Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Oct 3, 2026 | Last Updated: Oct 20, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Digital Banking And BaaS, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Regulation And Policy, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Embedded Finance, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Digital Identity And Trust

] 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-March 13, 2026, March 14-March 20, 2026, March 21-March 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-June 19, 2026, June 20-June 26, 2026, June 27-July 3, 2026, July 4-July 10, 2026, July 11-July 17, 2026, July 18-July 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, September 5-September 11, 2026, September 12-September 18, 2026, September 19-September 25, 2026, September 26-October 2, 2026).
Canadian banks and insurers now have a clearer view of what OSFI expects them to manage as frontier AI moves into financial operations. Firms will need evidence that they can test advanced models, understand critical dependencies and assign responsibility when AI affects important services.
Modern Treasury is trying to move from orchestrating regulated money movement to owning a federally supervised custody capability. That extends the strategy behind its earlier integrated payment infrastructure and would give the company more direct control over custody, settlement and the service boundary between fintech infrastructure and bank partners.
Rain is seeking to put custody, reserve management and stablecoin issuance inside a federally supervised institution rather than relying on separate providers for each function. Approval would give its fintech and enterprise customers a more direct regulated path from stablecoin infrastructure to banking controls.
A licensed bank is putting external wallet activity inside the same operating environment as fiat accounts. That makes blockchain screening, address verification and conversion part of the banking control stack and gives customers a regulated route between bank balances and self custody without routing every transfer through a separate crypto platform.
Client money accounts and reconciliation are core operating controls for a regulated exchange, not peripheral banking services. Bringing those functions into a CBB regulated bank relationship gives Rain a more direct operating path for safeguarding customer funds and managing liquidity as its regional business grows.
A mobile money operator with a major African distribution footprint is entering public markets as a separately traded financial platform. Investors can value payments, digital wallets and related services independently from the parent’s telecom business. The deal also tests public-market appetite for financial inclusion businesses with extensive networks and operating exposure across African jurisdictions.
Tokenized U.S. equities have moved from venue design into a live regulated product available to eligible investors. Securitize is combining conventional share backing and investor rights with blockchain settlement, giving the market a practical test of whether tokenized stocks can expand without separating investors from the legal rights attached to the underlying shares.
Earned wage access providers must finance payments to employees before the employer's scheduled payroll date. DailyPay's second securitization expands that capacity and gives institutional investors another way to fund short duration payroll receivables. For fintech lenders and funding partners, the important question is whether access to asset-backed financing can reduce capital costs enough to support growth while keeping funding available through weaker credit markets.
The bond puts a regulated yen stablecoin into the full payment lifecycle of a conventional financing instrument. If the model works operationally, issuers can test stablecoin settlement against familiar corporate debt obligations rather than limiting use to transfers, trading or standalone token experiments.
RBC’s participation gives Canadian capital markets expertise a direct role in a sovereign issuance experiment, not just a vendor demonstration. For dealers, custodians and infrastructure providers, the practical questions are how digital securities enter established distribution channels and who controls the asset record, settlement and post-issuance servicing.
An institutional tokenized liquidity product that already operated in Switzerland now has a licensed access route in Singapore. The expansion tests whether tokenized cash management products can move across regulated entities and jurisdictions without rebuilding the underlying issuance and administration infrastructure each time.
Exchange operators have a narrowly defined window to alter an existing contract structure, but only with procedural safeguards for participants. The relief provides a near-term test of how regulators handle continuous futures exposure and legacy open positions. Firms should focus on the eligibility conditions and deadline rather than extrapolate a general approval of perpetual derivatives.
The SEC's five year pathway for tokenized U.S. stock trading now has a concrete venue design behind it. OKXICE combines permissioned wallets, stablecoin settlement, automated liquidity and broker held share backing, turning an exemption into an operating model that other tokenized securities venues can be measured against.
Remote onboarding is becoming a larger fraud control and technology migration issue for Japanese financial institutions. Banks and fintechs need to test how document authentication, chip reading, customer identity verification and fraud monitoring work together. Providers still relying on uploaded document images face a concrete transition deadline, while recent breaches put pressure on firms to tighten controls sooner.
Thailand has moved from consultation to a defined route for domestic crypto investment funds. Asset managers, custodians and brokers now have clearer operating requirements, although fund approvals and individual product launches still lie ahead. The limits on eligible assets, custody and leverage will influence which firms can compete and how much crypto investment activity enters regulated capital markets.
Liquidity promises and asset liquidity have to match. Fund managers and distributors should compare proposed redemption terms with actual asset disposal periods, investor expectations and the operations of savings wrappers. For private market access products, the consultation adds another regulatory reference point for designing redemption rights before fundraising begins.
A startup can test a defined investment advice offering through an existing regulatory exemption without claiming general permission to automate every advice function. The useful comparison for Canadian wealthtech founders is how sandbox scope, product limitations and retail safeguards affect the journey from prototype to licensed distribution. Evidence of live advice quality and client outcomes remains a separate test.
This is no longer only a financing story. A major Canadian pension investor is using board influence and management changes as FNZ works to improve delivery and profitability. For private fintech investors, the case shows what ownership can require when a large platform needs more capital and investors cannot rely on an easy exit.
Digital asset markets already trade continuously while fiat funding still depends heavily on bank cutoffs. Connecting a regulated bank clearing network directly to institutional digital asset infrastructure reduces that timing gap and gives participating firms a more continuous way to manage settlement, liquidity and counterparty funding.
Resilience is becoming a card-issuance and terminal-procurement requirement, not merely a contingency plan. Issuers, acquirers and merchants need to examine device capabilities, authorization limits and reconciliation processes before replacement cycles lock in incompatible equipment. Canadian payment providers should consider how outage tolerance is built into their own acceptance infrastructure.
BDO is consolidating domestic and international payment processing around one operating layer rather than maintaining separate systems for each rail. That can make it easier to add networks, apply common controls and automate routing as payment formats and clearing requirements change.
Banks now have to defend against attackers who can automate parts of vulnerability research and intrusion work that previously required more manual effort. The campaign makes agentic AI a live financial security problem, not only a future model risk, and raises the value of rapid detection across shared infrastructure and third party systems.
The proposal would change who supervises major trading and post-trading infrastructure and how firms expand across EU borders. Exchanges, fund operators and crypto providers need to examine the proposed significance thresholds and licensing options, not assume that every institution will face the same supervisor. For Canadian firms entering Europe, the eventual perimeter could materially affect expansion costs.
This gives EU crypto firms a concrete operating deadline rather than a general warning about unauthorized stablecoins. Platforms need controls that can identify affected tokens, restrict new exposure and manage existing positions across trading, custody and transfer services.
Dealers need to identify contracts and compensation schedules that expose representatives to redemption-related clawbacks and prepare for the new requirements. The compliance question reaches beyond disclosure: compensation design itself can influence recommendations and client outcomes. Canadian investment platforms and distributors should check how their adviser agreements and oversight controls need to change.
A dedicated federal market category could change the choice between existing derivatives venues and new crypto trading infrastructure. Exchanges and brokers should assess which products fall inside the transaction definitions and what market surveillance, registration and customer controls may follow. The consultation is an early opportunity to influence the rules before firms commit to a licensing model.
Crypto exchanges, custodians and other financial intermediaries now have greater clarity about two compliance proposals that will not proceed in their existing form. The withdrawals remove potential additional reporting and verification requirements while leaving established anti-money laundering obligations intact. For firms serving U.S. customers, the decision affects compliance planning and investment in transaction monitoring, particularly where digital asset activity involves self-hosted wallets or mixing services.
A compliance program designed around a small deposit business cannot be assumed sufficient for a much larger card network exposure. Banks and payment companies need risk assessments that match actual transaction flows, backed by staff capacity, independent testing and timely escalation. The coordinated orders also underline how failures across related entities can become a group-wide supervisory issue.
Institutions now have a defined preparation period to identify where AI enters customer decisions, critical operations and outsourced services. Model inventories, accountable owners and evidence of controls will need to stand up to supervisory review. The comparison for Canadian institutions is how OSFI’s principles translate into documented practices alongside the more explicit Singapore requirements.
Institutional risk infrastructure is forming around onchain credit markets as capital moves into lending vaults. A standardized external assessment gives allocators another way to compare structures that differ in credit quality, liquidity, protocol exposure and governance, which can influence which vaults become investable for larger institutions.
Adding regulated stablecoins to an ERP payment workflow brings programmable stablecoin payments closer to routine corporate finance. Businesses can test digital currency settlement inside the same systems already used for invoices, payment approval and reconciliation instead of building a separate crypto payment process.
Plaid is moving beyond account connectivity into the decision layer of lending. The same permissioned financial data infrastructure used to connect accounts can now feed regulated underwriting, giving Plaid a larger role in how lenders translate open banking data into approvals, pricing and credit limits.
Experian is turning permissioned bank transaction data into formal consumer reporting infrastructure rather than treating cash flow as an additional analytics product. That gives lenders a regulated path to combine traditional credit files with current financial behaviour and moves open banking data deeper into mainstream underwriting architecture.
Treasurers are gaining a way to reposition bank liquidity outside normal banking cutoffs while retaining a commercial bank deposit relationship. The operational work shifts to liquidity controls, access permissions, currency coverage and reconciliation across group entities. The important expansion test is whether the model can extend to more banks and corporate customers.
The pilot extends an already live bank tokenized deposit network into a new treasury region and cross border corridor. For multinational companies, the operating question is whether these networks can make liquidity movable across markets and currencies in real time without creating a separate treasury stack outside existing banking relationships.
The registration system is turning a statutory crypto market perimeter into an operating set of authorized firms. Custody and dealing permissions differ, so counterparties need to understand precisely which activities each entity can perform. For foreign institutions, jurisdictional restrictions and sanctions considerations remain separate from the existence of a domestic registration.
More companies can now offer financial services without owning the infrastructure behind them. That opens opportunities for smaller firms, but it also puts pressure on margins and leaves critical parts of the customer experience in someone else's hands. Canadian founders and investors need to look closely at where profits accumulate, who controls distribution and whether growing transaction volumes actually improve the economics of the business.
Follow the next developments in NCFA’s newsletter, browse fintech coverage and industry research, or review 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 6, 2026 | Regulation And Policy, Banking And Credit, Financial Crime And Compliance, Cybersecurity And Operational Resilience, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Payments And Money Movement

On August 20, 2026, Toronto Centre published the podcast episode The Landscape of Financial Supervision and Security, featuring Tom Keatinge, Founding Director of the Centre for Finance and Security at RUSI, in conversation with former Basel Committee Secretary General Bill Coen. They discussed how financial supervisors should respond when foreign interference, sanctions, cyber threats and state activity move through the same institutions and infrastructure they already supervise.
Canada has been building an answer since 2023. OSFI now assesses whether federally regulated financial institutions can protect themselves against threats to their integrity and security, including foreign interference. It has also built a national security function that brings classified intelligence into supervisory work. What began as a legislative mandate is now part of how Canadian financial institutions are supervised.
A bank can be well capitalized and still face risk from foreign interference, state sponsored cyber activity, opaque ownership or compromised third parties. OSFI's integrity and security framework puts those threats inside its supervisory mandate.
In 2023, parliament expanded OSFI's mandate through Bill C 47. Federally regulated financial institutions became responsible for having policies and procedures to protect against threats to their integrity and security, including foreign interference. OSFI described the expanded mandate as a significant increase in the type of oversight it provides.
In 2024, OSFI finalized its Integrity and Security Guideline. Institutions were expected to assess risks involving foreign interference, undue influence, ownership, third parties, malicious activity and unauthorized access to their operations or assets.
In 2025, OSFI identified integrity and security as a major risk to Canada's financial system. Its work increasingly included state linked actors, cyber threats, geopolitical risk and intelligence sharing with federal security partners.
In 2026, The work continues as part of regular supervision. OSFI's 2026 to 2027 risk outlook continues to identify foreign interference, malicious cyber activity and threats to critical financial infrastructure. In September, OSFI appointed senior leadership with direct responsibility for integrity and national security.
National security has moved through legislation, supervisory guidance, intelligence capability, risk assessment and senior accountability. Banks should expect it to remain part of supervision, while fintechs may face many of the same expectations by extension through third party relationships with regulated financial institutions, including tighter due diligence, cyber, data, sanctions and incident reporting requirements.
Keatinge argues that traditional anti money laundering controls are better at finding known financial crime than activity backed by a hostile state. Money used to fund influence or interference may come from a legal source, move through regulated institutions and involve companies or people that appear legitimate. The problem may not be where the money came from. It may be who is directing the activity and why.
FATF has not said its framework is inadequate for political interference, but its own work shows how difficult state linked financial activity can be to detect. A June 2025 review found only 16% of assessed jurisdictions demonstrated high or substantial effectiveness in implementing targeted financial sanctions related to proliferation. The networks FATF describes often use front companies, hidden ownership, intermediaries, trade and virtual assets. FATF's proliferation financing review documents those methods.
FINTRAC's counter proliferation work covers sanctions evasion and threats to the security of Canada. Reporting entities are expected to look through ownership, control and corporate relationships when suspicious activity appears. A transaction can look ordinary while the people, companies or purpose behind it tell a different story.
Keatinge uses stablecoins to show how financial innovation can create economic and security risks at the same time. If households and businesses in a smaller economy transfer substantial savings from local bank deposits into US dollar stablecoins, local banks may lose part of the funding they use to make loans. At scale, that can become a financial stability and monetary sovereignty issue, especially when domestic savings and payments depend more heavily on assets and infrastructure controlled outside the country.
BIS research published in 2026 says stablecoins could make bank funding more expensive if people move money out of deposits. That could leave banks with less money to lend, including to small businesses. The IMF also warns that if money moves from local bank deposits into stablecoins backed by assets held abroad, less funding may remain in the domestic banking system. So far, however, the IMF says there is no clear evidence that this has caused widespread bank disintermediation.
Stablecoins also raise sanctions, cyber and financial crime concerns. FATF has identified virtual assets in proliferation financing and sanctions evasion, while state sponsored cyber actors have stolen digital assets to help fund government programs. Canada's stablecoin regulatory framework brings these risks into the wider debate over how digital money should be supervised.
Keatinge describes the financial system as a domain of geopolitical conflict. Regulators usually use different language, but sanctions, cyberattacks and financial infrastructure already play direct roles in relations between states. Governments can restrict access to financial transactions and services, state sponsored actors target financial institutions and payment networks, and financial infrastructure is treated as critical infrastructure.
In May 2026, G7 finance ministries, central banks, bank supervisors and market authorities ran a cross border exercise based on a large scale cyberattack affecting financial systems across G7 countries. They tested how authorities would respond, restore services, communicate during the crisis and coordinate across borders. The G7 exercise shows how a cyberattack on one part of the financial system can quickly affect institutions in other countries.
A serious attack on payments, banking access, market infrastructure or a major technology provider can disrupt services and weaken confidence at the same time. Firms building payment, identity, digital asset or financial infrastructure need to treat resilience as part of the product, not just an internal technology issue.
1. Foreign influence and a provincial referendum
In September 2026, Canada's Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner said the office was aware of concerns about foreign influence activities directed at the Alberta referendum. The Commissioner reminded participants that arrangements with foreign principals intended to influence a provincial referendum can require registration. The Commissioner's statement shows how political influence can intersect with payments, intermediaries and funding relationships.
2. Crowdfunding brought permanently into financial crime controls
During the 2022 Emergencies Act response, Canada temporarily extended anti money laundering and anti terrorist financing obligations to donation crowdfunding platforms and certain payment service providers. After the emergency ended, the government made separate regulatory changes that permanently brought donation crowdfunding platforms and certain payment processors, including businesses handling fiat or virtual currency transactions into Canada's AML regime. NCFA challenged the permanent rules, arguing that the government had not published enough evidence to justify their scope and that smaller platforms would carry a disproportionate compliance burden. The episode shows how a security event can lead to lasting regulatory change for an entire fintech sector.
3. Digital assets used to preserve access to global finance
In August 2026, the US Treasury sanctioned two digital asset exchanges and a network of front companies that it said Iran used to launder billions of dollars, maintain covert access to international financial systems and support sanctioned actors. The Treasury action shows how exchanges, wallets and corporate networks can become part of sanctions enforcement even when a traditional bank is not at the centre of the transaction.
4. Payments routed through intermediaries
FINTRAC requires transactions originating from or bound for Russia to be treated as high risk and calls for additional checks on identity, source of funds or virtual currency, transaction purpose and beneficial ownership. Its sanctions guidance also describes shell companies, intermediary jurisdictions, crypto exchanges and brokers being used to obscure sanctioned activity. FINTRAC's Russia guidance shows why screening the immediate sender or destination may not reveal the real exposure.
5. Cyber theft used to fund weapons programs
FINTRAC has documented North Korea's use of cyber theft, digital assets, front companies and financial intermediaries in activity connected with weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs. FINTRAC's proliferation bulletin connects cyber security, wallet intelligence, beneficial ownership and sanctions controls to the same state backed financing problem.
For fintechs, the risk may be behind the payment in who owns the company, who benefits, where the money is routed or what the transaction is meant to achieve. A security event can also bring new rules to an entire sector with little time to prepare.
Banks and credit unions may have to look beyond capital, liquidity and operational risk to ownership, foreign influence, sanctions, cyber threats and insider risk. Smaller institutions could face higher compliance costs as national security becomes more closely tied to supervision.
For fintechs and payment firms, onboarding may need to go beyond identity checks and standard AML screening. State linked counterparties, unusual ownership structures, high risk jurisdictions and cyber exposure can all matter. Faster payments and digital assets also leave less time to spot and stop suspicious activity.
RegTech firms have a clear opportunity. The challenge is to combine transaction data with beneficial ownership, sanctions, corporate networks and cyber intelligence without overwhelming compliance teams with false positives. AI, programmable finance and financial crime increasingly meet inside the same monitoring systems.
Founders and investors should expect these issues to arise earlier. They can affect product design, bank partnerships, regulatory approvals and access to capital well before a company reaches bank scale.
National security is becoming part of everyday financial supervision. The difficult challenge is spotting harmful activity when the money and transaction both look legitimate. Banks and fintechs will need to understand not just where money comes from, but who is behind it, where it is going and what it is meant to achieve.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Oct 5, 2026 | Legal, Regulation, FinTech, Crowdfunding, Human Capital

In the early days of a fintech or crowdfunding platform, legal work often falls to a founder, an outside firm on retainer or a part time advisor. That works for a while. Then the company grows, regulators take notice, partners ask harder questions during due diligence, and it becomes clear that legal expertise is no longer a supporting function. It is part of the product.
Hiring the right legal talent at the right time can be the difference between scaling smoothly and stalling under compliance pressure. Here is what Canadian fintech leaders should know.
Fintech companies operate in one of the most heavily regulated corners of the economy. Every new product, market or partnership can trigger obligations around money laundering, privacy, securities or payments.
Investors understand this. Strong legal and compliance leadership signals that a company can grow without costly surprises. Banks and payment partners often expect it before they will sign an agreement. And when something does go wrong, experienced counsel can limit the damage.
The Canadian regulatory landscape explains why legal hiring has become so competitive.
Many fintechs, including money services businesses and some crypto platforms, have reporting and compliance obligations to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada. These obligations typically include appointing a compliance officer, maintaining a written compliance program and reporting certain transactions. Getting this wrong can lead to significant penalties.
Fintechs handle highly sensitive personal and financial information. In most provinces, private sector privacy is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada explains how organizations must collect, use and protect that information. Some provinces also have their own private sector privacy laws.
Crowdfunding portals and investment platforms must navigate provincial securities rules, including the national start-up crowdfunding exemptions. Offering documents, investor limits and marketing all require careful legal review.
The Retail Payment Activities Act requires many payment service providers to register with the Bank of Canada and meet operational and fund safeguarding requirements, adding a new layer of compliance work for payments companies.
Not every company needs a full legal department on day one. As companies grow, these roles tend to appear in roughly this order.
A first general counsel usually handles everything from contracts and financing to regulatory strategy. The best early hires are generalists who are comfortable working at startup speed and know when to bring in outside specialists.
A dedicated compliance officer, often with anti-money laundering expertise, becomes essential once regulatory obligations grow. This person builds policies, trains staff and manages relationships with regulators.
As products become more data driven, specialized counsel can manage privacy programs, vendor agreements and cybersecurity requirements.
Growing fintechs sign agreements with banks, processors, software vendors and distribution partners. Counsel who can negotiate these efficiently keeps deals moving.
Lawyers with real fintech experience are in short supply. Fintechs compete with major banks, large law firms and global technology companies for the same people, often with smaller budgets. Candidates also need a rare combination of skills: regulatory knowledge, commercial judgment and comfort with ambiguity.
Startups can compete by offering meaningful equity, broad responsibility and the chance to shape a legal function from the ground up. But they need to find the right candidates first.
A few steps can make the process more effective:
Many companies also find it worthwhile to work with specialists. Experienced legal recruiters like The Heller Group understand the Canadian legal market and can identify candidates with the right regulatory background, including those not actively searching. That can save months on a critical hire.
In fintech and crowdfunding, legal expertise is not overhead. It is infrastructure. The companies that thrive are the ones that treat compliance as part of their product, build legal capacity ahead of regulatory pressure and hire people who can help them grow responsibly. Investing in the right legal bench early is one of the smartest moves a growing platform can make.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 26, 2026 | Last Updated Oct 2, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cross Border Payments And FX, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Digital Banking And BaaS, Digital Identity And Trust, Embedded Finance, Insurance And Insurtech, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Regulation And Policy, Risk Compliance And Regtech, SME Finance And Business Banking, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Sustainable Finance ESG And Financial Inclusion

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-March 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, September 5-September 11, 2026, September 12-September 18, 2026, September 19-September 25, 2026).
The FTC is examining what happens when AI systems progress from generating content to taking actions across external systems. Financial institutions deploying agents into payments, trading, customer service and compliance should expect permissions, monitoring, cybersecurity controls, audit records and accountability for autonomous actions to receive greater regulatory scrutiny.
The incident shows how an AI agent performing an ordinary information-retrieval task can escalate into security probing when normal access fails. For governments and financial institutions exposing data or transaction functions to agents, access controls need to account for software that can change tactics autonomously rather than simply repeat a failed request.
Financial institutions buying or integrating frontier models now have a common governance reference across six of the largest AI providers. Independent evaluation, internal monitoring and board oversight give procurement, model risk and compliance teams more concrete controls to examine as AI agents enter regulated financial workflows and receive greater authority over financial decisions.
Meta is putting an agent layer across software that small businesses already use for commerce, accounting and payments. The control question is no longer limited to chatbot output: businesses need clear permissions, data boundaries and approval records when an agent can read financial information and act across connected systems.
AI shopping agents can now progress from finding products to submitting an order inside Shopify's checkout infrastructure. That extends the approach already visible in Canadian agentic commerce from a controlled payment deployment to a major commerce platform, making buyer confirmation, payment authentication and the record of what an agent was authorized to do part of the checkout control.
PI-SPI is moving from shared payment infrastructure into a mandated routing layer for electronic money across eight West African countries. That gives BCEAO more direct influence over interoperability, pricing and network access while reducing the role of bilateral arrangements in determining how consumers move money between providers.
Canada's access reform is producing a more diverse group of institutions inside the national payments framework. With fintechs, global payment companies and credit unions now qualifying for membership, the next competitive question is which firms progress from membership to direct system participation as Real-Time Rail launches.
Fiserv is putting stablecoin infrastructure inside banking software already used by financial institutions rather than requiring each bank to build a separate digital asset stack. For institutions evaluating bank issued digital money, Roughrider Coin provides a production reference spanning issuance, custody, reserves and interbank settlement across more than 90 banks and credit unions.
India adds a major new distribution market to Apple's payment network while starting through existing card rails rather than UPI or RuPay. Banks, PSPs and wallets can now measure how quickly device-native card payments gain usage alongside India's dominant domestic payment infrastructure and whether additional issuers and networks join Axis Bank.
Europe's largest domestic wallet and account-payment systems have formed jointly governed infrastructure beyond bilateral interoperability projects. A shared layer spanning 130 million users gives banks and merchants a potential European alternative for cross-border P2P, ecommerce and point-of-sale payments without forcing consumers to abandon the domestic payment brands they already use.
Wave's entry adds a major mobile money distribution channel to BCEAO's regional instant payment infrastructure. Banks and payment providers can now compete and interoperate across a system that connects wallets and accounts under a common regional payment layer rather than relying on closed provider networks.
RTP access now supports another bank intermediary model, but the added reach comes with explicit transparency and risk controls. Sending institutions need customer and institution due diligence, message data and fraud processes aligned before they treat indirect domestic sending as another instant payment route.
Payment exception repair can now use AI-assisted decisioning inside established bank processing platforms instead of relying on manual specialist work. Scheme-aware recommendations are particularly relevant because a suggested correction must satisfy the rules of the payment network involved, giving banks a controlled way to automate analysis without transferring final transaction authority to the model.
The digital euro programme is opening a defined experimentation route for private payment innovation around central bank money. The inclusion of AI agents and conditional payments also brings AI payment authority closer to public payment infrastructure, where user control, privacy, authorization and interoperability have to work together.
Banks can evaluate stablecoin settlement without building a separate digital asset stack. The operating question is how minting, redemption, wallet controls and settlement fit existing payment operations, as stablecoins are added to existing bank payment infrastructure.
Corporate treasurers want faster international payments without replacing the banking systems used to manage cash, approvals and reconciliation. BHP's transaction tested that proposition using an existing bank account while ANZ, Citi and Swift handled the digital settlement infrastructure. Banks developing tokenized deposit services now have to establish whether the same experience can work across more currencies, counterparties and routine treasury payments without adding operational complexity for customers.
The pilot puts stablecoin settlement inside a real bank-to-global-payment-network workflow rather than a simulated transaction. As stablecoins become payment infrastructure, continuous settlement could reduce weekend and time-zone funding delays, but treasury teams still need to manage stablecoin acquisition, regulated counterparties, blockchain interoperability and liquidity alongside existing payment rails.
Jeeves is using stablecoins as enterprise payment infrastructure rather than as a separate treasury product. The wallet and card expansion gives multinational companies another route around slow correspondent banking for payouts, cards and treasury activity, while the reported US$1.5 billion annualized stablecoin volume provides operating evidence that businesses are already using the rails at scale.
Stablecoins are being integrated into existing payment infrastructure rather than offered as a separate crypto product. For African merchants, the operating test is whether combining fiat and stablecoin settlement on one rail can reduce funding delays and foreign exchange friction without creating another disconnected treasury workflow.
The pilot shows how banks can extend existing Swift connectivity into foreign instant-payment systems without requiring clients to rebuild their payment channels. For banks handling remittances, marketplace payouts and smaller business payments, the model puts competition on reach, delivery certainty and real-time local clearing rather than simply improving correspondent-bank messaging.
Swift's ledger has progressed from infrastructure readiness into multi-bank usage across currencies and continents. Banks can now use tokenized deposits inside a network that still connects to existing settlement systems, while the consumer payments work extends the same interoperability model to familiar domestic payment identifiers. The practical issue is how new digital value and existing tokenized settlement infrastructure connect without fragmenting payment operations.
Cross border wallet access is being added to established correspondent banking rather than built as a separate payment network. Banks can extend account based international payments into wallet led markets while retaining familiar messaging and clearing infrastructure, reducing the integration work required to reach recipients who use wallets as their primary payment endpoint.
Islamic treasury management is being built directly into correspondent banking infrastructure. Al Salam can deploy overnight nostro liquidity without moving balances into a separate investment workflow, giving treasury teams another way to optimize short-term cash while preserving Sharia-compliant structures.
The clarification removes stigma from a liquidity tool embedded in Canada's high value payment system. Lynx participants can treat overnight SLF use as ordinary settlement liquidity management, while treasury and risk teams still need to understand collateral, internal escalation and regulatory reporting around those draws.
Citi is extending tokenized deposits from individual market deployments into a multi-currency treasury network. Corporate treasurers can transfer liquidity between more financial centres outside normal banking hours, making geography, currency support and interoperability with existing accounts more important than the blockchain layer itself.
OUSD has progressed from consortium design into live financial infrastructure with distribution through several of the largest payment and crypto platforms. The design combines reserve backing, multi-chain issuance and payment integrations, giving banks and fintechs another stablecoin route for settlement and financial products without building each connection independently.
Institutional tokenization depends on common infrastructure that can transfer assets and instructions across otherwise separate networks. CCIP 2.0 gives issuers and financial institutions another production option for connecting tokenized assets across chains while keeping compliance and transaction controls inside the workflow, reducing the need for a new point to point integration every time another network is added.
Private market investment products need redemption terms that work when their underlying assets cannot be sold quickly. Greater flexibility could help managers design funds around the actual liquidity of private credit, infrastructure and other less liquid investments, while multiple share classes could widen distribution options. For Canadian fund managers and wealth platforms, the important comparison is how product access, redemption promises, distribution costs and investor protections fit together before broader retail participation is encouraged.
A regulated central securities depository is now using a public blockchain inside live market infrastructure without replacing the authoritative securities record. That hybrid model separates blockchain transparency and audit functions from the legal registration and settlement controls already operated by the CSD.
Coinbase can now bring exchange, brokerage and clearing under its own regulated U.S. derivatives infrastructure instead of depending on an outside clearinghouse for the full workflow. The registration gives the company direct control over another critical market function, while clearing member safeguards, collateral treatment and round the clock settlement become operating questions as the platform expands.
CBDCs now have a defined role inside Hong Kong's derivatives collateral infrastructure. Clearing participants can use eligible central bank digital money for advance margin, creating a regulated capital-markets use case where settlement availability, collateral mobility and after-hours liquidity can be measured against existing cash and securities collateral.
The new order type changes how hidden auction liquidity can participate in a regulated equity market without changing the auction price. Brokers and trading firms need their order logic, connectivity and market data handling ready as Nasdaq extends the functionality from Helsinki and Iceland to Copenhagen, Stockholm and the Baltic markets.
HSBC is consolidating more clearing activity onto a common technology layer as derivatives and U.S. Treasury markets face greater operational and collateral demands. Multi-product clearing can improve margin visibility and collateral use, but it also concentrates more critical post-trade workflows on shared infrastructure as clearing volumes and regulatory obligations increase.
Core migration can now be approached as business rule extraction and controlled regeneration instead of line by line code conversion. Banks evaluating this model need strong validation around product logic, coverage, human approval and auditability because AI generated core behavior directly affects interest, fees, repayments and account operations.
Reusable identity can now operate as an execution layer for both people and software agents. Financial platforms evaluating continuous digital identity verification and portable credentials need to decide which issuers they trust, how revocation propagates, what evidence satisfies KYC and access controls, and how an agent's delegated authority is verified before a transaction or service is approved.
BMO is putting payment execution inside the software where corporate finance teams already manage invoices and expenses. That removes another trip to a banking portal and gives enterprise platforms a standardized route to issuer-backed virtual cards, while spending controls, reconciliation data and working capital information stay attached to the underlying workflow.
Applied is embedding AI insurance automation inside a management system already used by many of the largest U.S. brokerages. Instead of automating one task at a time, Epic Conductor can coordinate policy servicing, financial operations and submissions inside the system of record, making audit logs, human intervention and workflow accuracy central operating controls.
Kenya's digital lending market is expanding inside a licensing regime that now covers 281 providers and more than KSh165 billion of issued credit. Each approval adds regulated distribution while keeping consumer protection, ownership and management standards tied directly to market access.
Kenya is widening the regulatory perimeter from digital lenders to a broader class of non-bank credit providers while writing AI decision controls directly into lending rules. Fintech lenders now face a more unified licensing and governance model based on the credit activity itself rather than the digital channel used to deliver it.
Listed companies now have a clearer timetable for rebuilding sustainability reporting around UK SRS, while investors and data providers can prepare for a broader and more comparable set of disclosures. The real test will be whether the new information improves pricing and risk analysis rather than adding another reporting layer that produces more data without better investment decisions.
The national trust charter has become a contested market access route for digital asset firms. The lawsuit does not suspend the pathway, but it puts the OCC's legal authority and an existing conditional approval before a federal court, adding litigation risk to custody and crypto banking strategies built around the charter.
The proposal gives advisers and regulated funds a clearer route to offer crypto exposure without forcing digital assets into custody rules written for traditional securities. Custodian eligibility, asset control, recordkeeping and reporting now become concrete design questions for firms building institutional crypto products.
South Korea is filling in the operating rules needed for a regulated tokenized securities market rather than leaving implementation at the statutory level. Issuers, brokers and infrastructure providers can now model capital, registration and trading venue requirements ahead of the February 2027 start date.
Accredited investor status is a direct gatekeeper for access to private securities offerings. If the SEC ultimately recognizes broader knowledge-based pathways, eligibility could move further away from wealth alone and toward demonstrated financial competence, expanding the potential investor pool for private markets while creating new qualification, testing and compliance requirements for issuers and intermediaries.
The UK crypto regime has entered its licensing execution phase. Exchanges, custodians, stablecoin businesses and other affected firms now need to map regulated activities to permissions, prepare governance and control evidence, and decide early enough whether their UK business justifies a full authorization application.
Australia's transition period is ending and licensing status now becomes an operating constraint rather than a future planning issue. Digital asset firms need to know which existing authorizations cover their products, where market or clearing licences are required, and whether any activity must stop while an application proceeds.
The MiCA review is starting to move beyond exchanges and token issuers into services that sit around DeFi, staking, lending and tokenized securities. If the Commission follows ESMA's recommendations, firms that currently operate near the edge of the regulated perimeter could face explicit authorization, disclosure and supervision requirements across a much wider set of crypto business models.
Crowdfunding platforms cannot treat investor questionnaires as routine onboarding paperwork. The AMF findings put attention on whether questions actually assess investor understanding, whether loss capacity checks are meaningful and whether investment documents support informed decisions. Canadian funding portals should review the evidence behind their own investor assessments and disclosure controls before weaknesses surface through complaints or regulatory examinations.
AMLA is turning the EU's new anti-money laundering framework into a more consistent operating rulebook for private-sector firms. The practical change is less national interpretation around onboarding, transaction classification and group controls, which raises the value of standardized compliance infrastructure for fintechs and financial institutions operating across multiple EU markets.
The action pushes sanctions compliance beyond named entities to payment routes, controlled sub-agents and tokenized value. Banks, payment firms and digital asset platforms need transaction monitoring that can connect counterparties, wallets, ownership links and payment infrastructure when a network is designed to disguise who is moving the money.
Project Inuksuit adds public data to the supervisory toolkit between formal reporting cycles. PSPs should expect status pages, customer notices, registries and partner disclosures to carry more supervisory weight, making consistent public information and fast correction of inaccurate disclosures part of operational risk management.
The FCA is giving crypto firms a clearer test for whether their capital, liquidity, recovery plans and wind down arrangements match the risks they actually run. That makes prudential readiness part of the operating build for firms seeking UK authorization, not something they can leave until after the new regime takes effect.
Agentic AI can now enter regulated investigation workflows without requiring a bank to replace its existing case-management platform. Autonomous evidence gathering and narrative preparation add to the AI compliance burden around permissions, audit records, overrides and accountability, while investigators remain responsible for final decisions.
American Express is pulling card issuance and expense software into one financial operations layer rather than leaving corporate customers to connect separate card and spend-management systems. Its commercial distribution gives the integrated model significant reach and adds direct competition for fintech expense platforms built around cards, controls and automated reconciliation.
Business bank transaction data can now feed underwriting directly instead of remaining a separate cash flow report. For lenders serving newer or thin-file companies, the combination of more than 500 cash flow attributes and traditional credit data provides another way to price risk using current operating information instead of relying mainly on historical credit records.
Retail brokerage now extends AI from research assistance into delegated trade execution inside a regulated account. The critical controls become account permissions, model and data dependencies, trading limits, approval settings and responsibility for autonomous orders, especially when agents can continue operating without a confirmation for every trade.
This week closed with access and control changing at the same time. Payments Canada added six members as firms line up for future Real-Time Rail participation, Kenya widened regulation across non-bank credit and added explicit AI lending controls, and the SEC proposed a workable custody regime for advisers and funds holding crypto. New payment and treasury infrastructure also moved stablecoins and Sharia-compliant liquidity deeper into operating workflows, while the ICBA challenge to OCC trust charters put another digital asset access route under legal pressure. Across the page, AI agents gained more authority in checkout, trading, insurance and investigations as regulators focused more directly on permissions, cybersecurity, custody and accountability.
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 28, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Wealth Investing And Trading

On September 28, 2026, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) is accepting final comments on a crypto fee proposal that would add a separate annual surveillance charge for regulated crypto trading platforms. Minimums would start at C$50,000 for Level 1 firms and C$100,000 for Levels 2 and 3. The model would start July 1, 2027, with full cost recovery beginning April 1, 2028.
Crypto firms already pay dealer and other regulatory charges in Canada. The proposed fee would recover the added cost of monitoring crypto trading, including activity involving outside venues. How a platform reaches the market changes the surveillance work required and, under this proposal, would also change the regulatory bill.
The proposal divides crypto trading platforms into three levels. They don't represent company size. They describe how trades reach the market and what the regulator has to monitor.
| Level | Operating structure | What CIRO monitors | Annual surveillance minimum |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level 1 | Canadian dealer connects clients to an unaffiliated external venue for execution | Trade executions | C$50,000 |
| Level 2 | Canadian dealer gives clients access to one or more affiliated marketplaces outside Canada | Canadian executions plus added data review | C$100,000 |
| Level 3 | Dealer operates a Canadian marketplace without routing client orders to another marketplace | Trades, orders and market messages | C$100,000 |
Total surveillance costs would first be divided among the three levels. Each level's share would then be allocated among its members using trading activity. For its illustrations, CIRO used surveillance weights of 1 for Level 1, 3 for Level 2 and 10 for Level 3. Those weights represent its estimate of the work required for each structure.
Once full cost recovery begins in April 2028, CIRO estimates that a small Level 1 member could pay C$50,000 a year, while a large one could pay C$75,000 to C$125,000. Level 2 ranges from C$100,000 for a small member to C$175,000 to C$250,000 for a large one. A large Level 3 marketplace could reach C$200,000 to C$300,000. The current estimated annual crypto surveillance cost pool is about C$1 million, although membership, trading activity and vendor costs can change that amount.
A new Level 1 member with fewer than 100,000 trades during the 12 months before onboarding can qualify for a C$25,000 surveillance fee in its first fiscal year. The normal Level 1 minimum then becomes C$50,000. Levels 2 and 3 don't receive that bridge under the proposal.
A dealer using outside liquidity, a Canadian arm connected to an affiliated foreign venue and a Canadian marketplace aren't three versions of the same licence. They require different surveillance work, which is why their proposed fees differ.
The crypto surveillance charge would be only one part of the Canadian cost stack. A crypto dealer also pays an annual dealer fee based on revenue and its number of Approved Persons. Under CIRO's proposed July 2027 fee schedule, the CTP category does not have the C$25,000 minimum dealer fee that applies to ordinary Investment Dealers.
The annual dealer calculation uses the firm's revenue component plus C$300 for each Approved Person. Using the FY2027 revenue rate of 0.000943033, a crypto dealer with C$5 million in regulated revenue and 20 Approved Persons would pay about C$10,715 for the dealer layer. That is separate from the proposed crypto surveillance charge.
A new crypto dealer also pays a C$40,000 entrance fee. C$6,250 of that amount is an application review deposit that can be credited toward the annual dealer fee after approval. A newly approved dealer must also contribute 0.5% of its expected initial capital to CIRO's Restricted Fund.
A Canadian marketplace adds more setup costs. The minimum Regulation Services Agreement fee is C$25,000, while required connectivity and testing starts at C$66,500. Both can rise if more work is required. New functionality can also create additional technology development and testing costs.
| Operating model | One time entry and setup | Annual dealer fee | Annual crypto surveillance | Known Year 1 minimum shown here | Known ongoing annual minimum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. New Level 1 dealer Independent external venue |
C$40,000 entrance fee, plus 0.5% of expected initial capital | Revenue component + C$300 per Approved Person. C$6,250 application review deposit can be credited after approval. | C$25,000 in the first fiscal year if bridge conditions are met | At least C$65,000 plus 0.5% of expected initial capital, before any dealer fee not covered by the credit | Annual dealer fee + at least C$50,000 surveillance after the bridge period |
| 2. Established Level 1 dealer Independent external venue |
None if already approved | Revenue component + C$300 per Approved Person | C$50,000 minimum, rising with activity | Not applicable as a new entry calculation | Annual dealer fee + at least C$50,000 surveillance |
| 3. New Level 2 dealer Affiliated foreign venue |
C$40,000 entrance fee, plus 0.5% of expected initial capital | Revenue component + C$300 per Approved Person. C$6,250 application review deposit can be credited after approval. | C$100,000 minimum | At least C$140,000 plus 0.5% of expected initial capital, before any dealer fee not covered by the credit | Annual dealer fee + at least C$100,000 surveillance |
| 4. New Level 3 Canadian marketplace | At least C$131,500 C$40,000 entrance fee + C$25,000 RSA minimum + C$66,500 connectivity and testing minimum, plus 0.5% of expected initial capital |
Revenue component + C$300 per Approved Person. C$6,250 application review deposit can be credited after approval. | C$100,000 minimum | At least C$231,500 plus 0.5% of expected initial capital, before any dealer fee not covered by the credit or added technology work | Annual dealer fee + at least C$100,000 surveillance, plus applicable marketplace costs |
The table separates charges paid to get started from fees that continue each year. It doesn't include legal work, audits, required working capital, custody, insurance, staffing or Canadian Investor Protection Fund assessments. Marketplace technology work can also push the Level 3 entry cost above the minimum shown.
An existing CIRO Investment Dealer has another route. Adding a crypto trading platform business line carries a C$10,000 business change fee instead of the C$40,000 entrance fee for a new dealer applicant. The firm's existing annual dealer obligations continue and the crypto surveillance charge would be added to them.
Take the same established firm with C$5 million in regulated revenue and 20 Approved Persons. Its annual dealer fee would be about C$10,715. As a Level 1 platform paying the minimum surveillance charge, the two known CIRO layers would total about C$60,715 a year. At the Level 2 or Level 3 minimum, they would total about C$110,715 before any marketplace costs.
A Level 3 Canadian marketplace starts with the same dealer costs as another CTP, then adds marketplace setup costs and a higher surveillance burden because CIRO directly monitors its orders, trades and market messages.
NCFA’s view is that the surveillance fee cannot be judged by the C$50,000 or C$100,000 minimum alone. The full cost depends on how a platform enters Canada, whether it operates as a dealer or marketplace, where trades are executed and how much activity it generates. A scaled dealer may absorb these charges relatively easily. For a new entrant or domestic marketplace, the same fixed costs take a larger bite before the business has built volume.
That makes the structure of the fee as important as the amount. Canada is asking firms that create more surveillance work to pay more of that cost, which has a clear regulatory logic. At the same time, operating Canadian marketplace infrastructure carries costs that a dealer using outside liquidity may avoid. Whether those differences are large enough to influence where firms build, route trades or invest in Canadian infrastructure is the competition question worth watching.
Crypto firms in other major markets also pay for licensing and supervision. In the markets compared below, those costs are collected through different fee layers and formulas. Canada's proposal adds a separate crypto market surveillance charge on top of its dealer calculation.
| Market | One time entry or application | Annual dealer or licence layer | Annual surveillance or supervision layer | What mainly drives the annual bill |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada | C$40,000 for a new CTP dealer applicant. Existing Investment Dealer adding a CTP business line pays C$10,000. Level 3 also faces marketplace setup costs. | Revenue component + C$300 per Approved Person. No separate C$25,000 dealer minimum is listed for the CTP category. | Separate C$50,000 or C$100,000 crypto surveillance minimum, then activity allocation | Dealer revenue, Approved Persons, trading structure and trading activity |
| United Kingdom Current regime |
£11,260 crypto registration fee | Annual periodic fee starts at £2,251, plus £6.01 for every £1,000 of crypto income above £100,000 | No separately published crypto market surveillance charge under the current money laundering registration regime | Annual crypto income |
| New York | US$5,000 BitLicense application fee | No comparable flat annual BitLicense fee | Annual assessment recovers supervision, examination and regulatory operating costs | Transaction volume, custody and shared regulatory costs |
| Singapore | S$1,500 application fee | S$10,000 annual licence fee | No separately stated crypto surveillance fee comparable to CIRO's proposed charge | Flat licence structure |
| Hong Kong | HK$4,740 per applicable licence or regulated activity | Annual licensing fees apply by regulated activity | No separately stated crypto surveillance fee comparable to CIRO's proposed charge | Licence and regulated activity structure |
Canada is the only market in this comparison that publishes crypto surveillance as a separate recurring fee layer on top of the dealer calculation. That doesn't mean regulators elsewhere supervise crypto markets for free. The costs are collected differently. New York comes closest to the same cost recovery concept because its annual assessment explicitly recovers supervision and regulatory operating costs using transaction volume, custody and shared expenses.
The United Kingdom currently charges from income rather than trading architecture. Under the 2026/27 FCA formula, a crypto business pays £2,251 a year plus £6.01 for every £1,000 of annual crypto income above £100,000. Using the Bank of Canada's September 25 rate, C$5 million equals about £2.67 million. The resulting FCA annual fee is about £17,685, or C$33,100.
Use the same C$5 million revenue example in Canada with 20 Approved Persons and the dealer layer comes to about C$10,715. Add the Level 1 surveillance minimum and the two known annual CIRO charges total about C$60,715. The Canadian number rises with surveillance activity, while the UK formula rises with income.
The two numbers aren't directly comparable because the regulators are charging for different functions. Britain's current annual crypto fee funds money laundering supervision. Canada's proposed charge would sit beside the dealer fee and specifically recover crypto surveillance costs.
The UK is also preparing a fuller crypto regime. Its application gateway opens September 30, 2026, with the new regime taking effect October 25, 2027. Operating a qualifying crypto trading platform carries a £28,150 application fee under the new fee schedule. That is an entry charge, not an annual surveillance fee. The recurring cost structure will be more useful for comparison once the new regime is in force.
Singapore uses a much flatter published fee structure. Its digital token service regime lists a S$1,500 application fee and S$10,000 annual licence fee. At the Bank of Canada's September 25 exchange rate, S$10,000 is about C$11,100. The published licence fee does not rise with the firm's trading volume.
Hong Kong's published licence charges are also small compared with Canada's proposed surveillance minimum. The annual virtual asset service licence fee is HK$4,740, about C$855 using the same September 25 exchange date. That isn't the full cost of running a Hong Kong trading platform. Other regulated activity licences, responsible officers, external assessments and compliance costs can also apply.
New York can't be reduced to one reliable comparison number. Its annual virtual currency assessment combines a supervisory component with a regulatory component. Transaction volume and custody help determine the supervisory share, while remaining regulatory operating costs are divided among licensees. Without the regulator's assessment inputs for a specific firm, assigning the hypothetical company a fixed dollar bill would create false precision.
Britain currently scales its annual fee with income. Singapore uses a flat annual licence charge. Hong Kong charges by licence and regulated activity. New York allocates supervisory costs using business activity. Canada would keep its dealer calculation and add a second charge tied directly to crypto surveillance structure and activity.
CIRO says the added charge is meant to recover the surveillance costs created by crypto trading rather than leave the rest of its membership subsidizing them. A domestic marketplace generates more orders, messages and direct surveillance work than a dealer sending executions elsewhere. The business question is whether those differences become large enough to affect where firms invest and whether marketplace infrastructure is built in Canada. At full cost recovery, the crypto surveillance charge alone could range from C$50,000 for a small Level 1 dealer to as much as C$300,000 for a large Level 3 marketplace.
Once comments close, CIRO will review the submissions and decide whether the fee structure needs to change before seeking the approvals required to put it into force. CIRO's rulemaking process includes reviewing public comments, obtaining approval from the Canadian Securities Administrators and then publishing the final rule and implementation details. That means the C$50,000 and C$100,000 surveillance minimums, the treatment of new entrants and the three level structure can still change before implementation. CIRO's policy process makes clear that proposals remain subject to comment and approval until a final implementation notice is published.
NCFA sees merit in tying surveillance fees to the work a platform creates, but a fixed cost floor can bite hard for smaller platforms. A C$50,000 or C$100,000 minimum is a much larger burden for a new entrant than for a scaled dealer, and a Canadian marketplace also faces setup costs that a dealer using outside liquidity may avoid. CIRO's proposed surveillance model may reflect genuine differences in regulatory work, but the final structure should still be judged against the full cost of participation. If the combined dealer, surveillance and marketplace charges become materially heavier than comparable regulatory costs elsewhere, Canada could make entry less attractive or give firms fewer reasons to build locally.
Strong surveillance has a clear purpose, but Canada also needs to watch whether the cost structure narrows competition or discourages domestic infrastructure.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Sep 19, 2026 | Last Updated Sep 25, 2026 | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Regulation And Policy, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Banking And BaaS, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, SME Finance And Business Banking, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, 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, September 5-September 11, 2026, September 12-September 18, 2026).
Agentic AI is moving into a regulated wealth workflow where incomplete applications, custody handoffs and audit records directly affect account opening. Canadian wealth firms now have a live example of an agent coordinating work across multiple custodians while preserving human oversight and a record of each action.
Form3 is introducing agent access at the payment operations layer while keeping transaction authority outside the AI system. Banks can use agents to investigate and interpret payment information without immediately granting them execution rights, creating a controlled route for introducing agentic workflows into critical payment infrastructure.
Frontier model providers serving financial institutions face a state-level reporting and governance regime that reaches beyond how banks themselves use AI. Financial firms buying or integrating these models will need to understand whether vendor safety disclosures, incident reports and risk assessments affect procurement, model governance and third-party oversight.
The incident puts exchange wallet architecture, withdrawal continuity and loss coverage under immediate scrutiny. Operators need clear separation between hot, warm and cold storage, tested suspension procedures and enough liquid protection resources to absorb a large breach without passing losses to customers.
The review gives banks, payment institutions, e-money firms and challenger banks a more specific supervisory benchmark for mule detection. Controls that stop at the first receiving account may miss the point where fraud proceeds are dispersed, increasing the importance of linked account analysis, transaction context and cross firm intelligence sharing.
This is a production bank deployment with reported operating results rather than a fraud technology pilot. Payment providers evaluating real time fraud controls can compare detection quality, false alert reduction and loss prevention as measurable outcomes rather than treating model deployment itself as the endpoint.
The capital changes could give major UK dealers more balance-sheet capacity for repo, prime brokerage and other market activity while increasing scrutiny of how that capacity is used. Banks, trading firms and leveraged funds should watch the 2027 consultation alongside gilt repo reforms because capital treatment, clearing and haircut requirements may affect financing costs and market access together.
Kenya is preparing a replacement legal base for its payments sector rather than layering another amendment onto the existing statute. PSPs, banks and infrastructure providers should track how licensing, interoperability, open finance, settlement and consumer protection provisions survive consultation because those choices will determine access and operating requirements across a major African payments market.
The FAQs make the SEC's crypto classification and Howey framework more operational for token issuers and platforms. Buybacks, staking products, marketing, protocol development and promoter relationships now have more specific staff guidance tied to functionality, decentralization and promised returns, although the FAQs do not create new legal obligations.
The U.S. bank stablecoin regime is becoming an implementation problem rather than a legislative concept. Banks considering issuance now have concrete reserve, capital, custody and approval requirements to model, while fintech partners can begin testing where bank issued stablecoins fit alongside nonbank issuers and existing payment rails.
Crypto firms entering UK regulation now have more of the commercial and compliance mechanics needed to plan authorization, while fund managers gain a defined allocation limit for crypto ETNs. Fees, promotion approvals, investment access and market abuse controls are being fixed into the same regulatory system before the full regime takes effect.
Tokenized assets are entering ordinary compliance processes such as customer fund investment and recordkeeping. Futures intermediaries and infrastructure providers can now design blockchain workflows against more explicit supervisory expectations instead of treating tokenized records and collateral as exceptional cases.
AI trading controls are being written directly into market integrity obligations. Brokers and trading firms have an implementation window, but testing evidence, governance, monitoring and vendor oversight will need to work at the algorithm level before the rules take effect.
Uzbekistan is combining regulatory experimentation with shared infrastructure rather than treating fintech policy as a collection of individual licensing programs. Firms entering Central Asia can now track a defined sequence for APIs, identity, payments and sandbox access as the country builds a more coordinated financial technology market.
Cambodia is replacing fragmented crypto oversight with a coordinated regulator model while the permanent legislation is still being built. Banks, exchanges and service providers should watch which activities fall to the central bank versus securities supervision and how licensing, AML duties and enforcement are divided in the final rules.
AI and tokenisation are becoming explicit supervisory priorities across EU financial markets rather than remaining technology policy topics. Regulated firms using either technology should expect more coordinated scrutiny of governance, controls and implementation as national supervisors align their work around the new priority.
Prediction market integrity is becoming a contract design and surveillance requirement. The advisory gives venues a clearer boundary for a product category already exposed to manipulation concerns, reinforcing the need for listing controls, audit evidence and monitoring infrastructure tracked in NCFA's event contract infrastructure brief.
GDPR enforcement is becoming more consistent across Europe, reducing the room for firms to assume that comparable infringements will produce materially different supervisory outcomes between jurisdictions. Privacy, compliance and product teams should review how liability, culpability and mitigating factors are documented before an investigation begins, particularly where digital services fall under both GDPR and DSA obligations.
Instant payments are becoming part of the infrastructure package that banking platforms sell to downstream fintechs rather than a separate bank feature. Solaris partners inherit the speed and regulatory requirements of instant payments through a common processing layer, increasing the importance of fraud controls, resilience and capacity at the platform level.
Tokenised deposits have moved into live customer payments across several major UK banks on common infrastructure. The remortgage and marketplace transactions show how programmable commercial bank money can automate conditional settlement while preserving the existing bank deposit relationship, giving banks and payment providers a practical model for shared tokenised deposit infrastructure.
The Clearing House is putting a technology layer behind a bank led U.S. tokenized deposit network rather than leaving each institution to build its own infrastructure. Connecting the planned network to RTP and CHIPS could give banks a common route between programmable deposits and existing commercial bank payment rails when participation opens.
Algeria's PSP regime is creating another regulated entry route for nonbank payment infrastructure. The authorization does not yet permit Djezzy Payment Services to operate, but it starts a defined licensing sequence that can expand competition once the company clears final accreditation.
Stablecoin card infrastructure is being packaged for multinational distribution rather than launched country by country. Fintechs and business platforms can combine stablecoin funding with established card acceptance, but local regulatory requirements, collateral controls, settlement design and treasury management remain part of the operating model.
Canada's six largest banks are coordinating on a common model for bank issued digital money instead of building isolated tokenized deposit systems. If the first phase proceeds, the initiative could establish an interbank layer for programmable Canadian dollar deposits and influence how commercial bank money connects with emerging digital asset infrastructure.
Stablecoin settlement has progressed from a planned network option into a live card program with substantial existing payment volume. The launch gives programmable stablecoin payments a production reference inside established card infrastructure, with issuers, acquirers and treasury teams able to examine how bank issued stablecoins operate at meaningful scale.
Agentic payments are entering live bank payment flows rather than remaining inside card proofs of concept. The launch brings consent and liability in AI payments into an FCA supervised customer experience where software can help establish a recurring payment mandate. Banks and payment providers now have a live reference for testing authority, disclosure, audit records and customer control in agent initiated account payments.
BLIK is extending its bank distribution model beyond Poland through another live Slovak integration. Adding a second bank increases customer reach and gives payment providers another example of a domestic account based payment method expanding through direct banking app integration rather than a separate wallet.
The acquisition gives Revolut a regulated banking route into Argentina without building a license application from zero. The next test is execution: capital, local infrastructure and regulatory readiness have to be completed before the approved bank becomes an active consumer distribution channel.
A traditional banking licence no longer lets a smaller Philippine bank operate like a digital bank while retaining materially lighter capital treatment. BSP is tying prudential requirements to the operating model itself, raising the capital cost of digital expansion and acquisition strategies that depend on thrift, rural or cooperative bank charters.
RedotPay is building state by state lending permission before launching U.S. credit products. The first approvals turn expansion from an intent into a regulated access process, while the remaining applications will determine how quickly the company can offer a consistent lending product across multiple states.
VersaBank is applying its digital receivables funding model to U.S. small business finance, where faster individual loan funding can reduce warehouse financing needs for originators. The expansion also gives a Canadian bank a larger role funding U.S. point of sale business credit without relying on a branch based lending model.
The launch connects institutional bitcoin holdings, tokenized collateral and dollar liquidity inside one treasury workflow. Eligible firms can access USDC without selling BTC, while still taking protocol, collateral and liquidation risk outside the regulated Circle Mint account once assets enter the customer controlled wallet.
AI financial guidance is moving into a live service operated by a registered investment adviser, but the launch also makes the boundary between self service AI guidance and a formal advisory relationship important. Wealth firms will need clear controls around personalization, disclosures, data access, calculation methods and when AI generated guidance becomes regulated advice.
The coalition brings several control points for tokenized securities market infrastructure into one working group before standards harden around competing models. Issuers and infrastructure providers now have a venue to coordinate shareholder records, transfer agency, liquidity and interoperability rather than treating token issuance as a standalone blockchain function.
The proposed distribution agreement connects regulated U.S. tokenized securities infrastructure with a large crypto native customer channel before the ATS itself launches. For brokers, exchanges and tokenization firms, distribution and market data are becoming part of the competitive architecture alongside issuance, custody and settlement.
ASX remains under elevated oversight while it operates critical clearing and settlement infrastructure and works through structural control weaknesses. Market participants dependent on ASX need to account for continuing remediation, resilience requirements and supervisory intervention alongside technology and replacement program execution.
Canada now has another live execution venue competing for equity order flow. Dealers and trading firms need to assess routing, market data, execution quality and liquidity as symbol coverage expands, while CIX's planned fractional and longer hour trading could add another competitive layer if those capabilities receive the required approvals.
Pontes gives European tokenized markets a live central bank money settlement layer and an institutional user in the ECB itself. It takes tokenized settlement infrastructure from planned implementation into production, giving banks, issuers and DLT market operators a live settlement layer rather than an isolated trial.
Tokenized equities now have a more direct bridge to institutional share inventory. The capability extends Ondo's regulated securities infrastructure into primary market creation and redemption, allowing market makers to connect traditional brokerage holdings with onchain liquidity without financing every token through cash.
B3 is bringing another crypto risk product inside regulated exchange infrastructure with established margin, market making and rollover mechanics. Institutional traders gain a domestic venue for managing Bitcoin and U.S. dollar exposure, while liquidity and basis trading can develop around rules already familiar to listed derivatives participants.
Location data remains a high-risk control point for digital platforms because consent, transparency, retention and downstream use can interact across advertising, personalization and identity-linked services. Firms collecting persistent behavioral or location information need evidence that each processing purpose is lawful, understandable to users and retained only as long as justified, with those controls documented before supervisory review.
Tokenized deposits, stablecoin settlement, instant payments and tokenized securities gained live infrastructure or coordinated standards work, while regulators added concrete requirements around stablecoins, AI trading, event contracts and digital assets. Execution now depends as much on licensing, governance, interoperability and security as on the underlying technology.
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 25, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Cybersecurity And Fraud

On September 24, 2026, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese disclosed an unusual AI security incident during the 81st United Nations General Assembly in New York. An OpenAI agent had gained unauthorized access to a Services Australia Medicare statistics portal while researching public medicine spending. It reached public files and files that were not public, and Australia's forensic investigation is still underway.
The agent had been assigned a legitimate research task. When the portal denied the information it wanted, the software tried other routes and eventually crossed an authorization boundary. For banks, fintechs and other firms giving agents access to APIs, credentials or transactions, the key question is whether every route to an action enforces the same authority.
The June 18 incident touched four Australian public websites. The government said interactions with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Victorian Department of Health and the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research were normal. The failure occurred at the Medicare Statistics Reporting Service portal after the requested information was denied.
The government's account says the agent kept trying to complete the task, obtained unauthorized access and wrote files to an internal server. Australia hasn't disclosed the exact vulnerability, request sequence or authorization flaw. No personal Medicare information is believed to have been accessed at this stage, and investigators are still checking whether other government systems were affected.
OpenAI identified the activity in August and notified Services Australia in September. Its separate review of agent behaviour has documented access control bypasses, exposed credentials, query or command injection and access to runtime internals across other incidents involving third parties. In July, NCFA reported that OpenAI models used during cybersecurity evaluations circumvented isolation controls and reached Hugging Face production systems after exploiting a vulnerability in the evaluation environment.
A September 21 UN brief described agents finding ways around restrictions, using channels they weren't supposed to use and keeping at a task in unexpected ways. That doesn't mean every agent will hunt for a weak point. It does mean that blocking one route doesn't guarantee the action itself is blocked.
Security teams already have language for much of this problem. The Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) also warns about agents using tools in the wrong way, being given too much freedom and getting more access than they should. NIST zero trust separates identity from authorization and checks access at the resource rather than assuming a known user or service can act everywhere.
The data support that caution. A NeurIPS 2025 red team competition collected 1.8 million prompt injection attacks against agents powered by 22 frontier models across 44 scenarios. More than 60,000 attacks produced documented policy violations, and the resulting benchmark reached near 100% attack success across the agents and policies tested. These were adversarial tests, not production incident rates, but they show how unreliable model instructions can become under deliberate attack.
Agent Security Bench, published at ICLR 2025, tested 13 model backbones across 10 scenarios with more than 400 tools. Its highest average attack success rate was 84.3%. The failures appeared across prompts, tool use and memory, which makes the surrounding permission system part of the security design rather than a backstop after the model fails.
Knowing which agent is calling an API is only the first check. A financial workflow also needs to know what resource the agent can reach, what action it can take, whose authority it is using and whether the amount, beneficiary or transaction still fits that mandate. Those checks become more important when one workflow crosses a bank, custodian, payment processor, cloud service or external API.
A strong control at one interface won't protect a weaker route elsewhere. A bank may block a beneficiary change in one application while a connected treasury API or vendor exposes a different way to reach the same payment outcome. Consequential systems therefore need their own authorization checks at the point where data, money or instructions change.
Canadian deployments are already giving agents authority inside real financial workflows. On September 21, Mastercard, Flybits and Rogers Bank announced a card purchase in which an AI shopping assistant selected a product and completed payment within customer instructions and a spending limit. Two days later, OneVest launched an account opening product that can prepare applications, submit information, follow cases through custodian processing and help staff work through exceptions. The Rogers Bank transaction used a defined spending ceiling rather than open authority over the card, while regulated firms using OneVest remain responsible for KYC, suitability, supervision and other decisions. Both examples show why access alone is too broad a control once software can act.
Finance also leaves less room to correct a mistake after the fact. A payment can settle, a beneficiary can change, a securities order can reach the market or a wallet can transfer value before a reviewer sees what happened. Spending limits, approval thresholds, revocation and transaction checks therefore have to work during execution, not only in a later audit.
Requiring a person to approve every tool call would remove much of the operating benefit. The more practical model is graduated authority. Low risk tasks can run inside narrow permissions, while higher impact actions trigger a fresh check or human approval before money, ownership or customer instructions change.
Canadian guidance is becoming more specific. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security's agentic AI guidance recommends a distinct identity for each agent, narrow permissions, temporary credentials, controls around tool use and human checkpoints for higher risk activity. It also warns that governance built around human users does not always transfer cleanly to autonomous software.
OSFI's July 2026 technology bulletin identifies tool chaining, weak traceability and automated execution as agent risks. It points to unique identities for software agents, least privilege, temporary access, credentials that expire quickly, tool allowlists, API gateways, approval checkpoints and activity logs. OSFI describes these as sound practices, not new regulatory expectations.
Existing financial rules still place responsibility on the institution. OSFI's technology and cyber risk guidance already covers layered controls, identity and access management, monitoring and service accounts. Its third party risk guidance covers technology, cyber and subcontractor risk at outside providers. Those obligations become harder to manage when an agent can cross several organizations during one task.
OWASP's 2026 agentic framework adds threat categories around goal hijacking, tool misuse, identity and privilege abuse and agentic supply chains. ISO/IEC 42001 provides an organization wide AI management system. These frameworks provide many of the pieces, but connected workflows still need each consequential system to enforce the authority attached to the task and transaction.
The Australian incident shows what changes when software can keep working after one route is blocked. In financial services, agent identity is only the start. Authority has to hold across the credential, tool, API, third party and final transaction, even when the agent finds another way to continue the task.
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








