Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
September 14, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure

On September 12, 2026, BRICS leaders met in New Delhi for the 18th BRICS Summit and backed further work connecting national payment and financial messaging systems. The New Delhi Declaration confirms that the BRICS Payment Task Force has been studying cross border interoperability and the use of local currencies for trade settlement and investment.
BRICS hasn't yet created a common payment network or digital currency. However, payment interoperability has moved into an official technical workstream rather than remaining a series of proposals from individual members.
The progression has been fairly quick. India proposed stronger payment and central bank digital currency connectivity in January. In August, Reserve Bank of India Governor Sanjay Malhotra confirmed that members were discussing links between fast payment systems and central bank digital currencies. The September declaration gives the Payment Task Force a formal basis to continue that work across the bloc.
The commercial backdrop has also changed significantly since we last covered the 2023 BRICS summit. The group has expanded, supply chains have been rerouted, trade relationships have become more politically charged and tariffs are again influencing where companies manufacture and sell. BRICS now accounts for nearly one quarter of global trade, while intra BRICS merchandise trade reached US$1.17 trillion in 2024.
For banks, payment companies and fintechs, that scale changes the economics of interoperability. Existing domestic payment systems already process enormous volumes. Connecting more of those systems across borders could affect routing, settlement costs and access to large emerging markets without waiting for a new monetary system to be built.
The declaration focuses on systems that members already operate. The Payment Task Force has studied interoperability between payment and messaging channels and discussed using BRICS currencies for trade and investment. Leaders want further work on cross border payments that are faster, cheaper and easier to access while remaining secure.
India brings considerable operating scale to that discussion. Its Unified Payments Interface processes more than 250 billion transactions annually and is accepted in 11 countries. Other BRICS members have their own domestic payment rails. Connecting those systems can be faster than designing a single BRICS network from scratch.
A merchant payment could still require foreign exchange and liquidity between two currencies. Banks would still need compliance controls, and somebody has to settle the transaction. Interoperability can reduce some of the handoffs between institutions without making those functions disappear.
Local currency settlement can develop alongside those links. A company trading between India and another BRICS economy may eventually have more ways to invoice or settle without routing every transaction through a third currency. That can remove a conversion in some transactions, although the underlying currencies still carry exchange rate risk.
Russia has pushed back against describing every BRICS payment initiative as an attempt to abandon the U.S. dollar. More payment choices and greater use of domestic currencies don't require members to stop using dollars where the economics favour them.
The New Development Bank is pursuing a related approach through financing. BRICS leaders want it to expand lending in local currencies and diversify its funding. Borrowers that can raise money in the same currency as their revenues may face less foreign exchange exposure.
Payments can't be separated from what is happening to trade. The New Delhi Declaration warns that rising tariffs and other unilateral trade measures can reduce global trade, disrupt supply chains and add uncertainty for businesses. BRICS finance ministers made the same point before the summit, criticizing unilateral trade and financial measures and calling for more coordination among member economies.
The pressure is visible in 2026. The United States imposed a new 25% tariff on selected Brazilian exports in July, covering billions of dollars in goods. Brazil said it would pursue alternative markets if access to the U.S. became more difficult. India has also taken a harder line in U.S. trade negotiations while expanding commercial ties with Europe and other markets.
China offers another lesson. Companies spent years moving manufacturing into Southeast Asia and India to reduce exposure to U.S. tariffs, yet some are now returning production to China because supplier networks, skilled labour and operating efficiency remain difficult to reproduce elsewhere. Tariffs can redirect investment, but they don't erase the economics of established supply chains.
BRICS members are responding by trying to strengthen trade within the bloc. India has called for more open markets, simpler customs procedures and deeper supply chain links. Intra BRICS merchandise trade has grown thirteenfold since 2003, reaching US$1.17 trillion in 2024.
Payment connectivity becomes more valuable as those trade relationships deepen. A Brazilian exporter selling into India, or an Indian company sourcing from China, benefits more from direct payment links when the underlying commercial relationship is large enough to support liquidity and repeat transactions.
For Canada and other economies heavily exposed to the U.S. market, the development is worth watching. Tariffs are pushing governments and companies to diversify customers, suppliers and financing relationships. BRICS is building payment and trade links across many of the markets companies may increasingly look to as alternatives.
Central bank digital currencies remain much less developed as a BRICS payment option. Members operate at different stages of CBDC research, testing and deployment, making a common technical model harder than connecting established fast payment systems.
Sanjay Malhotra, Governor, Reserve Bank of India:
"Various options are on the table, but it is still at discussion stage, including CBDCs and linkages of fast payment systems."
The September declaration didn't announce a CBDC pilot or identify central banks that will participate in one. There is no shared rulebook for settlement, liquidity or foreign exchange conversion and no governance structure for a BRICS CBDC network.
Fast payment links can progress without solving all of those problems at once. A connection between two existing national systems can use currencies and regulated institutions that already operate in each market. Additional bilateral links could later connect into a larger network if members agree on common technical and regulatory rules.
BRICS may therefore develop as a collection of connected domestic systems rather than one centralized network. Fintechs could compete in routing, FX, merchant payments and technical connectivity without waiting for a common BRICS currency.
NCFA has seen a similar commercial principle in other markets as direct access to payment rails expands. More direct access can give fintechs greater control over costs and service delivery, provided the regulatory and operating requirements still support a sustainable business.
Traditional correspondent banking often sends a cross border payment through several institutions before it reaches the recipient. Each participant can add time, cost and another reconciliation step. Direct connections between national payment systems could shorten some routes, particularly where participating banks already have liquidity in both currencies.
Payment companies could help merchants reach new markets, while fintechs build routing and FX services around connected domestic rails. Banks would still provide settlement and liquidity. Wider access also brings more responsibility around operating controls, fraud and compliance, an issue we reviewed in payment network access and control.
BRICS is also examining connections between securities settlement and depositary systems. Technical discussions have looked at differences between member markets, while the proposed New Investment Platform remains under development. Compatible payment and securities systems could eventually reduce friction in both trade and investment flows.
Established global payment networks and correspondent banks aren't disappearing. They have deep liquidity, global reach and mature compliance systems. BRICS members are trying to create additional routes alongside them, which can increase bargaining power and give businesses more choices when tariffs, sanctions or geopolitical disputes interrupt established channels.
The commercial impact will become visible once transactions go live. A direct connection between two major systems can be measured through settlement time, FX cost and merchant adoption. Several working links could eventually create a meaningful network across BRICS economies.
BRICS doesn't need a common currency to change cross border finance. The bloc already represents nearly a quarter of global trade, and tariffs are giving members another reason to diversify payment and trading relationships. If national rails begin connecting at scale, fintechs, banks and merchants gain more ways to transact outside traditional correspondent routes. The proof will be lower costs, faster settlement and sustained transaction volume once those links go live.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 14, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Artificial Intelligence And Data

On September 14, 2026, Paris-baesed digital asset firm Kaiko raised US$110 million in a Series B extension led by S&P Global. RBC joined BNP Paribas, Nasdaq Ventures, Bpifrance, Broadridge, Coinbase Ventures, DRW Venture Capital, Canton Foundation, Stellar and Susquehanna Private Equity Investments. Existing shareholders Anthemis, Point Nine and Revaia also participated.
Kaiko plans to invest the capital in its market data business and services for onchain capital markets. Its coverage spans more than 150 exchanges and protocols, with data used for pricing, trading, valuation, risk, surveillance and benchmarks.
S&P Global, RBC, Nasdaq, BNP Paribas and Broadridge bring something beyond capital. They operate businesses that depend on reliable prices, benchmarks, market data and institutional distribution. Their investment gives Kaiko deeper relationships with firms that could also become customers, partners or distribution channels as tokenized securities and digital assets enter more institutional products.
S&P Global was already working with Kaiko before leading the round. On September 1, S&P Dow Jones Indices and Kaiko launched the S&P Kaiko Digital Asset Indices, bringing more than 4,000 rates and indices into one suite. Kaiko provides digital asset data, calculation and connectivity across more than 150 exchanges, while S&P DJI brings benchmark administration, licensing and global distribution.
The relationship also reaches tokenized traditional assets. Earlier work brought the iBoxx U.S. Treasuries Index onto the Canton Network, giving onchain applications access to an established fixed income benchmark. S&P is therefore investing in a company it already uses across digital asset pricing, benchmark production and onchain data delivery.
RBC's participation puts a major Canadian bank alongside global exchanges, banks, data firms and digital asset investors backing Kaiko's expansion.
A tokenized bond or fund still needs a defensible price. Banks and asset managers also need reference rates, liquidity data and valuations that can flow into trading, collateral, risk, reporting and settlement systems across digital asset markets. Those requirements become harder when assets trade across multiple exchanges, blockchains and around the clock.
Institutional adoption is already growing in tokenized collateral and cash markets, where pricing, valuation and settlement quality directly affect whether products can scale.
Kaiko provides market data feeds, analytics, indices, pricing and monitoring tools. Its onchain services can also deliver licensed data directly into blockchain applications. That gives the company exposure to several parts of the market without depending entirely on crypto trading volumes.
The investors will participate in a Strategic Industry Working Group chaired by Kaiko and focused on data for tokenized capital markets. Nothing formal has been disclosed yet but there will be lots at the table including banks, exchanges, financial data firms, blockchain networks and market technology providers with different requirements for pricing and using tokenized assets.
So what does this mean for traditional data companies? Building digital asset expertise internally takes time, specialist market knowledge and direct connections to fragmented venues. Investing in firms such as Kaiko can give established providers access to those capabilities while they contribute distribution, benchmark credibility and institutional clients.
Coin Metrics competes for institutional market, network and reference data. Lukka is strong in valuation, accounting and audit data. CoinDesk Data competes in digital asset benchmarks and market information. Bloomberg and LSEG have much larger enterprise distribution and can add digital asset products to platforms already embedded inside banks and investment firms.
Kaiko brings deep digital asset expertise in pricing, benchmarks and institutional data. S&P's investment can help Kaiko reach more financial institutions, but it also highlights the competition. Large data companies already have the customers, distribution and capital to partner with specialists, buy them or build similar capabilities themselves.
Kaiko will need more revenue from indices, tokenized assets and enterprise data if it wants to rely less on crypto trading activity. The working group only becomes strategically beneficial if it leads to products, common data practices or stronger links into existing financial systems.
S&P Global isn't just buying exposure to crypto growth. It is backing specialist data capability it already uses. If tokenized markets scale, reliable pricing and benchmarks may be one of the harder and more valuable pieces for financial institutions to recreate themselves.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 5, 2026 | Last Updated Sep 14, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Digital Identity And Trust, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Digital Banking And BaaS, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Cross Border Payments And FX, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Embedded Finance, Insurance And Insurtech, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Regulation And Policy, Data Privacy And Governance

Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026, March 7-13, 2026, March 14-20, 2026, March 21-27, 2026, March 28-April 3, 2026, April 4-10, 2026, April 11-17, 2026, April 18-24, 2026, April 25-May 1, 2026, May 2-8, 2026, May 9-15, 2026, May 16-22, 2026, May 23-29, 2026, May 30-June 5, 2026, June 6-12, 2026, June 13-19, 2026, June 20-26, 2026, June 27-July 3, 2026, July 4-July 10, 2026, July 11-July 17, 2026, July 18-24, 2026, July 25-July 31 2026, August 1-August 7, 2026, August 8-August 14, 2026, August 15-August 21, 2026, August 22-August 28, 2026, August 29-September 4, 2026).
Connecting an AI assistant to dozens of live systems gives it more operational authority than a standard support bot. Similar payment operations agents are already appearing elsewhere in India, making permissions, authentication and audit records increasingly important as AI reaches deeper into merchant finance.
Agentic commerce needs more than an AI model and a payment button. As agentic commerce expands, merchants need controlled ways to expose products, pricing and payment permissions across many agents without building a separate connection for each one.
AI is moving into the work that happens before a small business credit decision, including financial review, borrower interviews and due diligence. The growing use of agentic AI under regulatory scrutiny makes traceability and human responsibility increasingly important as lenders automate more of the assessment process.
Advisor AI is moving beyond notes and summaries into work that touches client records, KYC and planning systems. The deeper Focal AI analysis looks at where productivity gains meet consent, recordkeeping and advisor accountability as agents begin acting across regulated workflows.
Core providers are becoming a more explicit supervisory control point for community banks. Technology vendors need implementation quality, contract terms, operational controls and regulatory cooperation to withstand scrutiny because provider conduct can now feed directly into supervisory and enforcement decisions.
Chime is trying to own the regulated banking capacity behind a relationship it has spent years building through a partner. Its recent expansion into investing and workplace distribution shows why owning more of the banking economics underneath the account could become increasingly valuable if the acquisition closes.
The licence gives Unlimit another regulated access point for cross border payment distribution in Asia Pacific. For merchants and fintechs expanding regionally, the operating value comes from combining local payment channels with one provider rather than building separate regulated connections in each market.
Stablecoins still need banks and local payout rails at the edges of the transaction. The Tazapay deal shows Circle buying those connections rather than building each market one at a time, bringing more of the route between USDC and domestic payment systems inside the company.
Capital treatment determines how expensive it is for banks to hold or support crypto exposures. The final rules now become part of Canada's wider stablecoin and digital asset regulatory regime, giving institutions a firmer basis for deciding which activities are economically viable inside prudential capital and liquidity controls.
Switzerland is testing one digital franc instrument across banks, payments and capital markets rather than keeping each use case separate. It is still a sandbox, but bringing SIX and TWINT into the same test gives the work more weight. Commercial use will depend on what survives the tests and how participating institutions agree to use it.
Fuze now has a supervised operating position in another major financial centre. The Swiss entry gives institutional clients another provider for regulated crypto and stablecoin services while keeping settlement connected to established banking systems. The approval is financial intermediary status, not a Swiss banking licence.
AI agents cannot transact widely if every payment network identifies them differently. The work directly connects to the emerging questions around consent and liability in AI payments, where identity, authorization and responsibility need to travel with the agent across payment systems.
Digital identity now has a clearer route into everyday U.S. bank onboarding. Banks can use government issued mobile credentials without waiting for a new KYC rule, giving identity providers and financial institutions more room to replace document checks with verifiable digital credentials while keeping existing compliance responsibility intact.
The implementation shows what open banking looks like when standards become operating infrastructure inside bank technology. It also provides a useful comparator for Canada's Open Banking intelligence, where secure API access, consent controls and interoperability remain central implementation questions.
Digital wallets are becoming more useful when customers can take them beyond their home market. Mastercard is giving independent wallet providers common ways to reach contactless, QR and online acceptance without each provider building those connections alone. With multiple wallet operators already participating, Wallet Pay adds another route for local wallets to compete across borders.
Swift's ledger is gaining practical use across more banks, currencies and payment windows. Bringing Singapore's three domestic banks into live SGD transactions adds a local interbank use case to the cross border and weekend payments already completed. For banks and treasury teams, the value will depend on how routinely that shared capability can be used outside conventional processing hours.
A large regulated bank has connected a proprietary stablecoin to the control systems it already uses for real money movement. The important test now is whether USBDC progresses from an internal live transaction into recurring treasury, liquidity or client payment activity where 24/7 settlement changes how the bank manages value across borders.
PhonePe is pulling more card functions into the wallet interface, from contactless acceptance to international QR payments. That fits a wider pattern of payment networks opening access while retaining control over the rules, credentials and infrastructure underneath each transaction.
A regulated local stablecoin is now being tested through payment terminals merchants already use. That is the type of transition behind the question of whether stablecoins are becoming payment infrastructure: digital money entering ordinary merchant acceptance rather than remaining inside crypto trading venues.
Settlement requirements can keep smaller or lower rated institutions out of global card networks even when customer demand exists. IFC is using guarantees to absorb part of that risk, giving more banks and fintechs a practical route into international payment infrastructure without requiring the networks to carry the full exposure themselves.
Jaywan already had merchant acceptance in the UAE. The new evidence is distribution through Mastercard Gateway, which gives the domestic scheme a larger e-commerce route and makes it easier for merchants to support Jaywan alongside international cards through one setup.
UPI is extending beyond India by connecting familiar consumer payment apps directly into foreign merchant acceptance. The first Singapore deployment is already live, while the larger opportunity is distribution through FOMO Pay's merchant network without asking Indian users to change how they pay.
A wallet that works locally becomes much more useful when it can travel. TerraPay is connecting existing African wallet networks to a global merchant network without requiring each wallet provider to build separate acceptance relationships market by market. That gives local wallets a larger role in cross border commerce.
Stablecoin cards still need working capital behind the payment. Visa is using live settlement data to help lenders finance that gap and automate repayment from settlement flows. If the model spreads, onchain credit could become part of the everyday funding machinery behind card programs rather than a separate crypto lending market.
NymCard is assembling more of the regulated payments stack under one platform. Final approval would give banks and enterprises another infrastructure provider able to combine issuing, money movement, open finance and stored value services without splitting those functions across as many vendors.
Direct scheme access gives Viva.com more control over local payment acceptance than a standard processor integration. It also shows how a cross border bank can expand across Europe by connecting directly to domestic payment rails instead of treating the region as one uniform payments market.
Weekend settlement makes 24/7 tokenised deposits more useful for treasury, not just payments. Companies can move cash across entities and markets when they need it instead of waiting for banks in another time zone to reopen. The next test is whether this becomes a routine treasury service across more banks and currencies.
Mortgage lenders now have a firm implementation date for multiple credit scoring models inside FHA underwriting. That creates a delivery deadline for credit data, automated underwriting, lender workflows and model governance while reducing reliance on a single legacy scoring model.
Credit score competition is moving into mainstream mortgage origination rather than remaining a controlled rollout. Lenders can now choose VantageScore 4.0 across eligible Fannie and Freddie loans, putting more pressure on scoring providers, credit bureaus and underwriting systems to support multiple models at production scale.
Pye gives borrowers a way to compare lender access from one application while lenders compete inside the same digital distribution point. If adoption grows, the model could change who controls customer acquisition in retail credit, especially where merchants and software platforms embed borrowing directly into the purchase or service experience.
The fund connects tokenization with an existing financing problem rather than creating a digital asset in isolation. NCFA's tokenization analysis tracks the same transition from issuance experiments toward measurable financial products and operating infrastructure.
This is a material follow on to the Nasdaq and Payward relationship announced in March. NCFA’s xStocks analysis tracks how Payward has been building distribution, brokerage connections and tokenized equity infrastructure. Nasdaq is now adding capital and surveillance technology to that relationship.
Stablecoin capital is entering private credit at institutional scale. StableFund also connects two markets NCFA has been tracking separately: private credit and digital money. The practical test is whether stablecoin settlement changes funding speed, administration or access once the capital is deployed.
Canada's scaleup financing gap is attracting direct balance sheet attention from its largest financial institutions. RBC is pairing growth capital with banking, market access and commercial relationships, which could give later stage Canadian companies another option when large domestic lead investors are difficult to find.
India has now put tokenized securities and central bank digital money into the same corporate bond process. Same day issuance and settlement gives regulators and market operators concrete evidence to compare against conventional workflows, including whether tokenization can cut settlement risk and operating work without weakening existing investor protections.
Underwriting AI is moving into the point of sale rather than operating only behind insurer workflows. Faster preliminary guidance can help advisors set expectations before submitting a case, while final underwriting authority remains with the insurer. That makes accuracy, explainability and escalation controls central to whether the service improves conversion without adding risk.
This is production adoption rather than an AI demonstration. The design follows the control pattern NCFA examined when AI agents entered governed workflows: defined policies, traceable recommendations, approval gates and human accountability around financial actions.
Wealth AI is starting to operate between systems and meetings rather than waiting inside a chat window. Canada's OneVest AI platform shows a similar direction as wealth technology moves from analysis toward continuous workflow automation.
The transaction combines two large technology layers used behind advisor and wealth firms. It also builds on Envestnet's Canadian wealthtech expansion, adding more trading, tax and portfolio infrastructure underneath advisor workflows.
Zero commission trading has reached a major Canadian bank owned brokerage. Wealthsimple had already put pressure on brokerage pricing, and BMO's response now tests how quickly the country's other large bank brokerages follow.
Savvy is pairing a large financing round with measurable advisor and revenue growth, giving investors another data point on how quickly technology led wealth platforms can scale. The capital also raises competitive pressure on traditional advisor firms as independent teams gain more software, operations and growth support from integrated platforms.
Institutional portfolio technology is moving directly into private banking advice. Danske is giving advisors and clients more continuous analysis rather than relying only on periodic portfolio reviews, raising the competitive bar for digital advice, portfolio monitoring and the technology behind affluent wealth relationships.
Embedded finance becomes more useful when a software company can add regulated money functions without building each component itself. Potje gives Quantoz a live reference customer for that model, connecting accounts, payments and compliance behind one product while the regulated provider handles the financial infrastructure.
Canada’s instant-payment build is now reaching the fraud layer inside financial institutions that support fintech distribution. This RTR intelligence guide tracks the fraud, access and operating requirements firms face as settlement becomes continuous and final. Peoples Group is putting those controls into production before launch.
The size of the activity gives banks and fintech fraud teams a useful view of where financial crime controls are being tested. Health care fraud can pass through ordinary deposit accounts and payment flows, putting more pressure on transaction monitoring, entity screening and the kind of counterparty checks that become critical when formal registration alone does not tell the full story.
A reserve system can fail even when the obvious signing key is still intact. NCFA's technical review of the Liquid incident examines why bridge software, federation controls and reserve monitoring matter when the backing asset can leave without the expected key being stolen.
Bank fintech relationships could face a more risk based supervisory model instead of uniform vendor controls. Fintechs selling into regulated institutions should expect due diligence, contracts, monitoring and evidence requirements to track more closely with the financial, compliance and operational risks of the service they provide.
The bulletin adds another source of intelligence to sanctions and AML enforcement beyond bank reporting alone. For financial institutions and fintechs, it increases the value of defensible ownership, counterparty and transaction records when activity crosses jurisdictions or involves higher risk intermediaries.
Compliance AI becomes more useful when it can reconstruct an entire customer experience rather than score individual conversations in isolation. NCFA's question on whether AI creates new compliance burden is directly relevant as firms automate more monitoring while remaining responsible for evidence, review and escalation.
The rule reduces routine examination frequency for a larger group of qualifying community and smaller banks without changing their underlying supervisory obligations. For fintech partners, the practical effect may appear in bank compliance capacity, vendor reviews and the amount of supervisory work institutions need to manage between examinations.
Bank capital rules affect how much balance sheet capacity is available for lending, investment and new financial products. The 2027 changes could make some business lending more economical at a time when Canada's business funding mix remains heavily dependent on banks and public markets.
This raises the operating bar for vendor due diligence in Canada. Privacy compliance is no longer just about a company’s own controls. It also turns on how well the business assesses processors, cloud providers, AI vendors and other external partners before data is shared. That has direct implications for fintech partnerships, outsourcing and open banking style data flows, where third party access and accountability remain central issues. See OPC's five open banking fixes.
Another week of market proof that financial infrastructure is becoming more programmable, automated and tightly controlled at the same time. Banks, fintechs and market operators are putting AI, tokenized assets, real time payments and digital identity into production while regulators tighten expectations around access, capital, fraud and accountability. Which leading firms can connect new capabilities to regulated infrastructure without losing control of risk, economics or the customer relationship?
Get the weekly Whisperer and related market intelligence through NCFA's newsletter, view the latest fintech insights, industry research, or launch into emerging financial innovation opportunities.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 10, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Insight | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Regulation And Policy, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On September 10, 2026, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions OSFI published a tokenized deposit statement. Putting a deposit on blockchain or another digital system does not automatically change what the product is. OSFI looks at the customer's legal claim and the bank's obligations. In its words, tokenized deposits are “not legally distinct from traditional deposits.”
The same day, OSFI finalized its 2027 crypto rules for federally regulated banks and trust and loan companies. Those rules deal with a different issue: how much capital and liquidity a bank needs when it takes exposure to tokenized assets, stablecoins or other crypto assets. For product teams, what matters is what the customer owns, how they get their money back, and how much risk the bank carries.
If the customer still has a legally binding deposit claim on the bank, changing how that claim is recorded or transferred does not by itself create a different legal product. The same banking, technology, cyber and third party requirements continue to apply, and OSFI expects institutions to speak with their lead supervisor before launching novel products.
OSFI calls qualifying tokenized traditional assets Group 1a. A tokenized bank deposit can fall into this group when it preserves the same legal rights and substantially the same credit and market risk as a conventional deposit. The token must still represent a legally binding claim on a regulated bank, be redeemable in fiat at par and depend on the bank's own balance sheet rather than a separate reserve pool. OSFI can review the bank's classification and reject it if those conditions aren't met.
A bank cannot simply call a tokenized liability a stable retail deposit and assume the usual liquidity treatment applies. Who holds it, how quickly it can be redeemed and how the product is used can all affect the result.
A bank can use tokenization to change how a deposit is recorded, transferred or settled without automatically changing the legal deposit relationship. Recent tokenized corporate deposit plans show why banks are interested in faster treasury transfers and digital settlement while keeping deposits on the bank balance sheet.
OSFI uses four categories for crypto exposure:
Group 2b is where crypto becomes expensive for a bank. These exposures are deducted from common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital, the highest quality capital a bank carries. An institution can choose OSFI's simplified approach and avoid the classification work, but then all crypto exposures are deducted from CET1. Simpler treatment comes with a high capital cost.
A bank's total gross exposure to Group 2 assets should remain below 5% of Net Tier 1 capital. If the bank breaches that ceiling, all Group 2 exposure can fall into the tougher Group 2b treatment until the breach is corrected. For a bank deciding whether to build a large crypto trading or financing business, that limit affects how much balance sheet it is willing to commit.
OSFI will recognize matching positions in the same Group 2a crypto asset across qualifying regulated exchanges more fully when maturities line up. That means a genuine hedge is less likely to consume extra capital simply because the offsetting positions are on different regulated exchanges.
The new guideline takes effect on November 1, 2026 for institutions with an October 31 fiscal year end and January 1, 2027 for those with a December 31 year end.
A bank can keep the product as a genuine deposit and use tokenization to improve how it transfers or settles. It can also take exposure to a separate digital asset, but the capital and liquidity treatment may be much more expensive.
Tokenized deposits still need identity controls, transaction monitoring, wallet permissions, reconciliation, cyber security and links into core banking and treasury systems. Banks also need clear redemption rules, reliable records and strong controls over any third party involved in the service.
Some stablecoins can qualify for Group 1b treatment if they meet OSFI's conditions. They are still different from a deposit claim on a bank. Canada's separate stablecoin regulatory framework adds its own issuer, reserve and supervisory requirements.
Banks already have deposits, customer relationships and treasury systems. Tokenization can add faster settlement and programmable features to that existing business. Riskier crypto activity can require much more regulatory capital, leaving less available for lending, payments and other uses of the balance sheet.
Two digital assets can look similar to a customer while being very different businesses for a bank. The legal claim, redemption structure and capital treatment determine what the product costs to offer. Banks that understand those differences early can design products that fit their balance sheet. Fintechs that understand them can build technology banks can actually deploy.
Tokenizing bank money doesn't automatically turn a deposit into crypto. OSFI looks through the technology to the customer's legal claim and the risk carried by the bank. That gives Canadian banks room to develop digital deposits while keeping a much higher capital hurdle around riskier crypto exposure.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer to peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 9, 2026

Is Telegram crypto wallet safe? There is no universal yes or no. A wallet reached through a messaging app can be convenient for a small transfer, but its safety depends on who controls the keys, how recovery works, what a user is asked to sign, and whether the bot or mini app is genuine. Convenience changes the access path; it does not remove custody, phishing, device, or service risk.
This guide is for Telegram users who are considering a wallet for payments, transfers, or a limited operational balance. It explains how to inspect the control model, test recovery, and separate account security from wallet security. It does not recommend a provider, compare token prices, set a balance threshold, or provide legal, tax, or investment advice.
Safety is not one feature. It is a chain that includes custody, authentication, transaction signing, software integrity, privacy, recovery, and service availability. A wallet can be strong in one area and weak in another. For example, a provider may make account recovery simple while retaining the ability to delay withdrawals. A self-custodial setup may remove that provider dependency while making a lost recovery credential difficult or impossible to fix. A focused review of is Telegram crypto wallet safe starts with those control questions rather than with the messaging interface itself.
The Telegram interface does not tell you which arrangement you are using. A balance shown inside a chat may represent a provider-held account, a wallet whose keys are controlled by the user, or a hybrid contract with recovery or upgrade roles. Read the wallet's terms and inspect its actual deposit, withdrawal, and recovery flow. A familiar app icon is not evidence of a particular custody model.
| Control model | Who usually controls access | Main convenience | Main failure mode |
| Custodial | A provider holds signing authority or records an internal balance | Account recovery may be easier | Withdrawal limits, freezes, insolvency, or account loss depend on the provider |
| Self-custodial | The user controls a recovery credential or signing keys | Direct control without a provider reset | Phishing, loss, or an incorrect transaction may be hard to reverse |
| Hybrid | Control is split between user keys, a contract, guardians, or a service | Flexible recovery or policy controls | The recovery threshold and upgrade power can be hard to understand |
The first question is therefore not whether Telegram is safe. It is: what exactly is being protected, and who can authorize a transfer? If losing access to a Telegram account lets a provider reset the balance, account security is part of custody. If a recovery phrase is independent of the account, an account takeover can still enable phishing and expose private conversations, but it should not by itself authorize a self-custody transfer.
Messaging environments create a distinctive phishing problem. Fake bots, support accounts, copied avatars, and urgent warnings can look credible because they appear inside a familiar conversation flow. A request for a recovery phrase, private key, one-time code, remote-access permission, or emergency payment should be treated as a stop signal. Legitimate support should not need the secret that authorizes the wallet.
Account takeover is a separate but related risk. An attacker who controls a Telegram account may read conversations, impersonate the user, or direct the user toward a malicious bot. Protect the Telegram account, email account, and phone number with unique credentials and the strongest available authentication options. That protection reduces the chance of a convincing scam, but it does not replace a secure key-management design.
The chat interface can also hide transaction detail. Before approving a transfer or token permission, verify the recipient, amount, network, fee, contract, and allowance. If the interface does not expose enough information to make that judgment, use a more transparent route or pause the transaction. A quick button is not a substitute for knowing what the signature authorizes.
Service dependency adds another layer. Ask what happens if the bot is removed, the provider is offline, Telegram access is restricted, or the wallet changes its supported networks. A self-custodial asset may remain on-chain while the interface is unavailable, but a custodial balance may depend on the provider's records and withdrawal process. Availability is part of practical safety, not merely a customer-service concern.
The safest review is a small, documented test rather than a large transfer based on a promising interface. Use this sequence before keeping a meaningful balance:
This process does not make a wallet risk-free. It converts vague confidence into specific observations. The useful result may be a decision to use the wallet only for a narrow payment flow, not a decision to move everything into it.
Users often compare a chat-based wallet with crypto exchanges as if one must be safer in every situation. The better comparison is task-specific. An exchange may provide account recovery, order execution, and a visible transaction history, but it introduces platform, withdrawal, counterparty, and policy risk. A self-custodial wallet may provide direct key control, but the user carries the recovery and signing burden. A Telegram wallet can combine parts of both models while making the control boundary less obvious.
Use a short decision test. If the main task is a frequent, low-value payment, convenience may matter more than advanced self-custody, provided the provider and withdrawal rules are clear. If the main task is long-term storage, the ability to verify keys, recovery, and transaction details becomes more important than chat access. If the task is active trading, execution rules, liquidity, fees, and liquidation or withdrawal constraints may matter more than the interface.
The comparison should also include failure recovery. Who can help after a lost phone? Who can reverse an unauthorized transfer? What records exist if the provider disputes a balance? The answer will differ by product and jurisdiction. Treat a wallet and an exchange as different risk packages rather than as interchangeable labels.
A Telegram wallet may be useful when its control model is explicit, its entry point is verified, and the amount exposed is limited to the task. It becomes a poor default when a user cannot explain how a withdrawal is authorized, where the recovery credential lives, or what happens during a provider outage. The wallet can feel safe because it is embedded in a familiar app while still adding a new layer of account and bot risk.
Rules about custody, financial promotion, data handling, and customer protection vary by provider and jurisdiction. A wallet's presence in a messaging app does not establish deposit insurance, reversibility, or regulatory status. Read the relevant terms and seek local professional advice for questions that depend on law, tax, or business use.
No. It may be a custodial account, a self-custody wallet, or another on-chain service. Deposit protection, reversibility, and recovery depend on the specific provider and arrangement.
Not normally without a valid key or user approval, but phishing can trick a user into signing a transfer or token permission. Custodial services have different account and withdrawal risks.
That is a poor default. Use only the amount needed for the activity until custody, recovery, service availability, and transaction controls are clear. A separate arrangement may be more appropriate for long-term or high-value holdings.
Identify who controls the signing authority, then test a small withdrawal and the documented recovery path. If either answer depends on an unverified chat or an unexplained support request, pause.
So, is Telegram crypto wallet safe? It can be reasonable for a limited use case when the provider is genuine, the custody model is understood, account security is strong, and every transaction can be checked before approval. It is not automatically safe because it appears inside Telegram, and it is not automatically unsafe because it uses a bot. The practical standard is simple: verify control, test recovery, limit exposure, and keep the chat interface from hiding what you are authorizing.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On September 6, 2026, the Liquid Network reported a 4,000 BTC withdrawal from the Bitcoin backing its sidechain. The bitcoin was worth about US$320 million when the incident was disclosed and represented roughly 95% of the approximately 4,200 BTC then reported in the federation wallet.
The size alone made it one of the year's most consequential digital asset security incidents. The mechanics made it stranger. SideSwap says the authorization key used in the peg out was not compromised. Instead, the 4,000 LBTC submitted for redemption was later attributed to a bug in Elements, the software underlying Liquid.
Most of the bitcoin has since come back. On September 7, the withdrawing party returned 3,400 BTC after an unusual onchain exchange with Blockstream over the software patch. Roughly 598.5 BTC, worth about US$47 million on September 8, remained at the withdrawal linked address when this Story was prepared.
Nearly an entire reported Bitcoin reserve left through an apparently valid redemption process even though the authorization key itself had not been stolen.
Protecting private keys is essential. Liquid's incident shows why the software deciding which assets are valid can matter just as much as the cryptography authorizing their redemption.
Liquid is a Bitcoin sidechain. Users lock bitcoin and receive LBTC that can circulate on Liquid before being redeemed back into bitcoin.
Before the incident, reporting put the federation wallet at roughly 4,200 BTC. About 4,000 BTC left during the withdrawal, putting almost the whole reported reserve behind one incident.
Liquid uses a federation of companies to operate specialized infrastructure and secure the bitcoin backing LBTC. Liquid's federation documentation describes functionaries that sign blocks and collectively manage the bitcoin held by the network.
Users can bring bitcoin into Liquid and receive LBTC. To leave, LBTC is redeemed and the corresponding bitcoin is released on the Bitcoin network.
Federation members, functionaries and bridge nodes have different roles. The distinction becomes important here because the final redemption process could operate normally even if the asset reaching it shouldn't have been accepted.
The response was immediate. Liquid activity was paused, bridge nodes were disabled and exchanges were asked to suspend LBTC deposits and withdrawals. SideSwap also stopped swaps, peg ins and peg outs.
That bought developers time to work out how such a large redemption had been accepted before normal bridge activity continued.
A stolen withdrawal key would have provided a familiar explanation. SideSwap says that didn't happen. The service processed a valid authorization, which pushed attention back toward the LBTC that entered the redemption process.
SideSwap says 4,000 LBTC was sent to its peg out service. The service burned the tokens against a valid authorization, after which the Liquid Federation released roughly 3,996 BTC to a Bitcoin address.
SideSwap says neither its systems nor its Peg out Authorization Key was compromised.
The crucial discovery came afterward. According to the account of the investigation, Blockstream determined that the LBTC involved had been created through a bug in Elements.
Elements is the open source software on which Liquid runs. The failure therefore appears to have happened before the final Bitcoin redemption rather than through theft of the SideSwap authorization key.
The peg out machinery can receive a valid authorization and release real bitcoin while the LBTC entering that process has already been corrupted by a software failure. Securing the key is necessary. It doesn't cover every route to an invalid redemption.
Then the incident took an unusual turn. The withdrawing party described itself as white hat and began communicating through messages recorded on Bitcoin.
Blockstream contacted the party through an onchain transaction. The party later told Blockstream to fix the bug and make sure the relevant nodes were patched before the bitcoin would be returned.
The white hat description remains the party's own characterization. It isn't an independently established status.
Blockstream later sent an authenticated message saying its bridge nodes had been patched. The response was followed by a transaction returning exactly 3,400 BTC to the federation address.
That recovered about 85% of the withdrawn bitcoin. The same transaction left approximately 598.5 BTC at the withdrawal linked address.
Neither Blockstream nor Liquid had publicly identified that remaining bitcoin as an agreed payment when this Story was prepared.
A party controlling hundreds of millions of dollars in bitcoin communicates with the infrastructure provider through the blockchain itself, waits for a software repair and then returns most of the funds. It's an extraordinary sequence, but it doesn't establish that the original withdrawal was authorized or benevolent.
The return transaction sent 3,400 BTC back to the Liquid Federation and approximately 598.5 BTC back to the withdrawal linked address as change.
Public reporting has sometimes described the remaining bitcoin as a bounty. No public agreement from Blockstream or Liquid establishing that characterization had surfaced when this Story was prepared.
Most of the funds came back. Nearly 600 BTC remained unresolved at the latest verified point.
Independent security researchers have begun explaining how the Elements failure may have happened.
CertiK's incident analysis points to Elements' handling of rangeproof verification caching. Its reconstruction says a flaw could allow different validation contexts to share a cached result and cause invalid value to be accepted.
That could explain how LBTC that shouldn't have been valid reached the peg out process.
The technical analysis is developing faster than the official explanation.
Blockstream hadn't published a complete technical postmortem when this Story was prepared. The exact affected software versions, complete code path, deployment history and remediation therefore aren't settled yet.
The confirmed finding is narrower and important enough on its own. Blockstream identified an Elements software bug as the source of the LBTC involved in the withdrawal, according to SideSwap's account.
When a token represents an underlying financial asset, software validation becomes part of the reserve control. If the system accepts an asset state it should reject, that mistake can become a claim on real assets even when the keys protecting them remain secure.
The size of the withdrawal makes that connection hard to miss. Roughly 95% of the reported bitcoin reserve was involved before most of the funds came back.
That doesn't mean Liquid permanently lost 95% of its backing. It means a software failure produced a redemption event large enough to put almost the entire reported reserve into question at once.
For digital asset firms, reserve security therefore extends well beyond storing keys.
Supply verification, transaction validation, reserve reconciliation, withdrawal monitoring, circuit controls and incident response all become part of the same operating problem.
That same issue appears in how crypto custody regulation is changing, as the market moves beyond simply holding private keys toward segregation, authority, resilience and accountability.
A secure key can't compensate for software that accepts an asset state it should reject. Issuance, validation, reserves and redemption all have to work together because a failure in one can reach the value protected by another.
Liquid's federation also gave operators a practical advantage during the response. Identifiable participants could coordinate, stop infrastructure, patch bridge nodes and prepare a restart.
That can make emergency intervention faster. It also means federation governance and operating procedures are part of the security model rather than something separate from it.
The same problem gets more important as financial institutions put securities, funds, deposits and other assets onto programmable infrastructure.
Tokenization becoming a business investors can measure captures the commercial side of that development. Liquid exposes the other requirement. Redemption and reserve systems still have to work when software doesn't.
Returning 3,400 BTC dramatically reduces the financial exposure, but it doesn't explain why nearly the whole reported reserve could leave through one sequence or what now prevents a recurrence. Those answers will determine whether this remains a contained software failure or becomes a longer trust problem for Liquid.
First is a formal Blockstream technical postmortem explaining the Elements vulnerability, affected versions and remediation.
Then comes restoration of normal Liquid operations and confirmation that peg ins, peg outs and LBTC exchange services have safely resumed.
The remaining 598.5 BTC matters too. Any return, transfer, legal action or disclosed agreement would materially change the recovery picture.
Control design is the longer question. New transaction limits, supply monitoring, reserve reconciliation, anomaly detection or federation procedures could show how Liquid plans to stop one software failure from reaching such a large share of backing assets again.
Liquid is a global Bitcoin sidechain rather than a Canadian network.
Blockstream, the technology company that launched Liquid, has Canadian corporate roots and operations in Canada. That gives the incident a legitimate Canadian connection, while the security and market implications remain global.
Liquid's authorization key reportedly held. Its validation software didn't. Nearly 4,000 BTC still left before most of it came back, showing why tokenized asset security depends on much more than protecting the keys that authorize redemption.
Roughly 4,000 BTC was withdrawn from Liquid's federation wallet on September 6, 2026 after 4,000 LBTC reached SideSwap's peg out service. Blockstream later determined that the LBTC had been created through a bug in Elements, according to SideSwap.
SideSwap says no. Its Peg out Authorization Key and infrastructure weren't compromised. The service processed what appeared to be a valid peg out authorization.
The withdrawing party returned exactly 3,400 BTC on September 7, about 85% of the bitcoin involved. Roughly 598.5 BTC remained at the withdrawal linked address when this Story was prepared.
They described themselves that way. Most of the bitcoin was returned after Blockstream said bridge nodes had been patched, but nearly 600 BTC remained unresolved. White hat is therefore their description rather than an established finding.
No. Liquid is a federated Bitcoin sidechain built on Elements. Lightning is a separate Bitcoin payment network using payment channels. This incident involved Liquid Network.
Not when this Story was prepared. Blockstream identified an Elements software bug, according to SideSwap, and independent researchers have published deeper technical explanations. A complete official postmortem is still needed to confirm the precise vulnerability and remediation.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer to peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 8, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management

On September 8, 2026, Visa introduced an onchain credit model for stablecoin card programs that combines VisaNet settlement data with financing provided by Credit Coop. Visa isn't the lender. Credit Coop provides stablecoin denominated revolving credit secured by settlement receivables, while authorized Visa settlement records help lenders assess how participating programs are actually performing.
Visa says more than 160 stablecoin card programs are live globally, with payment volume up nearly 200% year over year. Its stablecoin settlement volume recently passed a US$20 billion annualized rate, more than 15 times the prior year. Credit Coop has financed more than US$2.5 billion since 2023 across more than 3,000 borrowing events and 9,000 repayments, with zero defaults reported across participating facilities.
Visa says more than US$694 billion in stablecoin denominated loans have been sent through onchain lending protocols since 2020. The new element is using payment network data to support credit decisions for businesses operating inside the card system.
Card programs can owe Visa money before they have collected the related funds from cardholders. Large issuers usually finance that timing gap through bank credit lines, warehouse facilities or securitizations. Those structures work well when portfolios are large and lenders have enough operating history to assess them.
Early stablecoin card programs can have a different funding profile. Visa says some need only a few million dollars, draw and repay capital every day and settle through weekends and holidays. At that scale, the fixed cost of arranging a traditional facility can be difficult to justify, while the borrower may not yet have enough history to satisfy an institutional lender.
Visa's financing model uses a revolving Credit Coop facility to fund daily settlement obligations against the receivables generated by the card program. As cardholder payments arrive, those proceeds repay and replenish the line.
That financing need grows with the card programs themselves. Wirex and Crossmint connected wallets, card issuance and stablecoin spending earlier this year, showing how quickly the customer facing infrastructure is becoming easier to assemble. Financing the settlement behind those products is a different problem.
The concept is similar to bringing rent payments into a traditional credit file. A recurring payment record that was previously difficult for lenders to use becomes additional evidence about the borrower. Here, the new evidence is payment network data being used to support onchain credit.
With the card program's authorization, Credit Coop receives daily Visa settlement files through a secure data connection. It compares those records with the onchain repayment history when sizing facilities, confirming settlement requirements and monitoring repayment. The borrower is no longer the only source of information about its payment obligations.
Credit Coop's Spigot smart contract controls how incoming receivables service the facility. Cardholder proceeds flow through the contract, which routes repayment before the remaining funds reach the borrower's operating account. The structure performs a role similar to a controlled bank lockbox, but repayment can occur programmatically.
Visa says stronger data and a longer repayment record have attracted more lenders to the facilities, reducing borrowing costs for participating programs by as much as 30%.
The same data connection can also support funding closer to the actual settlement obligation. Instead of drawing a larger amount in advance and holding unused capital, the daily settlement file can trigger a same day disbursement for the net amount owed to Visa. That reduces the time capital sits idle and ties lender exposure more closely to actual settlement activity.
Rain provides the longest operating record disclosed by Visa. The Visa Principal Member has used a Credit Coop revolving facility since August 2023 and settles directly with Visa in USDC. Rain says it tokenized its card receivables, allowing incoming payments to service financing through programmable contracts.
Visa reports that approximately US$2 billion of Rain settlement has been financed through the structure, with more than 2,000 borrowing events and 7,000 repayments. They also report zero defaults and says every settlement obligation under the facility has been funded on time. The underlying program figures were supplied by Credit Coop, so they should be treated as reported operating data rather than independently audited results.
Visa says Karta's U.S. card program used Credit Coop while its operating history was still developing. In June 2026, Karta raised US$140 million, including a US$125 million institutional credit facility from Community Investment Management and a US$15 million Series A led by Galaxy Ventures. Karta reported 10 times growth in 2025 and another four times increase in revenue and payment volume quarter over quarter in Q1 2026.
The growth gives the model its strongest strategic relevance. Onchain credit can help finance a younger payment program while it builds a verifiable repayment record. Larger institutional facilities can become available later when the portfolio reaches the scale and maturity conventional lenders want. Visa explicitly says this model adds to warehouse lending and securitization rather than replacing them.
Canada already has a direct connection to Visa's stablecoin settlement strategy. In May, Visa Canada and Wealthsimple began testing USDC settlement for certain Visa Canada obligations. There is no public evidence that the Credit Coop financing model is currently available to Canadian programs, but it gives Canadian issuers and payments firms a concrete example of how stablecoin settlement can connect to working capital and credit.
If payment network data can help a young card program prove credit performance before it qualifies for a traditional warehouse facility, onchain credit may become a bridge into institutional finance rather than a separate system.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer to peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 26th, 2025
January 4th, 2024
June 1st, 2021
September 9th, 2020
July 9th, 2018
January 3rd, 2018
September 25th, 2017
June 20th, 2017
May 10th, 2017
December 14th, 2016

NCFA Canada
Craig Asano
CEO and Executive Director
casano@ncfacanada.org
ncfacanada.org




