Fintech giant Revolut announced Thursday that it had officially filed for a U.S. banking license.

 

Revolut filed its application with both the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, seeking to operate across all 50 states under the name Revolut Bank US, N.A. The filing represents what the company is calling a "de novo" charter, meaning it's building a new banking entity from scratch rather than acquiring an existing institution.

 

As recently as January, Revolut had reportedly been exploring the acquisition of an existing U.S. bank, which would have been a faster path to full banking status. The company scrapped those plans in favor of the de novo route, a decision that likely reflects the OCC's growing willingness under the current administration to greenlight new entrants. The OCC has already granted conditional approval to several stablecoin issuers seeking bank charters, signaling a more permissive stance toward crypto-adjacent financial firms.

 

Approval of a charter would mark one of Revolut's biggest regulatory milestones outside Europe. The company already holds banking licenses across parts of Europe and secured a restricted U.K. banking license from the Prudential Regulation Authority in 2024, though it is still working through the mobilization phase required before that becomes a full license. The U.S. is a different beast entirely.

 

Right now, Revolut operates in the United States through a partnership with Lead Bank, a Kansas City-based institution. That arrangement gets the job done for basic accounts and payments, but it's a ceiling, not a foundation. A license would give Revolut direct access to payment networks such as Fedwire and the Automated Clearing House, systems that move trillions of dollars between banks each year.

 

More importantly, the charter would let Revolut shed its dependency on third-party partners entirely and start acting like a real bank. Customer deposits would be insured by the FDIC, strengthening trust and regulatory protection for users, and the company could begin offering credit cards and personal loans directly to consumers.

 

For a company that has built its reputation around being a financial super-app, the inability to offer federally insured deposits or extend credit in America has been a glaring gap. Revolut's European customers can access a full stack of financial products. U.S. customers get a stripped-down version. The charter is meant to fix that.

 

By securing a federal charter, Revolut aims to bypass the fragmented state-by-state regulatory landscape in favor of a single national framework, providing the infrastructure necessary to scale its suite of retail and business services.

 

 

The Crypto Angle

Revolut isn't just a digital bank. It's one of the more crypto-integrated financial platforms in the world, offering trading for dozens of digital assets, and it has been selected by the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority as one of four companies to test stablecoin services under proposed regulations.

 

In that context, the timing of Thursday's filing is striking. It came just one day after Kraken became the first crypto-native firm to secure a Federal Reserve master account, a development that sent a loud signal about where U.S. regulators are headed.

 

Kraken's approval lets its banking arm speed up deposits and withdrawals for large traders and institutional clients, though the account is limited, with Kraken not earning interest on reserves or accessing the Fed's emergency lending. Still, the symbolic weight of a crypto exchange plugging directly into Fed payment rails cannot be overstated.

 

Securing a full banking license would position Revolut to more deeply embed crypto services within a regulated framework, potentially easing concerns for both users and policymakers about the safety and soundness of hybrid platforms.

 

That's the broader story here. We're watching the lines between traditional banking, fintech, and crypto blur in real time, and it's happening faster than most observers expected even a year ago.

 

Revolut's U.S. chief executive at the time of the filing, Sid Jajodia, was blunt about the timing in comments to the Financial Times. Jajodia said the timing of the application had been boosted by the White House's willingness to back new entrants to the regulated banking system, welcoming greater regulatory clarity, including around crypto.

 

That's a diplomatic way of saying what much of the fintech industry has been saying privately for months: the Biden-era posture toward crypto and non-traditional banking entrants was a significant deterrent, and the current administration's approach has opened a window that may not stay open forever.

 

Revolut isn't the only one moving through it. Firms like PayPal and Coinbase are pursuing similar charters following regulatory changes introduced under Donald Trump. ZeroHash, a Chicago-based crypto infrastructure company, has applied for a National Trust Bank Charter from the OCC as well, seeking a federal framework for its stablecoin and digital asset services.

 

 

New Leadership, New Commitment

Alongside the charter filing, Revolut announced a significant leadership shuffle for its American operation. Cetin Duransoy has been named the new U.S. CEO, stepping in as Jajodia moves into a global chief banking officer role. Duransoy previously served as the U.S. CEO of fintech marketplace Raisin and held senior leadership roles at both Capital One and Visa.

 

The hire is deliberate. Getting a de novo bank charter through the OCC is a long and grinding process, requiring extensive scrutiny of capital adequacy, risk management frameworks, and compliance programs. Having someone with deep institutional banking experience at the helm of the U.S. operation sends a message to regulators that Revolut is not approaching this casually.

 

Revolut plans to invest $500 million in the U.S. market over the next three to five years. That's a serious number, and a significant commitment for a company that has had to walk away from a U.S. banking effort before.

 

 

Why Past Attempts Failed, and Why This One Might Stick

Revolut's first U.S. banking license attempt, which began with California regulators in 2021, unraveled by 2023 amid concerns about the company's internal controls and compliance infrastructure. Those issues have since been widely characterized as growing pains typical of a fast-scaling startup that had not yet built the back-office rigor expected of a regulated bank.

 

The company's trajectory since then, the UK banking license milestone, the dramatic financial turnaround, the global licensing push, suggests that those structural weaknesses have largely been addressed. Experts note that while European digital banks like N26 and Monzo have previously struggled to crack the U.S. market, Revolut's massive 70-million global customer base gives it a level of power and self-confidence that its predecessors lacked.

 

There's also the multi-currency angle. Revolut's strong brand recognition and product breadth, including support for multi-currency services, will appeal to digital, mobile, and globally-minded customers, filling a gap in North America where domestic neobanks still offer a limited range of private banking products.

 

That said, skeptics remain. Some analysts have warned that the current rush to acquire U.S. banking licenses is partly a function of regulatory optimism that may not translate into sustained approval rates once the OCC and FDIC begin their detailed reviews. The regulatory process for a de novo bank charter typically takes years, not months, and the political environment in Washington can shift.

 

The OCC's review process will be comprehensive. Revolut will need to demonstrate adequate capital levels, a robust compliance program, a credible business plan, and a management team capable of running a federally regulated bank. Given its prior withdrawal, the company will almost certainly face additional scrutiny around its internal controls and audit functions.

 

If approved, the broader implications reach well beyond Revolut's bottom line. For U.S. regulators, granting or denying the application will send an important signal about how open the system is to globally active, crypto-friendly fintechs seeking full bank status. The decision will likely take into account not only Revolut's financial strength and compliance track record, but also broader debates about innovation, competition and consumer protection.

 

The fact that a crypto exchange now sits on the Fed's payment rails, and that a $75 billion crypto-integrated neobank is simultaneously knocking on the OCC's door, suggests we are entering a genuinely new phase in the relationship between digital finance and the traditional banking system.

 

Whether the regulators are ready for that, or whether the window closes before the paperwork clears, is the question that will define the next chapter for Revolut, and for the broader industry watching closely behind it.

 

U.S. FDIC Moves to Define Stablecoin Rules, Bringing Washington Closer to a Real Framework

For years, stablecoins have lived in an uncomfortable gray zone in the U.S. financial system. Big enough to matter, but never quite official enough to be fully welcomed. That may finally be changing.

On December 16, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took a significant step by proposing the first formal rules for stablecoins under the recently passed GENIUS Act. It is the clearest signal yet that Washington intends to treat certain stablecoins less like an experiment and more like financial infrastructure.

This is not a sweeping overhaul overnight. But it is a meaningful start.

 

What the FDIC Is Actually Proposing

The FDIC’s proposal focuses on process before product. Rather than setting hard capital or reserve requirements immediately, the agency is laying out how banks can apply to issue stablecoins through regulated subsidiaries.

In simple terms, the rule defines how a bank asks permission, what information regulators expect to see, how long the FDIC has to respond, and what happens if an application is rejected.

Under the proposal, banks would submit detailed applications covering governance, risk management, compliance controls, and operational readiness. The FDIC would have set timelines to review submissions, determine whether they are complete, and issue approvals or denials. There is also an appeals process, which is notable in a space where regulatory decisions have often felt opaque.

There is even a temporary safe harbor for early applicants, giving institutions a window to engage before all GENIUS Act requirements fully take effect.

None of this is flashy. That is the point.

 

Why the GENIUS Act Changed the Conversation

The FDIC’s move only makes sense in the context of the GENIUS Act, which passed earlier this year after years of stalled crypto legislation. The law created a new category for payment stablecoins and, crucially, decided who gets to supervise them.

Under the act, stablecoins designed for payments are no longer left floating between agencies. The FDIC is responsible for stablecoin-issuing subsidiaries of insured banks, while other regulators handle different corners of the market.

The law also sets the broad expectations. Stablecoins must be fully backed, redeemable at par, and supported by transparent reserves. They are not treated as securities, and they are not left entirely to state regulators either.

That clarity alone has shifted the leading question from “Is this allowed?” to “How does this work in practice?”

 

A Quiet but Important Shift

What stands out about the FDIC proposal is how procedural it is. This is not Washington hyping innovation or trying to pick winners. It is regulators building guardrails, slowly and deliberately.

That may frustrate parts of the crypto industry that hoped for faster approval paths or broader access for nonbank issuers. But for traditional financial institutions, this kind of rulemaking is familiar. It reduces uncertainty, and uncertainty is often the biggest barrier to participation.

Banks have been hesitant to touch stablecoins directly, not because they lacked interest, but because the regulatory consequences were unclear. This proposal begins to close that gap.

 

What Comes Next

The current proposal is only the first layer. The FDIC and other agencies are expected to follow with rules covering capital, liquidity, reserve composition, and ongoing supervision.

Those details will matter. A lot.

Too strict, and stablecoin issuance could remain concentrated among a small number of players. Too loose, and regulators risk recreating the same fragilities they are trying to prevent.

There is also the question of how these U.S. rules will interact with frameworks emerging in Europe and Asia. Stablecoins move across borders easily. Regulation does not.

 

Why This Matters Beyond Crypto

Stablecoins are no longer just a crypto market issue. They sit at the intersection of payments, banking, and monetary policy.

If regulated correctly, they could make settlement faster, cheaper, and more resilient. If handled poorly, they could introduce new forms of run risk into the financial system.

The FDIC’s proposal suggests regulators understand that tension. This is not an endorsement of stablecoins, but it is an acknowledgment that they are not going away.

After years of debate, enforcement actions, and regulatory silence, the U.S. is finally starting to write the rulebook. Slowly. Carefully. And very much on its own terms.

 

That alone marks a turning point.

 

Stay Connected

You can stay up to date on all News, Events, and Marketing of Rare Network, including Rare Evo: America’s Premier Blockchain Conference, happening  July 28th-31st, 2026 at The ARIA Resort & Casino, by following our socials on X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.