Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
October 27, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Competition And Market Structure, Artificial Intelligence And Data, SME Finance And Business Banking

Canadian Fintech Expands Bank Pricing, Customer Offers and Compliance
On October 26, 2026, Toronto banking technology company Zafin signed a definitive agreement to acquire Naehas, a California software provider that helps banks manage customer offers, disclosures and marketing compliance. The purchase would expand Zafin's existing banking product and pricing business, giving it more technology to sell to major financial institutions. The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2026, subject to regulatory approvals and customary conditions.
A Zafin spokesperson told BetaKit the company agreed to pay a nine figure sum in US dollars, using cash and equity with partial financing from a credit line. Naehas brings approximately 250 employees and US$30 million to US$50 million in annual revenue, according to the spokesperson. Zafin is making a substantial investment to expand its US banking business, adding established customers and software capabilities rather than building everything internally.
Zafin helps banks manage financial products, interest rates, account fees, billing and customer pricing without replacing their entire core banking systems. Naehas handles the next area of the business. Its software helps banks prepare customer offers, manage disclosures, secure approvals and deliver communications that meet regulatory requirements.
Consider a bank launching a new savings account promotion. Zafin's technology can manage the interest rate, account terms and customer eligibility. Naehas can help prepare the offer, approve the disclosures and deliver the correct information to customers. Banks often handle these activities across separate departments and systems. Connecting them could shorten the time between deciding on a product and bringing it to market.
Rab Govil, Naehas founder and CEO explained the business opportunity in the acquisition announcement.
"The cost and time required to execute an offer determine how many growth opportunities an institution can pursue."
Naehas has built its business around reducing that work. Banks need to compete on pricing and respond quickly when customer needs change, but they can't ignore disclosure requirements or approval controls. For Zafin, acquiring an established provider is also a way to expand into related banking operations with existing software and customer relationships.
The acquisition could allow Zafin to sell more services to banks already using its technology. Instead of competing only for product and pricing software budgets, Zafin could pursue spending on customer offers, marketing operations and compliance. Selling additional products to established customers may also be less costly than winning new banks, where purchasing decisions and technology implementations can take considerable time.
Bank customers could benefit from closer coordination between pricing and sales. A business client using deposits, loans and payment services may qualify for better terms based on the overall relationship. Zafin can support that pricing, while Naehas can help deliver the offer and associated documents. Better coordination could help banks win more business from existing customers while reducing the work needed to launch each offer.
For Zafin, the economics depend on how much additional software banks buy and how well the companies combine their operations. A broader product range could strengthen customer relationships and make Zafin harder to replace. Banks may also prefer to work with fewer suppliers, although they'll expect competitive pricing and dependable integration with their existing systems. If the products remain difficult to connect, some of the acquisition's value could be lost.
Zafin is also investing in artificial intelligence. Its AIOS platform is designed to coordinate AI agents and oversee their work, while Zafin IO connects banking systems. Integrating Naehas could eventually extend AI automation into customer offers, disclosures and approval processes.
Nordic Capital's investment in Zafin dates to 2024, when the private equity firm acquired a majority stake to support international growth. Nordic Capital reports that Zafin generated €110 million in revenue in 2025. The planned Naehas acquisition would add an established US banking software business, giving Zafin more products to sell and additional institutional customers to serve.
According to figures provided by Zafin to the media, the combined business is expected to serve 16 of the 20 largest US banks. Zafin is also targeting US$200 million in annualized recurring revenue by the end of 2026. The acquisition gives Zafin more opportunities to sell software to major banking groups, where an existing customer relationship can be valuable in winning additional contracts.
Banks are investing in new technology to compete, but they're taking different approaches. Tangerine's launch of business banking on Starling's core technology shows one approach, building new products on a modern banking platform. Zafin takes another, helping institutions improve pricing and product management around existing core systems. Adding Naehas could give banks more ways to update customer offers without replacing their underlying banking infrastructure.
For Canada's fintech industry, Zafin shows how a domestic enterprise software company can expand internationally through acquisitions and established banking relationships. Can Zafin turn Naehas's customer relationships and technology into enough additional business to justify the purchase and compete for larger banking software contracts?
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 26, 2026 | NCFA Regulatory Insight | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Payments And Money Movement

On October 24, 2026, the Canadian government published proposed Stablecoin Regulations that put operating rules behind Canada's federal stablecoin framework. Issuers would face Bank of Canada registration and supervision, one to one reserves, Canadian custody requirements and redemption obligations. Stablecoin payment activity would also enter the Retail Payment Activities Act framework. Consultation closes December 23, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern.
NCFA's Stablecoin Regulatory Intelligence provides the definitive guide to the framework and implementation path. The operating rules now make a strategic choice much easier to see. A company can take on the capital, custody and supervision required to issue a stablecoin, or build payments, wallets, compliance and infrastructure around regulated coins instead.
Covered issuers would need reserves equal to the value of their stablecoins at the end of each trading day. Those reserves must be held with a qualified custodian incorporated in Canada. Issuers would also need to redeem at par, generally start payment within three business days and maintain the systems needed to manage security, risk and recovery.
That brings banking, custody and operating capacity into the business much earlier. A company can build the technology first, but it can't operate at scale without institutions willing to hold its reserves, systems that can process redemptions and enough capital to keep the business running while those relationships are put in place.
Registration can also affect launch timing. A national security review can delay entry and ultimately prevent an issuer from operating in Canada. Founders and investors therefore have to plan for more uncertainty before launch. Canada is already opening more of its financial infrastructure to regulated non bank participants, but stablecoin issuers will still have to meet a much higher operating bar.
The government's regulatory analysis estimates C$88,521 in annualized incremental compliance and administrative costs across five assumed issuers, or about C$17,704 each. That isn't a realistic estimate of what it costs to launch a stablecoin issuer. It covers selected regulatory tasks, not the broader cost of reserves, Canadian custody, technology, legal work, liquidity, security, staffing and distribution.
An issuer averaging less than C$500 million outstanding would also pay a C$25,000 annual Bank of Canada base assessment. That rises to C$350,000 from C$500 million to less than C$1 billion and C$750,000 at C$1 billion or more. Larger issuers also share variable supervisory costs, and the Bank expects to recover about C$2.5 million a year from the issuer market.
The assessment is only one piece of the business model. An issuer still has to spread custody, compliance, technology and redemption costs across enough customers and transaction volume to make the business worthwhile. Canada isn't shutting out smaller issuers, but the economics favour companies that can reach scale or arrive with customers, distribution or strong financial institution partners.
A fintech that truly needs its own stablecoin may decide the investment is worth it. Another company may reach customers faster by using an existing regulated stablecoin and putting its capital into payments, software, distribution or customer acquisition. Issuing the coin is becoming one way to compete in the market, not the only way to enter it.
Canadian PSPs and wallets will want access to stablecoins their customers already use, especially large U.S. dollar products. The proposed rules can recognize stablecoins issued by financial institutions operating under Canadian, provincial or foreign laws when those regimes provide similar protections for reserves, redemption, custody and yield.
A clear recognition process would give Canadian companies more stablecoins, liquidity and payment networks to build with. A slow or uncertain process would leave them with fewer options and could make integrations more expensive. Foreign issuer access therefore affects Canadian fintechs even when they have no plans to issue a stablecoin themselves.
The U.S. OCC finalized its GENIUS Act issuer rules on October 21, 2026, and they take effect January 18, 2027. Canada is still at the proposed regulation stage and currently plans to bring its framework into force in fall 2027. The OCC still has to open its application process, but U.S. firms now know the final federal rules while Canadian firms still have time to influence theirs.
NCFA's analysis of who can issue stablecoins under the new U.S. rules shows the same split emerging south of the border. Issuers carry the reserve, redemption and supervision burden. Payments and infrastructure companies can build around regulated stablecoins without taking on the full cost and responsibility of issuing them.
Canada doesn't need dozens of domestic issuers to build a competitive stablecoin market. It needs credible stablecoins that Canadian banks, PSPs, wallets and infrastructure companies can connect to without unnecessary cost or delay. The December 23 consultation gives market participants a chance to improve custody rules, proportional supervision, registration and access to credible foreign stablecoins before the framework is finalized.
Canada's custody rules give domestic financial institutions a role even when the stablecoin issuer is based elsewhere. Reserve assets must be held with a qualified custodian incorporated or formed in Canada and protected from claims against the issuer or custodian. A global issuer that wants to operate here may therefore need a Canadian bank or custodian as part of its setup.
That creates business in custody, reserve management and banking services without requiring the financial institution to compete for stablecoin users. Financial institutions also follow a different path under the Stablecoin Act because the issuer regime doesn't apply to stablecoins they issue. Canada could therefore support several ways to participate in the market rather than forcing every company through the same regulatory model.
Payments offer a much larger entry point. Finance Canada estimates that about 30 additional PSPs, including some crypto platforms, wallets and payment processors, would newly enter the Retail Payment Activities Act framework. More than 2,000 PSPs were already covered as of July 2026. The government doesn't expect those existing firms to face additional RPAA compliance costs when they add prescribed stablecoin payment functions because similar requirements already apply to their fiat payment activity.
More than 2,000 regulated PSPs could potentially add stablecoin functionality without becoming stablecoin issuers. Payment companies can build merchant acceptance or international transfers. Wallets can add payment and settlement features. Banks and custodians can manage reserve assets. Compliance firms can provide screening, monitoring and reporting tools.
Those companies compete for transactions, distribution and customer relationships rather than for the economics of issuing the money itself. NCFA has already tracked this move toward stablecoins as payment infrastructure. The proposed rules make it easier to see where Canadian firms can enter the market.
The commercial market around stablecoins could become much larger than the issuer market. A small number of regulated coins can support many PSPs, wallets, custodians, banks, compliance providers and software companies. For founders, that creates more ways to participate without tying up capital in reserves or running a redemption system.
Canadian PSPs and wallets will want access to stablecoins their customers already use, especially large U.S. dollar products. The proposed rules can recognize stablecoins issued under Canadian, provincial or foreign laws when those regimes provide similar protections for reserves, redemption, custody and yield.
Clear recognition would give Canadian companies more stablecoins, liquidity and networks to build with. A slow or uncertain process would leave them with fewer choices and could raise integration costs. Foreign issuer access therefore affects Canadian fintechs even when they have no plans to issue a stablecoin themselves.
The U.S. OCC finalized its GENIUS Act issuer rules on October 21, 2026, with an effective date of January 18, 2027. Canada is still consulting on proposed regulations and currently plans to bring its framework into force in fall 2027. The OCC still has to open its application process, but U.S. firms now know the final federal issuer rules while Canadian firms can still influence Canada's operating details.
The same commercial split is emerging in the U.S. Issuers carry the reserve, redemption and supervisory obligations. Payments and infrastructure companies can build products around regulated stablecoins without taking on the issuer's full operating burden.
Canada doesn't need dozens of domestic issuers to build a competitive stablecoin market. It needs credible stablecoins that Canadian banks, PSPs, wallets and infrastructure companies can connect to without unnecessary cost or delay. The December 23 consultation gives market participants a chance to improve custody rules, proportional supervision, registration and access to credible foreign stablecoins before the framework is finalized.
Canada may not need a large number of domestic stablecoin issuers to build a strong market. The bigger opportunity is to make regulated stablecoins easy for Canadian banks, PSPs, wallets and infrastructure companies to use. If those firms can connect to credible issuers without unnecessary cost or delay, stablecoins can become another financial rail for payments, settlement and treasury services. The strategic advantage then comes from the businesses built on top of that infrastructure, not from maximizing the number of companies issuing the underlying coins.
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

] Image: Freepik
This live weekly NCFA intelligence page tracks financial technology developments that significantly affect how fintechs build, sell, raise capital, and operate under scrutiny. Coverage prioritizes Canada and includes global events that directly influence competitive conditions, market access, and execution realities across fintech sectors. This page will be updated throughout the week with market movers in a live format and then each week we'll close the prior week's contents in prep for the upcoming week, and continue on a rolling basis. (Missed prior week's Fintech Whisperer? (December 6-12, 2025, December 13-19, 2025, January 1-9, 2026, January 10-16, 2026, January 17-23, 2026, January 24-30, 2026, January 31-February 6, 2026, February 7-13, 2026, February 14-20, 2026, February 21-27, 2026, February 28-March 6, 2026, March 7-March 13, 2026, March 14-March 20, 2026, March 21-March 27, 2026, March 28-April 3, 2026, April 4-10, 2026, April 11-17, 2026, April 18-24, 2026, April 25-May 1, 2026, May 2-8, 2026, May 9-15, 2026, May 16-22, 2026, May 23-29, 2026, May 30-June 5, 2026, June 6-June 12, 2026, June 13-June 19, 2026, June 20-June 26, 2026, June 27-July 3, 2026, July 4-July 10, 2026, July 11-July 17, 2026, July 18-July 24, 2026, July 25-July 31, 2026, August 1-August 7, 2026, August 8-August 14, 2026, August 15-August 21, 2026, August 22-August 28, 2026, August 29-September 4, 2026, September 5-September 11, 2026, September 12-September 18, 2026, September 19-September 25, 2026, September 26-October 2, 2026, October 3-October 9, 2026, October 10-October 16, 2026).
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NCFA offers various curated resources to help founders and investors stay current on developments that impact fintech markets. Get the weekly Whisperer and related market intelligence through NCFA's newsletter, view the latest fintech news and insights, industry research, or launch into emerging financial innovation opportunities.
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 22, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Competition And Market Structure, Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 21, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Regulation And Policy, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
October 21, 2026 | Insight | Capital Markets Infrastructure And Funding, Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Wealthtech Investing And Trading

On October 20, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission published guidance on tokenized stock trading, clarifying how certain U.S. public shares can trade on blockchain platforms without a company's affirmative approval. The guidance follows the SEC's September 17 Innovation Exemption, which allows limited trading of eligible public stocks through new digital venues. Sixteen companies, including Microsoft, Alphabet and Goldman Sachs, have reportedly objected to having their shares traded on the proposed OKXICE platform.
The exemption doesn't cover every public stock, and companies can block certain trading arrangements. Venues also face limits on which securities they can offer and how much trading they can handle. For investors and market operators, the questions are which stocks qualify, what ownership rights come with the tokens and whether these new platforms can compete with traditional exchanges. The October 20 guidance further explains how the existing exemption works without introducing new regulations.
The SEC allows qualifying venues to trade tokenized National Market System stocks, which generally include eligible shares listed on major U.S. exchanges and certain exchange traded products. The exemption covers qualifying securities tokenized by their issuers and arrangements involving independent third parties. It excludes rights, warrants and tokens that merely track a stock's price without providing the same ownership rights as the underlying security.
The SEC separates eligible stocks into two groups. Tier 1 includes shares in the S&P 500 and Russell 1000, along with certain qualifying exchange traded products. Major companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet and Nvidia fall within those indexes, although that doesn't automatically make their shares available on a tokenized venue. Tier 2 includes other eligible listed securities outside Tier 1, giving smaller public companies a potential route into these markets.
The limits are strict. A qualifying venue can offer up to 75 Tier 1 symbols, with trading in each capped at 0.25% of the stock's average daily share volume during the previous month. Tier 2 allows up to 250 symbols, with a 2.5% volume cap. Related venues must combine their trading activity when calculating these limits.
Consider a Tier 1 stock averaging 10 million shares traded daily. A qualifying venue and its affiliates could trade up to 25,000 tokenized shares per day. A Tier 2 stock with the same volume would have a limit of 250,000 shares. A first breach of a stock's volume limit doesn't automatically require suspension, but subsequent breaches require a three month trading pause for that security.
Investors must receive the same rights and privileges as holders of equivalent conventional shares. That includes applicable dividends and voting rights. The arrangements supporting those rights must be verified, and venues must meet requirements for trading halts, transaction records and technology safeguards. A token offering only synthetic exposure to a share price doesn't qualify under this exemption.
OKXICE is one of the first proposed venues testing the SEC's approach. It's a joint venture owned equally by Intercontinental Exchange, parent of the New York Stock Exchange, and OKC USA Holding, part of the OKX group. Its public trading notices describe a platform where approved investors could trade tokenized U.S. stocks against stablecoins using automated liquidity pools instead of a conventional stock exchange order book.
OKXICE plans to use Uniswap v4 technology on the X Layer blockchain to let approved investors trade tokenized stocks through pools of shares and stablecoins. Investors would need to verify their identities and use approved digital wallets. OKXICE says it won't hold customer assets or sell newly issued shares. Publishing its plans doesn't mean the SEC has approved the platform or that trading has started.
OKXICE initially proposed 63 stock symbols from 62 companies. Nine companies had objected by October 15, including Broadcom, Verizon, UnitedHealth, CoreWeave and AppLovin. Reporting on October 19 identified seven more, bringing the total to 16 companies, including Microsoft, Alphabet, Goldman Sachs, Qualcomm, Caterpillar, McDonald's and Western Digital.
One of the 16 objectors, Cerebras Systems, wasn't on the original proposed list. That means 15 of the original 62 companies had objected, leaving 47 without a reported objection at that point. Silence doesn't mean approval. It only means the company hasn't exercised its right to block that particular trading arrangement.
Applied Optoelectronics explained its concerns to The Wall Street Journal. The company questioned whether tokenized trading would benefit shareholders and worried about possible effects on its share price, trading activity and volatility. It also didn't want investors to mistake an independent tokenized offering for one supported by the company.
Under the SEC exemption, companies have 30 calendar days after receiving notice to object. If they object in time, that venue can't offer their tokenized shares under the exemption. The objection doesn't automatically prevent every other form of stock tokenization.
Trading platforms face a separate 30 day requirement. They must publish their operating plans at least 30 calendar days before trading begins. The SEC's October 20 guidance confirms that venues can publish proposed stock lists while companies are still deciding whether to object. They must disclose which decisions remain pending and update their lists as objections arrive or the periods expire.
Andrew Cuomo, co-chair of OKXICE, described the issuer objections as a "natural response". He said the venture expected some companies to wait before participating. Whether that resistance eases will depend partly on how the first venues operate and what benefits they can demonstrate to investors and issuers.
The potential appeal is clear. Investors could trade familiar U.S. shares outside regular exchange hours, hold them through approved digital wallets and use blockchain systems to complete transactions. But being able to trade at any hour doesn't guarantee liquidity or a competitive price. New venues still need enough investors and market makers to support reliable trading.
OKXICE proposes using automated market makers instead of matching every buyer and seller through a traditional order book. Liquidity providers would supply tokenized shares and stablecoins to trading pools, earning fees while taking market risk. If those pools don't attract enough capital, investors could face wider spreads or prices that differ from the conventional stock market.
Nasdaq has proposed a different model. In September 2025, Nasdaq sought SEC approval for tokenized stock trading within its existing exchange system. Investors could choose traditional or tokenized settlement, with the Depository Trust Company handling the process. The same trading rules, security identifiers and shareholder rights would apply.
Chuck Mack, Nasdaq's Senior Vice President of North American Markets, explained the company's approach.
"Past market failures teach us that it is imperative to ensure governance, resilience, and investor protection are embedded from the outset."
The two companies are taking different approaches. OKXICE plans to build a new blockchain trading platform, while Nasdaq wants to add tokenized stocks to its existing exchange system. Nasdaq's proposal follows a separate regulatory process and predates the October 2026 objections. For investors, the real focus is which approach offers better prices, reliable trading and strong shareholder protections.
Tokenized shares still need to give investors the same ownership rights as regular stocks. That means making sure dividends reach the right people, shareholders can vote and stock splits or mergers are recorded correctly. Investors who control their own digital wallets also need to protect their access keys. Losing them could mean losing access to their investments.
Investor protections can also differ. OKXICE isn't registered as a traditional stock exchange for trading under this exemption, so some rules that apply to established exchanges don't apply in the same way. The SEC exemption is temporary and lasts five years. That gives regulators time to assess how these markets operate before deciding whether to introduce permanent rules.
For Canadian fintech founders, the business opportunities go beyond operating a trading platform. These markets need companies that can protect assets, maintain accurate ownership records, verify compliance and supply trading liquidity. Brokers and transfer agents may also need new technology to connect blockchain transactions with existing securities systems. Demand for those services will depend on whether investors actually use the new markets.
Canada is also looking at how tokenized securities could trade under its own rules. In March 2026, the Canadian Securities Administrators launched Project Tokenization to explore trading, custody and settlement of digital securities. The initiative has since engaged more than 240 organizations, as reviewed in NCFA's capital markets innovation analysis. Unlike the SEC, Canada hasn't introduced a comparable exemption for tokenized public stock trading. For Canadian exchanges and fintech founders, the U.S. experiment offers an early look at which business models work and where existing securities rules may need to adapt.
If tokenized stocks attract buyers and sellers, keep trading costs competitive and preserve shareholder rights, they could become a useful alternative. If not, investors may have little reason to move away from traditional stock markets.
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 20, 2026 | NCFA Story Intelligence | Capital Markets And Funding, Leadership And Governance, Artificial Intelligence And Data

On October 16, 2026, You Can See Everything opened in Canadian theatres. Four days later, the documentary about Elizabeth Holmes is still one of the biggest stories at the North American box office. It opened with about US$15 million from only 855 screens. That's an extraordinary result for a documentary about a founder whose company collapsed years ago and is now serving a federal prison sentence.1
Holmes didn't raise money because investors wanted to lose it. She sold a future that sounded possible, surrounded herself with people whose reputations made belief easier, and built a company whose story moved faster than outsiders could verify the technology. By the time the evidence caught up, investors had committed hundreds of millions of dollars.
What follows is a story of how founder trust becomes part of an investment case and how evidence can lose ground to momentum. The same human problem returns whenever investors finance an uncertain future.
A Founder Learns to Sell the Future 2003 to 2010
Elizabeth Holmes leaves Stanford and starts Theranos with a promise that is easy to understand and hard to ignore. Blood testing should require less blood, hurt less and become easier to access. The mission sounds personal and the market is enormous. Investors aren't being asked to finance another laboratory. They are being asked to back a founder who says healthcare can work differently. That's where trust first enters the deal.
The idea is bigger than the product. Theranos tells investors that its technology can run a broad range of tests from tiny amounts of blood. The company is private, the technology is closely guarded and outsiders have limited access to what happens inside the machines. That secrecy can sound like competitive protection when the founder is believed.
Conviction becomes part of the product. Holmes presents Theranos as a mission driven company that can transform healthcare. Investors hear a founder who appears certain about the future and willing to devote herself to it. That confidence is valuable in a startup because the product, market and operating model are all unfinished. It also makes the founder unusually important to the investment case.
Powerful Names Make Belief Easier 2011 to 2014
Then other people start lending Holmes their credibility. George Shultz joins the board after what was supposed to be a short meeting turns into a conversation lasting more than two hours. Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn, James Mattis and other prominent figures follow. Major investors arrive too. Each new name makes the company easier for the next person to believe. Theranos is no longer only asking whether investors trust Holmes. It's asking whether they trust everyone who already does.
By 2014, Theranos had assembled a board that looked more like a national security council than a medical technology startup. Former secretaries of state, defence leaders, senators, military commanders and senior business figures gave the company extraordinary status. Fortune later noted how little directly relevant laboratory expertise sat on the board compared with its political and business stature.2
That reputation travelled into fundraising. Court records later listed US$125 million from Rupert Murdoch and nearly US$100 million from RDV Corporation, the investment office associated with the DeVos family, among the losses considered for restitution.3
The names didn't prove the technology worked. They changed the social setting around the investment. A founder sitting alone across the table has to establish credibility. A founder surrounded by respected directors, major retailers, wealthy families and national media arrives with credibility already in the room.
The same pull shows up outside venture capital. The Finfluencer Effect on Canadian Retail Investors reported an OSC experiment with a striking result. 38% of participants exposed to promotional investment content bought the promoted asset, compared with 8% in the control group. The context changes how people act, even when they believe they are making their own decision.
The board looks formidable. Fortune described Theranos in 2014 as having one of the most illustrious boards in American business. George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn, James Mattis and other prominent figures gave Holmes access to experience, networks and public credibility that most young founders could never assemble.4
The board can't substitute for technical oversight. A famous director can open doors and challenge strategy. That doesn't automatically give a board the scientific depth to test a diagnostic platform. Prestige can make a young company look safer while leaving the hardest operating question untouched.
The Story Spirals Beyond the Evidence 2013 to 2015
By now Theranos has a founder people recognize, a board people respect, national retail partners and a story the media wants to tell. The company is valued at about US$9 billion. Every new endorsement makes the earlier endorsements look smarter. Inside that momentum, the distance between the public story and the operating evidence keeps growing. Investors are no longer judging a lonely startup. They are judging a success story that appears to be happening in front of them.
The SEC later alleged that Theranos raised more than US$700 million through false or exaggerated statements about its technology, business relationships and financial performance. Broader accounts put total lifetime funding above US$900 million, but the SEC figure is the amount tied to the fraud case it brought.5
The financial claims were dramatic. Investor materials projected more than US$100 million in 2014 revenue and about US$1 billion in 2015. Actual 2014 operating revenue was only a little over US$100,000.6
Investors were also told the technology had been used by the US military in Afghanistan and on medevac helicopters. The SEC said it had not. They were told the proprietary analyzer could perform comprehensive testing from a few drops of blood. The SEC said it could perform only a small number of tests, while most patient testing relied on modified commercial machines made by other companies.
The gap wasn't one bad forecast or one late product milestone. Technology claims, revenue expectations, commercial relationships and outside validation all helped support the same investment story.
The numbers make the story feel real. A multibillion dollar valuation, hundreds of millions raised and national retail partnerships give investors familiar business signals. Those signals usually matter. They become dangerous when investors start treating them as evidence about the one thing the company still has to prove.
The media helps close the loop. Holmes becomes a symbol of Silicon Valley ambition. WIRED has now revisited its own 2014 coverage and acknowledged how media enthusiasm helped amplify the founder story before the science received enough scrutiny.7 The founder earns attention because investors believe. Investors see attention and find another reason to believe.
Diligence Still Doesn't Break the Spell 2010 to 2015
The easy story about gullible investors falls apart here. Walgreens visits Theranos, reviews patents, discusses regulation and brings in outside medical expertise. Safeway says it spends more than 100 hours on diligence. These aren't people writing cheques after one inspiring pitch. They are trying to verify the company. Yet the founder still controls much of what they are allowed to see, and some of the evidence they receive later proves unreliable.
Walgreens did many of the things investors say they want to see. It visited headquarters, reviewed patents, discussed regulatory strategy and engaged outside experts. A later court record says Holmes sent Walgreens reports bearing logos from Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Schering Plough and described them as independent technical validation. Representatives from those companies later testified that they had not independently validated the technology and had not authorized the use of their logos on those reports.8
Safeway also kept looking. Former CEO Steven Burd testified that the company spent at least 100 hours on diligence. The relationship eventually cost Safeway more than US$360 million before it was abandoned. During testing at Safeway headquarters, Burd said the device could make noise and still fail to deliver the expected result.9
Diligence only works when it reaches the evidence that can kill the deal. A founder controlled demonstration isn't the same as an independent production test. A customer logo isn't the same as a reference call. A report carrying a respected company's name isn't the same as confirmation from that company.
Good diligence can still ask the wrong question. Investors may spend weeks testing market size, legal structure, partnerships and founder references while the core product remains difficult to inspect. A deal room can contain thousands of pages and still miss the fact that matters most.
The founder can become the gateway to the evidence. That creates a dangerous loop. Investors trust the founder enough to accept the materials, then use those materials to decide whether they should trust the founder. Independent verification has to break that loop.
The Evidence Breaks Through 2015 to 2023
Eventually the story meets people who won't accept the controlled version of the evidence. Employees raise concerns. Whistleblowers push information outside the company. John Carreyrou begins reporting for The Wall Street Journal. Regulators and prosecutors follow. The change isn't that Holmes suddenly becomes less persuasive. The change is that outsiders finally have enough independent evidence to judge the claims without relying on her.
The criminal case narrows the facts. In January 2022, a federal jury convicts Holmes of conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud tied to transfers totalling more than US$140 million. The jury acquits her on patient related conspiracy and several patient fraud counts, while other investor counts end without a unanimous verdict.10
The sentence makes the cost tangible. In November 2022, Holmes receives 135 months in federal prison. She begins serving the sentence in 2023. The SEC had put the investor principle plainly years earlier when it said investors are entitled to “complete truth and candor” from companies and executives.11
The Company Dies but the Founder Story Survives 2023 to 2026
Theranos disappears. Holmes goes to prison. Yet the founder story keeps finding an audience. Books, podcasts, television dramas and documentaries revisit the same rise and collapse. Now You Can See Everything turns her final month of freedom into a theatrical event. More than 70% of the opening weekend audience is reportedly under 35. Many of those viewers were children when Theranos was at its peak. The company is dead, but the story is recruiting a new audience.12
Entrepreneurs need stories because early companies contain more uncertainty than evidence. Investors have to imagine the market, the product and the team several years ahead. Research published in 2024 found that investors can become mentally absorbed in a founder's pitch. When that happens, they are more likely to reshape the opportunity positively and commit resources.13
Another large study summarized by Harvard Business Review looked at founders from more than 4,000 US companies. Actual expertise was the strongest predictor of a successful exit, while signals of expertise were more strongly associated with getting funded. The ability to look investable can help win the cheque before the qualities that create long term value have been proven.14
Charisma isn't fraud. Storytelling isn't deception. Investors need founders who can make an uncertain future understandable enough for employees, customers and capital providers to join them. Trouble starts when the story becomes the evidence.
The audience knows how the story ends. That makes the continuing fascination more revealing. People aren't buying tickets because the verdict is unknown. They are watching because confidence, ambition, deception and failure are still compelling human material.
Persuasion still moves money. Canadian investors see the same mechanism in a different setting. How AI Is Changing Canadian Investors’ Decisions found that 84% of surveyed self directed investors used AI, financial creators or both. Technology changes the channel. It doesn't remove the human desire to find someone or something that makes uncertainty feel easier.
AI Brings the Question Back 2026
The next founder asking investors to believe before all the evidence exists probably won't be selling blood tests. Today, capital is rushing toward artificial intelligence, where products, business models and infrastructure costs can change between financing rounds. Carta says more than 60% of venture dollars on its platform went to AI companies in the first quarter of 2026. Investors are again deciding how much future they are willing to finance before the operating record is complete.15
AI makes founder trust unusually important because a compelling demonstration can move faster than production evidence. A model may look remarkable in a controlled setting while customer retention, gross margins, compute costs, data rights and reliability remain unsettled.
Start with customers. Speak to them directly. Find out what is live in production, what is still a pilot and what would disappear if the startup stopped subsidizing usage. Then follow the money. Revenue quality matters more than a large contract headline if the deal depends on heavy discounts, strategic credits or one customer that can leave.
Then test the product outside the founder's preferred demonstration. Ask who chose the prompts, data, workflow and success criteria. Compare performance with realistic alternatives. If the company depends on another model provider, cloud vendor or data source, price that dependency into the investment case.
The current market makes that discipline harder, not less important. The Financial Times reported in September that a new group of AI companies raised roughly US$24 billion in six months, sometimes before they had meaningful products or revenue. Founder pedigree itself was helping unlock capital.16
Elon Musk belongs in a very different category from Holmes. Tesla and SpaceX built real products, customers and operating businesses. Yet Musk also shows how closely a founder's words can become tied to investor expectations. In 2018, the SEC settlement over his “funding secured” tweets required governance changes at Tesla and US$40 million in combined penalties. Musk isn't a Theranos analogue. The episode still shows why markets need controls when one person's credibility can move billions of dollars.17
Investors can use AI Investing Tools to accelerate research. The judgment still belongs to the investor.
Founder conviction still has value. Early stage investors are paid to finance businesses before every answer exists. A founder who can't make others believe in an uncertain future may never recruit the team, customers or capital needed to build it.
Conviction needs independent evidence beside it. Customer calls, production data, technical review, board oversight and financial reconciliation give investors something that doesn't depend on the founder's version of events. The earlier the company, the more important it becomes to know which assumptions are still beliefs.
Holmes is in prison, Theranos is gone and investors now know how the story ended. That makes the mistakes look obvious in hindsight. They were much harder to see when the company was raising money, signing national partners, attracting famous directors and appearing on magazine covers.
The next founder who lets belief outrun the evidence will probably look nothing like Holmes. The company may be building AI, financial infrastructure, robotics, biotech or something investors have not learned how to value yet. The founder may have respected backers, impressive customers and a demonstration that makes the future feel close enough to touch.
Early founders often have to sell conviction before the product, revenue or market fully exists. That's part of building a venture, not evidence of deception. Investors are financing a future that has not happened yet, so imagination belongs in the deal.
The line gets crossed when aspiration is presented as fact, a controlled demonstration is presented as independent proof, or hoped for traction is sold as something already verified. A founder can sell why the future might happen. The investor still has to know what is already true.
STORY INTELLIGENCE
How OpenAI And Anthropic Reached Public Markets
OpenAI and Anthropic show what happens when founder vision, strategic backers, governance choices and enormous private capital converge before public market scrutiny arrives.
FOUNDER BUILD
Inside a Licensed Profession: What Ownright’s Build Teaches Fintech Founders
Ownright offers a current founder case where credibility comes from operating evidence, regulatory fit, customer execution and a system that has processed more than $2 billion of transactions.
MARKET ACTIVITY
FNZ Turnaround Tests La Caisse and Canadian Pension Capital
Repeated capital raises and management changes at FNZ show what investor conviction looks like after the cheque is written, when ownership starts turning into active governance.
NCFA INSIGHT
Canada’s Early Stage Startup Funding Funnel Narrows
A tighter Canadian funding market raises the stakes for founders trying to earn attention and for investors deciding which stories deserve scarce early stage capital.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
August 26th, 2025
January 4th, 2024
June 1st, 2021
September 9th, 2020
July 9th, 2018
January 3rd, 2018
September 25th, 2017
June 20th, 2017
May 10th, 2017
December 14th, 2016
NCFA Canada
Craig Asano
CEO and Executive Director
casano@ncfacanada.org
ncfacanada.org








