August 19, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Competition And Market Structure, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing
Can Canada Turn Access Into Productive Participation?
Capital, Payments, Data And Retail Markets Are Converging Into A 2030 Growth Test
On March 9, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held its 45th Annual Small Business Forum. The agenda moved from early-stage entrepreneurs to growth companies and smaller public companies. Market participants could propose recommendations and vote on which should be prioritized for the SEC and Congress.
The U.S. has not solved small-business capital formation. That is partly why the process is useful. Questions around finders, investor eligibility, offering rules, fund structures, secondary liquidity and smaller public-company economics keep returning as markets change.
Canada is now opening several parts of its financial economy at the same time. Capital programs, SME financing, payments access, consumer-driven banking and retail private-market initiatives are moving from policy design toward operating tests. The question is no longer whether access exists on paper. It is whether more businesses, investors and challengers can use it economically.
The U.S. Keeps Reopening The Participation Question
The Forum looks across the financing lifecycle
The SEC brings founders, investors, advisers and intermediaries into one recurring process. Its 2026 Forum program again moved from early-stage financing to growth capital and smaller public markets.
The same frictions keep returning in new forms
Finders, investor eligibility, offering limits, fund structures, secondary liquidity and small-public-company economics remain active issues because one reform can solve one bottleneck while exposing another.
The Market Is Never Finished 45 years of feedback
The transferable lesson is not a U.S. securities rule. It is the habit of bringing market participants back into the process and testing whether a framework is producing the market it was intended to create.
Canada already has detailed market evidence
CVCA tracks venture and private equity. NACO tracks angel investing. Regulators and departments publish market studies, consultations and program data. Canada does not lack information about every part of the financing system.
Canada is also actively intervening
The federal government is preparing another C$1 billion venture and growth capital program. The Competition Bureau is studying SME financing. Payments, data access and retail private markets are also being redesigned.
The Canadian Opportunity Is To Connect Policy With Market Function
Canada already has consultations, programs and market data. The harder test is whether each reform produces enough real participation to change who can compete, invest and scale.
Canada Is Opening More Than Capital Markets
Institutional venture capital is getting a larger engine
The Venture and Growth Capital Catalyst Initiative is designed to attract more private and institutional capital into Canadian venture funds, strengthen fund managers and support high-growth companies from pre-seed through growth.
SME financing is being tested against a broader business population
The Competition Bureau's SME financing competition, including lender entry, expansion and switching barriers.
More Capital Does Not Answer Who Can Participate
Growth VCCI can deepen capital for companies that fit venture mandates. It does not automatically finance every viable manufacturer, service company or local employer whose growth profile, asset base or financing need sits outside institutional venture economics.
Financial data is moving toward regulated access
The proposed Canada's open banking rules bring accreditation, liability, data scope, security and technical standards into one operating framework.
Core payment infrastructure is opening to a wider membership base
PSPs and more credit unions can join Payments Canada, while the Real-Time Rail rules and access are moving toward the planned Q4 2026 launch. Wider eligibility gives PSPs and credit unions a clearer route into core payment infrastructure.
The Door Opens, Then Economics Decide Who Walks Through
Formal access changes who is allowed to participate. Competition changes only when entrants can absorb compliance, technology, integration and operating costs and still build products customers want.
Fintechs can gain more control over the customer experience
Directer access to data, payments and settlement can reduce dependence on incumbent-controlled infrastructure and give challengers more control over pricing, product design and service delivery.
Smaller financial institutions can compete through shared capabilities
Credit unions and regional firms may not need to build every payments, AI, compliance, data or digital-asset capability internally if specialized providers can deliver those functions at workable scale.
Participation Can Change The Cost Of Competing
The payoff is not a longer list of fintech entrants. It is more providers controlling enough of their infrastructure and economics to put sustained pressure on incumbents.
Learn more about Canada's infrastructure opening
NCFA reconstructed this progression in How Canada Started Opening Its Financial Infrastructure. PSP supervision, wider Payments Canada membership, Real-Time Rail and consumer-driven banking all moved the conversation from legal eligibility toward execution.
Retail Investors Are Entering Private Markets Through Two Doors
Managed access gives households professional selection
Ontario's long-term asset fund work could give retail investors diversified exposure to venture capital, private equity, private debt, infrastructure and other long-duration assets through professionally managed funds.
Direct access gives households the company decision
Equity crowdfunding lets an investor choose an individual company. It can connect businesses with customers, employees and supporters, but it also concentrates risk and usually offers little liquidity.
Private-Market Access Is Splitting Into Two Models
Managed access can broaden exposure to private-market returns. Direct access can broaden the number of people deciding which companies receive their money. Both can widen participation, but they create different markets.
Canada is building the managed channel for wider retail use
Managed structures can bring diversification, diligence, portfolio construction and product-level controls around valuation and liquidity. They can also preserve professional gatekeeping over where retail capital is deployed.
Canada's direct channel remains comparatively constrained
NI 45-110 allows a Canadian issuer to raise up to C$1.5 million in 12 months. Ordinary investors are generally limited to C$2,500 per offering, or C$10,000 when a registered dealer determines suitability.
Risk Appetite Is Also A Wealth Participation Question
If more company value is created while businesses remain private, wider retail access affects more than issuer financing. It influences which households can accept productive risk and participate earlier in private-market returns.
Canadian direct demand can reach the existing ceiling
Blossom, Edison Motors and Gander have used community capital alongside accredited, offering memorandum or other financing. Their raises show direct retail capital can complement professional capital rather than replace it.
International peers provide more room for direct participation
Australia permits eligible issuers to raise A$5 million in 12 months and caps retail investment at A$10,000 per company annually. U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding allows eligible issuers to raise up to US$5 million.
Legal Access Can Still Produce A Thin Market
Canada's smaller market does not prove regulation caused weak activity. Issuer quality, investor demand, distribution, awareness, liquidity and platform execution also matter. It does show why market-opening rules should eventually be judged by whether enough issuers, investors and intermediaries can participate economically.
Learn more about managed and direct retail access
Managed access can provide diversification, professional diligence and portfolio controls, but fees, manager selection, valuation and redemption limits remain important. Retail money may also flow mainly to established funds, private credit, infrastructure or foreign assets.
Direct access gives investors more control over company selection and can help businesses mobilize customer or community capital. It also exposes investors to concentrated company risk, limited liquidity and less extensive disclosure than public markets.
Platform economics matter.FrontFundr reported C$83.2 million across its wider platform in 2025, while only C$4.79 million came through NI 45-110. A multi-channel dealer has more ways to spread compliance, diligence, technology and distribution costs than a portal relying on small retail raises alone.
By 2030, Participation Should Show Up In The Market
One future produces more viable participants
New payment participants build useful services. Open-banking firms turn permissioned data into products customers adopt. Smaller institutions buy modern capabilities instead of rebuilding them. More businesses find financing that fits their stage and economics.
The other future opens rules without changing market power very much
Accreditation, integration, compliance, distribution and technology remain expensive enough that the largest institutions and professional managers capture most new activity. Formal access widens while competitive intensity changes only at the margin.
By 2030, The Difference Will Be Visible In Who Built Scale
The evidence will be practical. Entrants that survive. Products customers use. Capital reaching different kinds of companies. Investors using managed and direct routes. Smaller institutions offering capabilities once reserved for much larger competitors.
Better participation can improve the inputs to productivity
More financing choices, faster settlement, stronger data access and better financial tools can give businesses more capacity to invest, automate, hire, commercialize and serve customers.
Stronger companies can create the next round of participation
Businesses that build revenue, productivity and international reach create more investable opportunities. Successful founders, employees and investors can recycle capital, experience and networks into the next generation.
Productive Participation Could Become Self-Reinforcing
More viable participants can increase competition. Better competition can improve products, distribution and capital allocation. Better tools and financing can support more investment. Stronger companies can create more opportunities for households and institutions to participate again.
What to watch between now and 2030
Capital markets should show who receives financing, which managers scale, how deal sizes change and whether a wider range of viable companies find appropriate capital.
Payments and data should show who connects, what new products emerge, whether customers switch and whether smaller providers remain sustainable after absorbing compliance and technology costs.
Retail investing should show how managed private-market products develop alongside direct private-company investment, what fees and liquidity look like and how investor outcomes compare.
Smaller financial institutions should show whether shared infrastructure lets credit unions and regional firms offer capabilities that previously required much larger technology budgets.
The U.S. process expects the friction to change
Market participants return because new rules, market conditions and business models keep changing the problem. A recommendation can be implemented and still leave a new bottleneck elsewhere.
Canada will need the same feedback discipline across more than capital
As payments, data, private markets and financing become more open, policymakers will need to know who entered, who could not, which businesses became sustainable and where access failed to generate enough economic activity.
The Next Policy Question Comes After Access
Canada has spent years opening doors. The next phase is finding out which openings create viable markets. That means judging regulation and public programs by the participation, competition and productive activity they generate while preserving the protections that made wider access possible.
Participation is not a complete explanation for Canada's productivity problem. Management capability, commercialization, industrial structure, R&D, domestic demand, risk appetite and global scale all matter.
But Canada is now creating new access points across capital, payments, data and investing at the same time. That gives Canada a rare four-year window to see whether productive participation becomes a real growth mechanism rather than a policy slogan.
Talking Point
Canada may already possess much of the capital, technology, talent and institutional capacity needed for stronger growth. The opportunity between now and 2030 is to make more of those assets economically usable by more businesses, investors and financial challengers. If today's reforms create viable participation rather than permission alone, Canada could end the decade with more competition, more investable companies and more ways for households and institutions to share in productive growth.
Related NCFA Intelligence
Opportunity Intelligence Open Finance SME Capital AccessConnects permissioned business data with working capital, real-time credit, invoice finance and treasury products.
Regulatory Intelligence Real-Time Rail Intelligence GuideExplains PSP access, settlement, ISO 20022, fraud controls and launch readiness for Canada's new payment rail.
Regulatory Intelligence Canada Open Banking GuideTracks implementation responsibilities, participation rules and the remaining decisions in consumer-driven banking.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
August 18, 2026 | NCFA Feature | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
New Offering Rules, Crypto Resales And Investment Contract Exit
On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposed Regulation Crypto Assets (download 402 page PDF Proposed Regulation Crypto Assets document), a tailored securities framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The 402-page proposal would create a startup exemption of up to US$5 million over four years, a larger fundraising exemption with US$20 million and US$75 million tiers, crypto-specific disclosures, new SEC forms, secondary-market provisions, state-law preemption and a process for determining when an investment contract has ended.
The scope is narrower than the name might suggest. Regulation Crypto Assets would apply to what the SEC calls a covered investment contract. A crypto asset must be subject to the investment contract, the crypto asset itself must not be a security and no other asset can be subject to that contract.
That builds on the SEC's March 2026 crypto interpretation. The March action addressed when transactions involving a non-security crypto asset can create an investment contract and when that relationship can end. Regulation Crypto Assets would add an operating framework around that lifecycle.
The proposal is significant because it goes beyond creating two new fundraising limits. The SEC is designing rules for how certain crypto investment contracts could be offered, disclosed, distributed and resold, and how the underlying crypto asset could eventually separate from the investment contract.
What Regulation Crypto Assets Does And Does Not Cover
The proposed Regulation Crypto Assets isn't a comprehensive U.S. crypto rulebook. It doesn't create the general regulatory regime for payment stablecoins, programmable payments, crypto custody, crypto lending, mining or conventional securities that happen to be tokenized. Those activities may fall under other federal or state laws, other regulators or separate SEC work.
Payment stablecoins are a good example. Regulation Crypto Assets says permitted payment stablecoins could be accepted as consideration in a covered offering and would count toward its offering limit. It does not establish the rules for issuing payment stablecoins.
That work is proceeding separately under the federal GENIUS Act. On August 17, one day before the SEC proposal, the U.S. Treasury issued a proposed payment stablecoin rule covering implementation of the separate federal framework for their issuance, offering and sale.
Other crypto activities can intersect with Regulation Crypto Assets without becoming generally regulated by it. The proposed Startup Exemption contemplates certain distributions connected with development and use of a crypto network, including circumstances involving airdrops, staking, governance, gas fees and testing. The legal question remains whether the particular transaction involves a covered investment contract.
The proposal also doesn't create a new legal category for tokenized stocks or bonds. Tokenized conventional securities remain securities. Regulation Crypto Assets instead addresses a narrower case where the crypto asset itself isn't a security but is subject to an investment contract.
It's important for founders, investors, lawyers and trading platforms to know that a crypto asset, an investment contract involving that asset and a tokenized security, can look technologically similar while carrying very different securities-law consequences.
The US$5M Startup Route Removes Several Reg CF Frictions
The proposed Startup Exemption could be used for no more than four years after an issuer's initial Form NOR filing. The issuer and its affiliates could conduct covered transactions up to an aggregate US$5 million during that period and couldn't simply restart the four-year clock for the same or a substantially similar crypto asset.
The issuer definition is unusually flexible. The proposal would allow an entity, an individual or a group of individuals or entities to qualify, subject to the other conditions. That accommodates crypto projects that may begin with a development team before they resemble a conventional corporate securities issuer.
The fundraising mechanics are also important. The proposed startup route would permit general solicitation, impose no individual investment limit on retail purchasers and require neither financial statements nor use of a registered intermediary. Covered investment contracts sold through the exemption would not be restricted securities under federal law and would not carry a separate rule-based holding period.
Disclosure doesn't disappear. Before conducting covered transactions, the issuer would file Form NOR on EDGAR and make the disclosures required by Rule 103 publicly available free of charge.
Those disclosures are designed around the investment contract and crypto network. They include offering terms, management and conflicts, the crypto asset, development plans, network or application security, source code where applicable, token economics and allocations, governance, the related crypto ecosystem and material risks. The information must remain publicly available, with material changes addressed under the proposal's update requirements.
Bad-actor disqualifications would apply as well, and issuers would remain subject to federal antifraud and antimanipulation rules. This is a different compliance model, not an absence of securities regulation.
The most revealing comparison is Regulation Crowdfunding. Reg CF also permits up to US$5 million, but over a 12-month period. It requires a registered broker-dealer or funding portal, financial disclosure and investment limits for non-accredited investors, while securities generally face a one-year resale restriction.
The SEC makes that comparison itself. Its economic analysis estimates average Reg CF intermediary fees at approximately 6.6%, with a 6% median, and identifies the absence of mandatory financial statements and an intermediary as potential cost savings under the crypto Startup Exemption.
There is little evidence that current Reg CF rules have produced a large crypto financing market. SEC data identify 42 crypto-related Reg CF offerings by 41 issuers between 2016 and 2024. Reported proceeds totalled approximately US$13.6 million, with an average of US$545,300 among offerings for which proceeds were reported. The SEC cautions that the proceeds total is incomplete and likely represents a lower bound.
The proposal is therefore testing more than a higher ceiling. It asks whether removing particular intermediary, financial reporting, investor and resale frictions would make a public capital route more workable for qualifying crypto projects.
Tier 1 Fundraising Exemption US$20M With Ongoing Reporting
Larger projects could instead use the proposed Fundraising Exemption. Tier 1 would permit up to US$20 million in 12 months. The issuer would have to file Form 1-CRYPTO and couldn't sell covered investment contracts until the SEC qualified the offering statement.
The offering circular would combine the crypto-specific Rule 103 disclosures with financial information about the issuer. Tier 1 financial statements generally wouldn't require an audit, but the issuer would still enter an ongoing reporting regime using annual Form 1-KC, semiannual Form 1-SC and Form 1-UC for specified current events.
Retail investors would also face a restriction that doesn't apply under the Startup Exemption. A non-accredited investor generally couldn't purchase more than 10% of the greater of annual income or net worth. For a non-natural person, the test would use revenue or net assets.
Tier 2 Fundraising Exemption US$75M With Audited Financials
Tier 2 would permit up to US$75 million in 12 months. Like Tier 1, it would require Form 1-CRYPTO, SEC qualification before sales, ongoing reporting and the 10% non-accredited investor limit. The key additional financial requirement is that Tier 2 statements would have to be audited by an independent accountant under the proposed standards.
The larger Fundraising Exemption also comes with a strong U.S. nexus. The issuer would have to be an entity organized under U.S. law, a majority of its executive officers or directors would need to be U.S. citizens or residents, more than half of its assets would need to be in the United States and its business would have to be administered principally there.
Canada appears explicitly in the SEC's request for comment. Question 86 asks whether Canadian issuers, or other foreign issuers, should be permitted to rely on the Fundraising Exemption.
That is more than a passing jurisdictional detail. Regulation A already allows qualifying Canadian issuers, while the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets fundraising route currently does not. Whether the SEC changes that provision could affect how useful the US$20 million and US$75 million routes become for Canadian crypto companies.
Resale And State Rules Could Expand Crypto Distribution
The proposal's treatment of secondary transfers may prove almost as important as its fundraising limits. The SEC says existing exemptions can impede the network effects of crypto assets when they restrict who can participate or how quickly securities can be resold.
Both proposed exemptions would therefore allow issuers to sell covered investment contracts that are not restricted securities under federal law. Investors wouldn't face the federal holding periods associated with restricted securities, although contractual restrictions and other applicable laws could still affect a transfer.
That differs from common Regulation D offerings and from Reg CF's first-year resale limits. The SEC's rationale is specific to crypto networks. Wider ownership and use can contribute to how a network operates and how the crypto asset derives value, so distribution restrictions can affect more than investor liquidity.
Rule 500 would address another obstacle by proposing federal preemption of certain state registration and qualification requirements. It would treat purchasers in qualifying Regulation Crypto Assets transactions as qualified purchasers for that purpose and extend the treatment to specified secondary-market transactions.
The preemption isn't unlimited. Secondary-market treatment would depend on the issuer remaining current with the disclosure, filing or reporting requirements attached to the applicable exemption. States would also retain antifraud authority, powers over unlawful broker or dealer conduct, notice filing requirements and applicable fees.
For trading platforms and intermediaries, the proposal introduces an additional status question. They may need to distinguish between the underlying non-security crypto asset, an outstanding covered investment contract involving it and an asset for which that investment-contract relationship has ended.
The Safe Harbor Creates An Investment Contract Exit
Rule 400 addresses one of the most distinctive features of the proposal. The SEC's existing securities rules generally deal with financial instruments whose fundamental legal character doesn't change over time. A crypto asset can present a different problem because an investment contract surrounding it may end while the crypto asset continues to exist and circulate.
The proposed safe harbor would apply when the issuer has completed or permanently ceased all essential managerial efforts that it represented or promised under the covered investment contract. The issuer also couldn't be making, or intending to make, new promises to perform those essential managerial efforts.
An issuer seeking to use the safe harbor would file Form TR. The filing would include a certification and an analysis supporting the conclusion that the required managerial efforts have ended.
Meeting those conditions would mean the crypto asset is deemed no longer subject to that investment contract for the relevant definitions of a security under the Securities Act and Exchange Act. That doesn't mean Form TR can convert a security into a non-security simply because an issuer files it. The substantive conditions still have to be satisfied, and the SEC can challenge an issuer's analysis.
Nor does the proposal replace Howey or the March interpretation. The safe harbor creates one defined route for dealing with the end of an investment contract. The SEC acknowledges that a covered investment contract could also cease to exist outside the safe harbor under the applicable securities-law analysis.
That lifecycle helps explain why the proposal is more consequential than a new exemption schedule.
The SEC is contemplating a regulatory sequence in which a project can finance development through an investment contract, distribute the associated crypto asset widely and potentially reach a point where the investment contract itself no longer exists.
Canada Could Face A Wider Crypto And Funding Gap
Canada has dealt with token offerings for years. Canadian securities regulators issued guidance on cryptocurrency offerings in 2017 and followed with more detailed token offering guidance in 2018. The CSA has made clear that coins or tokens can involve investment contracts and distributions of securities depending on their economic substance and how they are offered.
There have also been Canadian security-token initiatives and exempt-market token offerings. The difference isn't that Canada has avoided token issuance. Canada has generally applied its existing securities laws, prospectus exemptions and registration framework rather than creating a dedicated crypto lifecycle regime comparable to Regulation Crypto Assets. That difference also fits Canada's wider capital formation gap.
Capital formation makes that difference more important. Canada's NI 45-110 startup crowdfunding exemption currently permits an eligible issuer to raise up to C$1.5 million over 12 months. An investor generally can invest up to C$2,500 in an offering, or C$10,000 when a registered dealer determines that the investment is suitable, and the offering must take place through a funding portal.
The Canadian market is also much smaller. FrontFundr reports that it processed C$4.79 million from 4,320 investors under NI 45-110 in 2025 and accounted for 93% of activity under the exemption. Because that 93% figure comes from FrontFundr rather than an official national regulatory dataset, it should be treated as a platform estimate rather than an official Canadian market total.
There is stronger evidence that the C$1.5 million ceiling is becoming binding for some issuers. Edison Motors raised C$1.491 million under NI 45-110 in 2025, roughly 99% of the limit. Blossom Social raised C$1.450 million, approximately 97%.
The more direct U.S. comparison is Regulation Crowdfunding. Reg CF already allows eligible companies to raise up to US$5 million in 12 months, but requires an SEC-registered intermediary, limits investments by non-accredited investors and generally restricts resale for one year. The proposed US$5 million crypto Startup Exemption would use the same headline ceiling with a different compliance model.
The larger crypto Fundraising Exemption is more directly comparable with Regulation A. Existing Reg A already uses US$20 million Tier 1 and US$75 million Tier 2 limits, with additional audit, investor-protection and ongoing-reporting requirements at Tier 2.
Canada is a different comparison. NI 45-110 isn't a crypto-specific equivalent to Regulation Crypto Assets, but it is Canada's nationally harmonized startup crowdfunding route. It remains capped at C$1.5 million over 12 months, with a funding-portal requirement and investor limits of C$2,500 per offering or C$10,000 with suitability advice from a registered dealer.
NCFA has been advocating for a C$5 million or higher issuer cap for years, arguing that the C$1.5 million ceiling can limit the usefulness of the exemption for growing companies. That concern is now easier to test against actual market activity, with some Canadian crowdfunding campaigns reaching close to the current ceiling.
The relevant policy question is therefore wider than whether Canada has an identical crypto exemption. The U.S. already offers Reg CF and Regulation A for different stages of capital raising and is now proposing a separate crypto-specific framework built around fundraising, token distribution, resale and the eventual end of an investment contract.
That matters because Canada's capital formation system already has funding gaps, while some Canadian crowdfunding campaigns are reaching the NI 45-110 ceiling. Regulation Crypto Assets could add another financing and regulatory option to the U.S. market without a directly comparable Canadian crypto-specific route.
The proposed US$75 million Tier 2 also raises a separate competitiveness issue. The SEC is asking whether Canadian issuers should eventually be eligible for the Fundraising Exemption. If they are included, qualifying Canadian crypto companies could gain access to a much larger U.S. pathway. If they remain excluded, access to U.S. capital could become another factor projects consider when deciding where to organize and raise funds.
None of this means Canadian regulators should copy the SEC. It does strengthen the case for examining Canada's startup financing limits, token-offering rules and capital-market pathways together rather than as separate policy files.
For Canada, the challenge is whether existing rules can protect investors while giving legitimate companies enough financing capacity and regulatory flexibility to build here. If the U.S. adds specialized crypto fundraising routes on top of Reg CF and Regulation A, that competitive comparison becomes more difficult to ignore.
Talking Point
If the U.S. adds a dedicated crypto capital-formation and investment-contract lifecycle regime on top of Reg CF and Regulation A, while Canada still relies on existing exemptions and a C$1.5 million startup crowdfunding cap, how long can Canada treat crypto regulation and capital-formation reform as separate policy questions?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
August 18, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, SME Finance And Business Banking, Competition And Market Structure
Canadian Capital Embraces Private Credit Abroad While Domestic Business Lending Remains Bank Led
On August 2026, the Bank of Canada mapped Canada's private credit market and exposed an unusual divide. Private credit remains a relatively small source of financing for Canadian businesses, yet Canadian pension funds, insurers, investment funds and banks have built approximately C$500 billion of exposure to the asset class, much of it outside Canada.
Non-bank loans have accounted for about 15% of external funding for Canadian non-financial businesses for roughly a decade. Banks and public debt markets still provide about three-quarters of external business financing. By contrast, private credit has become a much larger alternative to traditional lending in parts of the United States.
The interesting question for Canada isn't whether private credit exists. It clearly does. It is why Canadian institutional capital has embraced the asset class globally while Canadian businesses continue to use it relatively little at home.
Canadian Capital Is Already Deep Into Private Credit
The C$500 billion estimate shows that Canadian exposure to private credit is already material even though the domestic borrowing market remains comparatively small.
Canada's large pension funds held an estimated C$215 billion in private credit at the end of 2025, equal to roughly 9% of their invested assets
The three largest Canadian life insurers held just over C$200 billion in the first quarter of 2026, or about 22% of their invested assets
Canadian investment funds held another C$54 billion in 2025, up more than 60% since 2020
Canadian banks also had at least C$40 billion of loans outstanding to asset managers operating private-credit funds, most of them in the United States
Those aren't small exposures. Canadian institutions clearly know how to price and allocate private credit, yet much of that capital is being deployed outside Canada. The implication is harder to ignore at a time when Canadian businesses need more financing options to invest, scale and compete. If domestic firms remain heavily dependent on banks while Canadian institutional capital finds private-credit opportunities elsewhere, Canada may be leaving a financing gap at home precisely when productive domestic investment matters most.
That doesn't mean pension funds or insurers should redirect capital for patriotic reasons. Their mandates require them to pursue risk-adjusted returns. But it does raise a structural question about why Canada's financial system is better at exporting private-credit capital than building comparable opportunities for Canadian businesses.
The geographic split is what deserves more attention. Canadian capital is participating in a global private-credit market that domestic businesses have not adopted to the same degree. That makes this partly a capital-allocation story. Canadian institutions appear willing to accept private-credit risk, but much of the opportunity they are finding is elsewhere.
Canada's Business Credit Market Still Favours Incumbents
The Bank's 15% figure fits a wider pattern in Canadian business financing.
Statistics Canada's 2023 SME financing data showed that chartered banks supplied 68.5% of SME debt financing. Credit unions accounted for another 20.6%, government-backed lenders 9.4%, and online alternative lenders only 2.2%.
That doesn't mean Canadian businesses lack alternatives. It means alternative credit has yet to displace the established banking structure at meaningful scale.
Several explanations are possible. Canada's concentrated banking system gives incumbent lenders large customer bases, deposits, underwriting data and distribution. Many SMEs also maintain long-standing banking relationships, reducing the incentive to switch unless conventional credit becomes unavailable or too restrictive.
Private credit may also be more attractive in markets where borrowers are larger, transactions are more complex, or bank lending leaves wider financing gaps. The Bank notes that in the United States, private credit has become a primary financing source in some segments.
But the Canadian data raises the possibility that domestic private credit may still be underdeveloped relative to the amount of institutional capital and underwriting expertise available here.
That possibility becomes more relevant as fintech platforms improve access to business cash-flow, accounting, invoice and payment data. Better information doesn't eliminate credit risk, but it can make smaller and more customized financing economically viable.
The C$500B Exposure Creates Both Opportunity And Risk
The Bank of Canada's focus is financial stability, and the exposure numbers explain why.
Private credit can diversify portfolios and produce attractive returns, but transparency remains limited. Leverage can be difficult to measure, valuations are less observable than in public markets, and the connections between private-credit funds, banks and institutional investors are still being mapped.
The Bank sees Canadian pension funds and life insurers as relatively well positioned to manage these risks because they generally have long investment horizons and limited reliance on short-term funding. The three largest insurers also hold predominantly investment-grade private credit, with less than 1% classified as higher risk.
Canadian banks' direct exposure appears comparatively contained. At least C$40 billion of lending to private-credit managers represents only about 1% of overall Canadian bank lending, and these loans are typically secured by investors' committed capital.
The vulnerability is therefore less about one large domestic private-credit bubble and more about interconnected exposure to global markets.
A severe deterioration in U.S. or other foreign private-credit portfolios could affect Canadian institutions, asset values and potentially the availability of credit at home. The Bank's 2026 Financial Stability Report reinforces the concern. Rapid global growth, limited transparency and tighter links across the financial system make private credit harder to assess under stress.
Canada May Have More Private Credit Capacity Than Domestic Supply
For NCFA, the most interesting gap is between institutional capability and domestic deployment. Canadian pension funds and insurers already allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to private lending, while Canadian banks finance private-credit managers. Yet Canada's domestic business-financing structure remains heavily concentrated around banks and other established lenders.
Canadian fintech lenders are building alternatives around business data. JUDI.AI uses transaction and cash-flow data to support SME underwriting, while Clearco uses ecommerce performance data to fund qualified brands. These aren't the same as institutional middle-market private credit, but they show how non-bank financing can reach businesses through different underwriting and distribution models.
That doesn't mean Canada should recreate the U.S. private-credit market. More private credit can also bring more leverage, weaker transparency and new channels for financial stress. The better question is whether Canada can develop more domestic non-bank business financing while preserving underwriting discipline, transparency and financial stability.
The opportunity is therefore less about importing the U.S. model and more about closing the gap between Canadian capital and Canadian business demand.
If institutions here are already comfortable allocating substantial capital to private credit abroad, Canada should be asking what market structure, origination capacity and financing infrastructure are still missing at home.
Talking Point
If Canadian institutions are already comfortable allocating hundreds of billions of dollars to private credit abroad, what is preventing more of that lending capacity from developing for Canadian businesses at home?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
August 18, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | SME Finance And Business Banking, Banking And Credit, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
US$100M Macquarie Facility Tests Clearco’s Rebuilt Ecommerce Funding Model
On August 18, 2026, Toronto-based Clearco secured a US$100 million Macquarie asset-backed facility that it expects will support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing.
The facility expands Clearco's capacity to provide qualified brands with up to US$10 million and estimated terms of four to 12 months. Clearco says the funding can support inventory, marketing, major purchase orders and expansion across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
The US$900 million target is a scaling opportunity now, meaning Clearco has to convert institutional funding capacity into sustained customer financing while controlling credit performance and capital costs.
US$100M Facility Sets A US$900M Funding Test
The two headline numbers measure different things. The US$100 million is the size of the Macquarie asset-backed facility. The US$900 million is Clearco's expected customer funding over two years.
That expected funding volume is nine times the facility's headline size. The announcement doesn't disclose the borrowing base, advance rate, asset eligibility, covenants, loss-sharing structure or how much Clearco capital will support customer advances. It also doesn't specify how much of the US$900 million depends on repayment and redeployment of facility capital versus other funding sources.
Those missing terms are important because Clearco's own financing cost and asset performance affect how economically it can fund merchants. More capacity helps only if customer advances generate enough return after financing costs, operating expenses and credit losses.
Clearco has been in a similar position before. Its 2023 recapitalization included a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility with up to US$100 million of capacity. Clearco expected that structure to support approximately US$850 million of originations over two years.
That comparison is especially relevant because the earlier reset followed a period when Clearco reduced international operations, tightened underwriting and faced rising capital costs. The new facility arrives after the company has narrowed its operating focus and rebuilt its funding products.
The stated two-year funding target is now US$50 million higher than the 2023 target. It's also not clear whether the Macquarie facility carries a lower funding cost or materially different risk structure than the Pollen Street arrangement.
Clearco Competes On Funding Flexibility And Capital Access
Clearco's current ecommerce financing model gives merchants two choices over funding structure and two ways to deploy the capital. Fixed and Rolling Funding Capacity determine whether a business receives defined one-time capacity or access that replenishes as principal is repaid. Cash Advance deposits funds into the business account, while Invoice Funding supports supplier payments.
That structure gives Clearco several ways to fund inventory, advertising and supplier obligations without requiring a separate product for each use case. Rolling Funding also reduces the need for repeat applications because available capacity replenishes as payments are made.
The competitive market has also developed. Wayflyer provides performance-based ecommerce financing and currently advertises funding up to US$20 million, while Shopify Capital offers embedded merchant financing directly through the Shopify platform.
Those models compete from different business approaches. Wayflyer is another specialist financing provider using merchant performance data. Shopify can originate funding inside the commerce platform where merchants already operate. Clearco's current proposition combines ecommerce specialization, multiple capital structures and external institutional funding capacity.
Clearco reports more than US$3.3 billion provided to over 11,000 businesses historically. That record establishes substantial lifetime deployment, but it doesn't answer how much financing the current version of Clearco is originating or how the rebuilt portfolio is performing.
Originations And Credit Performance Will Test The Rebuild
Clearco's US$900 million expectation implies average customer funding of approximately US$37.5 million per month over two years if volume were evenly distributed. Ecommerce funding won't arrive evenly, but the average provides a useful scale for evaluating future disclosures.
The strongest evidence will be originations, repeat use, facility utilization, repayment performance and credit losses. Pricing and funding costs would show whether additional volume also improves Clearco's economics.
The new facility could also let Clearco serve larger ecommerce operators. The announced maximum of US$10 million places it above the smaller working-capital advances often associated with revenue-based financing and gives the company more capacity for inventory commitments, major purchase orders and multi-channel expansion.
If Clearco approaches the funding target while maintaining credit quality, the company will have stronger evidence that its post-restructuring model can support another period of scale. If utilization or credit performance weakens, the headline facility size will matter much less.
Talking Point
Can Clearco convert its new institutional funding capacity into approximately US$900 million of ecommerce financing while maintaining the credit performance and capital economics needed to make that scale durable?
NCFA Company Intelligence Snapshot
Clearco
Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for U.S. DTC ecommerce brands
Founded 2015 as Clearbanc by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Legal Entity Clear Finance Technology Corporation
Headquarters Toronto, Canada
Leadership Andrew Curtis, Chief Executive Officer
Business Model Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for ecommerce businesses
Core Products Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding
Current Market U.S.-incorporated DTC ecommerce businesses with a U.S. business bank account
Current Eligibility 6+ months of consistent revenue and more than US$100,000 in monthly revenue
Historic Funding More than US$3.3B to 11,000+ businesses
Funding Capacity Up to US$10M for qualified brands with estimated terms of 4 to 12 months
Current Trigger US$100M Macquarie asset-backed facility announced Aug 18, 2026
Forward Funding Target Approximately US$900M to ecommerce brands over two years
Milestones
Select a milestone to follow
Clearco's
development
1 Launch 2015
2 Venture Scale 2018–2019
3 Clearco Rebrand Apr 2021
4 Recapitalization Oct 2023
5 Product Rebuild 2024–2025
6 Macquarie Facility Aug 2026
Milestone
1
Clearbanc Launches Its Ecommerce Funding Model (2015)
Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow founded Clearbanc in Toronto in 2015. The company developed a data-driven alternative to conventional equity funding for digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Toronto company founded by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Stage
Launch Early non-dilutive financing model for online businesses
Capital
Revenue Based Funding is tied to business performance rather than founder equity
Markets
Digital Commerce Online businesses become the initial operating focus
Customers
Founders Growth-oriented online businesses seeking capital without selling ownership
Competition
Equity And Business Credit Clearbanc offers another funding route between venture equity and conventional borrowing
Additional Company Data
Clearbanc was founded in Toronto in 2015
Business operating data becomes central to funding decisions
The ecommerce specialization developed into the company's core funding market
NCFA Perspective
Clearco's original operating idea remains visible in the company today. Business data supports funding decisions while founders retain their equity. The products and capital structure change substantially over the following decade.
Milestone
2
Institutional Venture Capital Supports Expansion (2018–2019)
Clearbanc raised institutional venture capital as it expanded the ecommerce funding model and increased the amount of capital available to digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Ecommerce financing becomes the company's defining business
Stage
Venture Scale Institutional investors support platform expansion
Capital
Series A And B Equity capital supports company growth while separate funding capacity supports merchant advances
Markets
Ecommerce Digital merchant financing becomes a repeatable operating category
Customers
Online Businesses Funding is directed toward measurable growth spending and working capital
Competition
Alternative Growth Capital Clearbanc competes with equity, bank credit and other working-capital providers
Funding decisions rely increasingly on merchant and ecommerce performance data
Customer activity builds a larger underwriting dataset
NCFA Perspective
The venture-backed expansion proves there is substantial demand for ecommerce growth capital. It also makes Clearbanc increasingly dependent on disciplined underwriting and reliable access to capital for customer advances.
Milestone
3
Clearbanc Becomes Clearco At Nearly US$2B Valuation (Apr 2021)
Clearbanc rebranded as Clearco in April 2021 and announced US$100 million of Series C equity financing plus US$250 million of debt. The transaction valued the company at nearly US$2 billion.
Company
Clearco Clearbanc adopts the Clearco name
Stage
Rapid Expansion Product and international ambitions expand
Capital
US$350M US$100M Series C equity plus US$250M of debt announced
Markets
International Clearco pursues a wider geographic and product strategy
Customers
Ecommerce Founders The company expands its founder proposition beyond a single financing product
Competition
Growth Capital Platform Clearco attempts to compete across funding and additional founder services
Additional Company Data
Oak HC/FT led the US$100M Series C equity round
The April 2021 financing included US$250M of debt
The announced valuation was nearly US$2B
The rebrand accompanied a wider company and product strategy
NCFA Perspective
The 2021 financing marks Clearco's high-growth period. Equity, debt capacity, valuation and operating ambition all increase at the same time. The later contraction shows why a specialty finance company cannot be judged by valuation or lifetime deployments alone.
Milestone
4
Clearco Recapitalizes Around A New Funding Structure (Oct 2023)
Clearco completed a recapitalization in October 2023 that included a US$60 million Series D and a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility providing up to US$100 million of financing capacity.
Company
Clearco The company operates under CEO Andrew Curtis following a difficult period of contraction
Stage
Recapitalization Capital structure and operating model are reset
Capital
US$60M + US$100M Series D equity plus asset-backed financing capacity
Markets
Ecommerce Focus The company concentrates on its core ecommerce financing business
Specialty Finance Capital cost and underwriting performance become central competitive variables
Additional Company Data
Inovia Capital and Founders Circle Capital led the US$60M Series D
Pollen Street supplied up to US$100M in asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expected the facility to support US$850M of originations over two years
The transaction was explicitly described as a recapitalization
NCFA Perspective
The 2023 transaction is more important than another venture round because it resets how Clearco finances the business. Dedicated asset-backed capital reconnects customer growth with funding capacity. The operating test becomes whether Clearco can grow without recreating the cost structure that contributed to its earlier contraction.
Milestone
5
Clearco Rebuilds Its Ecommerce Funding Suite (2024–2025)
Clearco expanded its funding products during 2024 and 2025. Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and replenishes available capacity as customers make payments. The company later combined Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding into a broader ecommerce funding suite.
Company
Clearco The company operates with a narrower ecommerce focus and rebuilt product set
Stage
Product Rebuild Capital products expand after the recapitalization
Capital
Fixed And Rolling Customers can use one-time capacity or replenishing funding capacity
Markets
U.S. Ecommerce Current products focus on U.S. ecommerce brands
Customers
Established DTC Brands Current qualification focuses on businesses with meaningful recurring revenue
Competition
Flexible Working Capital Funding structure, pricing, capacity, speed and lien requirements become key points of comparison
Additional Company Data
Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and automatically replenishes available capacity as payments are made
Cash Advance sends capital directly to the customer's bank account
Invoice Funding supports supplier and vendor payments
Clearco currently offers both Fixed Funding Capacity and Rolling Funding Capacity
NCFA Perspective
The product rebuild concentrates Clearco on serving more funding needs for the same ecommerce customer. That makes repeat use, credit performance and capital efficiency more important than returning to the wide geographic expansion strategy of 2021.
Milestone
6
Macquarie Adds US$100M Of Asset-Backed Capacity (Aug 2026)
Clearco announced a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility from Macquarie Group on August 18, 2026. Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years.
Company
Clearco Toronto-headquartered ecommerce funding company led by Andrew Curtis
Stage
Funding Expansion Institutional capital increases customer funding capacity
U.S. Ecommerce Funding supports brands operating across DTC, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce
Customers
Up To US$10M Qualified brands can access funding with estimated terms of four to 12 months
Competition
Institutional Funding Economics Capital cost and asset performance influence Clearco's ability to price and expand funding
Additional Company Data
Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing
The new facility provides US$100M of asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expects it to support approximately US$900M of ecommerce funding over two years
Clearco currently reports more than US$3.3B provided to 11,000+ businesses historically
The US$900M figure is a forward company expectation, not capital already deployed or Clearco revenue
NCFA Perspective
The Macquarie facility gives Clearco another institutional funding base after several years spent rebuilding the business. The next test is measurable. Clearco has to convert that capacity into sustained ecommerce financing while maintaining underwriting discipline and asset performance. The US$900 million target defines the scale of the opportunity, but it does not establish that the volume will be reached.
Clearco Macquarie Funding FAQs
How much financing did Macquarie provide to Clearco?
Macquarie Group provided Clearco with a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility announced on August 18, 2026.
How much ecommerce funding does Clearco expect the facility to support?
Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. That is a company expectation for customer funding, not US$900 million of capital supplied by Macquarie.
How much funding can an ecommerce business get from Clearco?
Clearco says qualified brands can access up to US$10 million, with estimated terms of four to 12 months.
What can Clearco funding be used for?
Clearco says businesses can use its funding for inventory, marketing, large purchase orders and growth across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
Is Clearco's Macquarie facility the same as its 2023 Pollen Street financing?
No. Clearco's 2023 recapitalization included a separate asset-backed facility from Pollen Street Capital with up to US$100 million of capacity. The August 2026 Macquarie transaction is a new US$100 million facility.
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
When the first DORA Register of Information submissions arrived in April 2025, European supervisors kept hitting the same wall. Financial entities could not produce an accurate, current list of their own ICT assets. The data sat in spreadsheets, in a departed engineer's notes, and across two or three tools that disagreed with each other. The EBA flagged widespread gaps and sent institutions back to resubmit, in several cases more than once.
None of that was a security failure in the usual sense. The controls were often in place. What was missing sat one level lower: a reliable inventory of what the firm actually runs. For a fintech, that absence is not a documentation nuisance. Operational resilience – keeping payments, ledgers, and customer access working through a disruption – rests on knowing what you run, where it runs, and what stops when a component fails. You cannot map a dependency you never recorded, and you cannot restore a service whose parts you cannot name.
The asset inventory is now the regulatory floor
DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), in force since 17 January 2025, states the requirement plainly. Article 8 obliges financial entities to identify and classify all ICT assets and information assets, document the links and interdependencies between them, and keep those inventories current – refreshed after every major change, with a dedicated risk assessment of legacy systems at least once a year. DORA requires EU member states to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for financial entities. The sanctions that apply depend on national law and on the circumstances of the breach.
The UK sets a parallel bar. Under FCA policy statement PS21/3 and PRA supervisory statement SS1/21, the transitional implementation period ended on 31 March 2025. Firms must identify their important business services, set impact tolerances, and map the resources each service depends on, including technology, data, facilities, and people. That mapping collapses without an accurate asset layer beneath it. In the US, the 2020 interagency paper on operational resilience points the same way, tying resilience to a clear view of critical systems and their dependencies.
Enforcement is tightening rather than loosening. Germany's BaFin declared the DORA “transformation year” over at the end of 2025, a signal that supervisors now expect working inventories, not remediation plans. Three regulators, one shared premise: transparency of IT assets is the precondition for everything built on top of it.
Figure 1
Figure 1. IT asset transparency is the base layer every resilience process depends on.
What transparency means in an ICT estate
Transparency is not a spreadsheet exported once a quarter. It is three capabilities working together, and the weakest one sets the ceiling.
Discovery keeps the inventory honest
Automated hardware and software auditing finds devices, virtual machines, cloud instances, and installed packages without waiting for anyone to complete a form. Fintechs churn infrastructure quickly, so a hand-maintained list is stale within weeks. Agent-based and agent-less scanning each catch what the other misses – agents report from laptops that leave the network, while agent-less scans reach devices where you cannot install software.
Relationships turn a list into a map
A configuration management database (CMDB) records that a specific payment API runs on these servers, reads from that database cluster, and backs a named customer-facing service. During an incident, that relationship graph gives you blast radius in seconds instead of a war-room reconstruction. A flat asset list cannot answer the question that matters: if this fails, what else goes with it?
Classification and ownership make it auditable
Every asset needs a criticality rating, a named owner, a lifecycle state, and a link to the business function it supports. That is close to a word-for-word restatement of what DORA Article 8 asks a financial entity to hold, which is why an inventory missing those fields tends to fail at submission time rather than during an outage.
Table 1. What each resilience obligation actually needs from the asset layer.
Resilience obligation
Asset data it requires
Consequence of a gap
DORA Article 8 inventory and classification
Full list of hardware, software, and cloud services with a criticality rating and named owner
Incomplete Register of Information; repeated resubmission cycles
Dependency mapping (DORA Art. 8; UK important-business-service mapping)
CMDB relationships tying assets to services, users, and third parties
Cannot scope incident impact or evidence a recovery path
Incident response and recovery
Live location, configuration, and ownership for every asset
Longer time-to-restore; recovery steps improvised during the outage
Yearly legacy-system risk review
Lifecycle state, end-of-life flags, and patch status
End-of-life systems stay live and unassessed
Third-party and concentration risk
Register of vendor-linked assets and their interconnections
Blind to a supplier dependency during a supplier outage
Where asset visibility breaks in fintech environments
The failure modes are predictable. Cloud and SaaS growth push assets outside the corporate network, where an on-network scanner never sees them. Shadow IT – a product team standing up a service on a corporate card – never reaches the register at all. Remote and field laptops drop off the VPN and stop reporting, so their patch state quietly goes unknown. And the most common failure is the humblest one: the inventory lives in spreadsheets and email threads that no discovery tool feeds, so it drifts out of date the moment it is saved.
The dataset behind Alloy Software's recent deals shows how entrenched that last pattern is. Across more than 40 closed-won accounts between 2024 and 2026, spreadsheets, email, and homegrown databases were the single most common system teams were replacing – ahead of any named commercial tool.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prior systems replaced across 40+ Alloy Software closed-won deals (2024–2026).
Building an asset register that survives an audit
A workable sequence follows the order of dependency, not the order of visible output:
Turn on automated discovery first, both agent-based and agent-less, so the inventory populates itself instead of relying on manual entry.
Reconcile duplicates, then assign an owner and a criticality rating to every asset – an unowned asset is an unmanaged risk.
Build the relationships, tying assets to the services, users, and third parties that depend on them, so the CMDB can answer impact questions.
Schedule reporting a regulator or internal auditor can read directly, refreshed on a fixed cadence rather than rebuilt in a rush before each audit.
The order matters. Teams that start with dashboards before discovery end up with attractive reports built on data nobody trusts. Discovery first, relationships second, reporting last.
Choosing a platform: what actually matters
For a regulated fintech, three questions filter the market quickly. Does discovery reach cloud and off-network devices? Does the CMDB model relationships rather than store a flat list? Can the data stay on-premises where a security policy or air-gapped requirement demands it? Cost matters, but it rarely decides the outcome on its own.
Table 2. Decision view across five ICT asset and service-management platforms.
Platform
Discovery reach
CMDB and relationships
Hosting
Indicative cost / fit
Alloy Navigator
Agent and agent-less network inventory; off-network audit for field laptops
Integrated CMDB; tickets linked to assets, users, and contracts
On-prem or cloud
~$1k–$25k/yr; 2–35 IT staff
ServiceNow
Agent-less discovery via MID server; broad cloud coverage
Deep, highly configurable CMDB
Cloud-first; limited on-prem
Six-figure programmes; 100+ IT staff
Lansweeper
Agent and agent-less scanning; strong network coverage
Asset-centric; lighter service relationships
Cloud or on-prem
Per-asset pricing that has risen sharply; small–mid teams
ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus
Agent and agent-less; discovery add-on
CMDB in higher tiers
On-prem or cloud
Low–mid, per-technician/node; small–mid teams
Freshservice
Discovery agent plus probe
Cloud-native CMDB
Cloud only
Per-agent SaaS; no on-prem option
Costs reflect market positioning, not quotes; verify against current vendor pricing before shortlisting.
Where a firm has outgrown spreadsheets but cannot absorb a six-figure ServiceNow programme, mid-market platforms cover the ground. Alloy Navigator sits in that band: agent and agent-less network inventory, an integrated CMDB that links tickets to assets, users, and contracts, and a choice of on-premises or cloud hosting for healthcare, public-sector, and finance environments with strict data-residency rules. Deal data puts its annual cost between roughly $1,000 for small teams and $25,000 for larger estates, which is why it usually appears against Lansweeper and ManageEngine rather than enterprise suites.
The inventory is the start, not the finish
An accurate asset register earns its keep only when it feeds the processes around it. Change management is the clearest example: when every change references the assets and services it touches, the CMDB stays current as a by-product of daily work instead of decaying between audits. Incident response reads the same relationship graph to scope impact, and third-party risk mapping – a specific DORA obligation – draws on the register of vendor-linked assets. Teams that want to go deeper on tying assets to change and incident workflows tend to find that the relationship model, not the raw asset count, is where the resilience value sits.
Where to start this quarter
If a fintech can answer three questions on demand – what do we run, what depends on it, and who owns it – most of DORA Article 8 and the UK mapping requirement is already within reach. If it cannot, no volume of policy documentation closes the gap, because the gap is data, not paperwork. Point automated discovery at the whole estate, including cloud and remote endpoints, and measure how far the result differs from the current spreadsheet. That delta is the honest size of the resilience problem.
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 17, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealth Investing And Trading, Competition And Market Structure
Fund And ETF Accounting Infrastructure Modernization
National Bank is modernizing its fund and ETF accounting infrastructure with Multifonds, bringing work handled across separate systems onto one platform.
The project gives National Bank one accounting environment for more of the valuation, NAV and ETF administration work it performs for firms that offer investment funds and ETFs.
National Bank Brings Fund And ETF Accounting Onto One Platform
National Bank provides fund and ETF administration services that include fund accounting, transfer agency, ETF basket creation, financial statements and tax support.
Multifonds Global Accounting brings fund and ETF accounting into one environment. It processes data in real time and uses exception based workflows so operations teams can focus on records that need review.
The platform includes more than 350 configurable controls across NAV, valuation and distribution work. Multifonds says it supports more than 40,000 funds across 35+ jurisdictions.
National Bank plans to replace siloed systems with the platform. Multifonds expects the change to reduce manual steps, improve oversight and support faster product onboarding.
While those are the expected benefits, the results will depend on how the platform performs once National Bank moves more accounting work into production.
ETF Administration Adds More Operational Work
ETF administration involves more than calculating a fund's value. National Bank also supports transfer agency, market makers and the creation of ETF baskets.
Those processes depend on accounting records and outside data staying aligned. Multifonds connects ETF accounting with more automated data exchange, giving National Bank a common system for more of that work.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, up 62% from the previous record, and Canadian ETF assets reached about C$790.5 billion by the end of March 2026.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, while industry assets approached C$800 billion in early 2026.
The market is also under closer regulatory review. The CSA consultation on Canadian ETF rules examines areas including unit creation and redemption, ETF trading, NAV alignment and basket practices.
That growth means more products, valuations, baskets, records and exceptions for administrators to process. Automation can reduce repetitive work, but controls still have to catch problems before incorrect data reaches fund managers, trading partners or investors.
The same operating challenge appears in tokenized fund operations. New ways to issue or transfer fund interests still depend on reliable pricing, accounting, investor records and administration.
CIBC Mellon And RBC Are Automating Asset Servicing
National Bank is investing in a part of the market where other large Canadian asset servicers are also spending on technology.
In April, CIBC Mellon expanded its Appian automation program. Planned improvements include a more digital ETF service and fund administration workflows designed to reduce manual work and improve data visibility. CIBC Mellon reported more than C$3.4 trillion in assets under administration as of March 31, 2026.
RBC Investor Services reported C$3.1 trillion in assets under administration in the second quarter. Its asset servicing technology investments include ETF modernization, automated reconciliations and predictive reporting.
These investments highlight competitive pressure. Fund administrators need to support more products and data without adding manual work at the same rate.
Technology can influence how quickly an administrator launches products, handles exceptions and gives clients access to accurate information.
National Bank is also using specialist technology in other operating areas. Its Sardine fraud controls deployment focuses on fraud and financial crime rather than fund administration, but both projects use specialist technology for high-volume financial operations.
Moving more fund and ETF accounting onto one platform can simplify operations, but it also increases dependence on that platform.
National Bank will need strong data quality, integrations, controls and recovery processes as the implementation expands. If a shared accounting system fails, the adverse impacts can amplify and reach more funds and ETF workflows at once.
Talking Point
As Canadian asset servicers automate more fund and ETF administration, will technology become a bigger factor in which providers win new business?
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 17, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Digital Assets, Competition And Market Structure
Shakepay Launches Bitcoin-Backed Line Of Credit In Canada
On August 13, 2026, Montreal-based Shakepay launched its Shakepay bitcoin-backed line of credit, BLOC, for eligible Canadian customers. Borrowers can access up to C$50,000, with rates starting at 9.5% APR, using eligible bitcoin held with Shakepay as collateral.
BLOC is offered by Shakepay Credit Inc., an affiliated entity that received securities law exemptive relief to offer bitcoin-backed credit to eligible customers.
Shakepay retains more of the lending operation inside affiliated entities rather than relying on an outside lender to run the credit product.
BLOC is a revolving line of credit available within Shakepay. Eligible customers can draw against available credit, monitor balances and loan-to-value, make payments and adjust eligible collateral subject to their agreement.
Bitcoin volatility is still paramount. If collateral values fall, borrowers may have to add bitcoin or repay part of the balance. Some or all of the collateral can ultimately be liquidated.
The CSA list of authorized crypto platforms includes Shakepay Inc. as a crypto asset trading platform and Shakepay Credit Inc. separately as a crypto-backed lending platform.
Customers use BLOC through Shakepay, but the loan itself is provided by a separate Shakepay company, Shakepay Credit Inc.
Shakepay Adds More Financial Services Around Crypto
BLOC follows several additions around the same customer relationship.
In July, Shakepay became a direct Interac e-Transfer participant. Customers already had access to e-Transfers, but direct participation gives Shakepay more control over how the service connects to its platform. NCFA's Shakepay Company Intelligence Snapshot tracks its expansion from bitcoin trading into payments, cards and business accounts.
On August 11, Shakepay launched Shakepay savings for cash and bitcoin. Two days later, BLOC added secured credit.
The legal entities and protections differ. Shakepay Inc. operates the regulated crypto platform. Cash savings are offered by Shakepay Financial Inc. Bitcoin savings remain with Shakepay Inc. BLOC is offered by Shakepay Credit Inc.
For customers, those expanding services are part of a common Shakepay experience.
Shakepay says more than 1.5 million Canadians have used the platform. Adding payments, savings and credit gives those customers more reasons to use Shakepay between crypto trades.
Competition therefore extends beyond trading fees and asset listings. Crypto platforms can also compete for payments, balances and borrowing.
Two Crypto Lending Models Are Emerging In Canada
Shakepay Credit and APX show two ways Canadian crypto platforms can add secured lending.
Shakepay and Netcoins take different approaches. Shakepay uses a separate company within its own group to provide the loan. Netcoins keeps the customer relationship, while APX handles the lending behind the scenes.
For customers, the practical questions are simpler. Who is actually lending the money? Where is the bitcoin held? What happens if its value falls? How much does the loan cost?
For the platforms, the choice comes down to control. Shakepay keeps more of the lending business inside its own group. Netcoins relies on a specialist provider.
Talking Point
Will Canada's larger crypto platforms keep more regulated financial functions inside affiliated entities, or will specialist providers become the infrastructure behind multiple consumer brands?
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
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. 
