Canada enters the second half of 2026 with two pieces of payment infrastructure arriving at once. The Real-Time Rail is scheduled to go live in the fourth quarter, and the regulations underpinning consumer-driven banking were published in the Canada Gazette in June. Both have been discussed for the better part of a decade. Neither has yet changed how a Canadian consumer actually pays for something online.
That gap between framework and behaviour matters more than either announcement. The most recent full picture of Canadian payment behaviour comes from Payments Canada's Canadian Payment Methods and Trends report, published in October 2025 and covering 2024, which counted 22.5 billion retail payment transactions worth $12.2 trillion. The market grew three per cent in both volume and value year over year. Over five years, volume rose nine per cent and value 22 per cent.
Some of the sharpest movement in that behaviour is happening in sectors where account-to-account transfer is already the preferred rail, regulated online gambling among them. Swiper online casino Canada, a casino and sportsbook brand launched into the Canadian market in 2025 and available across the country outside Ontario, is a useful illustration: it runs thousands of casino, live dealer and sports betting titles from providers such as NetEnt, Microgaming and Evolution, and lists Interac e-Transfer alongside Visa and Mastercard for deposits and withdrawals, with limits from $25 to $10,000 and e-Transfer identified as the fastest payout route for Canadian players. It is referenced here as a working example of how e-Transfer is being used commercially, which is the shift the rest of this article examines.
The card baseline has not moved much
Cards remain the substrate. Credit cards accounted for 33 per cent of total payment volume in 2024 and debit for 30 per cent, so the two together carried 63 per cent of everything. Electronic funds transfer took 14 per cent and cash 11 per cent.
Credit card volume reached 7.5 billion transactions, a six per cent increase, against 112 million cards in circulation, up five per cent. Digital payments made up 86 per cent of total volume and contactless 58 per cent of transactions.
Those proportions have held steady long enough that outright displacement of cards looks like the wrong thing to watch for. The narrower question tells you more. Which transaction types move first, and what makes them move, is already visible in a handful of categories.
What Interac e-Transfer became
The clearest answer so far is e-Transfer. It stopped being a person-to-person convenience some time ago. Interac's own figures for its 2025 fiscal year record 1.6 billion e-Transfer transactions, with a single-month record of 149 million in October 2025. Business Request Money passed 160 million transactions, an 81 per cent year-over-year increase, which is the number that matters most for commercial adoption.
Interac Debit ran to seven billion transactions in the same period, including 1.8 billion mobile transactions and an all-time monthly high of 638 million in August 2025.
Payments Canada data puts the longer arc in context. Online transfers grew 175 per cent in volume and 219 per cent in value across five years, though the growth rate itself has been declining, which points to a service approaching maturity rather than one still finding its market.
The Real-Time Rail lands in Q4
Payments Canada confirmed that the RTR By-law and RTR Rules received all necessary approvals and come into force on 24 August 2026, with the system itself scheduled to launch in the fourth quarter. The by-law has been published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.
The RTR carries ISO 20022 messaging and settles irrevocably, around the clock. The practical consequence is that data can travel with the payment, which is what makes richer reconciliation and request-to-pay flows possible. Irrevocability also shifts the risk model. Cards provide a chargeback mechanism and the RTR does not, so fraud controls have to sit in front of the payment rather than behind it, and that changes what a payment service provider has to build before it can offer the rail to anyone.
Membership has broadened ahead of launch, with Wise, KOHO, Float, Paramount Commerce and Brim Financial joining as payment service provider members.
Consumer-driven banking has a framework and no date
The Consumer-Driven Banking Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I on 27 June 2026. Responsibility for implementation and oversight is delegated to the Bank of Canada, which is a change from the earlier position placing the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada in that role.
Scope covers deposit accounts, payment products, investment accounts and lending accounts, across consumer profile data, account data and product data. Derived data, meaning enhanced information carrying additional commercial value, is excluded. Participation runs in three tiers: large banks above a retail volume threshold are mandated, other federally regulated entities may opt in, and payment service providers, fintechs and provincially regulated institutions may participate through accreditation.
Phase one is limited to read access. Write access, meaning payment initiation and account switching, is anticipated later.
The published regulations do not state an implementation date, which matters for anyone planning against this. Commentary through 2026 has variously placed phase one in early 2026 and pushed it later, and the Bank of Canada has not committed publicly to a launch. It is also worth being clear that read access without write access produces better data rather than a new payment method. The payment capability arrives with phase two, and phase two depends on the RTR being live and broadly reachable.
Where account-to-account demand is already concentrated
Ahead of any of that, demand for account-to-account payment is not evenly spread. It concentrates in categories where card acceptance is restricted, where chargeback exposure is high, or where payout speed is itself a competitive feature.
Regulated online gambling is the clearest Canadian example of all three at once. In its third year of operation, iGaming Ontario reported total wagers of $82.7 billion and gaming revenue of $3.2 billion for the year to 31 March 2025, increases of 31 and 32 per cent respectively, with casino products accounting for $69.6 billion of the wagering. Operators in the segment lean heavily on e-Transfer in both directions, using it for both deposits and withdrawals and typically presenting it as the fastest payout option for Canadian players.
That pattern is worth watching because it is where the RTR's value proposition will be tested first. Sectors already paying an operational premium for speed are the ones with a reason to move early, and their volumes are large enough to matter.
What changes for merchants
For most Canadian merchants the honest near-term answer is: not much, yet. The RTR launches in phases, banks are required to receive but not initially to send, and customer-facing services are optional in the early stages. Until sending capability is widespread, most consumers will never encounter it.
The medium-term shift is in cost structure rather than user experience. Account-to-account payment removes interchange. It also removes the economics that fund card rewards programs, and Canadian attachment to those programs is not trivial, with 112 million cards in circulation representing a substantial installed base of habit. Displacement is likelier to begin in bill payment, high-value purchases and payouts than in everyday retail.
The infrastructure question in Canada has largely been answered. What remains is distribution, and that is a slower problem.
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
```html August 18, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Digital Assets
Wallet Delegation, Spending Limits And Machine Payments
On August 18, 2026, Amazon Web Services made AgentCore Payments generally available, taking the capability from its May preview into production. AI agents can now encounter paid APIs, services accessed through Model Context Protocol (MCP), or other digital resources during a workflow and initiate payment through infrastructure that connects spending controls with external wallets.
AWS can enforce how much an agent is allowed to spend and for how long, manage access to wallet providers and coordinate the payment from inside the same infrastructure used to run the agent. Coinbase or Stripe's Privy provides the wallet, while external providers and blockchain networks handle signing, verification and settlement.
AWS isn't taking custody of customer money. It is taking a position earlier in the transaction, where software determines whether it has permission to buy something and which payment connection to use. That puts payment authority closer to the AI execution layer.
GA Adds More Ways For Agents To Pay During A Task
AgentCore Payments already supported Coinbase and Privy wallets, spending controls and x402 payments during preview. General availability adds the Machine Payments Protocol (MPP), easier Coinbase wallet setup, improved discovery of paid x402 services and an x402 pricing option called upto.
The upto model is designed for services whose final cost isn't known before use. An agent can approve a maximum amount, while the provider charges for what was actually consumed. AWS points to model inference, compute and other usage-based APIs where a flat price per request may not reflect the real cost.
That fits how autonomous software may buy digital services. Instead of establishing a subscription with every provider in advance, an agent can encounter a paid resource during a task, check whether the price fits its delegated budget, pay for it and continue.
MPP adds another payment protocol. Developed by Stripe and Tempo, it lets software exchange payment requirements during an online transaction and can support different payment models, including microtransactions and recurring payments.
x402 takes a somewhat different approach. It lets an online service respond to an agent's request by saying payment is required before the resource is released. The agent can then authorize the payment through its connected wallet and retry the request.
Stripe says MPP can support stablecoins as well as conventional payment methods, but AgentCore Payments currently documents an embedded crypto wallet as its supported payment instrument.
AWS Controls The Spending Rules, Not The Money
The architecture adds useful boundaries around the word autonomous. A user or business first provides the wallet and grants authority. AWS then applies rules around how the agent can use that authority during a payment session. NCFA's Financial Innovation Map tracks this convergence of AI agents, financial permissions and programmable infrastructure.
Those controls can include an expiry and a maximum amount the agent is permitted to spend. Before a transaction proceeds, AgentCore checks whether the request fits within that budget. A payment that exceeds the limit is rejected at the infrastructure level rather than left to the agent's judgement.
AWS also keeps the wallet-provider credentials away from the agent itself. Coinbase or Privy provides the wallet infrastructure, while AWS uses controlled access to request operations such as signing a transaction.
The result is delegated spending rather than independent control of money. The person or business sets the authority, AWS enforces part of the operating boundary and the connected wallet provider controls the financial instrument.
AWS also records payment activity through its monitoring tools, giving developers logs and transaction information they can use to review what agents attempted and what payments succeeded. That adds an audit layer around activity that would otherwise be difficult to supervise once agents begin buying resources during longer workflows.
This is where AWS gains a potentially valuable position. It doesn't need to become a bank or payment processor to influence whether an agent-side transaction can proceed.
Coinbase And Privy Supply The Wallet Layer
Coinbase is one supported provider, not an exclusive requirement. Its developer infrastructure provides embedded wallets and supports x402 payments, while Coinbase's Bazaar service helps agents discover online services that accept the protocol.
Coinbase documents payments in the USDC stablecoin on Base and Solana for its AgentCore implementation. That makes digital assets a substantive part of the current product architecture rather than a side effect of Coinbase's involvement. It also connects directly to NCFA's Programmable Stablecoin Payments opportunity brief, which examines programmable money movement and payment infrastructure.
Privy provides another embedded-wallet option. The company is now part of Stripe, but its role in AgentCore is still wallet infrastructure rather than ordinary card processing through Stripe's full payments stack.
AgentCore Payments doesn't require every payment protocol to use cryptocurrency, and MPP itself can support other payment methods. But AWS's currently documented AgentCore payment instrument is still a crypto wallet.
Payment companies therefore remain important underneath the agent platform. They provide the wallet, credentials and financial infrastructure needed to execute transactions, while AWS controls more of the environment where an agent decides when to call them.
This isn't the only infrastructure model emerging. Circle's USDC infrastructure for AI agents combines policy-controlled wallets, service discovery and programmable payments under predefined guardrails.
Travala Shows How Delegated Agent Payments Work
Travala provides a useful production example because its implementation shows where the customer's authority remains. Its current Travel MCP lets an AI agent search and book hotels, with payment settled in the USDC stablecoin on Base from a Coinbase wallet connected through AgentCore.
The customer still has to authorize the spending relationship. Travala says the permission is revocable and time-limited, the company never receives the private key and the customer must explicitly confirm the hotel purchase before payment is made.
Once that permission is in place, the agent can complete the payment within the delegated limits and continue the booking workflow. That is more precise than saying an AI agent independently controls money.
AWS also names Anchor Browser, SpreadX's Incarna, Elsa AI and Heurist AI among customers or integrations using AgentCore Payments. AWS does not provide transaction volumes for those implementations, so there isn't yet enough evidence to describe agent-led payments as broadly adopted at scale.
The Travala example is still important. It shows a live consumer transaction where conversational software can search, obtain approval and complete payment without sending the customer into a separate checkout flow.
Payment Distribution Could Move Into The AI Stack
Traditional electronic payments divide responsibility among merchants, gateways, processors, acquirers, networks, issuers and customer interfaces. Agent commerce adds another decision point before many of those functions because software has to decide whether a paid service is useful, whether the price is acceptable and whether the purchase falls within the user's authority.
AWS now controls part of that decision environment. It doesn't set the merchant's price, supply the customer's money or settle the transaction. It can, however, determine whether the agent's payment request fits its permitted spending session and coordinate access to the wallet needed to proceed.
That creates a new distribution question for payment companies. A wallet provider may still own the financial relationship underneath the transaction, while the cloud or AI platform controls the environment where an agent discovers a service and decides which payment connection to use.
AgentCore Payments still has important limits. AWS isn't providing general merchant acquiring, and its documentation doesn't establish native chargebacks, universal merchant controls or a standalone fraud-screening service inside AgentCore Payments. Those functions may remain with the merchant, application, wallet provider or other payment infrastructure.
Control of the agent execution environment can still become valuable payment real estate even when the platform never holds the money. If agents increasingly choose services and initiate purchases on behalf of users, the infrastructure governing those decisions becomes another point where payment providers compete for access.
AgentCore Payments Is Not Yet Available In Canada
AgentCore Payments is currently available in 12 AWS regions across the United States, Europe, Singapore and Australia. AWS does not currently offer the capability from its Canadian region, even though several other AgentCore services are available there.
That creates a practical constraint for Canadian developers that want to keep this part of the stack in an AWS Canadian region. They can deploy AgentCore Payments elsewhere, but there is no Canadian region for the capability today.
The longer-term issue for Canadian fintechs and financial institutions is less about one AWS region and more about where financial authority is being placed. Agent payments combine AI governance, delegated spending, wallets and payment infrastructure inside one operating workflow.
Firms will need to decide which controls remain inside their own applications and which can be delegated to cloud, wallet and protocol providers. That becomes more important as agents gain permission to buy services during a task rather than simply recommend what a person should buy.
Talking Point
If AI and cloud platforms control the environment where agents receive spending authority and decide whether a transaction can proceed, while payment companies provide wallets and settlement underneath them, which layer will ultimately control distribution in agent-led commerce?
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 18, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | SME Finance And Business Banking, Banking And Credit, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
US$100M Macquarie Facility Tests Clearco’s Rebuilt Ecommerce Funding Model
On August 18, 2026, Toronto-based Clearco secured a US$100 million Macquarie asset-backed facility that it expects will support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing.
The facility expands Clearco's capacity to provide qualified brands with up to US$10 million and estimated terms of four to 12 months. Clearco says the funding can support inventory, marketing, major purchase orders and expansion across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
The US$900 million target is a scaling opportunity now, meaning Clearco has to convert institutional funding capacity into sustained customer financing while controlling credit performance and capital costs.
US$100M Facility Sets A US$900M Funding Test
The two headline numbers measure different things. The US$100 million is the size of the Macquarie asset-backed facility. The US$900 million is Clearco's expected customer funding over two years.
That expected funding volume is nine times the facility's headline size. The announcement doesn't disclose the borrowing base, advance rate, asset eligibility, covenants, loss-sharing structure or how much Clearco capital will support customer advances. It also doesn't specify how much of the US$900 million depends on repayment and redeployment of facility capital versus other funding sources.
Those missing terms are important because Clearco's own financing cost and asset performance affect how economically it can fund merchants. More capacity helps only if customer advances generate enough return after financing costs, operating expenses and credit losses.
Clearco has been in a similar position before. Its 2023 recapitalization included a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility with up to US$100 million of capacity. Clearco expected that structure to support approximately US$850 million of originations over two years.
That comparison is especially relevant because the earlier reset followed a period when Clearco reduced international operations, tightened underwriting and faced rising capital costs. The new facility arrives after the company has narrowed its operating focus and rebuilt its funding products.
The stated two-year funding target is now US$50 million higher than the 2023 target. It's also not clear whether the Macquarie facility carries a lower funding cost or materially different risk structure than the Pollen Street arrangement.
Clearco Competes On Funding Flexibility And Capital Access
Clearco's current ecommerce financing model gives merchants two choices over funding structure and two ways to deploy the capital. Fixed and Rolling Funding Capacity determine whether a business receives defined one-time capacity or access that replenishes as principal is repaid. Cash Advance deposits funds into the business account, while Invoice Funding supports supplier payments.
That structure gives Clearco several ways to fund inventory, advertising and supplier obligations without requiring a separate product for each use case. Rolling Funding also reduces the need for repeat applications because available capacity replenishes as payments are made.
The competitive market has also developed. Wayflyer provides performance-based ecommerce financing and currently advertises funding up to US$20 million, while Shopify Capital offers embedded merchant financing directly through the Shopify platform.
Those models compete from different business approaches. Wayflyer is another specialist financing provider using merchant performance data. Shopify can originate funding inside the commerce platform where merchants already operate. Clearco's current proposition combines ecommerce specialization, multiple capital structures and external institutional funding capacity.
Clearco reports more than US$3.3 billion provided to over 11,000 businesses historically. That record establishes substantial lifetime deployment, but it doesn't answer how much financing the current version of Clearco is originating or how the rebuilt portfolio is performing.
Originations And Credit Performance Will Test The Rebuild
Clearco's US$900 million expectation implies average customer funding of approximately US$37.5 million per month over two years if volume were evenly distributed. Ecommerce funding won't arrive evenly, but the average provides a useful scale for evaluating future disclosures.
The strongest evidence will be originations, repeat use, facility utilization, repayment performance and credit losses. Pricing and funding costs would show whether additional volume also improves Clearco's economics.
The new facility could also let Clearco serve larger ecommerce operators. The announced maximum of US$10 million places it above the smaller working-capital advances often associated with revenue-based financing and gives the company more capacity for inventory commitments, major purchase orders and multi-channel expansion.
If Clearco approaches the funding target while maintaining credit quality, the company will have stronger evidence that its post-restructuring model can support another period of scale. If utilization or credit performance weakens, the headline facility size will matter much less.
Talking Point
Can Clearco convert its new institutional funding capacity into approximately US$900 million of ecommerce financing while maintaining the credit performance and capital economics needed to make that scale durable?
NCFA Company Intelligence Snapshot
Clearco
Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for U.S. DTC ecommerce brands
Founded 2015 as Clearbanc by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Legal Entity Clear Finance Technology Corporation
Headquarters Toronto, Canada
Leadership Andrew Curtis, Chief Executive Officer
Business Model Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for ecommerce businesses
Core Products Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding
Current Market U.S.-incorporated DTC ecommerce businesses with a U.S. business bank account
Current Eligibility 6+ months of consistent revenue and more than US$100,000 in monthly revenue
Historic Funding More than US$3.3B to 11,000+ businesses
Funding Capacity Up to US$10M for qualified brands with estimated terms of 4 to 12 months
Current Trigger US$100M Macquarie asset-backed facility announced Aug 18, 2026
Forward Funding Target Approximately US$900M to ecommerce brands over two years
Milestones
Select a milestone to follow
Clearco's
development
1 Launch 2015
2 Venture Scale 2018–2019
3 Clearco Rebrand Apr 2021
4 Recapitalization Oct 2023
5 Product Rebuild 2024–2025
6 Macquarie Facility Aug 2026
Milestone
1
Clearbanc Launches Its Ecommerce Funding Model (2015)
Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow founded Clearbanc in Toronto in 2015. The company developed a data-driven alternative to conventional equity funding for digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Toronto company founded by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Stage
Launch Early non-dilutive financing model for online businesses
Capital
Revenue Based Funding is tied to business performance rather than founder equity
Markets
Digital Commerce Online businesses become the initial operating focus
Customers
Founders Growth-oriented online businesses seeking capital without selling ownership
Competition
Equity And Business Credit Clearbanc offers another funding route between venture equity and conventional borrowing
Additional Company Data
Clearbanc was founded in Toronto in 2015
Business operating data becomes central to funding decisions
The ecommerce specialization developed into the company's core funding market
NCFA Perspective
Clearco's original operating idea remains visible in the company today. Business data supports funding decisions while founders retain their equity. The products and capital structure change substantially over the following decade.
Milestone
2
Institutional Venture Capital Supports Expansion (2018–2019)
Clearbanc raised institutional venture capital as it expanded the ecommerce funding model and increased the amount of capital available to digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Ecommerce financing becomes the company's defining business
Stage
Venture Scale Institutional investors support platform expansion
Capital
Series A And B Equity capital supports company growth while separate funding capacity supports merchant advances
Markets
Ecommerce Digital merchant financing becomes a repeatable operating category
Customers
Online Businesses Funding is directed toward measurable growth spending and working capital
Competition
Alternative Growth Capital Clearbanc competes with equity, bank credit and other working-capital providers
Funding decisions rely increasingly on merchant and ecommerce performance data
Customer activity builds a larger underwriting dataset
NCFA Perspective
The venture-backed expansion proves there is substantial demand for ecommerce growth capital. It also makes Clearbanc increasingly dependent on disciplined underwriting and reliable access to capital for customer advances.
Milestone
3
Clearbanc Becomes Clearco At Nearly US$2B Valuation (Apr 2021)
Clearbanc rebranded as Clearco in April 2021 and announced US$100 million of Series C equity financing plus US$250 million of debt. The transaction valued the company at nearly US$2 billion.
Company
Clearco Clearbanc adopts the Clearco name
Stage
Rapid Expansion Product and international ambitions expand
Capital
US$350M US$100M Series C equity plus US$250M of debt announced
Markets
International Clearco pursues a wider geographic and product strategy
Customers
Ecommerce Founders The company expands its founder proposition beyond a single financing product
Competition
Growth Capital Platform Clearco attempts to compete across funding and additional founder services
Additional Company Data
Oak HC/FT led the US$100M Series C equity round
The April 2021 financing included US$250M of debt
The announced valuation was nearly US$2B
The rebrand accompanied a wider company and product strategy
NCFA Perspective
The 2021 financing marks Clearco's high-growth period. Equity, debt capacity, valuation and operating ambition all increase at the same time. The later contraction shows why a specialty finance company cannot be judged by valuation or lifetime deployments alone.
Milestone
4
Clearco Recapitalizes Around A New Funding Structure (Oct 2023)
Clearco completed a recapitalization in October 2023 that included a US$60 million Series D and a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility providing up to US$100 million of financing capacity.
Company
Clearco The company operates under CEO Andrew Curtis following a difficult period of contraction
Stage
Recapitalization Capital structure and operating model are reset
Capital
US$60M + US$100M Series D equity plus asset-backed financing capacity
Markets
Ecommerce Focus The company concentrates on its core ecommerce financing business
Specialty Finance Capital cost and underwriting performance become central competitive variables
Additional Company Data
Inovia Capital and Founders Circle Capital led the US$60M Series D
Pollen Street supplied up to US$100M in asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expected the facility to support US$850M of originations over two years
The transaction was explicitly described as a recapitalization
NCFA Perspective
The 2023 transaction is more important than another venture round because it resets how Clearco finances the business. Dedicated asset-backed capital reconnects customer growth with funding capacity. The operating test becomes whether Clearco can grow without recreating the cost structure that contributed to its earlier contraction.
Milestone
5
Clearco Rebuilds Its Ecommerce Funding Suite (2024–2025)
Clearco expanded its funding products during 2024 and 2025. Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and replenishes available capacity as customers make payments. The company later combined Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding into a broader ecommerce funding suite.
Company
Clearco The company operates with a narrower ecommerce focus and rebuilt product set
Stage
Product Rebuild Capital products expand after the recapitalization
Capital
Fixed And Rolling Customers can use one-time capacity or replenishing funding capacity
Markets
U.S. Ecommerce Current products focus on U.S. ecommerce brands
Customers
Established DTC Brands Current qualification focuses on businesses with meaningful recurring revenue
Competition
Flexible Working Capital Funding structure, pricing, capacity, speed and lien requirements become key points of comparison
Additional Company Data
Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and automatically replenishes available capacity as payments are made
Cash Advance sends capital directly to the customer's bank account
Invoice Funding supports supplier and vendor payments
Clearco currently offers both Fixed Funding Capacity and Rolling Funding Capacity
NCFA Perspective
The product rebuild concentrates Clearco on serving more funding needs for the same ecommerce customer. That makes repeat use, credit performance and capital efficiency more important than returning to the wide geographic expansion strategy of 2021.
Milestone
6
Macquarie Adds US$100M Of Asset-Backed Capacity (Aug 2026)
Clearco announced a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility from Macquarie Group on August 18, 2026. Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years.
Company
Clearco Toronto-headquartered ecommerce funding company led by Andrew Curtis
Stage
Funding Expansion Institutional capital increases customer funding capacity
U.S. Ecommerce Funding supports brands operating across DTC, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce
Customers
Up To US$10M Qualified brands can access funding with estimated terms of four to 12 months
Competition
Institutional Funding Economics Capital cost and asset performance influence Clearco's ability to price and expand funding
Additional Company Data
Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing
The new facility provides US$100M of asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expects it to support approximately US$900M of ecommerce funding over two years
Clearco currently reports more than US$3.3B provided to 11,000+ businesses historically
The US$900M figure is a forward company expectation, not capital already deployed or Clearco revenue
NCFA Perspective
The Macquarie facility gives Clearco another institutional funding base after several years spent rebuilding the business. The next test is measurable. Clearco has to convert that capacity into sustained ecommerce financing while maintaining underwriting discipline and asset performance. The US$900 million target defines the scale of the opportunity, but it does not establish that the volume will be reached.
Clearco Macquarie Funding FAQs
How much financing did Macquarie provide to Clearco?
Macquarie Group provided Clearco with a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility announced on August 18, 2026.
How much ecommerce funding does Clearco expect the facility to support?
Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. That is a company expectation for customer funding, not US$900 million of capital supplied by Macquarie.
How much funding can an ecommerce business get from Clearco?
Clearco says qualified brands can access up to US$10 million, with estimated terms of four to 12 months.
What can Clearco funding be used for?
Clearco says businesses can use its funding for inventory, marketing, large purchase orders and growth across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
Is Clearco's Macquarie facility the same as its 2023 Pollen Street financing?
No. Clearco's 2023 recapitalization included a separate asset-backed facility from Pollen Street Capital with up to US$100 million of capacity. The August 2026 Macquarie transaction is a new US$100 million facility.
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
Markets have a few gauges that traders keep open even when they are not planning to trade them. The Nasdaq 100 is one of those gauges. It tends to get attention before the US session, during earnings weeks, and on days when rates or technology shares move hard.
Part of that comes from the companies inside the index. The Nasdaq 100 includes many of the names people already know from software, chips, cloud services, online retail, and consumer devices. When traders change their view on those companies, the index often shows it quickly. That is why the index can be useful even for people who are not trading it that day.
Why Traders Watch the Nasdaq 100
The Nasdaq 100 tracks 100 large non-financial companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange. Because the index leans toward technology and other growth businesses, it can move differently from broader benchmarks that include more banks, utilities, and industrial stocks. A broad index may look calm while the Nasdaq 100 is already showing stress in growth shares.
That mix gives the index a sharper edge. It may rally when traders feel more confident about growth and future earnings. It may also sell off quickly when rate expectations rise or when a large company warns that demand is slowing. The same feature that makes the index interesting can also make it uncomfortable to hold through rough sessions.
For active traders, those swings can create setups. For people watching the wider market, they can also show how much risk investors are willing to take. A strong Nasdaq 100 session can point to renewed appetite for growth stocks. A sudden drop can signal a more cautious mood, especially around inflation data, central bank comments, or major earnings results.
What Can Move the Index
Price movement in the Nasdaq 100 rarely comes from one headline. Traders usually look at company news, macro data, and the general tone of US equities before deciding whether a move has staying power. A rally based only on one strong stock may fade faster than a move supported by several sectors inside the index.
A big earnings miss from a major technology company can pull the index lower, especially if guidance changes.
Rate expectations matter because growth stocks are sensitive to the cost of capital.
Broad market mood matters too. When traders cut risk, they often reduce exposure to fast-moving growth names first.
Those drivers can overlap. A company may report strong revenue but still fall if margins disappoint or if traders think interest rates will stay high. Another stock may rise on weaker numbers because expectations were already low. That is why Nasdaq 100 moves often need context rather than a quick headline reading.
For many traders, the index is a shorthand for how the market is treating large growth companies against the current economic backdrop. It is not a perfect economic signal, but it can show whether investors are leaning toward risk or stepping back from it.
How Platform Tools Fit In
Trading platforms make that monitoring easier than it used to be. A trader can keep charts, watchlists, alerts, price data, and instrument details in one place instead of jumping between separate screens. That convenience matters when the market is moving and a slow check can lead to a late decision.
This is useful when the market starts moving quickly. One earnings report, one change in rate expectations, or one sharp move in US equity futures can change the tone of the session. Traders following the Nasdaq 100 usually want to see price levels, spreads, recent volatility, and related news before they place an order.
Someone comparing index products can use Vantage's nas100 page to check instrument details, pricing context, and platform access before deciding whether the market fits their plan. That page is not a trading signal. It is a reference point for understanding the product before putting money at risk.
Good platform habits are usually boring, but they matter. Traders may set alerts near levels they care about, check the daily range before deciding position size, and compare current spreads with what they normally see. None of that predicts the next move. It simply reduces the chance of entering a trade without knowing the basic conditions.
Before Placing an Order
A chart helps, but it is only part of the job. Traders also need to know how the instrument behaves on the platform they use. That includes the typical spread, order types, margin requirements, and how quickly prices can change during busy sessions.
Risk controls deserve the same attention as the setup. Stop-loss orders, position sizing, alerts, and account limits can keep a market view from turning into oversized exposure. That matters even more with index-based products, where leverage can magnify losses as well as gains.
Execution is another practical issue. In quieter sessions, prices may move in a fairly orderly way. During data releases or earnings headlines, the same market can become much harder to read. Watching how a platform handles those moments can be as useful as watching the chart.
A simple pre-trade routine can help. Check why the index is moving, decide where the idea is wrong, and know the maximum loss before entering. Traders do not need a complicated checklist, but they do need a repeatable one. Without that, a fast market can turn a reasonable idea into a rushed reaction.
Keep the Chart in Context
The Nasdaq 100 is easy to follow because many of its companies are familiar. That familiarity can be misleading. Knowing the names in the index does not protect a trader from sudden gaps, sharp reversals, or bad timing. A familiar company can still move in a way that surprises even experienced traders.
Past moves do not guarantee the next one. A pattern that worked during one earnings season can fail in the next. A level that held last month can break when macro conditions change. The index is liquid and closely watched, but that does not make it predictable.
Used carefully, Nasdaq 100 price action can help traders understand the mood around growth stocks and wider equity risk. It works best alongside product research and a clear risk plan. Preparation matters more than prediction, especially in a market where speed can make confidence look better than it really is.
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
Brdg organizes project information across developers, cost consultants and lenders. Mortgage Automator brings draw control into the lender's loan system.
Brdg Structures The Information Lenders Need
Brdg isn't a lender. Its software organizes the documents, budgets and project information used to prepare and review construction financing.
The platform accepts documents through email or upload, classifies them and organizes them into a project record. It tracks budgets, project progress and funding information, checks draw readiness across legal, contract, construction and financial categories, and produces lender-ready reports. Brdg provides separate workflows for developers, lenders and cost consultants. Its construction finance platform also shows document ingestion, project dashboards, cash-flow tracking and draw-disbursement readiness.
Brdg reports 30,000+ construction-related documents processed, more than C$300 million in development and active construction, and an average 5.5-day reduction in draw cycle time.
The document volume and reported time savings indicate that Brdg is being used in live construction finance workflows. The C$300 million figure describes development and active construction associated with Brdg's work. It is not revenue, loans originated, financing arranged or assets under management.
Brdg also describes the product as AI-powered and uses labels including Intelligence Agent and Submission Agent. Public evidence supports AI-assisted document and workflow processing. It does not establish autonomous underwriting or credit decisions.
Forum Ventures invested in Brdg, and the company joined its Summer 2026 cohort. Co-founder Ness Cabessa describes Brdg as replacing spreadsheets, email and manual draw processes with a structured construction finance platform.
Mortgage Automator Brings Draw Control Into The Loan File
Mortgage Automator starts from the lender side.
Its Draw Management feature keeps the construction budget inside the same system as the loan. Lenders build budget categories, line items and amounts in Mortgage Automator, then manage planned or ad hoc draw requests against that budget.
The system flags variances and can enforce configurable loan-to-cost limits. Project Health compares work completed with funds already disbursed, giving lenders another way to identify budget drift across active construction loans.
Mortgage Automator says the feature responds to private construction and fix-and-flip lenders that were managing loans in one system while tracking construction budgets in spreadsheets or separate software.
A developer may prepare budgets, invoices and supporting documents. Cost consultants review project costs and progress. Lenders determine whether conditions have been met before additional funds are released.
C$55B CMHC Program Shows The Scale Of Construction Draws
Construction loans release financing in stages because lenders need evidence that work and project costs are progressing before advancing more capital.
That process is visible in Canada's public construction financing system. CMHC's Apartment Construction Loan Program provides loans starting at C$1 million and can finance up to 100% of the residential component's cost for qualifying projects.
The federal program has been expanded to more than C$55 billion in loan funding. Some program streams use monthly construction draws once the loan agreement is in place.
Every draw can bring another set of budgets, invoices, progress information, contracts, approvals and supporting reports into the financing process.
Cost consultants are also part of that control chain. They can review construction progress, costs and supporting documentation before lenders release additional financing.
Construction Finance Workflows Are Moving Into Software
Brdg structures project information before and during lender review. Mortgage Automator keeps budgets and draw controls attached to the active loan.
The next evolution is to carry the same structured project data from developers and cost consultants into lender systems without rebuilding it at each stage.
That would reduce duplicate data entry, make budget changes easier to trace and give lenders a clearer record of what changed between draw requests.
The open question is how the market develops from here. Lenders may prefer draw tools built into their loan systems. Developers and cost consultants may need platforms that work across several lenders. Integrations could eventually connect the two.
Talking Point
Will construction finance software remain split between developer, consultant and lender workflows, or will shared project data eventually connect the full draw process?
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
When the first DORA Register of Information submissions arrived in April 2025, European supervisors kept hitting the same wall. Financial entities could not produce an accurate, current list of their own ICT assets. The data sat in spreadsheets, in a departed engineer's notes, and across two or three tools that disagreed with each other. The EBA flagged widespread gaps and sent institutions back to resubmit, in several cases more than once.
None of that was a security failure in the usual sense. The controls were often in place. What was missing sat one level lower: a reliable inventory of what the firm actually runs. For a fintech, that absence is not a documentation nuisance. Operational resilience – keeping payments, ledgers, and customer access working through a disruption – rests on knowing what you run, where it runs, and what stops when a component fails. You cannot map a dependency you never recorded, and you cannot restore a service whose parts you cannot name.
The asset inventory is now the regulatory floor
DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), in force since 17 January 2025, states the requirement plainly. Article 8 obliges financial entities to identify and classify all ICT assets and information assets, document the links and interdependencies between them, and keep those inventories current – refreshed after every major change, with a dedicated risk assessment of legacy systems at least once a year. DORA requires EU member states to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for financial entities. The sanctions that apply depend on national law and on the circumstances of the breach.
The UK sets a parallel bar. Under FCA policy statement PS21/3 and PRA supervisory statement SS1/21, the transitional implementation period ended on 31 March 2025. Firms must identify their important business services, set impact tolerances, and map the resources each service depends on, including technology, data, facilities, and people. That mapping collapses without an accurate asset layer beneath it. In the US, the 2020 interagency paper on operational resilience points the same way, tying resilience to a clear view of critical systems and their dependencies.
Enforcement is tightening rather than loosening. Germany's BaFin declared the DORA “transformation year” over at the end of 2025, a signal that supervisors now expect working inventories, not remediation plans. Three regulators, one shared premise: transparency of IT assets is the precondition for everything built on top of it.
Figure 1
Figure 1. IT asset transparency is the base layer every resilience process depends on.
What transparency means in an ICT estate
Transparency is not a spreadsheet exported once a quarter. It is three capabilities working together, and the weakest one sets the ceiling.
Discovery keeps the inventory honest
Automated hardware and software auditing finds devices, virtual machines, cloud instances, and installed packages without waiting for anyone to complete a form. Fintechs churn infrastructure quickly, so a hand-maintained list is stale within weeks. Agent-based and agent-less scanning each catch what the other misses – agents report from laptops that leave the network, while agent-less scans reach devices where you cannot install software.
Relationships turn a list into a map
A configuration management database (CMDB) records that a specific payment API runs on these servers, reads from that database cluster, and backs a named customer-facing service. During an incident, that relationship graph gives you blast radius in seconds instead of a war-room reconstruction. A flat asset list cannot answer the question that matters: if this fails, what else goes with it?
Classification and ownership make it auditable
Every asset needs a criticality rating, a named owner, a lifecycle state, and a link to the business function it supports. That is close to a word-for-word restatement of what DORA Article 8 asks a financial entity to hold, which is why an inventory missing those fields tends to fail at submission time rather than during an outage.
Table 1. What each resilience obligation actually needs from the asset layer.
Resilience obligation
Asset data it requires
Consequence of a gap
DORA Article 8 inventory and classification
Full list of hardware, software, and cloud services with a criticality rating and named owner
Incomplete Register of Information; repeated resubmission cycles
Dependency mapping (DORA Art. 8; UK important-business-service mapping)
CMDB relationships tying assets to services, users, and third parties
Cannot scope incident impact or evidence a recovery path
Incident response and recovery
Live location, configuration, and ownership for every asset
Longer time-to-restore; recovery steps improvised during the outage
Yearly legacy-system risk review
Lifecycle state, end-of-life flags, and patch status
End-of-life systems stay live and unassessed
Third-party and concentration risk
Register of vendor-linked assets and their interconnections
Blind to a supplier dependency during a supplier outage
Where asset visibility breaks in fintech environments
The failure modes are predictable. Cloud and SaaS growth push assets outside the corporate network, where an on-network scanner never sees them. Shadow IT – a product team standing up a service on a corporate card – never reaches the register at all. Remote and field laptops drop off the VPN and stop reporting, so their patch state quietly goes unknown. And the most common failure is the humblest one: the inventory lives in spreadsheets and email threads that no discovery tool feeds, so it drifts out of date the moment it is saved.
The dataset behind Alloy Software's recent deals shows how entrenched that last pattern is. Across more than 40 closed-won accounts between 2024 and 2026, spreadsheets, email, and homegrown databases were the single most common system teams were replacing – ahead of any named commercial tool.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prior systems replaced across 40+ Alloy Software closed-won deals (2024–2026).
Building an asset register that survives an audit
A workable sequence follows the order of dependency, not the order of visible output:
Turn on automated discovery first, both agent-based and agent-less, so the inventory populates itself instead of relying on manual entry.
Reconcile duplicates, then assign an owner and a criticality rating to every asset – an unowned asset is an unmanaged risk.
Build the relationships, tying assets to the services, users, and third parties that depend on them, so the CMDB can answer impact questions.
Schedule reporting a regulator or internal auditor can read directly, refreshed on a fixed cadence rather than rebuilt in a rush before each audit.
The order matters. Teams that start with dashboards before discovery end up with attractive reports built on data nobody trusts. Discovery first, relationships second, reporting last.
Choosing a platform: what actually matters
For a regulated fintech, three questions filter the market quickly. Does discovery reach cloud and off-network devices? Does the CMDB model relationships rather than store a flat list? Can the data stay on-premises where a security policy or air-gapped requirement demands it? Cost matters, but it rarely decides the outcome on its own.
Table 2. Decision view across five ICT asset and service-management platforms.
Platform
Discovery reach
CMDB and relationships
Hosting
Indicative cost / fit
Alloy Navigator
Agent and agent-less network inventory; off-network audit for field laptops
Integrated CMDB; tickets linked to assets, users, and contracts
On-prem or cloud
~$1k–$25k/yr; 2–35 IT staff
ServiceNow
Agent-less discovery via MID server; broad cloud coverage
Deep, highly configurable CMDB
Cloud-first; limited on-prem
Six-figure programmes; 100+ IT staff
Lansweeper
Agent and agent-less scanning; strong network coverage
Asset-centric; lighter service relationships
Cloud or on-prem
Per-asset pricing that has risen sharply; small–mid teams
ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus
Agent and agent-less; discovery add-on
CMDB in higher tiers
On-prem or cloud
Low–mid, per-technician/node; small–mid teams
Freshservice
Discovery agent plus probe
Cloud-native CMDB
Cloud only
Per-agent SaaS; no on-prem option
Costs reflect market positioning, not quotes; verify against current vendor pricing before shortlisting.
Where a firm has outgrown spreadsheets but cannot absorb a six-figure ServiceNow programme, mid-market platforms cover the ground. Alloy Navigator sits in that band: agent and agent-less network inventory, an integrated CMDB that links tickets to assets, users, and contracts, and a choice of on-premises or cloud hosting for healthcare, public-sector, and finance environments with strict data-residency rules. Deal data puts its annual cost between roughly $1,000 for small teams and $25,000 for larger estates, which is why it usually appears against Lansweeper and ManageEngine rather than enterprise suites.
The inventory is the start, not the finish
An accurate asset register earns its keep only when it feeds the processes around it. Change management is the clearest example: when every change references the assets and services it touches, the CMDB stays current as a by-product of daily work instead of decaying between audits. Incident response reads the same relationship graph to scope impact, and third-party risk mapping – a specific DORA obligation – draws on the register of vendor-linked assets. Teams that want to go deeper on tying assets to change and incident workflows tend to find that the relationship model, not the raw asset count, is where the resilience value sits.
Where to start this quarter
If a fintech can answer three questions on demand – what do we run, what depends on it, and who owns it – most of DORA Article 8 and the UK mapping requirement is already within reach. If it cannot, no volume of policy documentation closes the gap, because the gap is data, not paperwork. Point automated discovery at the whole estate, including cloud and remote endpoints, and measure how far the result differs from the current spreadsheet. That delta is the honest size of the resilience problem.
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 17, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealth Investing And Trading, Competition And Market Structure
Fund And ETF Accounting Infrastructure Modernization
National Bank is modernizing its fund and ETF accounting infrastructure with Multifonds, bringing work handled across separate systems onto one platform.
The project gives National Bank one accounting environment for more of the valuation, NAV and ETF administration work it performs for firms that offer investment funds and ETFs.
National Bank Brings Fund And ETF Accounting Onto One Platform
National Bank provides fund and ETF administration services that include fund accounting, transfer agency, ETF basket creation, financial statements and tax support.
Multifonds Global Accounting brings fund and ETF accounting into one environment. It processes data in real time and uses exception based workflows so operations teams can focus on records that need review.
The platform includes more than 350 configurable controls across NAV, valuation and distribution work. Multifonds says it supports more than 40,000 funds across 35+ jurisdictions.
National Bank plans to replace siloed systems with the platform. Multifonds expects the change to reduce manual steps, improve oversight and support faster product onboarding.
While those are the expected benefits, the results will depend on how the platform performs once National Bank moves more accounting work into production.
ETF Administration Adds More Operational Work
ETF administration involves more than calculating a fund's value. National Bank also supports transfer agency, market makers and the creation of ETF baskets.
Those processes depend on accounting records and outside data staying aligned. Multifonds connects ETF accounting with more automated data exchange, giving National Bank a common system for more of that work.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, up 62% from the previous record, and Canadian ETF assets reached about C$790.5 billion by the end of March 2026.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, while industry assets approached C$800 billion in early 2026.
The market is also under closer regulatory review. The CSA consultation on Canadian ETF rules examines areas including unit creation and redemption, ETF trading, NAV alignment and basket practices.
That growth means more products, valuations, baskets, records and exceptions for administrators to process. Automation can reduce repetitive work, but controls still have to catch problems before incorrect data reaches fund managers, trading partners or investors.
The same operating challenge appears in tokenized fund operations. New ways to issue or transfer fund interests still depend on reliable pricing, accounting, investor records and administration.
CIBC Mellon And RBC Are Automating Asset Servicing
National Bank is investing in a part of the market where other large Canadian asset servicers are also spending on technology.
In April, CIBC Mellon expanded its Appian automation program. Planned improvements include a more digital ETF service and fund administration workflows designed to reduce manual work and improve data visibility. CIBC Mellon reported more than C$3.4 trillion in assets under administration as of March 31, 2026.
RBC Investor Services reported C$3.1 trillion in assets under administration in the second quarter. Its asset servicing technology investments include ETF modernization, automated reconciliations and predictive reporting.
These investments highlight competitive pressure. Fund administrators need to support more products and data without adding manual work at the same rate.
Technology can influence how quickly an administrator launches products, handles exceptions and gives clients access to accurate information.
National Bank is also using specialist technology in other operating areas. Its Sardine fraud controls deployment focuses on fraud and financial crime rather than fund administration, but both projects use specialist technology for high-volume financial operations.
Moving more fund and ETF accounting onto one platform can simplify operations, but it also increases dependence on that platform.
National Bank will need strong data quality, integrations, controls and recovery processes as the implementation expands. If a shared accounting system fails, the adverse impacts can amplify and reach more funds and ETF workflows at once.
Talking Point
As Canadian asset servicers automate more fund and ETF administration, will technology become a bigger factor in which providers win new business?
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
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. 
