What Tom Matsuda Learned Covering European Fintech’s Darlings

There is a type of journalist whose byline becomes a seal of quality.

Not because they shout the loudest, cultivate some opulent public moniker, or confuse access with insight, more so because they develop a predilection for the place where the polished story starts to come apart.

Tom Matsuda became that kind of presence in European fintech. Not susceptible to the usual industry parole about “category creation” and all that jazz.

During his time at Sifted, Tom surfaced Revolut’s China plans, charted Monzo’s internal boardroom convulsions, and broke news on GoCardless’ acquisition intentions, all while turning the Sifted fintech newsletter into required reading for more than 35,000 subscribers.

We sat down with Tom to talk about what fintech still gets wrong, where the real stories tend to hide, and what years spent covering a sector long treated as one of Europe’s crown jewels have taught him about power, ambition, and perception.

Q&A

Q: First of all, what now, with Sifted in the rear-view?

A: I’m focused on building an independent journalism and consulting practice, and I want to be deliberate about what that looks like. After years of working inside the rhythm of a newsroom, going independent means I can focus on stories outside of the daily news cycle and explore different forms of reporting such as in audio and video journalism.

There are also stories I’ve had on the back burner that I’m now able to pursue.

Alongside the reporting, I’ll be continuing to develop my work as a moderator. In 2025 I moderated panel discussions at Money 20/20, Sifted Summit and Slush, and next month I’ll be at FIBE in Berlin. It’s a part of my work I really enjoy, particularly when I get to meet founders, investors and operators on the ground.

Q: You have spent years covering a sector long treated as one of Europe’s crown jewels. What does fintech still get wrong about itself?

A: The sector still brands itself as a disruptor, and in many ways, compared to 100-year-old incumbent banks, fintechs still are. But I think that framing obscures how “in the room” fintech now actually is. All the major UK neobanks hold banking licences. Fintechs regularly share conference stages with the institutions they once positioned themselves against. Top-level politicians are keenly aware of fintech’s economic significance — Rachel Reeves was reportedly one of the key voices advocating for Revolut’s full banking licence, and posted on LinkedIn to celebrate when it came through last week.

The risk of clinging to disruptor language when you’re now systemically significant is that it creates a blind spot around accountability. The scrutiny that comes with scale tends to catch companies off guard when they’ve spent years telling a different story about themselves.

Q: Your reporting has ranged from expansion plans and acquisitions to boardroom tension and internal friction. Where do the real stories in fintech usually hide?

A: Often in the details that companies don’t put in their press releases. It could be a cluster of senior departures in a short window or a line buried in a set of Companies House accounts. These tend to precede something, and they’re there if you know where to look and take the time to look for them.

The other piece is contacts across different levels of seniority. A well-placed contact who trusts you can open up a story that no amount of document-hunting would surface on its own. The real skill is maintaining those relationships consistently, not just when you need something.

Q: Founders often want coverage, but not always scrutiny. What do they most commonly misunderstand about how journalists think and work?

A: A lot of founders treat press coverage as an extension of their fundraising narrative — another channel for communicating the story they’re already telling investors. That means they can be surprised when a journalist starts asking questions about the business model, the path to profitability, or the gap between the public positioning and what the numbers actually show.

The misconception underneath that is that scrutiny is adversarial. It doesn’t have to be, and frankly, some of the most-read stories I’ve written have been straightforwardly positive. But scrutiny is what makes coverage credible, and therefore worth having. The founders who understand that tend to have the best long-term relationships with journalists, precisely because they’re not trying to manage the story at every turn.

Q: You have reported on companies at moments when the public narrative and the internal reality were not always perfectly aligned. How do you get past the managed story and closer to the truth?

A: Mostly it comes down to time and trust built over the long term. What matters is maintaining relationships with sources across the industry so that when something significant happens, they know you’ll treat what they share with care and discretion.

The other part is cross-referencing. There’s often a discrepancy in what a company tells you publicly, what its filings show and what the market is signalling. Identifying those gaps is usually where the real story is.

Q: Now that you are stepping out on your own, what kinds of stories are you most drawn to, and what do you suspect the wider tech conversation is still missing?

A: I’ve always followed the mantra that you should always “follow the money” when it comes to journalism — which is part of the reason why I’ve covered fintech for so long. As an independent journalist, I’m particularly interested in applying that lens to stories and experiences that aren’t often viewed through that perspective. These are going to be stories that cut across culture, business and technology rather than staying in one lane.

As for what the wider tech conversation is missing: the ecosystem can be a bubble. Tech companies are developing technologies that could fundamentally shift culture, economics and human behaviour — but the coverage often treats those developments as primarily a business story, written for the people already in the room. I want to report stories that bring those shifts to a broader audience.