How Canvas Credit Union Changed the Way the Industry Approaches Digital Assets

Across the credit union industry, executive teams often say they are keeping an eye on digital assets, which usually means talking about volatility, headlines, and whatever speculative distraction happens to be circulating at the moment. Meanwhile, the harder work of understanding how new forms of money are already moving through (and out of) member relationships tends to get deferred. By the time regulatory consensus arrives, the opportunity to learn something useful has usually passed.

Canvas Credit Union approached the issue from a different angle. Rather than asking 'when' it would be safe to engage, they began asking what they would need to see in order to understand what was already happening. That shift in framing is actively changing the landscape for everyone.

Instead of debating digital assets as a future product category, Canvas treats them as a present-day behavior that merit more than just passive observation.

Education as a Way to See More Clearly

Canvas began with education, with the understanding that meaningful action would be a necessary next step in the process. The goal was to develop a clearer picture of what digital assets meant for member behavior, deposits, and long-term financial relevance.

David Pierce, Chief Information Officer at Canvas Credit Union, has described those early sessions as the point where unfamiliar terminology stopped dominating the conversation and everyone started to understand that being in the 'money business' means treating digital assets the same way as we once treated gold, silver, and copper. Once leadership and the board had a clearer picture of what was actually happening, the rest of the conversation started to look different.

At that point, the discussion was no longer about whether digital assets were legitimate. It was about whether the institution had enough data at its disposal to ask better questions.

Moving From Opinion to Observation

Canvas has a long-standing practice of validating new technology through proof of concept. Naturally, digital assets were approached the same way.

Rather than debating architecture in the abstract, Canvas chose to see whether a digital asset custody model could function inside their Jack Henry Symitar core environment. That decision forced assumptions to be tested under the same operational constraints Canvas deals with every day.

During that period, everything started to become clear. What changed was Canvas’ ability to observe how custody, encryption, and key management actually behaved inside the core, while gaining visibility into real member behavior that was previously unavailable.

That visibility did not answer every question. It did change the type of questions that were asked.

Why the Core Became the Focal Point

From early on, Canvas was cautious about approaches that managed keys and critical data outside the core. Not because those models were inherently unsafe (although history might say they are), but because they limited what the institution could see and act upon.

If digital assets are not represented alongside traditional accounts, it becomes difficult to evaluate them as part of a full member relationship. Reporting, governance, and future use cases remain theoretical when the activity itself is opaque.

Canvas’ insistence on a core-centric approach reflected a simple idea: you can't manage what you can't measure.

By bringing digital asset management into the core, Canvas intentionally created the conditions for understanding rather than speculation.

Ownership as a Way to Stay Engaged

As Canvas’ understanding deepened, they faced a broader question about how involved they wanted to be going forward. Remaining a client-partner would have been sufficient for implementation, but that wasn't enough.

Choosing to become an owner in the CUSO allows Canvas to stay close to the evolution of the significant work the team is doing. It also resulted in influence, shared responsibility, and a longer overall time horizon than you might expect with a typical vendor relationship.

What Canvas’ Experience Makes Possible

Canvas did not set out to prove a model for the rest of the industry. They set out to reduce uncertainty for themselves.

In doing so, they demonstrated that digital asset custody can be observed inside a Symitar core environment. They showed that hybrid custody models can be understood operationally rather than abstractly. They made it possible to discuss digital assets as part of a broader member relationship instead of as a disconnected experiment.

This does not eliminate the need for judgment elsewhere, but it does suggest that some of the questions credit unions have been asking may no longer be all that useful.

Canvas took the time to get educated, then moved deliberately, and finally created visibility where there had been very little before. For others, the question may not be whether to follow the same path, but whether gaining that kind of visibility would change shift the tone.

Often, it does.