August 18, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | SME Finance And Business Banking, Banking And Credit, Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure
US$100M Macquarie Facility Tests Clearco’s Rebuilt Ecommerce Funding Model
On August 18, 2026, Toronto-based Clearco secured a US$100 million Macquarie asset-backed facility that it expects will support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing.
The facility expands Clearco's capacity to provide qualified brands with up to US$10 million and estimated terms of four to 12 months. Clearco says the funding can support inventory, marketing, major purchase orders and expansion across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
The US$900 million target is a scaling opportunity now, meaning Clearco has to convert institutional funding capacity into sustained customer financing while controlling credit performance and capital costs.
US$100M Facility Sets A US$900M Funding Test
The two headline numbers measure different things. The US$100 million is the size of the Macquarie asset-backed facility. The US$900 million is Clearco's expected customer funding over two years.
That expected funding volume is nine times the facility's headline size. The announcement doesn't disclose the borrowing base, advance rate, asset eligibility, covenants, loss-sharing structure or how much Clearco capital will support customer advances. It also doesn't specify how much of the US$900 million depends on repayment and redeployment of facility capital versus other funding sources.
Those missing terms are important because Clearco's own financing cost and asset performance affect how economically it can fund merchants. More capacity helps only if customer advances generate enough return after financing costs, operating expenses and credit losses.
Clearco has been in a similar position before. Its 2023 recapitalization included a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility with up to US$100 million of capacity. Clearco expected that structure to support approximately US$850 million of originations over two years.
That comparison is especially relevant because the earlier reset followed a period when Clearco reduced international operations, tightened underwriting and faced rising capital costs. The new facility arrives after the company has narrowed its operating focus and rebuilt its funding products.
The stated two-year funding target is now US$50 million higher than the 2023 target. It's also not clear whether the Macquarie facility carries a lower funding cost or materially different risk structure than the Pollen Street arrangement.
Clearco Competes On Funding Flexibility And Capital Access
Clearco's current ecommerce financing model gives merchants two choices over funding structure and two ways to deploy the capital. Fixed and Rolling Funding Capacity determine whether a business receives defined one-time capacity or access that replenishes as principal is repaid. Cash Advance deposits funds into the business account, while Invoice Funding supports supplier payments.
That structure gives Clearco several ways to fund inventory, advertising and supplier obligations without requiring a separate product for each use case. Rolling Funding also reduces the need for repeat applications because available capacity replenishes as payments are made.
The competitive market has also developed. Wayflyer provides performance-based ecommerce financing and currently advertises funding up to US$20 million, while Shopify Capital offers embedded merchant financing directly through the Shopify platform.
Those models compete from different business approaches. Wayflyer is another specialist financing provider using merchant performance data. Shopify can originate funding inside the commerce platform where merchants already operate. Clearco's current proposition combines ecommerce specialization, multiple capital structures and external institutional funding capacity.
Clearco reports more than US$3.3 billion provided to over 11,000 businesses historically. That record establishes substantial lifetime deployment, but it doesn't answer how much financing the current version of Clearco is originating or how the rebuilt portfolio is performing.
Originations And Credit Performance Will Test The Rebuild
Clearco's US$900 million expectation implies average customer funding of approximately US$37.5 million per month over two years if volume were evenly distributed. Ecommerce funding won't arrive evenly, but the average provides a useful scale for evaluating future disclosures.
The strongest evidence will be originations, repeat use, facility utilization, repayment performance and credit losses. Pricing and funding costs would show whether additional volume also improves Clearco's economics.
The new facility could also let Clearco serve larger ecommerce operators. The announced maximum of US$10 million places it above the smaller working-capital advances often associated with revenue-based financing and gives the company more capacity for inventory commitments, major purchase orders and multi-channel expansion.
If Clearco approaches the funding target while maintaining credit quality, the company will have stronger evidence that its post-restructuring model can support another period of scale. If utilization or credit performance weakens, the headline facility size will matter much less.
Talking Point
Can Clearco convert its new institutional funding capacity into approximately US$900 million of ecommerce financing while maintaining the credit performance and capital economics needed to make that scale durable?
NCFA Company Intelligence Snapshot
Clearco
Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for U.S. DTC ecommerce brands
Founded 2015 as Clearbanc by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Legal Entity Clear Finance Technology Corporation
Headquarters Toronto, Canada
Leadership Andrew Curtis, Chief Executive Officer
Business Model Non-dilutive revenue-based funding for ecommerce businesses
Core Products Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding
Current Market U.S.-incorporated DTC ecommerce businesses with a U.S. business bank account
Current Eligibility 6+ months of consistent revenue and more than US$100,000 in monthly revenue
Historic Funding More than US$3.3B to 11,000+ businesses
Funding Capacity Up to US$10M for qualified brands with estimated terms of 4 to 12 months
Current Trigger US$100M Macquarie asset-backed facility announced Aug 18, 2026
Forward Funding Target Approximately US$900M to ecommerce brands over two years
Milestones
Select a milestone to follow
Clearco's
development
1 Launch 2015
2 Venture Scale 2018–2019
3 Clearco Rebrand Apr 2021
4 Recapitalization Oct 2023
5 Product Rebuild 2024–2025
6 Macquarie Facility Aug 2026
Milestone
1
Clearbanc Launches Its Ecommerce Funding Model (2015)
Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow founded Clearbanc in Toronto in 2015. The company developed a data-driven alternative to conventional equity funding for digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Toronto company founded by Andrew D'Souza and Michele Romanow
Stage
Launch Early non-dilutive financing model for online businesses
Capital
Revenue Based Funding is tied to business performance rather than founder equity
Markets
Digital Commerce Online businesses become the initial operating focus
Customers
Founders Growth-oriented online businesses seeking capital without selling ownership
Competition
Equity And Business Credit Clearbanc offers another funding route between venture equity and conventional borrowing
Additional Company Data
Clearbanc was founded in Toronto in 2015
Business operating data becomes central to funding decisions
The ecommerce specialization developed into the company's core funding market
NCFA Perspective
Clearco's original operating idea remains visible in the company today. Business data supports funding decisions while founders retain their equity. The products and capital structure change substantially over the following decade.
Milestone
2
Institutional Venture Capital Supports Expansion (2018–2019)
Clearbanc raised institutional venture capital as it expanded the ecommerce funding model and increased the amount of capital available to digital businesses.
Company
Clearbanc Ecommerce financing becomes the company's defining business
Stage
Venture Scale Institutional investors support platform expansion
Capital
Series A And B Equity capital supports company growth while separate funding capacity supports merchant advances
Markets
Ecommerce Digital merchant financing becomes a repeatable operating category
Customers
Online Businesses Funding is directed toward measurable growth spending and working capital
Competition
Alternative Growth Capital Clearbanc competes with equity, bank credit and other working-capital providers
Funding decisions rely increasingly on merchant and ecommerce performance data
Customer activity builds a larger underwriting dataset
NCFA Perspective
The venture-backed expansion proves there is substantial demand for ecommerce growth capital. It also makes Clearbanc increasingly dependent on disciplined underwriting and reliable access to capital for customer advances.
Milestone
3
Clearbanc Becomes Clearco At Nearly US$2B Valuation (Apr 2021)
Clearbanc rebranded as Clearco in April 2021 and announced US$100 million of Series C equity financing plus US$250 million of debt. The transaction valued the company at nearly US$2 billion.
Company
Clearco Clearbanc adopts the Clearco name
Stage
Rapid Expansion Product and international ambitions expand
Capital
US$350M US$100M Series C equity plus US$250M of debt announced
Markets
International Clearco pursues a wider geographic and product strategy
Customers
Ecommerce Founders The company expands its founder proposition beyond a single financing product
Competition
Growth Capital Platform Clearco attempts to compete across funding and additional founder services
Additional Company Data
Oak HC/FT led the US$100M Series C equity round
The April 2021 financing included US$250M of debt
The announced valuation was nearly US$2B
The rebrand accompanied a wider company and product strategy
NCFA Perspective
The 2021 financing marks Clearco's high-growth period. Equity, debt capacity, valuation and operating ambition all increase at the same time. The later contraction shows why a specialty finance company cannot be judged by valuation or lifetime deployments alone.
Milestone
4
Clearco Recapitalizes Around A New Funding Structure (Oct 2023)
Clearco completed a recapitalization in October 2023 that included a US$60 million Series D and a Pollen Street Capital asset-backed facility providing up to US$100 million of financing capacity.
Company
Clearco The company operates under CEO Andrew Curtis following a difficult period of contraction
Stage
Recapitalization Capital structure and operating model are reset
Capital
US$60M + US$100M Series D equity plus asset-backed financing capacity
Markets
Ecommerce Focus The company concentrates on its core ecommerce financing business
Specialty Finance Capital cost and underwriting performance become central competitive variables
Additional Company Data
Inovia Capital and Founders Circle Capital led the US$60M Series D
Pollen Street supplied up to US$100M in asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expected the facility to support US$850M of originations over two years
The transaction was explicitly described as a recapitalization
NCFA Perspective
The 2023 transaction is more important than another venture round because it resets how Clearco finances the business. Dedicated asset-backed capital reconnects customer growth with funding capacity. The operating test becomes whether Clearco can grow without recreating the cost structure that contributed to its earlier contraction.
Milestone
5
Clearco Rebuilds Its Ecommerce Funding Suite (2024–2025)
Clearco expanded its funding products during 2024 and 2025. Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and replenishes available capacity as customers make payments. The company later combined Fixed Funding Capacity, Rolling Funding Capacity, Cash Advance and Invoice Funding into a broader ecommerce funding suite.
Company
Clearco The company operates with a narrower ecommerce focus and rebuilt product set
Stage
Product Rebuild Capital products expand after the recapitalization
Capital
Fixed And Rolling Customers can use one-time capacity or replenishing funding capacity
Markets
U.S. Ecommerce Current products focus on U.S. ecommerce brands
Customers
Established DTC Brands Current qualification focuses on businesses with meaningful recurring revenue
Competition
Flexible Working Capital Funding structure, pricing, capacity, speed and lien requirements become key points of comparison
Additional Company Data
Rolling Funding launched in 2025 and automatically replenishes available capacity as payments are made
Cash Advance sends capital directly to the customer's bank account
Invoice Funding supports supplier and vendor payments
Clearco currently offers both Fixed Funding Capacity and Rolling Funding Capacity
NCFA Perspective
The product rebuild concentrates Clearco on serving more funding needs for the same ecommerce customer. That makes repeat use, credit performance and capital efficiency more important than returning to the wide geographic expansion strategy of 2021.
Milestone
6
Macquarie Adds US$100M Of Asset-Backed Capacity (Aug 2026)
Clearco announced a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility from Macquarie Group on August 18, 2026. Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years.
Company
Clearco Toronto-headquartered ecommerce funding company led by Andrew Curtis
Stage
Funding Expansion Institutional capital increases customer funding capacity
U.S. Ecommerce Funding supports brands operating across DTC, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce
Customers
Up To US$10M Qualified brands can access funding with estimated terms of four to 12 months
Competition
Institutional Funding Economics Capital cost and asset performance influence Clearco's ability to price and expand funding
Additional Company Data
Macquarie's New York Fixed Income and Currencies team provided the financing
The new facility provides US$100M of asset-backed financing capacity
Clearco expects it to support approximately US$900M of ecommerce funding over two years
Clearco currently reports more than US$3.3B provided to 11,000+ businesses historically
The US$900M figure is a forward company expectation, not capital already deployed or Clearco revenue
NCFA Perspective
The Macquarie facility gives Clearco another institutional funding base after several years spent rebuilding the business. The next test is measurable. Clearco has to convert that capacity into sustained ecommerce financing while maintaining underwriting discipline and asset performance. The US$900 million target defines the scale of the opportunity, but it does not establish that the volume will be reached.
Clearco Macquarie Funding FAQs
How much financing did Macquarie provide to Clearco?
Macquarie Group provided Clearco with a US$100 million asset-backed financing facility announced on August 18, 2026.
How much ecommerce funding does Clearco expect the facility to support?
Clearco expects the facility to support approximately US$900 million in funding to ecommerce brands over the next two years. That is a company expectation for customer funding, not US$900 million of capital supplied by Macquarie.
How much funding can an ecommerce business get from Clearco?
Clearco says qualified brands can access up to US$10 million, with estimated terms of four to 12 months.
What can Clearco funding be used for?
Clearco says businesses can use its funding for inventory, marketing, large purchase orders and growth across direct-to-consumer, wholesale, retail, marketplaces and social commerce.
Is Clearco's Macquarie facility the same as its 2023 Pollen Street financing?
No. Clearco's 2023 recapitalization included a separate asset-backed facility from Pollen Street Capital with up to US$100 million of capacity. The August 2026 Macquarie transaction is a new US$100 million facility.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
Brdg organizes project information across developers, cost consultants and lenders. Mortgage Automator brings draw control into the lender's loan system.
Brdg Structures The Information Lenders Need
Brdg isn't a lender. Its software organizes the documents, budgets and project information used to prepare and review construction financing.
The platform accepts documents through email or upload, classifies them and organizes them into a project record. It tracks budgets, project progress and funding information, checks draw readiness across legal, contract, construction and financial categories, and produces lender-ready reports. Brdg provides separate workflows for developers, lenders and cost consultants. Its construction finance platform also shows document ingestion, project dashboards, cash-flow tracking and draw-disbursement readiness.
Brdg reports 30,000+ construction-related documents processed, more than C$300 million in development and active construction, and an average 5.5-day reduction in draw cycle time.
The document volume and reported time savings indicate that Brdg is being used in live construction finance workflows. The C$300 million figure describes development and active construction associated with Brdg's work. It is not revenue, loans originated, financing arranged or assets under management.
Brdg also describes the product as AI-powered and uses labels including Intelligence Agent and Submission Agent. Public evidence supports AI-assisted document and workflow processing. It does not establish autonomous underwriting or credit decisions.
Forum Ventures invested in Brdg, and the company joined its Summer 2026 cohort. Co-founder Ness Cabessa describes Brdg as replacing spreadsheets, email and manual draw processes with a structured construction finance platform.
Mortgage Automator Brings Draw Control Into The Loan File
Mortgage Automator starts from the lender side.
Its Draw Management feature keeps the construction budget inside the same system as the loan. Lenders build budget categories, line items and amounts in Mortgage Automator, then manage planned or ad hoc draw requests against that budget.
The system flags variances and can enforce configurable loan-to-cost limits. Project Health compares work completed with funds already disbursed, giving lenders another way to identify budget drift across active construction loans.
Mortgage Automator says the feature responds to private construction and fix-and-flip lenders that were managing loans in one system while tracking construction budgets in spreadsheets or separate software.
A developer may prepare budgets, invoices and supporting documents. Cost consultants review project costs and progress. Lenders determine whether conditions have been met before additional funds are released.
C$55B CMHC Program Shows The Scale Of Construction Draws
Construction loans release financing in stages because lenders need evidence that work and project costs are progressing before advancing more capital.
That process is visible in Canada's public construction financing system. CMHC's Apartment Construction Loan Program provides loans starting at C$1 million and can finance up to 100% of the residential component's cost for qualifying projects.
The federal program has been expanded to more than C$55 billion in loan funding. Some program streams use monthly construction draws once the loan agreement is in place.
Every draw can bring another set of budgets, invoices, progress information, contracts, approvals and supporting reports into the financing process.
Cost consultants are also part of that control chain. They can review construction progress, costs and supporting documentation before lenders release additional financing.
Construction Finance Workflows Are Moving Into Software
Brdg structures project information before and during lender review. Mortgage Automator keeps budgets and draw controls attached to the active loan.
The next evolution is to carry the same structured project data from developers and cost consultants into lender systems without rebuilding it at each stage.
That would reduce duplicate data entry, make budget changes easier to trace and give lenders a clearer record of what changed between draw requests.
The open question is how the market develops from here. Lenders may prefer draw tools built into their loan systems. Developers and cost consultants may need platforms that work across several lenders. Integrations could eventually connect the two.
Talking Point
Will construction finance software remain split between developer, consultant and lender workflows, or will shared project data eventually connect the full draw process?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
When the first DORA Register of Information submissions arrived in April 2025, European supervisors kept hitting the same wall. Financial entities could not produce an accurate, current list of their own ICT assets. The data sat in spreadsheets, in a departed engineer's notes, and across two or three tools that disagreed with each other. The EBA flagged widespread gaps and sent institutions back to resubmit, in several cases more than once.
None of that was a security failure in the usual sense. The controls were often in place. What was missing sat one level lower: a reliable inventory of what the firm actually runs. For a fintech, that absence is not a documentation nuisance. Operational resilience – keeping payments, ledgers, and customer access working through a disruption – rests on knowing what you run, where it runs, and what stops when a component fails. You cannot map a dependency you never recorded, and you cannot restore a service whose parts you cannot name.
The asset inventory is now the regulatory floor
DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), in force since 17 January 2025, states the requirement plainly. Article 8 obliges financial entities to identify and classify all ICT assets and information assets, document the links and interdependencies between them, and keep those inventories current – refreshed after every major change, with a dedicated risk assessment of legacy systems at least once a year. DORA requires EU member states to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties for financial entities. The sanctions that apply depend on national law and on the circumstances of the breach.
The UK sets a parallel bar. Under FCA policy statement PS21/3 and PRA supervisory statement SS1/21, the transitional implementation period ended on 31 March 2025. Firms must identify their important business services, set impact tolerances, and map the resources each service depends on, including technology, data, facilities, and people. That mapping collapses without an accurate asset layer beneath it. In the US, the 2020 interagency paper on operational resilience points the same way, tying resilience to a clear view of critical systems and their dependencies.
Enforcement is tightening rather than loosening. Germany's BaFin declared the DORA “transformation year” over at the end of 2025, a signal that supervisors now expect working inventories, not remediation plans. Three regulators, one shared premise: transparency of IT assets is the precondition for everything built on top of it.
Figure 1
Figure 1. IT asset transparency is the base layer every resilience process depends on.
What transparency means in an ICT estate
Transparency is not a spreadsheet exported once a quarter. It is three capabilities working together, and the weakest one sets the ceiling.
Discovery keeps the inventory honest
Automated hardware and software auditing finds devices, virtual machines, cloud instances, and installed packages without waiting for anyone to complete a form. Fintechs churn infrastructure quickly, so a hand-maintained list is stale within weeks. Agent-based and agent-less scanning each catch what the other misses – agents report from laptops that leave the network, while agent-less scans reach devices where you cannot install software.
Relationships turn a list into a map
A configuration management database (CMDB) records that a specific payment API runs on these servers, reads from that database cluster, and backs a named customer-facing service. During an incident, that relationship graph gives you blast radius in seconds instead of a war-room reconstruction. A flat asset list cannot answer the question that matters: if this fails, what else goes with it?
Classification and ownership make it auditable
Every asset needs a criticality rating, a named owner, a lifecycle state, and a link to the business function it supports. That is close to a word-for-word restatement of what DORA Article 8 asks a financial entity to hold, which is why an inventory missing those fields tends to fail at submission time rather than during an outage.
Table 1. What each resilience obligation actually needs from the asset layer.
Resilience obligation
Asset data it requires
Consequence of a gap
DORA Article 8 inventory and classification
Full list of hardware, software, and cloud services with a criticality rating and named owner
Incomplete Register of Information; repeated resubmission cycles
Dependency mapping (DORA Art. 8; UK important-business-service mapping)
CMDB relationships tying assets to services, users, and third parties
Cannot scope incident impact or evidence a recovery path
Incident response and recovery
Live location, configuration, and ownership for every asset
Longer time-to-restore; recovery steps improvised during the outage
Yearly legacy-system risk review
Lifecycle state, end-of-life flags, and patch status
End-of-life systems stay live and unassessed
Third-party and concentration risk
Register of vendor-linked assets and their interconnections
Blind to a supplier dependency during a supplier outage
Where asset visibility breaks in fintech environments
The failure modes are predictable. Cloud and SaaS growth push assets outside the corporate network, where an on-network scanner never sees them. Shadow IT – a product team standing up a service on a corporate card – never reaches the register at all. Remote and field laptops drop off the VPN and stop reporting, so their patch state quietly goes unknown. And the most common failure is the humblest one: the inventory lives in spreadsheets and email threads that no discovery tool feeds, so it drifts out of date the moment it is saved.
The dataset behind Alloy Software's recent deals shows how entrenched that last pattern is. Across more than 40 closed-won accounts between 2024 and 2026, spreadsheets, email, and homegrown databases were the single most common system teams were replacing – ahead of any named commercial tool.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prior systems replaced across 40+ Alloy Software closed-won deals (2024–2026).
Building an asset register that survives an audit
A workable sequence follows the order of dependency, not the order of visible output:
Turn on automated discovery first, both agent-based and agent-less, so the inventory populates itself instead of relying on manual entry.
Reconcile duplicates, then assign an owner and a criticality rating to every asset – an unowned asset is an unmanaged risk.
Build the relationships, tying assets to the services, users, and third parties that depend on them, so the CMDB can answer impact questions.
Schedule reporting a regulator or internal auditor can read directly, refreshed on a fixed cadence rather than rebuilt in a rush before each audit.
The order matters. Teams that start with dashboards before discovery end up with attractive reports built on data nobody trusts. Discovery first, relationships second, reporting last.
Choosing a platform: what actually matters
For a regulated fintech, three questions filter the market quickly. Does discovery reach cloud and off-network devices? Does the CMDB model relationships rather than store a flat list? Can the data stay on-premises where a security policy or air-gapped requirement demands it? Cost matters, but it rarely decides the outcome on its own.
Table 2. Decision view across five ICT asset and service-management platforms.
Platform
Discovery reach
CMDB and relationships
Hosting
Indicative cost / fit
Alloy Navigator
Agent and agent-less network inventory; off-network audit for field laptops
Integrated CMDB; tickets linked to assets, users, and contracts
On-prem or cloud
~$1k–$25k/yr; 2–35 IT staff
ServiceNow
Agent-less discovery via MID server; broad cloud coverage
Deep, highly configurable CMDB
Cloud-first; limited on-prem
Six-figure programmes; 100+ IT staff
Lansweeper
Agent and agent-less scanning; strong network coverage
Asset-centric; lighter service relationships
Cloud or on-prem
Per-asset pricing that has risen sharply; small–mid teams
ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus
Agent and agent-less; discovery add-on
CMDB in higher tiers
On-prem or cloud
Low–mid, per-technician/node; small–mid teams
Freshservice
Discovery agent plus probe
Cloud-native CMDB
Cloud only
Per-agent SaaS; no on-prem option
Costs reflect market positioning, not quotes; verify against current vendor pricing before shortlisting.
Where a firm has outgrown spreadsheets but cannot absorb a six-figure ServiceNow programme, mid-market platforms cover the ground. Alloy Navigator sits in that band: agent and agent-less network inventory, an integrated CMDB that links tickets to assets, users, and contracts, and a choice of on-premises or cloud hosting for healthcare, public-sector, and finance environments with strict data-residency rules. Deal data puts its annual cost between roughly $1,000 for small teams and $25,000 for larger estates, which is why it usually appears against Lansweeper and ManageEngine rather than enterprise suites.
The inventory is the start, not the finish
An accurate asset register earns its keep only when it feeds the processes around it. Change management is the clearest example: when every change references the assets and services it touches, the CMDB stays current as a by-product of daily work instead of decaying between audits. Incident response reads the same relationship graph to scope impact, and third-party risk mapping – a specific DORA obligation – draws on the register of vendor-linked assets. Teams that want to go deeper on tying assets to change and incident workflows tend to find that the relationship model, not the raw asset count, is where the resilience value sits.
Where to start this quarter
If a fintech can answer three questions on demand – what do we run, what depends on it, and who owns it – most of DORA Article 8 and the UK mapping requirement is already within reach. If it cannot, no volume of policy documentation closes the gap, because the gap is data, not paperwork. Point automated discovery at the whole estate, including cloud and remote endpoints, and measure how far the result differs from the current spreadsheet. That delta is the honest size of the resilience problem.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
August 17, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealth Investing And Trading, Competition And Market Structure
Fund And ETF Accounting Infrastructure Modernization
National Bank is modernizing its fund and ETF accounting infrastructure with Multifonds, bringing work handled across separate systems onto one platform.
The project gives National Bank one accounting environment for more of the valuation, NAV and ETF administration work it performs for firms that offer investment funds and ETFs.
National Bank Brings Fund And ETF Accounting Onto One Platform
National Bank provides fund and ETF administration services that include fund accounting, transfer agency, ETF basket creation, financial statements and tax support.
Multifonds Global Accounting brings fund and ETF accounting into one environment. It processes data in real time and uses exception based workflows so operations teams can focus on records that need review.
The platform includes more than 350 configurable controls across NAV, valuation and distribution work. Multifonds says it supports more than 40,000 funds across 35+ jurisdictions.
National Bank plans to replace siloed systems with the platform. Multifonds expects the change to reduce manual steps, improve oversight and support faster product onboarding.
While those are the expected benefits, the results will depend on how the platform performs once National Bank moves more accounting work into production.
ETF Administration Adds More Operational Work
ETF administration involves more than calculating a fund's value. National Bank also supports transfer agency, market makers and the creation of ETF baskets.
Those processes depend on accounting records and outside data staying aligned. Multifonds connects ETF accounting with more automated data exchange, giving National Bank a common system for more of that work.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, up 62% from the previous record, and Canadian ETF assets reached about C$790.5 billion by the end of March 2026.
Canada's ETF market has grown sharply. Canadian ETFs attracted a record C$122 billion in net inflows in 2025, while industry assets approached C$800 billion in early 2026.
The market is also under closer regulatory review. The CSA consultation on Canadian ETF rules examines areas including unit creation and redemption, ETF trading, NAV alignment and basket practices.
That growth means more products, valuations, baskets, records and exceptions for administrators to process. Automation can reduce repetitive work, but controls still have to catch problems before incorrect data reaches fund managers, trading partners or investors.
The same operating challenge appears in tokenized fund operations. New ways to issue or transfer fund interests still depend on reliable pricing, accounting, investor records and administration.
CIBC Mellon And RBC Are Automating Asset Servicing
National Bank is investing in a part of the market where other large Canadian asset servicers are also spending on technology.
In April, CIBC Mellon expanded its Appian automation program. Planned improvements include a more digital ETF service and fund administration workflows designed to reduce manual work and improve data visibility. CIBC Mellon reported more than C$3.4 trillion in assets under administration as of March 31, 2026.
RBC Investor Services reported C$3.1 trillion in assets under administration in the second quarter. Its asset servicing technology investments include ETF modernization, automated reconciliations and predictive reporting.
These investments highlight competitive pressure. Fund administrators need to support more products and data without adding manual work at the same rate.
Technology can influence how quickly an administrator launches products, handles exceptions and gives clients access to accurate information.
National Bank is also using specialist technology in other operating areas. Its Sardine fraud controls deployment focuses on fraud and financial crime rather than fund administration, but both projects use specialist technology for high-volume financial operations.
Moving more fund and ETF accounting onto one platform can simplify operations, but it also increases dependence on that platform.
National Bank will need strong data quality, integrations, controls and recovery processes as the implementation expands. If a shared accounting system fails, the adverse impacts can amplify and reach more funds and ETF workflows at once.
Talking Point
As Canadian asset servicers automate more fund and ETF administration, will technology become a bigger factor in which providers win new business?
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
A mid-size alternative lender in Vilnius pulls company registry filings, marketplace pricing and sanctions lists into its underwriting model every night. None of it is illegal to read. Most of it becomes a liability the moment it is copied, stored and combined with something else. That gap between "publicly visible" and "lawfully processed" is where fintech compliance teams keep losing arguments with their own data science departments.
Public web data – company filings, marketplace listings, court dockets, sanctions databases, social media bios – has become a standard input for credit scoring, fraud detection, KYB and competitive pricing in financial services. In Meta Platforms v. Bright Data, a federal district court held that Bright Data had not breached Meta's terms of service by collecting data from logged-out pages, which was the specific conduct at issue. The ruling turned on Bright Data's particular conduct and its contractual relationship with Meta rather than establishing a general rule for scraping public websites. For a regulated entity, that distinction is not academic. A bank's third-party risk team, an EU DORA auditor or a state attorney general does not care whether the data was "technically public" if the collection method itself created exposure.
What "public" actually means under US and EU law
hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn is still the reference case for US practitioners, and it is more nuanced than the headlines from 2019 suggest. The Ninth Circuit held twice, first in 2019 and again on remand in 2022, that scraping data from pages open to any visitor does not amount to accessing a computer "without authorization" under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. That took the CFAA off the table as a criminal exposure for reading public pages. It did not end the case. hiQ and LinkedIn settled the remaining contract claims in 2022, and hiQ agreed to destroy the data it had already collected and pay damages, because its scraping still violated LinkedIn's user agreement. The lesson for a fintech legal team is specific: CFAA risk and contract risk are two separate questions, and winning on one does not close the other.
On the EU side, the CFAA question barely matters, because GDPR does not distinguish between public and private personal data. Article 4 defines personal data by whether it relates to an identifiable natural person, not by where it was found. A LinkedIn bio, a court filing with a defendant's name, or a marketplace seller profile with a real name attached all fall inside GDPR's scope the moment they are collected, and Article 6 still requires a lawful basis – legitimate interest is workable for adverse-media or fraud screening, but it requires a documented balancing test, not just a note in a Confluence page.
Where fintechs actually use this data
Four use cases account for most of the public-data traffic coming out of fintech data engineering teams. Alternative underwriting pulls e-commerce store metrics, invoice marketplaces and gig-platform ratings to score borrowers who lack conventional credit files – Kabbage and, later, Amex built entire product lines on this. AML and sanctions screening cross-references OFAC, EU and UN lists against onboarding data, refreshed daily because list updates are unscheduled. Competitive pricing intelligence in embedded finance and BNPL tracks merchant-facing rates across marketplaces to benchmark interchange and fee structures. Fraud and adverse-media screening checks court records, press mentions and social profiles as a secondary signal alongside device fingerprinting.
Not all four carry the same regulatory weight. The table below is the one compliance teams actually need before greenlighting a collection project, not a generic "data source" taxonomy.
Data source
Typical fintech use
Regulatory sensitivity
Main legal basis to check
Company registries (Companies House, EDGAR, EU BRIS)
KYB, beneficial ownership checks
Low to medium
Public register rules and applicable data protection law; filings may contain personal data of directors, officers, beneficial owners and other natural persons
Sanctions and PEP lists (OFAC, EU, UN)
AML/KYC screening
Low
Government-published, but update frequency and source authenticity matter
Terms of service and contract law; CFAA exposure may be lower for pages accessible without login (per hiQ v. LinkedIn)
Public social media profiles
Alternative credit signals, fraud indicators
Medium to high
GDPR/CCPA personal-data rules apply even if the profile is public
Court records and litigation databases
Adverse media, fraud investigation
High
Jurisdiction-specific rules on re-use of judicial data (varies widely, e.g. France's Article 33)
The technical side: building a collection pipeline that survives an audit
The engineering choices matter as much as the legal analysis, because a regulator or a bank's third-party risk assessor will ask for logs, not intentions. A defensible pipeline has five properties, and they map to concrete infrastructure decisions rather than policy statements.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Each control maps to an artifact a third-party risk assessor can actually inspect. The first four are described below; request logging is the fifth, and the one the practical takeaway returns to.
Rate limiting that respects the source, not just your own throughput budget
Reading a site's robots.txt crawl-delay directive and setting concurrency accordingly is a five-minute engineering task that changes the legal character of the whole program. A crawler hitting a company registry at 200 requests per second looks like a denial-of-service test to the target's security team, regardless of what the data is used for afterward. Most production fintech scrapers we've reviewed cap at 1 request per 2-4 seconds per domain, which keeps CPU load on the target negligible and avoids the WAF triggers that generate abuse complaints in the first place.
IP rotation for reliability, not for evasion
This is the point where proxy infrastructure choice stops being a procurement decision and starts being a compliance decision. Rotating through residential or datacenter IPs to maintain a stable success rate against rate limits is standard engineering practice. Rotating IPs specifically to re-access a source after being blocked for a terms-of-service violation is the fact pattern that turned hiQ's win on CFAA into a loss on contract claims. The distinction sounds semantic until an opposing counsel reconstructs your request logs during discovery.
Data minimization at ingestion, not at export
Filtering personal identifiers (names, emails, phone numbers, biometric-adjacent fields) before the data lands in a warehouse is materially cheaper than filtering it after ten analysts have already queried the raw table. A regex-and-NER pass at the collection layer, logged with a timestamp and a rule version, is the artifact a DPO can actually show an auditor.
Retention limits tied to the original purpose
GDPR's storage limitation principle (Article 5(1)(e)) and most US state privacy laws expect a defined retention period. "We keep everything indefinitely for model retraining" is the single most common finding in the DPIAs we've read for alt-data underwriting programs, and it is usually fixable with a 90-180 day rolling window plus a documented exception process for flagged accounts.
Infrastructure and vendor selection
Proxy and scraping infrastructure choice affects three things a compliance file will ask about: whether the vendor itself runs KYC on IP sourcing, whether the billing model matches your actual usage pattern (per-IP monthly vs. per-GB bandwidth), and whether the vendor's own terms indicate the network is ethically sourced rather than built from compromised devices.
Steady, low-volume monitoring jobs (registry checks, sanctions list refresh) where a fixed, auditable IP per data feed is easier to log than rotating bandwidth pools
Decodo (formerly Smartproxy)
Per GB, tiered
$2.00-$3.75/GB depending on volume
Mid-volume scraping across many source domains where bandwidth, not IP count, is the cost driver
Oxylabs
Per GB, sales-assisted
Roughly $8/GB at entry tier, KYC required before provisioning
Enterprises that want a vendor-side KYC record as part of their own third-party risk file
Bright Data
Per GB (PAYG or committed)
$8.40/GB PAYG residential, down to ~$3/GB committed; datacenter from ~$0.90/GB
Large, multi-region collection programs where volume discounts offset the higher entry rate
The billing model split matters more than the headline price. A sanctions-list refresh job that hits the same twelve government sources every night at a predictable, low volume is a poor fit for per-GB bandwidth pricing – you're paying for a metric (data transferred) that has almost nothing to do with your actual constraint, which is IP reputation and consistency of access over time. Vendors like Proxys.io bill per dedicated IP per month, which lines up better with that access pattern and makes cost forecasting for a fixed set of monitored sources straightforward. A marketplace-pricing crawl that touches thousands of product pages across dozens of domains is the opposite case: bandwidth is the real cost driver, and a per-GB model from Decodo, Oxylabs or Bright Data scales more predictably with that workload. Enterprises already running Oxylabs' or Bright Data's own KYC process may lean on that as one input to their own vendor risk assessment, though it doesn't substitute for one.
Figure 2
Figure 2. The two variables that move cost are how many domains a run touches and how much data it moves, not the headline price per unit. Per-IP and per-GB rates are quoted in different units and cannot be compared directly.
None of these vendors, including the ones with published ethics or KYC pages, remove the fintech's own obligation to define a lawful basis, log what was collected, and honor retention limits. The proxy layer solves an availability and reliability problem – consistent access to public pages without disproportionate load on the source – not a data protection problem.
When the current setup stops being fit for purpose
Three signals usually mean a proxy or scraping setup needs to change, independent of price. First, a rising block rate on sources with unchanged rate limits – that's an IP-reputation problem the vendor's pool has accumulated, not something a compliance policy fixes. Second, the compliance team asking for source-level access logs the engineering stack can't currently produce – that's a signal the collection layer needs structured logging before it needs a new vendor. Third, a shift in workload shape, for example moving from a handful of steady, low-volume registry checks to broad multi-domain marketplace crawling, which usually means the per-IP pricing that worked for the first case stops making sense for the second.
Practical takeaway
A fintech data program built on public web sources holds up under regulatory review when three things are documented before the first request is ever sent: the lawful basis for each data category (not a blanket justification), the technical controls that keep collection proportionate to the source (rate limits, minimization, retention), and a request log detailed enough to reconstruct what was collected and why if a regulator or a counterparty's third-party risk team asks. The infrastructure vendor is a smaller decision than most procurement processes treat it as – it changes reliability and cost, not the underlying legal analysis.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
August 17, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Lending Consumer Credit And BNPL, Digital Assets, Competition And Market Structure
Shakepay Launches Bitcoin-Backed Line Of Credit In Canada
On August 13, 2026, Montreal-based Shakepay launched its Shakepay bitcoin-backed line of credit, BLOC, for eligible Canadian customers. Borrowers can access up to C$50,000, with rates starting at 9.5% APR, using eligible bitcoin held with Shakepay as collateral.
BLOC is offered by Shakepay Credit Inc., an affiliated entity that received securities law exemptive relief to offer bitcoin-backed credit to eligible customers.
Shakepay retains more of the lending operation inside affiliated entities rather than relying on an outside lender to run the credit product.
BLOC is a revolving line of credit available within Shakepay. Eligible customers can draw against available credit, monitor balances and loan-to-value, make payments and adjust eligible collateral subject to their agreement.
Bitcoin volatility is still paramount. If collateral values fall, borrowers may have to add bitcoin or repay part of the balance. Some or all of the collateral can ultimately be liquidated.
The CSA list of authorized crypto platforms includes Shakepay Inc. as a crypto asset trading platform and Shakepay Credit Inc. separately as a crypto-backed lending platform.
Customers use BLOC through Shakepay, but the loan itself is provided by a separate Shakepay company, Shakepay Credit Inc.
Shakepay Adds More Financial Services Around Crypto
BLOC follows several additions around the same customer relationship.
In July, Shakepay became a direct Interac e-Transfer participant. Customers already had access to e-Transfers, but direct participation gives Shakepay more control over how the service connects to its platform. NCFA's Shakepay Company Intelligence Snapshot tracks its expansion from bitcoin trading into payments, cards and business accounts.
On August 11, Shakepay launched Shakepay savings for cash and bitcoin. Two days later, BLOC added secured credit.
The legal entities and protections differ. Shakepay Inc. operates the regulated crypto platform. Cash savings are offered by Shakepay Financial Inc. Bitcoin savings remain with Shakepay Inc. BLOC is offered by Shakepay Credit Inc.
For customers, those expanding services are part of a common Shakepay experience.
Shakepay says more than 1.5 million Canadians have used the platform. Adding payments, savings and credit gives those customers more reasons to use Shakepay between crypto trades.
Competition therefore extends beyond trading fees and asset listings. Crypto platforms can also compete for payments, balances and borrowing.
Two Crypto Lending Models Are Emerging In Canada
Shakepay Credit and APX show two ways Canadian crypto platforms can add secured lending.
Shakepay and Netcoins take different approaches. Shakepay uses a separate company within its own group to provide the loan. Netcoins keeps the customer relationship, while APX handles the lending behind the scenes.
For customers, the practical questions are simpler. Who is actually lending the money? Where is the bitcoin held? What happens if its value falls? How much does the loan cost?
For the platforms, the choice comes down to control. Shakepay keeps more of the lending business inside its own group. Netcoins relies on a specialist provider.
Talking Point
Will Canada's larger crypto platforms keep more regulated financial functions inside affiliated entities, or will specialist providers become the infrastructure behind multiple consumer brands?
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
Canada’s gaming sector has changed quickly, and payment technology has become a major part of that evolution. As more regulated online gambling markets develop, operators face growing expectations around security, speed and transparency. The payment process is no longer just about putting money into an account. It has become an essential way for players to feel confident and trust the platform.
For players, safe deposits and reliable withdrawals are becoming increasingly important. In fact, all top online casinos need payment systems that can combine convenience with strong protection. Licensed operators are increasingly using identity verification, encryption, fraud controls, and responsible gambling tools to create safer environments. These measures also include deposit limits, session reminders and self-exclusion options, giving players greater control over how they use gaming services.
Fintech is helping push these developments forward. Digital wallets, instant banking systems and improved verification processes have made deposits and withdrawals much more straightforward. Canadian gaming platforms are increasingly expected to offer near-real-time processing and reliable payouts, which reduces delays and enhances the overall payment experience for players while keeping sensitive financial information protected.
The pressure is particularly noticeable in regulated markets because payment systems have to deal with more than just transaction speed. They also need to support identity checks, fraud screening, anti-money laundering controls and detailed reporting. This creates a demanding environment for payment providers, where transactions need to be processed efficiently without compromising compliance.
Ontario provides a clear example of how regulation can influence this process. After the launch of its regulated iGaming market in April 2022, payment systems became part of a closely controlled digital environment. Operators and their technology partners have had to deal with substantial transaction volumes while maintaining secure authorisation, verification and reporting processes.
This is where fintech innovation becomes particularly interesting. Payment gateways and processors have increasingly had to become more sophisticated, with encryption, tokenisation, automated fraud detection and continuous monitoring becoming important elements of the infrastructure. The aim is to make security work quietly in the background while allowing legitimate transactions to move quickly, inspiring confidence in the future of gaming payments.
The impact can extend beyond gaming, too. Technologies developed under the pressure of regulated gambling can have wider applications across fintech. Real-time authorisation, automated risk scoring, wallet integration and secure handling of sensitive information are all relevant to other digital businesses that need to balance convenience with protection.
Reputable gaming comparison and news platforms reflect this changing environment by focusing on licensed Canadian operators, compliant payment methods and clearer information for players. The wider trend is towards greater transparency, with consumers increasingly able to assess how platforms handle payments and what safeguards are available.
Ultimately, regulation is reshaping payments in Canadian gaming. Safety, compliance and convenience now have to work together rather than being treated as separate concerns. As technology continues to advance, payment systems will need to keep adapting. Still, the direction is clear: stronger infrastructure, better protection, and greater player confidence are becoming central to the future of regulated iGaming in Canada.
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org
The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. 
