Singapore— The global energy sector is undergoing a major transformation as countries invest in cleaner electricity, modernize power grids, and expand renewable energy capacity. Solar and wind power are becoming increasingly important sources of electricity, while hydropower, biomass, and battery storage are contributing to a more diverse energy system.
Growing electricity demand from businesses, digital infrastructure, and electric technologies is also increasing the focus on reliable energy supplies. As a result, renewable energy projects and supporting infrastructure have become important topics across financial and energy markets.
For cryptocurrency investors looking beyond digital asset trading, renewable energy offers another sector to explore. Lake Energy connects these interests through an online platform offering renewable energy investment plans and support for selected cryptocurrency funding methods.
Explore Renewable Energy With Lake Energy
Lake Energy offers investment plans related to solar power, wind energy, hydropower, biomass energy, and energy storage. Users can compare investment amounts, project durations, and stated terms to understand the options available.
The platform supports several digital assets, including BTC, ETH, XRP, USDT, and USDC, giving users multiple funding options.
Getting started involves three steps: creating an account, reviewing available projects, and selecting a plan based on its stated terms.
Register and Receive Your $10 Welcome Bonus
Visit lakeenergy.com and create an account by entering your username, email address, login password, and fund password. Complete the CAPTCHA and submit the registration form.
Every newly registered account receives a $10 welcome bonus, giving new users an additional incentive to explore the platform.
Solar energy: Investment: $500 | Period: 7 days | Daily Return: $5.25 | Return at Maturity: $500 + $36.75
Solar energy: Investment: $1,000 | Period: 15 days | Daily Return: $11.00 | Return at Maturity: $1,000 + $165
Wind energy: Investment: $3,000 | Period: 20 days | Daily Return: $34.50 | Return at Maturity: $3,000 + $690
Wind energy: Investment: $5,000 | Period: 25 days | Daily Return: $60.00 | Return at Maturity: $5,000 + $1,500
Energy storage: Investment: $10,000 | Period: 30 days | Daily Return: $126.00 | Return at Maturity: $10,000 + $3,780
Explore the available solar, wind, hydropower, biomass, and energy storage plans. Compare investment amounts, project durations, and the terms of each option to understand how the plans differ.
Choose a Plan
After reviewing the available information, select a plan that matches your preferences and follow the platform's instructions. Check the applicable funding requirements and settlement terms before completing the process.
Security and Digital Asset Protection
Security is an important part of managing an online investment platform. Lake Energy's security framework encompasses website protection, data encryption, digital asset storage, and asset protection measures.
Multi-Layer Security Infrastructure: Security technologies associated with McAfee® and Cloudflare® support website protection and help safeguard online operations.
Cold Wallet Storage: More than 80% of digital assets are held in offline cold wallets, keeping the majority of these assets separate from internet-connected systems.
Insurance Protection: Digital asset holdings are covered by an insurance policy underwritten through the Lloyd's insurance market in London, providing an additional layer of protection subject to the policy's coverage terms.
Account and Project Management: Users can access their accounts, review project information, and check applicable terms through the online platform.
Lake Energy also uses TLS 1.2 encryption to protect information transmitted between users and its website, alongside encryption measures for stored data.
Together, these measures address key aspects of online security, digital asset custody, and account management.
Why XRP Holders Are Exploring Green Energy
Cryptocurrency and renewable energy operate in different markets. Digital assets are influenced by factors such as market activity and blockchain adoption, while renewable energy development is shaped by electricity demand, infrastructure investment, government policies, and technological progress.
For XRP holders interested in exploring sectors beyond cryptocurrency trading, renewable energy offers another area to research. Lake Energy brings renewable energy investment plans and supported digital asset funding options together in one online environment, allowing users to explore available projects and review their terms.
Conclusion
The transition to cleaner energy is reshaping electricity generation and infrastructure investment worldwide. As solar power, wind energy, and energy storage continue to develop, renewable energy remains an important sector for investors to follow.Lake Energy provides an online platform for exploring investment plans connected with these technologies. Visit lakeenergy.com to learn more about the available projects.
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
October 28, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding
How Binance’s Canadian Exit Became a Supreme Court Fight Over Regulatory Reach
Binance thought it was leaving Canada in 2023. The regulatory fight stayed behind.
Binance never entered Canada the way a bank or securities dealer would. It didn’t open a Canadian branch, build a local exchange or wait for a Canadian licence. Changpeng Zhao was a Canadian entrepreneur who had studied computer science at McGill, but Binance launched in Shanghai in July 2017 and grew into the world’s largest crypto exchange by trading volume within about six months. The product was global from the start. Borders came later.
By 2021, Canadian regulators were catching up with what that model meant on the ground. Ontario pushed Binance out. Binance hired former regulators, incorporated in Alberta and tried to build its way back in. Then Canada tightened the rules again. On May 2, 2023, Binance told securities regulators it planned to withdraw nationally.
Eight days later, the OSC opened an investigation. The next day came a sweeping demand for company records. On May 12, Binance told the public it was leaving Canada.
The exit and the investigation crossed in real time. Binance was trying to close one Canadian chapter while the regulator was opening another.
Three years later, that unfinished business has reached the Supreme Court of Canada. Ontario’s Court of Appeal has already ruled that part of the OSC summons went too far. The OSC wants that ruling overturned. Nine interveners now include civil liberties groups, securities regulators and four governments.
What follows is a story of a borderless crypto company meeting national regulators, leaving some markets, adapting in others, and discovering that a market exit doesn’t make the regulatory past disappear.
Ontario Puts a Border Around a Borderless Exchange2021
Binance enters 2021 with the advantages that made it enormous. It is fast, broad and easy to reach across borders. Regulators see the same features and start asking who is accountable when local investors use the platform. Binance: The low-down on the drama-ridden crypto exchange was already tracking warnings and restrictions from the UK, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and other markets that summer. Ontario joins the push.
In March, securities regulators tell crypto platforms serving the province to start the registration process or face enforcement. Binance doesn’t register. On June 25, it makes Ontario a restricted jurisdiction and tells users to close their active positions by year end.1 Binance’s scale has created leverage. It has also created a supervision problem for regulators.
Ontario treats access as local activity. The OSC’s position is that platforms offering securities or derivatives to Ontario users can’t avoid provincial rules simply because the company or servers sit somewhere else. For internet based finance, the customer’s location can pull a global platform into a local regulatory system.
Ontario Is Supposed to Be Closed but Trading Continues2021 to 2022
The attempted reset quickly runs into the controls Binance says are already in place.
On December 29, 2021, Binance tells Ontario users it can continue operating in the province. The OSC publicly says it can’t. Binance later acknowledges that its message was wrong. The company also tells the OSC that Ontario trading restrictions are in place while some Ontario users can still trade.
By March 2022, the disagreement is no longer informal. Binance signs a legally enforceable undertaking, agrees to block new Ontario accounts, wind down restricted products, strengthen controls and report back to the regulator.2 Binance is trying to prove it can be regulated in Canada while the OSC is testing whether its existing controls actually work.
What Binance Agreed to in Ontario
The undertaking records the sequence in Binance’s own words. It says the company announced its Ontario withdrawal in June 2021, incorrectly told users in December that operations could continue, and later confirmed that some Ontario investors had continued trading after restrictions were supposed to be in place.
Binance committed to prevent new Ontario accounts, identify existing accounts, block trading except for permitted transactions, wind down leveraged and other restricted products, waive or reimburse certain withdrawal fees, train relevant staff and retain an independent third party to assess whether its controls worked.
The document doesn’t say Binance can never return. It says the controls stay in place unless OSC staff provide written confirmation that they can be removed.
The OSC gets enforceable controls. The undertaking turns account restrictions, product wind downs and monitoring into commitments the regulator can supervise. Binance is no longer only deciding what Ontario access should look like on its own.
Binance still sees a Canadian future. The company pursues registration outside Ontario and talks publicly about returning. That makes the national exit in 2023 more than a market withdrawal. It ends an attempted compliance strategy.
Regulators Around the World Start Closing the Gaps2021 to 2023
Canada is only one front in a much larger regulatory push. By 2023, Binance has spent years building for a global crypto market while regulators keep answering with national licences, local entities and customer protections. Britain restricts Binance Markets Limited. The Netherlands fines the company for operating without registration. Japan warns it about serving residents without registration. Australia examines how it classifies derivatives customers.
The pressure isn’t only legal. Banking relationships, product access, executive attention and market share all start carrying a regulatory price. Will Binance Severes U.S. Ties in Face of Crypto Crackdown captures the mood in February 2023, when Binance is already reconsidering parts of its US exposure.
Binance can keep operating globally, but it can’t keep operating everywhere in the same way.
Why Binance Left Some Markets and Adapted in Others
Britain draws a supervisory line. In 2021, the Financial Conduct Authority restricts Binance Markets Limited and says the firm isn’t permitted to undertake regulated activity without consent. The episode becomes part of a broader regulatory push over whether authorities can identify the legal entity, obtain information and supervise the business effectively.3 Japan becomes an adaptation story. Japan’s Financial Services Agency had warned Binance about unregistered activity. Binance later acquires locally registered Sakura Exchange BitCoin and launches Binance Japan in August 2023. The global platform is then withdrawn for Japanese residents as customers migrate to the local entity. The current FSA register still lists Binance Japan as a registered crypto exchange operator.4 Belgium pushes Binance toward an EEA entity. In June 2023, the FSMA orders Binance to stop certain exchange and custody services being supplied from non EEA entities. Two months later, the regulator says Belgian clients can choose to work with Binance Poland, subject to individual consent.5 Australia keeps looking after the product changes. Binance Australia Derivatives asks to cancel its licence in April 2023 while ASIC is reviewing client classification. In 2026, a Federal Court orders a A$10 million penalty after Binance admits that 524 retail investors were misclassified and exposed to high risk derivatives without required protections.6A single global operating model keeps giving way to local entities, local permissions, product restrictions or market exits. Binance leaves some markets and rebuilds inside the rules of others.
Binance Decides Canada Isn’t Worth the New RulesMay 2023
For a while, Binance looks prepared to absorb the cost of becoming a regulated Canadian business. In 2023, that calculation flips.
New Canadian requirements tighten expectations around custody, leverage, stablecoins and investor limits. Those rules don’t make crypto trading impossible. Other platforms stay. But they narrow the product Binance can offer and increase what it has to build around compliance.
Canada can tighten investor protections and still make the market less attractive to some global firms. Binance decides the trade no longer works for its business.
Binance blames the rule set, not Canada itself. The company says it delayed the decision while looking for another route and hopes to return someday. Canada is a relatively small market for Binance, but the evidence doesn’t establish that size alone drove the exit. The company’s own explanation focused on the rule set and the product limits that came with it.
Other platforms make a different calculation. Some exchanges also leave, while others pursue Canadian registration and accept narrower product menus. Every platform has to decide whether the local opportunity justifies the controls, product limits and ongoing supervision required to stay.
Leaving Canada Doesn’t End the Investigation2023 to 2025
On May 10, only eight days after Binance privately tells regulators it intends to leave, the OSC opens an investigation. On May 11, an investigator issues the summons. On May 12, Binance announces its Canadian exit to the public.
The exchange is trying to leave the market. The regulator is trying to reconstruct what happened before the door closes.
Leaving Canada changes Binance’s future business. It doesn’t settle its Canadian past.
What the OSC Actually Demanded
The OSC investigation order identifies allegations involving unregistered trading, distributions without a prospectus, possible steps to circumvent Ontario securities law and compliance controls, and allegedly misleading statements to the regulator. Binance disputes aspects of the OSC’s case, and those allegations aren’t findings of wrongdoing in the Supreme Court proceeding.
The summons then goes much wider than a narrow request for documents tied to one transaction. It demands, for the period beginning January 1, 2021, “all communications regarding Ontario (or Canada generally)” among directors, officers, employees, contractors, agents and consultants of Binance and related entities.8
That wording is what ultimately troubles the Ontario Court of Appeal. A regulator can compel business records. A regulated firm also has a lower expectation of privacy than an ordinary person in many contexts. But the Court says even a low privacy expectation doesn’t permit a demand without a reasonable foundation to believe the records may be relevant.
The Court later describes the request as “staggering in its breadth” because it could capture communications across virtually anyone working for Binance or related entities, across all of Canada, without limiting every category to the subjects under investigation.
The OSC remains free to investigate and issue another summons that complies with the Charter. The dispute is about how broad the compulsory demand can be, not whether Binance is beyond investigation.
Canada’s Other Binance Overhang
The OSC case isn’t the only Canadian issue that survives Binance’s exit. FINTRAC later imposes a C$6.002 million administrative monetary penalty. It says Binance failed to register as a foreign money services business and failed to report 5,902 large virtual currency transactions of C$10,000 or more between June 2021 and July 2023. FINTRAC says Binance officially ceased all Canadian operations on September 25, 2023 and was required to be registered until then.9
Binance has appealed the FINTRAC decision to Federal Court. This is a separate legal track under federal anti money laundering legislation and doesn’t determine the OSC Charter case.
A company can stop onboarding customers, close a product or leave a jurisdiction. Regulators can still investigate conduct that occurred while the business was active there.
Regulators need records to reconstruct the past. Cross border platforms can spread staff, systems and legal entities across several countries. Without compulsory powers, investigators may struggle to establish who made a decision, which controls existed and what customers were told.
Broad demands carry real operating costs. A request covering years of email, chat, files and other communications can trigger preservation, data collection, legal review, privilege screening and cross border privacy work. A global exchange can spend heavily on that process. A smaller fintech may feel the same demand much more sharply.
Ontario’s Top Court Says the OSC Went Too FarNovember 2025
Binance tries several routes to challenge the investigation and summons. The Capital Markets Tribunal says it lacks jurisdiction to revoke them. The Divisional Court declines to decide the Charter challenge in the way Binance asks. The OSC itself later says it lacks jurisdiction to vary or revoke the summons. The Court of Appeal finally reaches the constitutional issue and sets the summons aside. The regulator can keep investigating, but it has to ask again within Charter limits.10
The ruling protects relevance, not secrecy. The Court accepts that regulators have strong production powers and that privacy expectations for regulated business records can be low. It still requires a reasonable basis to believe compelled records may matter to the investigation.
The OSC sees a wider enforcement problem. The regulator argues that the Court of Appeal’s approach could make investigations slower and more difficult, particularly before investigators know exactly where useful evidence sits. Binance answers that regulators have had relevance limits for decades and can draft demands around the conduct they are actually investigating.
A New Binance Inherits the Old Binance’s Problems2023 to 2026
While Canadian courts examine the old Binance, regulatory pressure is forcing the company itself to change.
In November, Binance pleads guilty in the United States to criminal violations involving anti money laundering law, money transmission registration and sanctions. It agrees to pay US$4.3 billion, strengthen compliance and accept independent monitoring. Founder Changpeng Zhao pleads guilty to a separate Bank Secrecy Act offence and steps down as CEO.11
Richard Teng takes over. Binance establishes its first board. Licences, local entities and compliance spending move from the edges of the business model toward the centre.
The company that once treated regulatory borders as friction is rebuilding itself around them.
Inside Binance’s Post 2023 Compliance Rebuild
The Binance that emerges after the US settlement looks more like a conventional global financial company than the founder led organization regulators confronted earlier.
By December 2024, Teng said Binance had moved from a founder and CEO led structure to a board led model and held about 20 licences and registrations worldwide. Reuters reported that the company had created its first board and was still weighing a permanent global headquarters.12
Japan shows what that new approach can look like in practice. Binance didn’t simply keep serving local users from the global platform after regulator warnings. It bought a registered local exchange, launched Binance Japan and migrated users into the local structure.
At the end of 2025, Binance announced that its global platform had received authorization under Abu Dhabi Global Market’s regulatory framework. ADGM described it as the first crypto exchange to secure a formal global licence from its Financial Services Regulatory Authority.13
None of that erases earlier conduct or decides the Canadian case. Compliance has moved from something Binance repeatedly collided with into infrastructure it increasingly needs for market access.
The Binance Fight Becomes Bigger Than Crypto2026
The Supreme Court grants the OSC leave to appeal on May 21. By October, the case has attracted groups that have little to do with crypto trading. The Court grants intervention rights to the attorneys general of Canada, Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the British Columbia Securities Commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Constitution Foundation and Quebec’s workplace safety commission. It rejects several other applications, including the Canadian Forum for Financial Markets. The fight now reaches beyond one exchange. Section 8 of the Charter and the limits on compulsory record demands in regulated industries are at stake.
Investor protection still needs effective investigations. Regulators can’t police complex markets without access to records. Cross border digital businesses make that harder because relevant evidence may sit across entities, employees and systems that don’t line up neatly with one province.
Constitutional limits still matter inside regulated markets. Laura Paglia of the Canadian Forum for Financial Markets told Advisor.ca that securities regulators need broad powers, but argued that demands should remain proportionate and consider compliance costs. CFFiM was denied intervener status, so its view is industry commentary rather than a submission the Supreme Court will hear.14
The Company Left but the Regulatory Boundary Didn’t
Binance has already tried several endings in Canada.
First it left Ontario. Then it hired regulators and built an Alberta operation that was supposed to bring it back. Then it accepted an Ontario undertaking. Then it decided the national rules were no longer worth the trade and left Canada altogether.
The legal history kept going.
FINTRAC imposed a penalty tied to the years Binance operated here. Investors pursued a separate class action. Ontario courts rejected Binance’s attempt to force those investors into costly Hong Kong arbitration, a dispute later followed by Ontario Court Orders Binance To Pay Investor Legal Costs. The OSC kept investigating. The company that left Canada in 2023 is still litigating here in 2026.
Binance changed too. Zhao stepped down. A board arrived. Local licences and compliance teams became part of the growth strategy. Japan went from warning Binance to hosting a locally registered Binance business. Abu Dhabi became a regulated global base.
The Supreme Court case is now much bigger than Binance.
The Court is being asked to decide where constitutional limits sit when a regulator with legitimate investigative powers demands a very large volume of company records. A ruling that gives regulators wider latitude could make it easier to investigate complex businesses whose people, systems and data span multiple entities and countries. A ruling that requires a tighter connection between requested records and suspected conduct could force regulators to narrow summonses earlier and give companies stronger grounds to challenge sweeping demands.
Either way, the decision could shape how securities regulators design investigations, how regulated firms preserve and produce records, and how much compliance cost companies may face when regulators come looking for evidence. Depending on how broadly the Court reasons, its impact could also reach beyond capital markets into other regulated sectors that rely on statutory production powers.
That helps explain why governments, another securities regulator and civil liberties organizations have joined a dispute that began with one crypto exchange. The precedent could influence the balance between effective supervision and protection against regulatory overreach across Canadian business.
Binance spent years learning that global reach doesn’t erase national borders. Canada’s highest court is now deciding where one of those borders sits for regulators themselves.
Once a regulator has authority to investigate, how much of a company can it force open?
Binance left Canada. The company moved on. The answer could matter to regulated businesses long after this case is over.
Questions for Regulated Firms in Canada
How closely will regulators have to connect compelled records to the conduct they are investigating?
Will the Supreme Court give regulators more room to make broad document demands early in an investigation?
Could tighter limits on regulatory summonses change how firms preserve, retrieve and challenge record requests?
How much regulatory exposure survives after a company closes a product, changes ownership or exits a market?
Will firms operating in Canada need stronger record keeping, legal review and compliance infrastructure to respond to future regulatory demands?
A current guide to registration, custody, transfers, funding, fees and operational risks Canadian investors should check before sending money to a crypto platform.
Market access can improve while evidence, records and supervision requirements get tougher, changing the economics for both incumbents and smaller entrants.
Canada’s new stablecoin proposal shows how market access can depend on local custody, supervision and operating requirements, even when the underlying product is global.
Financial supervision is expanding beyond traditional capital and conduct questions into sanctions, cyber threats, ownership and state linked risk.
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
October 27, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Intelligence | Regulation And Policy, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Competition And Market Structure
Proposed Rule Changes Could Lower Financing Costs for Smaller Canadian Companies
On July 16, 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) published Consultation Paper 51-406 on modernizing public company regulation. The CSA wants feedback on whether simpler reporting rules and fewer private placement restrictions could help Canadian companies raise capital at a lower cost. The changes could affect financial reporting, institutional investment and access to financing, particularly for smaller listed businesses. Comments close November 13, 2026.
Two ideas stand out. (1) The CSA is considering a new exemption that could let qualifying public companies raise money from institutional investors without the usual four month restriction on reselling shares. (2) It is also asking whether a company's size and business operations should matter more when deciding which reporting rules apply. Both could affect the cost of raising capital and doing business as a public company. Nothing has been approved yet.
Which Public Company Reporting Rules Could Change?
Canada had approximately 3,000 listed companies in March 2026, according to the CSA. About 76% were classified as venture issuers, and only 12% had a market value above C$1 billion. Most listed companies are relatively small, but they still pay for audits, accounting, legal advice and regular regulatory filings. Those expenses add up, especially for businesses that depend on outside investment to grow.
The consultation covers five main reporting questions.
1. Should reporting rules depend more on company size?
Today, whether a company qualifies as a venture issuer largely depends on the exchange where its shares trade. The CSA wants to know whether revenue, assets, market value or the amount of shares held by public investors would be better measures. It is also considering changes to the existing system and whether larger venture issuers should move to senior exchanges.
A small company listed on a senior exchange may face more demanding reporting rules than a larger business on a venture exchange. Changing the criteria could make reporting costs more reasonable for some companies, although others might face new requirements. The rules would also need to be predictable so companies aren't forced to change their reporting practices every time their market value moves.
2. Can smaller companies spend less on financial reporting?
The CSA is asking whether certain venture issuers should receive relief from specific International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) requirements. Some accounting rules involve specialist advisers, detailed valuations and substantial preparation costs. Regulators want to know which requirements are particularly expensive and which information investors actually use. Any relief needs to save companies money without taking away financial information investors rely on.
3. Do companies need to file two reports about the same event?
Public companies generally must announce a material change promptly and then file a separate report within 10 days. A material change is an important development affecting a company's business, operations or capital. The CSA is asking whether a news release containing all the required information could replace the second filing when properly submitted through SEDAR+. It also wants to clarify which developments require a material change report. That could reduce legal bills and paperwork without leaving investors in the dark.
4. Should more companies report results every six months?
Certain eligible venture issuers can already choose to report financial results every six months instead of every quarter. The CSA is considering whether that option should be available to all public companies. Fewer reports could save money, but investors would have less frequent financial updates. That could be a concern for companies whose finances are changing quickly or that regularly need fresh capital. Regulators are also asking whether companies using this option should face additional conditions, particularly when raising money through a prospectus.
5. Should Canada follow changes being considered in the US?
The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed several changes in May 2026. These include allowing public companies to report financial results every six months instead of quarterly, making it easier for more companies to raise money through registered share offerings, and reducing some reporting requirements for smaller businesses. The proposals aren't final rules yet.
The CSA wants feedback on whether similar changes would benefit Canada. Canadian companies compete with US businesses for investment, so differences in reporting costs and financing rules can matter. Making it cheaper and easier to raise capital could help Canadian companies compete, but investors still need reliable information to assess risk. Canada's large number of smaller listed companies also means US approaches may need to be adapted to suit.
Could Shorter Resale Restrictions Improve Financing?
Private placement rules are among the most important issues for companies trying to raise money. Under many existing exemptions, investors who buy newly issued shares from a public company must generally wait four months before reselling them. Because their money is tied up, they may demand a lower share price. That can leave founders and existing shareholders with less ownership after a financing.
The CSA is reviewing whether these restrictions are still necessary in every situation. One option is a new Qualified Institutional Purchaser (QIP) exemption. It could let eligible Canadian public companies sell shares to qualifying institutional investors through registered dealers without the usual four month resale restriction. Conditions would still apply, and the exemption is only being considered at this stage.
Some investment funds have rules that limit their ability to buy shares they cannot readily sell. Removing that restriction for qualifying transactions could bring more institutions into Canadian financings. More interested buyers might help companies negotiate better prices or complete deals that otherwise wouldn't happen. The final rules would determine whether those benefits are achievable.
The consultation raises four practical questions about how such an exemption could work.
Who could use it? The CSA wants feedback on which public companies and institutional investors should qualify. Setting the requirements too narrowly might exclude investors the exemption is intended to attract. Making them too broad could create new risks for investors and the market.
Would a registered dealer have to arrange the deal? Dealers can check eligibility, review information and help oversee a financing. That can protect investors and improve accountability. But dealers also charge fees, which matter when a company is raising a relatively small amount of capital. The CSA is asking whether mandatory dealer involvement strikes the right balance.
How would investors be protected? If newly issued shares can be sold immediately, regulators need to consider disclosure requirements, legal remedies and possible short selling arrangements. Investors buying shares in the public market shouldn't be left without important information. The legal protections available in a private placement can also differ from those in a public offering made through a prospectus.
Would the change bring in more money? Giving institutions another way to invest doesn't automatically mean they'll invest more. Companies still need attractive businesses, reasonable valuations and willing buyers.
Canada has already seen strong demand for more flexible financing rules. Following changes to the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption, hundreds of companies raised almost C$4 billion in the first year under the higher limits, roughly eight times the earlier pace. The increase doesn't necessarily prove the rule changes caused every financing, but it shows how extensively companies used the expanded exemption.
The proposed QIP exemption would work differently, focusing on institutional investors. Its value would depend on whether those investors bring additional capital and whether issuers can raise money on better terms. For smaller public companies, even a modest improvement in financing prices can mean issuing fewer shares and preserving more ownership. Companies and dealers with direct private placement experience can help regulators understand where the current restrictions make deals harder or more expensive.
How Industry Feedback Could Shape the Rules
The CSA wants feedback before deciding whether to change the rules. Companies and investors don't need to address every question. They can focus on the issues they know best and explain how the current requirements affect their decisions.
Founders and public company executives can share what they spend on reporting, audits and legal work. They can explain which filings take the most time, whether those costs influence where they list and how much money could be saved through simpler requirements. Real examples would help regulators separate necessary investor disclosures from work that adds limited value.
Investors and investment dealers can explain how resale restrictions affect private placements. That includes discounts investors seek, deals that are difficult to complete and cases where institutions cannot participate. They can also identify what information and safeguards they would need before accepting shares without a resale hold.
Accountants, securities lawyers and other advisers can explain which requirements create unnecessary work and where simpler rules might introduce new problems. Readers preparing their own comments can also review the industry submissions published by Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers. These include responses from Fiore Management & Advisory Corp., SRI Capital Advisors and Canadian Independent Finance and Innovation Counsel. They offer examples of how other market participants are approaching the proposals.
Comments close November 13, 2026. Issuers, investors, dealers, advisers and other interested parties can submit feedback directly to the CSA using the online form or by uploading a PDF letter. Comments should focus on relevant consultation questions and include practical examples, financing costs or investor experience where possible. Submissions may be published. For technical help with the submission process, contact the CSA Secretariat at info@acvm-csa.ca.
Talking Point
Canada's public markets need to be affordable for smaller companies and attractive to investors. Reporting expenses can take money away from business growth, while private placement restrictions can affect financing prices and who is able to invest. The CSA's review is an opportunity to see which requirements still serve a useful purpose and which may be making capital harder or more expensive to obtain.
The proposed institutional financing exemption and review of venture issuer rules deserve particular attention. Both could help companies access capital or reduce costs, but the benefits will depend on how any changes are designed. Founders, investors, dealers and advisers have an opportunity to provide that practical evidence before the November 13 deadline. The goal is better access to capital while keeping the information and protections investors need to participate with confidence.
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
October 27, 2026 | NCFA Industry Resource | SME Finance And Business Banking, Sustainable Finance ESG And Financial Inclusion, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding
Growth Loans, Regional Financing and Founder Awards
On October 22, 2026, Women's Enterprise Organizations of Canada (WEOC) and the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) announced up to C$200,000 in growth loans for eligible women entrepreneurs. WEOC also partnered with Quebec lender Evol to connect more founders with financing and business support. Separately, the Capital Elle Business Impact Award is accepting applications until October 28, 2026, giving Canadian women entrepreneurs three opportunities worth considering.
WEOC and BDC Offer Up to C$200,000 in Growth Loans
The new Women Entrepreneur Growth Financing programme combines WEOC loans of up to C$50,000 with BDC loans of up to C$150,000. Backed by a C$12.5 million financing commitment over two years, the pilot targets eligible women owned businesses outside Quebec that need more capital to expand. BDC is contributing C$10 million toward the programme.
For businesses ready to buy equipment, invest in technology, increase production or pursue larger contracts, the additional financing could make a meaningful difference. Regional WEOC lending partners will assess applicants and provide business advice and ongoing support. The combined C$200,000 is a maximum, subject to eligibility and lending approval.
Applications haven't opened yet. Financing is expected to begin later in 2026. Interested founders can register for WEOC growth financing updates to receive application details, eligibility requirements and loan terms when available.
WEOC and Evol Connect Women Entrepreneurs With Lenders
WEOC's new partnership with Evol connects lending services across Canada. Evol supports entrepreneurs throughout Quebec's 17 regions, while WEOC works through lending partners elsewhere in Canada. The organizations will refer founders to suitable financing and advisory services, including businesses that may not qualify for an existing programme.
Both organizations participate in the Women Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, which offers eligible businesses loans of up to C$50,000. The partnership isn't a new grant or an extension of the C$200,000 BDC pilot into Quebec. It helps entrepreneurs find lenders and support suited to their location and financing needs.
Capital Elle Award Applications Close October 28
The Capital Elle Business Impact Award offers Canadian women entrepreneurs cash awards and business support across three categories covering strategic connections, growth capital and acquisitions. The organizer advertises a combined prize package worth more than C$100,000, including C$5,000 cash for each category winner, professional services, mentoring and business connections.
The award is open to women founders across industries, subject to eligibility requirements. Applicants select the category that best fits their business goals. The application process costs C$50 for nonmembers (nonrefundable), while eligible paid Elleiance members can apply without an additional fee.
Deadline is October 28, 2026, at 9 p.m. Eastern. Founders should review the official award terms and confirm eligibility.
Takeaway
More financing options are welcome, and founders should match the opportunity to their business. Growth loans can fund expansion, regional lenders can provide ongoing support, and awards offer cash and business connections. The best choice depends on how much money the business needs, what it qualifies for and whether it can take on debt.
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
Opening a crypto account takes only a few minutes. Deciding whether the platform deserves your money should take a little longer.
CryptoVantage has published a new due-diligence framework to help Canadian investors evaluate cryptocurrency trading platforms before making a deposit. The guide moves beyond rankings and promotional claims by focusing on seven questions that reveal how a platform actually handles customer money, digital assets, fees and support problems.
The framework is designed primarily for first-time buyers, although its questions also apply to experienced investors comparing a new service. It can be used to examine Canadian platforms such as Bitbuy, Newton, Shakepay and Wealthsimple, as well as international companies serving Canadian customers, including Coinbase and Kraken.
No platform is the right choice for everyone. The point is to know what is being offered before sending Canadian dollars or cryptocurrency.
1. Is the platform registered to operate in Canada?
A polished application and a familiar brand name do not tell investors whether a platform is authorized to serve Canadian customers.
Crypto asset trading platforms operating in Canada may be subject to provincial securities requirements. Depending on their activities and regulatory status, they may also need to pursue registration as investment dealers and membership in the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization.
Canadian investors can consult CIRO’s information about crypto asset trading platforms and the relevant provincial securities regulator. They should search for the company’s legal name, not just the trading name displayed in its app.
That distinction matters. A global company may operate through a separate Canadian entity, while another service may limit particular products in Canada.
Registration provides a level of regulatory oversight, but it should not be mistaken for a promise that an investment cannot lose value. It also does not eliminate cybersecurity, fraud, insolvency or operational risks.
The useful question is not simply, “Is this a regulated exchange?” It is, “Which legal entity holds my account, and what registration does that entity currently have?”
2. Who holds the customer’s crypto?
Buying cryptocurrency and taking personal custody of it are two separate decisions.
When assets remain on a centralized platform, the customer typically depends on that company and its custody arrangements. Some platforms hold part of their customers’ assets directly. Others use specialist custodians or a combination of internal and external storage.
For example, a Canadian investor might buy Bitcoin through Wealthsimple, Coinbase, Kraken, Newton, Shakepay or Bitbuy. The account interface may look straightforward, but the custody structure behind it can be considerably more complex.
Investors should look for clear answers to several basic questions. Are customer assets segregated from corporate assets? What proportion is stored offline? Does the platform identify outside custodians? Who controls the keys required to move funds? What happens if a custody provider fails?
Insurance also needs context. A statement that assets are “insured” does not necessarily mean every loss is covered. A policy may apply only to certain storage systems, specific criminal events or losses caused by the custodian. It may exclude phishing, customer mistakes, compromised passwords or losses above a coverage limit.
Custody is becoming a larger part of Canada’s digital-finance infrastructure. NCFA has previously examined how crypto custody regulation is changing, including the growing importance of segregation controls, operational resilience and oversight evidence.
3. Can the crypto be withdrawn to a personal wallet?
A platform may allow customers to buy and sell cryptocurrency without supporting withdrawals to an external address. That arrangement can suit someone interested only in price exposure, but it is different from purchasing an asset that can be moved into self-custody.
Before depositing money, investors should confirm whether the platform supports external transfers for the exact asset they intend to buy.
Support can vary by coin and network. A service might allow Bitcoin withdrawals but restrict a newer token. It might support USDC on Ethereum while not supporting the same stablecoin on Solana or another network. Sending assets through an incompatible network can lead to a difficult or unsuccessful recovery process.
Withdrawal rules deserve attention too. Platforms may impose minimum amounts, network charges, daily limits or temporary security holds. A newly added bank account, password reset or device change can trigger an additional delay.
These controls are not automatically a bad sign. A short security hold may stop an unauthorized withdrawal. The concern is whether the platform explains its policy before the customer needs to move funds.
CryptoVantage recommends treating a small test withdrawal as part of the onboarding process. It can reveal whether the address format, selected network, confirmation steps and expected fees are understood before a larger amount is at risk.
4. How are Canadian-dollar deposits handled?
For Canadian users, the quality of the fiat on-ramp can be as important as the trading interface.
Platforms including Newton, Shakepay and Bitbuy have built their Canadian services around familiar funding options such as Interac e-Transfer. Coinbase and Kraken also serve Canadian customers, but available deposit methods, processing times and limits may differ.
Investors should check whether deposits are made directly to the platform or processed by another company. They should also review minimum and maximum amounts, expected processing times and the name that will appear on their bank statement.
A bank may pause or reject a transaction even when the crypto platform accepts that funding method. This can happen because of fraud controls, account limits or the bank’s internal policies.
Credit and debit cards introduce another layer of cost. A platform may charge a card-processing fee, while the card issuer could classify the purchase differently from an ordinary retail transaction.
The practical test is simple: calculate how many dollars arrive in the trading account after every visible charge. A “free deposit” is useful, but it says nothing about the spread applied when those dollars are exchanged for crypto.
5. Where are the trading costs disclosed?
The word “commission-free” can be technically accurate while still leaving the customer with a meaningful cost.
Some platforms charge a clearly stated transaction fee. Others earn revenue through the spread between the displayed buying and selling prices. Advanced trading interfaces may use maker-and-taker schedules, while instant-purchase features can have a different price structure.
For a fair comparison, an investor can record three numbers at the same moment:
The broader market price of the asset
The price quoted by the platform for a purchase
The amount that could be sold back immediately
The difference provides a more practical picture than an advertised commission rate alone.
The company’s Canadian crypto exchange guide compares services including Coinbase, Bitbuy, Kraken and Shakepay while examining factors such as fees, deposits, withdrawals, security and transaction speed.
Costs can also appear after the trade. A user may encounter a crypto withdrawal charge, blockchain network fee, staking commission or currency-conversion cost. Comparing the complete transaction journey is more useful than comparing one headline percentage.
6. What happens when an account is restricted?
Most customers judge a platform when everything is working. Due diligence should also consider what happens when it is not.
An account may be restricted because of an identity-verification issue, a suspicious login, a disputed bank transfer, a compliance review or activity that triggers the platform’s monitoring systems. Even legitimate customers can be asked for additional documents.
Before funding an account, investors should locate the support options. Is live chat available? Can a customer reach a human agent? Is there a formal complaint process? Does the company publish estimated response times? Which organization can review an unresolved complaint?
Social media is not a safe substitute for official support. Fraudsters routinely impersonate exchanges and respond to public complaints with offers of private assistance. A genuine support representative should not need a wallet recovery phrase or private key.
It is also sensible to keep independent records. Customers should retain deposit confirmations, trade histories, withdrawal identifiers and relevant correspondence. Accessing those records may become harder after an account is closed or restricted.
7. Will the platform provide usable transaction records?
Crypto recordkeeping should begin with the first purchase, not several months later when a tax return or portfolio review makes the information necessary.
A useful platform should allow customers to export deposits, withdrawals, purchases, sales, trades, staking rewards and applicable fees. Ideally, the records should be available in a common format that can be reviewed in a spreadsheet or imported into compatible accounting software.
Investors should not assume that a simple annual gain-and-loss figure will capture every relevant activity. Moving assets between personal wallets is different from disposing of them, but the transaction still needs to be documented so the movement can be traced.
Records are also valuable when investigating a delayed withdrawal or reconciling a wallet balance. A blockchain transaction identifier can show whether a transfer was broadcast, while the platform’s internal history can document when the request was submitted.
If export tools are difficult to find before an account is funded, they may not become easier to use later.
Due diligence is not a one-time exercise
A platform can change its fees, supported assets, banking relationships, custody providers or Canadian availability. Regulatory status may also evolve.
Investors should repeat the seven-question review when opening a new account and periodically revisit it for platforms they already use. A service that suited a small first purchase may not be the right place for a larger balance, frequent trading or long-term custody.
The framework does not attempt to identify a universally safest exchange. Instead, it helps users separate several ideas that are often blended together: regulatory registration, custody, cybersecurity, insurance, liquidity and personal account security.
That is the larger purpose of the new guide. Choosing a crypto platform should not begin with a promotional bonus or a list of supported tokens. It should begin with understanding which company is receiving the money, what it will do with the assets and how the customer can leave if circumstances change.
About the Author
CryptoVantage is a cryptocurrency publication providing educational guides, news, analysis, and reviews covering Bitcoin, blockchain, exchanges, wallets, fintech, and digital assets. Its team of writers, researchers, and cryptocurrency specialists creates accessible content for both newcomers and experienced crypto users, helping readers better understand the rapidly evolving digital-asset industry.
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
Oct 17, 2026 | Last Updated: Oct 30, 2026 | NCFA Fintech Whisperer | Artificial Intelligence And Data, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Competition And Market Structure, Cross Border Payments And FX, Cybersecurity Fraud And Financial Crime, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Digital Identity And Trust, Embedded Finance, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Regulation And Policy, Risk Compliance And Regtech, Sustainable Finance ESG And Financial Inclusion, Digital Banking And BaaS, Treasury Liquidity And Cash Management, Wealthtech Investing And Trading, Open Banking Open Finance And Data Sharing
Sezzle filed an application with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to charter Sezzle Bank, N.A. and separately applied to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation for deposit insurance.
If approved, the bank would offer FDIC insured checking and savings accounts along with credit products. Sezzle says it would focus on digitally native consumers, including people who are new to credit or prefer buy now pay later products over traditional credit cards.
A national charter would bring Sezzle Bank under OCC supervision for safety and soundness, consumer compliance, Bank Secrecy Act and anti money laundering controls, and fair lending. Sezzle also plans to become a bank holding company supervised by the Federal Reserve.
Sezzle is trying to move from distributing credit through banking partners toward owning a federally supervised banking platform. If approved, that would give it more control over deposits, credit products, funding and customer economics. The next signals are OCC and FDIC decisions, capital requirements and how much of Sezzle's current partner model eventually moves inside the bank.
NORTHGUARD Financial launched as a Canadian mortgage lender and servicer and announced its purchase of Wiseday, an established mortgage lender in Quebec. Financial terms weren’t disclosed.
The company combines a Canadian built, AI enabled lending and servicing platform with Wiseday’s lending operations. It plans to serve brokers, capital partners and homeowners across prime and alternative mortgages.
A national rollout is planned through 2027. The announcement doesn’t establish that every product or market is already live.
Mortgage technology only earns its place when it improves underwriting, servicing and broker economics. NORTHGUARD has acquired an operating base rather than starting with software alone. Founders and capital partners should watch how quickly it expands beyond Quebec, how it funds mortgages and whether faster decisions translate into stronger loan performance.
Ramp publicly announced on October 19 that it submitted an application to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) on October 16 to establish Ramp National Trust Bank.
If approved, the proposed national trust bank would provide fiduciary investment management and digital asset custody under federal supervision. It would not accept deposits or make commercial loans.
The proposed bank would operate alongside Ramp's existing banking partners. No charter approval or launch date has been announced. Ramp recently raised US$1.85 billion at a US$60 billion valuation.
Ramp is seeking direct control over regulated investment and custody capabilities rather than relying entirely on external providers. Following its recent funding and expansion, the charter application adds another route for the company to broaden its financial services business. The key tests are OCC approval, which capabilities Ramp brings in-house, and how the new entity would work alongside existing bank partners.
SoFi launched SOFIE, an interest-bearing tokenized consumer deposit representing US$1 held at SoFi Bank. The advertised yield at launch is 4.40% APY, with applicable FDIC insurance limits.
Members can convert SOFIE at a 1-to-1 rate into SoFiUSD to make blockchain transfers or buy crypto. SOFIE is a bank deposit; SoFiUSD is a separate payment stablecoin.
SoFi says customers can access SOFIE through its crypto account. The 4.40% APY is variable, and deposit insurance applies only to qualifying funds within the relevant limits.
SoFi is testing whether customers will keep digital dollar balances at a bank until they need to transact. The split between an insured deposit and a transferable stablecoin is commercially important because the legal protections change at conversion. Banks and fintechs should compare yield, redemption terms and access rather than treating both tokens as the same product.
Finom launched an MCP connection for ChatGPT and Claude that lets business customers ask questions about transactions, invoices, cards and accounting data in natural language.
The service is available across Finom plans in Europe to a customer base the company puts at more than 300,000 businesses. Customers authenticate with Finom and can revoke the connection.
Access is limited to the user’s existing account permissions. The current connection is read-only; it cannot initiate payments, issue cards or change account settings.
Banks are starting to offer controlled data access where customers already work with AI, rather than forcing every question back into a banking app. Finom’s read-only design keeps the risk boundary relatively clear. The test is whether business owners use it routinely and whether future payment permissions can be added without sacrificing that control.
Starling Bank disclosed that its agentic financial crime investigator has been operating for about three weeks inside the bank’s core banking engine. The disclosure came from its chief customer and banking officer, Bernadette Smith.
Smith says the system investigates transaction monitoring alerts, records its audit trail and returns a reasoned decision in less than 17 seconds per alert. She compares that with 15 to 30 minutes of manual review.
The system uses Starling’s own data and model, with access to live transaction context. The bank hasn’t published independently tested accuracy rates, false positive results or cost per investigation.
A bank can now test whether AI cuts investigation costs without losing control of the decision trail. Starling’s approach also raises the bar for vendors that sit outside the banking core. But speed isn’t enough. Compliance teams still need to know when a decision should be challenged, who owns an error and whether the economics hold across higher risk cases.
The European Central Bank says supervised banks are expected to submit concrete action plans by the end of October showing how they will address cyber risks created by more capable AI systems.
The ECB asked banks to reassess cybersecurity measures as well as related IT budgets and staffing. It warns that advanced AI can find and exploit vulnerabilities faster than existing defensive processes may respond.
Supervisory concerns extend beyond cyber attacks. The ECB also flags model dependence, bias, poor data quality and concentration risk where banks rely heavily on a small group of cloud providers.
AI risk is moving from broad supervisory concern into bank level remediation work. The practical question is no longer whether banks recognize the threat. It's whether they can show the ECB who owns the risk, what systems need investment and how quickly controls can change as models become more capable. NCFA first tracked the supervisory direction in ESRB Warns Frontier AI Models Could Strain Cyber Resilience. The October action plans turn that warning into an execution deadline.
The Financial Conduct Authority published examples of good practice and areas for improvement in financial services AI, drawing on supervisory work, AI Live Testing and its Supercharged Sandbox. The examples apply to machine learning, generative AI and agentic AI.
The FCA says existing requirements already apply when firms use AI. Its examples cover consumer outcomes, governance, monitoring, senior management accountability, human oversight, operational resilience and third party dependencies. The publication does not create new requirements.
Good practices include testing outcomes before deployment, maintaining auditable records, setting clear escalation routes and monitoring live performance. Weak practices include unclear ownership, retrospective governance, poor documentation and reliance on AI vendors without enough testing or exit planning.
The FCA has made current obligations easier to test against real deployment patterns without creating a separate AI rulebook. Firms can compare their controls with concrete supervisory examples before weak ownership, monitoring or vendor dependence becomes an operating problem. NCFA has been tracking the same AI governance and compliance costs as financial institutions move from experiments into live workflows.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission granted Cboe Clear U.S. temporary registration as a securities clearing agency, expanding its authority beyond futures and swaps into securities products.
The registration allows Cboe Clear U.S. to provide central counterparty clearing for binary securities options. Cboe says its first use will be clearing binary options tied to specified corporate key performance indicators that are planned for Cboe Options Exchange and Robinhood.
The approval creates another registered clearing route for securities options alongside the existing U.S. clearing infrastructure. Cboe Clear U.S. is already registered with the CFTC as a derivatives clearing organization.
This expands the market infrastructure available for event driven securities products before the products themselves reach investors. The commercial test is whether Cboe and Robinhood can turn the new clearing authority into meaningful trading volume while keeping the risk, margin and settlement controls expected of regulated securities markets.
London Stock Exchange Group agreed to acquire Octus for US$3.535 billion in cash, moving beyond the acquisition talks it confirmed on October 13. Closing is expected in the first half of 2027, subject to regulatory approval.
Octus serves 750 customers and more than 40,000 users across private, illiquid and distressed credit. It has more than 900 employees and expects over US$300 million in 2026 revenue with an adjusted EBITDA margin of about 40%.
LSEG plans to combine Octus data and workflows with Workspace, LPC, Yield Book, PRS and Tradeweb. Octus also distributes data through an MCP connector and AI workflows, giving LSEG another route into private credit research and decision tools.
Private credit is becoming too large for market data firms to treat as a side business. LSEG is paying for proprietary information, workflow and distribution in a market it estimates at US$3.5 trillion. Investors should watch whether the deal improves pricing and risk visibility in less liquid credit or simply concentrates more valuable data inside one platform. The commercial upside depends on cross selling without weakening the specialist product customers already pay for.
Canada announced C$1 billion for the Growth VCCI, including C$700 million for funds of funds, C$200 million for life sciences and C$100 million for emerging fund managers. The fund-of-funds application window closes January 21, 2027.
A separate C$750 million Early and Growth Stage Investment Strategy allocates C$75 million to pre-seed and seed activity and C$675 million to later-stage growth. Feedback on the latter stream closes November 23, 2026.
The government expects the combined plan to attract at least C$3.8 billion in private capital. This is a projection, not money already raised or invested; BDC will administer the C$750 million strategy.
Fund managers have a new capital application window, but founders still need to meet the investment criteria of the funds receiving public commitments. The capital won’t necessarily reach businesses outside the venture model. The immediate tests are which managers apply, how they attract pension and private capital, and whether founders beyond established funding hubs gain access.
Kalshi Prime launched HODL Margining with BitGo Bank & Trust, allowing eligible customers to fund dollar trading margin using loans secured by BTC, ETH or eligible stablecoins.
Kalshi Katalyst supplies the dollar loans, with proceeds deposited into Kalshi Prime accounts. Pledged assets remain at BitGo in qualified custody rather than being sold or transferred to the trading venue.
Kalshi Prime is a CFTC-registered futures commission merchant. The Katalyst loans are not regulated by the CFTC or NFA; borrowers face interest costs, liquidation exposure and additional leverage risk.
This separates collateral custody from the funding used on a derivatives platform. Traders can keep crypto exposure while obtaining dollar margin, but the convenience comes with another lender, security interest and liquidation process. Custodians and brokers should watch collateral valuation, loan terms and who can act when markets gap outside banking hours.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission and France’s Autorité des Marchés Financiers entered into a supervisory memorandum of understanding covering cross-border investment adviser, investment company and investment service provider oversight.
The arrangement establishes consultation and information sharing between the two authorities for regulated firms operating across their markets.
The SEC confirmed it will process new and pending registration applications from AMF-supervised asset management companies seeking to operate as US investment advisers. The agreement is not an automatic registration approval.
French managers seeking US advisory access have a clearer supervisory cooperation arrangement behind their applications. The practical question is how registration processing, compliance preparation and ongoing examination responsibilities operate under the memorandum. Asset managers expanding internationally should distinguish the renewed application pathway from permission to begin serving clients without SEC registration.
Bank Negara Malaysia launched SSDS+, a new platform for issuing, depositing and safeguarding tokenized bonds and sukuk across Malaysia's financial market.
The system builds on Malaysia's existing Scripless Securities Depository and can support wholesale issuance as well as tokenized government and corporate retail bonds.
SSDS+ connects with RENTAS+ for secure payment and settlement around the clock. Securities ownership moves through SSDS+, while the cash leg can settle in central bank money.
Malaysia has moved tokenized fixed income into core market infrastructure rather than leaving it in a pilot. That matters because issuance, ownership records and settlement now sit inside infrastructure controlled by the central bank. NCFA previously tracked the earlier groundwork in Bank Negara Malaysia Onboards Ringgit Stablecoin And Tokenized Deposit Pilots. The next test is issuance volume and whether banks, governments and corporate borrowers start using the new rails regularly.
The Competition and Markets Authority opened a consultation on a proposed NFC access conduct requirement for Apple’s mobile platform under the UK digital markets competition regime.
The proposal would require access for third-party developers on fair, reasonable, transparent and nondiscriminatory terms, addressing access fees and commercial restrictions.
The CMA is considering access through both secure element and host card emulation. Responses close November 17, 2026; no final conduct requirement has been imposed.
Mobile wallet providers and fintechs could gain more control over how contactless services reach iPhone users. Fees, available technical methods and contractual access are the practical questions. Firms considering wallet or account-based payment products should examine the consultation now, rather than planning around terms that have not yet been finalized.
October 20, 2026, United States / United Kingdom / Global
Western Union selected Noah to provide stablecoin payment infrastructure for its planned Receiver Redirect service. Noah says the service is designed for more than 60 currencies across over 200 countries and territories.
The design uses USDPT issued by Anchorage Digital Bank on Solana. Noah will support the treasury, conversion and payment infrastructure behind the proposed service.
Western Union operates more than 500,000 agent locations. The announced network reach describes the intended service footprint, not completed stablecoin transaction volumes or a fully live rollout.
Western Union already has customer distribution and cash access. The harder work is fitting a stablecoin rail into local payout rules, liquidity and customer support. Noah gains an important infrastructure role, but both firms still need to show where customers can actually use the service and whether fees fall without making redemption harder.
Eligible US fintechs can now offer Visa corporate cards for approved business use in more than 40 countries through Newline by Fifth Third and Visa's Multinational Program.
Cards are issued for local use in each approved country, so transactions are authorized in local currency and processed more like domestic card payments. Newline says the coverage exceeds that of any other bank issuing through the Visa program.
The service is aimed at fintechs including expense platforms, HCM providers and vertical software companies. Availability still depends on client, country, regulatory, sanctions and financial crime requirements.
Cross border card programs become expensive when every new country needs another bank relationship and operating stack. Newline is using Fifth Third's balance sheet and Visa's network to give fintechs one route into more than 40 markets. The opportunity is meaningful for software platforms serving global employers and businesses. The real test is whether local authorization and issuing reduce fees and failed transactions enough to justify the added compliance work.
Fiserv made Commerce Hub globally available, giving enterprise merchants one connection to local payment methods, acquiring, settlement, reconciliation, reporting and operational controls across markets.
Fiserv reports that Commerce Hub supports several billions in processing volume and is growing more than 100% year over year across multiple industries, payment methods and business models.
Dell Technologies is using Commerce Hub to support a more unified commerce model and introduced Pix in Brazil through the platform. Fiserv also combines fraud protection, payment optimization and emerging payment methods within the same operating environment.
Fiserv is selling fewer integrations as a cross border growth advantage. Large merchants can add local payment methods without rebuilding settlement, reporting and operational controls market by market. The commercial test is whether that consolidation lowers total payment costs and speeds expansion enough to outweigh the value of using specialized providers in individual countries.
Bank Negara Malaysia and the Bank of Thailand joined Singapore’s BLOOM initiative as policymaker members to develop cross-border use of tokenized deposits and regulated stablecoins.
Participants will work on acceptance and settlement, interoperability, and programmable controls covering identity, sanctions and transaction restrictions.
New participants include Airwallex, Mastercard, Maybank, Monee, Nium, Ripple, Visa and the World Bank Group. The announcement establishes a joint development effort, not a live shared settlement network.
Cross-border digital money won’t scale if every bank has to negotiate a different settlement and compliance arrangement in every market. BLOOM puts three central banks at the table with the providers building those connections. Operators should follow the actual commercial agreements, supported assets and settlement rules, not just the growing participant list.
Mastercard introduced Stablecoin Security, an API-based risk intelligence offering that combines payment context and blockchain analytics across fiat and stablecoin payment flows.
The service assesses transaction origin, sanctions exposure, potential scams and other risks before payment completion, with outputs designed for existing fraud, compliance and case management workflows.
Borderless.xyz and Keyrails are initial partners. The product is launching first in North America, with wider commercial availability expected during 2027; Mastercard has not published product-specific transaction volumes.
Stablecoin payments are being fitted into existing institutional fraud and compliance operations rather than treated as a separate risk channel. Banks and payment providers will need to test whether the combined intelligence improves decisions across conversion, transfer and payout stages, and how responsibility is divided between partners when a suspicious transaction is held or rejected.
Forter integrated Skyfire Know Your Agent identity data into its existing checkout fraud decisions, distinguishing authorized buying agents from suspicious automated activity.
The partners completed a pilot with online retailer Jomashop, which reported nearly 100% checkout success for tested agentic traffic without an increase in chargebacks.
Forter reported a more than fourfold increase in agentic orders across its network since August. The Jomashop result is a customer-specific pilot finding, not a network-wide checkout success rate.
Agent-driven commerce needs a way to recognize authorized software without giving fraudsters a free pass. Identity signals that enter the merchant’s existing risk engine offer one practical approach. The next test is whether checkout performance holds across more merchants, higher transaction volumes and contested payments, where evidence of the human mandate matters as much as recognizing the agent.
Vantage Bank and Rio Bank completed a principal and interest payment on a loan participation using tokenized deposits through Participate and Hazel Network.
The payment moved between the two Texas banks in less than three minutes. Loan balances and payment notices updated automatically as the funds moved instead of arriving through separate processes.
Participate describes the transaction as a first for loan participation or syndication payments between financial institutions using tokenized deposits. The result proves one transaction flow, not broad production volume across the loan market.
Loan participation payments are still full of reconciliation work after the money arrives. Moving the payment and loan records together attacks that operating cost directly. Banks should care less about the token label than whether the process shortens settlement, reduces exceptions and keeps every participant on the same loan balance. Repeat volume across more institutions would turn this from a useful transaction into infrastructure.
Kinexys by J.P. Morgan made JPM Coin (JPMD), its US dollar deposit token, available on Ethereum mainnet to J.P. Morgan institutional clients, following its earlier rollout on Base.
The token gives eligible institutions a form of bank deposit money for activity involving blockchain-based assets and transactions, rather than requiring a stablecoin issuer outside the bank.
The announcement establishes Ethereum network availability; it does not disclose separate JPMD-on-Ethereum transaction volumes or make the token generally available to retail users.
Institutional settlement now has another bank deposit option on a public blockchain where tokenized assets already trade. Treasury and digital asset teams can compare the legal claim, eligible counterparties, network access and liquidity against stablecoin-based settlement. The commercial test is whether institutions use the additional network for regular transactions, not simply as another technical connection.
The Gibraltar Financial Services Commission granted Revolut Global Digital Assets Limited authorization as a Distributed Ledger Technology provider under Gibraltar's Financial Services Act.
The permission covers the transmission and execution of virtual asset orders, virtual asset custody and staking services. Gibraltar's government also confirmed that Revolut has resumed onboarding local residents to its payments app.
Revolut reports more than 80 million retail customers and over 16 million crypto users. The company plans to use the Gibraltar entity to support international digital asset expansion, but target markets and rollout dates have not yet been announced.
Revolut now has another regulated entity it can use to expand crypto services without relying on one licensing base for every market. The value will come from where the Gibraltar permission actually opens distribution, custody and staking at scale. Investors should watch which markets are added, how quickly customers migrate to the new entity and whether regulatory expansion improves revenue without adding disproportionate compliance cost.
FINMA approved Switzerland's first exchange traded retail fund that invests directly in Bitcoin, opening a regulated fund route that was previously limited to qualified investors.
The regulator granted an exception from normal diversification rules because Bitcoin has a longer trading history and higher volume than other cryptocurrencies. The fund remains subject to operational and custody safeguards, clear risk disclosure and Swiss conduct rules.
FINMA stressed that Bitcoin remains highly volatile and investors can lose a substantial amount of capital. Other providers have also submitted or announced applications for Bitcoin ETFs.
Switzerland already had deep crypto infrastructure, but retail fund approval changes distribution. Wealth platforms and advisers can now offer Bitcoin through a supervised investment product instead of pushing every customer toward direct ownership. The advantage is easier custody and familiar fund controls. The risk doesn't disappear, and competing providers will still have to win on fees, liquidity and investor trust.
October 22, 2026, United Kingdom / United Arab Emirates / Global
TerraPay Verify has integrated with Kinexys by J.P. Morgan's Liink Confirm, giving connected financial institutions and nonbank providers access to bank account and digital wallet verification before sending a payment.
The integration checks recipient details before money moves. TerraPay cites research estimating that 10% to 15% of international payments fail because beneficiary information is wrong, creating delays, manual work and fraud exposure.
TerraPay says its wider network reaches more than 7.5 billion bank accounts across 156 plus countries and 3.7 billion digital wallets. Those network figures describe TerraPay's reach, not the number of accounts already verified through Liink.
Failed cross border payments are expensive because the bank or fintech still absorbs investigation, repair and customer service costs. Connecting verification across bank accounts and wallets gives institutions a chance to catch bad recipient data before funds leave. The value will show up in lower exception rates and fewer fraud losses. Adoption will depend on how much coverage Liink participants can use without adding another slow step to the payment flow.
The European Payments Council announced SCARLET, an industry rulebook initiative for using EU Digital Identity Wallets to authenticate payments. Its board approved the work on September 24 and publicly announced it on October 19.
The proposed framework covers shared technical rules, participation terms and responsibility for failed or disputed authentication. It targets interoperability among an expected 3,000 plus payment providers and more than 27 wallet providers.
The EPC plans consultation in summer 2027 and a first rulebook in December 2027. No operating scheme has entered into force.
Payment providers can’t afford a different wallet authentication arrangement for every country or partner. A common set of rules could lower integration costs and clarify liability. The industry now has time to shape those rules, but firms shouldn’t treat a published development plan as a completed authentication standard.
World launched the World ID for banking and finance suite for financial firms seeking to check human presence, identity attributes and interactions involving AI agents.
The offering uses cryptographic proofs including Proof of Human, Proof of Presence and Proof of Attributes for customer-facing and internal experiences.
Bain Capital, OpenExchange, Outtake, Pantera Capital and VanEck Funds are named initial design partners using the technology. No bank-wide adoption rates or financial transaction volumes were published.
Financial identity checks are extending beyond onboarding into agent interactions, remote approvals and sensitive communications. Firms considering these tools need to test exactly which facts a proof establishes, what data must be retained and who accepts liability if a verified participant still gives fraudulent instructions. Design-partner use is an early distribution step, not proof of broad institutional adoption.
Anthropic integrated Stripe Link's wallet for agents and Stripe MCP into Claude Duet, a new app launching in research preview for small business owners and professionals.
Owners can ask Claude Duet to make purchases, send invoices and payment links, manage products and prices, analyze revenue and issue refunds. Each purchase still requires owner review and approval before Claude completes it with a virtual card.
Stripe says Link already powers payments for more than 200 personal agents. That figure describes Link's broader agent network, not adoption of Claude Duet, which remains in research preview.
AI assistants are moving from advice into execution inside everyday business software. Stripe gives Claude access to payment and commerce tools while keeping the owner at the approval point. For founders, that can cut routine admin without handing an agent open ended spending authority. The commercial question is whether customers trust the controls enough to move real purchasing and finance work into the interface.
HSBC launched RedCoin, ticker RCHKD, on PayMe as its first regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoin. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority licenses and supervises the stablecoin under Hong Kong's Stablecoins Ordinance.
More than 3.3 million PayMe users can activate a stablecoin wallet and use RedCoin for payments to friends and merchants. PayMe reaches more than 100,000 merchants.
HSBC Digital Assets Custody safeguards RedCoin. HSBC also plans to extend its use into tokenized investment products, adding retail payments to a digital asset stack that already includes digital bonds, tokenized gold and wholesale tokenized deposits.
Stablecoin adoption is moving into a bank's existing retail distribution rather than asking customers to adopt a new crypto wallet. That cuts a major onboarding barrier. The numbers to watch now are wallet activation, payment frequency and merchant usage. If customers use RedCoin for ordinary transactions, regulated stablecoins start competing as payment products rather than mainly trading and settlement tools.
Montreal based Nuvei secured a direct acquiring licence in Israel, extending its direct acquiring network to 53 markets. The licence was granted by the Israel Securities Authority under local payment services legislation.
Direct access to domestic card acquiring can reduce dependence on intermediary acquirers and give Nuvei more control over authorization, reconciliation and settlement services.
Nuvei says it has operated in Israel for 20 years and employs more than 300 people there. The new licence adds local regulated capacity, but the company hasn’t disclosed volumes processed under it.
Payment margins can depend on who controls the local acquiring relationship. Nuvei can now bring more of that work inside its own network instead of paying intermediaries. Merchants should compare actual approval rates and processing costs after implementation. For Canadian payment firms, the licence shows how regulated local access can strengthen international distribution.
Mastercard opened developer early access to Agent Pay for Machines after completing payment pilots with Cloudflare, Ant International, Base, BVNK, Coinbase and other partners.
In a demonstration, one approved agent budget covered nine payments to two independent merchants. The agent purchased research and generated images without separate accounts or invoices for each service.
The design uses x402 payment requests and signed vouchers. Providers verify purchases as they occur and redeem vouchers later. Buyer and seller APIs, sandbox access and documentation are now available for testing.
Agents that buy software services need spending limits that survive across multiple suppliers. Mastercard is testing a way to approve a budget once without granting open access to company funds. The commercial question is whether developers and merchants adopt one shared payment method instead of creating another patchwork of wallets, credits and billing accounts.
Euronet launched OLON, a modular merchant commerce platform that combines in store and online payment acceptance with business applications, settlement monitoring and customer services.
Its first planned full market deployment is Greece, with a stated reach of approximately 225,000 merchants, 300,000 physical points of sale and 7,000 online shops. Full deployment is still ahead.
Euronet says its merchant services business already operates in more than 15 European countries. OLON is also taking shape in Germany and other Southern European markets.
Euronet wants a larger share of the merchant relationship than payment processing alone. Connecting checkout, reconciliation and business software can improve retention and open new service revenue. Merchants will judge the platform on integration costs and daily usefulness. Competing payment providers should watch whether the Greece rollout turns Euronet’s distribution into a durable advantage.
Visa, BILL and Billtrust launched a live pilot processing end-to-end invoice payments through authorized AI agents acting between buyer and supplier platforms.
The BILL Payment Agent uses Visa Trusted Agent Protocol, Agentic Directory and tokenized credentials to access Billtrust supplier portals and complete previously approved payment instructions.
The pilot is processing transactions with participating buyers and suppliers. Buyers still authorize the underlying invoice payments, and suppliers retain portal controls; general production scale has not been announced.
Business payment automation is crossing a practical barrier: recognized agents can finish authorized transactions inside supplier portals without a person manually completing every step. Finance teams will need to define mandate limits, approval evidence and exception handling before using this model more widely. Successful pilot transactions are a useful milestone, but broad interoperability and dispute processes remain to be proven.
PPRO launched a Local Payments Council for Agentic Commerce with BLIK, EPI, Bancontact Company and DIAS to develop common technical approaches for noncard payment methods used by buying agents.
The work covers agent identity, delegated consent, authorization handoffs, refunds, disputes, liability and payment method discovery.
The council is an industry standards initiative. No unified payment rulebook or production adoption deadline has been announced.
Card networks are designing agent payment protocols, but local bank account and wallet schemes can’t simply assume those rules fit. The council gives payment providers a place to settle the hard questions around mandates, identity and refunds before agents become another checkout channel. Its value depends on usable technical specifications and adoption by real payment schemes.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority designated 12 banks as Primary Liquidity Providers for the offshore renminbi market for a new two year term beginning October 27, 2026.
The dedicated RMB repo facility for those banks increases from RMB20 billion to RMB22 billion.
HKMA selects providers based partly on their ability to supply offshore RMB funding and make markets in RMB instruments. The authority can continue adjusting the number of providers and the size of the facility as market needs change.
More official repo capacity gives market makers another liquidity buffer as Hong Kong builds deeper offshore RMB markets. The increase itself is modest, but the control point is important. Banks competing for RMB flows now have stronger public liquidity support behind market making, while exchanges, payment firms and treasury platforms get a deeper funding base for products built around offshore RMB.
October 22, 2026, United Kingdom / Singapore / Global
HSBC completed its first transaction using tokenized deposits to invest in a tokenized money market fund with Ant International and Franklin Templeton.
The transaction connected HSBC's Tokenised Deposit Service with Ant International's WhaleRTP wholesale settlement platform and a Franklin Templeton tokenized money market fund.
HSBC says the structure can support more efficient, always on liquidity management. Company staff describe the transaction as a pilot, so one completed subscription should not be treated as general commercial availability or recurring volume.
Corporate treasurers leave cash idle when fund cut off times don't match when money becomes available. This transaction shows how tokenized bank money can connect that cash directly to an investment product without rebuilding the treasury stack around a stablecoin. The opportunity is better use of working cash. The business case will depend on redemption speed, fund access and whether the model scales beyond bespoke transactions.
Stripe Treasury for agents lets businesses use AI agents to check balances, pay invoices, transfer money between accounts and convert currencies from tools including ChatGPT and Claude.
The service sits inside Stripe Treasury, where businesses already manage banking alongside payments. Companies keep control over account access and permissions rather than giving an agent unrestricted authority.
Stripe says card creation and agent spending limits are coming next. Those capabilities aren't part of the current launch and shouldn't be treated as live today.
The important shift isn't that an AI can read a balance. It can now carry out approved treasury work inside the financial account. Founders gain leverage if routine transfers and invoice payments move out of the admin queue without weakening controls. Banks and fintechs will need equally clear permission models because the competitive question is moving from who has an AI assistant to who safely lets it touch money.
The SEC's Division of Examinations published its fiscal 2027 priorities for more than 34,000 registrants, including investment advisers, funds, broker dealers, clearing agencies, transfer agents and funding portals.
Emerging technology is now an explicit examination area, including advanced AI that can affect market operations, compliance, fraud controls and investor protection.
The SEC will also examine risks around Treasury clearing reforms, tokenization and changing market infrastructure, alongside cybersecurity, customer information, private credit and anti money laundering controls.
AI and tokenization are no longer sitting outside the routine examination cycle. Firms using either in regulated workflows should expect questions about governance, supervision, records, controls and investor outcomes. For infrastructure providers, the combination of Treasury clearing and tokenization also puts implementation risk closer to the examiner's desk, not just the product roadmap.
Canada published a new Cabinet Directive on Regulatory Competitiveness and Red Tape Reduction, effective December 31, 2026. It replaces the 2018 directive and applies to specified federal regulations made by or approved by Cabinet, Treasury Board or federal ministers.
Regulators must assess and communicate the competitiveness impacts of proposed measures, offset $2 for every $1 increase in business regulatory burden over three years, and consider recognized standards for regulatory alignment across jurisdictions.
Significant impact regulations must be reviewed within five years, with other regulations reviewed at least every 10 years. The directive also calls for proportionate regulation, reduced overlap and clearer information on how businesses can introduce innovative products and services.
Regulatory competitiveness now has explicit federal policy requirements, but better outcomes aren't automatic. Fintechs and investors should watch whether impact assessments, burden offsets and regulatory reviews actually reduce entry costs and approval friction. The same questions around OSFI's approach to growth and competition extend across federal regulation: will the new requirements make it easier for credible entrants to launch, scale and compete?
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued its final GENIUS Act rule for payment stablecoin issuers and certain custody activities under its supervision. The rule takes effect January 18, 2027.
The rule covers reserve assets, redemption, risk management, audits, custody, capital and supervision. Issuers still cannot pay interest or yield solely because a customer holds, uses or retains a payment stablecoin.
The OCC dropped proposed presumptions that could have treated some third party reward arrangements as prohibited. Existing programs get no automatic safe harbour; the OCC says it will judge arrangements on their facts. Applications haven't opened yet, and anti money laundering and sanctions rules remain subject to separate rulemaking.
The final rule gives stablecoin issuers a clearer operating framework, but rewards remain a competitive fault line between banks and crypto platforms. Exchanges may still have room to pay customers when the reward isn't simply interest for holding a stablecoin, yet there is no blanket approval. Issuers and partners now need structures they can defend under OCC review. For banks, the deposit competition debate isn't settled just because the rule is final.
The Financial Conduct Authority opened consultation CP26/36 on proposed guidance for exclusions from the UK's incoming cryptoasset regulatory perimeter. The exclusions address certain stablecoin payment and settlement arrangements, proprietary trading, market making and technical services.
The new cryptoasset regime takes effect October 25, 2027. The consultation closes November 18, 2026, with final guidance targeted for January 2027.
The FCA will allow limited application forbearance where uncertainty over the technical services exclusion materially affects a firm's ability to complete its arranging permission application. Existing UK crypto businesses seeking authorization under the new regime must apply between September 30, 2026 and February 28, 2027 to benefit from the savings provision.
Crypto firms need to establish which activities require authorization and which qualify for exclusions before committing to licensing and operating structures. The distinction is particularly important for stablecoin payments, decentralized protocol interfaces and technical service providers. Firms affected by uncertainty over arranging permissions should engage with the FCA during the application window rather than assume that forbearance extends the application deadline.
The Department of Finance published four proposed regulations covering more than 400 federally regulated financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, insurers and trust companies. The proposals would activate broader technology and investment powers enacted in 2018 but not yet brought into force.
Institutions could undertake a wider range of technology activities without prior ministerial approval and acquire substantial or controlling interests in businesses combining financial and nonfinancial activities. Eligible businesses must generate at least 60% of revenue, operating expenses or assets from financial activities.
Large institutions with equity above C$12 billion would face limits of 10% of annual revenue and regulatory capital for covered nonfinancial activities. Smaller institutions could use up to 15% of revenue, with the same 10% capital limit. Large institutions would also face transaction and annual reporting requirements. The changes remain proposed, not effective.
Canada's existing restrictions can complicate fintech investments when a business combines financial services with other commercial activities. The proposed fintech investment reforms would give banks and insurers more room to invest, acquire and build technology businesses while retaining limits on their exposure. Fintech founders could gain access to strategic capital and established distribution networks. The commercial test is whether institutions use that flexibility to expand products and partnerships, rather than simply absorb promising competitors.
The Prudential Regulation Authority proposed removing prior regulatory approval for almost half of its current Senior Manager Functions, replacing those applications with notifications while keeping firm responsibility for fitness and propriety.
The proposal would remove recurring certification requirements for approximately 7,700 individuals and extend temporary senior manager cover from 12 to 18 weeks.
Comments close January 22, 2027. Implementation is contemplated in the second half of 2027, subject to legislation and final rules; these changes are not in force.
Hiring senior leaders can take months when every role requires an external approval. The UK is proposing to put more of that decision back on regulated firms without removing accountability. Boards and compliance teams should compare the proposed savings with the additional burden of documenting their own assessments before changing staffing or control plans.
The Monetary Authority of Singapore published Guidelines on Anti-Scam Measures for Brokers covering retail brokerage firms.
The guidelines have a confirmed effective date of June 30, 2027, giving firms a defined implementation period.
MAS also issued accompanying FAQs and strongly encourages retail brokers to implement the measures as early as practicable.
Retail brokers now have a dated supervisory benchmark for scam controls rather than a general warning about fraud exposure. Firms should review the full guidelines and FAQs against their customer protection, escalation and operational processes, identify changes requiring development or vendor support, and budget the work ahead of June 2027.
The Central Bank of Ireland reached a settlement with Coinbase Ireland over breaches of customer money safeguarding and outsourcing requirements between November 2020 and August 2025.
The regulator set a €4.65 million penalty, reduced to €3.25 million under its settlement discount. Coinbase Ireland accepted the findings, but the sanction requires High Court confirmation before taking effect.
The findings cite prolonged shortfalls in a safeguarding account, insufficient local oversight of outsourced functions and inadequate escalation and controls over material changes.
A global crypto brand still needs effective controls inside its locally regulated payments entity. Reliance on a parent company doesn’t transfer accountability for safeguarding customer funds. Payment firms expanding into Europe should verify daily reconciliations, board visibility and the resources available to challenge a group service provider when problems appear.
The Financial Conduct Authority opened consultation CP26/38 on updates to its Financial Crime Guide. Proposed revisions cover fraud, sanctions, proliferation financing, data security and financial crime systems.
The draft would address emerging risks involving AI and cryptoassets, including the new UK cryptoasset regime expected from October 2027.
Responses close December 24, 2026. The consultation is guidance development, not an immediately binding new financial crime rule.
Financial crime controls built around yesterday’s payment and customer patterns can miss risks introduced by agents, crypto products and new vendors. Firms should test whether their transaction evidence, staff escalation and sanctions processes still work across those channels. The consultation offers a chance to challenge unclear expectations before the final guide is issued.
Canada’s Taxonomy and Transition Planning Council released its final Sustainable Finance Taxonomy Methodology Report, setting out definitions and a process for identifying green and transition economic activities.
The methodology considers Canadian economic conditions and Indigenous rights while drawing on international sustainable finance approaches.
Sector-specific technical screening criteria and guardrails are still being developed, beginning with electricity, buildings and transportation. The methodology is not a binding rule or a completed list of eligible investments.
A shared classification method could give issuers and capital providers a more consistent basis for assessing transition-finance claims. But the real allocation decisions will turn on sector thresholds, supporting evidence and independent review. Investors and borrowers should not treat today’s methodology as a certification of individual projects or assume that unsettled greenwashing and disclosure risks have disappeared.
Joint Resolution 21 amends Brazil’s Open Finance rules for institutions sharing customer information or derived, identifiable data with commercial partners, including credit scores.
Institutions must strengthen partner contracts, security oversight, governance and reporting. Boards and senior executives receive explicit responsibilities for Open Finance performance and control.
Existing partner arrangements must be reported to the central bank by December 1, 2026. The regulator can restrict sharing or order a partnership suspended or terminated where specified risks or breaches arise.
Financial data partnerships now carry clearer accountability beyond the initial customer consent. Banks and fintech aggregators need to map every downstream recipient, inspect contract rights and test whether their oversight works when data are reused. Access to the rail is valuable, but it won’t excuse weak controls at the next company in the chain.
Weekly Close
Canada put C$1.75 billion in venture and growth capital on the table and introduced new rules to make federal regulation more competitive. Internationally, banks and fintechs advanced tokenized deposits, cross-border settlement and AI-controlled financial transactions. These are becoming practical business decisions about who controls customer access, payment infrastructure and compliance costs. The opportunity for Canadian fintechs is to compete on execution, building products customers trust, securing distribution and turning regulatory change into commercial advantage.
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
October 23, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Competition And Market Structure, SME Finance And Business Banking
Private Capital, Emerging Managers and Scaleup Funding
On October 22, 2026, Industry Minister Mélanie Joly launched Canada's C$1.75 billion Venture and Growth Capital Plan. It combines C$1 billion for a new Venture and Growth Capital Catalyst Initiative with C$750 million for early and growth stage investing. Ottawa expects the programs to attract at least C$3.8 billion of private investment, taking the total pool above C$5.5 billion.
Canada may be reaching an important turning point in how it supports venture capital. The plan is more targeted than another funding announcement. It uses public capital to attract institutional investors, broaden the fund manager base and strengthen later stage financing where Canadian companies often rely heavily on foreign capital.
The C$1.75 billion is federal capital, not money already invested in startups. Most of it will move through fund managers that must raise private capital before investing in venture funds or companies. The first C$700 million fund of funds competition is open now, while the largest growth stage stream is still being designed.
A More Targeted Venture Capital Strategy
The plan has five funding streams.
C$1 billion Growth VCCI includes C$700 million for fund of funds managers + C$200 million for life sciences funds + C$100 million for emerging managers.
C$750 million Early and Growth Stage Investment Strategy includes C$75 million for pre seed and seed investing + C$675 million for later and growth stage capital.
Founders won't apply directly for most of this money. BDC will manage the federal investments, while selected fund managers raise private capital and invest through venture funds or eligible companies. The structure is meant to increase the amount of private money available across the financing cycle rather than turn C$1.75 billion into startup grants.
The C$700 million fund of funds stream is the first part with final application terms. Applications close January 21, 2027 at noon Pacific. Managers must be raising at least C$150 million, show Canadian venture investment experience and demonstrate institutional backing or a comparable track record.
The C$100 million emerging manager allocation addresses another weakness. In 2025, the five largest Canadian venture funds captured 83% of all capital raised, while emerging managers raised only C$249 million. A separate stream gives newer managers room to build track records without having to clear the C$150 million minimum used for the main fund of funds competition.
The C$675 million later and growth stage stream targets Series B and beyond, where the financing gap becomes more pronounced. Its current design covers growth equity, opportunity funds, continuation vehicles and some innovation focused buyout strategies. It isn't open for applications yet, and ISED and BDC are accepting feedback until November 23, 2026 at 5 p.m. Pacific.
Ottawa Is Changing the Investor Economics
The most consequential part of the plan may be how Ottawa is using public money to improve the economics for private investors. Selected fund of funds managers must raise C$3 of private capital for every C$1 of public capital. A fund receiving C$50 million from Ottawa would therefore need at least C$150 million from private investors.
The fund of funds terms give private investors priority when returns are distributed. Private investors are paid before the government. They first recover their contributed capital and receive enough additional distributions to reach a 7% internal rate of return. Federal capital is then repaid and begins earning its 2% return before remaining profits are distributed under the fund's waterfall. The 7% isn't guaranteed. Private investors still carry venture risk, but they receive better economics than the federal government when a fund performs well enough to return capital and profits.
Federal money is also put to work early. Public and private capital are generally drawn equally until the government's commitment has been used, even though federal capital represents about 25% of a fund meeting the minimum 3 to 1 private match. That can make participation more attractive to institutional investors by delaying some of their capital calls.
The program still keeps a strong Canadian investment requirement. At least 60% of fund investments must go into qualifying Canadian venture funds. Managers can invest up to 30% of a fund directly into companies, but at least 90% of those direct investments must go to Canadian based businesses.
Previous programs show that the model can attract larger pools of capital. Across VCAP and earlier VCCI programs, Ottawa reports C$1.2 billion of federal investment, C$3.7 billion raised by recipient managers and C$6.4 billion invested in Canadian companies by supported funds and other investors.
The proposed C$675 million growth stage stream takes a different approach. Its current design calls for at least C$2 of private capital for every C$1 of federal investment, but public and private investors would receive the same economic terms. That could make sense in a market where the priority is increasing the number of investors able to finance larger Canadian rounds.
Canada Has a Chance to Build a Deeper Venture Market
The need is visible in the numbers. Canadian VC investment reached C$2.69 billion across 250 deals in the first half of 2026, but 16 financings of C$50 million or more absorbed 59% of all capital. Later stage activity fell to 18 deals, growth stage financing totalled only C$127 million across three deals and foreign investors participated in 56% of later stage rounds.
International capital is an advantage, something Canada should augment, not replace. The weakness appears when Canadian investors aren't able to lead or anchor enough of those larger rounds. More domestic growth capital can give strong companies another option when they are deciding where to raise, who joins the cap table and how much of the next stage of growth remains anchored in Canada.
Private capital is already moving into the gap. RBC recently launched a C$1.4 billion Canadian technology initiative that includes a growth fund for later stage technology companies. Public capital can widen that market by bringing more pension funds, insurers, family offices and fund managers into the same part of the financing cycle.
The emerging manager stream could broaden Canada's venture market as well. In 2025, government backed VCAP and VCCI capital represented 36% of Canadian VC fundraising. The next step is getting more pension funds, insurers, family offices and other private investors to keep investing after public capital has helped funds build a track record.
Exit markets remain a constraint. Canada recorded 18 venture backed exits worth C$716 million in the first half of 2026 and no venture backed IPOs. Funds ultimately need acquisitions, secondary sales or public markets to return money to investors and put that capital back to work.
Talking Point
Canada has an opportunity to use public capital differently this time. The C$1.75 billion plan can bring more institutional investors into venture, give emerging managers room to build credible track records and expand the pool of capital available when Canadian companies reach larger rounds. The turning point comes if it broadens the investor base (not just the amount of capital available), and those investors earn competitive returns and keep allocating capital after the incentives have done their job. That would move Canada closer to a venture market that compounds on its own rather than waiting for the next government program.
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