Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Entrepreneurs, Start-ups, Small Businesses
Can Canada Turn Access Into Productive Participation?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
SEC Regulation Crypto Assets and US$75M Fundraising Rules
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.
See: Canada's Stablecoin Regulatory Framework
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%.
See: Reg CF At 10 Shows Equity Crowdfunding Works
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Canada Has C$500B in Private Credit Exposure, But Little at Home
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.
See: Bank Of Canada Warns Non Bank Debt Risk Can Spread Fast
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.
See: Open Finance SME Capital Access
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
FCA Handbook API For Compliance And Regtech
August 13, 2026 | NCFA Resource | Risk Compliance And Regtech, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Regulation And Policy
Machine Readable Rules For Compliance Systems And AI
On August 6, 2026, the UK Financial Conduct Authority launched the FCA Handbook API, giving firms, developers and RegTech providers direct access to structured Handbook data. The free service lets software retrieve current rules, guidance, technical standards and glossary content for use inside compliance and regulatory change systems.
The practical value is real. Firms no longer have to rely only on website searches, monthly downloads or manually maintained rule libraries when they want FCA source material inside their own systems. The API creates a direct route from the Handbook into software that tracks obligations, maps rules to business activities or supports AI assisted compliance work.
What It Does In Practice
The API provides structured access to the FCA Handbook, Technical Standards and Glossary. Users need a free Handbook account, and the FCA says the data can be used in firms’ own applications or through third party technology providers.
The FCA identifies several practical uses:
- mapping rules to products, activities and customer journeys
- tracking and comparing current and future Handbook changes
- feeding regulatory and policy updates into compliance systems
- supporting RegTech products with current FCA source data
- providing trusted regulatory content to AI tools
AI can help retrieve, classify and compare regulatory information, but the quality of the output still depends on the source material it receives. A direct FCA data feed reduces one common problem which is compliance tools working from copied, stale or inconsistently maintained rule text.
NCFA has already identified this problem in AI powered regulatory reporting. The opportunity isn't simply to add AI to compliance work. Systems need reliable regulatory inputs, clear controls and a way to trace outputs back to the underlying rule or guidance.
The API can also reduce manual work around regulatory updates. Firms can connect Handbook content to internal rule inventories, product governance, control libraries or change management processes rather than repeatedly checking individual pages for updates.
There are some practical access conditions. Users cannot work with the API directly through the Handbook website. They need a compatible external application such as Postman or RapidAPI, or another system built to use the interface. Protected endpoints are also subject to rate limits.
Who Gets Value
The clearest users are compliance teams, legal teams, RegTech providers, financial institutions and fintechs that need FCA rules inside operational systems.
Large firms with internal technology teams can connect the data to their own compliance architecture and tailor how Handbook content is matched to business lines, products or controls.
Smaller firms may get more value indirectly through RegTech providers that use the API to improve rule monitoring, change alerts, obligation management or policy tools.
Developers and AI teams also gain a cleaner source for regulated workflows. For example, a compliance assistant could retrieve relevant Handbook content, compare current and future text, or help staff identify which internal policies may need review after a rule update.
That doesn't make the API a compliance decision engine. A system can retrieve the rule accurately and still reach a poor conclusion about how it applies to a particular firm, product or client situation. Human review, legal interpretation and internal accountability remain necessary.
Strengths And Limits
The main strength is source quality. The API automatically draws from the latest Handbook rather than requiring firms or vendors to maintain their own copy of the rulebook. That can improve consistency and reduce the delay between a Handbook update and its appearance inside a compliance system.
It is also useful that the FCA has made the service available without a separate licence fee. Firms can choose whether to connect directly or use a technology provider, which lowers the barrier for developers and RegTech companies testing new compliance tools.
The API is not a complete regulatory archive. It does not provide historic Handbook versions. Requests for past dates return an error, although current and future versions are available through the API. Firms that need a full historical record will still need the Handbook website, archive tools or their own retained records.
The API also does not cover every piece of FCA information. The FCA Handbook contains rules, guidance and standards, while other FCA publications, supervisory communications, consultations, speeches and notices remain outside that core source. Compliance systems therefore still need broader regulatory monitoring.
Direct access to current regulatory text improves the input, but it does not guarantee accurate interpretation. Firms using AI for compliance should still test outputs, keep records, control permissions and make it clear when a person needs to review the result. The IOSCO AI Supervisory Toolkit provides useful additional guidance on governance, oversight, data quality and control expectations for AI in regulated financial environments.
The FCA Handbook API is most useful when treated as authoritative source infrastructure. It can make regulatory information easier for software to retrieve and keep current, while firms remain responsible for deciding what the rules mean for their own operations.
Key Resources
FCA Handbook API Launch (use cases for compliance, RegTech and AI)
FCA Handbook API FAQ (access, current data, limits and usage requirements)
FCA Handbook API (API access and developer entry point)
FCA Handbook (current rules, guidance and technical standards)
AI Powered Regulatory Reporting (regulatory data, automation and AI opportunity)
IOSCO AI Supervisory Toolkit For Capital Markets (AI governance, controls and oversight)
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: [www.ncfacanada.org](http://www.ncfacanada.org)
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Canadian VC Is Growing Again, But Fewer Companies Are Getting Funded
August 7, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, SME Finance And Business Banking, Public Sector Policy And Industrial Strategy
Canadian VC Growth Masks A Thinner Funding Pipeline
Canadian venture capital reached $2.69 billion across 250 deals in the first half of 2026, according to the CVCA's latest market data. Capital invested rose 17% from H1 2025, the first year-over-year increase in first-half dollars since 2021.
Deal count moved the other way. It fell 8.8% from 274 to 250, marking a fifth consecutive first-half decline, while average financing size increased from $8.4 million to $11.38 million.
Canada is putting more venture capital to work without funding more companies. Larger rounds are lifting the national total while seed financing continues to weaken.
More Money Is Concentrating In Larger Rounds
| H1 2026 | Capital | Deals | Avg. Deal | YoY |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total VC | $2.69B | 250 | $11.38M | Capital +17%; deals -8.8% |
| Seed | $285M | 82 | ~$3.5M | Capital -31%; deals -13% |
| Early Stage | $1.18B | 68 | ~$17.4M | Capital +29%; deals essentially flat |
| Later Stage | $984M | 18 | $54.67M | Capital +23%; eight fewer deals |
Sixteen rounds of $50 million or more absorbed $1.57 billion, or 59% of all capital invested. Five financings above $100 million alone accounted for $807 million, equal to 30% of the national total.
Most transactions were much smaller. Deals below $25 million represented 85% of disclosed financings but received only 32% of the money. Another 155 rounds closed below $5 million and collectively attracted $221 million.
The same pressure is visible on the fund side. Canadian VC fundraising became more concentrated in 2025, leaving more capital in fewer hands and raising the bar for companies trying to get into institutional portfolios.
Seed Financing Is Still Moving Backward
Seed is the clearest warning in the report. Investment fell 31% to $285 million across 82 deals, while transaction count declined 13%. Pre-seed added $52 million across 56 financings, with an average round below $1 million.
Early stage looks healthier at $1.18 billion, up 29%, but the number of financings barely changed. More capital went into roughly the same number of companies, pushing the average early-stage round to about $17.4 million.
Later-stage financing is even more concentrated. The $984 million invested was spread across only 18 transactions, the lowest first-half deal count in CVCA's series. The average round reached $54.67 million.
For founders, companies with traction and scale can still attract large rounds, while the market for the first few million dollars is getting tighter.
Some of that friction is structural. Smaller Canadian financings can carry disproportionately high compliance costs because many legal, disclosure and regulatory costs do not get proportionally cheaper as the raise gets smaller. Ontario's decision to join Canada's securities passport should reduce some duplication, but it does not by itself solve the economics of small-company financing.
There is also a financing-fit problem. Merchant Growth founder David Gens argues that many smaller businesses are asset light and cash-flow driven, while traditional lending still relies heavily on assets that can be pledged as collateral. After nearly $1.5 billion deployed to about 15,000 Canadian small businesses, his point is practical: access to capital and access to financing that fits the business are not the same thing.
Those problems compound. A company may need grants, founder capital, crowdfunding, angel money, debt and venture financing at different points in its growth. Canada's small-business capital access gap is therefore less about finding one missing source of money than making it easier for companies to move from one financing stage to the next.
If fewer businesses get financed near the bottom, fewer can build the traction needed to compete for the larger rounds that are keeping Canada's headline VC numbers up.
Fintech Shows What It Takes To Raise At Scale
Financial technology supplied four of the larger disclosed rounds in the first half. KOHO raised $130 million, nesto $107 million, Float $85.4 million and Relay $68.8 million. Together they represent almost $392 million in financing.
KOHO has been building toward banking scale, adding credit products and pursuing a Schedule 1 bank licence. Its $130 million Series E was one of the largest disclosed Canadian VC financings in H1.
Float has been expanding its SME finance platform across business accounts, spend management and working-capital products. Its $85.4 million H1 financing followed earlier equity financing and continued expansion into business banking and credit.
Relay has been scaling its SMB finance platform, raising US$50 million in its Series B as it expanded banking and cash-flow tools for small businesses. The CVCA records its H1 2026 financing at $68.8 million in Canadian-dollar terms.
These companies already have products, customers and operating histories. Their ability to attract larger rounds shows where capital is still available, while the weaker seed numbers show how much harder it may be for the next group to reach that point.
Foreign Capital Still Matters At The Top
U.S. investors participated in 28.0% of Canadian VC transactions in H1, up from 25.9% in 2025. European participation reached 10.8%, the highest share in the six-year series, while 66.4% of transactions were financed exclusively by Canadian investors.
The money also remains geographically concentrated. Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia accounted for 91% of capital and 80% of transactions. Toronto led with $879.7 million across 64 deals, followed by Montreal with $619 million across 50.
See: What Canada Can Learn From The SEC Small Business Forum
For founders that reach scale, Canada remains connected to large domestic and international pools of capital. For investors, the concern is whether enough new companies (read: Canada's farm team) are being financed underneath them to keep producing attractive later-stage opportunities.
The Headline Recovery Hides A Thinner Pipeline
H1 2026 looks better than H1 2025 if the measure is dollars invested. It looks weaker if the measure is how many companies received venture financing, and weaker again at seed.
For founders, proof of traction and financing readiness carry more weight in a selective market. For investors, larger rounds remain available, but a shrinking seed base can become a sourcing problem several years down the road.
Canada needs capital at both ends. Proven companies need enough money to scale, while younger companies need financing that fits where they are today and gives them a realistic way to reach the next stage. The CVCA numbers show stronger deployment at the top of the market, but they don't show yet at the mid way point of 2026 that the pipeline feeding it is getting healthier.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
What Canada Can Learn From The SEC Small Business Forum
August 4, 2026 | NCFA Insight | SME Finance And Business Banking, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Public Sector Policy And Industrial Strategy
Small Business Finance As A Connected Market
On July 30, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that its Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee would reconvene on August 6, 2026. The committee will continue work on public market access and capital formation for smaller companies.
On July 27, 2026, the SEC delivered its 2026 Small Business Forum report to Congress. The annual Forum brings founders, investors, intermediaries and policymakers together to develop and prioritize recommendations. The standing committee continues the work between forums and advises the SEC on rules affecting private companies and smaller public issuers.
The process isn't a fast track to reform. Some recommendations become rules, some need Congress and others return for years without a final answer. But what's really valuable is the public record. A market problem gets an owner, a recommendation, a response and a history that can be checked later.
The combined U.S. record contains 426 recommendations from the Forum between 2012 and 2026 and the committee between 2019 and 2026. That total includes repeated calls for the same reform. Finders and limited capital introduction, for example, appeared 29 times. A proposed federal framework arrived in 2020, but no final order was identified by August 3, 2026. By contrast, a 2019 committee recommendation to raise the Regulation Crowdfunding limit was reflected in the 2020 Regulation Crowdfunding reforms that increased the ceiling to US$5 million and removed investment limits for accredited investors.
Canada's financing files are moving too. The federal government is committing C$1 billion to the Growth VCCI program, while Ontario develops professionally managed funds that could give retail investors access to private assets. Both initiatives can widen the market. Neither creates a standing way to identify the gaps between a financeable company and the investors prepared to back it.
The U.S. hasn't solved small business finance. It has kept company access, investor access and market rules in the same public conversation. Canada has consultations and capable institutions, but no single process currently connects those questions and tracks the response from one review to the next.
Company Access And Investor Access Belong In One System
Financing policy usually arrives in separate files. One initiative supports venture funds. Another considers retail access to private assets. Regulators review an exemption while economic development agencies provide loans, grants or commercialization support. Companies experience those programs as one market when they have to move from one source of capital to another.
The U.S. Forum keeps more of that system in view. Its 2025 Small Business Forum report connected early capital, accredited investor access, Regulation Crowdfunding, smaller funds, retail access to private markets, secondary trading and the cost of becoming public. Not every proposal deserves approval. Keeping them together shows how one decision affects the rest of the market.
A capable business may begin with customer revenue or a grant, add community or angel capital and later reach strategic, institutional or public investors. NCFA's analysis of who gets access to capital shows why that path is uneven. Geography, networks and investor relationships can determine which businesses get seen before investment merit is even tested.
Managed funds and direct investing serve different markets. Ontario's Long Term Asset Fund Project could give households professionally managed exposure to a diversified portfolio of private assets. Investors still choose the manager rather than the companies. Fees reduce returns, private assets can be hard to value and redemption windows can limit access to cash. The fund may also invest outside Canada or buy existing interests, so retail access doesn't guarantee new financing for Canadian businesses.
Direct equity crowdfunding lets people choose a business and can turn customers or local supporters into investors. The tradeoff is concentrated company risk, less information than a public company provides, possible dilution and little chance to sell for years. Platforms also need enough credible issuers and active investors to cover compliance and operating costs. Canada needs both routes because they serve different investors and finance different companies.
Regulatory Constraints Leave Canada Behind International Peers
Canada's estimated equity crowdfunding market (NI 45-110) equals only C$5.15 million in 2025. Comparable markets generate between six and thirteen times more funding relative to their business base.
- Canada. Approximately C$5.15 million, or C$3.76 per employer business. The estimate uses FrontFundr's reported 2025 investment activity and 93% market share because Canada doesn't publish an official national total.
- United States. Approximately C$289.1 million in 2025 Regulation Crowdfunding proceeds, or C$48.99 per employer business. The SEC figures put the U.S. rate at thirteen times Canada's.
- Australia. Approximately C$29.8 million across 63 successful offers in its 2025 financial year, or C$29.99 per employing business. Australia's market rate is eight times Canada's.
- European Union. Approximately C$804.9 million in equity crowdfunding during 2024, or C$24.10 per active enterprise. ESMA's figures put the EU rate at 6.4 times Canada's. The EU uses an earlier reporting year and counts active enterprises rather than employer businesses, so the comparison is directional.
Why? Canada's lower issuer ceiling, tighter retail investor limits and divided portal and dealer model don't explain the entire gap. They do restrict how much a company can raise, how much ordinary investors can contribute and whether smaller offerings are economical for intermediaries to support.
Canada would need roughly C$41 million to C$45 million more of annual activity to match Australia after adjusting for the number of people or employer businesses in each country. That is about eight to nine times Canada's estimated 2025 market.
The United Kingdom provides a useful scale check, but not a perfect annual match. Its broader equity crowdfunding market raised £324 million across 297 rounds in 2024, or about C$567 million at the Bank of Canada's 2024 average exchange rate. The year and reporting method differ from the Canadian, U.S. and Australian figures, so the UK number is directional. It still shows how small Canada's investment crowdfunding retail market remains.
The jobs record is less complete. Crowdfund Capital Advisors estimates that U.S. Regulation Crowdfunding has financed more than 8,100 companies since 2016 and created or supported over 430,000 direct and indirect jobs. It also estimates more than US$27.1 billion in economic activity. Those are industry estimates, not official SEC statistics.
An earlier British Business Bank study of successful UK raises found that 39% of companies hired an average of 2.2 employees after raising equity or debt crowdfunding. Another 48% intended to hire. Within three months, 28% had completed angel or venture financing and 43% were in discussions with institutional investors. The study is from 2015 and combines equity and debt models, so it describes company results rather than a current national total.
Australia's 2025 report says 25% of successful offers came from companies returning for another raise, but it does not provide a national jobs figure. Canada doesn't publish an equivalent job or later financing series either. The missing comparison is part of the problem, not a reason to invent one.
What a stronger Canadian direct retail market could support
An NCFA base scenario starts with about 25 additional equity crowdfunding issuers a year and a direct retail market of roughly C$25 million. That would still reach only 56% to 61% of activity in Australia after adjusting its market to Canadian scale.
If those raises connect to offering memorandum, accredited investor, community and strategic capital, the scenario supports about 50 additional companies and C$50 million of annual financing. It could support roughly 500 existing jobs, create or retain about 150 direct jobs over two to three years and help around eight companies reach another financing.
Growth VCCI Cannot Reach Every Financeable Company
Growth VCCI is a serious capital supply intervention. Budget 2025 committed C$1 billion beginning in 2026 to 2027. The current design allocates C$700 million to funds of funds, C$200 million to life sciences investment and C$100 million to emerging managers. Ottawa expects the funds of funds stream to attract three private dollars for each public dollar.
See: What BrewDog's Sale Could Mean For Retail Investors
That can strengthen professional fund management and support high growth companies that match a fund's strategy. However, Growth VCCI does not invest directly in companies. Fund managers will still choose businesses that fit their ownership targets, time horizons and return requirements.
Some financeable companies will not fit a VC model. The examples below aren't failed venture deals. They are different financing jobs.
- A regional manufacturer may need C$3 million for equipment
- A profitable consumer brand may want expansion capital without giving a fund a large ownership position
- A rural business may be important to its local economy while offering steady rather than venture scale growth.
Recent Canadian offerings show what direct investing can deliver and where the current regulatory design constrains it. Leading investment crowdfunding platform FrontFundr reported that:
Edison Motors raised C$1.49 million from 961 investors under NI 45-110, reaching 99% of Canada's C$1.5 million annual issuer ceiling.
Blossom came nearly as close, raising C$1.45 million from 951 investors through the exemption and another C$482,619 from accredited investors.
Gander raised C$1.15 million under NI 45-110 and combined it with other investment to reach just over C$2 million.
These companies attracted hundreds of investors, but the exemption limited how much they could raise through that channel. Companies seeking more capital had to add accredited investors or use another financing route. FrontFundr's 2025 investment crowdfunding activity places these offerings within the wider Canadian market.
See: What Ten Years Of U.S. Investment Crowdfunding Shows
Edison also shows that progression can work. After reaching the startup crowdfunding ceiling, the company continued with accredited investors and an offering memorandum. It reported approximately C$14 million raised by May 2026. The next question is how often other companies make that transition, what it costs and where they stall. Canada doesn't publish enough company funding lifecycle data to answer it.
Four Recommendations
The most transferable U.S. lesson is the public chain from market problem to government response. In 2024, the SEC advisory committee recommended raising the Regulation Crowdfunding threshold that triggers reviewed financial statements from US$124,000 to US$350,000. The proposal hasn't become a final rule, but the recommendation, rationale and response remain visible.
Canada could build the same discipline around four connected reforms.
- Make smaller offerings commercially workable. Review the C$1.5 million issuer ceiling, investor limits, disclosure thresholds and intermediary permissions together. Published platform pricing can reach roughly 7% to 8% plus fixed fees. Raising the cap alone won't solve weak distribution if a portal or dealer still can't serve the offering profitably (read: dealer/funding portal economics).
- Measure the route to the next financing. Track how often companies move from NI 45-110 into an offering memorandum, accredited investor capital, strategic investment or public markets. Publish the time, cost, abandoned raises and investor liquidity outcomes. Edison shows that progression can happen, but one company can't establish the national pattern.
- Make national distribution work in practice. NI 45-110 is harmonized, yet adjacent exemptions, filing systems and dealer reach still create provincial friction. Canada should identify the remaining duplication and let compatible offerings reach investors nationally without repeating the same work province by province.
- Publish national market data and track longer term results. An annual report should show offerings launched, completed, withdrawn or closed below target, along with capital sought and raised, issuer characteristics, intermediaries, investor participation and repeat raises. A separate study every two or three years should track company survival, later financing, employment, revenue growth and investor results. The first report would show how the market operates. The second would show whether it produces sustainable value.
An annual Small Business Capital Formation Forum could set the priorities. A standing committee could continue the work between forums. Founders, angels, retail investors, venture managers, exempt market dealers, platforms, Indigenous and community finance leaders, regulators and economic development bodies should all have seats. No single group sees the full market.
See: How UK Private Markets Are Adding Investor Liquidity
The output should stay short. Publish each recommendation, the problem it addresses, the body responsible for responding, its current status and the next review date. Keep the archive public. An unresolved proposal shouldn't disappear into a consultation file and return five years later as if the problem were new.
Talking Point
The U.S. lesson is the discipline of keeping unresolved capital problems visible until someone responds. Canada already has venture programs, managed private market proposals, exemptions, portals and dealers. A national forum would bring those routes into one public review and show which companies each one serves, where financing stops and who is responsible for addressing the gap.
Growth VCCI can strengthen institutional venture capital. Managed funds can widen retail access to private markets. Direct investing can reach companies outside fund mandates and let Canadians choose which businesses they back. Canada should evaluate these routes as one capital market and judge them by a practical result: whether more financeable businesses can reach investors on workable terms.
If Canada can publish a billion dollar plan for venture capital, should it also publish the financing barriers founders and investors want fixed, who owns each response and what changed?
Related NCFA Intelligence
Continue into the Canadian funding, investor access and intermediary developments most closely connected to this proposal.
Frequently Asked Questions About Small Business Capital Advocacy
What does the SEC Small Business Forum do?
It brings market participants together to develop and rank recommendations on small business capital formation. The SEC publishes the leading recommendations in a report to Congress and includes a response to each one.
How is the SEC advisory committee different from the Forum?
The Forum is an annual public process. The Small Business Capital Formation Advisory Committee meets during the year and gives the SEC ongoing advice about rules affecting private companies and smaller public issuers.
How large is Canada's direct equity crowdfunding market?
FrontFundr reported C$4.79 million under NI 45-110 in 2025 and a 93% market share. That implies a total market of about C$5.15 million, although Canada does not publish a regulator confirmed national total. The estimate equals roughly C$0.12 per person, compared with C$1.08 in Australia and C$0.85 in the United States on the annual measures used in this article.
Does equity crowdfunding create jobs?
U.S. industry research estimates that Regulation Crowdfunding has created or supported more than 430,000 direct and indirect jobs since 2016. Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia do not publish directly comparable national job totals in the market sources used here. NCFA's Canadian figures are a planning scenario, not observed results or a forecast.
How much can a Canadian company raise through startup crowdfunding?
Under NI 45-110, an eligible company can raise up to C$1.5 million during a 12-month period. An investor can put C$2,500 into one offering, or up to C$10,000 when a registered dealer determines the investment is suitable.
Would a Canadian capital formation committee replace regulators?
No. It would give regulators and other responsible bodies a recurring public record of market problems and prioritized recommendations. The bodies with legal authority would still decide whether and how to act.
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute investment, financial or legal advice. Programme designs, securities rules and market data may change. Readers should confirm current requirements with the responsible regulator or programme administrator.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
How AI Powered CRM Software Is Changing Fintech Customer Engagement
Aug 3, 2026 | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Banking And Credit, Risk Compliance And Regtech
The financial technology industry is changing as users expect quick responses, services tailored to their needs and smooth digital interactions. Artificial intelligence in CRM software is helping these companies improve how they interact with users - this technology is able to analyze data, automate interactions and provide detailed information about user requirements. When businesses combine management tools with artificial intelligence, they are able to create communication strategies that are more efficient plus build more stable relationships with users.
Improving Customer Data Management
Fintech companies manage large quantities of information from transactions, account activity and digital interactions. The best CRM software helps these organizations organize and evaluate this information - identifying patterns. Businesses are able to use automated systems instead of manual reviews to understand user preferences but also create experiences that are more relevant.
Advanced platforms allow financial service providers to create profiles that show communication history, financial behaviors and service preferences - this information is useful for teams to provide specific support and make better decisions. When businesses have a clear understanding of their users, they are able to offer services that match individual requirements.
Creating Personalized Customer Experiences
Personalization is a significant part of engagement because users expect services that match their specific situations. Solutions using artificial intelligence are able to analyze interactions as well as recommend products or services based on data - this allows companies to move away from general messages and provide communication that is more useful.
Systems are also able to help businesses predict what a user needs before a problem occurs. As an example, a platform is able to identify changes in behavior so that financial teams provide information at the correct time - this method is proactive and increases satisfaction.
Enhancing Customer Support Operations
Support is a primary area where artificial intelligence is changing how companies interact with users. Automated chat tools, intelligent response systems or the integration of data allow companies to provide assistance more quickly - these technologies are able to answer frequent questions so that support teams are able to focus on more difficult concerns.
Platforms also give representatives access to important information during a conversation - this reduces the need for users to repeat their details and allows employees to provide solutions that are more effective. A support process that is efficient is able to improve trust and strengthen long term relationships.
Supporting Better Business Decisions
Fintech companies require accurate information to make decisions about products next to marketing. AI CRM provides analytics that help businesses understand trends and evaluate strategies - these details allow organizations to identify areas for improvement and change their services based on how users behave.
Selecting the most appropriate software requires an evaluation of features like automation plus data analysis. Businesses are in need of solutions that handle financial data securely. Artificial intelligence is able to help companies make informed decisions and improve their general strategies for engagement.
Increasing Automation Across Fintech Services
Automation is a useful tool for businesses that want to be more efficient and maintain consistent communication. Platforms are able to automate tasks like follow up messages but also routine notifications - this reduces the amount of administrative work and allows employees to spend more time on activities that require human attention.
Automation is also helpful for maintaining engagement throughout the time a user is with a company. From the initial signup to ongoing support, the systems are able to ensure that users receive communication on time - this consistent interaction helps businesses create experiences that are smoother.
Strengthening Security And Compliance
Security is a critical concern because companies manage sensitive financial information. Software is able to assist companies - monitoring interactions, identifying unusual activity and supporting compliance - these features help businesses manage risks while they maintain efficient interactions.
Tools are also able to improve internal visibility - providing records of communications as well as activities - this information is helpful for organizations to remain accountable and respond to regulations. When companies combine management with security features, they are able to create digital experiences that are safer.
Transforming The Future Of Customer Engagement
Artificial intelligence is changing how fintech companies connect with users - improving personalization and decision making. As digital services expand, businesses that use intelligent solutions are able to understand expectations or provide experiences that are more responsive.
The future of engagement will continue to rely on technologies that combine data analysis with efficient communication - these systems give organizations the ability to build stronger relationships. When companies use these tools, they are able to create experiences for their users that are more reliable and valuable.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
