SoFi Technologies has reported early success with its paid subscription service, SoFi Plus, which ended the second quarter of 2026 with 206,000 subscribers. The premium membership generated more than $24 million in annualised revenues in its first quarter under the paid model. About 85% of subscribers were existing SoFi users. The company said 25% of existing members who joined SoFi Plus subsequently added another product, with SoFi Invest seeing the strongest uptake. Chief executive Anthony Noto said he would be disappointed if membership does not reach one million within a year, which would represent approximately $120 million in annual revenues. SoFi added a record 1.1 million members during the quarter, bringing total membership to 15.8 million.

Sezzle and SoFi are both expanding their fintech platforms through technology and cross-selling, but their approaches differ significantly. Sezzle focuses on payments and short-term consumer financing, adding subscriptions, cash advances and money transfers. SoFi operates a broader ecosystem including deposits, lending, investing and business banking. Sezzle's active subscribers reached 854,000 in Q2, up 76.4% year over year, with purchase frequency climbing to 7.2 times quarterly. The company added enterprise clients including Poshmark and Gymshark. Second-quarter revenues rose 51.7% whilst net income increased 47.7% year over year, with marketing payback under six months. The comparison highlights Sezzle's focused execution versus SoFi's scale and diversification. Sezzle's smaller platform potentially offers more room for new products to impact results.

What happens to your money if your AI trading agent makes a mistake. By Matt Miczulski for Finder August 27, 2026 at 9:30 am EDT On February 22, an AI trading bot named Lobstar Wilde meant to send a small crypto tip to a stranger on X. It sent its entire holdings instead: about a quarter of a million dollars, by its own account. The bot, built by an OpenAI employee days earlier with $50,000 and instructed to "make no mistakes," made the error within three days of going live. Finder. Lobstar Wilde wasn't connected to a brokerage account, and nobody's retirement savings were on the line. But the mistake reveals a mechanism that regulators, and now Congress, have been asking about since Robinhood, Public, SoFi, Coinbase and Webull all rolled out AI trading agents to retail customers this year: an autonomous system misreading a plain-language instruction and executing before anyone could stop it. Finder reviewed the publicly available disclosures behind all five platforms to see, in each company's own words, who's actually on the hook if an agent gets it wrong. What SIPC does and doesn't cover. The first place most investors look is the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), the nonprofit that insures brokerage accounts. SIPC steps in when a brokerage firm fails and customer assets go missing, covering up to $500,000 per customer, including a $250,000 limit on cash. It does not cover losses caused by a decline in an investment's value, and it does not cover claims arising from bad or inappropriate investment advice. If Robinhood or Public went bankrupt tomorrow, the SIPC would work to make a customer whole for missing assets. If an AI agent inside a fully solvent account buys a stock that crashes, or executes a trade the customer didn't intend, that's not a missing-assets problem. It's an investment decision problem, and SIPC was never built to touch it. Reading each platform's disclosures directly, rather than its marketing pages, reveals that every platform places investment-decision risk on the customer. Platform: Robinhood (Agentic Trading) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Customer assumes all risk for agent-executed trades; Robinhood doesn't control, supervise or audit connected agents. Built-in guardrails: Dedicated, separately funded account; push notification per trade; support can compare the instruction given against what the agent actually did; disconnect anytime. Platform: Public (Agents) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Customer is solely responsible for determining the suitability of any strategy and for verifying instructions before activation. Built-in guardrails: Every action stays inside a single authenticated brokerage environment; the customer approves each agent before it goes live. Platform: SoFi (Composer) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Retail investor makes the ultimate decision on every trade; Composer doesn't offer recommendations or monitor individual investments unless stated otherwise in writing; any deviation from the AI-generated strategy's logic is "done at the client's own risk," and results are not guarantees of future performance. Built-in guardrails: Customer sets the trading rules in advance; rules can be backtested against historical data before being turned on. Platform: Coinbase (Coinbase for Agents) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Outputs "may be inaccurate or incomplete" and are "not investment advice"; the customer assumes full responsibility for their own trading activity. Built-in guardrails: Isolated sub-account; user sets capital limits, asset permissions and trade-size caps. Platform: Coinbase (Coinbase Advisor, separate product) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Registered as a fiduciary, but still can't "replace your judgment for your trades"; the customer assumes full responsibility for their own trading activity. Built-in guardrails: Registered with the SEC as an investment adviser and with the National Futures Association (NFA) as a commodity trading adviser (CTA); requires user approval before any action is taken. Platform: Webull (MCP Server) Who bears the risk if the agent errs: Customer solely responsible for verifying order details and monitoring positions; Webull assumes no liability for losses from automated or AI-directed decisions. Built-in guardrails: Connects directly to the primary brokerage account; no separate sandboxed sub-account described in Webull's own disclosures. Regulators are already flagging the gap. This isn't just a concern from outside the industry. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), the self-regulator that oversees brokerage firms, flagged autonomous AI agents as a top concern in its 2026 regulatory report, warning that poorly designed reward functions could lead an agent to optimize toward decisions that ultimately harm the investor. FINRA's own framing puts the burden on firms to establish what the report calls a "supervision, governance or model risk management framework" around these tools, not on the technology to police itself. FINRA's rules are designed to be technology-neutral, meaning they apply to AI tools the same way they'd apply to any other technology a firm uses - but that also means they weren't written with autonomous, third-party trading agents specifically in mind. It's the same gap the House Financial Services Committee asked the SEC to address directly in its own June letter, including who's accountable when the agent, not the human, is the one making the call, and whether a broker-dealer's obligations survive once a third-party AI is the one placing the trade. As of this writing, no public SEC response to the letter has been reported. What this means in practice. The existing protection, SIPC, was designed for a different kind of failure than the one an AI agent can cause. For everyday investors, that puts the real safeguards in the account setup itself: fund a dedicated account with money you can afford to lose entirely, use spending and symbol limits wherever the platform offers them, keep manual trade approval turned on if that option exists, and check the activity feed often rather than setting it and forgetting it. None of that would have stopped Lobstar Wilde. That bot wasn't a customer of any of these platforms, and its mistake happened in the seconds before anyone could react. That's the risk agentic trading is asking investors to accept, whether the agent is a hobbyist's weekend project or one connected to their brokerage account.