Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Aug 29, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure, Regulation And Policy, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Cross Border Payments And FX, Digital Banking And BaaS, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement

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).
This is a material step beyond the group's 2025 exploration phase. TD and Scotiabank are now participating in a global bank-led issuance venture while Canada's own stablecoin framework is still moving through implementation. The Canadian question is whether major banks build meaningful CAD-denominated digital-money capacity alongside domestic initiatives or gain scale first through shared global USD infrastructure.
Coinbase supplies the regulated trading and custody stack while Webull keeps the investor interface and brokerage relationship. That reduces the infrastructure brokers need to build themselves and gives specialist providers another route into Canadian retail distribution. It also intensifies Canadian crypto competition over who owns the customer and who supplies the regulated back end.
The useful proof is the cash leg. Tokenized securities have limited value if settlement still depends on separate legacy rails. This transaction puts the asset and payment legs onchain in a live regulated market environment, bringing programmable settlement closer to something institutions can actually use.
LSEG is extending tokenization from private markets and settlement infrastructure toward public equities. The harder test is whether tokenized shares can preserve legal ownership rights, corporate actions, price integrity and regulated settlement while gaining wallet portability and longer trading access. If that model works, public-market infrastructure begins competing directly with blockchain-native distribution without abandoning the protections of an exchange-listed security.
Coinbase is bringing regulated crypto derivatives distribution into Canada without routing the products through Coinbase Canada itself. The important boundary is eligibility as it expands access for sophisticated investors while keeping the offering outside ordinary retail availability. It also gives regulated venues a stronger alternative to offshore derivatives platforms for Canadian capital, hedging and price discovery.
The important development is bank ownership of shared tokenized deposit infrastructure, not the financing round. Cari is moving toward production with banks helping govern, fund and use the network while retaining the customer relationship. Alongside other shared bank blockchain infrastructure, the test is whether common digital money networks can achieve enough participation and interoperability to compete with institution specific systems.
Forty-three state licences give OpenPayd something infrastructure providers can't create through software alone: regulated geographic reach. The company can now connect its payment stack to a much larger U.S. operating footprint while combining fiat and digital asset permissions across the United States, United Kingdom and Europe. The test is how quickly that regulatory coverage converts into client activity and payment volume.
Final approvals put the transactions into execution. National Bank is positioned to absorb Laurentian's retail and SME relationships while Fairstone combines its commercial lending operations with Laurentian's commercial specialization. Customer migration, product continuity and retention now determine how much of the approved transaction value survives the transfer.
Singapore is converting stablecoin policy into the legal requirements issuers will operate under. The consultation advances the status tracked in NCFA's stablecoin regulatory intelligence from a finalized framework awaiting legislation toward implementation. Reserve, redemption, capital and cross-border requirements can now be tested against issuer economics before the rules are finalized.
The case makes privileged information a concrete event contract surveillance problem. Exchanges and brokers need controls that can connect unusual positions with access to confidential information, investigate suspicious activity and enforce trading restrictions. NCFA's regulated event contract infrastructure brief tracks this market integrity gap as distribution expands.
Section 311 can reach beyond a targeted foreign bank because U.S. institutions must also identify transactions routed indirectly through other correspondent relationships. Banks and payment firms therefore need enough counterparty visibility to detect the institution behind a payment chain, not only the correspondent presenting the transaction.
The investigation puts transaction monitoring and global compliance governance under direct supervisory scrutiny at a major cross-border payment provider. The operating test is whether controls identify known laundering typologies across high-risk channels and whether global decisions support local obligations. The eventual findings could provide useful evidence for how regulators assess AML controls across international payment networks.
Australia's AML expansion has reached the point where AUSTRAC is testing whether newly covered firms have entered the regulatory system at all. Service classification, enrollment and working AML controls can no longer remain implementation projects. Regtech providers also gain a much larger addressable compliance market, but buyers will need products matched to obligations regulators are actively checking.
Conditional approval advances Revolut from U.S. fintech distribution toward direct regulated banking capacity. Its U.S. business still relies on a partner bank, while NCFA's Revolut company intelligence had tracked the national bank application as pending. A completed charter would give Revolut more control over deposits, credit and payment connectivity, but the remaining federal approvals and preopening requirements still determine whether that capacity reaches customers in 2027.
OpenReserve is trying to combine conventional banking, tokenized deposits, digital asset custody and stablecoin infrastructure inside one national bank structure. Preliminary approval brings that model closer to regulated operating capacity, but the remaining test is execution: capital, controls, final authorization and separate approval for the planned stablecoin subsidiary still stand between the proposed structure and live customer activity.
TabaPay is trying to internalize regulated banking capacity rather than relying exclusively on sponsor bank relationships. Owning an OCC chartered bank could give the payments fintech more control over settlement, sponsorship, redundancy and difficult client use cases while retaining outside bank partners. The acquisition still requires regulatory approval, making the next test whether supervisors accept that vertical integration and its governance model.
A successful Swedish licence would turn Allica's international expansion from a funding plan into regulated market access. The bank now has to prove that its UK SME model can satisfy a new supervisor and compete in a concentrated, highly digital banking market. Approval would also give Allica a potential base for wider European expansion rather than requiring each new market to begin from the UK.
The US$3 billion target gives scale to the real time receivable funding model introduced in the United States this week. VersaBank is betting that faster access to bank balance sheet funding can take business from conventional securitization and warehouse structures. Fiscal 2027 will test whether partner demand converts into several billion dollars of new assets without weakening credit quality or funding economics.
The licence adds another authorized BNPL provider while reinforcing regulatory permission as a condition of market access in Saudi consumer finance. New entrants have to compete inside that perimeter, putting more weight on underwriting, merchant distribution, pricing and compliance execution once authorization is secured.
QR Ph is extending domestic interoperability into cross-border acceptance without requiring merchants to install another payment system. That reduces one of the practical barriers to international wallet acceptance, especially for smaller merchants. The competitive question is whether national QR networks increasingly become gateways through which global payment aggregators reach local commerce.
Agorá has crossed the real-money test identified in earlier Project Agorá testing. The harder questions now concern legal finality across jurisdictions, liquidity, interoperability and whether a shared multicurrency platform can reduce correspondent-payment friction at institutional scale without weakening central-bank control or commercial-bank money.
Banks are pushing deeper into stablecoins, tokenized deposits and direct control of payment infrastructure, while fintechs are trying to own more of the regulated stack themselves. The fight is increasingly over who controls the account, the customer relationship and the transaction flow.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets. 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Aug 22, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Sustainable Finance ESG And Financial Inclusion, Digital Banking And BaaS, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Risk Compliance And Regtech

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).
BankChain Alliance adds an association led ownership model to existing bank tokenized deposit networks. Its published plan gives community and regional banks a proposed role in governing shared infrastructure, although the technology provider and participating bank commitments remain unresolved.
RQD combines the financing announcement with disclosed operating volume from its proprietary clearing platform. The expansion plan covers digital-asset custody and tokenization alongside equities and options infrastructure. NCFA’s Alpaca platform analysis examines another provider combining brokerage distribution with regulated clearing and custody.
The pilot tested the digital asset and payment legs within the same institutional transaction. NCFA’s tokenized market infrastructure analysis explains why tokenized securities require a compatible settlement asset. CIMB identifies coupon distribution, secondary transfers and redemption as potential future applications. Commercial production availability has not been announced.
The completed transaction extends Canton's institutional custody and collateral infrastructure into a full repo cycle. Repeat volume, additional counterparties and accepted legal, accounting and capital treatment will determine whether the structure advances beyond a single transaction.
The H1 numbers extend the concentration documented in KPMG's 2025 fintech investment review. Canadian founders now face a market where capital favours scale, regulated access, specialized technology and measurable economics. Infrastructure reform could improve the position of companies that can convert lower data and payment friction into customer adoption.
This is a material follow-on to the June financing behind EDGE's prediction market banking infrastructure. ProphetX provides named distribution and active account funding use for EDGE Connect. Higher limits, dedicated insured accounts and continuous FedNow access give the rail an operating profile that routine partnership announcements lack.
Apex could give Gemini a distribution route through brokerage platforms that already serve tens of millions of investors, while Gemini supplies the regulated venue, execution and clearing. That directly expands the commercial case for event contract distribution infrastructure around brokerage connectivity, compliance and access. The parties still need a definitive agreement, so the LOI establishes the proposed structure rather than a completed rollout.
The March dialogue announcement established the bilateral payments file. The completed August meeting adds an agreement to explore UPI distribution and cross-border payment partnerships, while commercial implementation remains unresolved.
This is a material follow-on to Visa and Nium's earlier stablecoin settlement work. BLOOM adds central bank led governance, multicurrency scope and an explicit interoperability mandate. Together with Nium's recent U.S. card issuance expansion, the pilot gives Nium a larger role across both payment distribution and institutional settlement.
Fasset is putting new capital into the banking, liquidity and settlement connections behind its existing transaction volume. Stablecoins already support settlement across parts of Own Network, placing the company inside the infrastructure opportunity around programmable stablecoin payments rather than relying on token issuance alone. Its 100-plus banking corridors give Fasset a base for competing on routing cost, settlement reach and access across markets where payment infrastructure remains fragmented.
RBC is consolidating ownership of the corporate cash cycle, from payment execution and foreign exchange to liquidity and trade finance. Multinational clients gain a coordinated entry point across Canada and the U.S., raising the integration benchmark for fintechs selling treasury software, cross border payments or working capital tools into the same accounts. The structure continues the transaction banking competition already pushing large banks to invest in digital business payment capabilities.
This is a defined core replacement with a named platform, systems integrator, investment budget and migration sequence. Deutsche Bank says the old and new systems will operate in parallel during the transition to support operational resilience and continuity of service. Testing remains planned for year-end, and no migrated products have yet been reported.
The design gives community banks and credit unions a way to offer AI assistance inside authenticated banking while maintaining institution-level data and transaction controls. iTHINK gives the launch a concrete customer and near-term operating timeline.
The transaction verifies that the connection can process an international card at an approved Syrian merchant. The announcement does not disclose how many merchants are enabled, which issuing markets can participate or when international card acceptance will become widely available.
Banks, payment firms and vendors must revise ISO 20022 delivery schedules without treating the delay as cancellation. Release dependencies, vendor contracts and address-data remediation still need clear ownership while the industry waits for a replacement timeline.
The launch extends USD1's institutional settlement use cases from a planned fund-services pilot to native availability on Canton. Named counterparties and recurring atomic settlement volumes are still needed to prove adoption.
PaidIt combines identity resolution, recipient communication and payment delivery for cases that often depend on manual tracing. CBA’s internal use gives the product operating evidence ahead of its planned institutional client rollout.
August 24 gives prospective RTR participants a live legal framework, while operational access still depends on membership, settlement arrangements, technical integration, fraud controls, testing and certification. The RTR rules and access requirements show why eligibility alone does not put a PSP into production. Firms that can clear the remaining technical and operating requirements will be better positioned to build instant payment, pay by bank, treasury and embedded payment products when the system launches.
Owning Altruist gives Vanguard direct infrastructure across RIA custody and advisor workflows, not only fund distribution. Advisors and competing platforms should watch closing conditions, pricing, product access and whether standalone governance preserves Altruist's independence.
Putting regulated multibank data inside an agent interface connects advisory automation to a structured financial source layer. For wealth firms evaluating governed AI agent workflows, the integration supports portfolio analysis and adviser preparation inside an environment they may already use.
Nasdaq says Q6 data will appear as high-risk alerts inside the existing Verafin investigation workflow, covering check fraud, payment-card fraud and account takeover. The proof-of-concept average demonstrates potential lead time, but it does not establish that every alert will arrive before a fraudulent transaction.
Fraud and compliance teams can now buy agentic case operations within a large identity platform rather than assembling a separate agent layer. Regulated customers still need evidence for each automated decision, clear escalation rules and accountable human owners when an agent closes or changes a case.
The task force turns quantum readiness for fintech into a coordinated financial-sector program. Institutions and vendors should inventory cryptography, rank critical systems and document external dependencies before sector guidance becomes a delivery deadline.
This puts post-quantum preparation into an institutional transaction environment where banks and regulators can test the same cryptographic architecture before migration becomes an operating requirement. That is the implementation work behind financial sector quantum readiness: testing wallet controls, signing standards, governance and cross-border interoperability while existing cryptography still works. A shared reference architecture could also reduce the cost and uncertainty of each institution designing its own migration approach.
India is making technology resilience more measurable while standardizing how cyber incidents enter regulatory reporting. Exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories now face a more structured test of whether critical systems remain reliable and recoverable, while common incident data should make weaknesses easier to compare across institutions and over time.
The task force turns federal quantum policy into a financial sector implementation program. Firms now have a coordinated forum focused on cryptographic inventories, vendor dependencies, digital assets and migration execution. It extends the operating case in quantum readiness analysis: the immediate challenge is finding vulnerable cryptography and planning replacements before migration becomes an operational deadline.
The cohort gives regulators a supervised setting to examine how autonomous financial systems are authorized, monitored and escalated. The useful proof will come from controls that preserve human accountability when an agent completes a task or supervises another agent.
Rowan takes delegated AI access to financial accounts from recommendations into execution. Permission limits, action logs, reversibility and responsibility for losses become core product controls when a conversation can trigger a financial action.
Google is packaging domain methods, licensed data access, workflow execution and governance as one financial AI stack. Banks evaluating the preview will need to examine the quality of its research outputs, permission controls, audit records and integration with existing systems. The same control requirement is already visible in AI agent spending infrastructure, where authorization and observability determine whether automated execution can enter production.
Starling has moved agentic AI inside the authenticated business banking workflow and given it authority to execute a defined financial action, rather than limiting it to analysis or customer support. That brings the consent and liability questions around AI initiated payments into a live bank product: who authorizes the action, what limits apply, how the instruction is recorded and what happens when an automated decision is wrong. For business banking, the commercial opportunity is also concrete. The bank can automate tax, invoicing, fraud checks and cash management inside the account instead of leaving those workflows to separate software providers.
The national improvement does not describe every borrower or every region. Ontario homeowners are carrying persistent mortgage stress while severe non-mortgage delinquency has eased slightly across Canada, giving lenders a more uneven credit picture than the headline rate suggests. That divergence affects underwriting, limit management and collections across consumer lending, including products now becoming more visible in Canadian credit files. Geographic exposure and housing obligations are becoming more important when lenders assess where household credit risk is actually accumulating.
For banks, insurers and investors, the liability perimeter has narrowed. Statutory emissions duties remain, while private climate claims can no longer use this route through tort law. Underwriting, due diligence and climate-risk analysis should reflect the distinction.
Frontier AI preparedness is moving from awareness into evidence of execution. Financial firms need tested escalation authority, recovery plans, dependency mapping and governance that still works when incident timelines compress. The supervisory question is increasingly whether organizations can prove those controls operate under pressure, not whether boards have discussed AI risk.
The mandate changes how payment innovation enters supervisory decision making at the central bank. Stablecoin and payment infrastructure proposals will still have to satisfy financial stability requirements, but innovation becomes an explicit secondary consideration rather than an external policy goal. The practical test is how that mandate affects approvals, infrastructure design and competition as new payment models reach systemic scale.
The notice separates sports and entertainment products from the limited event contracts already available through Canadian investment dealers. NCFA’s event contract infrastructure brief tracks the dealer controls, surveillance, settlement and product-classification requirements connected to permitted contracts.
The final rule directs supervisory attention toward material financial risk and compliance with banking law. It also requires the agencies to tailor unsafe-or-unsound findings and MRA treatment to institution-specific risk factors. The rule does not apply to institutions outside OCC or FDIC supervision.
Payment firms and stablecoin providers will gain a formal innovation consideration within Bank of England supervision, but no automatic approval or lighter standard. Product teams will still need to prove that new payment models protect stability, resilience and users.
The proposed consent judgment gives algorithm design liability a concrete control framework built around age assurance, usage restrictions and parental permissions. Fintech teams offering youth accounts, gamified investing or automated recommendations can compare their controls with these requirements while the court reviews the agreement.
Thailand is working on both sides of institutional crypto access at once: the investment product investors can buy and the custody arrangements funds can use behind it. That puts product approval, offshore asset safeguarding and institutional distribution inside the same regulatory design problem rather than treating crypto ETFs as a listing question alone.
Control of the rails, data, distribution and risk is becoming more valuable. Capital is concentrating around firms that can prove scale and economics, while banks and infrastructure providers invest directly in tokenized settlement, real-time funding, AI and fraud controls. The opportunity remains large, but owning a critical part of how money moves is becoming more valuable than adding another product.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets. 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Aug 15, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Cross Border Payments And FX, Regulation And Policy, Insurance And Insurtech, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Artificial Intelligence And Data, SME Finance And Business Banking, Risk Compliance And Regtech

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).
The numbers show digital assets becoming part of bank formation rather than remaining mainly an activity added to established institutions. More than half of the OCC's recent charter applications include digital asset activity, extending the same infrastructure-ownership question behind Ripple's U.S. bank charter application across a much larger applicant pool. These are applications, not approved banks, but the pipeline shows how many digital asset firms are trying to bring licensing, custody, payments and stablecoin activity inside regulated banking structures.
Singapore is combining tax policy, institutional capital and immigration settings to compete for asset managers and investment talent. The package goes beyond licensing or regulatory simplification by addressing where firms locate teams, where experienced professionals work and whether managers can build enough local scale to anchor investment activity in Singapore. That makes asset-management competitiveness an industrial-policy question as well as a financial-services one.
The report provides unusually concrete evidence on both sides of Canada's securities-policy agenda. Regulators are lowering friction in parts of the capital-raising system while expanding technology-enabled fraud disruption and examining new digital market structures. The C$4 billion raised under the expanded exemption strengthens the question of who gets capital as funding channels multiply because it gives regulators measurable evidence that changing financing limits can alter how Canadian public companies access capital.
As NCFA's review of the RPAA notices explains, a zero-dollar penalty still creates a durable public compliance record. Registration checks now belong in partner onboarding, procurement, investor diligence and market-access planning for payment firms serving Canada.
The SEC is moving from defining how securities law applies to crypto toward creating specific capital-raising pathways for the sector. Its March crypto market structure interpretation established a classification and lifecycle framework; Regulation Crypto Assets would add tailored exemptions that qualifying issuers could use to raise capital within it. If adopted, the rules could materially change how early stage crypto ventures fund development, what they must disclose and how token-based fundraising competes with established private-market exemptions.
The proposal turns the GENIUS Act from legislation into an operating framework for stablecoin issuers and the platforms that distribute their tokens. The definitions of where issuance occurs, which issuers need a licence and when a stablecoin is being offered into the U.S. market will determine how domestic and foreign providers structure access. For exchanges, wallets and payment platforms, compliance will increasingly depend on the regulatory status of the stablecoins they make available, not only on their own licences.
Helcim is using a 22,000 merchant distribution base to extend beyond payment acceptance into more of the financial workflow around small businesses. Vendor payments and business finance could increase revenue per merchant while putting Helcim into closer competition with processors, banks and software platforms that already bundle payments with operating tools. Nearly C$10 billion in expected annual volume gives that expansion enough scale to watch.
Direct participation removes an intermediary from Modulr’s CHAPS settlement process and gives it more control over payment routing and liquidity. The development offers a useful comparison with Canada’s expanding non-bank rail access, where membership and system participation determine how much infrastructure control payment providers can obtain.
The integration gives AlphaPay more Canadian merchant distribution while connecting domestic payment acceptance with Payment Asia's international payment capabilities. The strategic value will depend on whether the combined business can convert that larger merchant footprint into meaningful transaction volume and cross-border activity. The regulatory point also requires precision: Canadian MSBs are registered with FINTRAC, so the company's use of the term "MSB licence" should not be read as a separate banking or payment licence.
Domestic U.S. issuance gives Nium another local component inside a payment network already built for international use. Businesses operating across regions can reduce the number of separate issuing integrations they maintain while combining card programmes with cross-border payouts. That matters most in sectors such as travel and supplier payments, where one transaction can require several payment methods across multiple countries.
New Zealand is still considering the architecture and governance of infrastructure that Canada has placed into approved rules through its Real-Time Rail framework. Payment providers have an early opportunity to address access, fraud responsibilities, interoperability and the role of nonbanks before New Zealand selects its modernization approach.
Offline capability makes hardware compatibility, mobile operator participation and secure deployment part of payment infrastructure design. The consultation gives payment providers and technology companies a direct route into the standards discussion before the pilot begins.
Stripe is reducing the separation between payment acceptance and treasury operations for businesses already using its platform. Revenue can become available for supplier and contractor payments without first being transferred through a separate external banking workflow, while currency conversion stays inside the same system. Treasury for Platforms would extend that model further by letting software platforms distribute account functionality directly to their customers.
Giving an AI agent access to capital requires controls over identity, authority, spending limits, compliance and settlement before the transaction happens. Anchorage is putting those controls inside regulated banking infrastructure, extending the issues already emerging around AI payment consent and liability into institutional treasury and digital asset workflows. Banks, payment firms and fintech platforms now have a clearer benchmark for what controlled agent access to money can look like.
Agent OS puts AI applications closer to financial actions rather than limiting them to analysis or recommendations. The important control boundary is between what an external agent decides and what Binance permits it to execute. That connects directly to the growing AI governance and compliance burden around authorization, audit trails, transaction limits and accountability when agents can act on financial infrastructure.
Financial AI is extending beyond conversational tools into models designed specifically for numerical sequences such as liquidity, transaction flows and other time-dependent financial data. Adoption by global banks gives the model more significance than a research release alone because forecasting accuracy can affect treasury, risk and operating decisions. That also raises the AI compliance burden around model validation, data quality, oversight and evidence when specialist models influence financial decisions.
The useful evidence is adoption inside a real advisory workflow rather than another AI pilot announcement. More than 11,000 client conversations and measurable administrative time savings show where AI governance for Canadian financial advisors is becoming operational: meeting records, follow-up communications and internal information retrieval. As these tools become routine, firms need controls that keep advisor responsibility intact while still capturing the productivity benefit.
Stripe is extending beyond the financial transaction layer into the infrastructure that determines which AI model handles a request and at what cost. That builds on Stripe's expanding infrastructure stack across payments, billing and financial operations. OpenRouter gives Stripe a position in both revenue collection and one of the largest variable costs facing AI companies: model and compute usage.
Giving an AI agent permission to transact creates a different control problem from giving it permission to retrieve information or call software tools. AgentCore places deterministic spending limits and transaction records around an otherwise non-deterministic agent, separating the agent's decision process from the infrastructure that authorizes payment. That control layer is becoming central to whether autonomous financial activity can be deployed at production scale.
Kraken is extending a crypto distribution platform into conventional brokerage while keeping tokenized equities available beside traditional shares. That gives customers two different ownership and market-access structures inside one interface and puts more competitive pressure on brokers that still separate securities, crypto and tokenized products across different accounts.
The proposal addresses how much trading functionality regulators should require when a swap does not have to trade through a prescribed execution method in the first place. Removing the order-book requirement could lower operating complexity for SEFs and give participants more choice in how less standardized or less liquid transactions are executed. The regulatory tradeoff is whether greater flexibility improves market efficiency without weakening transparency or competitive access.
Natural says payment infrastructure at scale requires capital because funds can be advanced before cash settles. The Upper90 facility adds dedicated financing capacity to the software and payment products Natural is building for AI agents. It complements AI agent spending controls emerging elsewhere in the stack, where transaction limits, authorization records and auditability govern automated payments.
Compute is starting to behave like a financial input rather than only a technology expense. Secondary markets are already emerging around scarce AI capacity, with market participants looking for better price discovery, liquidity and ways to manage infrastructure cost risk. Derivatives would take that development further by allowing firms to hedge future compute costs and availability, bringing market structure, manipulation and customer-protection questions directly into AI infrastructure.
The consultation exposes a tension inside post trade regulation: supervisors want better visibility into EU dependence on non-EU clearing infrastructure, but much of the relevant transaction information is already reported elsewhere. ESMA's design work therefore centres on identifying genuine data gaps rather than creating another parallel reporting system. The final technical standards will determine how much additional operational burden clearing firms face for that added visibility.
A regulated leasing route would let AI operators finance compute capacity over time while giving GIFT IFSC a position in the capital layer beneath AI deployment. The proposal addresses the AI infrastructure costs that are becoming a material constraint on production use.
Prediction markets are moving closer to the brokerage infrastructure already used to distribute financial products through fintech apps. That strengthens the innovation opportunity in regulated event contract infrastructure, where distribution, compliance, market integrity and settlement become as important as the contracts themselves. Alpaca's next proof point is whether partners actually embed the product once regulated operations begin.
The significance is regulated market access rather than a full crypto licence. Nigeria is using supervised incubation to bring international digital asset firms inside its regulatory perimeter while retaining control over permitted activities and operating conditions. For Blockchain.com, that creates a formal route into a large African digital finance market without treating sandbox admission as unrestricted authorization.
Adding more operating banks widens the distribution infrastructure behind the e-CNY without proving that customer adoption or transaction volumes have increased. The expansion builds on China's earlier digital yuan bank expansion and shows the operating network continuing to grow through established financial institutions rather than remaining concentrated among the original participants.
RoamQR connects international users to Pix without requiring Brazilian merchants to install new hardware or replace the QR infrastructure they already use. Participating wallets also avoid building separate bilateral integrations for each market. That is the interoperability problem highlighted in the cross border payments benchmark: strong domestic rails create more value when networks can connect them across borders without rebuilding the customer and merchant experience.
The partnership joins several financial layers that are often handled separately: consumer payment settlement, corporate liquidity, foreign exchange, tokenized treasury infrastructure and SME cross-border banking. It also fits Hong Kong's wider push toward tokenized financial infrastructure, where banks are combining regulated balance-sheet access with digital settlement and asset infrastructure rather than treating tokenization as a standalone product experiment.
Cross-border payment platforms can simplify the customer-facing experience, but settlement still depends heavily on regulated banking infrastructure, currency access and correspondent relationships underneath the API. Those dependencies are a central reason faster cross-border payments remain operationally difficult. Deutsche Bank gives TerraPay another institutional layer for moving and settling funds across currencies and jurisdictions, where corridor coverage, liquidity and local network access still determine performance.
Cross border payment competition is increasingly about how much complexity a platform can remove for the business initiating the payment. A single integration into global payout infrastructure can reduce the need to manage separate banking, wallet and local payment connections market by market. Fiserv now gives Thunes a much larger distribution channel into platforms and marketplaces that already manage business payment flows.
The Aug. 17 trigger is the public disclosure of the operating relationship, not the date the partnership became effective. The substance sits underneath Afriex's payment API: sponsor banking, settlement access and regulatory coverage determine how reliably the platform can connect local payment rails with international money movement. For cross-border fintechs, those banking relationships remain core infrastructure even when customers experience the service through a single API.
The acquisition puts insurance capacity, underwriting data and active cyber defence inside the same operating structure. At-Bay already monitors insured risk throughout the policy lifecycle, giving Munich Re a platform that can influence both loss prevention and pricing rather than relying only on claims experience after an incident. That integration could become more important as cyber insurers compete on the quality of the security controls wrapped around coverage.
Boost is putting banking, merchant payments and credit inside one operating interface for small businesses rather than distributing them as separate products. Same-day settlement can feed directly into cash management while transaction history can sit closer to financing decisions. For SMEs, the value depends on whether that integration reduces the time between making a sale, receiving usable funds and obtaining working capital when it is needed.
Canada's move toward faster payments compresses the time available to detect scams before money leaves an account. The survey shows that consumers already put security ahead of speed and convenience, while confidence in fraud protection remains uneven. As Real Time Rail testing and access advance, banks and payment providers will need fraud controls that work across identity, accounts and transaction channels rather than relying mainly on intervention after a suspicious payment has been completed.
The circular connects Faster Payment System deposits directly to trading-account and virtual-asset controls. Efficient funding depends on whether firms can verify ownership, stop suspicious instructions and manage the liability attached to simplified authorization.
The investigation shows why mortgage fraud controls cannot rely only on what one lender can see inside its own book. Repeated brokers, accountants, law firms, documents and funding patterns became more visible when information from multiple banks was analysed together. For lenders, that strengthens the case for shared intelligence and earlier detection before questionable loans are approved and funds become harder to recover.
Hardware wallet security now extends beyond protecting private keys. Order records can identify where crypto holders live and what they purchased, creating targeted phishing, impersonation and physical-security risks even when the wallet itself remains secure. That adds a customer-data layer to the self custody security risks already exposed by device and firmware failures.
APRA’s earlier focus on AI risk governance now extends to shared technology dependencies and stored-value infrastructure. Banks, fintech vendors and wallet providers should expect closer scrutiny of resilience, provider concentration and accountability across outsourced systems.
Like the several past months, this week’s Whisperer shows financial infrastructure becoming more integrated, more programmable and more regulated at the same time. The edge is going to firms that can combine distribution, trusted controls and ownership of the infrastructure underneath payments, AI, digital assets and capital markets without adding friction faster than they add capability.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets. 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 21, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Regulation And Policy, Competition And Market Structure

On August 18, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators published its 2025–2026 Year in Review. One capital formation result stands out. After regulators increased the limits for the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption, hundreds of listed issuers used it to raise almost $4 billion in the first year, at eight times the pace under the original limits.
That is unusually useful regulatory evidence. It doesn't prove the higher limits caused every additional financing, since issuer demand and market conditions also affect activity. But the market used the exemption far more heavily after regulators made it more practical. The result also strengthens a larger question NCFA recently explored around whether Canada can turn access into productive participation rather than stopping at permission on paper.
NCFA reviewed the expanded LIFE exemption when the CSA initially increased how much eligible listed companies could raise without preparing a prospectus for each financing.
The new usage data take that reform beyond policy design. Companies had a less burdensome financing route available and hundreds chose to use it.
The LIFE exemption gives eligible reporting issuers a more efficient way to raise public capital while retaining specified disclosure and investor protections. This matters most when the fixed costs of a conventional financing become large relative to the amount a smaller company needs to raise. A financing route can exist legally and still see limited use if its cost, complexity or timing makes the economics unattractive.
The first year under the higher limits provides evidence that those economics are essential. Hundreds of issuers used LIFE and almost $4 billion was raised, compared with a much lower pace under the previous limits. The important result is not simply that Canada permitted more financing. Issuers actually used the additional room.
That gives regulators a stronger basis for the next round of evaluation. Which companies used LIFE, how large were the financings, what did it cost them to raise the money, how did investors fare and how much activity would have occurred through another route anyway? Those questions can help distinguish a rule that merely looks simpler from one that materially improves capital formation.
The CSA is reducing different forms of friction elsewhere in the market. Eligible venture issuers with less than $10 million in annual revenue can voluntarily file financial results semiannually rather than quarterly under an interim regime. Regulators can use what they learn from that regime when considering permanent rules, making issuer cost and actual market use part of the feedback process.
The proposed self certified investor exemption approaches participation from the investor side. People who satisfy specified education or experience criteria could invest even if they don't meet the financial thresholds for accredited investors, with investments capped at $50,000 per calendar year across multiple businesses. The proposal would give Canadian issuers another potential source of private capital while widening access for investors regulators believe have enough knowledge or experience to understand the risks.
Accredited investor rules largely use wealth and income as proxies for the ability to bear risk, while the proposed exemption would also recognize relevant knowledge or experience. If adopted, its value should eventually be judged by more than the number of investors who become legally eligible. Issuer uptake, investment activity, losses, complaints and other investor outcomes would show whether wider access produces a useful market.
The same focus on actual market use is reaching new securities infrastructure. NCFA covered the launch of Project Tokenization when the CSA opened stakeholder engagement through the Collaboratory and identified a possible route toward live testing. The CSA now says the project has engaged more than 240 organizations spanning issuers, fintech companies, custodians, marketplaces, clearing agencies, professional firms and other participants.
The CSA Collaboratory gives novel products and market structures a way to engage regulators before launch and can support controlled testing where appropriate. That's important because tokenized securities depend on more than an issuer receiving permission to create a digital asset. Custody, ownership records, trading, settlement, compliance and investor protection all have to work well enough for a product to operate economically.
Tokenization is a more complex extension of the LIFE lesson. LIFE shows what happened after one capital raising constraint was relaxed. The U.S. is also reconsidering how securities rules apply to crypto asset capital raising, including proposals that could expand how much eligible issuers can raise under lighter offering requirements. In Canada, Project Tokenization can show whether regulators and market participants can identify which requirements are essential, which need adapting and which create enough cost or uncertainty to prevent otherwise viable infrastructure from being built here.
Ontario's commitment to join Canada's securities passport system tackles another longstanding source of friction. Our Ontario securities passport story traced how the province moved from pursuing a national regulator to joining the existing passport model. The CSA says Ontario's participation is intended to strengthen national harmonization, remove interprovincial barriers and reduce regulatory burden for companies doing business across Canada.
For firms operating nationally, duplicated provincial processes can become an operating cost even when the underlying securities requirements are similar. The useful evidence after Ontario joins will be whether companies encounter less duplication, lower compliance costs and easier national market access. Regulatory reform becomes much more informative when policymakers can compare what they changed with what companies and investors actually did afterward.
Lower friction does not mean removing protections wherever market participants find them expensive. The CSA issued 763 investor alerts, cautions and warnings during the year, more than 85% involving crypto assets, and facilitated the deactivation of 11,728 malicious investment websites representing 19,860 URLs.
Some rules clearly protect investors and market integrity. Others may now be costing the market more than they protect.
LIFE gives Canada a rare piece of evidence about that balance. Almost $4 billion and an eightfold increase in financing activity give regulators a reason to look for other places where better calibrated rules could produce more usable markets without sacrificing the protections that keep those markets credible.
If higher LIFE limits were followed by an eightfold increase in capital raised through the exemption, which other securities rules should Canada now test against actual issuer and investor behaviour?
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 18, 2026 | NCFA Feature | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure

On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed Regulation Crypto Assets (download 402 page PDF Proposed Regulation Crypto Assets document), a tailored securities framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The 402-page proposal would create a startup exemption of up to US$5 million over four years, a larger fundraising exemption with US$20 million and US$75 million tiers, crypto-specific disclosures, new SEC forms, secondary-market provisions, state-law preemption and a process for determining when an investment contract has ended.
The scope is narrower than the name might suggest. Regulation Crypto Assets would apply to what the SEC calls a covered investment contract. A crypto asset must be subject to the investment contract, the crypto asset itself must not be a security and no other asset can be subject to that contract.
That builds on the SEC's March 2026 crypto interpretation. The March action addressed when transactions involving a non-security crypto asset can create an investment contract and when that relationship can end. Regulation Crypto Assets would add an operating framework around that lifecycle.
The proposal is significant because it goes beyond creating two new fundraising limits. The SEC is designing rules for how certain crypto investment contracts could be offered, disclosed, distributed and resold, and how the underlying crypto asset could eventually separate from the investment contract.
The proposed Regulation Crypto Assets isn't a comprehensive U.S. crypto rulebook. It doesn't create the general regulatory regime for payment stablecoins, programmable payments, crypto custody, crypto lending, mining or conventional securities that happen to be tokenized. Those activities may fall under other federal or state laws, other regulators or separate SEC work.
Payment stablecoins are a good example. Regulation Crypto Assets says permitted payment stablecoins could be accepted as consideration in a covered offering and would count toward its offering limit. It does not establish the rules for issuing payment stablecoins.
That work is proceeding separately under the federal GENIUS Act. On August 17, one day before the SEC proposal, the U.S. Treasury issued a proposed payment stablecoin rule covering implementation of the separate federal framework for their issuance, offering and sale.
Other crypto activities can intersect with Regulation Crypto Assets without becoming generally regulated by it. The proposed Startup Exemption contemplates certain distributions connected with development and use of a crypto network, including circumstances involving airdrops, staking, governance, gas fees and testing. The legal question remains whether the particular transaction involves a covered investment contract.
The proposal also doesn't create a new legal category for tokenized stocks or bonds. Tokenized conventional securities remain securities. Regulation Crypto Assets instead addresses a narrower case where the crypto asset itself isn't a security but is subject to an investment contract.
It's important for founders, investors, lawyers and trading platforms to know that a crypto asset, an investment contract involving that asset and a tokenized security, can look technologically similar while carrying very different securities-law consequences.
The proposed Startup Exemption could be used for no more than four years after an issuer's initial Form NOR filing. The issuer and its affiliates could conduct covered transactions up to an aggregate US$5 million during that period and couldn't simply restart the four-year clock for the same or a substantially similar crypto asset.
The issuer definition is unusually flexible. The proposal would allow an entity, an individual or a group of individuals or entities to qualify, subject to the other conditions. That accommodates crypto projects that may begin with a development team before they resemble a conventional corporate securities issuer.
The fundraising mechanics are also important. The proposed startup route would permit general solicitation, impose no individual investment limit on retail purchasers and require neither financial statements nor use of a registered intermediary. Covered investment contracts sold through the exemption would not be restricted securities under federal law and would not carry a separate rule-based holding period.
Disclosure doesn't disappear. Before conducting covered transactions, the issuer would file Form NOR on EDGAR and make the disclosures required by Rule 103 publicly available free of charge.
Those disclosures are designed around the investment contract and crypto network. They include offering terms, management and conflicts, the crypto asset, development plans, network or application security, source code where applicable, token economics and allocations, governance, the related crypto ecosystem and material risks. The information must remain publicly available, with material changes addressed under the proposal's update requirements.
Bad-actor disqualifications would apply as well, and issuers would remain subject to federal antifraud and antimanipulation rules. This is a different compliance model, not an absence of securities regulation.
The most revealing comparison is Regulation Crowdfunding. Reg CF also permits up to US$5 million, but over a 12-month period. It requires a registered broker-dealer or funding portal, financial disclosure and investment limits for non-accredited investors, while securities generally face a one-year resale restriction.
The SEC makes that comparison itself. Its economic analysis estimates average Reg CF intermediary fees at approximately 6.6%, with a 6% median, and identifies the absence of mandatory financial statements and an intermediary as potential cost savings under the crypto Startup Exemption.
There is little evidence that current Reg CF rules have produced a large crypto financing market. SEC data identify 42 crypto-related Reg CF offerings by 41 issuers between 2016 and 2024. Reported proceeds totalled approximately US$13.6 million, with an average of US$545,300 among offerings for which proceeds were reported. The SEC cautions that the proceeds total is incomplete and likely represents a lower bound.
The proposal is therefore testing more than a higher ceiling. It asks whether removing particular intermediary, financial reporting, investor and resale frictions would make a public capital route more workable for qualifying crypto projects.
Larger projects could instead use the proposed Fundraising Exemption. Tier 1 would permit up to US$20 million in 12 months. The issuer would have to file Form 1-CRYPTO and couldn't sell covered investment contracts until the SEC qualified the offering statement.
The offering circular would combine the crypto-specific Rule 103 disclosures with financial information about the issuer. Tier 1 financial statements generally wouldn't require an audit, but the issuer would still enter an ongoing reporting regime using annual Form 1-KC, semiannual Form 1-SC and Form 1-UC for specified current events.
Retail investors would also face a restriction that doesn't apply under the Startup Exemption. A non-accredited investor generally couldn't purchase more than 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth. For a non-natural person, the test would use revenue or net assets.
Tier 2 would permit up to US$75 million in 12 months. Like Tier 1, it would require Form 1-CRYPTO, SEC qualification before sales, ongoing reporting and the 10% non-accredited investor limit. The key additional financial requirement is that Tier 2 statements would have to be audited by an independent accountant under the proposed standards.
The larger Fundraising Exemption also comes with a strong U.S. nexus. The issuer would have to be an entity organized under U.S. law, a majority of its executive officers or directors would need to be U.S. citizens or residents, more than half of its assets would need to be in the United States and its business would have to be administered principally there.
Canada appears explicitly in the SEC's request for comment. Question 86 asks whether Canadian issuers, or other foreign issuers, should be permitted to rely on the Fundraising Exemption.
That is more than a passing jurisdictional detail. Regulation A already allows qualifying Canadian issuers, while the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets fundraising route currently does not. Whether the SEC changes that provision could affect how useful the US$20 million and US$75 million routes become for Canadian crypto companies.
The proposal's treatment of secondary transfers may prove almost as important as its fundraising limits. The SEC says existing exemptions can impede the network effects of crypto assets when they restrict who can participate or how quickly securities can be resold.
Both proposed exemptions would therefore allow issuers to sell covered investment contracts that are not restricted securities under federal law. Investors wouldn't face the federal holding periods associated with restricted securities, although contractual restrictions and other applicable laws could still affect a transfer.
That differs from common Regulation D offerings and from Reg CF's first-year resale limits. The SEC's rationale is specific to crypto networks. Wider ownership and use can contribute to how a network operates and how the crypto asset derives value, so distribution restrictions can affect more than investor liquidity.
Rule 500 would address another obstacle by proposing federal preemption of certain state registration and qualification requirements. It would treat purchasers in qualifying Regulation Crypto Assets transactions as qualified purchasers for that purpose and extend the treatment to specified secondary-market transactions.
The preemption isn't unlimited. Secondary-market treatment would depend on the issuer remaining current with the disclosure, filing or reporting requirements attached to the applicable exemption. States would also retain antifraud authority, powers over unlawful broker or dealer conduct, notice filing requirements and applicable fees.
For trading platforms and intermediaries, the proposal introduces an additional status question. They may need to distinguish between the underlying non-security crypto asset, an outstanding covered investment contract involving it and an asset for which that investment-contract relationship has ended.
Rule 400 addresses one of the most distinctive features of the proposal. The SEC's existing securities rules generally deal with financial instruments whose fundamental legal character doesn't change over time. A crypto asset can present a different problem because an investment contract surrounding it may end while the crypto asset continues to exist and circulate.
The proposed safe harbor would apply when the issuer has completed or permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised under the covered investment contract. The issuer also couldn't be making, or intending to make, new promises to perform those essential managerial efforts.
An issuer seeking to use the safe harbor would file Form TR. The filing would include a certification and an analysis supporting the conclusion that the required managerial efforts have ended.
Meeting those conditions would mean the crypto asset is deemed no longer subject to that investment contract for the relevant definitions of a security under the Securities Act and Exchange Act. That doesn't mean Form TR can convert a security into a non-security simply because an issuer files it. The substantive conditions still have to be satisfied, and the SEC can challenge an issuer's analysis.
Nor does the proposal replace Howey or the March interpretation. The safe harbor creates one defined route for dealing with the end of an investment contract. The SEC acknowledges that a covered investment contract could also cease to exist outside the safe harbor under the applicable securities-law analysis.
That lifecycle helps explain why the proposal is more consequential than a new exemption schedule.
The SEC is contemplating a regulatory sequence in which a project can finance development through an investment contract, distribute the associated crypto asset widely and potentially reach a point where the investment contract itself no longer exists.
Canada has dealt with token offerings for years. Canadian securities regulators issued guidance on cryptocurrency offerings in 2017 and followed with more detailed token offering guidance in 2018. The CSA has made clear that coins or tokens can involve investment contracts and distributions of securities depending on their economic substance and how they are offered.
There have also been Canadian security-token initiatives and exempt-market token offerings. The difference isn't that Canada has avoided token issuance. Canada has generally applied its existing securities laws, prospectus exemptions and registration framework rather than creating a dedicated crypto lifecycle regime comparable to Regulation Crypto Assets. That difference also fits Canada's wider capital formation gap.
Capital formation makes that difference more important. Canada's NI 45-110 startup crowdfunding exemption currently permits an eligible issuer to raise up to C$1.5 million over 12 months. An investor generally can invest up to C$2,500 in an offering, or C$10,000 when a registered dealer determines that the investment is suitable, and the offering must take place through a funding portal.
The Canadian market is also much smaller. FrontFundr reports that it processed C$4.79 million from 4,320 investors under NI 45-110 in 2025 and accounted for 93% of activity under the exemption. Because that 93% figure comes from FrontFundr rather than an official national regulatory dataset, it should be treated as a platform estimate rather than an official Canadian market total.
There is stronger evidence that the C$1.5 million ceiling is becoming binding for some issuers. Edison Motors raised C$1.491 million under NI 45-110 in 2025, roughly 99% of the limit. Blossom Social raised C$1.450 million, approximately 97%.
The more direct U.S. comparison is Regulation Crowdfunding. Reg CF already allows eligible companies to raise up to US$5 million in 12 months, but requires an SEC-registered intermediary, limits investments by non-accredited investors and generally restricts resale for one year. The proposed US$5 million crypto Startup Exemption would use the same headline ceiling with a different compliance model.
The larger crypto Fundraising Exemption is more directly comparable with Regulation A. Existing Reg A already uses US$20 million Tier 1 and US$75 million Tier 2 limits, with additional audit, investor-protection and ongoing-reporting requirements at Tier 2.
Canada is a different comparison. NI 45-110 isn't a crypto-specific equivalent to Regulation Crypto Assets, but it is Canada's nationally harmonized startup crowdfunding route. It remains capped at C$1.5 million over 12 months, with a funding-portal requirement and investor limits of C$2,500 per offering or C$10,000 with suitability advice from a registered dealer.
NCFA has been advocating for a C$5 million or higher issuer cap for years, arguing that the C$1.5 million ceiling can limit the usefulness of the exemption for growing companies. That concern is now easier to test against actual market activity, with some Canadian crowdfunding campaigns reaching close to the current ceiling.
The relevant policy question is therefore wider than whether Canada has an identical crypto exemption. The U.S. already offers Reg CF and Regulation A for different stages of capital raising and is now proposing a separate crypto-specific framework built around fundraising, token distribution, resale and the eventual end of an investment contract.
That matters because Canada's capital formation system already has funding gaps, while some Canadian crowdfunding campaigns are reaching the NI 45-110 ceiling. Regulation Crypto Assets could add another financing and regulatory option to the U.S. market without a directly comparable Canadian crypto-specific route.
The proposed US$75 million Tier 2 also raises a separate competitiveness issue. The SEC is asking whether Canadian issuers should eventually be eligible for the Fundraising Exemption. If they are included, qualifying Canadian crypto companies could gain access to a much larger U.S. pathway. If they remain excluded, access to U.S. capital could become another factor projects consider when deciding where to organize and raise funds.
None of this means Canadian regulators should copy the SEC. It does strengthen the case for examining Canada's startup financing limits, token-offering rules and capital-market pathways together rather than as separate policy files.
For Canada, the challenge is whether existing rules can protect investors while giving legitimate companies enough financing capacity and regulatory flexibility to build here. If the U.S. adds specialized crypto fundraising routes on top of Reg CF and Regulation A, that competitive comparison becomes more difficult to ignore.
If the U.S. adds a dedicated crypto capital-formation and investment-contract lifecycle regime on top of Reg CF and Regulation A, while Canada still relies on existing exemptions and a C$1.5 million startup crowdfunding cap, how long can Canada treat crypto regulation and capital-formation reform as separate policy questions?
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




