Karsten Wenzlaff, Advisor
August 26th, 2025
July 27, 2026

Ask most fintech watchers what crowdfunding funds and you'll hear about startups, real estate, or the odd gadget. Rarely do card games come up first — yet tabletop projects have quietly become one of the strongest categories on reward-based platforms, and the numbers back that up. For anyone tracking alternative finance in Canada, it's a category worth a second look.
Reward-based crowdfunding was built for exactly this kind of project: a creator with a finished prototype, a passionate niche audience, and a product people can pre-order rather than just invest in blindly. Card and board games fit that mould almost perfectly. Backers aren't betting on a business plan — they're paying upfront for a physical thing they'll actually get to play.
Kickstarter's own 2024 year-in-review called it the biggest year for games in the platform's fifteen-year history, with $270 million pledged across games projects and 83% of that money going specifically to tabletop titles. That's not a niche curiosity anymore — it's a real slice of the alternative finance economy, funded entirely by individual backers rather than venture capital.
Canadian creators have been active participants in this shift for years, not just recent arrivals. Research on nearly 10,000 Canadian Kickstarter campaigns found that roughly a third succeeded — a reminder that reward-based crowdfunding, while accessible, still rewards a clear pitch and a product people genuinely want.
For creators, the appeal is obvious: no equity given up, direct validation from a real audience, and often enough working capital to cover a full print run. For backers, it's a chance to shape what gets made and get a game months before retail — assuming the campaign delivers, which isn't guaranteed.
Not every campaign is worth a pledge. Look for creators with a track record, a playable prototype (not just concept art), and a realistic production timeline. Comment sections and creator updates on past projects are usually more honest than the campaign page itself.
Whether or not you're backing the next big campaign, there's no shortage of ways to enjoy the category right now. Sites built around fun card games are a good starting point if you want to try something new without waiting for a shipping date.
It can be, but it favours creators who already have a working prototype and an existing audience. All-or-nothing platforms like Kickstarter mean the project only gets funded — and the creator only gets paid — if the goal is hit.
They combine a tangible reward, a built-in enthusiast community, and relatively low production complexity compared to, say, hardware or video games, which makes them easier to pitch and deliver.
No. Reward-based crowdfunding gives backers the product itself, not equity or royalties — that distinguishes it from equity crowdfunding, which is regulated differently in Canada.
Delayed or cancelled delivery. Even well-intentioned creators can underestimate manufacturing and shipping timelines, so backing is closer to a pre-order with extra risk than a guaranteed purchase.
Building an audience before launch, running a modest and achievable funding goal, and having a genuinely playtested prototype all correlate strongly with success, based on patterns across thousands of past Canadian campaigns.
Card games aren't a footnote in the crowdfunding world — they're one of its steadiest performers, and Canadian creators have a real track record within that space. For anyone watching where alternative finance is headed next, it's a category that keeps proving there's an audience willing to fund what they genuinely want to play.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |

We're opening up more and more APIs to partners, fintech services, and client applications. The only question is whether we're confident these same APIs aren't opening up new paths for attackers.
Just a few years ago, a bank mostly dealt with its own systems. A customer would log into the app, check their balance, make a transfer. The whole journey stayed inside the perimeter of a single organization.
Today, one customer might simultaneously use a mobile banking app, a budgeting service, an accounting platform, a payment provider, and an AI assistant that analyzes their spending. All of these services exchange data through APIs - interfaces that let different systems talk to each other according to a set of established rules.
Open Banking isn't just a regulatory requirement or a new integration channel - it's a shift in the trust model itself. A bank used to be responsible for security within its own infrastructure. Now it hands off part of its data to dozens of external services, and those services, in turn, rely on the bank. The more participants in the ecosystem, the more points there are where trust is either reaffirmed or cracked, every single day.
Attackers are less and less interested in finding a weak spot inside any one bank. Today, hackers target the interaction between systems itself. The longer the chain - bank, fintech, payment hub, partner app - the more places there are for something to go wrong.
Common examples include:
An API can perform flawlessly on the functional side - fast, stable, no errors in the logs - and still carry a critical vulnerability. Functional correctness and cybersecurity don't always go together.
Banks and fintech companies generally don't neglect API security. They go through certifications, run automated scans, do code reviews and QA. But none of these tools answer the one question that matters most: can this specific API's logic be bypassed in a way its developer never anticipated? Scanning catches known vulnerability patterns; code review and QA confirm the code does what it was built to do. Neither one thinks like an attacker who isn't hunting for a bug in the code, but for a logical gap in how the API interacts with other systems.
That's why most attacks on financial APIs today aren't about technical mistakes - they're about logic: the sequence of actions, the boundaries of authority, the trust placed in data coming from the client. It's also why modern Cybersecurity Solutions for Fintech increasingly go beyond formal compliance with standards, testing real-world abuse scenarios at the points where multiple systems meet.

Here's a short checklist for reviewing every external API in your ecosystem:
If you don't have a confident answer to any of these, that's reason enough to look closer.
It's worth telling apart three things that often get lumped together. Vulnerability scanning looks for known vulnerabilities by signature, catching familiar vulnerability classes, common misconfigurations, and known dangerous patterns. Automated testing checks whether the code performs its intended functions correctly. Separate from both is API Penetration Testing (https://datami.ee/services/pentest/api-penetration-testing/) - manual testing in which a specialist plays the role of a real attacker: combining requests, tweaking parameters, hunting for unusual sequences of actions that a scanner, in most cases, won't flag as anomalous, because each individual request looks legitimate on its own.
It's also best if this kind of testing is handled by an external team. In-house specialists tend to know their own API inside and out - and that's precisely what makes it hard for them to spot an unconventional abuse scenario, since day-to-day work with a system's logic doesn't train you to look at it through the eyes of someone deliberately trying to break it. External specialists bring experience from other architectures and payment integrations, so they're more likely to catch the gaps a team had written off as unimportant.
A bank can offer the most convenient digital service and the best partner API on the market. But if even one partner or customer stops trusting the security of the data exchange, the benefits of Open Banking vanish almost instantly. Trust here isn't a bonus feature - it's the baseline condition, and without it the whole structure loses its meaning.
That's why investing in API protection in the financial sector isn't just about regulatory compliance - it's about sustaining trust across the whole ecosystem: between bank and fintech, fintech and customer, and customer and every new service they let into their data.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 27, 2026 | NCFA Insight | Digital Assets Blockchain And Tokenization, Competition And Market Structure, Risk Compliance And Regtech

On July 26, 2026, BitMart began winding down its trading platform. Three days earlier, BitMEX announced its closure after eleven years. AscendEX had already stopped operating on July 1.
Three exchange closures announced or underway inside one month deserve more than a roundup. They raise a harder question around the 2026 bear market. Is it breaking the centralized exchange model, or exposing platforms that had already lost the trading activity, regulatory access or financial capacity needed to keep going?
The public record doesn't support one cause for all three.
The bear market is real, and it strikes at the first line of exchange economics. Trading fees rise and fall with activity. CoinGecko found that spot volume across the ten largest centralized exchanges fell 39.1% in the first quarter of 2026. Its second quarter report recorded a further 27.9% decline to US$1.95 trillion. Perpetual futures held up better, although volume still fell 10% from the prior quarter.
The numbers explain the pressure. They don't explain which exchange closes. The declines among leading spot venues ranged from 5% to 56% in the second quarter, while Binance increased its share to 38.7%. A weak market can therefore strengthen the largest venue at the same time it makes a smaller one uneconomic.
BitMEX is the clearest example. It created the perpetual swap product that became central to crypto trading, yet product invention didn't preserve its liquidity. Kaiko data reported by Reuters put BitMEX below 0.01% market share with roughly US$400,000 in daily volume when the closure was announced. Meanwhile, the ten largest centralized perpetual exchanges still processed US$12.7 trillion in the second quarter. The market BitMEX helped create remained huge, while its position inside it had collapsed.
Liquidity has its own impact. Traders prefer deeper order books, tighter spreads and reliable execution. Market makers follow trading activity, then their capital improves execution and attracts more traders. Once that cycle runs in reverse, adding another token, staking programme or interface may not repair the core business.
Regulation is decisive when it controls market access. Under the MiCA transition rule, a crypto asset service provider that wasn't authorized by the applicable deadline had to stop serving the market until it received authorization. That deadline arrived on July 1, the same day AscendEX ceased operations.
Authorization also carries an operating load. MiCA requires prudential safeguards, governance, internal controls, business continuity planning and security documentation. ESMA's current custody review reaches into key storage, transaction controls, incident response and service provider dependencies. The cost continues after authorization because firms need people, systems and capital while trading revenue can fall quickly.
Regulation is therefore a filter and one part of the explanation. It directly affected AscendEX. Neither BitMEX nor BitMart identified licensing as the cause of its closure. Tighter rules can force a decision or raise the cost of staying open, while weak economics determine how much room a platform has to absorb that cost. NCFA's comparison of MiCA and UK rules shows why regulation can favour companies with stronger governance and compliance infrastructure.
Onchain exchanges are also taking a larger piece of derivatives trading. CoinGecko's perpetuals data shows that the top decentralized venues averaged US$611.6 billion in monthly volume during the first four months of 2026, up from US$531.7 billion in 2025. Their share of open interest reached 13.5% by the end of April, compared with 3.6% at the start of 2025.
Still, centralized exchanges held 86.5% of open interest. Onchain competition is meaningful, especially for active derivatives traders, but it hasn't replaced the centralized model. It has given traders another place to go just as a falling market makes every lost account more expensive.
The closing notices reveal almost as much through their differences as their similarities.
Customers need clear answers about whether their assets are held separately, whether reserves cover liabilities, how open positions will be priced, how quickly withdrawals will be processed and which legal entity is responsible for returning their money.
For founders, exchange businesses needs deep liquidity, active traders who keep coming back, trusted custody and permission to operate in every market it serves. New products and jurisdictions can bring in more revenue, but they also add capital, compliance, security and support costs. Those costs don't disappear when trading activity goes somewhere else.
Investors should watch market share, order book depth, active trader retention, withdrawal performance, reserve and liability reporting, market maker concentration and the status of key licences. Historical user totals can hide a much weaker current business. BitMEX's decline from an industry pioneer to less than 0.01% market share shows just how far activity can fall before an established name finally exits.
Canada uses a different regulatory framework, but the same operating questions apply. Canadian platform rules cover registration, custody and delivery requirements, while Kraken's registration shows the conditions attached to serving Canadian customers. Registration can strengthen oversight and make the rules clearer. It can't remove market, custody or company risk.
So the answer goes beyond “bear market plus regulatory pressure.” Lower prices and weaker trading cut fee revenue. Licensing determines where an exchange can legally operate. Liquidity keeps concentrating around fewer large venues, while onchain platforms compete for active traders. Custody, compliance and security remain expensive throughout. If an exchange loses trading activity, market access or customer confidence, it can run out of room even when the global crypto market remains very large.
When trading volume falls, which exchange numbers tell you whether a platform is temporarily quieter or losing the liquidity, trust and regulatory access it needs to remain viable?
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 27, 2026 | NCFA Market Activity | Capital Markets And Market Infrastructure, Wealth Investing And Trading, Banking And Credit

On July 27, 2026, Ontario Teachers’ and M&G agreed to establish a European CLO joint venture. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan has agreed to provide up to €200 million for equity investments in future M&G Margay collateralized loan obligation issuances. It will also participate in the long term economics of M&G’s European CLO business.
The second part makes this more interesting than a pension fund buying CLO securities for its portfolio. Ontario Teachers’ is tying capital to future M&G issuances and participating in the long term economics of the platform those transactions can grow. The release doesn’t disclose an ownership stake in M&G itself, the economic formula, governance rights, return targets or the term of the joint venture.
Capital will be deployed transaction by transaction under an agreed investment framework. That gives Ontario Teachers’ room to assess each issuance instead of transferring the entire commitment at closing. For M&G, it provides an aligned source of equity capital that can help the Margay programme issue more CLOs when market conditions and available loans support them.
A CLO buys a diversified pool of corporate loans and finances that pool by issuing layers of debt and equity. M&G says Margay invests in European broadly syndicated loans. Those are loans arranged for larger corporate borrowers and distributed across several institutional lenders.
Cash collected from the loans pays the senior CLO tranches first. The equity tranche sits at the bottom and receives what remains after interest, expenses and required payments have been made. The European Central Bank’s CLO analysis explains the tradeoff clearly where equity has the highest potential return, but it's paid last and absorbs losses first when loans default.
Ontario Teachers’ is therefore accepting more than ordinary bond risk. Returns can benefit when loan income exceeds the cost of the CLO’s debt and credit losses remain contained. They can fall when defaults rise, recoveries disappoint, financing becomes expensive or structural tests redirect cash away from equity investors.
The pension plan says European CLO equity complements and diversifies its existing programme. Europe also gives it a different pool of borrowers, managers and issuance periods. What hasn’t been disclosed is the expected return, how much of the €200 million may be used in each Margay transaction or exactly how the platform economics will be divided.
M&G launched Margay in 2023 and reports €1.6 billion currently in issue. The programme sits inside a €10 billion loan platform, a €27 billion structured and private credit business and M&G’s €93 billion Private Markets business. M&G’s Life business has also invested more than £1 billion in structured credit strategies over time.
Equity capital is essential because every new CLO needs investors willing to take the most junior position. A dependable partner can make future issuance easier to plan, although every transaction still depends on loan availability, funding costs and investor demand for the more senior tranches.
The market is active enough however to support that ambition. European CLO issuance reached €15.9 billion in the first quarter of 2026, up from €14 billion in the previous quarter. CLOs led all placed European securitisation categories during the period.
Other managers are securing similar pools of committed equity:
Sagard | HalseyPoint launched a US$250 million target CLO equity fund for future issuances after Sagard acquired a 40% interest in the manager. Sagard, affiliates, insurers and other institutional investors had committed US$92.5 million at launch.
Oak Hill Advisors closed a US$1.1 billion CLO equity fund in September 2025 with commitments from pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and other institutions. OHA said the capital could support about US$10 billion of CLO deployment.
Columbia Threadneedle entered a multiyear agreement with a Jefferies led investor consortium to supply equity for several CLOs. The structure gave the manager repeat issuance capital rather than funding for only one transaction.
These deals are structured differently, but the managers face the same challenge in that they need investors willing to fund the riskiest part of each new CLO. A strong credit team and a supply of suitable loans aren’t enough without that equity capital. Ontario Teachers is also going a step further. Along with investing in future CLO equity, it will participate in the long term economics of M&G’s European CLO business.
If Margay issues regularly and its loan pools perform, Ontario Teachers’ could earn from both its equity positions and its negotiated participation in the platform. M&G gains a long term institutional partner without receiving the full commitment before suitable transactions are ready.
A slower issuance market may leave part of the commitment unused. Competition for loans can make assets more expensive and reduce the difference between loan income and CLO funding costs. Higher defaults or weaker recoveries reach the equity tranche first. The public announcement also leaves outsiders unable to compare the value of the platform participation with the risk Ontario Teachers’ is taking.
This transaction is aligned with a larger expansion in non bank credit, but the categories need care. Margay’s disclosed collateral consists of broadly syndicated loans, while private credit normally refers to loans negotiated privately between non bank lenders and borrowers. They can share institutional investors and leveraged corporate borrowers without being the same market.
The Bank of Canada recently issued a warning about non bank debt risk. The Bank says Canadian pension fund and insurer exposures to global private credit appear manageable, while limited transparency and growing connections across financial structures still warrant monitoring. The Ontario Teachers’ transaction isn’t evidence of distress. It does show why the ownership, funding and risk links around credit managers are becoming more important to understand.
The commercial trend is already visible across private market platforms. Large investors want more than passive fund exposure, while managers want dependable capital that can support repeat origination or issuance. The open question is whether the added platform economics compensate investors for taking concentrated, junior risk over several market cycles.
Will more pension funds negotiate access to both CLO equity and CLO platform economics, or will first loss risk and tighter returns keep most institutions in individual securities and diversified funds?
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
July 27, 2026

Industries such as construction, mining, quarrying, and infrastructure development rely on large volumes of water every day for activities such as excavation, dust suppression, and material processing. However, managing the resulting wastewater is far more complex than simply disposing of it. Water discharged from project sites often contains sediment, soil, and other suspended solids that can pollute nearby waterways if left untreated. To meet environmental regulations and protect surrounding ecosystems and communities, businesses must implement effective water management measures.
One essential piece of equipment that supports these efforts is a sediment tank, which allows suspended particles to settle out of wastewater before it is discharged, reused, or sent for further treatment. Procuring one from a trusted supplier like Liquimech, known for its robust and portable sediment tanks designed for quick deployment across a wide range of project sites—enables businesses to manage wastewater more efficiently while supporting regulatory compliance. Beyond improving water quality, the right sediment tank can also contribute to smoother project operations and long-term cost savings.
With this in mind, let's take a closer look at how sediment tanks help projects stay compliant while delivering lasting economic benefits.
Industries such as construction, mining, and quarrying often generate wastewater containing soil, sand, and other suspended solids. Releasing this water without proper treatment can affect nearby waterways and ecosystems, making compliance with environmental discharge requirements an essential part of responsible project management.
A sediment tank supports this process by allowing suspended particles to settle before the water is discharged or reused. It works by slowing down the flow of wastewater, giving heavier particles enough time to sink to the bottom of the tank while cleaner water remains at the surface for further treatment or use. This simple yet effective approach improves water quality, making it easier for businesses to meet regulatory requirements and reduce their environmental impact.
Failure to comply with environmental regulations can result in more than just financial penalties. Businesses may also face project delays, corrective work, legal disputes, or reputational damage that can affect future opportunities. These setbacks can quickly increase project costs and disrupt operations.
Using a sediment tank as part of a site's water management system helps minimise these risks by providing a reliable method for treating sediment-laden water. Through proactive wastewater management, businesses will be better equipped to meet regulatory expectations throughout the project. Staying compliant allows projects to continue with fewer interruptions while avoiding unnecessary expenses associated with environmental violations.
Many industrial activities require large amounts of water throughout the day. Relying solely on fresh water can become expensive, not to mention wasteful, particularly for long-term projects or sites operating in areas where water resources are limited.
By removing suspended solids from wastewater, a sediment tank makes it possible to reuse treated water for suitable applications such as dust suppression, equipment washing, or certain processing tasks. Recycling water in this way reduces freshwater demand and lowers procurement costs, thus supporting more sustainable resource management throughout the project lifecycle.
Water containing large amounts of sediment can accelerate wear on pumps, pipes, valves, and other equipment involved in water handling. The presence of these abrasive particles may reduce system efficiency, increase maintenance requirements, as well as shorten the lifespan of critical components if left unmanaged.
Removing sediment before the water continues through the rest of the system helps protect equipment from unnecessary strain. Over time, businesses can benefit from fewer repairs, reduced downtime, and lower replacement costs, all of which contribute to improved long-term financial performance.
As projects progress, water management needs can change quickly. Sediment tanks provide the flexibility needed to adapt to these changing conditions without requiring permanent treatment facilities at every location.
In particular, portable sediment tanks are designed for quick deployment, making them well suited for projects where work areas frequently shift. Businesses can relocate the equipment as needed, helping maintain efficient wastewater management while reducing the time and costs associated with establishing new treatment systems.
Environmental responsibility has become an increasingly important consideration for clients, regulators, investors, and surrounding communities. Businesses that demonstrate responsible water management are often better positioned to meet project requirements and build stronger stakeholder confidence.
Using a sediment tank supports these goals by helping reduce pollution, conserve water resources, and maintain compliance throughout project operations. Combined with lower operating costs and improved resource efficiency, these benefits make sediment tanks a practical investment that promotes both environmental responsibility and long-term financial sustainability.
More than just a tool for treating wastewater, a sediment tank is an investment in responsible and efficient project management. By helping businesses meet environmental requirements, reduce operational risks, conserve water, and lower long-term costs, it delivers value that extends well beyond regulatory compliance.
Choosing high-quality, reliable solutions from trusted suppliers allows businesses to manage wastewater with greater confidence across a wide range of projects. As environmental expectations continue to grow, adopting effective sediment management systems today can help businesses achieve more sustainable and financially resilient operations in the future.
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
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
|---|---|---|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() |