Fintechs Make Bank Risk Invisible
Immad Akhund, CEO of Mercury, on the business models of fintechs vs. banks
This shifts bank selection from a founder task into a product trust problem. Mercury is selling peace of mind as much as checking accounts. The customer wants one login, one routing number, and clear rules for where cash sits. The neobank has to hide the plumbing, spread deposits across partner banks, explain FDIC coverage in plain language, and keep payroll moving even if one sponsor bank fails.
-
Mercury’s setup was built so users do not have to manually split money across banks. Funds land in one account, then a sweep network reallocates balances across partner banks through FBO accounts to extend FDIC coverage. That makes safety an interface feature, not a treasury workflow each startup has to manage.
-
A wider bank network matters less as a visible moat than as hidden resilience. In 2023 Mercury said it had Evolve and Choice and could move customers to another bank within minutes if one had issues. By 2024 and 2025, Mercury was migrating away from Evolve toward Choice and Column after regulatory pressure at Evolve.
-
This is also where fintechs differ from banks. Mercury earns mainly from sharing deposit economics with partner banks, plus cards, wires, FX, and venture debt, while avoiding direct asset liability risk. That lets it focus on software, onboarding, and cash management workflows, where founders actually feel the product day to day.
The next step is even tighter control over the banking layer. The market is moving from loose bank partnerships toward deeper, more integrated sponsor bank relationships, and eventually toward fintechs owning more of the charter stack themselves. The winners will be the ones that make bank risk feel invisible, while still staying operationally portable underneath.