Back to Insights
May 19, 2026
9 min read

Can Three Regulated CAD Stablecoins Actually Get Traction?

stablecoin Canada CBDC regulation RWA

TL;DR
Canada has three regulated CAD stablecoins. They are sound on reserves and regulation but face structural disadvantages against USDC. Yield is banned for issuers. Reserves sit at regulated deposit-taking institutions with no central bank backstop. The emerging federal framework risks fragmentation between Bank of Canada supervised issuers and those that remain under provincial rules. USDC offers yield through platforms like Coinbase and benefits from deeper liquidity, broader chain support, and stronger transparency. Without a path for yield-bearing products and some form of wholesale central bank settlement access for regulated issuers, CAD stablecoins will struggle to build real network effects.

As a former banker who now spends most of my time building on blockchains, I have been watching Canada’s stablecoin situation with a mix of hope and skepticism. We finally have three properly regulated Canadian-dollar stablecoins on the market: CADD from Tetra Trust, QCAD under the OSC’s value-referenced crypto asset (VRCA) framework, and CADC (Loon - previously Paytrie). On the surface this looks like progress. Under the hood it still feels like we are trying to win a race with one hand tied behind our back.

The three CAD stablecoins currently in play, CADD, QCAD, and CADC, have been issued under existing provincial regulatory frameworks. CADD operates through an Alberta trust company, QCAD under the OSC’s value-referenced crypto asset (VRCA) framework, and CADC via provincial prospectus filings.

Once the federal Stablecoin Framework comes into force (expected to come into force in 2027 after 12 to 18 months of regulatory development), non-financial institution issuers of fiat-backed stablecoins will fall under Bank of Canada supervision. Prudentially regulated financial institutions will remain under their existing regimes. This creates a real risk of fragmentation. Some CAD stablecoins will operate under the new federal rules while others stay in legacy provincial structures. That split will make it harder for any of them to build the network effects needed to challenge USDC.

AttributeCADDQCADCADCUSDC (for reference)
Current RegulationAlberta trust company (provincial)OSC (Ontario) + exemptionsProvincial prospectus filings (not a trust company)Multiple federal + state licenses
Issuer / CustodianTetra Trust (Alberta)Stablecorp / VersaBankLoon (ex-Paytrie)Circle (regulated in multiple jurisdictions)
TransparencyMonthly Baker Tilly + daily self-reportMonthly attestations + live dashboardLimited public dataWeekly attestations + monthly Big Four
Yield to holdersNo (Section 32 ban)No (Section 32 ban)No (Section 32 ban)Yes via Coinbase and platform rewards (U.S. policy is still debating the exact boundaries between issuer-paid interest and third-party rewards)
Settlement / BackstopCommercial bank reserves only (no central bank facility)Commercial bank reserves only (no central bank facility)Commercial bank reserves only (no central bank facility)Commercial bank only
Live chainsEthereum, Base, TempoEthereum, BaseEthereum10+ chains (incl. native Solana)
Circulating SupplyRecently launched with early supply~$650k~$1.4M~$76.8 billion (as of mid-May 2026)
Current tractionRecently launched / early supply~$650k supply~$1.4M supplyDominant (global leader)

Table: Comparison of the three regulated CAD stablecoins against USDC. Note that because Canada’s stablecoin framework is still new, any conclusions about traction and long-term viability remain preliminary.

The reserves behind these tokens are real. Circle publishes weekly transparency reports and receives monthly attestations from Big Four accounting firms under AICPA standards. CADD provides daily self-reported reserve ratios backed by monthly attestations from Baker Tilly. These approaches differ in frequency and level of independent verification. With deeper blockchain integration we will eventually move toward continuous real-time proof of reserves. Projects like ONDO are already demonstrating this capability today using Chainlink Proof of Reserves oracles.

Then there is the yield problem. Bill C-15 banned yield on stablecoins, even indirect yield. That decision was meant to protect retail users but it also removed the single feature that would have made a CAD stablecoin competitive with USDC for anyone holding meaningful balances. Coinbase has offered Canadian users yield on USDC. Shopify accepts USDC for merchant payments. When a Canadian business or treasury desk looks at the two options side by side the math is not complicated.

If the yield restriction stays in place Canada will likely need a parallel market in tokenized money market funds. Users who want to earn a return would hold tokenized short-term Government of Canada T-bills or bank deposits and swap into the stablecoin only when they need to make a payment or settle on-chain. That two-token workaround is workable but adds friction. It turns what should be a simple cash equivalent into a constant swapping exercise.

When yield is taken off the table other practical differences start to matter more. CADD currently has the broadest chain support among the three with official presence on Ethereum, Base, and Tempo all handled through Fireblocks’ ERC-20F standard. That gives it better reach into both deep DeFi liquidity and lower-cost environments without forcing users onto third-party bridges. QCAD and CADC have narrower or less clearly documented multi-chain footprints which adds friction if you actually want to use the token beyond a single chain. In a zero-yield world these operational details become part of the real decision.

The settlement layer underneath these tokens is still traditional commercial bank plumbing. Reserves sit in trust accounts at regulated deposit-taking institutions (Schedule 1 banks and trust companies). Redemption during a stress event still depends on business-hours payment rails and T+1 bond settlement through CDS (the Canadian Depository for Securities). There is no central bank backstop for issuers the way there is for banks through the Standing Liquidity Facility (SLF). That creates a quiet but real liquidity gap when volumes scale.

What is Lynx? Lynx is Canada’s high-value payment system: the real-time gross settlement rail used for large, time-critical Canadian-dollar payments between participating financial institutions. Direct participants hold settlement accounts at the Bank of Canada, and once a Lynx payment settles it is final and irrevocable.

A Bank of Canada settlement token issued directly to regulated stablecoin issuers would change that picture. This would effectively function as a tokenized wholesale central bank digital currency issued under the SLF framework. It would give the central bank a new operational tool for transmitting policy rates and managing liquidity in real time. Because access to the SLF requires high-quality collateral it would also create a structural incentive for issuers to maintain more conservative reserve portfolios. At the same time we must recognize the risk of regulatory fragmentation. Issuers under the new Bank of Canada framework would likely face stricter portfolio standards than those remaining under provincial regimes. This could lead to meaningful differences in risk profiles across Canadian stablecoins.

This approach would also reduce risk and improve acceptance by international institutions and counterparties. Instead of hoping commercial banks pass through rate changes the Bank could set the return on reserves held against CAD stablecoins directly. That is a meaningful addition to the monetary policy toolkit especially as more value moves on-chain.

The international angle is even more interesting. For small cross-border payments FX convertibility through existing bridges is workable. But at wholesale scale the picture changes. If Canada built a Bank of Canada settlement layer that connected to something like mBridge-like rails or future bilateral CBDC rails a CAD stablecoin could swap atomically against other wholesale CBDCs. No correspondent bank spread. No settlement risk between the two sides of the trade. That kind of infrastructure could make Canadian-dollar stablecoins more acceptable for international treasury and settlement use cases not because the token itself becomes global but because the underlying rail becomes credible and low-friction. Right now we do not have that rail.

So the honest question is whether three regulated CAD stablecoins can gain real traction under the current rules. They are better than unregulated offshore tokens. They are not yet structured to beat USDC on yield, transparency cadence, settlement finality, or international bridging. Without changes to the yield prohibition and without a central bank settlement option for issuers we are asking three small players to win on network effects alone. EURC shows how hard this is. Even with strong regulation under MiCA and the Circle brand behind it EURC has not built meaningful network effects or displaced traditional euro rails. No non-USD stablecoin has succeeded at this yet.

The good news is that the technical pieces already exist. The Bank of Canada has run the pilots. The BIS has shown atomic settlement between wholesale CBDCs and tokenized assets works. Extending central bank settlement or liquidity access to regulated stablecoin issuers would not be automatic. Today the SLF is built around direct Lynx participants. But the institutional plumbing already exists. The policy question is whether a narrow class of supervised stablecoin issuers should be allowed into a purpose-built wholesale settlement arrangement with collateral and reserve standards set by the Bank of Canada. The constitutional path to federal jurisdiction over payment instruments is straightforward. What is missing is the political decision to move from research to production rules.

I am not arguing for a retail CBDC. That surveillance architecture should stay off the table. I am arguing for a narrow issuer-only settlement layer that reduces reliance on commercial-bank reserve custody for systemically important stablecoin settlement, gives 24/7 central bank finality, and opens the door to passing the policy rate through without creating a private spread. That single change would shift the competitive math in Canada’s favor on almost every dimension except network effects.

The Resistance Is Real

Deposit-taking institutions will likely resist this shift. Schedule 1 banks and trust companies rely on deposits as a core low-cost funding source. A credible CAD stablecoin with central bank settlement access could pull some transactional and reserve balances outside traditional deposit accounts. That does not make the model wrong, but it means the policy design must be explicit about scope. An issuer-only wholesale layer should be limited to regulated stablecoin reserves, not general-purpose retail accounts, and access should come with strict collateral, redemption, liquidity, and operational requirements. The goal is not to replace bank deposits. It is to make tokenized CAD settlement safer, faster, and less dependent on commercial bank plumbing.

Whether we take that step before U.S. legislation locks USDC into an even stronger position is the real question sitting in front of policymakers right now. Without it we risk a two-tier outcome. Some CAD stablecoins under the modern federal regime, others stuck in legacy provincial structures. Three regulated CAD stablecoins is a start. It is not yet a solution.

References

./book_consult

Have a project in mind?

If you're exploring blockchain infrastructure, DeFi protocol design, or emerging tech strategy, let's discuss how I can help.

More Insights