I’ve built my career at the intersection of business and technology, with a strong track record of leadership on an international scale.
I bring senior-level expertise across financial services, banking, payments, fintech, retail, and e-commerce - shaped by years of driving innovation and strategic growth in complex, fast-moving environments.
My work has consistently focused on innovation, strategy, business development, and building products and businesses from the ground up.
As a recognized voice in the financial services industry, I regularly contribute to publications and podcasts, and I'm frequently invited to speak at leading industry events around the world.

I can be contacted directly at pkriaris@gmail.com

The saga is over. After a long process, Apple has chosen JPMorgan Chase as the new issuer of Apple Card. Here’s what’s behind the headlines. 

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱:

• $20bn of Apple Card receivables move onto JPM’s balance sheet

• Portfolio transfers at a ~$1bn discount - rare for co-brands that usually sell at a premium - crystallising losses for Goldman

• JPM takes on all future Apple Card losses post-takeover, booking $2.2bn upfront for expected credit losses

• Goldman exits with a net positive earnings impact (~46 cents per share) as $2.48bn previously set aside for losses is released, more than covering the $2.2bn hit from selling the portfolio

• Mastercard remains the network

• Scope expands beyond credit into a broader Apple-Chase consumer finance bundle, including savings

• ~24-month migration window to move accounts, servicing, and risk infrastructure

• Marks the end of Goldman’s consumer credit push launched with Apple in 2019

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗝𝗣𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻:

• JPM could absorb a $20bn+ Apple Card book with a lower-credit mix without forcing Apple to tighten eligibility or change product economics

• JPM accepted losses early (large upfront provisioning) instead of pushing risk back to Apple or demanding a prime-only reset

• Scale card issuers need industrial migration, servicing, and collections. JPM already runs this, while others would have had to build new capabilities

• Apple required a partner willing to operate fully behind Apple’s brand and product rules - not all issuers were comfortable with that

• American Express did not proceed due to the economics of a mass-market book and limited control over the customer relationship

• Synchrony lacked the balance-sheet depth and regulatory comfort for a BigTech-scale consumer platform

• Barclays faced strategic and regulatory limits in running a large US consumer credit program tied to Apple

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱:

• $100m upfront economic incentive

• MC processes ~50% of Apple Pay volume, lowering the case for change

• Supported Apple Card’s original product design (no fees, Daily Cash, tight UX integration) without requiring product redesign

• Willingness to operate largely invisible to end users, letting Apple own customer relationship/UX

• Existing deep technical integration across Apple’s wallet, device-level security

• Tokenisation already tightly integrated, limiting value of complex network migration

• MC accepted underwriting/servicing decisions driven primarily by Apple

• Global acceptance/merchant coverage already optimal – no distribution upside

• Visa offered limited incremental value to justify migration costs

• American Express conflicted structurally with Apple’s model by combining network, issuer, and brand control

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗶𝗴 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

Will / can JPMorgan succeed where Goldman failed?

Opinions and graphics: my own 
 
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Panagiotis Kriaris

I have spent my career in the borderline between business and technology and bring expertise from senior leadership roles that combine Financial Services & Banking with FinTech, Payments, Retail, E-commerce & Digital Projects.

Having worked across the board in the finance industry (key roles in Commercial / Corporate & SME Banking, Retail Banking, Payments and FinTech), I have an end-to-end understanding of the entire business and of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.

On top, I bring hands-on experience from the start-up and e-business space where I have had the chance to explore how technology and new e-business models can drive innovation and help businesses grow.

Innovation, strategy, business development, strategic partnerships and building businesses and products from scratch have been at the center of my work and attention over the last years. 

Being a recognized voice in the financial services industry, I have contributed to various publications and podcasts and I am often invited as a public speaker at events around the globe. 

I can be contacted directly at pkriaris@gmail.com

FinTech | Payments | Banking | Innovation | Leadership

Hady Z.

Which fintechs are going public in 2026? Here’s my list and the background.

1. Plaid
• Bank account connectivity for fintech apps
• IPO to position Plaid as essential financial infrastructure 
• Reliance on banks and platforms it does not control

2. Stripe
• Global payments platform for online businesses
• IPO to provide funding for acquisitions 
• Slower growth in core payments puts pressure on valuation

3. PicPay
• Brazilian consumer payments and digital banking platform
• The IPO gives it funding and credibility to compete with Nubank and  
   Mercado Pago
• Performance closely tied to Brazil’s economy 

4. Revolut
• The closest we have in the west to a SuperApp 
• Strong profitability has removed the main barrier to an IPO
• Managing regulatory and operational complexity across markets is a key risk

5. Kraken
• Crypto exchange serving both retail and institutional customers
• IPO to present Kraken as a regulated financial business vs. crypto
• Revenues remain cyclical with crypto markets

6. Monzo
• One of the largest consumer-focused digital banks in the UK
• IPO funds lending growth beyond private markets
• Competitive retail banking keeps margins under pressure

7. Airwallex
• Cross-border payments and treasury services for global businesses
• IPO to help build trust with large enterprise clients
• Strong competition from established global payments firms

8. Zilch
• BNPL and payments focused on regulated markets
• IPO to help distinguish Zilch from weaker competitors
• Regulatory scrutiny limits pricing flexibility and margins

9. Brex
• Corporate spend, card and treasury platform for mid-market companies
• IPO marks a reset after narrowing its customer focus
• Needs to prove relevance beyond the startup ecosystem

10. PhonePe
• One of India’s largest digital payments platforms 
• IPO monetises its scale and leadership position in daily transactions
• Highly dependent on regulatory and policy decisions in India

11. SumUp
• Payments and financial services provider for small merchants
• Public markets value its stable, recurring merchant revenues
• Core payments business is crowded and hard to differentiate
 
12. Starling Bank
• Profitable UK digital bank with strong SME and platform banking focus
• IPO to shifts valuation from fintechs to bank peers 
• Growth rates are lower than consumer-focused challengers

13. Bitpanda
• Regulated European crypto investment platform
• IPO rewards its early investment in regulation and compliance
• Revenue remains tied to (volatile) crypto market conditions#

14. ConsenSys
• Software and infrastructure provider around the Ethereum ecosystem
• IPO to help value the company beyond crypto prices
• Business model is complex and not easy for public investors to assess
 
𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁?

Opinions and graphics: my own 
 
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Aditya Agarwal

The deal is now completed. It’s one of the most significant restructurings in payments in years. Here’s what you will not find in the headlines.
 
𝟭. 𝗗𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆
• Global Payments acquired Worldpay for ~$31B (net ~$22.7B):
   - 45% from FIS for $6.6B
   - 55% from GTCR for $24.3B
• FIS acquired 100% of Global Payments' Issuer Solutions for $13.5B
• Announced in April 2025, the deal is officially completed as of 12 January 2026
 
𝟮. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀
• Global Payments Inc.: A top-3 global merchant acquirer and payment tech company
• FIS: A global technology provider in banking, issuer processing, and capital markets
• GTCR: A US private equity firm that acquired a majority stake in Worldpay in 2023
 
𝟯. 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗣𝗮𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀
• Becomes a focused, pure-play merchant solutions player by exiting issuer processing
• Monetizes non-core business (issuing) that lacked scale and synergy
• Closes the e-commerce and enterprise gap, complementing its SMB and software-led model
• Gains scale at a discount - acquiring Worldpay at 8.5× EBITDA, well below peers
• Targets $600M in cost synergies and $200M in new revenue within 3 years
• Expands global reach in underpenetrated markets (Nordics, France, Japan)
• Improves product depth in card-not-present and cross-border
• Creates one of the largest global commerce platforms, processing trillions in annual volume across millions of merchant locations
 
𝟰. 𝗥𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗙𝗜𝗦
• Refocuses on core banking and issuing by exiting merchant acquiring - reversing the Worldpay bet and returning to its strength: serving financial institutions
• Adds credit processing scale, filling a key product gap
• Replaces a minority stake in Worldpay with a cash-generating, recurring revenue stream
• Unlocks $1.6B in cross-sell potential across top 150 global banks
• Strengthens its ability to bundle core banking, digital, risk, and card services
• Targets $150M in EBITDA synergies, with long-term upside
 
𝟱. 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀
• Focus on specialization: Global Payments focuses on merchants, FIS doubles down on financial institutions
• Full‑stack models lose appeal - scale and depth in a single domain now matter more than breadth
• Mid-tier players might face a strategic squeeze: without clear focus or global scale, many will struggle to compete
• M&A momentum: expect more carve-outs and targeted deals as firms streamline
• Embedded finance and issuer scale set the tone: whether you serve merchants or banks, delivering deeply integrated, high-volume capabilities is now the name of the game
•  Competitive pressure on providers lacking either global scale or deep vertical specialisation will increase

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

Is this a structural industry pivot from full-stack to specialization?

Opinions: my own, Graphic sources: Global Payments, FIS
 
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

It is the number one question among digital banks: how do you become profitable? Here’s my take on what actually works.

𝟭. A customer proposition that addresses core 𝗽𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 of traditional banking, across both product and customer experience.

𝟮. 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, leveraging social media and gamification.

𝟯. Low customer acquisition costs combined with high brand awareness, driven by 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 (digital-only, social-media-first, targeted campaigns, search and app-store optimization, rewards, etc.).

𝟰. Payment services are not enough. 𝗟𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 (interest income) is critical for profitability, which is why embedded approaches such as BNPL are especially attractive.

𝟱. The ability to generate 𝗳𝗲𝗲-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 by moving beyond the initial freemium model to a setup that charges transactional, account-based, FX, or penalty fees for value-added services, including subscriptions.

𝟲. A smart 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 that leverages the power of networks from a dual perspective: aggregation and referral (referral fees are a significant revenue driver).

𝟳. An 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆 that aims to build loyalty by creating a one-stop-shop, and subsequently monetizing the additional services (and revenue streams) that evolve around servicing customers on a lifestyle basis (beyond banking: transportation, shopping, dining, telecom, travel, etc.)

𝟴. A focus (and the associated know-how) on servicing dedicated 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝘀 (e.g. wealth management, SMEs), while expanding into adjacent and complementary offerings (e.g. insurance, investments, treasury).

𝟵. Ruthless 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 through operational leverage, automation, straight-through processing, and a technology stack designed to scale marginal costs towards zero.

𝟭𝟬. A clear 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲-𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆, particularly around deposits versus wholesale funding, cost of funds, and liquidity management.

𝟭𝟭. Risk management and 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘄𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, especially in credit, fraud, and AML.
 
𝟭𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 as a competitive advantage, not a constraint: smart jurisdiction choice, passporting, licensing sequencing, and proactive supervisory engagement.

𝟭𝟯. 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀, including clear customer segmentation and the willingness to exit products that fail to meet profitability thresholds.

𝟭𝟰. Organizational structure and 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, with small, empowered teams, clear accountability, and fast decision-making.

Most digital banks don’t fail because they lack ideas.
They fail because they lack a proper profitability play.

Which ones have you seen work in practice?

Opinions: my own, Graphic source: C-Innovation

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Can Open Banking replace cards? And what are the deciding factors?

To answer the question, we need to understand the mechanics behind each model.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝟰-𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹 (𝗩𝗶𝘀𝗮, 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱):

A typical transaction flow would look like this:

𝟭. A third-party (merchant) gateway identifies the right payment network 

𝟮.  The (card) network confirms the customer authorization

𝟯. The network routes the transaction to the customer’s bank (the issuer) for approval 

𝟰. The network does the same with the merchant’s bank (the acquirer)

𝟱.  After the approvals the gateway confirms the transaction

𝟲.  The merchant’s bank settles with the network, whereas payment is done by the customer’s bank

For this middleman role, card networks define access fees (the costs for routing a card payment through their network) and interchange fees that merchants pay to the card issuers. 

The latter can range from 0.3% for credit cards in Europe (there is a cap) and all the way up to 3.5% in the US and Canada (the most expensive in the world).

On the other hand, Open Banking can be a game changer because it connects merchants with consumers in a direct way, without intermediaries: payments are initiated directly from the consumer’s bank account.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹:

𝟭. The customer chooses ‘Pay by bank’ at checkout and selects the bank

𝟮.  The transaction is redirected to the customer’s banking app

𝟯.  The transaction is approved, and the merchant is notified

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴:

• PIS payments cost a fraction of cards, while delivering strong security, smoother UX, and near-instant settlement as real-time schemes scale globally

•  Margin pressure is forcing change. As competition intensifies, merchants are actively looking for cheaper ways to accept and move money

•  Open Banking is powering for the first time in a long period the build-up of a real, additional infrastructure layer that has the potential to influence the entire finance set-up. 

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝘃𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀:

•  Cards don’t just enable payments; they fund rewards, cashback, insurance, and loyalty ecosystems that actively shape consumer behaviour and are hard to sustain on low-margin A2A rails

•  Decades of investment have built a dense card infrastructure - fraud management, disputes, tokenisation, wallets, and seamless checkout - that cannot be replicated easily

•  Cards remain unmatched in global, cross-border, and offline acceptance, while open banking is still largely domestic

•  Strong network effects and consumer habits keep cards embedded in everyday payments

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

What are the lessons learned from Open Banking’s trajectory around the globe so far?

Opinions: my own, Graphic source: Huntswood

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Payments are moving from card numbers to digital access. This is a structural shift: transactions are decoupled from static card details.

Historically, the card number was the mechanism that made payments possible. 

In payments jargon, it's called the PAN (Primary Account Number) - the long number printed on a card:

• A single, static identifier
• Reused across all contexts: online, in-store, subscriptions
• Widely distributed across many intermediaries
• If stolen or exposed once, it can be reused anywhere

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺:
The PAN was designed for a physical, card-present world, not for a digital environment of apps, wallets, and recurring payments.

The answer to this is 𝘁𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: instead of sharing the real card number, payments use a substitute value:

• The original card number is replaced with a token
• The token is used only in specific contexts
• The real card details stay hidden from most parties
• If a token is exposed, it is useless outside its intended scope

Despite its benefits, tokenization still has one big limitation: the payment still depends on the original card number - it’s protected, but not removed from the model.

𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 remove the dependency on a reusable card number, allowing payments to be approved based on rules rather than shared details:

• No single identifier reused across all payments
• Credentials are created for a specific purpose
• Usage can be limited by time or context
• If compromised, the credential can be revoked or expire

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝘀:

Transactions are no longer enabled by passing around a number but by issuing a digital permission for a specific use.

This is why the shift is structural: the card number is no longer the foundation of the transaction.

𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:

• As reusable numbers lose their central role, influence will shift toward issuers, wallets, and platforms.

• Cards won’t disappear, but they will stop being the reference model for digital payments. New payment flows will no longer need to copy card behaviour to fit existing infrastructure.

• When sensitive payment details are handled by fewer parties, merchants and intermediaries will no longer need to store them, and responsibility will move more toward issuers and networks that approve transactions.

• Payment innovation will be freed from the limits of what a card number can represent, enabling products built for subscriptions, embedded payments, and marketplaces.

• Existing payment rails will continue to move money, but the logic that governs how payments are initiated and constrained will shift upward, becoming the primary source of differentiation and competition.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

How are AI and agents influencing this shift?

Opinions: my own, Graphic sources: Wikipedia, P. Kriaris
 
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

It is the biggest debate in banking today: how you integrate AI into the bank. Here is a summary of what works and what doesn’t.

𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸:

𝟭. AI initiatives emerge bottom-up from innovation or IT, with limited business ownership and unclear accountability for outcomes.

𝟮. Success is measured in pilots and demos rather than cost reduction, risk improvement, revenue, or customer impact.

𝟯. GenAI is treated as a silver bullet, driving focus on chatbots and copilots while deeper operational issues remain.

𝟰. AI is applied to isolated tasks instead of rethinking end-to-end processes, producing incremental gains only.

𝟱. Models are designed to inform humans rather than act in workflows, adding review steps instead of removing friction.

𝟲. Use cases are narrow and duplicated across teams, functions, and regions.

𝟳. AI sits outside core banking, payments, and risk platforms, limiting automation and integration.

𝟴. Data quality and ownership are not tested early, so problems emerge during deployment and are patched locally instead of being fixed at the process or source level.

𝟵. Governance and model risk are engaged late, slowing deployment and increasing friction.

𝟭𝟬.  Scaling remains slow and costly due to tight coupling with local processes and systems.

𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗸𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀:

𝟭. AI is tied to clear business priorities, with explicit assumptions on cost, risk, revenue, or service impact.

𝟮. Management owns AI outcomes and are accountable for delivery and value.

𝟯. Processes are simplified first, with AI introduced only where it materially improves outcomes.

𝟰. GenAI is used selectively and combined with rules, classical ML, and decisioning where predictability matters.

𝟱. AI outputs are embedded into workflows with defined human control points.

𝟲. Agent-based approaches are used selectively to coordinate complex processes, not as a universal model.

𝟳. Data improvements are driven by priority use cases, with ownership clarified where it matters.

𝟴. Risk and compliance are involved early to define controls and acceptable boundaries.

𝟵.  Scaling happens by extending proven use cases to similar products or regions, reusing existing models, controls, and integration patterns rather than starting from scratch each time.

𝟭𝟬.  Impact is measured against prior performance, allowing ROI to be quantified and compared to target KPIs.

𝟭𝟭.  AI becomes operational in specific domains rather than a bank-wide transformation narrative.

Opinions: my own, Graphic source: McKinsey & Company

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

This goes beyond digital wallets. The legal action against Apple in the UK is just the tip of the iceberg behind a complex structure spanning platforms, wallets, payments - and who is really in charge.

𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗮 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺:

• Apple Wallet is the built-in wallet on the iPhone, used to store payment cards.

• Apple Pay is the payment service that uses those cards to initiate contactless payments when an iPhone is tapped at a terminal.

• For that tap to work, the iPhone uses NFC, and Apple defines how wallets can access it through the operating system.

• Because Apple Pay is built into iOS, every iPhone tap-to-pay transaction is initiated inside Apple’s software before it reaches the bank or card network.

• Banks issue the cards, move the money and carry fraud risk, but must connect to Apple Pay to reach iPhone users.

• Only after Apple Pay has initiated the transaction does it travel to card networks and then to the merchant’s bank for processing and settlement.
 
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻?

• It means Apple controls the starting point of the transaction, giving it influence over access, rules and economics - even though it never moves the money itself.

• The CMA has previously scrutinised Apple’s role as the iOS platform owner, including its control over NFC access for tap-to-pay.

• The issue is not Apple Pay as a consumer product, but Apple acting as a gatekeeper between users, wallets and the wider payments ecosystem.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁?

• A new £1.5bn UK legal action challenges Apple’s role as the de facto gateway for iPhone contactless payments.

• It argues that banks have no commercially viable alternative but to accept Apple’s wallet terms if they want to reach iPhone users.

• As a result, fees and conditions set at the wallet layer are said to distort competition and spread costs across consumers, including those who do not use Apple Pay.

𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗲’𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

• Apple says Apple Pay is optional and that banks are not forced to participate, arguing that participation reflects demand from iPhone users rather than lack of choice.

• It maintains that it does not charge consumers or merchants, and that any fees paid by banks reflect the value of enabling secure tap-to-pay transactions on iPhones.

• Apple argues that its control of tap-to-pay and NFC access is necessary to maintain security, privacy and system integrity on iOS.

• It points to recent changes allowing third-party wallets to access NFC and offer tap-to-pay functionality on iPhones, following regulatory scrutiny in the UK and EU.

This is a case that will not just test what happens with Apple, but how control at the wallet and device layer is treated across the wider platform economy.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁?

Opinions: my own, Graphics: Codeburst, P. Kriaris

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

It’s the largest bank–fintech acquisition of all time. Capital One buying Brex is not just an M&A deal. Here’s what you won’t find in the headlines.

𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗢𝗻𝗲:

• A major US consumer bank, built for the US scale and structure
 
• Its core strength is mass-market credit: issuing cards and loans at scale and managing risk with exceptional discipline

• Data-driven, highly standardised, compliance-first model

𝗪𝗵𝗼 𝗶𝘀 𝗕𝗿𝗲𝘅:

• A US fintech that runs a software platform to control and automate employee spending

• Built as a vertically integrated platform, combining corporate cards, spend management, and banking into a single system

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲:

• Capital One is acquiring Brex for $5.15bn

• Split in 50% cash and 50% Capital One shares

• $950m in deal, integration, and retention costs over the next three years

• Brex will be integrated into Capital One 

• Closing is expected around mid-2026

𝗖𝗮𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗢𝗻𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲:

• Gets access to a modern business payments and spend platform that would take years to build inside a regulated bank

• Shifts Capital One closer to daily business money flows (payments, spend, accounts)

• Adds software-led distribution and higher engagement with SMEs, beyond traditional lending

• Brex brings a proven operating model for product speed and iteration that complements Capital One’s risk and compliance strengths

𝗕𝗿𝗲𝘅 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲:

• Brex gains access to a large, stable balance sheet and a regulated banking infrastructure, instead of relying on partner banks

• Capital One provides distribution into the mainstream US SME market, beyond startups and tech companies

• Removes funding and regulatory constraints, letting Brex focus on product, platform, and workflow depth 

• Being embedded inside a major bank gives Brex stability: longer time horizons, lower risk tolerance, and room to scale its model more broadly

𝗜𝗻𝗱𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:

• The deal adds to the evidence that build-vs-buy is no longer a real debate for banks

• Software and workflows are becoming more strategic than balance sheets in business banking

• Fintechs that sit in daily money flows are more valuable than those that only optimise financial products

• Regulation and scale still matter - but they now need to be paired with product speed and software depth

• The next phase of fintech consolidation will be about adding capabilities

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

What is the biggest challenge that threatens the value of this deal?

Opinions and graphics: my own

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

What do the latest top fintech equity deals tell us about the state of fintech?

𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻:

•  Investors are buying ownership in a company (vs. debt, credit lines, structured funding, etc). 
•  They back the business itself - not just its activity.
•  They reflect belief in long-term value creation, not short-term volume or balance-sheet growth.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱:

𝟭. Fintech equity capital is concentrating into a small number of companies, with very large rounds replacing broad-based funding. This reflects a market where investors prefer to deepen exposure to perceived winners rather than diversify across many emerging players.

𝟮. The size of these equity rounds reflects a shift: capital is being used to reinforce long-term positioning, e.g. balance sheets, geographic expansion, regulatory capability etc than to fund near-term growth. 

𝟯. Equity is flowing to fintechs embedded in core financial workflows, such as payments, spend management, payroll, wealth, and compliance. These businesses benefit from daily usage, high switching costs, and structural demand, making them easier to underwrite over long horizons.

𝟰. A clear separation is emerging between fintechs that earn money by processing or financing activity, and those that own platforms investors believe will shape how financial services operate long term. Equity capital is flowing almost exclusively to the latter.

𝟱. The prominence of payments and financial infrastructure indicates that investors continue to view these layers as foundational to the digital economy, even as margins compress and competition increases.

𝟲. Crypto-related equity funding is focused on infrastructure and payments-adjacent use cases rather than speculative or consumer-led products, reflecting a more mature focus on practical, real-world use cases across the sector.

𝟳. The mix of rounds suggests investors are funding companies to strengthen their position for the long run - whether that means being ready for public markets, staying private at scale, or becoming credible acquisition targets - rather than pushing for quick exits.

𝟴. Geographic concentration around the US remains strong, but the presence of globally scaled, cross-border platforms highlights continued demand for fintechs that can operate across markets and regulatory regimes.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻:

Are the big-ticket rounds a sign of confidence or a sign of caution for fintech?

Opinions: my own, Graphic sources: CB Insights, Panagiotis Kriaris
 
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

Proud to be part of the Nexus Luxembourg 2026 Discovery Committee.
 
Alongside leading experts, investors and ecosystem builders, I’m supporting the early-stage identification of high-potential startups and scaleups that will apply to the Nexus Startup & Scaleup Competition (10–11 June 2026).
 
The Discovery Committee plays a key role in spotting, recommending and attracting outstanding projects across 10 technology categories, including: 
 
-   Cybersecurity
-   Data & AI 
-   FinTech
-   GovTech
-   Climate Tech
-   Health Tech & Digital Health
-   Industry 4.0
-   Smart Mobility
-   Space Tech
-   Web 3.0, Crypto & Digital Assets
 
If you’re a founder (or know one) building an ambitious startup or scaleup and looking for top-tier visibility, investor access and the opportunity to compete for up to €100,000, feel free to reach out to me or contact Erik Linder to learn more about the application process. 
 
Find out more about the event here: https://lnkd.in/dcB-nNw6 
 
Applications are open — let’s bring the most promising innovators to Nexus Luxembourg.
 
#NexusLuxembourg #Startups #Innovation #Fintech

taplio

Panagiotis Kriaris's Linkedin Analytics