Fuse CEO Alan Chang on Revolut, Energy and Building at Speed

Fuse Energy cofounder Alan Chang discusses building Revolut, his demanding management philosophy and his plans for energy with Harry Stebbings. Chang speaks as Fuse CEO and retains Revolut shares; Stebbings says he wants to buy Revolut shares and regrets not investing in Fuse. Company metrics and energy claims are not independently verified in the interview.

Stebbings explains that Chang helped him hire a chief of staff. Chang recalls applying to Revolut after seeing a London startups Facebook post: Nik Storonsky replied in five minutes, interviewed him the next day and offered him a role after asking physics questions.

At the time, Chang says, the full-time team was Storonsky, Vlad Yatsenko and two engineers. His operations analyst role initially meant customer support. He recalls the team working evenings and weekends in a coworking space and says Storonsky’s ambition to build a bank on the scale of JPMorgan impressed him.

Looking back at Revolut, Monzo and N26, Chang attributes his former employer’s advantage to ambition and execution speed rather than a uniquely differentiated early product roadmap. This is his retrospective assessment, not evidence isolating the cause of their different outcomes.

For speed, he favors small independent teams with clear goals: monitor the results, leave successful teams alone and replace teams that do not perform. He describes Storonsky’s distinction between people who find their own targets, those who execute a target given to them, and those who do neither.

Chang says he intensified the get-it-done culture at Fuse and told his team that a previous year’s execution was four out of ten because projects shipped too slowly. He says even a leading company should review what it could have done better.

He recalls using an extreme hypothetical to ask whether employees could have done more. When Stebbings raises family and work-life balance, Chang says people who want a conventional schedule should not join Fuse. His claim that exceptional companies require this level of intensity is a personal management view, not a proven rule.

Chang says Revolut’s refusal to settle on speed and quality influenced him. At Fuse he favors a single cultural value, “never settle,” but agrees that leaders should choose their battles and be most demanding on critical roles rather than treating every decision alike.

His largest disagreement with Storonsky concerned overuse of KPIs. Metrics can show team health, he says, but tying bonuses to them creates incentives to game them. For example, a recruiter paid for the number of hires might pressure managers to lower their hiring standards.

Chang credits product diversification for resilience during pandemic lockdowns: he says card spending revenue fell while trading revenue rose. He agrees Revolut should have pursued a banking license earlier and believes diversification could have happened alongside a license; these are his accounts of company strategy.

Chang argues regulators can be risk-averse because the personal consequences of failure exceed rewards for success. Stebbings says incumbent banks are aware of Revolut but constrained by their structures; he discloses that he is trying to buy shares. Both views reflect the speakers’ interests and are not a regulatory assessment.

Asked whether a startup needs an enemy, Chang prefers a common goal. At Fuse he frames that as providing abundant, affordable and lower-carbon energy without asking people to accept reduced living standards. That goal reflects the company’s commercial strategy, not a demonstrated outcome.

Chang claims Americans use far more energy and have a better quality of life than Europeans. Stebbings challenges the comparison by pointing to consumer debt and food quality. The interview does not substantiate the energy ratio or resolve how quality of life should be measured.

Chang says an energy crisis already exists and points to rising prices and volatility. Stebbings cites an infrastructure provider’s reported comparison of UK and other energy costs; the anecdote lacks a disclosed sample and should not be treated as a general industry estimate.

Chang blames high UK costs on restrictions on building and older operators’ technology. He describes Fuse having to conduct winter bird surveys before a power project could proceed, and says investors want to fund infrastructure. His account is a developer’s perspective and the interview does not evaluate the environmental purpose or statutory requirements of those surveys.

He says the US has similar obstacles but considers Texas easier to build in. His characterization varies by location and does not establish a comparative regulatory analysis.

Chang emphasizes that solar and wind output vary over time and that storage and transmission impose constraints. He argues renewable tariffs backed by certificates do not mean every hour of consumption is physically supplied by renewables; his blanket claim that all “100% renewable” tariffs are lies is disputed characterization, not an independent audit of each tariff.

As an example of grid constraints, he says some Scottish wind generation is curtailed when power cannot reach demand centers. He also contends current batteries are expensive for storing energy across days or weeks; the interview does not provide a cost study or compare all storage technologies.

Asked about policy, Chang proposes making physical construction easier and removing energy subsidies, arguing costs fall on consumers. This is a policy preference from an energy company CEO; the conversation does not analyze subsidy design, environmental impacts or alternatives.

He identifies China as a model for building generation and grid infrastructure and cites international electricity price and construction figures. The units and comparisons in the interview are unclear, and the claims are not independently verified; his argument is that China builds across multiple energy sources.

Chang says UK universities produce strong talent, while he is pessimistic about current policy and optimistic about the longer term if future governments reform regulation. Stebbings questions that distinction. Their political assessments and predictions are opinions, not evidence of election results or future reforms.

On hiring, Chang describes looking for candidates who respond enthusiastically to Fuse’s ambitions and demanding workload. He dislikes long résumés and prefers concise evidence; these are his screening preferences, not validated measures of aptitude or a universal résumé rule.

He says Fuse identifies required skills, assigns experienced staff to assess them separately, and grades candidates on coding, system design, problem-solving and culture. For backend roles, candidates can use their preferred language even though the company uses Python.

Chang says Fuse offers roles to candidates above its threshold, but adjusts compensation to interview grades rather than fixed pay bands. He describes paying exceptional candidates well above their current compensation to make the offer compelling. Interview scores and compensation practices are company claims, not proof of fair or predictive assessment.

He says underperformance can become apparent within one or two months and describes verbal warnings rather than formal performance-improvement plans. He says he once overvalued intelligence relative to caring deeply about the mission; these are his management choices, not evidence about what works for all employees.

Chang says he explains the difficulty and demands of the job and asks candidates why they want it. He treats an enthusiastic response as a favorable signal while acknowledging people can misrepresent their intentions. Stebbings asks whether a candidate’s title expectations should matter; Chang says leadership titles have been earned through performance and promotion.

Chang recalls a story Storonsky sent him about responsibility at different levels of management. He uses it to argue that leaders should own outcomes rather than offer excuses. The anecdote is his account; its lesson is a management stance, not proof that all failures are within a leader’s control.

Stebbings worries that blunt criticism might drive away strong employees. Chang says he initially resisted similar feedback but later found it useful, and believes high performers absorb criticism and improve. The two differ on how best to support employees; neither offers evidence that harshness is universally effective.

Chang advocates a truth-seeking culture and says he stops investing in repeated feedback when someone does not improve. Asked about a fear-based culture, he says employees must be able to disagree and describes challenging Storonsky’s ideas. His account does not establish how all staff experience the workplace.

Rather than picking a single strategic move, Chang says Revolut needed to pursue many opportunities. Stebbings observes that this contradicts conventional advice to focus. Chang argues that hiring more strong leaders can increase the number of parallel workstreams a company can pursue.

He prefers giving capable leaders clear targets and monitoring outcomes rather than closely managing every step. He says Fuse chose Canary Wharf partly for expandable office space and partly because he sees fewer social distractions there.

Chang says he expects weekend work and believes strong work ethic is necessary to compete against large energy incumbents with more capital. This is his stated expectation and belief; the interview does not establish that long hours are necessary or sustainable for all workers.

He recounts building an initial full-stack energy operation with about $1 million: a Scottish wind turbine, a license, an adviser compensated with equity, and a cofounder who qualified in energy trading and electrical work. The figures and arrangements are his account, not independently verified.

Chang argues founders do not always need a large seed round to begin, though he agrees they can raise one if available. Stebbings says he regrets not investing in Fuse and discusses a token component that made the early financing harder for him to evaluate.

They recall an early funding round involving Balderton and both equity and tokens. Chang says he accepted an oral agreement even after another investor offered a higher price. He regrets agreeing too quickly, but says he honored the original commitment; the stated valuation and terms are not independently verified.

Stebbings cites a recent $70 million round at a $5 billion valuation. Chang responds that Fuse has over $400 million in annualized revenue, then distinguishes financial-year revenue: £2 million in year one, £20 million in year two, and a projection above £200 million for the current year. Annualized revenue is a run rate, not necessarily revenue already earned; none of these figures is independently audited here.

Chang says the following year’s business plan targets growth far below tenfold, approximately fivefold, while the team will aim higher. He identifies hiring quality engineers as the main barrier. The growth figures are targets and predictions, not achieved results.

He says he likes hiring Eastern European engineers because of what he perceives as technical education and work ethic. This is his generalization about a group, not evidence that individuals’ ability or effort can be inferred from origin.

Chang describes money as a means to an end after meeting personal consumption needs. He says he sold only enough Revolut shares for personal spending and remains optimistic about the company. His suggestion it could become worth $1 trillion is a forecast made by someone with a financial interest.

He says wealth can buy time through assistance and more comfortable travel, while raising questions about friendships. He reports that existing friends have continued to treat him the same way. These are personal experiences, not a general outcome of wealth.

Stebbings expresses regret that he did not invest in several founders he met early. Chang ranks timing ahead of talent and luck, arguing Fuse and Revolut depended on changes in energy systems and financial licensing. These are retrospective judgments about causation.

Chang calls leaving Revolut his hardest career decision and recalls Storonsky repeatedly asking whether he was sure. He says Storonsky invested in Fuse’s recent round, a relationship relevant to their discussion. Stebbings says he still wishes to invest.

As CEO, Chang says he gives other leaders the chance to choose problems, leaving himself less freedom to work deeply on engineering and hardware. He compares Fuse’s ambition with Shell and says Fuse could one day be larger; these are aspirations, while the cited Shell financial figures are not checked in the interview.

He says Fuse would likely choose a US listing if it ever went public, but sees no present need while private markets offer liquidity. He says the company wants employees to have some opportunities to sell shares. Neither comment is a commitment to an IPO or guarantee of employee liquidity.

Chang closes with his aspiration for power so affordable and abundant that builders need not treat it as a constraint. The interview ends with Stebbings thanking him and again noting his interest in investing.