Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Sep 3, 2026

Some buy now, pay later activity reaches Canadian credit files. Most routine instalment plans currently do not.
That is the short answer, and the qualifications matter more than the answer does. Whether a buy now, pay later arrangement appears on a credit file in Canada depends on the provider, on which credit bureau is involved, on whether a payment was missed, and on the month in which the question is asked. Payments made on time and payments missed follow different routes. Two people financing identical purchases through different providers may find entirely different records.
What follows sets out what is reported, by whom, to which bureau, and with what effect on a score, then explains why the answer is this unsatisfying. The position described reflects Canadian reporting as of September 2026, and it is moving.
The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada describes buy now, pay later plans as arrangements that finance a purchase with credit. Its research characterises the category as covering a wide range of credit arrangements and as generally a type of consumer credit, comparable to instalment lending. That framing is the reason the credit-file question arises at all. The obligation is credit, not merely a payment method.
The agency identifies several distinct payment models sold under the same label: pre-authorized debits, pre-authorized credit card charges, an instalment option applied to an existing credit card, retail credit cards, and financing arranged through a financial institution. The entity behind each model differs. FCAC lists the financial service providers active in this market as including banks, credit unions and caisses populaires, financing companies, and money services businesses such as financial technology firms.
That mix determines oversight. FCAC directs consumers with complaints to different regulators depending on who provided the financing: federally regulated financial institutions must maintain their own complaint-handling processes, while other arrangements fall to provincial and territorial regulators. Oversight therefore follows the provider rather than the product category.
Credit reporting is furnisher-driven. A bureau can hold only what a provider chooses to send it, and furnishing is voluntary. In the United States, four senators on the Senate Banking Committee wrote to the major credit reporting companies in May 2026, reporting that several American providers had told them they were not sharing this data with credit bureaus.
The Canadian position is documented more thinly. The Canadian Lenders Association, an industry body, described the position in late 2025 as one in which inclusion of this data in credit files is voluntary, variably reported, and inconsistently used in underwriting. The same commentary reported that Equifax in Canada had begun incorporating this data, with TransUnion not far behind. Beginning is the accurate word, and it should not be read as complete.
Missed payments follow a different route from payments made on time. An account referred to a collection agency can reach a credit file through that channel even where the on-time payment record never appeared. FCAC states that once a creditor sends a debt to a collection agency, the credit score will go down. An arrangement invisible while it was being paid can become visible once it is not.
Because the position varies by provider and bureau, the only reliable confirmation is an individual file. You can check your credit score and see what each bureau holds in your name.
Three independent variables produce the inconsistency, and naming them is more durable than listing providers whose practices change.
The first is whether the provider furnishes at all. This is voluntary, and it varies both between providers and by product.
The second is what the receiving bureau does with it. In a 2022 post it has since archived, the United States Consumer Financial Protection Bureau noted diverging approaches: one credit reporting company implemented a business industry code while letting furnishers supply data in their preferred format, and others planned to hold it in specialty files kept apart from the core files behind traditional reports. That account is American and several years old. Canadian bureau practice is not documented publicly in comparable detail. That gap is part of the answer.
The third is whether the scoring model uses the data. TransUnion Canada stated in a 2024 paper that it was analysing alternative data, including buy now, pay later, without initially affecting its scores. Data can sit on a file while remaining absent from the decision. Presence on a record and effect on a score are separate things, a distinction that governs which financial activity does and does not build a credit file.
The foundational federal research on buy now, pay later in Canada is a pilot study, and the agency says so itself.
FCAC surveyed 1,034 Canadians aged 18 and over. The sub-sample of actual users was 66 people, of whom 20 took part in follow-up interviews. The agency states that most findings are drawn from that sub-sample, that these early findings should not be generalised to Canadians at large, and that unweighted percentages are used throughout. Those are appropriate disclosures on a pilot. The difficulty lies with how often it is cited as settled evidence.
Two details matter. The survey reference period ran from September 2019 to March 2021; the report was published in November 2021. And 44 percent of the users surveyed found the potential effect on their credit score difficult to understand: the confusion this article addresses was documented at the outset. Interview participants described using these plans to bridge a timing gap, wanting to purchase immediately while knowing funds would arrive later.
FCAC identified risks of over-borrowing and over-indebtedness but stopped short of recommending regulation, committing instead to monitor the market, conduct follow-up research, coordinate with provincial and territorial authorities, and provide consumer education. As of September 2026, the agency's published research index lists no further study.
Where these obligations are not furnished, or are furnished into files that scoring models do not read, they are absent from any assessment built on bureau data. A household carrying several concurrent instalment plans can present on a credit file as a household carrying none.
The omission runs in both directions. A consumer reviewing their own file may conclude they carry less than they do. And every party that assesses affordability from bureau data, from banks and credit unions to licensed Canadian lenders, works from a record that omits a category of live obligation. TransUnion Canada listed this as a market concern in 2024, noting that limited reporting constrains the ability of other lenders to conduct credit checks and assess affordability.
This is neither new nor specific to one product. Rent, utilities and telecommunications payments are largely unreported in Canada as well. Buy now, pay later is a recent addition to a longer list of obligations that credit files do not capture. The observation concerns what the record contains, not what any party ought to do about it.
On 23 June 2025, FICO announced two scoring models, FICO Score 10 BNPL and FICO Score 10 T BNPL, built to incorporate buy now, pay later data. The announcement was framed explicitly around the United States credit ecosystem, and FICO stated the models would initially be offered alongside its existing scores rather than replacing them, leaving adoption to individual lenders. No equivalent Canadian scoring model has been announced.
The Canadian Lenders Association, an industry body representing lenders, has argued that the sector needs a consistent framework so that this data supports credit inclusion rather than working against it. The position is reasonable and worth reporting. It is not a neutral one.
The effect of fuller reporting would run in two directions. For a consumer with a thin file, a furnished record of payments made on time would constitute history where none existed. For a consumer carrying several concurrent plans, the same reporting would make visible an obligation load that had gone unobserved. Which effect applies is a matter of individual circumstance.
The question a reader arrives with is whether buy now, pay later touches their credit file. The accurate answer is that it depends on the provider, on the bureau, on whether a payment was missed, and on the month in which the question is asked.
That is unsatisfying, and it is not a hedge. Furnishing is voluntary and partial. Bureau treatment differs and is not documented publicly in Canada at the level of detail the question deserves. Scoring treatment is a separate matter again. The Canadian federal evidence base remains a pilot study of 66 users describing behaviour from a period that ended in March 2021.
Each of those conditions can change without announcement. This article describes the position as of September 2026. A reader returning to the question in a year should expect a different answer.
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 25, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Competition And Market Structure, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing

On August 25, 2026, KPMG reported KPMG H1 fintech data showing US$996.7 million across 47 Canadian fintech deals in the first half of 2026. Its current comparison puts that against about US$1.7 billion across 82 deals a year earlier, leaving both investment and deal activity down more than 40%.
Q2 was much stronger than Q1 without producing more deals. Investment climbed to US$621.7 million across 23 transactions from US$375 million across 24. Venture funding reached US$398.2 million across 19 deals from US$94.6 million across 14. Almost the same number of transactions attracted substantially more capital.
Canada's broader venture capital market tells a different story. Canada H1 venture data show C$2.69 billion invested across 250 deals, with dollars up 17% and deal count down 8.8%. Sixteen rounds of C$50 million or more absorbed 59% of all venture capital.
Look at the funding source of those larger cheques. Rounds financed entirely by Canadian investors represented 66% of H1 venture transactions, but foreign investors participated in 56% of later stage rounds, up from 30% a year earlier. U.S. investors participated in 44%, up from 19%.
Global capital is valuable to Canadian companies and should remain part of the funding mix. However, the opportunity is to build more domestic capacity to lead large rounds as companies scale, allowing Canada to retain more ownership, investment influence and financial upside while still attracting international investors.
KPMG and CVCA measure different markets. KPMG includes venture capital, private equity and M&A, while the CVCA figures above cover venture capital. Together, they show a funding market where larger commitments are going to a relatively small group of companies.
KPMG says investors are favouring scale, specialized AI capabilities, competitive positioning and demonstrable economics. For Canadian fintechs, the funding bar is getting clearer and harder to clear.
The largest Canadian fintech financing in KPMG's H1 data was Nesto's C$302M Series E in June at a C$1.47 billion valuation. The Montréal mortgage technology company entered the round with more than C$80 billion of mortgages under administration, more than C$37 billion of 2026 originations and a profitable business.
Nesto also owns lending technology and established mortgage businesses while building Nesto Cloud and Maestro AI for financial institutions. Investors were backing technology connected to customers, lending operations, distribution and a large existing financial market.
Regulated access can carry similar strategic value. Robinhood's WonderFi acquisition gave it Canadian customers, local teams and regulated crypto platforms through Bitbuy and Coinsquare instead of building that position from scratch.
AI attracted the most activity in KPMG's H1 data with 19 investments, compared with eight digital asset deals and four payments deals. KPMG says investors are favouring specialized applications that make lending, deposit taking and payment processing faster or more efficient.
That is already visible in Canadian financing. Float raised C$85 million to expand its AI business finance platform across payments, cash management and finance workflows. Nesto is applying AI to mortgage operations and lending technology. AI becomes easier to finance when it can lower costs, improve risk decisions, speed up work or increase revenue inside a financial product customers already use.
The early stage pipeline below those larger companies needs attention. CVCA says early stage investment dollars rose 24% on a flat deal count, while seed funding fell 31% to C$285 million. KPMG recorded 12 early stage fintech deals and eight seed rounds. Future Canadian scale companies depend on enough younger fintechs getting the capital and customers required to reach that level.
KPMG expects Consumer Driven Banking and the Real-Time Rail to improve fintech economics by opening access to financial data and payment infrastructure. Both are finally entering implementation after years of delay.
Canada's RTR access rules came into force on August 24. Payments Canada is targeting a Q4 2026 launch with initial direct participants, followed by additional onboarding and transaction growth through 2027. Registered payment service providers can pursue membership and RTR access, but firms still need the technology, settlement arrangements, fraud controls and operating capacity to participate.
Consumer Driven Banking is also getting closer to operation. Proposed regulations cover data access, accreditation, liability, security and technical standards. Implementation is expected to begin with accreditation after final regulations are published, while payment initiation and wider open finance capabilities come later.
These infrastructure reforms can reduce barriers that have favoured larger institutions, but firms still need the resources to integrate, comply and compete. Smaller challengers benefit when access becomes practical and affordable enough to improve their products and economics.
Canada's delay also affects how much experience fintechs build before competing internationally. In 2025, the Bank of Canada described payments modernization delays compared with the UK, Australia and EU. Fintechs in those markets have had more years to develop products around faster payments, financial data access and modern infrastructure.
Canadian firms are only now gaining some of the same tools. Infrastructure delays do not explain the success or failure of any individual company, but they can leave Canadian fintechs with less experience using capabilities that competitors elsewhere already know well. That can make winning customers and market share outside Canada harder.
Scale, licences, customer access and specialized technology are easier to finance once companies have had time to build them. If modern infrastructure helps Canadian fintechs prove their economics earlier, more firms could become credible candidates for larger rounds.
Canada's fintech funding concentration was already visible in 2025. H1 2026 makes the domestic question more pressing. Strong companies are still attracting large cheques, but fewer fintechs are reaching investors.
More selective investment can reward stronger companies, but Canada still needs enough firms coming behind today's winners. Better payment and data infrastructure can lower operating barriers. Applied AI can improve real financial workflows. Deeper domestic growth capital can help Canadian investors lead more large rounds.
The goal is not to make investors less selective. It is to produce more Canadian fintechs strong enough to earn their capital and compete globally.
Canadian fintech investors are backing scale, specialized AI, regulated access and proven economics, while international capital becomes more important in larger rounds. Can Real-Time Rail and Consumer Driven Banking help more Canadian fintechs build those advantages earlier while Canada develops more capacity to finance their growth at home?
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 20, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Payments And Money Movement, Banking And Credit, Financial Inclusion

On August 20, 2026, the Bank of Canada published its 2025 Methods-of-Payment Survey, based on responses from 4,964 Canadians and payment diary data from 2,185 participants. The report measures cash holdings, card use, mobile payments, Interac e-Transfer, payment costs, merchant acceptance and how consumers rate different ways to pay.
For payments firms, banks, fintechs and policy teams, the survey provides a current national benchmark for consumer behaviour. Credit cards remain the dominant payment method, contactless now accounts for most in-person purchases, mobile devices are taking a larger share of card taps, and cash remains widely held even though its transaction share fell in 2025.
Credit cards accounted for 48% of purchase volume and 58% of purchase value in 2025. Debit represented 25% of volume and 24% of value, while cash accounted for 18% of point of sale transaction volume and 10% of value. Cash had represented 21% of volume and 11% of value in 2024, so the latest survey records a decline after several years of relative stability.
Contactless payments now dominate in person. In 2025, 63% of in-person payments were contactless, representing 61% of in-person purchase value. Most taps still used physical cards, but mobile devices accounted for one quarter of contactless credit transactions and 15% of contactless debit transactions.
The mobile figures are more useful than in previous surveys because the Bank changed its 2025 payment diary. Respondents who reported tapping a card were asked whether they used the physical card or a version stored on a mobile device. That difference helps separate adoption of mobile wallets from adoption of the underlying payment rail. A credit card stored in a phone remains a credit card transaction, but the interface through which the customer pays has changed.
The revised survey also suggests previous estimates understated mobile use. Over the previous year, 41% of Canadians reported using mobile payments, while just over half used Interac e-Transfer. About one quarter used a digital wallet app and 19% used a bank account app. Those adoption figures should not be read as transaction shares. Interac e-Transfer, for example, appears less often in the three day purchase diary because consumers frequently use it for expenses such as rent and home services that the diary does not capture.
The findings provide a useful consumer benchmark beside Canada’s financial infrastructure changes. Expanded Payments Canada membership, the Real-Time Rail, payment service provider oversight and consumer-driven banking are changing how firms can access and build on payment infrastructure. The Bank’s survey shows the payment habits those services will encounter as they reach consumers.
Cash presents a more mixed picture. About 76% of Canadians had cash on hand when surveyed, with an average of $141 and a median of $70 among people carrying it. Four out of five Canadians said they had no plans to stop using cash, while only 12% described themselves as cashless. At the same time, cash transaction share and average cash holdings both fell in 2025.
The Bank does not treat one year of weaker cash use as proof of a lasting decline. More observations are needed to separate a durable change from normal survey variation or a temporary result. Access also remains relevant: 68% of Canadians described access to an ABM as easy or very easy, compared with 61% for a bank branch.
Payment providers and fintech product teams can use the survey to test assumptions about where Canadian payment behaviour is concentrated. Credit and debit cards still account for most everyday purchases, contactless has become the normal in-person card experience, and mobile wallets are becoming a more important way of presenting those same card credentials.
Banks and financial institutions can use the findings to compare physical and digital access. Consumers are using mobile payment tools more often, but most still keep cash and report that access to ABMs and branches remains important. That combination is relevant when firms make decisions about digital channels, cash services, card products and customer support.
Investors and market researchers get a national reference point for assessing product adoption claims. The report separates annual use, recent use and actual transaction diary data, which helps distinguish a service that many people have tried from one that captures a large share of purchases.
Policy teams can read the findings alongside Canada’s consumer-driven banking rules. The survey does not measure open banking use, but it establishes how Canadians currently pay before regulated data sharing and future payment initiation services reach wider adoption.
For financial inclusion work, the cash findings are especially useful. Digital adoption does not mean all consumers have stopped using physical money. Most Canadians still keep cash, most do not plan to abandon it, and access to withdrawal infrastructure continues to affect how practical cash remains.
The survey combines two useful forms of evidence. The questionnaire captures payment ownership, cash holdings, recent use, costs and consumer perceptions, while the three day diary records purchases and withdrawals closer to when they occur. In 2025, 4,964 people completed the questionnaire and 2,185 submitted at least one day of diary data.
Its history also adds value. The Bank began the Methods-of-Payment survey in 2009 and has run annual surveys since 2021, giving readers a basis for comparing the latest results with earlier payment behaviour. That longer record is why the 2025 decline in cash should be watched rather than immediately treated as a permanent change.
The methodology has limits. The questionnaire uses quota sampling by age, gender and region, then calibrates the samples to Canadian demographic characteristics. The diary covers only three days, and not every questionnaire respondent completes it, so less frequent payments can appear more clearly in recall questions than in the transaction diary.
The new mobile measurement also affects comparisons with earlier years. Separating physical card taps from cards stored on mobile devices improves the 2025 data, but some earlier mobile figures were measured differently and should not be compared mechanically.
NCFA’s Canadian payments market coverage puts the Bank’s consumer survey beside a much larger benchmark. Payments Canada recorded 22.5 billion retail payment transactions worth $12.2 trillion in 2024. The two datasets answer different questions. The Bank of Canada focuses on how consumers hold, choose and use payment methods, while Payments Canada measures transaction volumes, values and market activity across the payment system.
2025 Methods-of-Payment Survey PDF (62 page report, tables, charts and methodology)
Methods-of-Payment Survey (Bank of Canada survey series and historical results)
2024 Methods-of-Payment Survey (previous annual consumer payment benchmark)
Canadian Payment Methods And Trends 2025 (22.5 billion retail transactions worth $12.2 trillion)
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](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 19, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Cybersecurity And Fraud, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure

In August 2026, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority published Cybersecurity Effective Practices, a 12-part framework for FINRA member firms reviewing cybersecurity programs, controls and operating procedures. A firm can use the resource as a structured checklist for who owns cybersecurity, which systems and vendors create risk, who can access sensitive data, how threats are detected, and whether the business can recover when systems fail. FINRA designed the practices to scale with firm size, business model, technology complexity and risk profile.
FINRA organizes the resource around 12 areas:
The framework starts with accountability and risk ownership. FINRA recommends a designated cybersecurity lead, regular reporting to senior decision makers, documented policies and periodic reviews, while also making cyber risk part of decisions about new technology, systems and operating changes. From there, firms are expected to identify the information, systems and business functions they depend on, assess threats such as ransomware, insider activity and vendor exposure, test important systems for weaknesses and revisit those risks when technology or operations change.
Third party risk receives detailed treatment. FINRA treats vendors with access to customer information or critical systems as part of the firm’s security perimeter. Firms should know which vendors have access, understand important fourth party relationships and identify which providers support critical operations. Contracts can address audit rights, data handling, breach notification and visibility into subcontractors, while ongoing oversight should include access monitoring and a documented process for removing access and handling customer information when a relationship ends.
That concern extends beyond US broker dealers. Weak access control governance can expose sensitive information when a partner or service provider retains permissions that are unnecessary or poorly monitored. FINRA’s guidance connects vendor governance with the practical question of who can access systems and data, for how long, and under what controls.
Asset management and access control fit naturally together. FINRA recommends keeping a current inventory of hardware, software, cloud services and data flows, assigning owners to important assets and identifying systems that no longer receive security updates. Once firms know what they have, they can control who gets access through unique credentials, role based permissions, multifactor authentication, periodic entitlement reviews, segregation of duties and least privilege. Access should also be changed or removed promptly when employees change roles or leave.
Data protection, training and patching cover another part of the operating picture. Firms are encouraged to classify sensitive data, encrypt it at rest and in transit where feasible, control retention and protect backups, including with immutable or air gapped storage. FINRA also recommends ongoing employee training, role specific instruction for staff with sensitive access and phishing simulations backed by records of participation. Vulnerability management should include regular scanning, risk based patch priorities and verification that remediation work was completed rather than assumed.
The primary users are FINRA member broker dealers, including compliance teams, cybersecurity leaders, technology teams, operations executives and senior management. Smaller firms can use the 12 areas to identify where basic controls are missing without trying to copy the cybersecurity program of a much larger institution, while larger firms can use the same structure to review whether responsibilities, documentation and technical controls are working together.
Technology providers, managed security firms, consultants and RegTech companies serving broker dealers can also use the resource to understand what clients may expect around access, logging, vendor controls, data handling, patching, incident response and recovery. Boards and senior executives can use it as a governance checklist because FINRA makes cybersecurity ownership, management reporting, resource decisions and documented risk acceptance part of the program rather than leaving cyber risk entirely with the technology team.
The main strength is that FINRA connects governance directly to operating controls. A firm can follow the framework from senior accountability through asset inventories, identity controls, encryption, training, monitoring and recovery testing, which makes the document more useful than a high level cyber policy statement.
Third party risk is also handled with more depth than a basic checklist. Firms are expected to understand vendor dependencies, monitor privileged access, address fourth parties and plan how systems and data will be handled when a provider relationship ends. Security monitoring extends that discipline to unusual access, suspicious data transfers, system changes and privileged accounts, with logs retained long enough to support operations, investigations, forensic work and applicable recordkeeping requirements.
The framework also includes threat intelligence, incident response and recovery. FINRA recommends using relevant threat feeds, updating defenses as attack methods change and participating in trusted information sharing networks. Incident response focuses on how a firm detects, escalates and contains an event, while recovery planning deals with how critical systems and data return to service afterward. Tested backups, tabletop exercises, offline procedures and defined Recovery Point Objectives and Recovery Time Objectives all help firms decide how much data loss and downtime different systems can tolerate.
The main limitation is jurisdiction. FINRA developed the resource for US member firms and connects several practices to US requirements, including SEC Regulations S-P and S-ID, FINRA Rules 3110 and 4370, and Exchange Act recordkeeping rules. The document also doesn't create new legal or regulatory requirements or reinterpret existing ones. For Canadian financial technology and service firms, its best use is as a practical comparison and control review, not as a statement of Canadian regulatory obligations.
FINRA Cybersecurity Effective Practices (12-part cybersecurity control framework)
Cybersecurity Effective Practices PDF (downloadable nine page resource)
Small Firm Cybersecurity Checklist (small firm program checklist last reviewed February 2024)
Core Cybersecurity Threats And Controls (small firm threats and control questions)
FINRA Cybersecurity Resources (cybersecurity tools, guidance and related material)
2026 Cybersecurity And Cyber Enabled Fraud (current threats and effective practices)
Proposed Class Action Targets Equifax Access Controls (access governance and third party permissions)
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](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |