Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
September 9, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Competition And Market Structure, SME Finance And Business Banking

On September 9, 2026, RBC announced a C$1.4 billion Canadian technology initiative anchored by RBCx Growth Fund I. The proposed fund will make direct late stage equity investments in Canadian technology companies with global ambitions. RBC plans to invest up to C$416 million, or US$300 million, including an initial US$200 million commitment to portfolio companies.
The C$1.4 billion headline encapsulates the wider initiative, not the size of RBCx's Growth Fund I. But its disclosed something more interesting: equity will be invested alongside commercialization support, strategic partnerships and access to RBC's banking, capital markets and public sector relationships.
RBCx already has reach. It says it banks 3,500+ technology companies, has invested in 10 venture funds and more than seven companies directly, and operates four RBC owned ventures. Fintech runs through part of that history: Mydoh has reached more than 140,000 Canadians, Ownr has registered or incorporated more than 130,000 businesses, and Dr.Bill has processed C$4.1 billion in medical billings for more than 14,000 physicians.
The new fund has a broad mandate spanning enterprise software, AI, cybersecurity, health tech, frontier technology, energy, climate and agricultural technology. Its strategic value comes from the model around it. RBCx can potentially combine equity, venture debt, banking, customers and capital markets support across the same company lifecycle.
Canadian companies do not become global competitors because someone writes a larger cheque at Series C. They get there by building management depth, repeatable sales, enterprise customers, regulatory capability, financial controls, technology that can handle growth and enough distribution to reach new markets. Those capabilities need to start forming years before the biggest financing round arrives.
The capital data shows how narrow the funnel becomes. Canadian venture investors deployed C$2.69 billion across 250 deals in the first half of 2026, yet only 18 later stage deals accounted for C$984 million. Sixteen rounds of C$50 million or more absorbed 59% of all venture dollars, while RBC cites PitchBook data showing Canadian investors led only 33% of domestic growth rounds over the past decade.
There is pressure further upstream too. Canadian VC fundraising fell to just over C$2.1 billion in 2025, with the five largest funds capturing 83% of the capital raised. When fewer funds have enough capital to support companies through multiple rounds, fewer startups get the time and resources needed to build serious operating capability.
That is the bigger Canadian issue. Founders need capital, but they also need customers, talent, workable regulation, financial infrastructure and enough room to execute. International growth only gets harder when those capabilities are weak at home. If too few startups build them early, there will be fewer strong growth companies and even fewer Canadian firms capable of competing globally at scale.
This is where RBCx could be more useful than another pool of equity. A scaling company may need venture debt, operating credit, FX, treasury, foreign accounts and enterprise customers while it is raising its next round. RBCx already works across many of those needs, which gives founders a chance to build financial and commercial capacity before the company becomes large enough to attract the biggest investors.
Customer access is another valuable part. RBC says portfolio companies may receive commercialization support, customer strategy help and introductions through its commercial banking, capital markets and public sector relationships. Founders will care about what those introductions produce: paid pilots, enterprise contracts, distribution and follow on capital.
RBC has a clear commercial incentive in seeing those companies grow. A startup that becomes a large technology company can eventually become a valuable client across lending, treasury, FX, employee banking, wealth and capital markets. RBC has not stated customer lifetime value as the motive for Growth Fund I, but the economic alignment is obvious.
BDC and Canadian venture firms already supply growth capital, so success shouldn't necessarily be measured by dollars deployed. A better measurement may be whether RBCx backed companies win larger customers, build foreign revenue faster, raise future capital from a stronger position and keep meaningful operating capability in Canada. That connects directly with Canada's productive growth challenge where promising companies need enough capital and operating capacity to become globally competitive businesses.
Canada's scaleup problem starts well before the scaleup round. RBCx already works across banking, venture investing and technology businesses, and Growth Fund I adds equity to that mix. If the combination helps more Canadian companies build customers, capability and financing strength early enough to compete globally, the initiative will have earned its C$1.4 billion headline.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On September 9, 2026, BMO InvestorLine announced unlimited zero commission trading on stocks and exchange traded funds for all self directed clients. The pricing takes effect September 14. BMO is also removing brokerage account administration fees and cutting options pricing to zero base commission plus $0.90 per contract, down from $1.25.
BMO says InvestorLine is the first direct investing brokerage owned by one of Canada’s five largest banks to eliminate commissions across stock and ETF trades. That’s important, but it isn’t where Canada’s zero commission story begins. Wealthsimple had already made free stock trading a consumer proposition in 2019. National Bank and Desjardins followed in 2021. Questrade took its remaining stock and ETF commissions to zero in 2025.
What BMO changes is where the pressure has reached. A trading fee that survived for years inside Canada’s largest bank owned brokerages is now disappearing at one of them.
BMO is not the first Canadian financial institution to offer zero commission trading. It is the first of the Big Five to make unlimited zero commission stock and ETF trading its standard self directed price.
That leaves a more interesting question than who cuts next. If the trade itself costs nothing, what are Canada’s brokerages really competing to win?
In March 2019, Wealthsimple Trade opened zero commission investing to Canadians. Wealthsimple said most Canadian trading services were charging roughly $5 to $10 per trade at the time.
The proposition was easy to understand. Buy or sell a stock and the headline commission was zero.
Low cost online brokerage was already well established in Canada. Questrade had been competing with bank owned brokers since 1999 and spent years cutting the cost of self directed investing.
Wealthsimple changed the reference price. Instead of asking whether a digital broker was cheaper than a bank, customers could ask why a stock trade needed a commission at all.
Discount brokers already make trading cheaper. Wealthsimple makes zero easy to see, easy to compare and available through a mobile app. Every brokerage still charging by the trade now has a much simpler price to compete against.
Canada wasn’t developing in isolation. Robinhood began building its U.S. brokerage around commission free trading in the 2010s.
By October 2019, the pressure had reached the largest American brokers. Charles Schwab cut its US$4.95 online stock commission to zero. TD Ameritrade, E*Trade, Fidelity and others followed.
Those decisions weren’t cosmetic. When E*Trade announced zero commissions in 2019, it estimated the change would reduce revenue by roughly US$75 million per quarter.
Brokerage shares fell sharply as investors worked out what a disappearing transaction fee meant for firms that had relied heavily on commissions.
Robinhood shows that free trading can pull customers toward a new platform. The U.S. incumbents show what happens when enough customers begin expecting the same price. Canadian brokerage economics are different, but the competitive pressure travels.
The first Canadian bank owned brokerage to go all the way wasn’t BMO.
On August 23, 2021, National Bank Direct Brokerage eliminated commissions on online Canadian and U.S. stocks and ETFs.
National Bank called it a Canadian first for a bank owned direct broker. Its previous standard commission had been $6.95.
National Bank was unusually clear about the business logic.
Martin Gagnon, then Executive Vice President of Wealth Management, said “The objective is very simple. It’s to increase our client base.”
National Bank’s securities brokerage commission line was about C$60 million for the quarter, but management said only a very small fraction of that amount was at risk from the direct brokerage pricing change. Transaction revenue had already become a smaller part of the business.
National Bank proves that a Canadian bank owned brokerage can give up the visible trading fee when gaining customers, assets and other business is worth more.
Desjardins also removed online stock and ETF commissions in 2021.
By January 2026, Desjardins Online Brokerage reported C$30 billion in assets under administration. Assets had climbed 80% over four years and the number of platform and mobile app users had increased 30%.
Zero commissions alone didn’t produce those gains. They do show that the model can operate at meaningful Canadian scale.
Questrade took the pricing question further in February 2025 when it removed online stock and ETF commissions across its self directed accounts.
By 2026, the company reported more than C$80 billion in assets under administration and was extending well beyond basic trade execution. Questrade Connects Brokerage Accounts To AI Agents follows its expansion from lower cost trading into personalized portfolios, banking and agent accessible investing.
The commission is gone, but the platform has more products to sell.
A customer who arrives to buy a stock can also hold cash, borrow, use managed portfolios, buy private assets, open banking products or use new investing tools. That makes the account itself more valuable than the fee on an individual trade.
BMO now brings unlimited zero commission trading inside the Big Five.
Immediately before the announcement, its standard InvestorLine price was $9.95 per online stock trade. A customer making 100 commissionable trades a year could spend about $995 on those commissions.
At 250 trades, the amount was roughly $2,487.50. At 500, it reached $4,975.
The other Big Five brokerages aren’t standing still, but their standard offers remain different.
TD Direct Investing lists a standard stock commission of $9.99. RBC Direct Investing lists $9.95 for its full brokerage offer, while GoSmart includes a limited number of free trades. CIBC Investor’s Edge lists $6.95 for standard online equity trades and offers commission free ETFs. Scotia iTRADE lists a standard equity commission of $9.99, with some Scotia banking packages including a limited number of free trades.
National Bank gets there five years earlier. BMO matters because unlimited zero commission stock and ETF trading now reaches one of the institutions at the centre of Canadian banking.
Zero commission doesn’t mean zero cost.
BMO says it can earn 1.6% on currency conversions below US$25,000, with the percentage declining as the transaction gets larger.
A US$10,000 conversion at 1.6% works out to US$160. That is far larger than the $9.95 stock commission that disappears.
The same calculation matters across the industry. Wealthsimple lists a 1.5% foreign exchange fee on applicable Canadian dollar and U.S. dollar conversions.
Brokerages can also earn revenue from options, margin borrowing, subscriptions, interest, advisory services, managed portfolios and other financial products.
A $0 order therefore tells investors the cost of the trade. It doesn’t tell them the total cost of using the brokerage.
The brokerage can give up the transaction fee because customer assets create other opportunities. Currency gets converted. Cash stays on the platform. Some investors borrow, trade options, buy managed products or add other financial services.
Wealthsimple makes the strategy especially visible. What began with investing now stretches across cash, cards, tax, mortgages, private investments, crypto and other financial products.
Its growth also shows the scale challengers can reach. By early 2026, Wealthsimple said it served more than 3 million Canadians and had passed C$100 billion in assets under administration.
BMO starts from the opposite direction. It already has banking, lending, cards, advice and wealth management. Taking the trade commission to zero gives an existing bank another way to keep self directed investors inside a much larger financial relationship.
That makes BMO’s decision more than a brokerage price cut. A digital challenger can use cheap investing to enter the relationship. A large bank can use the same price to defend one it already has.
BMO removes one of the easiest price differences for investors to compare. Brokerages now have to win on total cost, foreign exchange, options, margin, tools, advice, product access and how much of a customer’s financial life they can serve.
BMO’s zero commission pricing follows years of pressure from discount brokers, fintechs and earlier bank competitors. Once the stock trade costs nothing, the bigger prize is the customer, their assets and the rest of their financial relationship.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On September 3, 2026, Nvidia announced a definitive agreement to acquire Hugging Face for US$12.9303 billion. The deal would put one of the biggest platforms for open source and open weight AI alongside the company that already dominates much of the market for AI computing.
The price includes about US$11.9 billion for Hugging Face stockholders and up to US$1 billion in equity awards for employees joining Nvidia. The transaction hasn't closed. Nvidia says it expects completion in the first half of 2027, subject to regulatory approvals and other closing conditions.
Nvidia is making a very public promise with the deal. Hugging Face will remain open. Developers will still be able to choose their models, clouds, inference providers and computing platforms. Nvidia hardware will not be required.
That promise goes directly to the tension. Hugging Face became valuable because developers, startups, researchers and rival chip companies could all build there. Nvidia can make that ecosystem stronger. Ownership can also make some of those same users wonder whether an open source AI platform can feel as independent once one of the most powerful companies in AI owns it.
Hugging Face has grown into one of the main places developers find, share and use open AI models. Nvidia says more than 18 million developers, researchers and creators use the platform, along with more than 200,000 companies.
The company was worth far less only three years ago. Hugging Face raised US$235 million in 2023 at a US$4.5 billion valuation, with investors including Google, Amazon, Nvidia, Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, IBM and Salesforce.
Nvidia is now paying close to three times that valuation. The premium makes more sense when Hugging Face is viewed as distribution, developer access and influence over how open models get discovered and deployed.
Hugging Face is valuable because millions of people already use it to decide what to build with. Nvidia is buying that relationship as much as the software behind it. The more developers stay, the more valuable the acquisition becomes.
Nvidia already has enormous power in AI computing. Reuters Breakingviews says Nvidia holds more than 80% of the AI accelerator market, while its chips have become a reference point for a growing market in GPU rental pricing.
That power is one reason the acquisition attracts attention. Nvidia will own a major open model platform while selling the hardware many of those models run on.
Hugging Face has also become important to Nvidia's competitors. Its own 2026 data says AMD and Nvidia are the two most active publishers of new open models on the Hub, with each releasing more than 200 model repositories this year.
AMD uses open models to prove its chips can run real workloads. Google, Microsoft, IBM and other companies also publish and distribute models through the platform.
The acquisition does not remove AMD, Google or other hardware and cloud providers from Hugging Face. Nvidia says support for rival silicon will continue. The tension comes from whether those companies remain just as comfortable investing there when the owner also competes with them.
Nvidia says rival chips will stay welcome. Nvidia's CEO Jensen Huang says developers will keep choosing their own models, frameworks, clouds, inference providers and computing platforms. Nvidia compute will not be required to build on or deploy through Hugging Face.
Developers are already debating what ownership could mean in practice. Some community reactions welcome Nvidia because open models create demand for compute. Others worry about future defaults, private repositories, hardware preference and whether another independent open source AI platform will eventually be needed.
Nvidia doesn't have to close Hugging Face for ownership to change how the platform feels. Developers will notice which hardware gets optimized first, which services are easiest to connect and whether rival products remain equally visible and easy to use.
Open models fit Nvidia's economics surprisingly well. Hugging Face says hardware vendors are publishing open models because a model optimized for their chips is one of the clearest ways to prove the hardware works.
Nvidia can therefore benefit even when the model itself is free to download. More open model use can create more inference and training demand across data centres, enterprises and local machines.
That dependence cuts both ways. Some of Nvidia's biggest customers, including hyperscalers and AI labs, are building their own chips. The Hugging Face deal gives Nvidia a wider developer base at a time when those customers are trying to reduce their own dependence on Nvidia hardware.
Open source AI gives Nvidia access to thousands of smaller users instead of relying only on a few giant buyers.
Nvidia can support open source AI and still benefit commercially from its growth. The company does not need every developer to buy a proprietary Nvidia model. It benefits when more models create more computing demand.
China is pushing hard in the same open model market. Hugging Face data shows Chinese labs released many of the largest open models in 2026. Qwen has become one of the most important model families on the Hub, with more than 151,000 derivative repositories.
Hugging Face says Qwen based models reached more than 2 billion downloads across repositories with declared parameter counts this year.
Chinese open models are also competing on access and cost. Hugging Face found that 59% of Chinese releases above 20 billion parameters used Apache 2.0 licences and another 22% used MIT licences during the period it studied, although some very large releases have begun adding commercial restrictions.
That gives developers another source of capable models as U.S. companies debate how open their own ecosystems should remain.
Open models are part of the technology rivalry between the United States and China. Nvidia's Hugging Face acquisition gives a U.S. company more influence over a global platform at the same time Chinese model families are winning large developer communities of their own.
One possible response to Nvidia ownership is that developers simply stay. Hugging Face already has millions of models, datasets, applications and established workflows. Rebuilding that network somewhere else would be difficult.
Microsoft's GitHub acquisition offers one useful precedent. Microsoft promised GitHub would stay open and independent, and competing developers and platforms continued using it after the acquisition.
Another possibility is that developers begin spreading their work across more places. ModelScope, GitHub, local model tools, cloud registries and private enterprise repositories already give users alternatives for parts of the Hugging Face experience.
A future competitor would not need to copy every Hugging Face feature on day one. It could win users by offering easier migration, open governance, strong model provenance or a clearer commitment to hardware independence.
Network effects make a full replacement difficult, but communities can fragment before platforms collapse. Developers can keep models on Hugging Face while using other tools for discovery, inference, deployment or discussion. Competition may arrive piece by piece rather than through one new platform.
No price increase has been announced. Nvidia says Hugging Face will remain open and hardware choice will continue. That leaves plenty of room for the acquisition to improve reliability, inference tools and enterprise deployment without raising basic access costs.
Costs could still change indirectly. Developers may pay more if the easiest experience ends up depending on premium services, Nvidia optimized infrastructure or harder to replace integrations. The opposite is also possible. Better tooling and stronger open models could lower the cost of running AI compared with closed model APIs.
The acquisition does not automatically mean higher prices. The more interesting cost risk is switching. A service can remain affordable while becoming expensive to leave because models, workflows, integrations and teams are built around it.
Startups could gain from Nvidia's reach. A stronger Hugging Face can give model companies better distribution, more reliable infrastructure and easier access to enterprise customers.
For founders trying to get an open model discovered, being close to a platform used by 18 million developers can be commercially powerful.
Startups may also have less bargaining power if distribution, compute and enterprise access become more concentrated around the same company. A startup can benefit from the platform while still wanting credible ways to deploy elsewhere.
That tension is already visible in competition for cheaper AI inference, where AMD and other hardware companies are trying to give developers alternatives to Nvidia's dominant GPU position.
The upside is distribution. The risk is dependence. Founders will care less about who owns Hugging Face than whether they can still take their models, customers and economics somewhere else when they need to.
Financial institutions face the same ownership question from a different angle. Banks and insurers are already putting AI into governed workflows where data controls, approvals, audit evidence and operational resilience are required.
Governed financial AI workflows become harder when a firm cannot easily change models, clouds or providers without rebuilding controls around them.
Portability can therefore matter more than ownership alone. A bank may be comfortable using Hugging Face under Nvidia if models can still travel across clouds and chips and the institution can keep its own data, controls and audit evidence.
Regulators are also paying more attention to AI vendor concentration and operational dependence as financial firms embed more external technology into critical work.
Financial institutions do not need every AI supplier to be independent. They do need credible ways to change suppliers, hardware and deployment environments without losing control of regulated workflows.
The deal could still produce a strong outcome for open source AI. Nvidia has the engineering resources, compute and enterprise distribution to make Hugging Face faster, more reliable and easier for companies to use.
If AMD, Google, cloud providers, Chinese model labs and independent developers keep contributing, Nvidia can own the platform while the ecosystem remains genuinely competitive.
The harder outcome is quieter. Hugging Face stays open, but developers gradually find Nvidia products easier, cheaper or better supported than alternatives. No door closes. Choice simply becomes less balanced over time.
That is why Nvidia's promise will be judged through product behaviour rather than the announcement itself.
The most valuable version of Hugging Face may be one where Nvidia owns it and its competitors still want to build there. If that happens, Nvidia gets a larger open source AI ecosystem without destroying the trust that made the platform worth almost US$13 billion.
Talking Point
Nvidia does not need to close Hugging Face to gain more influence over open source AI. The deal becomes more valuable if developers, startups and rival chipmakers keep using the platform anyway.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
September 3, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Digital Banking And BaaS, Regulation And Policy, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement

On September 3, 2026, Revolut received conditional U.S. bank approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency form Revolut Bank US, N.A., a federally chartered national bank headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut. Revolut says it is still working through FDIC, Federal Reserve and final OCC approvals and remains on track for a 2027 launch. U.S. customers cannot open accounts with Revolut Bank US yet.
Revolut already serves U.S. customers, but the regulated banking are with other institutions. Lead Bank supports Revolut's prepaid card accounts and banking services, while Savings Vault funds are held at Cross River Bank. Revolut controls the app and customer experience, but those partner banks hold deposits and perform key regulated functions.
Revolut says the proposed bank would offer loans, credit cards and FDIC insured deposits, alongside access to stablecoins and cryptocurrencies. Its charter application also describes deposits, savings, business credit, payments, remittances and foreign exchange. Some investment and digital asset services could still sit with affiliates or outside providers rather than inside the bank itself.
Revolut has been working toward this for months. It dropped plans to buy a U.S. bank earlier this year and chose to apply for a new national bank instead. The OCC received the Revolut Bank US application on March 4. Conditional approval six months later gets the company much closer to owning the bank behind its U.S. app.
Today, Revolut can build the app, price subscriptions and design much of the customer experience, but it still depends on banks such as Lead Bank and Cross River Bank for core banking functions. That arrangement helped Revolut enter the U.S. without taking on the full cost of becoming a bank, but it also means product changes, deposit economics and parts of the customer relationship depend on outside institutions.
With its own bank, Revolut could keep more of that customer relationship inside the company. Deposits could sit at Revolut Bank US, lending income could stay within the group and the company could build products without asking a partner bank to support every change. Revolut also says direct access to payment networks such as Fedwire and ACH could make transfers faster and cheaper.
The economics become more interesting at Revolut's current size. Its 2025 financial results included US$6.0 billion in revenue, US$1.7 billion in net profit, US$67.5 billion in customer balances and a US$2.9 billion lending portfolio. Revolut now serves more than 80 million customers worldwide and is adding roughly one million customers every 17 days.
The U.S. opportunity is still much less developed than Revolut's business in Europe and some other markets. A bank charter gives the company a chance to compete for deposits, credit and primary banking relationships rather than mainly offering an app connected to somebody else's bank. Revolut has also committed to invest US$500 million in the U.S. over the next few years as it builds the products and operations around that effort.
Conditional OCC approval is a major regulatory step, but it is not permission to open the bank tomorrow. Revolut still needs FDIC approval for deposit insurance, Federal Reserve approvals for its U.S. holding structure and final OCC clearance. The company also has to finish staffing, capitalization, technology, compliance and operational testing before customers can be moved onto the new bank.
Owning a bank also changes the risk Revolut takes on. A partner bank carries much of the regulated balance sheet today. Revolut Bank US would have to manage its own capital, liquidity, credit losses, consumer compliance, BSA and AML controls, cybersecurity, governance and federal examinations.
Lending makes that especially real. A payments app can process money without taking the same credit risk as a bank making personal or business loans. Once Revolut starts lending from its own balance sheet, growth has to be backed by sound underwriting, reserves, collections and enough capital to absorb losses when borrowers struggle.
The company is already building that structure though. Its application calls for a separate U.S. bank board and senior executives responsible for finance, risk, compliance, legal, lending and operations. Revolut says it remains on track for 2027, but the launch date still depends on regulators being satisfied that the bank is ready to operate safely.
Revolut's first Canadian attempt ended very differently. The company launched a limited beta in 2019 and left Canada in 2021 without establishing a domestic bank. The earlier product was much narrower than the banking business Revolut now operates in several markets.
Jan Pilbauer now leads Revolut Canada, and Revolut has described the market as attractive, but there is still no announced launch date or public Canadian bank licence application. A U.S. national bank charter certainly doesn't give Revolut permission to take deposits or operate a bank in Canada.
If Revolut does return, it would arrive as a much larger and more regulated company than the one that left five years ago. It now operates licensed banks in multiple countries, carries a growing lending book and is building local banking operations rather than relying only on cards and foreign exchange. Canada has also changed, with OSFI's streamlined approvals framework giving eligible new entrants a clearer federal application process.
None of that means a Canadian relaunch is close. It does mean the next attempt, if it happens, could look much more like a full digital bank than the limited product Revolut tested here before.
Revolut is now trying to do something large fintechs often avoid for as long as they can it seems. That is to own a regulated bank, the deposits, the lending and more of the customer economics. That can produce more revenue and more control, but it also means the compliance failures, credit losses and funding mistakes belong to Revolut too.
How much more can Revolut earn when it owns the bank behind the app?
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |