Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 31, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Competition And Market Structure, Wealth Investing And Trading

On July 30, 2026, U.S.-based Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the owner of the New York Stock Exchange, agreed to acquire MarketAxess for US$167 a share in cash, valuing the electronic bond-trading company at about US$5.7 billion. The ICE MarketAxess agreement carries a 33% premium to MarketAxess's previous closing price. Both boards approved the transaction, with closing targeted for the first half of 2027 subject to regulatory approvals.
ICE plans to finance the purchase with new bonds, a term loan and commercial paper. Management forecasts the acquisition to add to adjusted earnings per share in the first full year after closing.
The strategic value is inside the bond trade itself. ICE already sells fixed-income prices, reference data, indices and execution services. MarketAxess brings a network used by about 2,100 institutional investors and dealers, alongside automated execution, all-to-all liquidity and post-trade tools. The acquisition would let one owner serve more of the workflow from price discovery through execution and compliance.
MarketAxess built its position by making institutional bond trading more electronic. Its Open Trading model allows asset managers and dealers to trade with a wider pool of counterparties instead of relying only on a traditional dealer request for quote. The platform also supports portfolio trades, large block orders, automated execution, pricing analytics and regulatory reporting.
The business is large enough to matter and specialized enough to fill a gap for ICE. MarketAxess's 2025 annual report says its clients operate across about 90 countries. Open Trading handled 37% of eligible credit volume on the platform that year, while 86.8% of company revenue came from trading commissions. MarketAxess reported US$846.3 million of 2025 revenue, followed by US$233.4 million in the first quarter of 2026.
In August 2024, the companies agreed to connect their liquidity networks. That work linked ICE TMC with MarketAxess Open Trading across municipal and corporate bonds, extending institutional liquidity toward wealth-management order flow. Ownership would bring the economics, product decisions and customer data from that relationship inside ICE.
The timing also provides some background. MarketAxess entered the deal after losing ground in electronic corporate bond trading. A June 2026 Bank of America assessment estimated that its share had fallen from 57% to 33% over five years as Tradeweb and Trumid gained business. ICE is paying a substantial one-day premium, but it is buying after a longer period of competitive pressure.
The transactions are not identical, but the ownership logic has appeared elsewhere. Kraken's NinjaTrader acquisition combined a large distribution platform with specialist futures execution and regulated market access. ICE is pursuing that model in institutional bonds, where data and workflow tools can be sold alongside execution.
The above group keeps the combined company from owning institutional bond trading outright. The question is whether ICE can use its data, connectivity and customer reach to make MarketAxess more useful than it was as a standalone platform. If more clients price, route, execute and review trades inside the same system, the commercial advantage comes from repeat workflow use rather than a single transaction fee.
The buyer and target already overlap in fixed-income execution, and ICE supplies data used before and after a trade. Regulators will decide whether those businesses remain sufficiently competitive when held together. The review may look at market access, data licensing, fee bundles, interoperability and whether rival venues can obtain the information and connectivity their clients need.
For clients, a unified workflow can reduce system switching, duplicated data and manual reconciliation. However, it can also deepen dependence on one vendor. Asset managers and dealers will watch whether ICE preserves open connections, improves execution quality and keeps pricing competitive across data and trading services.
Canadian institutions are part of the commercial audience even though this is a U.S. transaction. Pension funds, asset managers, banks and dealers in Canada trade global corporate and government debt through international data and execution networks. The deal materials do not disclose MarketAxess's Canadian client count, so the immediate Canadian question is vendor choice rather than a local ownership change.
Canada has already tested one part of a more connected fixed-income workflow. BMO's Canadian bond pilot mirrored a C$250 million deposit-note transaction with Ontario Teachers' on blockchain while the official issuance remained with CDS. That experiment focused on issuance records and payment information rather than electronic bond execution, but it shows why Canadian institutions care about how trading, data and post-trade systems connect.
ICE has been extending its reach across regulated and digital markets, including its OKX investment and futures plan. MarketAxess adds a proven institutional network in traditional fixed income.
When one company supplies the prices, trading network and post-trade tools, does the integrated workflow lower costs for bond investors or make it harder to use a competing venue?
Continue into the fixed-income, digital-market and platform-consolidation developments most closely connected to the transaction.
ICE agreed to pay US$167 in cash for each MarketAxess share. The transaction values MarketAxess at about US$5.7 billion and represents a 33% premium to its closing share price immediately before the announcement.
MarketAxess operates electronic trading platforms for corporate bonds, government bonds, municipal securities, emerging-market debt and other fixed-income products. It also provides pricing data, automated execution and post-trade services to institutional investors and broker-dealers.
MarketAxess would add a large institutional execution network to ICE's fixed-income data, indices, trading venues and post-trade tools. ICE could serve more of each bond trade inside one group and distribute those services across its existing customer base.
Its main electronic fixed-income competitors include Tradeweb, Bloomberg and Trumid, alongside ICE's existing bond venues, broker-dealer systems and other specialist trading networks.
The companies are targeting the first half of 2027. Completion remains subject to regulatory approvals and the other closing conditions in the transaction agreement.
Canadian pension funds, asset managers, banks and dealers trade global bonds and buy international pricing and execution services. A combined ICE and MarketAxess could affect their vendor choice, workflow integration, data access and trading costs even though the transaction does not transfer a Canadian company.
Transaction terms and company figures are based on public disclosures and reporting available on July 31, 2026. The acquisition remains subject to approvals and closing conditions. This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, financial or legal advice.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 28, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing, Payments And Money Movement, Competition And Market Structure

On July 28, 2026, Credit Connect reported that UK open banking passed one billion cumulative payments and 100 billion cumulative API calls across the CMA9 banks. Both totals cover more than eight years of activity.
The report directly quotes Open Banking Limited CEO Henk Van Hulle. A matching announcement wasn't available in Open Banking Limited's newsroom when this article was prepared, so the cumulative totals are attributed to Credit Connect.
Open Banking Limited's June performance data also shows what the system's baseline is for a single month. It recorded 2.8055 billion successful API calls, a 99.50% success rate and an average response time of 349 milliseconds. Credit Connect reported that API use rose 4.4% from May and response time improved by 50 milliseconds.
June also produced 40.16 million successful open banking payment initiations. Single domestic payments declined 1.2%, while Variable Recurring Payments increased 6.7%.
The cumulative milestone gets attention, but the monthly numbers say more about the current market. Banks are processing billions of API requests while third party providers initiate more than 40 million payments a month. Open banking now supports regular payment activity alongside account information services.
The figures describe different parts of the system. An API call is a request between an authorized provider and a bank. A payment is a successful payment initiation. Open Banking Limited also reports more than 19 million active user connections, but those connections aren't deduplicated individuals. The same customer may be counted through more than one provider or brand.
Payment use has been building quickly. The FCA's 2025 open banking progress report recorded 53% year over year growth in open banking payments. Variable Recurring Payments accounted for 16% of open banking transactions at that point.
The UK now has a functioning base for account to account payments. Banks supply the required APIs, fintechs build payment services and merchants decide whether the cost and customer experience compare favourably with cards and Direct Debit.
Variable Recurring Payments are relatively new to the UK market. UK open banking update tracked approximately 3.7 million VRP transactions in March 2025, along with more than 240 regulated third party providers. It also cited a UK Finance estimate that recurring payments could save merchants approximately £1.5 billion a year.
The July numbers show continued use while the industry develops commercial VRP beyond transfers between a customer's own accounts. Customers can authorize businesses to initiate repeat payments within agreed limits without approving every transaction separately.
On June 2, 2026, the FCA supported the launch of the UK Payments Initiative, an industry operated scheme for commercial Variable Recurring Payments. The FCA expects other commercial schemes to compete with it.
The initiative has substantial industry backing. In 2025, 31 participating firms, including banks, fintechs and payment providers, agreed to fund the initial operator. Proposed uses cover utilities, rail, government agencies, charities and regulated financial services.
The remaining question is how the economics are divided. Banks incur costs to provide premium APIs, while payment providers need pricing low enough to compete for merchants. In January 2026, the FCA and Payment Systems Regulator said they wouldn't prioritize a competition investigation into the proposed centralized access fee model at that stage.
The one billion payment total gives the industry a larger customer base on which to build. It doesn't determine who captures the revenue. Banks may charge for premium access, payment firms may win merchant distribution and software platforms may package recurring payments into billing, treasury and account management products.
The original open banking system was built around a market competition order applied to nine large banks. Commercial schemes now bring more providers, products, pricing agreements and customer relationships into the system.
The FCA expects a new Future Entity to set common API standards, monitor performance, oversee certification and support commercial schemes. Its role will influence whether payment providers receive consistent access across participating banks.
The UK payments playbook connects commercial VRP delivery with retail payment rules, Faster Payments improvements and the future regulatory structure for open banking.
Reliability is already measurable. June's weighted API availability reached 99.80%, while successful calls reached 99.50%. Those averages are interesting, although a customer experiences the individual bank connection used for a particular service or payment.
Fraud still remains part of the operating model. Open Banking Limited's fraud monitor found that roughly one in 6,000 open banking payments was fraudulent in 2025, compared with one in 2,500 across the wider payments industry. Authorized push payment fraud accounted for more than two thirds of reported open banking fraud cases.
The direct Canadian relevance is the connection between data access and payments. Canada is developing consumer driven banking, payment system participation and future write access through separate rules and institutions. The UK experience shows where those files eventually meet through commercial pricing, recurring payment permissions, technical standards, liability and scheme governance.
As commercial VRP expands, who should control access pricing and liability when banks, fintechs and merchants all depend on the same 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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |