Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Voices
What Happens When Ethereum Stops Computing Everything?
September 29, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Cybersecurity And Fraud, Digital Identity And Trust, Venture Funding And Building
Proofs could change what blockchains actually need to do
On September 27, 2026, Ethereum cofounder Vitalik Buterin proposed a much different future for Ethereum in his latest essay titled The Cryptographic World Computer. Instead of making every node download the same data and repeat the same calculations, Ethereum would rely far more on cryptographic proofs, data sampling and specialized computers working outside the blockchain. The network would verify more work without having to perform all of it itself.
This isn't just a distant research idea. ZK rollups already execute transactions away from Ethereum and send validity proofs back for verification, while Ethereum's PeerDAS system lets nodes check that rollup data are available without every node downloading all of it. The Ethereum Foundation now says its long term plan for the base network includes succinct execution proofs so validators can eventually verify a proof instead of executing every block again.
A key question for founders and investors is what becomes possible when a blockchain no longer has to do all of the work it is trusted to verify?
Why Every Blockchain Node May Not Need To Do Everything
Blockchains deliberately duplicate work. Independent computers receive transactions, apply the same rules and calculate the resulting state for themselves. That repetition helps participants agree without trusting one central operator, but it also costs money and limits capacity. Cryptographic proofs offer another approach. A computer or group of computers can perform a calculation elsewhere, produce mathematical evidence about the result and let the blockchain verify that evidence instead of repeating the entire calculation.
Some of this already works today where different systems are already handling different parts of the job. Computation, data availability, execution and settlement do not all have to live in one place:
- ZKsync Era performs computation offchain, bundles transactions and sends validity proofs back to Ethereum. Ethereum does not execute every ZKsync transaction itself
- PeerDAS applies a similar idea to data. Since Ethereum's Fusaka upgrade went live on December 3, 2025, nodes can sample pieces of rollup data rather than making every node download every blob (collectively, those samples give the network confidence that the complete data are available)
- Celestia takes the separation further by treating data availability as a service that's separate from execution and settlement. Its light nodes can sample small parts of a block and gain confidence that the full data were published without downloading the whole block
Ethereum's September 2026 protocol priorities point toward an even more radical version of the same idea. The Ethereum Foundation says its planned zkEVM work is intended to move execution proofs from optional to mandatory, with validators eventually verifying a succinct proof instead of executing every block again. Buterin's proposal is not that computation disappears. It is that every validator may no longer need to repeat it.
This model may influence how other blockchains are built too. A payment application could use one network for final settlement, another service for proofs and ordinary cloud infrastructure for most business logic. A privacy system could keep sensitive information outside a public ledger while proving that a required condition was met. An AI agent could perform hundreds of calculations elsewhere and submit only the authorized transaction and the evidence needed to accept it.
It's less about putting everything onchain and more about deciding what everyone actually needs to agree on. That might be ownership, transaction order, a payment, a collateral threshold, an identity condition or proof that software remained inside an approved mandate. Most application may not need global consensus at all.
What Could Founders Build If Verification Gets Cheaper?
A financial agent may compare products, calculate risk, call external services and evaluate several transactions before acting. Putting that entire process on a blockchain would be expensive and could expose information nobody needs. A more practical design could let the agent work elsewhere and prove selected facts when money or ownership changes. Did it stay below a spending limit? Was the beneficiary approved? Did the transaction satisfy a stated policy? Was the final instruction authorized (see AI agents and financial authorization)?
A correct calculation and an authorized action are different things, and financial systems will need both. Proofs could confirm parts of what an agent did while deterministic controls decide what it was allowed to do in the first place.
Another practical use is proving a financial condition without revealing everything behind it.
- A lender might need to establish that income exceeds a threshold without publishing a borrower's complete financial history
- An investment platform might need to confirm eligibility without exposing every identity record
- A company might want to demonstrate that reserves or collateral meet defined rules without disclosing every underlying position
These applications would still depend on trustworthy source data, clearly written rules and legal acceptance. A cryptographic proof can't repair bad information, but it can reduce how much information has to be exposed when the underlying conditions are sound.
Proof generation could evolve into an infrastructure market of its own. If applications rely on proofs, someone has to create, combine and verify them efficiently. That creates room for specialized proving hardware, proof aggregation, cryptographic coprocessors, decentralized compute and developer tools that help determine which work belongs onchain and which work can happen somewhere else.
Regulated finance may eventually find uses as well. Banks, custodians, asset managers and payment companies regularly need to confirm capital, collateral, identity, transaction limits or asset eligibility. Some checks could use cryptographic evidence instead of moving the full underlying dataset between parties. That wouldn't replace regulatory reporting, record keeping or supervisory access, but it could reduce unnecessary data sharing when a counterparty only needs to know whether a specific condition was met.
The economics could also look different from today's blockchain market. If applications buy computation, proofs, storage and settlement separately, value may accrue to infrastructure companies where the economics could accrue differently from today's blockchain market of chains or exchanges. For investors, transaction counts on one chain may tell less of the story than which technical jobs become scarce, costly or strategically important as networks divide the work.
Can This Architecture Survive A Quantum Computer?
What happens when quantum computers become powerful enough to break some of the cryptography blockchains use today? The answer isn't that cryptographic verification stops working. Practically speaking, the cryptography at risk will need to be replaced, and robust systems designed to last will need a clear way to do that.
Ethereum's quantum resistance work identifies four important areas that require changes. 1. Account signatures using ECDSA, 2. validator BLS signatures, 3. KZG commitments used for data availability and 4. some zero knowledge proof systems. The Ethereum Foundation has set an internal goal of making Ethereum's execution, consensus and data layers resistant to quantum attacks by December 2029. It describes that date as an internal engineering target, not a forecast for when a cryptographically capable quantum computer will arrive.
Some of the tools Buterin expects Ethereum to rely on could help with that work. STARKs rely heavily on hash functions rather than the elliptic curve assumptions threatened by sufficiently capable quantum computers. Ethereum researchers are also developing signature systems based on hash functions and ways to aggregate large signatures and proofs designed to resist quantum attacks before they reach the chain.
Every blockchain, custody system, wallet or tokenized asset platform that depends on vulnerable public key cryptography eventually has to decide how its keys, signatures and commitments can be replaced.
The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has already finalized its first standards for cryptography designed to resist quantum attacks and says organizations should begin migrating. In this post we look at Why Fintech Can't Wait For Quantum Computing. NIST's current post quantum guidance calls for organizations to identify vulnerable cryptography and prepare replacement plans. Its transition work aims to remove algorithms vulnerable to quantum attacks from NIST standards by 2035, with higher risk systems expected to move sooner.
Blockchain adds another concern because wallets, tokenized assets, identity credentials and transaction records may remain economically important for decades. A founder building financial infrastructure designed to last should therefore ask two questions combined. What work can we verify instead of repeating, and can we replace the security behind that proof when we need to?
Those questions point toward opportunities in wallets designed to resist quantum attacks, key migration, cryptographic inventory, proof aggregation, formal verification, custody migration and software that can change signature methods without rebuilding an entire application.
Talking Point
If blockchains can trust a proof instead of repeating the work, which financial activities still need to happen onchain, and which only need to be verified there?
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Hester Peirce’s SEC Legacy And A Decade Of Financial Change
October 2, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Capital Formation And Venture Markets
Principled Regulation, Working Alternatives And Ideas That Endured
Hester M. Peirce is leaving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission after nearly nine years as a commissioner and almost two years leading its Crypto Task Force. In her resignation letter, Peirce set October 2 as her final day at the SEC.
NCFA reported her planned departure in May. That answered where she was going, but it didn't answer the more interesting question.
What did Hester Peirce actually change?
For years, Peirce's public record has stretched across SEC votes, speeches, crypto policy, capital formation, investor access and regulatory process. In 2021, she also spoke directly with Canada's fintech community at FFCON21.
The record is much richer than the "Crypto Mom" nickname.
Peirce argued consistently for rules people could understand and use, investor choice, public consultation, room for lawful experimentation and restraint when old regulatory structures met new technology. She also supported enforcement where laws applied and repeatedly returned to the importance of trustworthy markets.
She didn't prevail on every issue. Nor did every later policy change happen because of her. Courts changed outcomes. Congress acted. SEC leadership changed. Technology matured. Institutional investors entered markets they once avoided.
Peirce kept doing something that gave her ideas a longer life.
She put alternatives on the table.
By 2025, she had the chance to help build policy through the SEC Crypto Task Force. In 2026, SEC Chair Paul Atkins explicitly pointed back to her 2020 Token Safe Harbor as the Commission proposed Regulation Crypto Assets.
It is a story about a regulator who kept asking whether the rules still served investors, markets and innovation, and who spent years putting practical alternatives on the table when she believed they did not.
In 2016, fintech was still fighting for a regulatory home. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was developing a responsible innovation framework and debating whether fintech companies should qualify for special purpose national bank charters. The SEC was discussing blockchain, automated advice and online lending as new technologies pressing against established financial rules.1
Crypto was even further outside conventional finance. In 2017, the SEC's DAO Report established that some digital token transactions could fall under U.S. securities law. There were no U.S. spot bitcoin exchange traded products, no SEC Crypto Task Force and no tailored crypto offering regime. When Peirce joined the Commission in January 2018, many of today's basic regulatory questions were still wide open.2
Her first major crypto disagreement arrived within months. In July 2018, Peirce dissented from the SEC's rejection of the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust. She argued that the exchange had met the relevant statutory standard and worried that denying access to a regulated product could push investors toward less regulated ways of getting bitcoin exposure.3
The majority had legitimate market integrity concerns. Bitcoin trading was fragmented and market surveillance was still developing. Fraud and manipulation mattered. Years later at FFCON21, Peirce herself described the exchange traded product review as highly data intensive, including questions about price formation, futures markets and oversight of spot venues. Her disagreement was narrower. She believed bitcoin products were being held to a different standard.
The Token Safe Harbor gave network builders a clock. Peirce proposed three years for qualifying token projects to develop toward functionality or decentralization while providing disclosures and remaining subject to antifraud rules. The proposal addressed a practical problem. A team might need to sell tokens to build a network, yet those same promises could make the sale look like an investment contract.4
She changed the proposal after people pushed back. Safe Harbor 2.0 added an exit report and other refinements in 2021. Peirce didn't pretend the ambiguity had disappeared. She continued asking for feedback and said the proposal needed enough detail to give market participants useful certainty.5
The SEC's enforcement strategy hardened the disagreement. Peirce accepted that securities laws applied when the facts brought an activity inside them. Her objection was practical. Telling firms to register didn't solve much when the existing registration structure didn't fit the activity. Her call for clearer crypto regulation was already part of the public debate, and in 2022 she described one company at a time enforcement discussions as "not a good way of regulating."
DeFi exposed the same disagreement in a more difficult form. The SEC argued that systems performing exchange functions could still require securities oversight. Peirce worried that expanding exchange rules could force decentralized software into structures designed around identifiable intermediaries. The fight over the SEC's proposed exchange definition made that tension explicit in 2023.
Spot bitcoin products finally cleared the SEC in January 2024. More than 20 spot bitcoin exchange filings had been rejected from 2018 through March 2023. The D.C. Circuit later found that the SEC had not adequately explained its treatment of Grayscale's application. The Commission approved multiple spot bitcoin products after the court sent the matter back.6
Peirce saw the approval as much later than it needed to be. Her reaction appeared in Peirce Laments, SEC 'Squandered A Decade'. Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw dissented from the approvals and continued to warn about manipulation and investor protection. The approval settled access to the product. It didn't settle the argument over crypto market risk.
Then the job changed. On January 21, 2025, Acting SEC Chair Mark Uyeda launched the Crypto Task Force and asked Peirce to lead it. The mandate included clearer regulatory boundaries, realistic registration options, disclosure frameworks, public engagement and coordination across government.7
Public engagement became part of the work. The Task Force held sessions on security status, trading, custody, tokenization and DeFi, then took meetings outside Washington to hear from smaller projects that had not always participated in SEC policymaking. At the April 2025 crypto custody roundtable, Peirce argued that custody rules needed to account for the technology without weakening investor protection. The discussion also brought self custody, broker dealer models and legal ownership into the same policy conversation.
Tokenization shows that her position is not simply deregulatory. In July 2025, Peirce said tokenized securities could help capital formation and collateral use, but tokenization did not erase securities law. Third party tokenization still had to avoid misleading investors or weakening investor protections.
DeFi gets a more structured compliance conversation too. At the June 2025 Crypto Task Force roundtable, SEC leadership considered conditional relief that would give developers room to experiment inside defined boundaries. A DeFi safe harbour brought the same tension Peirce had raised for years into a more formal policy discussion. Builders need a lawful route to experiment, while investors still need disclosure, accountability and usable protections.
Six years after Safe Harbor, the connection became explicit. On August 18, 2026, the SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets. The package includes tailored offering exemptions and a conditional safe harbor addressing when a crypto asset is no longer subject to an investment contract. Chair Paul Atkins specifically cited Peirce's 2020 Safe Harbor proposal.8
The proposal was bigger than Peirce. Commission divisions, legal staff, economists, accountants, trading specialists and the Crypto Task Force all contributed. Congress was also working on market structure legislation. Atkins said legislation remained important. Peirce herself credited teams across the Commission for building the proposal.9
September moved policy into live market experimentation. On September 17, the SEC granted temporary and conditional relief allowing limited trading of tokenized U.S. listed stocks through specified onchain venues. Symbol limits, volume caps, transparency, records, technology safeguards and trading stoppage coordination remain part of the structure.10
The Commission deliberately left room to learn. Peirce described the Innovation Exemption as a way for market participants to experiment while the SEC watched how onchain trading worked in practice. Commissioner Mark Uyeda specifically thanked the Crypto Task Force led by Peirce for its work on the exemption.11
Crypto never fully explained Peirce. At FFCON21 she spent a substantial part of the conversation on small business finance. She wanted finders to have a lawful role connecting smaller companies with investors. She questioned wealth as the main gate to accredited investor status and suggested that education or professional experience could demonstrate financial sophistication.
Her concern was who gets access to capital and markets. Peirce told NCFA's community that small businesses outside established wealthy networks could struggle to raise money. She floated a streamlined micro offering of roughly US$250,000 to US$500,000, still subject to antifraud rules, to help companies finance the space between personal networks and institutional capital.
Her working style showed up in the small details. Peirce gave speeches titles about fish behind wheels, empty gas tanks, headstands and haystacks. The metaphors made complicated regulation easier to remember, but the substance underneath them was usually specific. What authority did the SEC have? What problem was the rule trying to solve? Could people comply with it? What unintended cost could it create? Her "Is That A Fish Behind The Wheel?" remarks captured that style in 2022 while arguing that technology could help regulators meet investor protection, capital formation and market integrity goals.
She also left room for disagreement. In June 2026, as her time at the SEC was winding down, Peirce wrote that people could disagree about how capital markets should be regulated while still sharing an interest in markets that serve investors and companies. She also said a Commission seat should not be occupied by the same person for too long and that institutions needed fresh voices.12
Several large questions remain open as she leaves. Regulation Crypto Assets is still proposed. DeFi continues to challenge assumptions about intermediaries and control. Custody remains difficult. The Innovation Exemption is temporary. Congress still has an important role in crypto market structure.
Her final weeks look very different from her first ones. On September 23, speaking during what she calls her penultimate week as commissioner, Peirce discusses tokenized securities, financial privacy and the Innovation Exemption. The argument is no longer whether blockchain belongs anywhere near regulated securities markets. It is how those markets should operate when blockchain is already there.13
People who build companies know the difference between criticism and a usable alternative.
The first tells you what someone dislikes. The second gives you something to work on.
Peirce kept returning with alternatives.
The Token Safe Harbor is the clearest example. It didn't become an SEC rule when she proposed it. She listened to criticism, revised it and left it in the public record. Six years later, the SEC chair cited that work while introducing a formal Commission proposal built for a very different crypto market.
Her record also shows why persistence alone isn't enough. Courts changed outcomes. Elections changed leadership. Congress changed the policy environment. Technology improved. Institutional investors entered markets they once avoided.
What endured were the specific alternatives she left behind.
A minority view can preserve an argument. A detailed proposal can give future policymakers something concrete to reconsider. Public consultation can expose weaknesses before a rule is written. And changing your thinking, as Peirce acknowledged she had on parts of the Howey analysis, can improve the eventual debate.
Founders and industry advocates know this problem well. Complaining about a rule is easy. Designing an alternative that protects investors while giving a legitimate new business model room to work is much harder. Peirce repeatedly did that second piece of work.
Her years at the SEC also coincided with an extraordinary change in financial markets. Crypto moved from the regulatory margins into public markets. Tokenization moved from concept to live infrastructure. Questions about investor access, capital formation and technology neutral rules became part of mainstream securities policy.
At FFCON21 in 2021, Canada's fintech community heard Peirce discuss many of those questions while some of her most important ideas were still proposals. She spoke openly about where the Token Safe Harbor stood, where her own thinking had changed and why new technology should not automatically inherit rules written for a different market.
Five years later, some of those arguments are no longer theoretical.
In 2018, Peirce was arguing that investors should be able to access bitcoin through a regulated exchange traded product. In 2026, she is helping the SEC decide how tokenized U.S. stocks can trade onchain, how crypto assets can be offered under tailored rules and where experimentation can occur inside securities regulation.
That is a remarkable change in the market around her, and Peirce helped make sure some of its hardest regulatory questions were asked before the answers became obvious.
She will join Regent University School of Law as an Associate Professor in November. Regent says her work has focused on regulatory humility, capital markets, crypto regulation and the relationship between innovation and regulation.14
The classroom feels like a fitting next chapter. Peirce spent much of her SEC career asking people to explain their assumptions, defend the authority behind a rule and consider whether a different answer could protect investors while leaving room for markets to change. Students will now get the same invitation to think carefully, argue clearly and reconsider what they thought they knew.
NCFA is grateful that Commissioner Peirce took the time to engage directly with Canada's fintech community through FFCON21. Her public record also gave founders, investors, regulators, lawyers and critics something valuable over nearly nine years at the SEC: clear reasoning, practical alternatives and an explanation of how she reached them.
She leaves with important work unfinished, as every regulator does. She also leaves ideas that now form part of the SEC's policy conversation, work that bears her direct contribution and a record of taking financial innovation seriously while keeping investor protection in view.
We wish Hester Peirce every success at Regent. For Canadian regulators, her record leaves a useful challenge. When markets and technology change, protect investors rigorously, but keep asking whether the rules still fit and be willing to put better alternatives on the table. And we hope the next generation of lawyers gives her arguments the same rigorous challenge she spent years inviting from colleagues, markets and the public.
FAQs
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
UNGA 81 Puts AI, Digital Finance and Tokenization in Focus
September 25, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Identity And Trust, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Sustainable Finance ESG And Financial Inclusion
AI, Digital Finance And Tokenization At UNGA 81
During the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) High-Level Week in New York, September 21–25, 2026, AI agent controls, digital finance, programmable payments and tokenization emerged as recurring financial innovation themes. Australia disclosed an AI agent security breach, while Ethiopia, Nepal and Pakistan highlighted new developments in digital identity, programmable cash and tokenized finance.
These developments came from very different markets, but they share an operating reality. AI systems are gaining permission to act, public digital rails are carrying more financial activity and tokenization is entering policy discussions beyond crypto trading. Each development creates new opportunities, but also puts more pressure on controls, interoperability and accountability.
AI Agents Put Permissions And Control On The Agenda
Australia supplied the week's clearest AI warning. On September 24, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said an OpenAI agent had gained unauthorized access to the country's Medicare Statistics Reporting Service in June. The agent reached public and non-public files. Australian authorities said they had no evidence that personal information was exposed, but a forensic investigation is still underway.
The agent had been looking for medical cost and financing data. Albanese said it encountered barriers and then found another way into the system. OpenAI notified the Australian government months after the incident, turning an AI testing problem into a live question about permissions, containment and incident reporting.
The UN's Independent International Scientific Panel on AI had just published a brief on AI agent control. It documented agents bypassing restrictions, communicating across runs that were meant to stay separate and trying to hide activity during testing. The panel didn't estimate how likely severe loss of control may be. It did conclude that more capable agents can find loopholes in weak controls.
Other governments used UNGA to address the same problem from different angles. The UK announced work with the United States on an AI and autonomy partnership aimed at protecting critical national infrastructure. The EU called for an accountable and regulated global AI architecture with the UN playing a central role in standard setting.
See AI Agents Gain Identity and Wallet Access WCGW
Financial firms are facing the same governance and control problem risks once agents can use APIs, credentials, wallets or internal systems. Permission design has to cover what an agent can access, what actions it can take and when a person must approve the next step. Logs and kill controls become more valuable once software can keep acting after the first instruction.
Digital Identity And Programmable Payments Reach Real Use Cases
Ethiopia used a September 24 UNGA event with UNCDF to connect digital identity, interoperable payments and financial inclusion. Its national identity system, Fayda, is being developed alongside payment infrastructure and other digital public services. Ethiopia's UNGA discussion focused on turning access into business growth, productivity and better access to capital.
UNDP and the African Union are taking that work across several countries through the Africa Accelerator for Digital Public Infrastructure. Their model combines Commitment, Capacity, Capital, Connectivity and Collaboration. Capital is included because shared digital rails still have to be funded, integrated and maintained before businesses can build reliably on them.
Nepal supplied a more concrete financial use case. Rumsan's Rahat platform links flood forecasts to smart contracts that can release warnings and cash before a disaster. ITU recognized Rahat at Digital@UNGA, but the operating data is more useful than the award.
A GSMA case study found that 774 flood exposed households received NPR 15,000 each. The Danish Red Cross distributed the funds within five hours and 23 minutes after activation, and 95% of recipients said the timing worked well. Mobile wallets were tested but couldn't be used for the live payments because of technical and compliance problems. Bank transfers handled the distribution instead.
This outcome says a lot about programmable finance. Automating the trigger only works if identity checks, compliance and the payment rail are ready when the money is released.
Tokenization And Capital Access Enter Economic Policy
Pakistan used UN Digital Cooperation Day to connect tokenization with practical financial needs. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb discussed cheaper remittances, SME financing, sovereign debt and wider financial access as the country develops a regulated virtual asset framework. Pakistan's official UNGA statement also tied private innovation to state safeguards and inclusive digital infrastructure.
Two days later, Pakistan's Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb discussed cashless payments, virtual asset licensing and the possible tokenization of public debt and real estate. Pakistan hasn't launched those systems. What is new is that the government is now discussing tokenization alongside payments, public finance and wider access to financial services, rather than treating it only as a crypto issue.
Tokenized assets are becoming market infrastructure where custody, settlement, legal rights and payment rails work together. Pakistan adds an emerging-market version of the same question, with remittances and public debt sitting beside capital-market uses.
Capital access also ran through UNDP and UNCDF's UNGA agenda. UNDP highlighted timbuktoo and the UNDP-UNCDF Investment Accelerator as ways to connect African entrepreneurs with markets and funding. Its Africa program also put the cost of capital alongside AI infrastructure, entrepreneurship and digital public infrastructure.
Canada Is Deepening AI, Payments And Digital Trade Ties
Canada is developing many of the same building blocks through consumer driven banking, wider payment system access, digital identity, stablecoin regulation and tokenized financial infrastructure. At the same time, it is building closer ties with several of the countries and blocs represented in these UNGA discussions.
Europe may become the most significant of those relationships. On September 16, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proposed opening the door for Canada to become the EU's first associate member. Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed the idea the next day, while describing the goal as a new alliance rather than conventional EU membership. Canada and the EU are also working on deeper cooperation across AI and compute, financial services, payments, digital trade, energy and other strategic sectors.
The details of associate membership haven't been defined yet. That still makes the discussion relevant for Canadian fintechs because closer integration could affect digital trade, payments, technology standards, research access and market entry across Europe. Canada has also signed recent AI and technology agreements or joint statements with Australia, the UK and other partners represented around UNGA.
Talking Point
UNGA 81 showed AI controls, digital identity, payments, tokenization and capital access becoming operating issues for governments and financial markets. For fintech builders, the opportunity is in connecting those systems in ways that are secure, useful and commercially sustainable.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
2026 BRICS Summit Advances Cross Border Payment Links
September 14, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure
New Delhi Declaration Advances Payment Interoperability
On September 12, 2026, BRICS leaders met in New Delhi for the 18th BRICS Summit and backed further work connecting national payment and financial messaging systems. The New Delhi Declaration confirms that the BRICS Payment Task Force has been studying cross border interoperability and the use of local currencies for trade settlement and investment.
BRICS hasn't yet created a common payment network or digital currency. However, payment interoperability has moved into an official technical workstream rather than remaining a series of proposals from individual members.
The progression has been fairly quick. India proposed stronger payment and central bank digital currency connectivity in January. In August, Reserve Bank of India Governor Sanjay Malhotra confirmed that members were discussing links between fast payment systems and central bank digital currencies. The September declaration gives the Payment Task Force a formal basis to continue that work across the bloc.
The commercial backdrop has also changed significantly since we last covered the 2023 BRICS summit. The group has expanded, supply chains have been rerouted, trade relationships have become more politically charged and tariffs are again influencing where companies manufacture and sell. BRICS now accounts for nearly one quarter of global trade, while intra BRICS merchandise trade reached US$1.17 trillion in 2024.
For banks, payment companies and fintechs, that scale changes the economics of interoperability. Existing domestic payment systems already process enormous volumes. Connecting more of those systems across borders could affect routing, settlement costs and access to large emerging markets without waiting for a new monetary system to be built.
BRICS Is Starting With Payment Systems That Already Work
The declaration focuses on systems that members already operate. The Payment Task Force has studied interoperability between payment and messaging channels and discussed using BRICS currencies for trade and investment. Leaders want further work on cross border payments that are faster, cheaper and easier to access while remaining secure.
India brings considerable operating scale to that discussion. Its Unified Payments Interface processes more than 250 billion transactions annually and is accepted in 11 countries. Other BRICS members have their own domestic payment rails. Connecting those systems can be faster than designing a single BRICS network from scratch.
A merchant payment could still require foreign exchange and liquidity between two currencies. Banks would still need compliance controls, and somebody has to settle the transaction. Interoperability can reduce some of the handoffs between institutions without making those functions disappear.
See: India's RBI On AI Governance And BRICS Payment Links
Local currency settlement can develop alongside those links. A company trading between India and another BRICS economy may eventually have more ways to invoice or settle without routing every transaction through a third currency. That can remove a conversion in some transactions, although the underlying currencies still carry exchange rate risk.
Russia has pushed back against describing every BRICS payment initiative as an attempt to abandon the U.S. dollar. More payment choices and greater use of domestic currencies don't require members to stop using dollars where the economics favour them.
The New Development Bank is pursuing a related approach through financing. BRICS leaders want it to expand lending in local currencies and diversify its funding. Borrowers that can raise money in the same currency as their revenues may face less foreign exchange exposure.
Tariffs Are Adding Pressure to Diversify Trade
Payments can't be separated from what is happening to trade. The New Delhi Declaration warns that rising tariffs and other unilateral trade measures can reduce global trade, disrupt supply chains and add uncertainty for businesses. BRICS finance ministers made the same point before the summit, criticizing unilateral trade and financial measures and calling for more coordination among member economies.
The pressure is visible in 2026. The United States imposed a new 25% tariff on selected Brazilian exports in July, covering billions of dollars in goods. Brazil said it would pursue alternative markets if access to the U.S. became more difficult. India has also taken a harder line in U.S. trade negotiations while expanding commercial ties with Europe and other markets.
See: Can Canadian Fintechs Diversify Beyond The U.S. Faster?
China offers another lesson. Companies spent years moving manufacturing into Southeast Asia and India to reduce exposure to U.S. tariffs, yet some are now returning production to China because supplier networks, skilled labour and operating efficiency remain difficult to reproduce elsewhere. Tariffs can redirect investment, but they don't erase the economics of established supply chains.
BRICS members are responding by trying to strengthen trade within the bloc. India has called for more open markets, simpler customs procedures and deeper supply chain links. Intra BRICS merchandise trade has grown thirteenfold since 2003, reaching US$1.17 trillion in 2024.
Payment connectivity becomes more valuable as those trade relationships deepen. A Brazilian exporter selling into India, or an Indian company sourcing from China, benefits more from direct payment links when the underlying commercial relationship is large enough to support liquidity and repeat transactions.
For Canada and other economies heavily exposed to the U.S. market, the development is worth watching. Tariffs are pushing governments and companies to diversify customers, suppliers and financing relationships. BRICS is building payment and trade links across many of the markets companies may increasingly look to as alternatives.
CBDC Links Are Still Mostly a Design Question
Central bank digital currencies remain much less developed as a BRICS payment option. Members operate at different stages of CBDC research, testing and deployment, making a common technical model harder than connecting established fast payment systems.
Sanjay Malhotra, Governor, Reserve Bank of India:
"Various options are on the table, but it is still at discussion stage, including CBDCs and linkages of fast payment systems."
The September declaration didn't announce a CBDC pilot or identify central banks that will participate in one. There is no shared rulebook for settlement, liquidity or foreign exchange conversion and no governance structure for a BRICS CBDC network.
Fast payment links can progress without solving all of those problems at once. A connection between two existing national systems can use currencies and regulated institutions that already operate in each market. Additional bilateral links could later connect into a larger network if members agree on common technical and regulatory rules.
BRICS may therefore develop as a collection of connected domestic systems rather than one centralized network. Fintechs could compete in routing, FX, merchant payments and technical connectivity without waiting for a common BRICS currency.
NCFA has seen a similar commercial principle in other markets as direct access to payment rails expands. More direct access can give fintechs greater control over costs and service delivery, provided the regulatory and operating requirements still support a sustainable business.
More Connections Could Change Cross Border Competition
Traditional correspondent banking often sends a cross border payment through several institutions before it reaches the recipient. Each participant can add time, cost and another reconciliation step. Direct connections between national payment systems could shorten some routes, particularly where participating banks already have liquidity in both currencies.
Payment companies could help merchants reach new markets, while fintechs build routing and FX services around connected domestic rails. Banks would still provide settlement and liquidity. Wider access also brings more responsibility around operating controls, fraud and compliance, an issue we reviewed in payment network access and control.
BRICS is also examining connections between securities settlement and depositary systems. Technical discussions have looked at differences between member markets, while the proposed New Investment Platform remains under development. Compatible payment and securities systems could eventually reduce friction in both trade and investment flows.
See: Buy Canadian Returns As Trump Tariffs Hit 50% | Canada Expanding Economic Ties With UAE India And Africa
Established global payment networks and correspondent banks aren't disappearing. They have deep liquidity, global reach and mature compliance systems. BRICS members are trying to create additional routes alongside them, which can increase bargaining power and give businesses more choices when tariffs, sanctions or geopolitical disputes interrupt established channels.
The commercial impact will become visible once transactions go live. A direct connection between two major systems can be measured through settlement time, FX cost and merchant adoption. Several working links could eventually create a meaningful network across BRICS economies.
Talking Point
BRICS doesn't need a common currency to change cross border finance. The bloc already represents nearly a quarter of global trade, and tariffs are giving members another reason to diversify payment and trading relationships. If national rails begin connecting at scale, fintechs, banks and merchants gain more ways to transact outside traditional correspondent routes. The proof will be lower costs, faster settlement and sustained transaction volume once those links go live.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
OSFI Rebalances Regulation for Growth and Competition
September 14, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Competition And Market Structure, Regulation And Policy, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding
Routledge Speech Puts Growth and Competition Higher on OSFI Agenda
On September 11, 2026, Superintendent Peter Routledge delivered a speech at the Economic Club of Canada, explaining how the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) is refining its risk appetite. Financial resilience remains central, but OSFI is giving more weight to economic growth and competition when it decides whether a regulatory requirement is proportionate to the risk.
For financial technology firms, smaller banks, federal credit unions and prospective entrants, the commercial question is whether those decisions make Canada's regulated financial market easier to enter and compete in. Some fintechs may eventually seek a federal bank, trust or loan company structure. Others need regulated partners that can support new lending, payments or financial products without the economics forcing every partnership toward Canada's largest institutions.
OSFI is already changing parts of that equation. New entrants have a more structured approval process, selected capital requirements are being recalibrated and unnecessary supervisory material is being removed. The value to the market will depend on what happens to entry costs, operating economics and the number of credible competitors that reach customers.
Entry Economics Matter More Than Access
OSFI's Streamlined Approvals Framework for Targeted New Entrants is one of the clearest examples of the new competition objective. Eligible provincial credit unions and firms with innovative or emerging banking models now enter a more defined process that begins with a readiness assessment before formal approval and operational preparation.
A clearer process can materially affect a startup's economics. Legal and advisory costs continue while an application is underway, and management time spent on regulatory work is time not spent building the business. Investors can also have capital tied up well before regulated revenue begins.
Peter Routledge, Superintendent, OSFI
"We aim to create a smoother, more accessible pathway for credible new entrants navigating the federal process, without lowering our standards."
Faster decisions would reduce uncertainty, but approval itself is a poor measure of competition. Approval only matters if those firms can operate, grow and compete once they enter the market. New institutions need enough customers and revenue to absorb regulatory costs while continuing to meet OSFI's prudential requirements.
See: OSFI Clarifies Tokenized Deposits and 2027 Crypto Rules
This is especially relevant to fintechs that never become federally regulated institutions themselves. More smaller banks, trust companies and credit unions can create additional counterparties for new financial products. A fintech gains little from an open market on paper if only a handful of institutions can support the partnership economically.
Proportionate Rules Can Change Who Competes
Regulation weighs differently on a large bank and a smaller financial institution. A large bank can spread reporting and compliance expense across a vast customer base. A smaller competitor has fewer accounts and loans over which to recover the same fixed costs.
Capital rules affect the equation as well. OSFI's 2027 rules reduce the risk weight on unrated corporate small and medium sized enterprise exposures to 75% from 85%. The maximum exposure that can qualify as a small business entity for lower regulatory retail treatment also rises to $2.5 million from $1.5 million.
OSFI's 2027 package also changes the treatment of some corporate exposures, covered bonds, securitization and market risk. Category I and II small and medium sized banks can use simplified capital treatment for qualifying exposures, subject to limits. The rules also introduce a streamlined application process for smaller banks seeking approval to use internal credit models.
OSFI has made selected changes elsewhere, including residential development and covered bonds. The changes are targeted rather than a general reduction in capital standards. Their commercial significance comes from matching regulatory cost more closely to the risk an institution actually takes.
Peter Routledge, Superintendent, OSFI
"We seek to avoid the 'stability of the graveyard' in which a docile, risk-averse financial system impedes prosperous growth."
The effects aren't limited to banks. Fintechs also depend on smaller regulated institutions for partnerships, distribution and access to financial products. Smaller regulated institutions finance businesses, compete for deposits and provide services that fintechs build on top of. If prudential requirements consume more capital or operating expense than the underlying risk warrants, fewer institutions can compete effectively and fintechs have fewer potential partners.
OSFI is also removing material it considers redundant, obsolete or trivial. By April 2026, it said 52 documents and more than 600 pages had been eliminated. The result is lower recurring cost or less management time spent satisfying requirements that don't materially improve supervision.
Competition Mandates Need Outcome Data
Canada already has experience with regulators being asked to consider competition more explicitly. Ontario expanded the Ontario Securities Commission's mandate in 2021 to include fostering competitive capital markets and capital formation. NCFA reviewed that expanded growth duty in a comparison of pro innovation regulation in Canada and the UK. The OSC subsequently built out its Office of Economic Growth and Innovation and continued experimenting with regulatory relief and testing programs.
NCFA had been asking regulators to go further years earlier. Its 2018 OSC priorities submission called for better data and performance measures tied to market outcomes. Capital formation and compliance costs were among the measures that could show whether regulation was actually improving the market.
An innovation office can improve communication with a regulator, and an exemption can remove a specific obstacle. Neither proves that competition increased. If a business still cannot earn enough to support the cost of being regulated, the market doesn't gain a sustainable competitor.
See: NCFA Submission on Regulatory Burden
Investment crowdfunding provides a useful example. A competitive framework should encourage new equity crowdfunding dealers and portals to enter the market in the first place. That requires economics that can support the people, technology and regulatory work needed to operate. If the cost and complexity of registration discourage new entrants before they launch, or make it difficult for existing firms to reach sustainable scale, competition will remain limited.
NCFA raised similar concerns in its 2018 submission to Finance Canada, where regulatory fragmentation and compliance costs were identified as barriers to fintech growth. The association looked at the same issue in a a more recent analysis of financial market access and productive growth. Access has economic value when firms can turn it into customers, capital and competitive products.
Provincial regulators can make their competition mandates easier to evaluate by publishing more market outcomes. Approval times can be compared before and after reforms. Regulators can show how many entrants begin operating and whether they remain active. They can also disclose enough data to assess whether smaller firms are raising more capital or taking a larger role in the market.
Those metrics would distinguish regulatory activity from competitive results. Supporting fifty firms through an innovation office is useful information. Knowing how many of those firms reached the market, survived and won customers tells stakeholders much more about whether the mandate is working.
OSFI Can Make Competition Measurable
Routledge addressed the issue directly at the Scotiabank Financials Summit on September 10.
Peter Routledge, Superintendent, OSFI:
"Our role is to ensure the prudential framework does not create unnecessary barriers to responsible competition."
OSFI already has a decent starting point because its new approvals process includes a public dashboard. Processing times can show whether regulatory entry becomes faster and more predictable. OSFI could also report how many applicants become operating institutions and how long they remain active.
OSFI should also show whether smaller institutions are actually seeing lower regulatory costs, better funding access and more room to compete. If proportional supervision is working (or not), those changes should be visible in recurring compliance costs, capital use and funding outcomes.
See: Canada's C$14T Non Bank Financial System Opens Up
Market performance should complete the picture. A new entrant that reaches customers and grows while maintaining strong capital is evidence that entry and resilience can coexist. A faster application process followed by few successful competitors would point to remaining barriers elsewhere.
Canada's largest banks will retain substantial advantages in distribution and customer scale. OSFI cannot remove those commercial strengths, nor should it try. Its role is to ensure that prudential requirements don't add an unnecessary regulatory advantage on top of them.
Talking Point
OSFI's revised risk appetite only matters if it changes who can compete and at what cost. More credible entrants, lower unnecessary regulatory burden and better funding economics would be stronger evidence of success than faster approvals alone (provided financial resilience remains intact).
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Educational Infrastructure as the Foundation for Sustainable Community Development: Uri Poliavich’s Approach
Aug 31, 2026
Uri Poliavich is an entrepreneur and philanthropist who develops philanthropic initiatives with a focus on educational infrastructure and the long-term development of communities. He provides support for projects tied to building and modernizing schools, improving the learning environment, and developing educational teams professionally. This approach helps create the conditions institutions need to keep developing on their own going forward.
Education: The Foundation of Long-Term Community Development
Educational institutions play a particularly important role in the development of local communities, bringing together children, families, teachers, and community initiatives around a shared learning environment. Quality schools matter especially for small communities. In that context, they provide not just the knowledge children need, but also a lasting connection between the family and the local community.
Uri Poliavich's Approach to Investing in Educational Infrastructure
In Uri Poliavich's approach, infrastructure is treated as an integral part of a school's long-term development. Beyond current educational programs, this support includes creating the right conditions for institutions to operate and develop over many years.
A distinct direction in Uri Poliavich's work involves support for large-scale educational infrastructure projects. Such initiatives reflect the long-term approach associated with Uri Poliavich, with projects focused on creating and developing educational institutions designed for sustained use.
This format sets Uri Poliavich's work clearly apart from supporting individual educational events or various short-term programs.
Developing Community and Cultural Centers
Community and cultural spaces create additional opportunities for connection, for hosting various events, and for engagement among teachers, families, and community members. As a result, the educational environment becomes an important part of the broader social infrastructure.
In his work, Uri Poliavich devotes considerable attention to developing community centers and cultural institutions. Even so, he doesn't stray from his core principle: facilities need to be built with long-term use by local communities in mind.
That's why Uri Poliavich's approach helps bring several functions together within a single space – educational and communal alike.
Creating a Modern Learning Environment for Children
A modern learning environment isn't just a school – it's also the full set of conditions in which children learn every day.
This environment includes:
- well-equipped classrooms;
- the necessary technical resources;
- suitable learning spaces;
- infrastructure that lets teachers use modern teaching methods.
That's why, as part of his educational support, Uri Poliavich drives the modernization of curricula and modern educational technology, along with the active development of school infrastructure. Thanks to this comprehensive approach, quality of education is judged not just by the content of a given program, but by the conditions in which that program is actually delivered.
Updating Curricula and Educational Resources
Developing educational infrastructure means more than physical facilities – it also covers the content of the entire learning process. That's why, in his work, Uri Poliavich devotes considerable attention to updating curricula alongside introducing modern educational technology. Thanks to this approach, school development is treated as a combination of two components: infrastructure solutions and up-to-date educational content.
Updating resources covers:
- the technical equipment in classrooms;
- the use of modern learning materials and tools that help teachers organize their lessons.
But simply acquiring these resources isn't enough – schools also need to learn how to use them correctly to keep improving learning conditions going forward. All of this lets educational institutions quickly adapt their learning process to a changing set of requirements.
Professional Training for Teachers
The quality of the educational environment also depends on how well-trained teachers are. That's why professional development for teachers is considered an essential complement to the required updates to school infrastructure and learning resources.
Uri Poliavich places particular emphasis on the professional development of teachers, helping them adopt new approaches to working with students and make the most effective use of the educational resources available. All of this matters given how often curricula are updated, when even the smallest changes call for a certain amount of preparation across the entire teaching staff.
Attracting Strong Educational Teams Through Modern Infrastructure
Using the capabilities of modern infrastructure, it becomes possible to create the right conditions for teachers and administrators, who can then get a fully functioning learning process up and running far more quickly.
To apply a range of teaching methods and build a more comfortable environment for day-to-day work, the following set of elements has become essential:
- well-equipped classrooms;
- suitable workspaces;
- the necessary educational resources.
For Uri Poliavich, developing infrastructure is closely tied to the ability to attract qualified specialists, as well as to creating the right conditions for their long-term work going forward.
Moving from External Support to Institutions' Independent Development
The key difference between long-term support for an educational institution and one-time assistance lies in creating the conditions institutions need to keep working independently afterward. Uri Poliavich's approach is closely tied to building sustainable educational capabilities that hold their value even after individual projects wrap up.
A central role in Uri Poliavich's approach goes to combining the following elements:
- professional training for teachers;
- infrastructure;
- learning resources;
- consistent management.
When all of these components are developed at the same time, an institution gains enough capacity to sustain a quality educational process on its own and to plan its future work.
As a result, institutions gradually become less dependent on short-term outside solutions. Support, in this way, becomes a tool for building an institution's own educational foundation.
Uri Poliavich's View: Strong Educational Institutions as the Foundation of Sustainable Communities
In Uri Poliavich's approach, a strong educational institution is an integral part of every community's life. He sets out to support schools that deliver quality general education while helping preserve Jewish identity. At the same time, in his work, Uri Poliavich pays attention not only to individual curricula, but also to questions of stability and the future development of every institution.
See: 12 Market Entry Approaches for Fintech Startups
Thanks to this, an ongoing process of engagement takes shape between schools and community members. Regular training and development for teachers and school leadership plays an equally important role.
For Uri Poliavich, a long-term outcome depends on how well an educational institution is able to continue its work and create opportunities for the generations that follow.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Elevate 2026 Agenda Puts Fintech, AI And Capital In Focus
August 26, 2026 | NCFA Community Announcement | Fintech And Innovation, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Capital Markets And Funding
Elevate 2026 Innovation AI Capital And Company Building
Elevate is less than a month away! Checkout the latest Elevate 2026 agenda giving founders, investors and technology operators a closer look at the conversations coming to Toronto from September 22–24.
For Canada's fintech community, the mix is worth watching. Elevate's 2026 programming spans fintech, artificial intelligence, capital, commercialization and other technologies competing for investment, customers and talent. NCFA is a Community Partner for this year's festival at Meridian Hall.
Fintech Connects With AI And Commercialization
Canadian fintech has a direct place in the program.
Eva Wong, Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer of Borrowell, is among the announced speakers, bringing experience from one of Canada's established consumer fintech companies to discussions about product, fintech and the development of Canada's digital finance market.
The latest agenda announcement also highlights Mati Staniszewski, Co-Founder and CEO of ElevenLabs; Adam Collins, Chief Communications Officer at Reddit; and Jessica Chalk, Founder and CEO of myStoria.
Those adjacent technology perspectives are relevant to financial innovators. AI is entering customer service, fraud detection, compliance, product development and internal operations, while fintech companies still have to turn technical capability into products customers trust and businesses can scale.
For founders, the useful question isn't simply which technology attracts the most attention. It's where new capabilities can solve a real financial problem, reach customers and support a viable company.
750+ Meetings Put Capital Into The Program
Elevate is also expanding direct access between founders and investors.
Its Meeting Exchange program is doubling capacity for 2026, with more than 750 curated one-to-one meetings for investment-ready startups.
That adds a practical capital component to a festival expected to bring together approximately 10,000 technology professionals, entrepreneurs, founders, executives and investors.
See: Elevate Festival 2026 Connects Founders And Investors
For early and growth-stage companies, concentrated access to investors, potential customers, partners and other founders can make the trip more useful than a schedule built around stage content alone.
Save 20% With The NCFA Community Code
NCFA community members can receive 20% off General Pass tickets for Elevate Festival 2026.
Use promo code: NCFAELEVATE20
📅 September 22–24, 2026
📍 Meridian Hall, Toronto
More speakers and sessions are being added ahead of September.
See you there
For fintech founders, investors and operators, the value is in the overlap. Finance is colliding with AI, new infrastructure, changing customer expectations and tighter competition for capital. Elevate offers three days to test ideas with people building, funding and buying technology across those markets.
#ElevateFest2026
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
