Revolut did not lose FC Barcelona because of Luís Figo. It signed Figo after the talks were already dead. This week, @CatalunyaRadio’s Barça Reservat (@totcosta @laiatudel @BernatSoler_CAT @xavicampos) said Revolut hired Figo a few months before the summer, and that this is why Barça walked away. First public report: 19 March 2026. El Periódico said Revolut was after the financial-partner slot CaixaBank left in 2025. I posted about it that morning. The Figo campaign did not exist yet. It landed in early May. On 6 May I wrote: “Revolut held sponsorship talks with FC Barcelona, but they got nowhere. So, they hired Luís Figo...” A Revolut spokesperson told me today: “Revolut’s negotiations with Barça closed months before we even signed Figo for our campaigns.” March: talks. They die. May: Figo. September: a podcast decides Figo was why Barça said no. I don’t sit in Laporta’s office. I do know the dates. Do it for the money⚽️

Revolut is no longer hinting. It does not want to be a big lender. That is the clearest thing Nik Storonsky said in Paris. Les Echos asked the awkward bank question: will Revolut finance the economy, including in a crunch? His answer was direct. “Today, the majority of our revenue comes from transaction fees, not loan margins. This makes us a virtually risk-free institution, and we intend to maintain this strategic focus. We also want our model to be as easy as possible to explain to regulators.” He did not say Revolut will never lend. He said lending is not the model. “If our clients want credit cards and loans, we must offer them. But credit will remain a minority part of our business.” And if the book grows: “We will securitise these loans to maintain the leanest possible structure and a very low level of credit risk.” That is similar to what Antoine Le Nel said about lending as about 5% of the mix. Nik has now made it official. Credit is a product line, not the engine. The engine is still fees. The balance sheet stays thin. The story to supervisors stays simple. That is how Revolut wants to look like a bank without becoming one. Mortgages already exist in Lithuania. The French licence is meant to unlock cards, loans and, later, home loans. None of that changes the weighting. “That may happen one day”, about turning into HSBC or Barclays, “but it’s not a priority. For now, we’re focusing on simple, standardised products.” The interesting tension is outside Europe. Nubank, Plata, SoFi and Chime live in markets where credit is the product. Cards, points, instalments, the whole loop. Nik knows that very well about the US. “It’s a credit-driven market, using credit cards, points, and discounts. This model is financed by high interchange fees.” They have pre-approval on a US banking licence. “Once we have the licence, we can launch our credit card with numerous benefits. I’m convinced it will be a success.” The existing US business, he said, is already profitable with no marketing spend. Becoming a bank is how they accelerate it. So the open question is not whether Revolut will offer credit. It is whether it can stay credit-light and still be relevant, especially in the US and Latin America. A rewards card funded by interchange is not the same as building a Nubank-style credit engine. Securitisation is the workaround: originate, sell the risk, keep a fee, keep the balance sheet light. Nik’s answer to the “you will starve the real economy of loans” is “What we’re doing is introducing competition and driving prices down. It’s not about reducing the banks’ profit pool to the point where they can no longer lend.” It's clear that the original meaning of Nik's saying, “We want to replace banks, simple as that”, has changed. Revolut sees itself as a payments and deposits machine that will sell credit where the market demands it, then try not to own the risk. Whether that is enough against firms that are the credit market, he has yet to prove. Nik made from page of Les Echos

Revolut just gave the clearest IPO signal yet: London and Nasdaq, together Nik Storonsky has stopped sounding hypothetical about an IPO. In an interview with Les Echos, he said Revolut is planning a dual listing on the London Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. That is the cleanest public wording I have seen. Not “we might”. Planning. The US preference is blunt. More buyers. Institutions, hedge funds, asset managers, and a large retail base. London stays in the picture. He thinks the fight for the shares will be fiercest in New York. He also wants a real US brand, because customers who use the product are more likely to turn up in the IPO. That sounds to me like an IPO well after the US bank launch. 2026 P&L guidance Revolut’s 2025 accounts: about $6B revenue, $2.3B pre-tax profit, and a 38% pre-tax margin. Fifth year in a row. Gross margin was 78%, down from 81% in 2024. In the interview, he put last year at $6B revenue and $1.7B net income, and said 2026 will be higher, with margins “around 80%… in line with those of the tech industry.” That 80% is gross margin. It is roughly what they already reported last year. Profit per customer still lags banks because Revolut does not lend like a bank. Return on capital is what matters to a public-market buyer: fewer third parties, fewer bankers, more of the stack running itself. That is the story they will take to investors. Fees first. Credit if customers ask for it, then securitise it. Stay thin. Revolut Business now sits underneath that. He said it crossed €1bn in revenue and a million customers. Just months ago, as I remember, it was around 800,000. The UK used to be half the book. Not anymore. Higher margins than consumer, and growing faster. The five-year line is familiar: hundreds of millions of customers, top three in the markets that count. The risk he actually named is regulation. More licences, more products, more complexity. If they list, the question is whether they can keep those software-like gross margins after they start living more like a bank. A dual listing is no longer a rumour. It is the plan he is willing to say out loud. Stay tuned for what Nik said about lending, coming out next.

Revolut said no individual or group has made direct contact or demand almost a week after the fintech reported a scam involving an unauthorized third party that exposed sensitive information of some customers.

Revolut’s CEO bought a superyacht worth €350 million after discovering its former owner through ChatGPT, his lawyers said in court filings, denying allegations that he avoided paying millions of pounds in commission

Revolut has filed for a Swiss banking licence. The application is with FINMA. Revolut says it already has 1.3 million customers in Switzerland — penetration ~24%. Subject to approval: Swiss IBANs, salary accounts, eBill, merchant acquiring, Swiss deposit protection. Pillar 3a and TWINT “under consideration.” The company says it will put CHF 150m+ into the country over five years. Julian Biegmann, General Manager Switzerland, says “Applying for a local licence is the logical next step.” Nothing changes for customers until FINMA writes yes. Cash still sits with Revolut Bank UAB in Lithuania. PostFinance provides CH IBANs for Revolut today. Background: Revolut set up NewCo in Zurich in late 2025, hiring legal and treasury; a UK full licence was required conditionally in March. Nik Storonsky had said other supervisors were waiting on that. France and Australia already have full banks this year. A FINMA bank file commonly runs a year or more. Older Swiss coverage had Revolut aiming to be “the main bank of the Swiss”; spokesman Felix Spies, before the filing: “We are looking at the Swiss market very closely.” An application is not a licence. Until Bern says otherwise, Swiss users remain on Vilnius, but the signal is that Revolut has met the basic conditions for filing.