Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
Karsten Wenzlaff is a Crowdfunding and Fintech Expert from Germany. He is Secretary-General of Digit[...]
Category Archives: Innovation and Resources
Canada Adds Competitiveness to Federal Regulation
October 22, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Competition And Market Structure, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding
Regulatory Costs, Innovation and Market Access
On October 21, 2026, the Canadian government published a new federal regulatory competitiveness directive that takes effect December 31, 2026. Federal regulators covered by it will have to assess how proposed rules affect competitiveness, remove $2 of regulatory burden for every $1 they add to business over three years, and review regulations on clearer schedules.
The change puts regulatory costs, competition and investment closer to the centre of federal rule making. It doesn't require weaker financial safeguards. Regulators can still impose rules needed for financial stability, consumer protection, market integrity or other public interests, but they will have to pay more attention to what those rules cost and how they affect market entry.
It's highly important for fintech firms and smaller financial institutions because many compliance costs are fixed. Legal work, compliance staff, reporting systems and technology builds can consume a much larger share of a smaller firm's budget than a major bank's. The value comes from whether regulators measure those costs properly and change requirements that make it unnecessarily expensive to compete.
New Rules Put a Price on Regulatory Burden
The directive replaces the 2018 Cabinet Directive on Regulation, but Canada isn't starting from zero. The earlier framework already told regulators to consider competition, innovation, regulatory alignment and the burden on smaller businesses.
The 2026 directive makes several of those expectations more specific. Proposed regulations now require a dedicated competitiveness assessment whose results must be communicated. Significant regulations must be reviewed within five years of taking effect, while other regulations must be reviewed at least once every ten years. Regulators are also told to consider recognized Canadian and international standards and use them where appropriate. New rules should remain workable as technology changes, and businesses should receive clearer guidance on how they can safely introduce new products, services and technologies.
See: How Canada Opened Its Financial Infrastructure
The biggest numerical change is the new $2 for $1 rule. For every $1 of new regulatory burden added to business, the government must remove $2 elsewhere over a three year period. Canada's existing one for one rule is narrower. It focuses mainly on administrative work such as forms, reporting and record keeping and requires an equal administrative cost offset.
The existing regulatory burden policy uses a Standard Cost Model and federal cost calculator. Treasury Board hasn't yet published the detailed guidance for the broader $2 for $1 approach. Until it does, important questions remain about which costs will count, where savings can be found and how exemptions will work. Businesses shouldn't read the new ratio as a promise that their own compliance costs will fall by half. The impact will depend on which costs the government counts and which requirements it actually removes.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that businesses across all levels of government spent $51.5 billion on regulatory compliance in 2024. It estimates that about $17.9 billion could be reduced without sacrificing the public interest. The smallest businesses paid more than five times as much per employee as larger firms. Those figures cover the whole economy rather than financial services, but they show why fixed regulatory costs can shape who can afford to compete.
Federal Financial Rules Are In Scope
The directive doesn't name financial regulators one by one. Its scope depends on how a rule is made. It directly covers many federal regulations approved by Cabinet, Treasury Board or a federal minister. It doesn't automatically apply to every guideline, supervisory decision or rule issued by another body. So that means many federal financial regulations can fall under the new framework. Department of Finance regulations approved through Cabinet or Treasury Board are covered. Regulations made under the Bank Act and other federal financial laws can also be covered when they go through those federal processes.
OSFI is a federal regulator, but not everything it issues is a federal regulation. The directive can apply to regulations affecting federally regulated banks and insurers, while OSFI guidelines, advisories and supervisory expectations are different. They still shape how institutions operate, but they don't automatically fall under the directive in the same way. OSFI is already giving more weight to growth and competition within its mandate, including through recent changes to how it balances regulation, growth and competition.
The Bank of Canada is also a federal regulator. Federal payments regulations can fall under the directive when they are made through Cabinet, Treasury Board or ministerial processes, while the Bank's own supervisory decisions are separate.
FCAC and FINTRAC also operate under federal laws where Cabinet approved regulations can fall under the directive. Provincial securities regulators don't. CIRO's own rules also sit outside this federal framework. The directive may encourage better coordination, but it doesn't change which regulator has legal authority over each market.
The government is also moving ahead with Bill S-7, the Cutting Red Tape for All Canadians Act. Introduced October 7, it remains at second reading in the Senate. The bill would amend 31 federal laws. The Cabinet directive changes how federal regulations are developed and reviewed. Bill S-7 is still proposed legislation, while the directive is adopted government policy that takes effect December 31.
Fintech Firms Can Put Real Costs on the Record
A competitiveness assessment gives fintech firms, smaller financial institutions and industry groups a clearer place to show what a proposed rule will cost. That can include compliance staff, legal work, technology builds, capital tied up before launch, approval delays and duplicate reporting.
Open banking shows how those costs can affect competition. Finance Canada's proposal estimated C$13.2 billion in benefits over ten years and C$457.7 million in regulatory costs, with hundreds of small businesses expected to participate. The Privacy Commissioner's proposed changes to Canada's open banking rules could add stronger safeguards as well as new requirements. Each requirement should provide enough additional protection to justify what it adds to the cost of entering and competing in the market.
The same issue appears in payments. Registered payment service providers are gaining greater access to Canada's payment infrastructure while operating under the Retail Payment Activities Act. Future payments rules still need to protect customer funds and operational resilience, but regulators will have to consider whether reporting, technical requirements or overlapping controls make participation unnecessarily expensive for smaller firms.
Stablecoins, tokenization and AI in financial services will raise similar questions. The directive doesn't weaken anti money laundering rules, consumer protection or financial stability requirements.
It asks regulators to consider whether the same protection can be achieved at a lower regulatory cost.
A 2026 C.D. Howe Institute review found that 92% of the financial regulatory measures it examined emphasized stability, transparency, market abuse or consumer protection, while 17% addressed efficiency, growth or innovation. It also found limited formal analysis of regulatory costs and benefits. A financial system can protect consumers and remain stable without making it unnecessarily expensive for new firms to compete.
See: CMA Lessons on Competition and Growth for Canada
Founders and industry groups can make the new process more useful by bringing numbers to consultations. Staff hours, outside legal bills, technology spending, approval delays and duplicate requirements give regulators something concrete to assess. Companies can also show how many customers or transactions they need before complying with a new requirement becomes commercially viable.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce CEO Candace Laing called for "measurable reductions in red tape." Lower duplicate costs, faster decisions, more viable entrants and rules that remain workable as technology changes will show whether the directive is producing results.
Talking Point
Canada's regulatory problem been the difficulty of seeing when several reasonable requirements combine into a barrier that protects incumbents as much as consumers. Putting a price on regulatory burden could expose those hidden barriers. The bigger opportunity is to make competition part of regulatory design before new costs become embedded and expensive to unwind.
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
 |  |  |
|---|---|---|
 |  |  |
Who Can Issue Stablecoins Under the New US Rules?
October 21, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure
Stablecoin Licensing, Reserve Rules and Market Competition
On October 21, 2026, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency OCC finalized rules under the GENIUS Act for payment stablecoin issuers under its supervision. The rules take effect January 18, 2027 and cover reserves, redemption, capital, governance, custody and regulatory approval. The United States now has a clearer path for regulated stablecoin issuance, but a licence alone won't make a viable issuer. Companies also need capital, liquid reserves, banking relationships, operating systems and customers.
Existing issuers may have an early advantage. Qualifying firms already issuing stablecoins in the United States can request temporary relief while the OCC reviews their applications. New entrants generally need approval before launching. Federal approval can also reduce the need for separate state issuer licences, giving successful applicants a simpler route to national expansion.
Stablecoin Issuers Need More Than Full Reserves
The GENIUS Act created the federal framework in July 2025. The OCC's final stablecoin rule now spells out how regulated issuers must operate. It covers eligible bank subsidiaries, federally approved nonbank issuers and certain state supervised firms. Foreign issuers follow a separate registration path. Wallets, exchanges, payment companies and custodians don't become stablecoin issuers simply because they handle someone else's coin.
Issuers must hold enough qualifying reserves to cover every stablecoin they have outstanding. At least 5% must stay immediately available, eligible Treasury securities generally can have no more than 93 days remaining maturity, and many exposures to a single counterparty are capped at 40%. That money is there to repay customers, not fund salaries, product development or marketing.
Managing those reserves is now part of the business. Issuers need enough cash and liquid assets to meet redemptions while spreading risk across banks, custodians and investments. Higher yielding assets may generate more income, but the rules limit how far an issuer can stretch for return.
Valid redemptions generally must be processed and payment initiated within two business days. The money may take longer to reach an outside account. If redemption requests exceed 10% of a stablecoin brand's outstanding value within 24 hours, the issuer must notify the OCC and needs approval for more time.
The OCC tightened that rule from its February proposal by removing an automatic seven day extension after the 10% threshold was reached. An issuer facing a rush for cash can't simply slow redemptions until markets calm down. It needs enough liquidity and dependable banking and custody relationships before stress hits.
See: Stablecoins Split Into Issuance And Service Layers
Reserves aren't the only money tied up in the business. Issuers covered by the OCC capital framework generally need at least US$5 million in regulatory capital, with higher amounts possible depending on risk and licensing conditions. They also need a separate backstop equal to 12 months of operating expenses. Up to half of that backstop can come from qualifying subordinated debt instead of equity.
The three pools serve different jobs. Reserves repay customers. Capital absorbs losses. The backstop keeps the company operating during a serious disruption or an orderly wind down. A founder can't use the same dollars freely for all three.
Growth can make those requirements more expensive. More staff, technology and compliance spending can increase the required backstop, while higher risk can lead the OCC to demand more capital. An issuer that remains below its required levels can face limits on new issuance. Continued shortfalls can ultimately force it to liquidate reserves and redeem outstanding coins.
Issuers also need governance, financial controls, custody arrangements, audits and systems that keep outstanding coins, reserve assets and redemptions in sync. They can hire outside custodians and compliance providers, but responsibility stays with the issuer. Bank affiliated issuers may be able to use existing parent company risk systems, giving them an operating advantage over firms building everything from scratch.
The licence also has boundaries. Stablecoin issuers can issue and redeem coins, manage reserves, provide permitted custody services and carry out activities that support those functions. They can charge disclosed purchase or redemption fees, but GENIUS Act approval doesn't give them permission to offer every financial product.
The GENIUS Act says stablecoin issuers can't pay interest or yield simply because someone holds or uses their coin. The OCC's February proposal went further by targeting some payments made through affiliates or other closely connected companies. In the final rule, the OCC dropped that approach after deciding it could catch legitimate business payments and make the line even less clear.
That gives exchanges, wallets and other platforms more room to offer rewards funded through their own businesses, but it doesn't give them a free pass. An issuer still can't pay someone else to pass prohibited yield on to customers, and the OCC can step in if a rewards program is really just issuer interest in another form. Platforms may therefore have more room than issuers to compete for stablecoin customers with rewards. NCFA has tracked that fight in Stablecoin Interest and Rewards A Regulatory Fault Line and Stablecoin Rewards Keep Pressure On US Crypto Bill.
Existing Issuers Have a Head Start Into 2027
The January 18 deadline creates a timing problem for companies already issuing stablecoins. A firm can submit its application and still be waiting for OCC approval when the new rules take effect. If it keeps issuing without the required approval, it can face serious consequences.
The OCC's application and waiver guidance gives some existing issuers a temporary bridge. A company with a substantially complete application pending by January 18 can ask for relief. The OCC says it generally expects to approve that relief for covered issuers already operating in the United States unless there is a strong reason not to.
The waiver isn't automatic and can last no more than 12 months from January 18. New issuers shouldn't expect the same treatment and generally need approval before launching. An insured bank itself can't use this waiver, although an eligible subsidiary may qualify.
That gives established issuers a head start. They may keep serving customers while their applications are reviewed. A startup can be paying staff, lawyers, compliance teams and technology costs before it earns revenue from a single coin.
Applications weren't open when the OCC issued its final rules on October 21. The agency is waiting for Office of Management and Budget approval before it can begin accepting them. Once applications open, the OCC has 30 days to decide whether a filing is substantially complete. After that, the application is deemed approved after 120 days unless the OCC denies it first.
Federal approval can also make national expansion easier. A federally qualified stablecoin issuer generally doesn't need a separate state issuer licence for the same business. State consumer protection and other laws still apply, but the company can avoid building a separate licensing strategy for every state.
See: Are Stablecoins Becoming Payment Infrastructure?
The state route remains open. A state supervised nonbank issuer that grows beyond US$10 billion in outstanding issuance generally has 360 days to move into the federal framework or stop increasing net issuance. It can ask to stay under state supervision, and some established state regimes receive favourable treatment under the rule.
So, the market has more than one route to scale. Some state issuers can keep their existing regulator, while smaller OCC issuers may face less frequent examinations. But size still helps. Audits, treasury operations, technology and supervision are easier to absorb when an issuer already has meaningful volume.
Distribution may be an even bigger barrier than regulation. Existing issuers can already be listed on exchanges, integrated into wallets and accepted by merchants. A new entrant still has to convince the market to use another stablecoin after paying to build the regulated business behind it.
The OCC also published revised weekly and quarterly reporting forms. Proposed first reporting dates are January 25 and March 31, 2027. The forms are still going through approval, so the individual fields aren't final yet.
Those requirements also create opportunities for companies that don't issue stablecoins. Banks can provide settlement accounts, custodians can hold reserves, and technology firms can handle reporting, reconciliation, redemptions and compliance. For some fintech founders, building the infrastructure around stablecoins may be a better use of capital than issuing one themselves.
Canadian Firms Face a Higher US Entry Bar
Canada enacted its Stablecoin Act on March 26, 2026, but its main operating provisions haven't come into force. The framework will put covered nonbank issuers under Bank of Canada oversight through registration, with requirements for reserves, redemption, governance and reporting once implementation is complete.
NCFA's Canadian stablecoin regulations guide examines the enacted framework and the rules still needed before it operates. The Canadian and U.S. systems aren't interchangeable. Canadian registration won't authorize issuance in the United States, and U.S. approval won't replace Canadian requirements.
A Canadian issuer seeking U.S. customers faces additional conditions. Foreign issuers need an eligible home regulatory framework, OCC registration and ongoing U.S. supervision. They must also make required records available in the United States and maintain arrangements that support redemption obligations to U.S. holders.
That makes issuing a U.S. dollar stablecoin in America a significant commitment for a Canadian fintech. The company needs more than a Canadian registration and strong technology. It needs capital, reserve management, U.S. regulatory access, distribution and enough customers to justify the fixed cost of operating the product.
Canadian banks are approach approaching the market differently. In September 2026, TD and Scotiabank joined a 21 institution stablecoin initiative targeting a U.S. dollar product in 2027. The product isn't live, but the participating banks already have capital, compliance teams, payment relationships and institutional customers.
Fintechs don't have to compete by issuing another coin. A Canadian payments company can integrate a regulated stablecoin from an approved issuer. Others can build merchant settlement, wallets, reserve systems, compliance technology or redemption tools. Those businesses can participate in stablecoin growth without carrying the obligation to back and redeem every coin themselves.
Issuance offers more control over economics and distribution, but the OCC rule shows the cost of that control. Infrastructure businesses give some of it up, yet they can focus their capital on a narrower customer problem and potentially sell to several issuers.
The market may therefore split in two. Stablecoin issuance could concentrate among firms with strong balance sheets, banking relationships and distribution, while payments and infrastructure attract a broader group of fintechs. For Canadian founders and investors, choosing which layer to compete in may matter more than simply deciding whether stablecoins will grow.
Talking Point
The GENIUS Act removes much of the uncertainty around regulated stablecoin issuance, but it doesn't make issuance a lightweight fintech business. Existing issuers have a transition route and federal approval can simplify national expansion, while newcomers must finance the business before they build meaningful volume. Will the new rules support a wider group of viable issuers, or will the better opportunity for new entrants be the payments, custody and compliance infrastructure built around them?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
When a Workplace Injury Keeps You Off the Job Longer Than Expected
Oct 22, 2026
Image: Pexels/Gustavo Fring
A workplace injury can quickly disrupt your finances and budget if an absence expected to last a few days stretches into weeks or months. Rent/mortgage payments, groceries, loans, and other fixed expenses will look a lot different if you have to multiply them. And understanding how an extended recovery affects a WSIB claim becomes increasingly important.
If an injury keeps you from working more than a few days, speaking with a WSIB lawyer can help you understand whether your benefits, medical evidence, and return-to-work plan address your actual circumstances. Longer claims often involve more decisions about functional abilities, suitable work, benefit entitlement, and changes in medical status. A misunderstanding can get costly if it affects weeks or months of income replacement.
Your Benefits May Continue While You Can’t Work
For an allowed claim, WSIB typically pays loss-of-earnings benefits when a work-related injury or illness prevents you from working or causes you to earn less. Benefits for injuries (on or after January 1, 1998) are calculated at 85% of take-home pay, subject to an annual maximum.
An extended absence doesn’t necessarily mean the end of your entitlement. WSIB may continue benefits while the workplace injury affects your ability to earn, although it can review your medical condition, income, and return-to-work status. Updated medical information becomes especially important if recovery takes longer than predicted.
Keep Your Medical Evidence Current
Early medical reports may predict a short recovery period. If that estimate no longer applies, your records must reflect the change.
Follow-up appointments should document ongoing symptoms, treatment recommendations, and functional limitations. The key issue is often what you can safely do at work. If you still can’t lift, stand, sit, concentrate, or perform essential tasks safely, those restrictions need to be documented.
Gaps in treatment or outdated evaluations can create questions about whether your limitations remain connected to the workplace injury.
An Appropriate Return to Work
When an employer offers modified work, the proposed duties must be analyzed from a practical standpoint. WSIB assesses suitability by comparing the job against your physical or psychological functional abilities and considering whether the work is safe, productive, and likely to interfere with recovery.
Ask for enough detail to make that comparison possible. A modified-duty offer should make clear what tasks you will perform, the physical or cognitive demands involved, the schedule, and any accommodations being provided. If your current restrictions prevent you from repeatedly bending or lifting above a certain weight, for example, a vague description of "light duties" doesn’t establish whether your employer’s expectations fit those restrictions.
If there is a disagreement, WSIB can assess the proposed work using medical information, your functional abilities, and details about the duties offered. If WSIB determines that suitable work is available and you are capable of performing it, your loss-of-earnings entitlement can be affected.
Your Employment Rights May Extend Beyond the WSIB Claim
Some workers with a prolonged medical absence may also qualify for Ontario's long-term illness leave. Under the Employment Standards Act, eligible employees who have worked for their employer for at least 13 consecutive weeks can take up to 27 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave within a 52-week period for a serious medical condition.
The leave can also be taken in separate periods rather than all at once, although taking only part of a week can still count as a full week toward the entitlement. The Ontario government's long-term illness leave guide explains how the 27-week entitlement is calculated and what happens when another period of leave becomes necessary.
Watch the Deadline on Every New WSIB Decision
A long recovery can result in several WSIB decisions rather than one final determination. You may receive separate decisions about loss-of-earnings benefits, suitable work, return-to-work arrangements, re-employment, or other aspects of the claim.
See: AI Opens New Market for Insurance Appeals
Treat each WSIB letter as a decision that needs to be understood and addressed by its specific deadline, and remember to consult a WSIB lawyer before responding to ensure your rights are protected.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Why Fintech Companies Should Manage SEO and Google Ads Together
October 22, 2026
Customer acquisition is a moving target for fintech companies. A new product may need immediate visibility, while an established one may already attract visitors through search. The questions customers ask can change as the company adds features, enters new markets, or learns which audiences are most likely to convert. A search budget set at launch should be able to change along with the business.
Working with a digital marketing agency that manages both SEO and Google Ads makes those changes easier to spot and act on. The same team can see which paid searches produce qualified prospects, which website pages are gaining organic visibility, and where the next portion of the budget could have the greatest effect. Rather than treating ads and SEO as unrelated expenses, a fintech company can use them as parts of one customer acquisition plan.
Paid search and SEO have different strengths
Google Ads can help a company reach people searching for a relevant product today. That is useful for a launch, a new service, or a market where the company has little organic visibility. Paid campaigns can also reveal which search terms generate interest and which messages persuade visitors to take the next step.
SEO usually takes longer. A company needs pages that answer customer questions clearly, explain its products, and make its website easy to use. Those pages may gain organic visibility over time, giving prospective customers another way to discover the business. SEO still requires investment in research, content, technical work, and upkeep. Its value is that a useful page can continue attracting relevant visitors between campaign launches.
Neither channel should be expected to do every job. An ad can bring a visitor to a new product page before that page has earned an organic ranking. A well-established guide can introduce people to a problem before they are ready to request a demo. Together, the channels can reach customers at different points in their decision-making process.
Use paid search to learn what customers want
A fintech company may begin with an informed guess about the words customers use. Actual search activity can challenge that guess.
Imagine a company offering expense-management software to small businesses. Its team might describe the product as an “expense automation platform,” while potential customers search for “track employee expenses” or “approve staff reimbursements.” Google Ads can help the company test these terms and see whether visitors who use them become qualified leads.
Those findings should inform the website. If a particular question repeatedly brings in the right audience, the company may need a dedicated page that answers it in detail. If visitors respond to a specific benefit in an ad, the landing page should explain that benefit just as clearly. Paid campaigns can therefore do more than generate traffic; they can help a company learn how customers describe their needs.
That learning is particularly valuable when marketing a product that takes time to understand. A prospective customer may need to compare approaches, review features, and discuss the purchase internally before making contact. Useful SEO content can support that process long after the first ad click.
Let organic performance change the paid plan
As pages gain organic visibility, the role of paid search may change. Suppose the expense-management company publishes a practical guide to managing employee reimbursements. At first, it uses ads to reach people searching for that topic. Several months later, the guide and a related product page begin attracting relevant organic visitors and generating demo requests.
The company now has a decision to test. It could reduce paid spending on some of those searches and use the available budget to promote a new feature or reach a different audience. It could also keep the ads running if they continue to generate customers the organic results do not capture.
The important point is to make a measured change. A high organic ranking does not prove that an ad is unnecessary. Some people will click an ad even when the same company appears below it in search results. Others may respond to a particular ad message or arrive on a more focused landing page. Cutting spend based on rankings alone could reduce the total number of qualified leads.
A sensible test would adjust the budget gradually, then compare the combined results from paid and organic search. Did the number of qualified demos change? Did acquisition costs improve? Did the company reach customers it might otherwise have missed? Those answers should determine the next move.
Move savings toward the next opportunity
Reallocating budget is more useful than simply reducing it. If organic search begins serving one established topic well, paid media can help the company pursue something new.
That might mean testing searches related to a recently released feature. It could mean reaching a new type of business, promoting a page built for a different market, or learning whether a more competitive term can produce customers at an acceptable cost. Ads provide a way to gather evidence while the company develops the content and organic presence needed for a longer-term effort.
The flow can also work in the opposite direction. If an SEO page starts attracting relevant visitors but few of them enquire, the team can test new messages and calls to action through paid campaigns. Results from those tests can guide improvements to the page.
This creates a cycle: ads provide timely feedback, SEO builds on what the company learns, and organic results help the team decide where paid spend is most useful next. The budget follows customer demand and business priorities rather than staying attached to a fixed list of keywords.
Measure qualified customers, not isolated channel results
A search report can look encouraging while hiding a problem. Ads may generate clicks from people who cannot use the product. A page may rank well for a popular question but attract readers who are unlikely to become customers. For a fintech company, traffic and rankings matter most when they contribute to a worthwhile business result.
Before changing the budget, the team should agree on what a valuable conversion looks like. Depending on the product, that might be a qualified demo request, a completed application, or a new account that meets the company’s customer criteria. It should then track those outcomes across both paid and organic search.
Sales feedback adds another layer. Are the leads asking about the product the company actually offers? Do they serve the market the company can support? Are they ready to take a meaningful next step? Answers to those questions can be more useful than a lower cost per click.
Shared measurement also prevents each channel from claiming success in isolation. If the ads team reports more leads and the SEO team reports more traffic, the business still needs to know whether overall customer acquisition improved. Looking at the full picture makes budget decisions more credible.
Keep the website aligned with the campaigns
Coordinated search marketing depends on what happens after someone clicks. A strong ad cannot compensate for a page that leaves visitors unsure what the product does. Likewise, organic visibility has limited value if the page does not help the right person decide what to do next.
The website should answer the question that brought the visitor there. A search for a specific feature should lead to a page explaining that feature, who it helps, and how it works. A broader educational search may be better served by a guide that explains the issue before introducing the product. Clear navigation can help readers move from learning to comparing and, when they are ready, to making contact.
For fintech companies, clarity is especially important. Customers may be evaluating a service that affects how they handle money or business operations. Marketing copy should explain the offer plainly and accurately. The SEO and ads teams should work from the same product information so that the promise in a search result matches the experience on the page.
Make budget reviews a regular decision
A combined strategy does not require constant changes to campaigns. It requires a regular opportunity to ask whether the current allocation still makes sense.
In a monthly review, a company and its marketing team might look at the searches producing qualified customers, the pages gaining organic traction, and the areas where visibility remains weak. They can then choose a small number of changes to test: update a landing page, develop content around a proven customer question, or move part of the paid budget to a new opportunity.
See: Senso's Path to Acquisition by Zeta Global
NCFA Canada’s discussion of fintech startup challenges includes the cost of finding customers. That makes disciplined experimentation more valuable than maintaining two separate search plans indefinitely. Each investment should help the company understand where its next customers are coming from and how efficiently it can reach them.
SEO and Google Ads will not always rise or fall together. A new product may need more paid support; an established topic may need less. When both channels are managed against the same customer acquisition goals, a fintech company can respond to those changes deliberately—and put its budget where it has the best evidence of value.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
RemitBee Expands Payments With Adyen and TerraPay
October 20, 2026 | Market Activity | Cross Border Payments And FX, Payments Infrastructure And Money Movement, Competition And Market Structure
Canadian Fintech Expands Card Processing and International Wallet Payouts
On October 20, 2026, Mississauga fintech RemitBee announced a partnership with payment processor Adyen to simplify customer payments and support international expansion. A day earlier, RemitBee announced another partnership with TerraPay to expand overseas payouts, including transfers to digital wallets. Adyen will help RemitBee collect payments, while TerraPay will provide more ways to deliver money abroad. The agreements address two costs that can make international payments difficult to scale, collecting funds and paying recipients.
Founded in 2015, RemitBee serves hundreds of thousands of customers and supports transfers from Canada to more than 150 countries. It also offers RPass, a platform for businesses making international supplier, contractor and employee payments. The company has spent more than a decade building its Canadian customer base and international payment connections. Now it's expanding the services behind those transactions without having to build every payment connection itself.
Adyen Reduces Payment Processing Work
Adyen will initially handle card payment collection in Canada, with additional payment methods planned as the relationship develops. RemitBee already supports debit card funding for international transfers and card payments for certain other services. The new arrangement focuses on how those payments are processed, rather than introducing card funding to the entire business for the first time.
Managing disputes has been costly. In an interview published by Adyen, RemitBee said its previous chargeback process involved too much manual work for the number of cases it handled. Adyen's automated tools and lower dispute fees could reduce that expense. Moving more payments onto one platform should also make reporting and reconciliation easier.
Adyen has direct acquiring and banking capabilities in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union. RemitBee sees those connections as useful for expansion beyond Canada, where adding separate processors and banking relationships would increase costs and complexity. It's an operating decision as much as a technology upgrade. Fewer systems to manage could leave more resources for customers and new products.
That choice also fits Canada's changing payment market. Adyen Canada became a member of Payments Canada in July 2026 as part of a broader expansion of payment system membership. Membership doesn't automatically provide direct access to every payment rail, but it gives newer payment providers a stronger position in Canada's financial infrastructure.
TerraPay Expands International Wallet Payouts
TerraPay gives RemitBee more ways to pay recipients through local banks and digital wallets. Its network connects 3.7 billion digital wallets and 7.5 billion bank accounts across more than 156 countries, with coverage in the United States, Asia, the Middle East and Africa.
For Canadian businesses paying overseas suppliers and contractors, more local payout options could mean fewer payment providers to manage. RemitBee can use TerraPay's network while continuing to handle currency conversion, customer service and compliance.
RemitBee's published consumer pricing offers free e-Transfer, EFT and bill payment funding on transfers of C$500 or more, with separate charges for debit cards. Its stated exchange rate margin generally ranges from 0.3% to 0.8%, depending on the destination. Lower processing and payout costs could improve RemitBee's margins or help it compete on price, but neither partnership has disclosed expected savings.
Can RemitBee Win Business From Banks and Global Rivals?
RemitBee's opportunity extends beyond consumer remittances. Canadian companies paying international suppliers, contractors and employees need competitive exchange rates, reliable delivery and clear payment records. Banks and established providers such as Wise already serve these customers, so adding more payment networks won't be enough to win their business.
See: Visa Canada and RemitBee Speed Up Cross Border Payments
RemitBee has an opening with smaller firms that regularly pay people across several countries. A business might need to pay one supplier through a bank account and another contractor through a mobile wallet, without managing separate providers for each destination. Combining those payment options with currency conversion and business payment records could make RPass more useful to companies with recurring international expenses.
There is still a commercial risk. RemitBee relies on outside processors and payout networks, while competitors can negotiate their own arrangements and compete aggressively on price. Its advantage will depend on retaining customers, keeping transfer costs competitive and earning enough from recurring business payments to support growth.
Talking Point
RemitBee is expanding its international payments business by connecting established processors and payout networks rather than owning them. That keeps the cost of expansion more manageable, but gives the company less direct control over key services. Can RemitBee turn access to global payment networks into a lasting competitive advantage, or will pricing, customer relationships and reliable delivery ultimately determine who wins?
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Fission Raises $10M for Tokenized Fund Liquidity
October 15, 2026 | Market Activity | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Wealthtech Investing And Trading
Pantera Capital Backs a New Way to Exit Tokenized Investment Funds
On October 15, 2026, New York fintech Fission announced a US$10 million Series A financing led by Pantera Capital to help investors sell tokenized fund holdings before their normal withdrawal dates. Circle Ventures, Borderless Capital, New Form, gumi Cryptos Capital and GTS CEO Ari Rubenstein also participated. Fission is building a business around buying investments from people who don't want to wait months to get their money back.
The round closed in September and follows a US$1.6 million pre-seed financing in Oct 2024. Fission plans to add more supported funds and increase the capital available for investor purchases. Its valuation and committed buying capacity haven't been disclosed.
How Fission Buys Tokenized Fund Holdings
Private investment funds often limit when investors can withdraw money. Some offer quarterly redemption dates, while others require approval before an investor can sell to someone else. Representing fund shares as digital tokens can make transfers easier, but investors still need an eligible buyer willing to pay for them.
Fission provides that buyer for supported investments. An eligible investor connects a digital wallet and requests a sale. Fission arranges the purchase and handles the required transaction steps. The investor receives cash before the fund's normal withdrawal date, while the buyer takes on the wait and the investment risk. The fund doesn't have to sell its underlying assets to complete that investor's early exit.
Founder and CEO Jonathan Shaffer told Fortune that an exit which might normally take about 200 days could settle through Fission in 90 seconds or less, for a fee. In August, Centrifuge introduced Fission liquidity for four tokenized funds linked to investment strategies from New York Life Investment Management, Apollo and Janus Henderson. The products include high yield corporate bonds, diversified credit, highly rated collateralized loan obligations and short term U.S. Treasuries.
Eligible holders can receive USDC, a stablecoin linked to the U.S. dollar, while the funds continue their usual settlement and withdrawal schedules. Those schedules range from the next business day to quarterly. For investors holding the Apollo diversified credit product, that could mean receiving money through Fission rather than waiting for the next quarterly redemption.
Shaffer described Fission's role in Centrifuge's announcement as providing "an independent liquidity layer" across different investment strategies. The company says it has processed millions of dollars in transactions, but hasn't published an exact total, transaction count or average price paid to investors. The four fund integrations show a working commercial application. They don't establish how much liquidity Fission can provide at scale.
Who Pays for Faster Fund Exits
Getting money out early has a price, and it varies considerably by fund. Research published in September 2026 estimated Fission's fees at 5.70% for Apollo's ACRDX diversified credit fund, 0.34% for New York Life's HYB high yield bond fund and just 0.02% for Janus Henderson's JTRSY Treasury fund. On a $10,000 holding, that means an estimated cost ranging from $570 to $2. These were estimates as of September 17, not fixed or guaranteed prices. The difference reflects the cost and risk of providing cash before the underlying investments settle.
That trade could appeal to an investor facing an unexpected cash need. For someone who can afford to wait until the next redemption date, paying for an earlier exit may make less sense. The service has to offer a price investors will accept while leaving enough return to compensate whoever supplies the cash.
See: Portage Takes Point72 Fintech Portfolio Secondary Deal
There is also risk between the sale and the buyer's eventual exit. A fund's investments could fall in value. Withdrawals could be delayed during difficult markets. Some fund interests may require approval before being transferred. The buyer needs to understand those restrictions and price them correctly before committing capital.
Fund managers have a different concern. An outside buyer can provide liquidity without forcing the fund to sell assets early, which could make the investment more attractive to customers. But repeated sales at steep discounts could undermine confidence in the fund's reported value. Managers will want to know how Fission prices transactions and whether those prices reflect the need for quick cash or problems with the investments themselves.
Fission's growth will also depend on how much capital it can put to work. A fast sale of a small holding is one thing. Handling many large investor exits during a market downturn is a different test.
Can Fission Make Private Funds Easier to Sell
Fission's founders bring experience from institutional investing and digital securities. CEO Jonathan Shaffer previously worked at Point72, while cofounder Steve Bendit worked at Securitize. They know that making an investment easier to buy doesn't necessarily make it easier to sell. Fission's business depends on finding buyers, securing enough capital and offering prices investors will accept.
Existing tokenized fund operations already need to handle ownership records, investor eligibility and transfer restrictions. Fission must work within those rules while financing earlier exits. For Canadian private credit funds and alternative investment platforms, that could help attract investors who are reluctant to lock up their money. Any Canadian offering would still need to comply with securities laws and fund transfer requirements. Fission hasn't confirmed that its service is available in Canada.
Talking Point
Fission's opportunity isn't making private funds digital. It's making them easier to exit. If the company can consistently find buyers, offer fair prices and manage the risk of holding investments until redemption, it could remove an important barrier to private market investing.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
Breaking Down Canada’s Gambling Ecosystem: Who Provides What
Oct 21, 2026
An online betting platform presents itself as one business. Customers register with a brand, deposit money into an account and choose a game or sporting event. Behind that experience, however, several specialist companies may be supplying the technology.
One provider can support the account system, another the sportsbook and another the live casino studio. Payments, location checks, sports data and independent testing introduce further businesses into the relationship.
For fintech companies and investors, understanding those connections makes Canada’s gambling sector easier to assess. Gambling Nerd’s breakdown follows seven providers with documented Canadian activity, explaining what each contributes. These are selected examples, rather than a ranking by market share or a suggestion that every operator uses the same suppliers.
Playtech: The Technology Behind the Platform
The operator’s website is the shopfront. The underlying platform helps organise the account and gaming services behind it.
Playtech illustrates this part of the ecosystem. Its original partnership announcement with NorthStar Gaming covered its IMS platform alongside casino, live casino, poker and bingo technology. NorthStar’s current corporate website identifies Playtech and Kambi as companies powering its Ontario offering.
A player account management system, commonly shortened to PAM, provides a central record of the customer’s account and activity. It connects with other systems rather than replacing every service an operator needs.
That distinction helps explain why a gambling business can buy substantial technology from a supplier while retaining its own brand, customer service and commercial strategy.
For a new operator, an established platform can reduce the amount of software it must build internally. The trade-off is a continuing dependence on integrations, contractual terms and the supplier’s development priorities.
Kambi: The Sportsbook Behind the Betting Brand
A sportsbook requires more than a list of matches. Customers need markets, prices, bet acceptance and settlement, supported by systems that manage the operator’s betting exposure.
Kambi supplies sportsbook technology and services. Its relationship with NorthStar provides one Canadian example. A more recent development involves Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation.
In January 2026, Kambi announced that it had formally assumed contractual responsibility for OLG’s sportsbook services following an agreement with FDJ Gaming Solutions France and OLG. The announcement said OLG launched its Kambi-powered sportsbook on January 27, covering its retail and digital sports betting operations.
The example demonstrates an important distinction: the company whose name customers recognise is not necessarily the company supplying the underlying sportsbook.
Operators can buy different combinations of technology and managed services. A supplier relationship therefore needs to be understood at the product level, rather than reduced to “Company A powers Company B.”
Sportradar: Sports Data and Related Betting Services
Sportsbook systems depend on information about what is happening in the sporting event.
Sportradar supplies sports data and offers related services including odds, streaming and trading technology. It announced an Ontario gaming-related supplier registration in 2022, documenting its entry into the province’s regulated online wagering market.
Consider an in-play hockey market. A goal, penalty or change in game status can affect which bets are available and how they are priced. Data services help betting systems receive and process that information.
The distinction between data and sportsbook operation is useful, although suppliers’ product ranges can overlap. Buying a data feed does not necessarily mean outsourcing pricing, risk management or the complete customer-facing product.
For businesses evaluating a provider, the questions include event coverage, delivery speed, service reliability, usage rights and the handling of corrections.
Evolution: The Studio Behind the Live Dealer
A live blackjack table appearing inside an operator’s app may come from a specialist production business.
Evolution supplies live casino services, combining dealers, physical tables, cameras, streaming and interactive game technology. Its Canadian announcements include the launch of live casino services for OLG.ca, originally delivered from its Vancouver production studio, and services for multiple operators at Ontario’s private-market opening.
The operator distributes the experience through its own customer interface. The live casino supplier provides the game environment and supporting technology.
This helps explain why customers can encounter recognisable game formats across different casino brands. Branding and distribution can differ even when the underlying supplier is the same.
Live-dealer production also has a different operating model from a digitally generated slot game. Physical tables require staffing and studio capacity, alongside the technology needed to deliver the game.
Paysafe: Connecting Operators to Payment Methods
The number displayed in a gambling account and the money moving through financial institutions are connected, but they are not the same system.
Paysafe provides payment processing and other payment products. In its Ontario market-launch announcement, the company described payment support for private operators and its longstanding processing relationship with OLG.ca. It explained how operators could access card processing and alternative payment methods through an integration with its services.
For an operator, a payment provider can simplify access to different ways of depositing and withdrawing money. That does not make the provider responsible for every stage of the customer journey.
A withdrawal can involve an operator’s authorisation, account checks, payment instructions and subsequent processing by financial partners. Faster movement at one stage does not guarantee that the complete withdrawal will be immediate.
Commercial evaluation therefore extends beyond transaction fees. Approval rates, reconciliation, fraud controls, settlement arrangements and the handling of failed payments all affect the service.
GeoComply: Checking Where the Customer Is
Identity and location answer different questions.
Identity checks establish who the customer is. Geolocation establishes where the device appears to be when accessing a service.
GeoComply provides geolocation and fraud-prevention technology. BET99 Ontario’s help centre offers a concrete operator example, explaining that GeoComply uses signals including Wi-Fi, GPS and cell-tower information to verify that customers are within Ontario.
A registered address alone cannot establish a customer’s current physical location. Someone can live in one province and use their phone while travelling elsewhere.
For operators, geolocation is consequently part of product access and compliance, rather than simply a convenience feature. Its integration must also accommodate legitimate customers whose devices or networks make verification difficult.
The supplier provides the technology; the operator still needs processes for customer support, exceptions and applicable requirements.
GLI: Independently Testing the Technology
A supplier’s claim that a game works correctly is different from independent testing against defined requirements.
Gaming Laboratories International, or GLI, announced its recognition as an independent testing laboratory for Ontario iGaming in 2021. AGCO separately explains that it registers laboratories that test and certify gaming technology against the applicable standards.
Testing can examine relevant games and systems within a defined scope. It does not make the laboratory the regulator, nor does a certificate guarantee that every aspect of an operator’s business is compliant.
The Nerd Nook’s explanation of random number generators provides background on one technology used to produce digital casino outcomes. Testing examines implementation and applicable requirements; it does not promise a customer will win.
Physical live-dealer games should also be distinguished from RNG-generated games. Both require controls, but their outcome-generation processes differ.
Provincial Oversight Sits Above the Supplier Relationships
These commercial providers operate within a market structure that varies across Canada.
In Ontario, private operators must register with AGCO and enter an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. AGCO regulates the market, while iGaming Ontario performs commercial conduct-and-manage responsibilities for private operators. OLG’s online offering has a separate conduct-and-manage arrangement.
A supplier’s documented Ontario activity should therefore not be presented as blanket authorisation for every Canadian province.
See: How FINTRAC’s Anti-Money-Laundering Rules Affect Canadian Online Casino Payments
The seven companies discussed here also represent only part of the ecosystem. Operators may contract separately for identity verification, cybersecurity, hosting, customer communications, responsible gambling tools and other services.
For NCFA’s fintech audience, the business opportunity extends well beyond launching another betting brand. Payments, data, identity and compliance services can support existing operators. Assessing that opportunity requires knowing precisely what a provider supplies, where it is permitted to operate and which responsibilities remain with its customer.
About Gambling Nerd
GamblingNerd.com is an independent gambling media website publishing experience-based reviews, guides and analysis of casinos, sportsbooks and poker sites. Originally launched as gamblingsites.org in 2007 and rebranded in 2025, Gambling Nerd also publishes The Nerd Nook, covering gambling mathematics, betting systems and sports betting strategy.
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
| | |
|---|---|---|
| | |
