Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Fintech International
Canada Wants Sovereign AI. The Cloud Says Otherwise
June 3, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Regulation And Policy
Cloud Concentration, Compute Access, and AI Sovereignty
On June 2, 2026, the Canadian Anti Monopoly Project released Parting Clouds: Creating A Competitive Marketplace For Compute that says three American companies control 85% of Canada's public cloud market. Canada wants sovereign AI. It's a gap that Ottawa needs to address before it commits more public money to AI infrastructure.
Globally, those same three firms Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, hold about 66% of the public cloud market. AI runs on compute, but most firms access that compute through cloud platforms. The more difficult it becomes to move data, workloads, and AI services between providers, the more dependent organizations become on a small number of platforms.
Compute Is Capacity. Cloud Is Control.
Compute means the physical capacity. Think data centres, chips, GPUs, servers, storage, power, cooling, and networks. Cloud is the commercial aspect that packages that capacity into services like APIs, software tools, security controls, and platform ecosystems.
Canada can fund more compute and still leave firms locked into the same cloud stacks. That concern connects to NCFA’s earlier analysis of Canada’s AI capital flight problem, where public AI investment doesn't always translate into long term domestic value especially if customers cannot move their data, workloads, models, and services without high technical and financial costs.
The CAMP report makes that point clearly. The goal isn't simply Canadian ownership. The goal is a market where customers can switch providers without rebuilding core systems. Most Canadian firms cannot replace that stack overnight.
Federal spending tells the same story. From 2019 to 2020 through 2022 to 2023, Shared Services Canada spent $310.4M on cloud services. The report says 66% went to Microsoft, 16% to Amazon, 14% to Salesforce, and 4% to other providers.
AI Deepens Cloud Lock In
Cloud concentration already creates switching barriers through proprietary services, opaque pricing, and weak interoperability.
AI makes those barriers harder to manage. A fraud model, compliance agent, lending workflow, or payment risk tool can become tied to a provider’s data services, model tools, security layer, and deployment environment.
Moving clouds then means more than moving storage. It can mean rebuilding how the product works.
Five firms control about 75% of global AI compute power, with Google alone controlling about 31%. That concentration shows why AI sovereignty is not only about funding more capacity. It's also about keeping customers mobile before AI markets harden around the same platforms.
Domestic Monopolies Are Still Monopolies
The name of this section is the report's strongest warning and it should affect Ottawa's strategy.
More Canadian data centres can help. Domestic compute can support sensitive workloads, national resilience, and local AI capacity. Ottawa has already backed 44 Canadian AI compute projects, but if public funding only creates protected local gatekeepers, Canada may replace one dependency with another.
The better goal is customer mobility. Can a Canadian fintech move workloads from one provider to another? Can a public agency compare cloud pricing easily? Can a startup use AI tools without being trapped inside one ecosystem? Can sensitive workloads use Canadian infrastructure without sacrificing portability?
What Ottawa Should Do
Ottawa should fund infrastructure, but also change the market around portability, interoperability, transparent pricing, and competition.
The CAMP report recommends using public procurement to require portable data, interoperable services, and common technical standards. It also calls for closer scrutiny of egress fees, bundling, tying, discriminatory licensing, cloud credits, and acquisitions that absorb Canadian talent and intellectual property.
See: AI Data Centres Test B.C.’s Clean Power Limits
This approach has tradeoffs. Procurement can move faster than legislation, but it needs technical discipline. Competition enforcement can target lock in, but cases take time. Interoperability can lower switching costs, but it will not instantly match the full global scale of AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud. Domestic infrastructure can improve resilience, but only if it avoids new lock in.
The Questions Ottawa Should Answer
Will Canada measure AI sovereignty by domestic capacity, or by real customer choice?
Will public funding require portability, open standards, and transparent pricing?
Will Canadian fintechs and AI startups be able to move workloads across providers without rewriting core systems?
Will the strategy treat cloud concentration as a competition issue, not only an innovation issue?
Will Canada build a market where providers compete on price, performance, trust, and service quality, or one where customers stay trapped because switching costs are too high?
Talking Point
If a Canadian fintech cannot realistically move its AI stack from one provider to another, who holds the leverage?
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Bar Uses Kalshi To Cap Free Drinks Promotion Risk
June 2, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, SME Finance And Business Banking
Can Event Contracts Reduce Promotion Risk?
A New York City sports bar has turned a Knicks NBA Finals promotion into a practical prediction market case study. According to NY Sports Day coverage of the promotion, The Jeffrey ('The bar') offered customers free drinks if the Knicks won Game 1 and placed a $5,000 position on a Knicks win through Kalshi, which could pay roughly $13,500 if the Knicks won.
The sports hook is fun. The business logic is better. The bar isn't simply betting on the Knicks with a local sportsbook. It's using a prediction market 'event contract' to run a promotion with a clear downside. If the Knicks win, the contract helps fund the free drinks. If the Knicks lose, customers pay their tabs and the bar loses the $5,000 position. The owner knows the maximum contract cost before the campaign starts.
How The Bar Trade Works
The promotion creates two linked outcomes.
If the Knicks win, qualifying drink tabs become free and the bar gives up revenue it would otherwise collect. The Kalshi position pays on that same outcome, helping offset the waived tabs.
If the Knicks lose, the Kalshi position expires worthless, but the bar keeps normal drink revenue from customers who came in to watch the game.
It's a different use case from the prediction market stories NCFA has tracked around private market valuation odds and public market sentiment. Here, the contract supports a real world promotion with a known maximum contract cost.
This second outcome is what makes the structure interesting. The bar isn't left with only a $5,000 loss. It may also have a packed room, paid tabs, food orders, longer visits, and new customers. People may spend more because the tab could become free. That excitement is part of the promotion’s value.
See: NHL Bets on Fintech’s Future with Kalshi and Polymarket
The key business question is did the promotion generate enough incremental gross profit to justify the $5,000 contract cost if the Knicks lost? If yes, the losing contract is a campaign expense. If the Knicks won, the payout could help cover the free drinks liability (and possibly more). Either way, the owner puts a known price on the risk.
Not A Perfect Hedge
A traditional hedge normally offsets an existing risk. The bar created the risk by offering free drinks, then used Kalshi to offset part of that exposure.
The hedge quality depends on numbers that haven't been shared publicy like expected crowd size, average tab, food sales, qualifying drink costs, gross margin, and incremental revenue created by the promotion. If free drink liability reached $15,000 and the contract paid $13,500, the bar still carries some cost (of course the owner could choose to cap the number/cost of free drinks). If the room filled up and customers paid their tabs after a Knicks loss, the $5,000 contract loss may still be covered by extra business.
Other Possible Uses?
A patio restaurant could run a long weekend rain campaign. Customers get 25% off if rain exceeds a defined threshold during peak patio hours. The restaurant buys a weather contract tied to the same outcome. If it rains, the contract helps fund the discount. If it stays dry, the restaurant keeps full patio revenue and treats the contract cost as part of the campaign budget.
An event organizer could offer partial refunds if a transit strike disrupts attendance. A $3,000 event contract tied to the strike outcome could help cover refunds if the strike happens. If the strike doesn't happen, attendees pay full price and the organizer loses only the known contract cost.
See: Kalshi Fines MrBeast Editor In Insider Trading Case
A tourism operator could sell a “city wins, you save” package tied to a major festival or sports bid. If the city wins and the discount triggers, the event contract helps offset the promotion. If the city loses, customers still paid for the trip and the operator knows the campaign cost in advance.
Prediction Markets Enter Promotion Design
Most prediction market coverage focuses on politics, sports, forecasting, or trading activity. The bar example points to a different use case of outcome based promotions where a business knows the most it can lose before launching the campaign.
It could make a difference for small businesses. Most small operations don't have access to custom insurance, futures contracts, or sophisticated risk tools. Prediction markets are easier to understand. A business can tie a campaign to a public event, cap the contract cost, and create a promotion customers want to talk about.
The risk is that promotion design can slide into speculation if owners do not size the contract properly. As prediction market controls tighten, businesses need clearer guardrails around contract sizing, customer disclosures, and whether the activity manages a real exposure or simply adds another bet. A useful campaign starts with the business exposure, not the excitement of the event. The bar example works as a test case because the contract ($5,000), the customer offer (free drinks), and the revenue opportunity ($13,500 + promo boost) all point to the same outcome.
Talking Point
If prediction markets can help small businesses run outcome based promotions with a known maximum contract cost, where should regulators draw the line between practical risk management and promotional trading?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Liquid Co Invest Opens Agentic Trading Debate
June 2, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Risk Compliance And Regtech
AI Agents Could Rewrite How Brokers Reach Customers
On May 26, 2026, Liquid launched Co Invest for ChatGPT and Claude, allowing users to research markets, construct portfolios, fund accounts, and execute trades from inside an AI conversation. The platform supports more than 500 markets across stocks, ETFs, commodities, crypto, FX, prediction markets, and pre IPO opportunities. Every trade still requires user confirmation before execution.
The launch is testing a new distribution model for financial services. For two decades, brokers competed to convince customers to visit websites and download apps. Liquid is testing a different idea. This is already happening in commerce. Agent driven checkout and payments are moving purchase decisions closer to AI assistants.
What happens if the customer never leaves the AI assistant?
Trading Moves To Where Customers Already Spend Time
Traditional brokerage growth follows a familiar formula. Acquire the customer. Get them into the platform. Keep them engaged. Generate more activity inside the platform.
Co Invest reverses that process. The customer already lives inside ChatGPT or Claude. Research happens there. Portfolio construction happens there. Market comparisons happen there. The trade happens there. The broker becomes the infrastructure underneath the conversation.
The launch announcement describes Co Invest as a way to move from market question to live execution inside a single workflow. If customers increasingly begin their financial decisions inside AI assistants, brokers may need to compete for agent connectivity as aggressively as they once competed for app downloads.
The Real Innovation Is Permission, Not Autonomy
Much of the discussion around AI and investing focuses on autonomous trading. Liquid's current product doesn't do that. Users must still approve all trades before execution (at least for now). The assistant can research, compare, explain, size positions, and prepare orders, but it cannot freely move money or trade without permission (aka the agentic trading model).
Perhaps before markets and regulators reach fully autonomous investing, there will be a type of 'permissioned investing' that gets iterated before then. The goal isn't unrestricted authority. It's a type of controlled automation with clear limits, permissions, and accountability.
See: Mills Review Response Targets AI Execution Barriers
Example: A customer could authorize an agent to purchase a specific ETF under preset conditions, apply position limits, avoid leverage, stop trading after a certain loss threshold, and require additional approval for larger transactions.
This approach may appeal to regulators, brokers, and investors because it preserves accountability while reducing friction.
- The customer remains responsible for the permission
- The broker remains responsible for supervision and execution
- The AI assistant operates within defined limits
What Happens When Every Agent Uses Similar Logic
The benefits are easy to understand. AI agents can monitor markets continuously, enforce risk rules consistently, compare opportunities quickly, and reduce emotional decision making.
The risks are less obvious. If millions of investors eventually rely on similar models, data sources, prompts, and optimization goals, market behaviour could become more concentrated. Markets already experience crowding through index investing, quantitative strategies, and algorithmic trading. Agentic investing could introduce a new version of the same challenge if many systems begin reaching similar conclusions at the same time.
See: MoonPay Acquires Dawn Labs For AI Trading
The concern is that a large number of investors could end up acting through similar decision frameworks without fully realizing it. A model that works well for one investor may create new market risks when millions of investors use similar prompts, data sources, and optimization rules. The result could be more crowded trades, sharper reversals, and less diversity in market decision making.
Brokers May Compete For Agent Connectivity
If AI assistants become the place where investors start financial decisions, brokers lose some control over the customer interface and relationship.
Distribution changes and brokers may need to prove itself to the AI systems that sit between customers and financial products.
That creates a different kind of competition. Brokers may be forced to compete on permission controls, API reliability, execution quality, and audit records as much as interface design.
The broker with the most reliable AI integrations may win more order flow than the broker with the best looking app.
Canada Should Focus On Accountability Early
Canada's discussions around consumer driven banking, digital identity, AI governance, retail payment oversight, and securities regulation all intersect here. If AI assistants become a gateway to investing, accountability becomes more important than automation.
See: AI Agents Enter Governed Financial Workflows
Who approved the instruction? What permissions were granted? What limits were applied? What records were created? Who supervised the activity? Those questions are more important than whether the interaction started in a brokerage app or a chatbot.
Current securities rules already apply to firms using AI, and AI is creating new audit and authorization questions for financial firms. The harder challenge is determining how responsibility should be shared when AI systems increasingly participate in financial decisions and transaction workflows.
Liquid's launch doesn't answer those questions, but it provides an early look at where the industry may be heading.
Talking Point
If AI assistants become the primary place where investors research markets, compare opportunities, and initiate transactions, will brokers compete for customers or compete for connectivity to the agents representing those customers?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Accounts Receivable Financing: A Practical Guide for Cash-Strapped Businesses
June 1, 2026
Image: Unsplash/Vladimir Solomianyi
For many small and mid-sized businesses, the gap between sending an invoice and receiving payment is one of the biggest threats to daily operations and steady growth.
Even when sales are healthy on paper, waiting 30, 60, or even 90 days for customers to pay can quickly drain working capital and stall planned investments.
Accounts receivable financing has emerged as a popular solution to this familiar problem, offering immediate access to cash that is otherwise locked up in unpaid invoices.
This guide explains how the model works, what types of arrangements exist, what they typically cost, and which businesses stand to benefit the most.
What Is Accounts Receivable Financing?
The Core Concept
Accounts receivable financing, often abbreviated as AR financing, is a short-term funding method that allows businesses to access cash based on the value of their outstanding invoices.
A finance company advances a percentage of those invoices upfront, allowing the business to cover operational expenses while it waits for customers to pay.
The arrangement essentially converts a slow-moving asset into immediate working capital without the long approval timelines of a traditional bank loan.
This is particularly valuable for businesses that sell on net terms and routinely face cash flow gaps between delivery and payment.
How It Differs From a Traditional Loan
Unlike a standard business loan, AR financing is secured directly against the value of unpaid invoices rather than broader business assets.
Approval focuses heavily on the creditworthiness of the customers who owe the invoices rather than the borrowing business itself.
This distinction means that companies with limited credit history or imperfect balance sheets may still qualify if their customer base is consistently strong and reliable.
Because the funding is tied directly to existing receivables, many providers do not classify it as traditional debt on the balance sheet.
How Accounts Receivable Financing Works
Image: Unsplash/Scott Graham
The Application and Underwriting Process
To apply for AR financing, a business typically shares details about its accounts receivable, including aging reports, customer payment history, and the face value of outstanding invoices.
The lender then evaluates the quality of those receivables, the reliability of the customers, and the applicant's overall financial health.
Approval timelines vary widely depending on the type of provider chosen for the financing arrangement.
Traditional banks often take a week or longer due to extensive underwriting requirements, while specialized online lenders can sometimes approve and fund applications within 24 hours of submission.
The Advance and Settlement Phase
Once approved, the business receives an upfront advance that usually falls between 70 and 95 percent of the eligible invoice value, with the remainder held in reserve.
After the customer pays the invoice, the lender releases the held-back balance minus any agreed-upon fees.
If the financing is structured as an asset sale, the lender also takes responsibility for collecting payment directly from the customer.
If it is structured as a loan, the business continues to manage collections and simply repays the advance once the invoice clears.
The Four Main Types of AR Financing
The market is served by a wide variety of lenders, and businesses comparing account receivable financing companies will encounter several distinct product structures.
Understanding the differences between these structures is essential to choosing the right fit for a given business model and cash flow pattern.
Invoice Factoring
Invoice factoring is the most well-known form, where a business sells its unpaid invoices to a third-party factor at a discount.
The factor then takes over collection duties and assumes the day-to-day relationship with the customer for payment purposes.
This option suits businesses that want to outsource collections entirely and accept slightly higher fees in exchange for that operational convenience.
It works particularly well in industries like transportation, staffing, and manufacturing, where invoicing volume is high, consistent, and often spread across many customers.
Invoice Discounting
Invoice discounting works similarly to factoring but allows the business to retain full control of customer collections and communications.
The unpaid invoices serve as collateral for a cash advance, while the business continues to manage payment reminders confidentially and on its own terms.
This structure appeals to businesses that prefer to keep their financing arrangements private and outside the awareness of their customers.
It is also a good choice for companies with established credit control processes and trusted client relationships that they do not want to disrupt.
Asset-Based Lending
Asset-based lending, often called ABL, is a broader financing solution that allows a business to secure a line of credit or loan against multiple types of assets.
Accounts receivable can be combined with inventory, equipment, or other tangible assets to expand the borrowing base.
This structure is particularly useful for larger businesses with diverse asset pools and ongoing working capital needs throughout the year.
It also offers more flexibility than a single-purpose factoring agreement when funding requirements fluctuate significantly with seasonal or project-based demand.
Selective Receivables Financing
Selective receivables financing lets a business choose which specific invoices to fund rather than committing the entire sales ledger.
This gives owners precise control over how much they borrow, which customer relationships are involved, and when the financing is needed.
It is well-suited to companies that only need occasional cash flow support rather than a continuous funding facility.
Many growing businesses use it to manage seasonal demand spikes, large one-off opportunities, or unexpected expenses without locking themselves into longer commitments.
Costs and Fees to Expect
The primary cost of AR financing is the factoring or financing fee, which typically ranges between 1 and 5 percent of the invoice value.
The exact percentage depends on factors such as invoice age, customer creditworthiness, total volume, and industry risk profile.
Other potential costs can include set-up fees, administrative service charges, and interest on outstanding advances when the arrangement is structured as a loan.
Effective annual rates often fall between 15 and 35 percent, which makes AR financing relatively expensive compared with traditional bank loans but far more accessible.
Who Benefits Most From AR Financing
Businesses that sell to other businesses on net 30 to net 90 terms typically gain the most from this type of arrangement.
Industries with predictable invoicing patterns, such as construction, transportation, staffing, healthcare, manufacturing, and professional services, are especially well represented among AR financing users.
Companies that struggle to qualify for traditional bank loans often find AR financing more accessible because approval rests largely on customer credit rather than the business owner's own credit profile.
Fast-growing firms also use it to bridge the gap between aggressive expansion and slower-paying customers without taking on long-term debt.
Conclusion
Accounts receivable financing offers a practical and increasingly mainstream way for businesses to unlock cash that is otherwise trapped in unpaid invoices.
With several product structures, advanced rates between 70 and 95 percent, and approval criteria centred on customer credit rather than the business itself, it provides a level of flexibility that traditional lending cannot easily match.
See: Reg CF At 10 Shows Equity Crowdfunding Works
Before signing any agreement, business owners should compare providers carefully, read all fee schedules, and confirm whether the arrangement uses recourse or non-recourse terms.
Done well, AR financing can stabilize cash flow, support steady growth, and remove much of the stress that comes with waiting for slow-paying customers.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Saris Raises $28.8M USD For Bank AI Workflows
June 1, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing
Bank AI Workflow Automation With Real Lending Proof
On May 28, 2026, Saris announced a $28.8M USD Series A to scale its agentic workflow platform for banks and credit unions. 8VC led the round, with participation from Audacious Ventures, Homebrew, Btech Consortium, and Service Ventures. Saris builds AI agents for lending, compliance, and operations, where financial institutions still spend staff time on document review, data validation, exception handling, and repetitive back office work.
Saris is a Canadian and US based AI fintech, not a Canada only vendor. The company’s hiring page describes a Canada and US hiring footprint, with hybrid workspace options in Montréal, Toronto, and San Francisco. This affects the business model. Saris can draw from Canadian AI and fintech talent while selling into the larger US banking market, where 8VC and enterprise partners can help open doors.
See: National Bank Adds Sardine For Fraud Controls
The Canadian link also sits in the founder story. Danial Jameel, Alice Dinu, and James Dang previously built Oohlala Mobile, later Ready Education, which Y Combinator lists in its Summer 2016 batch with a Montréal location. That history gives Saris a stronger base than a typical first time AI startup. Selling workflow software into regulated institutions takes trust, implementation discipline, and patience.
Saris now has more capital to compete in the US banking market, deepen integrations with Fiserv, Encompass, and MeridianLink, and grow the team that trains and deploys its AI agents. The strategic question for Canada is how much of that growth, talent, and customer expansion stays connected to the domestic fintech ecosystem.
How Saris Automates Lending And Compliance Work
Saris trains agents on each institution’s workflows and systems, then applies them to repeatable tasks across lending and operations under human supervision. Based on company reported figures, Saris’ agentic workflows automate up to 70% of consumer, mortgage, and commercial lending tasks and reduce costs by up to 35%. The platform also more than doubles output without adding headcount.
MeridianLink’s partner page says Saris works directly inside MeridianLink to automate document review, field validation, discrepancy remediation, post closing QA, and fraud alert resolution across consumer lending, DL4, and quality control workflows. MeridianLink also reports 99.8% field accuracy, 10x faster file review, and 3x underwriter and loan officer capacity, with one customer clearing a 600 loan backlog in four days.
Saris Against nCino, thirdstream, And Boss Insights
So how does Saris stack up to competitors. Its target market extends beyond Canadian financial institutions, and its product fits banks and credit unions that already use systems such as Fiserv, Encompass, and MeridianLink.
US founded nCino brings global platform scale. More than 2,700 customers globally use nCino’s platform, including enterprise banks, regional banks, community banks, credit unions, challenger banks, building societies, and independent mortgage banks. That scale gives nCino a distribution advantage with institutions that want a broad cloud banking platform across lending, account opening, portfolio workflows, and customer engagement.
See: Credit Unions Build Shared Digital Banking Scale
Saris does not need to replace the full operating platform. Its opening is file review, document checks, exception handling, and throughput inside systems institutions already use. That gives Saris a more focused sale where banks and credit unions already run core platforms or loan origination systems but still rely on staff to clear repetitive work.
Canadian based thirdstream is more domestic and onboarding focused. More than 50 financial institutions use thirdstream’s onboarding platform, including banks, credit unions, brokerages, and trust companies. Its strength is in Canadian account origination, identity verification, automated decisioning, real time account funding, and document management.
Toronto based Boss Insights sits closer to lending data infrastructure. Its platform gives financial institutions business lending data infrastructure across accounting, sales, banking, payroll, tax, analytics, monitoring, and customer portal capabilities. Boss Insights lists 1 API and 1,000 plus integrations, which places it closer to open finance, borrower data, and commercial lending intelligence than Saris’ document and workflow automation layer.
Saris looks strongest where banks and credit unions want targeted AI automation without a full platform replacement. Saris can draw from Canadian talent and a Montréal founder history while selling into larger US banking budgets. The question is whether customer relationships, implementation teams, and product leadership stay connected to Canada as the company grows.
Danial Jameel, cofounder and CEO of Saris:
“Our vision is a future where humans and AI work side by side in financial services.”
Talking Point
Saris’ raise shows financial AI moving into the parts of banking where cost, controls, and customer turnaround times get measured. AI can lower operating costs, but financial firms still need evidence that models remain fair, secure, monitored, and accountable. That operating pressure also runs through AI compliance and governance costs.
Should Canadian AI funding and fintech policy focus more on regulated proof points inside banks, credit unions, payments, lending, compliance, and capital markets rather than broad AI adoption metrics?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
NCFA Weekly Fintech Intelligence May 23-29, 2026
May 29, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer Weekly Intelligence | Payments And Market Infrastructure, Artificial Intelligence And Data, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026, March 7-13, 2026, March 14-20, 2026, March 21-27, 2026, March 28-April 3, 2026, April 4-10, 2026, April 11-17, 2026, April 18-24, 2026, April 25-May 1, 2026, May 2-8, 2026, May 9-15, 2026, May 16-22, 2026).
Weekly Fintech Market Intelligence May 23 - 29, 2026
Artificial Intelligence And Data
UK ICO Plans AI And Agentic Systems Guidance
May 27, 2026, United Kingdom
- The ICO says it will develop an AI and ADM statutory code of practice to clarify data protection requirements for organizations developing and deploying AI systems.
- The regulator will publish guidance on how agentic AI systems can comply with UK GDPR.
- The ICO also plans public guidance on personal data use in AI tools and transparency resources for SMEs and public bodies procuring cloud based AI services.
AI compliance is moving from broad principles into operating guidance for agents, automated decisions, procurement, and personal data use. Fintechs, banks, insurers, regtech firms, and AI vendors should track how privacy rules shape AI product design, governance, and customer trust.
Payments And Market Infrastructure
Bank Of Canada Joins BIS Project Agorá Wholesale Settlement Tests
May 27, 2026, Canada
- The Bank of Canada joins the next phase of BIS Project Agorá after the project tested wholesale cross border settlement using tokenized commercial bank deposits and wholesale central bank money.
- The BIS published a 97 page Project Agorá report covering unified ledger design, programmable settlement logic, liquidity coordination, and atomic settlement testing across jurisdictions.
- The project involves the BIS Innovation Hub, seven central banks, and major private financial institutions testing whether tokenized deposits and wholesale central bank money can improve cross border payment efficiency.
- The Bank of Canada says the next phase will test how the model performs with real value transactions and more complex settlement scenarios.
Project Agorá's focus is not retail crypto speculation. It is wholesale financial infrastructure, cross border settlement efficiency, programmable payments, and institutional control over tokenized money movement. Go deeper, visit NCFA's curated fintech reports and research library, where the BIS Project Agorá report is listed.
Fed Proposes Limited Payment Accounts For Eligible Firms
May 26, 2026, United States
- The Federal Reserve requests comment on special purpose Payment Accounts for legally eligible institutions to clear and settle certain payment activity through Reserve Bank accounts.
- The proposal would update the Payment System Risk Policy and Account Access Guidelines, with Payment Accounts separate from full Master Accounts.
- Payment Accounts would include tighter controls, including no intraday credit, no discount window access, no interest on balances, limited services, and balance limits generally capped at $1B.
- The Fed discusses use cases raised by commenters including stablecoin reserve operations, tokenized securities settlement, tokenized assets, pay by bank checkout, B2B transfers, instant wages, refunds, and the U.S. dollar leg of cross border transactions.
- Comments are due by July 27, 2026 under Docket No. OP-1878.
This is not open access to the Fed system. It is a narrower settlement pathway for legally eligible firms operating outside the traditional bank model. Stablecoin issuers, PSPs, crypto firms, tokenization platforms, and embedded finance providers should track whether limited Reserve Bank account access becomes a practical alternative to sponsor bank dependence. This connects to NCFA’s analysis of Fed Payment Accounts and fintech settlement access.
Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization
Open Transaction Layer Launches For Onchain Finance
May 28, 2026, United States
- Open Transaction Layer launches as an industry initiative for identity, messaging, and transaction coordination across onchain finance.
- Founding participants include Fireblocks, Checkout.com, Cross River Bank, MetaMask, Robinhood, Securitize, SoFi, Stellar Development Foundation, Solana Foundation, and others.
- The initiative targets coordination between institutions, wallets, protocols, and agents as tokenized finance and onchain payments become more complex.
Onchain finance needs shared coordination standards before institutional adoption can scale cleanly. Banks, wallets, PSPs, exchanges, tokenization platforms, and agentic payment builders should track whether identity, messaging, and transaction standards become competitive infrastructure rather than optional middleware.
Mastercard Receives New York BitLicense
May 27, 2026, United States
- Mastercard receives a New York BitLicense from the New York State Department of Financial Services.
- The approval expands Mastercard’s regulated digital asset permissions in New York, one of the strictest U.S. state licensing regimes for virtual currency activity.
- Mastercard says the licence supports its work across digital assets, stablecoins, and tokenized settlement services.
Large payment networks are adding regulated digital asset permissions to support stablecoin, tokenized settlement, and digital asset infrastructure at institutional scale. Banks, PSPs, exchanges, custodians, and fintech platforms should track which firms secure licences that let crypto services connect with mainstream payment networks.
SoFi Brings Bank Issued Stablecoin To 15 Million Members
May 27, 2026, United States
- SoFi says nearly 15 million members can now buy, sell, hold, and convert SoFiUSD directly inside the SoFi app.
- SoFiUSD becomes the first stablecoin issued by a U.S. national bank to launch on a banking platform.
- The stablecoin is issued by SoFi Bank, N.A. and is designed as a fully reserved, 1:1 redeemable U.S. dollar stablecoin operating on public blockchains.
- SoFi says upcoming features include blockchain based international transfers and conversion into interest bearing tokenized deposits.
Stablecoins are moving deeper into consumer banking distribution, not just crypto infrastructure. Banks, fintechs, PSPs, and regulators should watch whether regulated bank issued stablecoins begin competing directly with cards, deposits, remittance products, and embedded payment flows. Also supports this analysis of stablecoins becoming payment infrastructure.
Tether Plans Georgian Lari Stablecoin With Government Support
May 25, 2026, Georgia
- Tether says it plans to launch GEL₮, a stablecoin representing the Georgian lari, with support from the Government of Georgia.
- Reuters reports Tether did not clarify the exact structure of the partnership or whether the initiative would amount to a central bank digital currency.
- The initiative targets digital payments, cross border commerce, remittances, and fintech development using regulated digital fiat infrastructure.
National currency stablecoins are expanding beyond major economies. Stablecoin issuers, banks, PSPs, regulators, and treasury teams should track how smaller jurisdictions use digital fiat infrastructure to compete for payment flows, fintech investment, and cross border settlement.
Regulation And Policy
SEC Proposes Rescinding Climate Disclosure Rules
May 29, 2026, United States
- The SEC proposes rescinding its 2024 climate related disclosure rules in full.
- The Commission says the rules exceed its statutory authority, conflict with a materiality based disclosure model, and impose costs not justified by their expected informational benefits.
- The 2024 rules had been stayed since April 2024 during litigation and never took effect.
- Public comments will run for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Climate disclosure is moving back toward company specific materiality rather than a dedicated SEC climate reporting regime. Public companies, fintech lenders, ESG data providers, regtech firms, investors, and capital markets platforms should track how climate risk reporting moves across U.S. federal rules, state rules, EU requirements, and voluntary investor expectations.
OCC Approves United Texas Bank National Charter Conversion
May 28, 2026, United States
- The OCC grants conditional approval for United Texas Bank to convert from a Texas state chartered bank into a national bank.
- The approval brings the bank under OCC supervision and includes conditions tied to governance, risk management, compliance, and Bank Secrecy Act controls.
- The charter conversion matters for firms watching how banks with digital asset, correspondent banking, and settlement ambitions move into federal supervision.
Bank charter strategy is becoming part of digital asset and payment infrastructure competition. Banks, fintechs, stablecoin firms, custodians, and compliance teams should track which institutions secure federal supervision, stronger operating permissions, and clearer access to national banking infrastructure.
France Warns Crypto Firms Ahead Of MiCA Deadline
May 28, 2026, France
- Reuters reports France’s markets regulator warned crypto firms they could face blacklisting and prosecution if they operate without EU authorization after the end of June.
- The warning raises the compliance stakes for crypto firms relying on transition periods under MiCA.
- The deadline affects market access for crypto asset service providers operating across EU jurisdictions.
MiCA is moving from licensing theory into enforcement risk. Crypto exchanges, custodians, wallet providers, brokers, and compliance teams should treat EU authorization, local regulator engagement, and operating perimeter checks as immediate market access priorities.
Spain Blocks Polymarket And Kalshi Over Gambling Licences
May 26, 2026, Spain
- Spain’s Consumer Rights Ministry temporarily blocks access to prediction market platforms Polymarket and Kalshi while regulators investigate whether the firms violated Spanish gambling law.
- Reuters reports Spanish authorities said both platforms operated without the administrative gambling licences required under national rules.
- The action includes disciplinary proceedings and ISP level access blocks expected to remain in place during the investigation period.
Prediction markets are moving deeper into conflict with gambling, derivatives, and securities frameworks. Exchanges, fintechs, tokenization firms, and prediction market operators should expect more pressure around licensing, market surveillance, consumer protection, and jurisdictional authority as these platforms expand globally.
U.S. Trade Chief Says Tariffs May Stay Under USMCA
May 26, 2026, United States
- Reuters reports U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said tariffs on some USMCA trading partners may remain even after the agreement comes under review.
- Greer said the United States has “significant issues” with Canada, while also saying there is room to work with both Canada and Mexico.
- The remarks add pressure to the 2026 USMCA review process as Canada faces renewed uncertainty around cross border trade, investment, manufacturing, and supply chains.
USMCA risk is now back inside Canada’s competitiveness file. Fintech lenders, payment firms, investors, marketplaces, and platforms serving SMEs should watch how tariff uncertainty affects customer margins, capital demand, foreign exchange exposure, supplier payments, and cross border expansion.
UK Targets Russian Crypto Networks In New Sanctions Package
May 26, 2026, United Kingdom
- The UK government announces new sanctions targeting Russian illicit finance and sanctions evasion networks.
- The package includes crypto and financial infrastructure used to move funds through backdoor routes around sanctions.
- The action adds pressure on exchanges, PSPs, compliance providers, banks, and blockchain analytics firms monitoring cross border sanctions exposure.
Crypto sanctions enforcement now reaches deeper into financial infrastructure networks, not just individual wallets or isolated actors. Exchanges, custodians, PSPs, banks, compliance teams, and blockchain monitoring firms should expect more scrutiny around transaction tracing, counterparty checks, and sanctions controls tied to digital asset flows.
ESMA Consults On CSDR Messaging Protocol Updates
May 26, 2026, Europe
- ESMA opens consultation on amendments to its guidelines for standardised procedures and messaging protocols under CSDR.
- The consultation targets post trading operations for investment firms, credit institutions, central securities depositories, CSD participants, and professional clients.
- Comments are due by July 7, 2026.
Post trading rules are becoming more important as Europe modernizes settlement operations, CSD messaging, and market infrastructure controls. CSDs, brokers, banks, custodians, tokenization platforms, and compliance teams should track how messaging standards affect settlement efficiency, operational risk, and future market infrastructure integration.
Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
Paxos Receives SEC Clearing Agency Registration
May 28, 2026, United States
- Paxos says Paxos Securities Settlement Company received SEC clearing agency registration under Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act.
- The registration allows PSSC to provide clearing and settlement services as a central securities depository in the United States.
- Paxos says PSSC is the only blockchain native firm approved as a registered clearing agency for this role.
Blockchain based settlement is moving into formal U.S. market infrastructure permissions. Brokers, custodians, tokenization platforms, exchanges, and asset managers should track how SEC registered clearing models affect securities settlement, custody design, and tokenized market structure.
Cash App Investing Selects Apex For Clearing Infrastructure
May 28, 2026, United States
- Cash App Investing names Apex Ascend as its strategic clearing platform for millions of retail investors.
- Apex will support custody, clearing, trading infrastructure, and future product expansion through AscendOS.
- Cash App serves more than 59 million monthly transacting actives, making the clearing transition a mainstream fintech infrastructure event.
Retail investing scale increasingly depends on back end clearing and custody infrastructure. Fintech platforms, brokers, clearing firms, embedded finance providers, and regulators should track how large consumer apps choose clearing partners that can support faster launches, broader products, and stronger operational controls.
Conclusion
This week was less about crypto adoption and more about who gets trusted access to the pipes. The Fed tested a narrow settlement account, Paxos received SEC clearing agency registration, Mastercard secured a BitLicense, SoFi launched a bank issued stablecoin, and Project Agorá moved wholesale tokenized settlement into deeper testing. The fresh lesson is that access is becoming tiered. Firms won’t all get the same rails, licences, or settlement rights.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets, subscribe to NCFA weekly newsletter updates, view a rundown of current fintech news and insights, or dive into the latest fintech industry research.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Is AI Creating A New Compliance Burden?
AI Adoption Brings New Governance And Oversight Costs
Last Updated: May 29, 2026
Status: Strengthening
Organizations: Bank of Canada, FCA, APRA, UK Parliament Treasury Committee, European Council, Microsoft, Google, Mastercard, Florida Attorney General
The answer is yes, but the burden is not only regulatory paperwork. AI is creating new costs around model governance, board oversight, vendor control, data quality, fraud prevention, customer fairness, audit trails, human review, and incident response. Financial firms can still gain productivity and better customer service, but the cost of using AI responsibly is rising.
- AI adoption in finance is accelerating, which means risk teams must now manage model behaviour, data access, explainability, consumer outcomes, and third party controls.
- Regulators are not banning AI. They are asking firms to prove that AI use remains safe, fair, monitored, accountable, and resilient.
- The tradeoff is practical. Firms that avoid AI may fall behind, but firms that deploy it without controls may create legal, conduct, operational, and fraud exposure.
This is why the AI finance question is no longer just about productivity. NCFA analyzed this tension in AI spending and workforce cost resets. The same pressure now extends into compliance. If AI lowers cost per decision, firms still need to prove those decisions remain fair, secure, monitored, and accountable.
It is about whether firms can use AI at scale without losing control. The compliance burden grows when AI starts impacting decisions, communications, onboarding, payments, fraud detection, research, advice, and customer journeys.
That control problem becomes even more acute in AI payments and liability, where consent, authorization, and accountability need to work before autonomous transactions can scale.
The firms to watch are the ones that can turn AI controls into operating discipline. That means clear ownership, tested models, clean data, human escalation, vendor oversight, audit evidence, and governance that works before a regulator asks for proof.
Strategic Takeaway
AI can lower costs and improve service, but it also raises the control bar. The strongest financial firms will not be the ones that use AI everywhere. They will be the ones that know where AI belongs, where humans stay accountable, and how to prove the system works.
Market Evidence
Click each item to expand
1. Bank Of Canada Links AI To Productivity And Risk (May 2026, Canada) ⓘ
The Bank of Canada says AI may support productivity growth, but financial firms still need to manage model risk, job changes, data quality, cyber exposure, and financial stability concerns.
- The Bank frames AI as a major productivity opportunity for Canada.
- The analysis connects AI adoption with firm level execution, labour market effects, cyber risk, and financial stability questions.
- This gives the compliance burden direct Canadian relevance because AI adoption is no longer a side project for financial firms.
Source
2. FCA Tests AI In Live Financial Workflows (Apr 2026, United Kingdom) ⓘ
The FCA selected eight firms for its second AI Live Testing cohort, including Barclays, Experian, Lloyds Banking Group, and UBS. The focus is safe and responsible deployment, not AI experimentation in isolation.
- The FCA says the cohort will test AI applications in live financial services contexts.
- The firms include major banks, data firms, wealth platforms, and payment related businesses.
- The burden for firms is practical: document use cases, controls, monitoring, outcomes, and escalation before AI becomes embedded in customer or risk workflows.
Source
3. Agentic Payments Add Authorization And Audit Demands (Oct 2025, Global) ⓘ
Mastercard’s Agent Pay Acceptance Framework shows why AI creates a new control layer in payments. If an AI agent can help initiate or complete a transaction, firms need controls over identity, authorization, tokenized credentials, consent, limits, and disputes.
- Mastercard says the framework helps merchants recognize trusted AI agents and accept secure tokenized transactions.
- Agentic payments introduce new questions about who authorized a transaction and how a firm proves that authorization.
- Payment firms will need stronger audit trails as AI agents become part of checkout, commerce, and customer decision flows.
Source
4. Microsoft Frames AI Security As A Control Stack (Dec 2025, United States) ⓘ
Microsoft says financial firms need to embed governance and security into AI transformation. This includes identity based access, audit trails, adaptive risk controls, and monitoring.
- Microsoft calls identity based access, audit trails, and adaptive risk controls non negotiable for financial services AI.
- Its AI security guidance also emphasizes monitoring for misuse, anomalous behaviour, bypass attempts, and harmful outputs.
- This turns AI governance into an everyday operational burden for security, compliance, technology, and risk teams.
5. AI Research Agents Raise Traceability Requirements (May 2026, United States) ⓘ
Google’s Gemini Deep Research Agent can plan, execute, and synthesize multi step research tasks. That kind of tool is useful in finance, but it raises questions about source quality, review, recordkeeping, and responsibility for output.
- Google says the agent produces detailed cited reports and can connect to external tools.
- Research agents can support financial analysis, market monitoring, due diligence, and customer support.
- Financial firms still need human review, source traceability, privacy controls, and evidence that AI generated content was checked before use.
Source
Policy Evidence
Click each item to expand
6. APRA Calls For A Step Change In AI Risk Governance (Apr 2026, Australia) ⓘ
APRA told industry it is finalizing its forward plan for AI supervision and will continue monitoring AI use for prudential risks. This is a clear sign that AI governance is entering prudential oversight.
- APRA says it will use reviews, thematic activity, and AI supplier engagement.
- The focus includes prudential risks from AI adoption, not only consumer facing harms.
- Boards and senior leaders should expect more scrutiny of AI literacy, vendor reliance, fallback planning, and operational resilience.
Source
7. UK Parliament Warns AI Adoption Is Outpacing Readiness (Jan 2026, United Kingdom) ⓘ
The UK Parliament Treasury Committee reported that 75% of UK financial services firms use AI and called for clearer regulatory direction. That makes the compliance burden visible at sector scale.
- The report says the financial services sector substantially outpaces other sectors in AI adoption.
- It identifies risks around transparency, consumers, financial stability, fraud, cybersecurity, and dependence on major technology providers.
- For firms, the message is direct: AI use now requires stronger governance before problems become public or systemic.
Source
8. EU AI Act Changes Give Firms More Time But Not A Free Pass (May 2026, European Union) ⓘ
The Council and European Parliament agreed to simplify and streamline parts of the AI Act timeline. Even with timing relief, firms still need to prepare for high risk AI obligations, synthetic content rules, documentation, and governance requirements.
- The agreement keeps the AI Act compliance framework in place while adjusting implementation timing.
- Regulated firms gain more time, but not exemption from accountability.
- Financial firms operating in or serving Europe need to map AI use cases, data sources, controls, and oversight responsibilities now.
Source
9. FCA Warns AI Can Increase Fraud And Manipulation Risk (Jan 2026, United Kingdom) ⓘ
The FCA’s Mills Review call for input said AI may enable more sophisticated financial crime, fraud, and manipulation. That makes AI a compliance and fraud control issue, not only a technology choice.
- The FCA says bad actors will exploit the same technological advances that support innovation.
- Firms and regulators face new challenges in detecting, preventing, and mitigating harm.
- Retail finance firms should expect more pressure around monitoring, fraud analytics, disclosures, and customer protection controls.
Source
10. Criminal Probe Shows AI Recordkeeping Risk Is Rising (Apr 2026, United States) ⓘ
Florida’s Attorney General opened a criminal investigation into OpenAI related to ChatGPT and the Florida State University shooting. The facts are outside financial services, but the compliance lesson is relevant for any firm deploying AI into high risk workflows.
- The investigation seeks records about safeguards, threats, and crime reporting policies.
- The case shows why firms need clear logs, escalation rules, and evidence of safety controls.
- Financial firms using AI in fraud, advice, credit, onboarding, or customer communications should expect similar questions if AI output contributes to harm.
Source
Do you agree the evidence is strengthening?
3
Explore Trending Questions
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
