Why Revolut Discontinued Crypto Services in Hungary and How It Fits the Broader Fintech Trend
Revolut finally secured a full banking license in Hungary, but unexpectedly, one of its first actions was to shut down all crypto accounts for customers in the country. It sounds paradoxical, but the long-awaited license led to the loss of one of its key services.
Is a banking license about freedom from partners, cheaper payment routes, and efficiency — or is it a set of new restrictions? Let’s break it down together with Monoup.
Revolut and Hungary
The company achieved a significant milestone in Hungary by obtaining a banking license, but at the same time, the country significantly tightened regulations for cryptocurrencies. While Revolut operated under a Lithuanian "passport," it could bypass all local restrictions. However, once it became a Hungarian bank, it automatically fell under Hungarian rules.
Interestingly, around the same time, Revolut announced integration with Binance Trust Wallet across Europe. They have a MiCA license — a pan-European regulation for cryptocurrencies designed to unify all rules. However, the situation for Hungarian users turned out differently, as they must comply with their country’s stricter adaptation. Local regulations, while part of the same EU framework, operate based on rules specifically adopted in Hungary, and true unification has not yet been achieved.
Nonetheless, the banking license was still necessary. Revolut has 2 million customers in Hungary — a quarter of the entire market, which is a significant number. However, for most of them, Revolut remained a secondary choice rather than the primary option for all expenses. Employers were reluctant to transfer salaries to accounts with a Lithuanian IBAN, but with a Hungarian IBAN, Revolut can become the primary bank for customers, not just a convenient app for traveling abroad.
However, the cost of this transition turned out to be substantial. In addition to losing crypto services, Revolut faced high banking taxes (which are significant in Hungary), mandatory transaction fees, and new requirements for customer support and cash access. The Hungarian regulator insists on live support and physical access to cash — something digital banks typically avoid to reduce costs. Whether Revolut can maintain its fees under this burden is a big question.
The American Rush for Banking Licenses
The Hungarian story is just one case, but the trend is global. In the U.S., there is currently something akin to a gold rush for banking licenses among major fintechs. According to QED Investors, in 2025, there were 20 applications for various types of charters, a historic high. PayPal applied for an Industrial Loan Company charter in Utah to develop small business lending without intermediaries. Nubank, with its 122 million users, applied for a national charter, while Bunq is applying for the second time — it withdrew its first application in 2024 because regulators couldn’t agree on it.
The motivations are clear: full control over infrastructure, direct deposit acceptance, and independence from partner banks. For giants like PayPal or Nubank, this also means direct savings on bank commissions, which are usually a significant percentage of turnover. When turnover reaches billions, this translates to tens of millions in annual savings.
But despite these advantages, a banking license is not just a piece of paper. It comes with capital requirements that freeze substantial funds, constant reporting to regulators, stress tests, and compliance with a range of federal and state laws. Mercury, which recently applied for a national charter, openly admits that few fintechs are truly prepared for this level of expense and discipline. Many fintechs operate in a relaxed manner, often receiving fines, but since their activities are limited by regulators, these fines are not as critical to the ecosystem.
Crypto companies have a separate story. Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets — all received conditional approval for national charters in December 2025. Theoretically, this opens access to traditional banking infrastructure. In practice, it places them under much stricter control. The Hungarian example with Revolut shows that a single local regulator can easily derail all ambitious plans, even if you have a federal license.
The Bottom Line
We are witnessing an interesting dynamic. Neobanks are massively pursuing banking licenses to gain control over their value chain. In doing so, they lose precisely what gave them a competitive edge initially — flexibility and low cost. Traditional banks, under pressure, are beginning to mimic fintechs, offering free features, albeit with many asterisks and limitations. The industry is moving toward a new balance where the line between "bank" and "not quite a bank" is blurring. The ability to work with regulators is becoming as important a competitive advantage as having a good product. Soon, users may no longer clearly distinguish between a national bank and an online institution — and it’s still unclear how good this will be for most people.
