Does the Senate CLARITY roadblock impact your rollout timeline, or is the agentic commerce stack completely immune to congressional gridlock? Feels like enterprise KYA and TEE rails were built for this exact vacuum. 🐸👁️

We raised a $35M Series A led by @oakhcft . That brings our total capital raised to $43M. We spent the last decade watching money get stuck at borders across roles at Uber, Coinbase, Stripe, and Zero Hash. Latitude (@rtp) is what we built with those lessons.

JUST IN: G20 agrees to develop clear regulatory framework for crypto and stablecoins.

Revolut launches EURR, a euro stablecoin issued by Bridge. Stablecoins are set for a HUGE 2027. Revolut announced EURR, a euro-pegged e-money token issued by Stripe-owned Bridge under MiCA and offered inside the Revolut app, with a phased rollout to eligible customers starting this month in Denmark, Portugal and Poland. It works across supported crypto services, external wallets and chains, and Revolut calls it the first of a suite of stablecoins in several currencies. 🧠 Every euro stablecoin combined is worth about $810m, and Circle's EURC is 65% of that. Dollar stablecoins are around $300bn. 🧠 Revolut holds $67.5bn of customer balances. If 1% of that moved into EURR, it would be the biggest euro stablecoin on day one and close to the size of the whole market. 🧠 Revolut anounced this week it trained its own foundation model and rented the stablecoin plumbing. That tells you what it thinks the moat is: 80m customers and their data stay in the building, and issuance is something you can buy from Stripe. 🧠 The timing is MiCA. Revolut had to pull USDT from the EU app by the end of August, and a regulated euro token arrives the same month. 🧠 "Without taking on US dollar exposure" is the pitch, and it's the origin story. The company that started with no-markup FX is now putting its multi-currency account on-chain: euros today, sterling already in the FCA sandbox, dollars when the US bank opens. 🧠 What I wonder about is why the first three markets are Denmark, Poland and Portugal, when two of them pay in kroner and złoty? My guess is this is aimed at expats, because European users already have 24/7 Euro access AND yield. The stable can't give yield. 🧠 Three announcements in 48 hours: 80m customers, a foundation model trained on them, and a stablecoin with its name on it. Customers, intelligence, settlement. That's what a global bank looks like when you build one from scratch in 2026. 🧠 Why this and not OpenUSD? These are not mutually exclusive things. Custom issuance gives you options over how you program something, and Revolut gets to collect its own yield here. Open stables have more liquidity and travel well in the open market.

I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this explainer of how credit cards work by Rain is inaccurate, almost misleading. For the record, I like that team and think stablecoin-backed cards are a great product, but if we are going to be disruptive as an industry we need to get key facts right. So let's get to it: First, the claim that without interchange "no business would take on the risk and costs associated with issuing your card" is absurd. Interchange is capped in many places to a fraction of the US (most notable the EU) and cards there work just fine. Nobody has exited the market. The credit/debit blend might be different, and there are less rewards, but cards persist. Similar story in the US with debit cards where the fee is capped by the Durbin amendment. If you don't believe me, as your favorite LLM how much profit the largest issuers take home from interchange. It's definitely not "recouping operating costs." Second, the claim that delays in settlement lead to a very high cost of capital ("idle capital") for issuers is mostly wrong. The largest issuers all have access to real-time payment systems like same-day ACH, RTP, and FedNow (hell they own the private-sector solutions like TCH that offer some of these). If they don't settle cards in real-time, it's because they choose to, not because they can't. First, delayed settlement = netting = lower cost of capital. The longer the delay, the more capital efficient the netting. Also, in the weekend example, there is almost no money actually sitting idle earning nothing waiting for Monday settlement. The largest issuers settle out of their Fed reserve balances which earn IORB (currently 3.6%). And the funds tied up in credit card settlement are relatively tiny compared to their massive balance sheets, which suffer from excess reserves. There probably is no other place they'd want to park this money anyway. Even if non-weekend settlement did impose some cost, it is small compared to what is recouped via interchange (for credit and Durbin-exempt debit) or the insane interest rate charged on revolving balances (on credit). Lastly, stablecoin-backed cards also have an idle balance problem. It's just transferred from an issuer (like JPM) to the user (like you). If you don't believe me, ask your favorite LLM to cross-reference the largest card issuers with a list of the banks most aggressively trying to kill stablecoins in DC. Why would the likes of JPM and BoA be so opposed to something that supposedly reduces their costs? Third, the cross-border example is both oversimplified and convoluted. As a general rule of thumb, cross-border card swipes are more profitable than domestic ones for issuers. They are exempt from domestic caps and also earn the F/X conversion fee (at least 1%, if not higher). This is one reason why so many American credit cards give such great travel perks. They want you to go to Europe and use your card there - they'll make more oney. Now, this doesn't apply in the example given (a Colombia-issued card being used for a Claud subscription) but I am confident LatAm card issuers make money off the F/X leg - it's not a burden. As a general rule of thumb, any argument or explainer that acts like credit card issuers or networks are doing us some kind of favor by existing should not be taken seriously. Issuing a card and running a card network are among the most profitable businesses out there. The gross-margins are fat, the sector is growing, and the network effects are strong. So why do I care enough to issue this correction? The fact that Rain—an otherwise succesful and even admirable company—would issue this tortured account of how cards work is a great teaching moment as to why cards and their related fees persist, despite being a regressive tax on small business. Rain's business model is primarily interchange. They can't exactly come out and say "stablecoins on public blockchains will kill swipe fees" because then they'd have to go find a new business model. Something similar has happened to every pre-crypto attempt to disrupt cards. Those in the position to change it all got coopted to benefit from it. My favorite example are the largest merchants (like Amazon) who used to be the largest victims of swipe fees, until they realized they can negotiate much lower fees for them, then issue a branded card that sticks it to smaller competitors. My own view is that stablecoins will ultimately disrupt this model and collapse swipe fees. First, because the card industry's margins (including Rain's) are their opportunity. Second, because unlike the credit card networks, public blockchains are censorship-resistant. They allow far more competition, particularly from startups. The process will take decades to play out, but ironically stablecoin-backed cards like the ones issued by Rain will help us get there. To break down network effects, you need to target one side of the market first. Get millions of people comfortable with paying with stablecoins (by way of a card), then go to the merchants and convince them to accept stables directly. I'm sure a savvy startup like Rain will be able to evolve. The big banks who are the biggest issuers will struggle.