Talk:Revolut

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Cryptocurrency Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Internet Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of Nikolay Storonsky was merged into Revolut on 03 March 2020. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Emiliano Mellino (29 April 2019). "Revolut says it's cleaning up its act. Evidence suggests otherwise". Wired. Retrieved 29 April 2019. References to these stories, as well as reports on the company's toxic work culture or investments by alleged Kremlin-linked entrepreneur Yuri Milner, have also been periodically disappearing from the company's Wikipedia page. On at least four different occasions, between December 2018 and April 2019, references to negative stories were removed from the company's page, by accounts with IP addresses that can be traced backto [sic] Revolut's offices.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Revolut app.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are multiple mentions in the article of this company not reimbursing fraud victims but there are numerous examples and coverage of instances where they did reimburse some or all of the lost funds. Here are two:

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-bar-owner-scammed-fraudsters-27515992

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/relationship-coach-scammed-over-5000-30727873

The article includes a significant amount of information about fraud claims and criticisms, which appears to be quite typical of financial institutions and large corporations in general - we must be sure there is not undue weight given to individual complaints. BridgeCityBoyz (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and it is indicated in this edit request.

There is outdated information about Revolut's banking license. This appears in two places. First in the introduction and next under the Protection of Funds/Revolut Bank. Here are my requested edits:

Introduction :Revolut Bank UAB, the firm's European Economic Area subsidiary, is licensed and regulated by the Bank of Lithuania (replace with: the European Central Bank) within the European Union, and depositors' money is protected through deposit insurance, insured by the Lithuanian State Company Deposit and Investment Insurance.

Protection of Funds/Revolut Bank: Revolut Bank UAB, based in Lithuania, (replaced with: licensed by the European Central Bank) Provides deposit account services in 30 EEA markets.

Here is a source: https://www.pymnts.com/digital-first-banking/2021/revolut-bank-granted-full-european-union-banking-license-amid-criticisms-unfair-competition/

This source also already appears on the page: https://www.lb.lt/en/news/revolut-granted-specialised-bank-and-electronic-money-institution-licences

Assistance is greatly appreciated in this matter. Thank you. RevNeut (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Done Likeanechointheforest (talk)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and it is indicated in this edit request.

There are updated financials and employee count from the most recent reporting. The figures in the information box should be updated to the following:

Revenue: $2.2 Billion or £1.8 Billion (2023)

Net Income: £344 million (2023)

Number of employees: 10,000 (2023)

Here is the supporting documentation: https://www.revolut.com/annual-report/2023/ & https://assets.revolut.com/pdf/annualreport2023.pdf

Thank you for any assistance in this matter. RevNeut (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partly done: The revenue was already 1.8 billion.I've corrected the net income, which was inccorrectly reported, while keeping the existing source. I can't find 10,000 employees in the given sources, could you please specify a page number? Thanks! Rusalkii (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thank you. Here is a source that can support that 10,000 employee number for the information box: https://news.sky.com/story/revolut-founder-storonsky-to-cash-in-as-part-of-500m-share-sale-13174553 It is also mentioned on page 13 of this document https://assets.revolut.com/pdf/annualreport2023.pdf

The employee number also needs updated in the introduction of the article. Right now it reads:

As of December 2023, Revolut more than doubled its headcount in two years, employing over 7,500 people in more than 25 countries.

please replace with:

As of July 2024, Revolut employs 10,000 employees and serves 38 million customers across 38 countries.

using this report: https://assets.revolut.com/pdf/annualreport2023.pdf

Finally, another editor added this to the History: Revolut has 40 million customers and 10,000 employees.

It would be accurate to read:

As of 2024, Revolut has 38 million customers and securely holds $22 billion of customer deposits in customer accounts.

https://assets.revolut.com/pdf/annualreport2023.pdf

Thank you for your thoroughness. Let me know if there are other clarifications necessary. RevNeut (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rusalkii Thank you for your assistance, I have added additional information and content. It would be wonderful if you would be able to complete this particular edit request to update important facts. Let me know if you need anything else to do so. RevNeut (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry, I think this got buried in my notifs somehow. Go ahead and make the changes to the employee and customer numbers and their associated sources. Please do not add the "securely holds" language. Rusalkii (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and it is indicated in this edit request.

There is information available concerning recent bank license and availability. Here are the requested edits:

Under History:

In June 2019, Revolut expanded to Australia, the company’s first expansion outside of Europe. (source to support: https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/12/revolut-launches-in-australia-as-a-beta/)

In 2024, Revolut secured a Mexico banking license to establish itself as a bank in Mexico, Latin America's second largest economy. (source to support: https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/revolut-banking-licence-mexico-jobs-disrupt-its-67bn-remittance-market-20240410)

Thank you for your assistance. RevNeut (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partly done: Australia added. I'm not sure it makes sense to add the Mexico content given that it's just a license, not them actually releaseing a product in that market yet. Rusalkii (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rusalkii Thank you for your help. Regarding the banking licence update in Mexico, it's very similar news to the UK banking licence they've been granted. It's a significant milestone in providing them with a permission to go ahead and offer products soon in these geographies.

Adding here a content piece from Reuters as a source which talks about the same which talks about the same: https://www.reuters.com/technology/fintech-revolut-receives-mexican-banking-authorization-eyes-expansion-2024-04-09/#:~:text=Fintech%20Revolut%20receives%20Mexican%20banking%20authorization%2C%20eyes%20expansion,-By%20Reuters&text=MEXICO%20CITY%2C%20April%209%20(Reuters,a%20press%20release%20on%20Tuesday. RevNeut (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if the wording needs to change, or if there's anything else I can help with on this. RevNeut (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not seeing a strong focus on the UK in the article as it stands. There are references to over a dozen other countries. Besides, it's a UK-based bank and not a "UK-based bank" in the sense of a HSBC, which is a global megabrand, so I also don't see why there'd be a problem with UK-leaning content in the first instance. Can we remove the template yet? Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I support this. Nobody I've met outside of the UK and Ireland seems to ever have heard of Revolut, so it makes sense that most events involving it would involve the UK and Ireland. AengusB (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree and have removed the tag. Dormskirk (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my user page and it is indicated in this edit request.

I’d like to request to modify and move an inaccurate and misleading statement related to fraud complaints figure that appears both in the Summary and UK Fraud Sections of the article.

Current statement: In October 2024, a report found that Revolut was named in more fraud complaints in the UK than any major bank in the country, sparking a debate on the effectiveness of its security controls.

Arguments for modification:

1. The statement is factually incorrect as Revolut is NOT the highest in terms of the customer complaints number according to the official Financial Ombudsman Service data(Factual Numbers in the Source). https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-13996833/Complaints-big-banks-surge-69-past-year-does-rank.html

2. The article's current statement refers to figures from a report by Action Fraud. This figure reports regardless of whether the financial institution was at fault, whereas FOS fraud complaints are recorded only after consumers have attempted to resolve the issue directly with the financial institution. So, this needs to be explicitly mentioned.

https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/faq

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/data-insight/annual-complaints-data/annual-complaints-data-insight-2023-24

Hence I propose the statement be modified as below and moved to the UK Fraud Victims sub-section for relevance:

Proposed edit: According to Financial Ombudsman Service data for 2023/24, Revolut received 3,158 fraud complaints, fewer than traditional banks like Barclays (6,876), HSBC (5,432), and Vanquis Bank (16,067). https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-13996833/Complaints-big-banks-surge-69-past-year-does-rank.html

In October 2024, a report by Action Fraud, found that Revolut was named in more fraud complaints in the UK than any major bank in the country. This figure, includes reports regardless of whether the financial institution was at fault, whereas FOS fraud complaints are recorded only after consumers have attempted to resolve the issue directly with the financial institution.

https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/faq

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6epzxdd77o

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. RevNeut (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rusalkii , can you please have a look at the above, and help in the correcting the statement and move it to the UK Fraud victims sub section. Thank you in advance. RevNeut (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Not done I'd consider your request fairly biased and to be promotional content.

The source of "thisismoney.co.uk" is only mentioned twice across all of wikipedia. Your mentioned source mentions 4.000 cases for only a first half of the year 2024. You cannot compare the data of a full year only to the data of half a year. Comparing the statistics with other companies could be considered promotional. The BBC, a notable source, stated that Revolut has been named in the most fraud reports and had the highest amount of money paid via authorised push payment fraud.[1] Snarkyalyx (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Revolut launched a subscription tier named "Ultra" for individuals in the UK and EEA in June 2023, which was the company's most expensive subscription at the time. "

The statement is weird, because as of now there has never been a more expensive subscription... why the need to specify "at the time"? 193.191.221.210 (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vilnius Quadrum.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Expats in the EU swear this is like PayPal or Zelle. But no where on Revolut's website does it clearly state what the heck it is. Can anyone explain this? It appears to offer prepaid credit cards, but is that it? And if their history is filled with bad customer service, why would anyone use it? ~2026-18090-08 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Salahegyptianking,

1. BBC publication is good enough to support statements about compliance issues in the 2010s.
2. BBC cites The Telegraph investigation of severe compliance issues (extra sources can be provided: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/03/01/revolut-faces-fca-probe-compliance-failing/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/02/28/revolut-failed-block-suspicious-transactions/).
3. AML Intelligence is good enough to mention severe limitations set by ECB for Revolut.
4. And yeah, nothing is wrong with the part about alleged overcompliance.

Would you kindly provide any sufficient reason for removing each part of the section dedicated to Revolut's compliance shortcomings? Roaring&Boring (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Returned the section, as no reasoning was provided here or in the edit summary in a week. Roaring&Boring (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Roaring&Boring, I don’t think this section works as written.

1. The BBC article does not establish “inadequate compliance” as fact. It reports allegations from former employees / a whistleblower, and the same article includes Revolut’s denial. So I don’t think Wikipedia should present this in its own voice as a broad compliance failure. At most, it supports a short attributed sentence saying the BBC reported former-employee allegations, which Revolut denied.
2. The Telegraph claims should be cited directly if they are being used. “Extra sources can be provided” is not enough for the current wording; the article text should be supported by sources already cited in the section.
3. On AML Intelligence, the article mainly reports what the Financial Times said, notes that the ECB declined to comment, and says the restrictions were temporary and linked to product approval processes. That may support a short attributed line about reported ECB restrictions, but not a broad “severe limitations” / “compliance shortcomings” subsection.
4. “Overcompliance” is a separate topic from “inadequate compliance”, so I don’t think it belongs in this subsection.

Overall, the section combines separate disputed claims into a broader narrative that the sources do not clearly establish. I think it should be removed or reduced to a short sentence. Salahegyptianking (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Inadequate works well to describe both the lacking compliance procedures and overcompliance. You can propose other options. However, we're not limited to the wording of source publications and should use common sense as well.

The BBC publication isn't limited to whistleblower's claims, but cites other former employees. Not like we have a reason to doubt BBC's standards on things their sources say. Additionally, it cites the FCA representative who suggested the journalists ask Revolut about the measures it recommended — and Revolut's denial to comment on the matter.

Speaking of The Telegraph, we're only required to use secondary sources here, but tertiary sources are fine. The Telegraph's report on the leaked letter is pretty much straightforward (however, we can make the coverage more nuanced based on the original publication).

The FT/ECB story, cited by AML Intelligence among many others, is also simple: the regulatory bod had restricted a bank from product launches due to concerns and ordered (among other measures) an independent review of the risk, compliance and legal functions.

So, do you suggest to cite Revolut's denials or statements by its departments or CEO? Or do you prefer to remove the information alltogether? Revolut's denial to comment on a particular case doesn't mean the case was disputed, tbh. Roaring&Boring (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

The article from the start is promotional with list of offerings and features. Some of the sources cited (not only in the start) are their own website or affiliates who earn money through links in their articles. It needs neutrality. Maliwalii (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have trimmed some promotional material: please feel free to trim anything I have missed. But please bear in mind that the controversies section is now looking disproportionately long and may need to be trimmed as well. Dormskirk (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I do agree on the controversies, lots of filler words and also not every struggling customer of a bank reported by the media is an encyclopedic material. I know unfortunately those problems are present with any institution calling themself a bank. Maliwalii (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)Reply