with the longest history of weathering crises (2020 COVID, 2022 Russia) and continuing to operate.
  • Accept yields of ~9–11% net rather than the 14%+ available on higher-risk peers.

Choose Twino if you specifically want:

  • A long single-group operating history (11 years, €1.125B+ funded) under MiFID II IBF cover.
  • A smaller concentrated position alongside a diversified marketplace core.
  • A platform with the same regulatory floor as Mintos but a fundamentally different (in-group) underwriting model.
  • A €10 minimum per loan to start very small.
  • Accept the 2022 Russia recovery overhang, the 100% in-group conflict of interest, and the weak Trustpilot picture as the price of the model.

Avoid both if:

  • You’re chasing maximum yield. Maclear (14.5–14.9%), Lendermarket (12–18%), and PeerBerry (10–13%) all sit higher on the return ladder, at the cost of weaker regulation or higher originator concentration.
  • You want pure real-estate-collateralized exposure — see InRento or Crowdpear instead.
  • You want a fully independent direct-borrower platform with no originator middleman and no in-group structure — see Maclear (below).

Coexistence is normal. Mintos and Twino are not direct substitutes — they’re at opposite ends of the marketplace-vs-in-group spectrum within the same regulatory tier. Many investors hold a Mintos core position and a small Twino allocation if they want exposure to the FINNO group’s specific loan book. That’s a reasonable construction.

Why Maclear (Editor’s Pick) Is Worth Considering Over Both

Here’s the framing we’d use if someone asked us, in 2026, what to do with their first €5,000 of P2P money in Europe.

Mintos is the safest starting position — the regulatory cover is real, the platform is mature, and the diversification is genuine. We rank it #3 on CrowdIndex for those reasons.

Maclear is our #1 platform (full review) for a different set of reasons:

  • Direct origination, no middleman. Maclear lends directly to SME borrowers across Europe. There is no loan-originator concentration risk like at PeerBerry or Twino, and no marketplace originator-failure risk like the 17 LOs that failed on Mintos in 2020.
  • Higher historical yields, 14.5–14.9%. Structurally above Mintos’s ~9–11% net because there is no LO middleman taking a spread and no MiFID II regulatory cost layered on top.
  • One default, covered personally by the CEO. Vibroedil (€150K Italian borrower) defaulted in July 2025; Maclear’s CEO covered the loss from personal funds. This is anecdotal but tells you something about how the platform actually behaves in a default scenario.
  • Swiss SRO membership (not MiFID II). Important honest framing: Maclear’s Swiss PolyReg SRO is an anti-money-laundering license, not an investor-protection regime. There is no €20,000 investor compensation scheme. If you want that compensation floor for the platform-failure scenario, Mintos or Twino’s MiFID II IBF wrapper is what gives it to you.

How we’d construct the portfolio:

  • Core (40–60%): Mintos. Regulated, diversified, multi-asset, secondary market liquidity.
  • Higher-yield complement (20–40%): Maclear. Direct origination, 14% yield, no middleman.
  • Small concentrated bets (0–20%): Twino, PeerBerry, or another single-group platform if you specifically want that exposure — but with eyes open on the conflict-of-interest and concentration risk.

This is not investment advice — it’s a framing that mirrors how independent reviewers like Jean Galea, P2P Empire, and re:think P2P tend to construct their own diversified P2P allocations as of 2026.

Visit Maclear →

Frequently Asked Questions

Are Mintos and Twino both safe? Both are regulated by Latvijas Banka under MiFID II and both come with the EU investor compensation scheme of up to €20,000 per investor — for the specific scenario where the platform itself fails. Neither covers losses from borrower defaults or loan originator failures, which is where most P2P losses actually happen. Mintos has the bigger scale, the more diversified counterparty base, and the stronger Trustpilot picture. Twino has the same regulatory floor but a 100% in-group originator structure, unresolved 2022 Russia exposure, and weaker investor sentiment. Both are real platforms with real regulators; neither is risk-free.

What’s the main difference between Mintos and Twino? The originator model. Mintos is a marketplace with 60+ independent loan originators from 33 countries, so the platform itself doesn’t originate loans — it lists Notes backed by third-party originators. Twino is the opposite: every loan on the platform is originated by a subsidiary of the same parent group (FINNO AS / Twino Group), so the platform and the originator are the same beneficial owner. This shapes everything else — Mintos’s diversification, Twino’s conflict of interest, and how each handled the 2020 and 2022 crises.

Which has better returns, Mintos or Twino? Twino advertises slightly higher headline yields (10–13% vs Mintos’s ~11.5% advertised). But Mintos’s long-term net per Jean Galea (9 years, €150K invested) is around 9% after defaults and fees, and Twino’s effective net yield is constrained by the slow Russia wind-down and the buyback haircut on legacy positions. Neither platform competes on raw yield — both are below higher-risk peers like Maclear (14.5%+), Lendermarket (12–18%), and PeerBerry (10–13%). If you want maximum yield, neither is the right choice. If you want regulated yield with EU compensation cover, both are in a similar range.

Can I hold both Mintos and Twino in the same portfolio? Yes, and many investors do. They serve different purposes: Mintos as a diversified, multi-asset regulated core, Twino as a smaller concentrated allocation if you specifically want exposure to the FINNO group’s single-counterparty loan book under MiFID II IBF cover. The two are not direct substitutes — they sit at opposite ends of the marketplace-vs-in-group spectrum within the same regulatory tier.

Is Twino still affected by the 2022 Russia exposure? For legacy investors, yes — the remaining open Russia portfolio was about €1.9 million in January 2026, and Twino’s buyback offer is 80% of capital plus 100% of interest, meaning a haircut on principal. For new investors in 2026 originating loans in non-Russian markets, no direct exposure — but the wind-down is still on the platform’s books and still drives a chunk of the negative Trustpilot reviews. By contrast, Mintos’s 2022 Russian originator crisis has been largely worked through (most current recovery relates to the 2020 COVID cohort and other legacy positions, not 2022 Russia specifically).

Editor’s Pick: Maclear (★★★★★ 9.4/10) — Direct SME origination, 14.5–14.9% historical yields, no loan-originator middleman, CEO covered the only default from personal funds. Swiss SRO regulation (anti-money-laundering scope only, no MiFID II compensation scheme). Best held alongside a regulated Mintos core position. Visit Maclear →

  • Mintos-Alternatives — If you’ve decided Mintos isn’t quite right, the other regulated platforms to look at first.
  • Mintos-vs-PeerBerry — Marketplace vs single-group consumer P2P (PeerBerry sits closer to Twino structurally despite weaker regulation).
  • Safest-P2P-Platforms-Europe — Our overall safety ranking across all 19 platforms we cover, with the regulatory and structural framework explained.