•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For a brief window on Friday, some Revolut users reported seeing Bitcoin trade for around $0.02 in the app, according to screenshots. This was far below the broader market context, with BTC trading near $79,000 at the time.
Revolut’s own BTC chart reportedly glitched, briefly marking price around £29,414 before snapping back toward £58,600—an approximately 50% intraday drop on Revolut’s internal feed. The incident occurred on a day when external markets were described as calm.
CoinDesk said it could not independently verify the near-zero prints or confirm whether any actual trades executed at those levels. CoinDesk also reported that Revolut had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. Users on X claimed some buy orders filled during the window, but those claims were not independently confirmed.
Even beyond the two-cent screenshots, the “milder” chart swing—about £58,600 down to £29,414 and then recovering—was described as a sharp disconnect from other market data. The day before, BTC was trading near $81,000.
The article argues that the issue may fall into one of three categories, given Revolut’s role as a neobank with a crypto feature rather than a full-stack exchange venue.
Revolut had not indicated which of these scenarios applied to Friday’s incident, according to the article. The distinction matters because a cosmetic error is different from a system error that routes orders at incorrect prices.
The article notes that the incident has greater significance because Revolut operates at large scale: it has more than 70 million customers across 140 countries, reported £3.1 billion (about $3.9 billion) in revenue in 2024, and processed over £1 trillion (roughly $1.25 trillion) in transactions.
It also highlights a challenging regulatory backdrop. Italy fined Revolut €11 million (about $12 million) in April for unfair commercial practices, and Lithuania imposed another €3.5 million (about $3.8 million) over anti-money-laundering failures. The article further points to the EU’s MiCA-style cryptoasset rules and the U.K. FCA regimes coming online into 2027, with an emphasis on consumer protection and operational resilience.
In this context, the article describes such incidents as “ammunition” for regulators seeking tougher testing, kill-switches, and capital or conduct requirements for app-layer trading products.
The article argues that the key lesson is that platform risk can be separate from market risk. A trader can be directionally correct on Bitcoin yet still be harmed if an intermediary has data-feed issues, mis-routes orders, or cancels fills after the fact.
It says this risk is higher on platforms that:
Revolut is described as fitting this profile, with a “slick UX” built on top of opaque infrastructure. The article also suggests that the divergence between Revolut’s chart and the rest of the market implies the event was Revolut-specific rather than a structural crypto flash crash, with price integrity reportedly intact on major exchanges and ETF venues.
It concludes that sophisticated users increasingly segregate execution and custody—using venues built for execution and specialists for custody—while app-layer convenience is used for smaller balances or lower-risk activity.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
