Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Mar 30, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy

On Mar 26, 2026, Bill C-15 received Royal Assent. The law completes Canada’s consumer-driven banking legislative framework and creates a regulated space for stablecoins. The Department of Finance confirms that directly. The Bank of Canada also confirms it will take on two new mandates, including the supervision of stablecoin issuers and oversight of the framework for consumer-driven banking.
The real change isn't that Canada suddenly discovered digital finance, but rather that political will has now cleared the legislative hurdle.
Canada now has a clearer institutional map for three linked parts of digital finance: payment service providers, stablecoins, and consumer-directed data sharing. Payment supervision was recently already in place under the Retail Payment Activities Act.
That reduces one kind of uncertainty. Companies no longer need to guess whether Canada intends to regulate these areas. The answer is yes. The remaining uncertainty is operational, so how the rules will work, how supervision will be applied, how fast the framework will be implemented, and whether the final design is practical enough for real products and real users.
The law is in force, but the working rulebook is still being built. The Bank of Canada will help develop regulations, supervisory policies, and operational frameworks, while engaging industry as the system moves toward implementation.
The core stablecoin model is already visible. Issuers are expected to operate with 1:1 reserves in high quality liquid assets, support at par redemption, and meet ongoing supervisory and disclosure expectations. The remaining uncertainty is how these requirements translate into daily compliance, reporting, and supervision.
Consumer-driven banking is going forward under a split structure where the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada handles accreditation, participant oversight, and consumer protection, while the Bank of Canada sets and oversees the technical standards that systems will need to meet. The direction is clear, but execution depends on how these layers work together. Companies will need to meet accreditation requirements while building to technical standards at the same time. The risk is not uncertainty about the framework, but having to clear more than one gate before a product can go live.
Lastly, the execution risk is how quickly outstanding detailed rules take to arrive, and how difficult they are to meet in practice. If those answers come slowly, Canada will have a legal framework but real momentum will take a hit. If they come quickly and cleanly, related Canadian fintech models will become easier to build, partner, and price.
Good for competition and investment. Clearer rules helps more than vague ambition does. Foreign firms, infrastructure providers, and capital partners can assess Canada more easily when they can see which activities are in scope, who supervises them, and what the implementation path looks like. That alone doesn't guarantee a wave of new investment. Market size, compliance cost, tax treatment, and speed of execution still matter. But a clear regulatory perimeter is better than a half-built one.
For fintechs, the upside is clarity. The cost is higher discipline. Stablecoin and consumer-data products will need stronger controls, cleaner records, and more formal partner arrangements earlier in the build process. This helps firms that already build for regulated environments. It slows firms that rely on loose structures or hope to sort out compliance later. The gap between policy design and real payment usage is already visible in stablecoin data showing a payments reality gap, where payment use still lags trading and treasury activity.
For banks and larger financial institutions, the law creates a more defined path to engage with stablecoins and consumer-driven banking under a supervised framework. That helps internal decision-making. It also raises responsibility. Institutions will need stronger oversight of how these products connect to payments, treasury, customer channels, and third-party infrastructure.
For infrastructure and vendor firms, this raises the standard for what counts as a viable solution. Auditability, resilience, data controls, and supervisory readiness become buying criteria, not optional features. Vendors that cannot support regulated deployment will struggle to win larger Canadian mandates.
For Canada’s financial services landscape, the likely effect is a clearer split between firms that can operate under supervision and firms that cannot. That may improve trust and reduce noise. It will also be an advantage for participants that already have stronger governance, legal support, and operational depth.
The priority is to prepare, not wait. Companies should identify where payment stablecoins and consumer-directed data already sit in their products, map the third parties those flows depend on, and test whether those setups can meet supervision. The detailed rules are still coming, but teams that engage early will understand the direction sooner and adjust faster.
For years, progress in stablecoins and consumer-driven banking depended on political will. Bill C-15 clears that hurdle. The framework is now in law.
Canadian digital finance is now onto execution. Regulations, supervisory expectations, and operating standards will decide whether firms can build and scale in Canada without delay. Bill C-15 sets the direction. Execution will decide how much actually gets built.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
March 29, 2026

Image: Unsplash/Priscilla Du Preez
Retail shrinkage — the industry term for inventory loss through theft, fraud, and administrative error — costs global retailers hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Within that figure, return fraud has grown into one of the most consistently underestimated line items. Unlike shoplifting, which is immediately visible and operationally disruptive, return fraud is quiet. It enters through the customer service desk, processed by a staff member under time pressure, usually accepted to maintain a positive customer interaction, and absorbed as a cost of doing business. Organized retail crime operations have identified this as a reliable revenue stream, and the scale of exploitation has grown accordingly.
The technology capable of changing this dynamic is retail identity verification: a systematic process of confirming the identity of customers at specific transaction touchpoints — most critically the returns desk — using automated document scanning rather than relying on staff judgment or paper-based log systems. When a fraudulent returner knows their identity is captured and matched against a return history database, the economics of the fraud change. The deterrent effect operates before any individual transaction is evaluated, and the audit trail it creates enables pattern detection that no manual system can replicate at the speed or scale required.
What is also important here is that return fraud does not operate in isolation. The same individuals and organized groups responsible for fraudulent returns are frequently responsible for the theft that enables those returns. Stolen merchandise returned for cash or store credit creates a clean revenue cycle for organized retail crime. That’s why identity verification at the returns desk intercepts not just the return itself but the downstream incentive that makes the preceding theft financially worthwhile.
Retail identity verification is the practice of confirming a customer’s identity at a point-of-sale or service transaction using a machine-readable identity document. In the returns context specifically, it means capturing the returning customer’s name and identity document details — typically via OCR, or Optical Character Recognition, the technology that extracts text from photographed documents — and recording that data against the return transaction in the retailer’s system.
In other words, it replaces the manual alternative — a staff member writing a customer’s name and address on a paper return form, or typing it into a terminal — with an automated scan that is faster, more accurate, and creates a structured, searchable record. The identity data captured is not used to authorize or deny the individual transaction in isolation. Its value lies in the cumulative pattern it reveals: a single customer attempting multiple no-receipt returns across locations, or a rotating group of individuals returning the same high-value items across store clusters.
Apart from this, retail identity verification in the age-restricted sales context serves a different but related function. Capturing identity at the point of sale for alcohol, tobacco, vaping products, or lottery tickets creates a documented compliance record that protects the retailer in the event of a licensing inspection or underage sale allegation. Thanks to this, a single scanning infrastructure can serve both loss prevention and compliance functions simultaneously, reducing the cost per use case when deployed across a multi-function retail operation.
The most widely used document capture methods are MRZ reading — the Machine Readable Zone, a standardized two-line strip at the bottom of passports and many national identity cards — PDF417 barcode scanning from the reverse of driving licences, and front-of-card OCR for documents without machine-readable zones. A capable retail scanning solution should handle all three, covering the range of documents customers are likely to present across the retailer’s operating region.
Understanding why manual return controls consistently fail is essential context for designing an effective automated alternative. The failure modes are structural, not simply the result of inadequate staff training.
The majority of return fraud operates through the no-receipt return pathway. Retailers offering goodwill returns without a receipt — a policy designed to serve legitimate customers who have lost their proof of purchase — inadvertently create a channel through which stolen merchandise can be converted to cash or credit without any connection to the original transaction. From a financial perspective, restricting no-receipt returns too aggressively damages customer satisfaction and increases returns friction for honest customers. Capturing identity at the no-receipt return point resolves the dilemma: the policy can remain customer-friendly while the identity record creates the accountability that deters systematic abuse.
Organized retail crime groups exploit the siloed nature of most retail loss prevention systems. An individual executing multiple returns at different store locations generates no alert in any single store’s records, even if their cumulative return volume is clearly abusive. Identity capture linked to a centralized return history database changes this dynamic entirely: the pattern that is invisible store-by-store becomes immediately visible at the network level. These mechanics boost the detection rate for organized cross-location fraud without requiring any change to individual store return policies.
Return desk staff are typically trained to prioritise customer experience and process transactions efficiently. Challenging a customer on a suspicious return requires judgment, confidence, and a willingness to create conflict — qualities that vary significantly across individuals and that diminish under queue pressure. Automated identity capture removes the judgment element: the scan is a standard part of the process applied to every return, not a discretionary challenge that a staff member must decide to initiate. This positively affects consistency and removes the interpersonal friction that causes staff to avoid challenging transactions they should be questioning.
Identity verification at the point of sale delivers its strongest returns in specific retail contexts. Here’s when the investment is most clearly justified:
When evaluating identity verification solutions for retail deployment, pay attention to the following criteria:
Implementing identity verification in a retail returns workflow requires attention to three dimensions simultaneously: the technical integration, the operational process design, and the customer communication approach. Neglecting any one of these dimensions will limit the effectiveness of the others.

Image Unsplash, Simon Hattinga Verschure
Before any technology is deployed, it is crucial to define precisely when identity capture is required: all returns without a receipt, all returns above a defined transaction value, all returns in specific high-risk product categories, or some combination. This policy decision shapes the entire implementation — the workflow design, the staff training, and the customer communication. We recommend starting with a narrowly defined scope — no-receipt returns above a value threshold — rather than attempting to capture identity on every return transaction from the outset, as this allows the team to refine the process before extending it.
The most operationally sensitive element of identity verification at the returns desk is not the technology — it is how staff present the requirement to customers. A customer who understands that identity capture is a standard policy applied consistently to all no-receipt returns is significantly more likely to comply without conflict than one who perceives it as a personal accusation. Staff training should include a specific, practiced script for introducing the scan request, handling common objections, and escalating to a supervisor when a customer refuses. It will be helpful to role-play these interactions during training rather than relying on written guidance alone.
Displaying clear signage at the returns desk indicating that identity may be required for no-receipt returns serves two functions simultaneously. First of all, it sets customer expectations before the interaction begins, reducing the likelihood of conflict when the scan is requested. Secondly, it functions as a deterrent in its own right: a fraudulent returner who sees that identity will be captured may elect not to proceed with the transaction before any staff interaction occurs. Given this, the signage itself delivers measurable loss prevention value at zero incremental operational cost.
Return fraud and organized retail theft are not problems that goodwill policies and staff vigilance can solve at scale. The economics favour the fraudster in any system where returns are processed on trust, where no identity record is created, and where pattern detection requires manual cross-referencing of paper logs. Retail identity verification changes those economics by creating a structured identity record at the transaction point, aggregating that data centrally, and making cross-location and cross-time patterns immediately visible to loss prevention teams.
The implementation investment is modest relative to the shrinkage it addresses. A well-deployed system pays for itself within the first promotional season it covers by reducing the no-receipt return abuse that concentrates around high-value product launches and seasonal promotions. Apart from this, the compliance value it delivers for age-restricted product categories converts what might otherwise be a single-purpose loss prevention tool into a shared infrastructure investment with returns across multiple operational functions. Given this, retailers evaluating their loss prevention strategy should treat identity verification at the returns desk not as a future consideration but as a near-term priority.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
March 27, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer Weekly Intelligence | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Regulation And Policy, Payments And Market Infrastructure, Risk Compliance And Regtech

Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026, March 7-13, 2026, March 14-20, 2026).
The RBA is moving past short pilots. The focus now is how tokenised money works with existing settlement systems and what holds up under real use.
The SEC is narrowing one regulator facing CAT access path in the name of cost savings while keeping other query methods in place. That doesn't change trading rules, but it can change how efficiently regulators search market activity and build surveillance cases, and to that extent there are some concerns around reduced oversight.
Fully paid lending goes from exemption based programs to a standard rule set. Dealers need to update inventory funding structures and controls before the effective date.
Tokenization is now being discussed inside the core U.S. capital markets policy process, with major market infrastructure and exchange voices at the table. That raises the odds that tokenized securities will be treated as a market structure question tied to trading, clearing, settlement, and custody, not only as a digital asset issue.
Lynn Martin, President, NYSE Group: “As we explore how tokenization can enhance capital markets, it is critical that new infrastructure is developed in a way that preserves the trust, transparency, and protections investors expect. Securitize brings deep experience in digital asset infrastructure and transfer agency, making them a strong partner in helping design this next generation of market structure.”
India is moving from payment expansion to payment control. Fraud liability, cyber resilience, cross border authorisation, and switching now sit closer to the centre of the next build cycle for banks, payment firms, and fintech infrastructure providers.
Visa is getting into the infrastructure layer. Privacy has been one of the main blockers for banks and large financial institutions using shared blockchain systems. If that barrier starts to fall, onchain payments, settlement, and treasury activity can move closer to core financial market infrastructure.
FMI oversight expectations set the operating floor for payments and clearing infrastructure, which can flow through to participant requirements, vendor controls, and resilience planning.
This brings tokenized cash into live institutional money movement. It's a major Canadian bank using tokenized cash to support real margin, collateral, and settlement flows on a continuous basis. Tokenized money is moving deeper into market infrastructure and gives regulated institutions a way to move value when markets need it 24/7, not only during banking hours.
Deloitte and Stablecorp are building integration paths for financial institutions to use QCAD inside existing systems. The work targets clearing, treasury, and cross-border flows, but no deployments or pilots have been confirmed yet. Treat this as a signal that stablecoin infrastructure is being wired into bank workflows ahead of regulatory clarity.
This closes a multi phase refresh and sets a new baseline for dealer compliance interpretation across UMIR topics, which can flow into policy mapping, training, and vendor rule logic.
Bill C-15 puts stablecoins, payments, and consumer-driven banking under a more unified central bank structure. Firms now need to plan for supervision across digital money and data-sharing models, not treat them as separate tracks.
Event contracts are now included in a defined Canadian dealer framework. Firms need to clear product design, compliance, and notification before going live.
AI assisted authorisations and automated reporting feeds can shorten approval timelines and change how supervision picks up issues from live data.
Sarah Pritchard, Deputy Chief Executive, Financial Conduct Authority: “We want to see more people getting supported, who aren’t currently, and a market that innovates and offers tailored services to meet differing consumer needs.”
Dealers and fintech vendors that support eDiscovery, recordkeeping, surveillance, and investigation response workflows now have a clear CIRO baseline for data handling, metadata preservation, and production process design.
Courts are beginning to test whether engagement led product design itself can create liability at scale. If that theory survives, the impact reaches beyond social media. Any digital product that depends on compulsive use patterns, especially where minors or vulnerable users are involved, faces legal scrutiny and compliance costs.
August 6 update: A New Mexico court ordered Meta to establish a US$567M abatement fund, bringing the financial remedies in the case to US$942M, and imposed youth-safety requirements covering age assurance, teen usage and notifications, adult-minor contact controls and AI-chatbot interactions involving minors. Meta plans to appeal.
As more execution flows move through automated and intermediated channels, CIRO is making it clearer who is responsible, how orders must be marked, and what supervision has to look like. That raises the operating standard for dealers, trading desks, legal and compliance teams, and firms providing marketplace access. Electronic access remains open, but responsibility for supervision, order marking, and control cannot blur as more parties exist between the client and the marketplace.
This raises the risk that sports prediction markets face a direct statutory limit before the category settles into a stable regulatory path. Congress is now testing whether these contracts belong inside federal market infrastructure or back inside state gambling rules. Important for exchanges, prediction market operators, legal teams, and investors betting on event contracts as a durable product category.
This series puts AI governance in focus for banks and fintechs, especially around model risk, cybersecurity controls, and how supervisors assess AI driven decisioning inside core workflows.
China is using tax data, regulated data sharing, and specific technologies to push more SME credit through banks. That is a lending infrastructure signal, not just a blockchain headline.
Regulators are setting clearer boundaries, and infrastructure is moving into production at the same time. That combination raises the cost of getting it wrong and shortens the window to get it right. Teams need working controls, real vendor oversight, and systems that hold up under load before scaling anything customer facing. NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets, subscribe to NCFA weekly newsletter updates, view a rundown of current fintech news and insights, or dive into the latest fintech industry research.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
March 20, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer Weekly Intelligence | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Regulation And Policy, Payments And Market Infrastructure

Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026, March 7-13, 2026).
This adds a new regulated counterparty node for banks, payment partners, and fintech vendors that use CIRO membership as a gating factor for onboarding, integrations, and supervised operating scope.
This puts fund distribution onchain with rules built into the asset. Transfers can enforce who can hold and trade without separate manual checks. That changes how funds issue, manage investors, and handle transfers. It points to tokenized fund infrastructure moving into live use, not pilots.
This affects crypto trading platforms, market makers, treasury teams, and regulators watching stablecoin market structure in Canada. Lower margin on eligible inventory can improve capital efficiency and balance sheet use, but only inside a tighter control framework. It means regulated treatment of stablecoins is moving deeper into prudential design, not just disclosure and registration.
A core global index now trades outside exchange hours. Price formation can start on crypto venues before futures markets reopen, which puts pressure on where liquidity shows up first. If activity builds on chain, traditional venues risk reacting instead of leading. For brokerages, exchanges, and market infrastructure providers, this is not theoretical. Firms need to decide whether to support 24/7 access, how to manage risk when markets never close, and how to compete with venues that remove time and geographic limits.
Crypto issuers, exchanges, custodians, brokers, investors, and token builders now have a clearer US reference point for token design, disclosures, and jurisdiction planning. The practical implication is significant. Firms exposed to staking, airdrops, wrapped assets, stablecoins, or token distribution models can reassess compliance, product structure, and market access strategy with more precision across SEC and CFTC lines.
This is for banks, lenders, treasury teams, and fintechs that rely on bank balance sheets and bank distribution. Capital rules affect lending capacity, pricing, and risk appetite. A lighter or more targeted framework can change how banks allocate capital and where they are willing to compete.
Banks facing margin pressure, conduct costs, and weak returns are under more pressure to lower their operating base faster. The practical implication for lenders, fintechs, and banking vendors is that AI and automation are moving from pilot projects into cost and staffing decisions. Firms that can automate servicing, operations, and control workflows without weakening customer outcomes or compliance will be in a stronger position.
This gives UK facing fintechs and suppliers a cleaner map of where supervisors focus and where firms should spend compliance and product time. Payments, retail banking, consumer finance, and wholesale market firms can now align internal control roadmaps to sector specific priorities instead of broad portfolio letters, which tightens how boards and senior managers justify investment decisions.
Federal procurement remains difficult for new entrants to access, with complexity and restrictive design favouring repeat suppliers. At the same time, the report outlines clear changes that could open participation, improve competition, and expand access for fintech, govtech, and smaller vendors seeking to sell into government.
China is widening the distribution base for state digital money inside the banking system. Analysts see the bigger role in cross-border settlement and in building a payments channel that's outside dollar-based infrastructure such as SWIFT. China is pushing public digital money deeper into bank distribution while closing space for private stablecoin models.
This expands direct access for credit unions that want to build or buy modern payment capabilities. Credit unions, processors, and fintech partners can now plan for real system participation, not just eligibility on paper.
This is for banks, cross-border payment firms, remittance providers, treasury teams, and stablecoin infrastructure players. Stablecoin payouts are moving closer to standard bank payment flows instead of sitting outside them as a separate integration project. That lowers friction for bank adoption and puts more pressure on legacy cross-border payout models.
Mastercard is building direct control over how funds move between bank accounts and stablecoin systems. That changes routing, pricing, and who captures value in cross border and treasury flows. For fintechs, payment products will increasingly need to support both fiat and digital settlement paths in the same workflow. For banks, this puts more pressure on correspondent banking and other legacy cross border revenue lines.
This changes how investor harm connects to enforcement outcomes. Dealers, registrants, and their vendors now need tighter client records and cleaner evidence trails because the process depends on what harmed investors can prove and what firms can produce quickly and accurately when claims arrive.
This lowers reporting cost and workload for smaller public companies. It changes how often new financial data enters the market. Investors and data platforms will have less frequent updates. For issuers, this improves the economics of staying public. If adopted more widely, it moves Canada toward a lighter reporting model for venture markets.
Industry participants are pushing to remove limits that keep tokenized market infrastructure in pilot mode. That pressure targets how quickly the EU can move from controlled testing toward scalable digital asset markets.
Tokenized securities into the core of exchange trading. They will trade the same way as regular shares, on the same book, with the same symbol and rules. No separate venue, no parallel system. It removes a major barrier with tokenization now aligned with the same clearing, settlement, and surveillance systems as the rest of the market.
A forward flow commitment supports predictable loan takeout capacity, which can stabilize origination volume when bank balance sheets tighten or pricing changes.
Public companies, investors, analysts, and fintech platforms that rely on earnings data will face longer gaps between official disclosures. Less frequent reporting reduces the flow of standardized financial data into the market. Firms that can generate alternative data, continuous signals, and independent performance insight will have an advantage as reliance on scheduled earnings reports declines.
When one of India's largest fintech payments company pauses an IPO, it tells founders, investors, and late stage boards that the public market window remains fragile. That affects valuation expectations, liquidity planning, and timing for other fintech listings.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets, subscribe to NCFA weekly newsletter updates, view a rundown of current fintech news and insights, or dive into the latest fintech industry research.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Mar 20, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Quantum Security And Digital Finance

Image: Pixabay/geralt
On Mar 18, 2026, the 2025 ACM A.M. Turing Award recognized Gilles Brassard and Charles H. Bennett for foundational work in quantum information science, including the development of quantum cryptography. The award carries a $1 million prize and marks one of the highest global honours in computing.
Brassard’s work established early methods for secure communication using quantum mechanics, a field now directly tied to the future of encryption. While he didn't develop today’s post quantum standards, his research helped define how information can be secured against quantum-enabled attacks. That body of work went from advanced research to execution in August 2024 when NIST finalized the first post quantum cryptography standards for encryption and digital signatures used across financial systems.
As ACM President Yannis Ioannidis stated:
“Their work is an important foundation for the field of quantum computing and has fundamentally changed how we process, transmit, and secure information.”
Post quantum cryptography (PQC) refers to new encryption methods designed to remain secure even if future quantum computers can break today’s widely used systems today, such as RSA and elliptic curve cryptography that currently protect payments, digital identity, secure messaging, APIs, and financial data.
On Aug 13, 2024, NIST finalized three post quantum cryptography standards and announced that organizations should begin transitioning to them as soon as possible. NIST states these standards support encryption and digital signatures used to secure electronic information, including financial transactions and sensitive data.
NIST also states that no one knows exactly when a cryptographically relevant quantum computer will arrive, but some experts estimate it could be possible in less than 10 years. That uncertainty increases the risk because encrypted data can be collected today and targeted for future decryption under the harvest now, decrypt later threat model.
Canada has already set execution timelines. The Canadian roadmap for post quantum cryptography migration requires departments to begin planning in April 2026, report progress annually, transition high priority systems by the end of 2031, and complete remaining migration by the end of 2035. Canada’s national strategy for quantum communication and cryptography states that advances in quantum computing could undermine current encryption and threaten digital systems and data security.
For financial services, encryption now affects what gets built and what gets bought. Payments, identity, onboarding, APIs, messaging, custody, and long term data all rely on encryption that may need to be replaced or upgraded.
Quantum also reaches into blockchain based finance like stablecoins, tokenized deposits, wallet infrastructure, custody controls, and smart contract connected payment flows all depend on digital signatures and key management. NCFA’s earlier coverage of quantum safe stablecoins points to a market approaching US$250 billion and highlights how quantum safe controls are already being added to stablecoin settlement systems.
Buyers are starting to ask direct questions. Where is encryption used in the product. Which parts rely on current standards. What is the plan to upgrade. These questions and decisions are part of core financial workflows now and show up across payments messaging, identity systems, API access, document signing, custody, and stored data.
Vendors that can clearly show where encryption sits in their systems and how they plan to upgrade it will have an advantage as requirements tighten.
NIST standards are finalized and Canada has set migration timelines starting in April 2026, with high priority systems due by the end of 2031 and full migration by the end of 2035. That puts a clock on encryption used across payments, identity, APIs, messaging, custody, and long term data.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
Mar 17, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Banking Regulation And Digital Assets

The debate is heating up over crypto and fintech access to US banking infrastructure since actions already taken by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on Dec 12 2025 to conditionally approve five national trust bank charters for the following crypto firms: First National Digital Currency Bank, Ripple National Trust Bank, BitGo Bank & Trust, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos Trust Company. These charters allow firms to operate under federal oversight for custody and payments without taking deposits.
On Mar 17 2026, the Wall Street Journal reported that regulators are considering expanded crypto bank access, points to further expansion along this path rather than a new standalone rule. The direction is reinforced by guidance such as the OCC bulletin on digital asset and stablecoin activities, which shows regulators are already defining how non traditional firms operate within the federal banking perimeter.
It's significant because national trust charters give firms a way to scale across the US without relying on fragmented state licensing. They provide a regulated path into custody, payments, and fiduciary services under a single federal supervisor, without becoming full service deposit taking banks.
Traditional banking groups are pushing back. In a statement opposing OCC conditional approval of five national trust bank charters, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI) said the decision left “substantial unanswered questions” about how these firms would operate and be supervised. BPI has also filed specific objections to trust charter applications, including its opposition to Connectia Trust’s national trust bank application and its opposition to BitGo Trust’s conversion to a national trust bank.
The concern is regulatory parity. Banks argue that if crypto and fintech firms can access core custody and payments infrastructure through trust charters without taking deposits, they may gain entry to important parts of the banking system without facing the same balance sheet requirements as full service banks. That tension is at the center of the policy debate. Who gets access to regulated infrastructure, and under what conditions.
The US isn't waiting for a new trust charter rule. It's progressing through approvals, guidance, and case by case decisions that give some firms a clearer path into regulated custody, payments, and fiduciary services under federal oversight.
A national trust charter can reduce dependence on fragmented state licensing, improve credibility with institutional partners, and make it easier to build around regulated payment and custody infrastructure. But know that the regulatory bar isn't low. Firms pursuing this path still need strong governance, compliance, risk controls, and operating discipline. Access is possible, but it is conditional.
Canada is taking a different approach. In the US, the trust charter debate is about whether crypto and fintech firms can enter deeper into the banking system through a federal charter pathway. In Canada, the main stablecoin related framework sits inside securities and crypto trading platform oversight, not bank chartering. Canadian regulators use the term value referenced crypto assets (see CSA Staff Notice 21 333) and sets conditions around reserves, disclosure, redemption rights, assurance, and platform controls before these assets can be offered to clients. That means the US debate is mainly about institutional status and access to banking infrastructure, while the Canadian debate is mainly about asset eligibility and client protection on regulated platforms.
In Feb 2026, OSFI announced a targeted fast track approval framework for new entrants that will launch in June 2026 and give eligible applicants a quicker, clearer, and more predictable path into the federal system. The initial scope includes provincial credit unions seeking federal status and firms with technologically innovative or emerging banking models.
The real question is not whether crypto firms become banks. It is whether regulators create a consistent operating standard for firms that want access to core financial infrastructure without becoming full service deposit taking institutions.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
March 13, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer Weekly Intelligence | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing, Payments And Market Infrastructure, Regulation And Policy

Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026).
Regulators are aligning competition rules and data protection in a way that directly affects how AI systems access, process, and govern data. For fintechs and financial institutions building on platform infrastructure, data strategy, consent design, and compliance architecture are becoming tightly coupled decisions.
Large platforms, AI firms, fintechs, and financial institutions that depend on platform distribution, data access, identity layers, or app infrastructure face a more active compliance environment. Platform terms, profiling practices, interoperability rules, and access conditions can change through ongoing regulatory review. Firms with high dependency on a small number of gatekeepers face increased operating risk, while firms that diversify distribution, strengthen direct customer relationships, and build adaptable data and compliance architectures will be better positioned.
The next edge will come from firms that can operationalize data standards, identity rails, and compliance workflows across jurisdictions rather than wait for policy intent alone to close the gap.
This deal says scale in cross border payments is moving toward platforms that already combine distribution, compliance support, and endpoint reach. For smaller wallet, remittance, and banking partners, the harder question is no longer whether they can connect. It is whether they still control enough of the customer relationship or economics once a larger stack sits in the middle.
This brings Ripple inside the licensed payments system in Australia. It can handle more of the payment flow itself instead of relying on partners. That includes onboarding, compliance, FX, and payout. For banks and fintechs, this means a digital asset firm can now compete more directly on cross border payments with full regulatory coverage, not just as a crypto overlay.
This impacts payment processors, merchant platforms, and consumer fintechs that want to own checkout and settlement. A payment aggregator license pulls merchant onboarding, refunds, and settlement into one accountable layer, so competitors and partners should expect tighter expectations on merchant screening and operational controls as volumes grow.
This impacts fixed income platforms, treasury and collateral systems, and anyone building workflows that touch Government of Canada collateral. Dealer funding and hedging capacity affects liquidity and trading costs.
This impacts capital markets fintechs that want distribution through regulated channels. When a top tier exchange brand commits to a tokenization partner, procurement and diligence tighten fast. Builders should prepare for deeper questions on governance, surveillance, custody controls, and how tokenized assets move without breaking compliance reporting and investor protections.
This raises the execution standard for digital onboarding, disclosures, promotions, and support flows. For fintechs, good UX is no longer enough on its own. Firms need evidence that customers understand what they are seeing and can act on it without avoidable confusion.
Ottawa is pushing affordability through multiple channels at once, including taxes, housing, and core banking fees. For banks, that puts more pressure on legacy fee revenue and raises the importance of better alerts, cash flow tools, and low cost account design. For fintechs, it strengthens the case for products that help users avoid failed payments, manage short term liquidity, and lower everyday banking friction.
Banks lose part of a high margin penalty fee and face more pressure to compete on better alerts, balance visibility, payment controls, and products that help customers avoid failed payments in the first place. Direct product and revenue implications across consumer banking.
This opens a formal rulemaking lane around one of the fastest growing grey areas in digital markets. It matters for exchanges, brokers, market makers, and fintech platforms. How far regulated market structure will let them scale before they run into tighter product boundaries.
This guidance impacts how Canadian DIY investment platforms can design tools and user experiences. Online brokers and fintech wealth platforms now have clearer room to provide decision support, portfolio models, and guided interfaces, but they must build stronger safeguards to ensure those tools do not cross the line into regulated investment advice (a condition of the OEO regulatory exemption).
Public payment rails can widen access, but they can also compress private platform economics and add pressure onto merchant pricing. For banks, fintechs, and payment providers, the real issue is not only whether public rails expand. It is how pricing design changes volume, margin, and who absorbs the cost.
A charter application signals a potential change in funding and balance sheet strategy for an AI lending platform and it can reshape partner economics for banks and credit unions that currently fund originations.
This is more than a weak quarter. It puts credit quality, funding resilience, and covenant headroom back at the center of the non prime lending story, which matters for alt lenders, securitization partners, credit investors, and fintechs selling underwriting, servicing, collections, and portfolio monitoring tools into the consumer lending stack.
This matters for brokers, carriers, and digital asset clients because premium payments are a treasury workflow. Once stablecoins clear premiums across real counterparties, buyers and carriers will ask harder questions about controls, reconciliation, and how funds move from premium collection to coverage without losing traceability.
This roadmap puts Europe closer to a tokenised market structure built around central bank money rather than private settlement workarounds. It matters for banks, FMIs, tokenisation platforms, and securities infrastructure teams because the market is now moving from exploratory work toward live design choices on standards, networks, and governance.
This opens a cleaner path for brokers and institutional desks that want crypto execution without rebuilding their stack around proprietary APIs. Once crypto routing uses the same FIX plumbing as other asset classes, firms will put more weight on consistent controls, audit trails, and operational readiness across both traditional and digital venues.
Payment networks are scaling distribution and wallet reach. Tokenized market structure is moving closer to institutional use. Canada’s NSF fee cap also cuts into a legacy bank revenue line and raises the value of tools that help customers avoid failed payments. The strongest fintechs and financial institutions are combining regulatory discipline, strong rails, and practical financial workflows that reduce friction for users.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets, subscribe to NCFA weekly newsletter updates, view a rundown of current fintech news and insights, or dive into the latest fintech industry research.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 26th, 2025
January 4th, 2024
June 1st, 2021
September 9th, 2020
July 9th, 2018
January 3rd, 2018
September 25th, 2017
June 20th, 2017
May 10th, 2017
December 14th, 2016

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




