Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
August 6, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing, Identity Privacy And Data Governance, SME Finance And Business Banking

On August 6, 2026, Yapily expanded bank account verification for Google Cloud customers across 11 European markets.
Businesses in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Lithuania, Italy, Belgium, Austria, Ireland and Sweden can now confirm a bank account during onboarding through a direct bank connection instead of submitting documents for manual review.
The optional service builds on an account-verification arrangement first announced in 2025. Google can now use one Yapily connection across the selected markets rather than maintaining separate document checks in each country.
Businesses can verify a bank account without uploading documents and waiting for someone to review them.
Business account verification often requires a bank statement or another document showing the account holder’s name and banking details. Staff then review the document and compare it with the information submitted during onboarding.
Yapily replaces that exchange with permissioned information received from the customer’s bank. The company says Google Cloud customers can confirm a business bank account and receive a result in minutes.
The service can return account-holder and identity information, account numbers and other bank-sourced data from consumer, business and corporate accounts. The information available and the authentication process may still vary by bank and market.
The immediate benefit is lower administrative cost. Faster verification can reduce manual review and limit document errors. It may also keep a qualified customer from abandoning onboarding while a bank statement waits for approval.
Banks provide the underlying APIs, but most businesses will not connect separately to every institution. They will usually reach open banking through an infrastructure provider or software that has already built the connection into a business task.
Yapily connects to banks and handles differences in authentication, consent, data formats and market coverage. Google places the verification step inside its own onboarding process. The customer sees a faster way to confirm an account, not a separate open banking product.
The same structure can support verification, lending, accounting, payments and treasury workflows. A business may use open banking without choosing an open banking provider or even seeing its name.
Direct bank data inside SME finance software is already taking a similar route in Canada. Adoption grows when bank connectivity is built into software businesses already use.
Google controls the onboarding experience and the customer relationship. Yapily supplies the bank connectivity and verification infrastructure behind it.
That split can work for both sides. Google removes a manual step without building bank connections market by market. Yapily gains enterprise volume and proof that its network can support a large international customer.
A similar division of roles appears where Jack Henry embeds Google Cloud technology inside bank operations. Google provides the underlying infrastructure, while the company closest to the financial institution controls the workflow and customer relationship.
The Yapily arrangement shows where commercial power may settle as open banking becomes embedded. The infrastructure provider can be essential while the software platform controls distribution, product placement and the customer experience.
There is no public evidence that the Google-Yapily arrangement is exclusive or restricts competing providers. The issue is whether specialist infrastructure firms can retain pricing power when their services sit behind much larger platforms.
One Yapily integration simplifies Google’s side of the process. It does not, however, make European bank connectivity uniform.
Verification still depends on the quality of each bank’s API, the information it returns and the authentication process available in that market. Some institutions or account types may not support every field needed to complete the check.
Yapily says it connects to more than 2,000 banks across 19 European markets. Its documentation describes the broader Validate service as being in private beta. The Google Cloud rollout shows a live enterprise use, but it does not mean every applicant will receive the same experience across every bank.
Enterprise customers will care less about the size of a country list than the percentage of applicants who complete verification without falling back to manual review. Successful verification rates, exception handling and bank coverage will determine how much time the workflow saves in practice.
Google Cloud’s rollout shows where open banking is heading. The bank connection disappears into onboarding, while the customer experiences one less document request.
As open banking disappears into business software, how much of the value will remain with the infrastructure provider behind the connection?
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)
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

On August 3, 2026, nine U.S. senators asked the CFTC to consider restricting wildfire prediction markets that pay out based on how long a fire lasts, how much damage it causes or how far it spreads. Their letter to the CFTC argues that these contracts may conflict with public safety, emergency response and market integrity.
That raises a larger question. Should prediction markets be allowed to trade on disasters at all?
The evidence suggests they can, but only within much tighter limits than ordinary event markets. Prediction markets may combine information and react quickly to new public facts. That value starts to break down when traders can influence the result, hold protected information or profit as the damage grows.
The issue comes down to four practical tests:
The regulatory line is still being drawn. The CFTC is reviewing prediction markets, but its current proposal does not treat disasters as a separate category. Regulators now have to decide where legitimate forecasting ends and unacceptable incentives begin.
The same tension extends beyond wildfires. NCFA unveiled the boundary between informed trading and unfair advantage in When Does A Smart Prediction Become Insider Trading?
Click each item to expand
Nine senators asked the CFTC whether wildfire contracts serve the public interest and whether the agency plans guidance, enforcement or restrictions.
The request is not a prohibition. It places disaster contracts directly inside the CFTC’s wider debate over which events should be open for trading.
Polymarket opened a market on how many acres the Palisades Fire would burn before it was fully contained.
The market used a clear public source, which helps. The harder issue is the payoff itself. Traders made money by correctly predicting how much land an active disaster would consume.
The argument for prediction markets is not imaginary. A well run market can combine information from many participants and update faster than a survey or committee.
That creates a possible public use. A wildfire market could draw attention to new weather, acreage or containment data. It still has to prove that the price adds something useful beyond the official information already available.
Prediction markets often benefit when informed people trade. That logic starts to break when the information comes from a public duty, a private contract or direct control over the event.
Good research is one thing. Trading on protected emergency information is another. A trader who can affect the fire belongs in an even more serious category.
Polymarket now bars users from trading on stolen confidential information, illegal tips or outcomes they can influence.
Those controls are useful. They do not settle the listing question. Surveillance usually acts after trading starts, while a badly designed contract may create a risk that should not enter the market in the first place.
The CFTC is working through how event contracts fit with market integrity, public interest and responsible innovation.
That leaves an open decision. A wildfire contract may still fail a manipulation, unlawful conduct or public interest test, but disaster status alone does not yet settle the issue.
A blanket ban on anything connected to weather or catastrophe would go too far. Insurance, weather derivatives and catastrophe bonds help businesses and investors manage risks they already carry. They are not the same as a retail trader buying a position because a fire may destroy more property.
The better test starts with the contract itself.
Contracts that pay more as deaths, destruction or suffering increase should generally not be allowed. Regulators do not need proof of arson before deciding that the incentive itself creates too much risk.
Contracts that insiders or participants can influence need strict exclusions. Fire crews, government officials, contractors and others with protected information or operating control should not be allowed to trade.
Markets built on public data may have a stronger case when the outcome is neutral, the rules are clear and the platform can explain what useful decision the market supports.
Position limits, trading pauses and conflict checks can reduce risk, but they cannot rescue a contract whose basic payoff rewards greater harm.
Market prices shouldn’t be presented as emergency forecasts unless the platform can prove they are reliable and add something useful beyond established fire forecasts.
Some people will still want a full ban. Some platforms will argue the rules go too far. The practical acid test should be: protect public safety without blocking every market that may produce useful information.
No Canadian wildfire prediction market has been identified. That doesn’t mean Canada should wait for one before deciding how the rules would apply.
A single contract could fall across provincial derivatives law, gaming rules, consumer protection and market integrity. The most valuable information may also be with provincial agencies, municipalities, utilities, insurers and private response firms before it reaches the public.
Canadian regulators should decide now whether contracts tied to deaths, destruction or an active emergency should be allowed at all. They also need clear rules on who can trade, how protected emergency information is handled and what happens when an offshore platform lists a market on a Canadian disaster.
The first case will be easier to manage if the rules are already clear. Waiting for a public controversy would leave regulators reacting after the risk has arrived.
Do you agree the evidence supports this answer?
Click Agree or Disagree. Your vote is recorded anonymously and aggregate results are tracked.

The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem providing education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities to thousands of members. NCFA works with industry, government, partners and affiliates to support a competitive and innovative fintech and funding sector in Canada. Join Canada’s Fintech and Funding Community or learn more at NCFA Canada.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 5, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Wealth Investing And Trading, Embedded Finance, Competition And Market Structure

On July 20, 2026, Chime launched Chime Invest inside the app its members already use for deposits, spending, savings and credit. Members can buy US stocks and exchange traded funds from US$1 or choose a managed portfolio. Neither option has an account minimum.
Chime didn't build the regulated investment stack itself. Atomic Invest provides portfolio advice, while Atomic Brokerage executes and holds the investments. Self directed trades carry no commission, although other charges may apply. Annual managed portfolio fees are zero for Chime Prime members, 0.10% for Chime Plus and 0.25% for standard members.
On August 3, Allied Universal added Chime Workplace for a North American workforce of approximately 320,000 employees. Chime says Workplace includes investing alongside earned wage access, savings and credit building. The workforce figure describes potential reach. It isn't an enrollment count, and the announcement doesn't say employees will be automatically enrolled in Chime Invest.
Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank, broker or investment adviser. The Bancorp Bank and Stride Bank provide its banking services. Chime Invest sits outside that deposit relationship. Atomic Invest is an SEC registered investment adviser, and Atomic Brokerage is a registered broker dealer and SIPC member.
The partnership lets Chime enter wealthtech without carrying every licence, control and operating function inside its own company. It also creates a commercial incentive. Chime receives compensation based on assets referred to Atomic, so it benefits when members open and fund investment accounts. The product disclosure identifies that incentive as a conflict users should understand.
Chime brings something Atomic doesn't have on its own though, which is a frequent consumer relationship. The company says an average member opens the app five times a day and completes more than 50 transactions a month. Investing now appears beside the account where many members already receive pay, spend and save. That lowers the effort required to try investing, although it does not establish that members will fund accounts or keep investing.
Investment accounts are not deposits. They can lose value and do not receive FDIC insurance. SIPC protection applies through Atomic Brokerage within its limits, but it does not protect investors from market losses.
Chime bought Salt Labs in June 2024 for its employee rewards technology and employer relationships. It launched Chime Workplace in March 2025, then connected the service to Workday and UKG. Allied Universal gives that channel one of its largest disclosed partner workforces so far.
The entry product is MyPay at Work. Eligible workers direct their pay to a Chime account and can request an advance against verified earnings. From there, Chime can offer savings, credit and investing inside the same app.
Chime doesn't charge Allied Universal or its employees to make Workplace available. Some optional products can carry fees or charges. With no employer fee, the economics depend on workers enrolling, directing pay into Chime and continuing to use its products.
Useful benchmark for this strategy First Student is North America's largest school transportation provider, with 66,400 employees and operations across the United States and Canada. It joined Chime Workplace in the first quarter of 2026 and provides Chime an early usage benchmark among a large frontline workforce. Chime reported in the Allied Universal announcement that 46% of actively enrolled First Student employees began saving within two months. Among those savers, 76% kept contributing. The figures apply only to active enrollees, not First Student's full workforce, and Chime has not published comparable Workplace investment adoption.
Chime starts with pay, spending and savings before offering investments. Robinhood is building household finance outward from trading through managed investing, family accounts, cards and other products. SoFi combines lending, deposit accounts and investing, while earned wage providers concentrate more narrowly on access to pay.
Distribution determines which app gets the first chance to turn income into spending, savings, borrowing or investment assets.
Chime entered this rollout with 10.2 million active members at March 31, 2026. First quarter revenue reached US$647 million, up 25% from a year earlier, and the company reported US$53 million in net income. It also signed four new employer partners during the quarter, including First Student. Chime's second quarter results are scheduled for release after the market closes on August 5 and were not available when this article was verified. The 2025 fintech IPO class also included Circle, eToro and Klarna, giving investors several financial platform models to compare.
Stakeholders should monitor Allied Universal enrollment numbers. Direct deposit conversion, sustained savings, funded investment accounts and assets held through Atomic will show whether Chime can extend an everyday financial account into wealth management.
Can Chime turn frequent spending and payroll relationships into funded investment accounts, and can its employer channel bring that model to people who haven't used a wealth app before?
Chris Britt and Ryan King founded Chime in 2012. The company built a mobile financial account around direct deposit, card spending, early pay and fewer consumer fees.
ChimeA consumer financial technology company
FormationA mobile alternative to traditional bank accounts
Venture BackedPrivate financing supports product and member growth
United StatesConsumer banking and payments
Everyday EarnersPeople seeking simpler access to pay and spending
Banks And FintechsPrice, convenience and trust drive adoption
Direct deposit gave Chime a recurring place in a member's financial life. That primary account position later supported credit, liquidity and savings products.
Chime Invest adds US stocks, exchange traded funds and managed portfolios to the main Chime app. Members can begin with US$1, and neither investment option has an account minimum.
Atomic Invest provides the managed portfolio advice. Atomic Brokerage executes and holds the investments. Chime promotes the service and receives compensation based on assets referred to Atomic.
Chime says self directed stock and exchange traded fund transactions carry no commission, although other charges may apply. Managed portfolio fees are zero for Chime Prime members, 0.10% annually for Chime Plus and 0.25% for standard members.
Chime lists investing among the tools included with Chime Workplace. The Allied Universal announcement does not confirm automatic enrollment, immediate investment access for every employee or how many workers are eligible.
No. Chime is a financial technology company. The Bancorp Bank and Stride Bank provide its banking services. Chime Invest is a separate investment service provided through Atomic.
Chime describes Chime Invest as a product for eligible US members. The Allied Universal announcement refers to a North American workforce but does not confirm Canadian investment access.
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute investment, financial or legal advice. Product availability, eligibility, fees and terms may change. Company adoption figures are attributed to Chime and should not be treated as independently audited results.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 4, 2026 | NCFA Insight | SME Finance And Business Banking, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Public Sector Policy And Industrial Strategy

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Continue into the Canadian funding, investor access and intermediary developments most closely connected to this proposal.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |