Revolut’s remarkable rise from a London startup to one of the world’s largest digital financial platforms has transformed the banking landscape. But its long wait for a UK banking license reveals a fundamental tension at the heart of modern finance — the widening gap between technological innovation and regulatory adaptation.
With more than 65 million users across 38 markets, Revolut has redefined what consumers expect from financial services. Its all-in-one app offers instant international transfers, competitive foreign exchange, budgeting tools, crypto and stock trading, and seamless digital payments. To many, it feels less like a bank and more like an operating system for modern money management.
Yet despite its global reach, Revolut still lacks the ultimate endorsement of regulatory trust: a full UK banking license. The delay — now stretching over three years — underscores how regulators are struggling to evaluate institutions that operate at digital speed and global scale.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA), part of the Bank of England, is understood to have hesitated over approving Revolut’s application due to concerns about governance and risk management — particularly how its internal controls can keep pace with rapid international growth.
According to GlobalData, this hesitation reflects a deeper systemic issue rather than a case of bureaucratic obstruction.
“Unlike traditional banks, which grew incrementally over decades with local branches and sequential market entry, Revolut has scaled 5,000% in a few years, operating simultaneously across dozens of countries,” says Joanne Kumire, Lead Analyst for Banking and Payments at GlobalData. “This is hard mode for regulators. The PRA’s frameworks were never built for a bank operating at this speed and scale.”
That unprecedented growth brings equally unprecedented complexity. Each market Revolut operates in has its own financial, data-protection, and anti-money-laundering regimes. Coordinating compliance across them in real time requires automation and predictive monitoring — far removed from the manual oversight that traditional banks rely on.
A full UK license would allow Revolut to take deposits, issue loans, and offer products under the protection of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). It would also place the company under the PRA’s strictest prudential requirements, enabling it to compete head-on with high-street incumbents.
In effect, the license would mark Revolut’s transition from a fintech disruptor to a fully-regulated British bank — a symbolic win for both the company and the UK’s post-Brexit fintech ambitions.
But as Kumire points out, the question isn’t simply whether Revolut is ready for the PRA — it’s whether the PRA’s frameworks are ready for Revolut.
“Traditional risk management assumes physical infrastructure, local compliance officers, and predictable transaction flows. Revolut’s compliance is digital-first — API-driven, real-time, and distributed across jurisdictions,” she explains. “Both aim for financial stability, but they achieve it through fundamentally different means.”
That distinction raises a critical issue for policymakers worldwide: how to assess risk when the very nature of banking is changing.
Legacy regulatory models measure capital adequacy, liquidity, and operational resilience in periodic reports — quarterly, annually, or in stress-testing cycles. But digital banks function on continuous data, updating risk models by the second. A regulatory model designed for balance sheets, not algorithms, is inherently out of sync.
Experts argue that regulators must begin to measure systemic risk, technology resilience, and cyber-governance with the same weight once given to loan-to-deposit ratios. For fast-scaling neobanks like Revolut, this would allow faster approval without compromising safety — a new equilibrium between innovation and prudence.
The outcome of Revolut’s license bid carries significance well beyond its own operations. The UK’s decision will help define how advanced economies balance innovation with accountability in the era of borderless finance.
If the PRA holds the line, it may reassure traditionalists but risk signalling to the world that Britain’s regulatory culture still favours caution over competitiveness. If it adapts too readily, critics warn, it could invite systemic vulnerabilities.
Kumire sums it up bluntly: “The stakes are high. While delay risks eroding Revolut’s market position, the PRA must also ensure that the UK doesn’t become the site of a systemic failure. Revolut isn’t a startup testing the waters — it’s a global institution asking the UK to catch up.”
“How the PRA responds could define not only Revolut’s trajectory but the future of digital banking regulation itself.”
Revolut’s story is emblematic of a sector approaching maturity — where innovation collides with the boundaries of old financial law. The company’s struggles reflect neither failure nor fault, but rather the growing pains of an industry moving faster than its referees.
Whether the UK ultimately grants Revolut its license, the conversation it has provoked will shape how nations regulate the next generation of banks — entities built in code, operating across borders, and judged by frameworks still written for paper.
