The David Rubenstein Show: Nik Storonsky

Revolut’s real moat is not the app experience; it is distribution efficiency in markets where legacy banks still price inconvenience as a margin line. The second-order effect is pressure on fee-rich incumbents and card networks: if a digitally native bank normalizes near-zero FX spread and instant onboarding, the economic value migrates from customer relationship ownership to balance-sheet scale, funding cost, and cross-sell intensity. That is bullish for the strongest global banks and payment processors with cheap funding, but bearish for regionals and monoline FX/remittance players whose take rates depend on opacity.

The US expansion angle matters more than the IPO rhetoric. A meaningful US footprint would validate Revolut as a global consumer financial operating system, but it also raises the bar on regulatory capital, AML controls, and deposit stickiness—areas where execution risk typically shows up 12-24 months after growth accelerates. The market often overprices top-line growth and underprices funding fragility; a fast-growing digital bank can look compounding until deposit beta rises or credit/chargeback losses catch up.

The contrarian view is that the upside may be less about Revolut itself and more about the ecosystem it forces to react. Incumbents will likely respond by compressing spreads and waiving fees, which can erode industry margins before Revolut reaches full scale in the US. Crypto and trading are optionality, not core earnings quality; if risk appetite fades, those features become traffic generators rather than durable profit pools.

For public-market investors, the cleaner expression is to own the firms with scale, compliance advantage, and low-cost funding that can absorb fee compression while monetizing engagement. The key timing variable is months, not days: the next catalysts are US regulatory milestones, deposit growth signals, and any IPO filing that exposes unit economics under scrutiny.