Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
August 7, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, SME Finance And Business Banking, Public Sector Policy And Industrial Strategy

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.
| 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 7, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Wealth Investing And Trading, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing

On August 4, 2026, Brazilian wealthtech Decade emerged from stealth with an US$85 million seed round backed by Greenoaks, Benchmark and Diffusion. Decade describes it as the largest seed round ever raised by a Latin American startup.
The size of the financing gets attention, but the operating model is more interesting. Decade is building a wealth-management service that can connect investment and financial data held across different institutions, analyze the client's wider financial position with AI and pair that technology with human advisers.
Clients do not have to transfer their investments to Decade first. They can connect accounts through Brazil's Open Finance system, add statements or other assets and build a consolidated view that can include investments, pensions, international holdings and real estate. Decade currently charges R$200 per month (approx $54 CAD) on an annual plan for its Decade Intelligence service and is admitting customers gradually.
The regulatory infrastructure underneath Decade is important. Brazil expanded Open Finance into investments through Open Investment, allowing customers to authorize the sharing of investment information held across participating financial institutions.
The Central Bank of Brazil specifically identified faster consolidation of investments held with different custodians as one of the benefits. Today the data that can be shared includes stocks, ETFs, investment funds, government bonds, debentures and several types of fixed-income securities.
That creates a different competitive starting point for wealthtech. A new adviser can potentially understand more of a client's portfolio without first winning custody of every asset. The client relationship, data layer and asset custody no longer have to all be tied to the same institution.
Decade's privacy policy shows how that works in practice. Customer-authorized Open Finance data is received through Iniciador Instituição de Pagamento Ltda., a payment institution authorized by the Central Bank and participating in Open Finance. Decade can then consolidate and analyze the information inside its own service without becoming the custodian of those investments.
Decade's product combines continuous monitoring with human advice. The company says its AI can monitor markets and portfolios around the clock, identify high fees and tax inefficiencies, review spending and cash flow, run investment simulations and retain context from previous client interactions.
Each client can also work with a human adviser. Decade positions the AI as the analytical layer and the adviser as the source of judgment, explanation and support around decisions.
That makes the model more substantial than a robo-adviser that simply recommends a portfolio. The platform is trying to work across investments, spending, taxes, financial goals and assets held elsewhere while keeping a person in the advisory relationship.
The approach also extends a direction already visible in AI-supported wealth management. Technology can expand the amount of portfolio analysis and monitoring available to advisers without removing the human adviser from the service.
The founders bring unusually relevant experience. CEO Vitor Olivier was an early Nubank engineer who later became its CTO, while Head of AI Felipe Meneses founded financial-services AI company Hyperplane before Nubank acquired it. Decade says Olivier previously worked in wealth management at BTG Pactual.
But the financing is well ahead of the operating proof. Access remains limited, and Decade has not disclosed client numbers, assets advised, retention, portfolio outcomes or how much of the service customers use through AI versus human advisers.
The regulatory perimeter is also still developing. Decade's website states that Decade Asset Management Ltda. is in the process of obtaining CVM accreditation and joining ANBIMA's third-party asset-management codes. The current service therefore should not be described as Decade taking custody of or independently managing client assets.
The larger opportunity is clearer. Brazil's regulators have already created a way for investment data to travel with the customer. Decade is testing whether a new wealth company can use that access to compete for advice and financial intelligence before it competes for custody.
If Open Investment lets customers bring a consolidated view of their portfolios to a new adviser without moving the underlying assets, does custody remain the main competitive advantage in wealth management or does intelligence around the assets become more 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 7, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Cybersecurity And Fraud, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On August 5, 2026, Meta released Muse Code in beta, a terminal-based coding agent that can plan changes, write code, validate results and divide larger jobs among parallel sub-agents across software repositories.
The timing of the announcement is more interesting than the launch alone. In less than three weeks, Moonshot released the 2.8-trillion-parameter Kimi K3 as an open-weight model built for reasoning and long-horizon coding, OpenAI cut the price of GPT-5.6 Luna by 80%, DeepSeek launched V4-Flash at $0.14 per million input tokens and Alibaba unveiled the 2.4-trillion-parameter Qwen3.8-Max.
Coding agents are taking on more of the engineering job while the models underneath them are getting cheaper and easier to mix and match.
For fintechs and financial institutions, that makes the buying decision less about which model tops a benchmark and more about what useful work gets completed, at what cost and under which controls.
| Date | Development | Key Data | What Changed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul. 17 | Kimi K3 | 2.8T parameters; 1M-token context; open weights | Moonshot added a very large open-weight option designed for advanced reasoning and long-horizon coding. |
| Jul. 30 | OpenAI GPT-5.6 Luna | Input cut from $1.00 to $0.20/M; output from $6.00 to $1.20/M | OpenAI cut Luna pricing 80% as business customers pushed harder on AI costs and lower-cost competition intensified. |
| Aug. 3 | DeepSeek V4-Flash | $0.14/M input; $0.28/M output; about $0.03 average benchmark-test cost | DeepSeek pushed the price floor sharply lower, although its overall intelligence score remains below the strongest frontier models. |
| Aug. 3 | Qwen3.8-Max | 2.4T parameters; 1M-token context; 95B parameters active per request | Alibaba expanded the open-weight option for large-context and agentic workloads while using a mixture-of-experts design to reduce compute requirements per request. |
| Aug. 5 | Meta Muse Code | $1.25/M input; $4.25/M output | Meta entered long-running agentic coding with parallel sub-agents and a persistent activity log. |
The price cuts do not mean every engineering job is suddenly cheap. Agentic work can consume substantially more compute because agents inspect repositories, call tools, run tests, retry failed work and sometimes launch other agents.
Cursor has already changed its pricing around that reality. It says a difficult agent request can consume an order of magnitude more tokens than a simple request, such as a syntax question. In June, Cursor also introduced a $120 monthly Premium team seat with five times the included usage of its $40 Standard seat and added stronger spend alerts for administrators.
That makes cost per million tokens a weak buying metric on its own. A fintech should care more about the cost of a completed engineering task after model calls, retries, testing and developer review.
Another important change is that choosing a coding environment no longer always means committing to one model provider.
Qwen Code is an open-source terminal agent that supports OpenAI-, Anthropic- and Gemini-compatible APIs, Alibaba Cloud, other providers and bring-your-own API keys. GitHub Copilot and Cursor also offer access to multiple models inside their development environments.
That creates two buying decisions. Which agent should work with the codebase, and which model should do the reasoning underneath it. A financial firm could use one managed development interface while selecting different models for cost, capability or internal risk requirements.
Open-weight does not mean free. The firm still has to pay to run the model or provide the computing infrastructure, monitoring and security needed to operate it itself. Commercial terms are also evolving. Alibaba is reportedly preparing revenue-sharing requirements for some large commercial users of Qwen3.8-Max, following a similar approach used by Moonshot for Kimi K3.
Codex and Claude Code are already competing for larger repository-level assignments. Meta now joins a field where workflow, model choice, governance and billing can matter as much as raw coding performance.
| Platform | Current Cost | Model Choice | Enterprise Difference | Best Fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GitHub Copilot | Business $19/user/mo; Enterprise $39 | Broad model catalogue | Cloud agent, code review, access and budget controls, governance, IP indemnity and pooled AI credits | Banks and fintechs already standardized on GitHub and Microsoft development workflows |
| Claude Code | Pay-as-you-go for Team and Enterprise through Anthropic Console | Anthropic models | Filesystem and network sandboxing; Enterprise adds SSO, SCIM, fine-grained permissions and audit logs | Complex delegated work where containment and access controls carry more weight |
| OpenAI Codex | Included with ChatGPT Business at $20/user/mo annually; extra usage is token-linked through credits | OpenAI models | Business workspace controls, budgeting, SAML SSO, MFA and no training on business data by default | Teams already using OpenAI across engineering and business workflows |
| Cursor | Teams Standard $40/user/mo; Premium $120 | Multiple frontier and first-party models | AI-native editor, cloud agents, usage pools and spend controls | Engineering-led fintechs willing to make AI central to the development environment |
| Amazon Q Developer | Pro $19/user/mo | AWS-managed models | IDE and CLI agents, IAM Identity Center support, admin dashboards, application transformation and IP indemnity | AWS-heavy financial firms |
| Gemini Code Assist | Standard about $19/user/mo annually; Enterprise about $45 | Google models | Agent mode and Gemini CLI; Enterprise adds private code customization and higher agent usage | Google Cloud development environments |
| Meta Muse Code | $1.25/M input; $4.25/M output in beta | Muse Spark 1.2 | Large-repository work, parallel sub-agents and persistent task history | Worth testing, but enterprise maturity is still unproven during beta |
| Qwen Code | Open-source agent; provider or infrastructure costs vary | Multi-provider and bring-your-own-model | Separates the coding interface from the model provider and supports sub-agents | Firms prioritizing portability, lower-cost inference or more control over the model layer |
There isn't a universal winner (yet?).
GitHub Copilot has the cleanest operational fit where GitHub already anchors development.
Amazon Q and Gemini Code Assist benefit from existing cloud relationships.
Claude Code and Codex are stronger candidates where teams want to hand over larger engineering assignments.
Cursor asks firms to make AI more central to the development environment.
Muse Code is too new to put in the same enterprise-maturity category. Its price and multi-agent design are competitive.
Meta still has to show how it performs inside real development teams and which administrative controls follow the beta.
Qwen Code offers a different choice. Firms can keep the coding interface more portable and compete the model layer separately, which becomes more valuable when model prices can fall 80% in a matter of weeks.
A coding agent becomes more useful as it gains permission to read repositories, edit files, run commands, call tools and execute tests. Those permissions also increase the consequences of an incorrect instruction, compromised dependency or bad code change.
Anthropic says sandboxing reduced Claude Code permission prompts by 84% in its internal use by giving the agent defined filesystem and network boundaries rather than asking a developer to approve every action.
For financial firms, security and oversight need to be part of the comparison alongside coding quality. That includes who can access the agent, what repositories it can reach, what activity gets logged, how data is handled, whether code is used to train models, what networks it can connect to and how spending is controlled.
The market is changing quickly. Open-weight models are pushing down prices, coding tools can increasingly work with more than one model, and agents are taking on larger jobs that make simple token-price comparisons less useful.
Banks and fintechs should be prudent and practical. How much usable engineering work did the agent complete, what did it cost, how often did a developer need to step in and did the work stay within the firm’s security and approval rules?
As coding agents and models become easier to mix and match, should financial firms standardize on one managed platform or keep the agent, model and infrastructure layers separate so each can compete on capability, cost and control?
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 6, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Wealth Investing And Trading, Banking And Credit, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure

On August 6, 2026, U.S. fintech HarborLine introduced its securities-backed lending marketplace, a platform designed to help qualifying investors access loans against their investment portfolios by coordinating banks, advisers and brokerage custodians through one digital workflow.
Investors can seek borrowing capacity without selling eligible securities, while HarborLine handles portfolio eligibility checks, lender matching, loan documentation, collateral pledges and ongoing monitoring.
The company is trying to open a lending process that has traditionally been concentrated inside private banks, large brokerages and wealth firms. Its platform connects investors and advisers with banks and brokerage custodians, then coordinates the portfolio review, loan application, lender matching, collateral pledge and ongoing monitoring.
HarborLine doesn't lend the money, hold the investments or provide investment advice. Banks make the credit decisions, while custodians continue to hold the pledged assets.
HarborLine is trying to make portfolio-backed borrowing available without requiring the investor, bank, adviser and custodian to manage the process separately.
This isn't a public marketplace where fund managers list portfolios for lenders to browse. The borrower is generally an investor who owns an eligible brokerage account, either directly or through an adviser.
The investor connects the account so HarborLine can review which investments qualify as collateral and how much borrowing each one can support. Liquid, diversified securities may support more credit than concentrated positions or assets a bank considers difficult to sell.
HarborLine says it packages each verified application in a standardized format and distributes it to matched bank partners. Each bank reviews the file and decides whether to make an offer on its own terms.
If the borrower accepts, HarborLine coordinates the documents and collateral pledge with the brokerage custodian. The investments remain in the account, but the bank receives a security interest over them.
The platform also tracks eligible collateral, available credit and loan-to-value headroom after funding. If the portfolio falls far enough, the borrower may need to repay part of the balance or add more assets.
Securities-backed credit has traditionally been easier to obtain through private banks, large brokerages and wealth firms that already control the investment account, lending channel and customer relationship.
Wealthsimple’s portfolio line of credit is an example of that integrated model. Eligible clients can borrow through the same platform that holds their investments and manages the account experience.
HarborLine separates those roles. A bank can provide the capital without owning the brokerage relationship. The custodian keeps the assets. The adviser continues serving the client. HarborLine manages the information and handoffs between them.
That could help regional banks and independent advisers offer securities-backed lending without building the full operating process themselves. It could also give qualifying investors another route beyond a private bank or vertically integrated wealth platform.
Strong coordination is needed in making a four-party transaction feel as straightforward as borrowing from the firm that already holds the customer’s investments.
HarborLine explains the workflow, but it hasn't name participating banks or custodians yet. Those disclosures will determine whether HarborLine is operating as a true multi-lender marketplace or is still assembling the network needed to support one.
Borrowers need enough lender choice to improve access or terms. Banks need qualified applications and reliable collateral information. Custodians need a practical way to place, monitor and release pledges.
The technology can reduce paperwork and coordinate the process, but it cannot remove the lending risk.
HarborLine states that it isn't a bank, broker-dealer, investment adviser or custodian. That keeps the credit, custody and investment decisions with the regulated firms involved while positioning HarborLine as the operating layer between them.
Can HarborLine widen access to portfolio-backed credit, or will investors still prefer wealth platforms that already hold their assets and control the full lending experience?
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 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.
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |