2026-01-23 05:37:42

There are new developments in the fintech sector. According to reports, the UK fintech unicorn Revolut has changed its strategy—abandoning the previous plan of quickly obtaining a license through acquiring a US bank, and instead directly submitting an independent banking license application to US regulators.

What does this shift mean? On one hand, it shows that Revolut is confident in its own strength and believes that applying directly is more aligned with long-term development. On the other hand, it also reflects the current situation for fintech companies entering the US market—merger and acquisition shortcuts may face more scrutiny and uncertainty, making a straightforward approach more honest.

The US financial regulatory system is known for its strictness, and its attitude towards digital financial services is gradually becoming clearer. Revolut’s move is not only a test of its own compliance capabilities but also a signal to the entire industry: to succeed in the US, one must be prepared for long-term compliant operations.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

NotFinancialAdvice

· 01-26 00:47

Revolut's knife is really sharpened well, but you can never be sure how deep the regulatory pitfalls are over in the US.

View OriginalReply0

ConsensusBot

· 01-25 10:47

Revolut's approach is really bold, directly challenging US regulators... But then again, relying on acquisitions to get licenses has been played out long ago. There is still a bit of a barrier; US scrutiny is indeed strict. It seems fintechs need to get serious.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidatedThrice

· 01-23 06:02

Haha, still going straight to the point with the application. This time, no more mergers and acquisitions. Entering the US market honestly requires real strength; otherwise, the review process becomes even more troublesome. In our industry, the biggest fear is being scrutinized. Instead of taking detours, it's better to be direct. The US financial system is extremely strict. Revolut is playing a gambler's game. Compliance, compliance—it's easy to say, but actually doing it is the real challenge.

View OriginalReply0

MEVVictimAlliance

· 01-23 06:02

Directly doing it is really more stable than taking the back door. Revolut has bet correctly this time.

View OriginalReply0

gas_fee_therapist

· 01-23 06:00

Revolut's move is pretty aggressive, directly challenging US regulators instead of taking the merger route. Basically, they think they can do it themselves—either succeed or fail completely, with no middle ground. The US financial system really isn't a joke.

View OriginalReply0

SmartMoneyWallet

· 01-23 05:51

Abandoning mergers and going straight to application? There's something interesting here, it seems to be paving the way for subsequent financing. The US regulatory logic is different; the shell company route is considered a risk in the eyes of the SEC. Just look at their funding flow data—this move is clearly aimed at winning the trust of institutional investors, with high costs but justified by legitimacy.

View OriginalReply0

FantasyGuardian

· 01-23 05:47

Revolut is betting on itself this time, directly challenging US regulators... Do they dare?

View OriginalReply0

FlashLoanLarry

· 01-23 05:47

Haha, Revolut really wants to challenge US regulators, they’re quite bold. Applying directly for a license sounds great, but the US review process... probably will take ages. Instead of waiting, why not take a shortcut first? Why insist on fighting yourself? I really can't tell if this move is genuine or just PR. The US financial sector is extremely competitive; can Revolut handle it? Direct application vs. acquisition, this choice feels a bit like gambling. How long have they really been preparing for compliance?

View OriginalReply0