Crypto compliance and reporting, audit-ready

CryptaCount turns your crypto sub-ledger into financials that map to the standards you already report under — IFRS and US-GAAP — and supports the record-keeping behind MiCA, DAC8, and CARF. Every figure traces back to a transaction, so reporting and audit start from evidence, not reconstruction.

The problem with crypto and the standards

Crypto sits awkwardly across accounting frameworks. The same holding can be an intangible asset under one standard and measured at fair value under another; income from staking, mining, and rewards needs classifying; and the regulatory perimeter keeps moving. Doing this in spreadsheets means re-deriving treatment every reporting period and hoping it holds up at audit.

CryptaCount builds the treatment into the ledger, so the reporting outputs are consistent, repeatable, and tied to source data.

IFRS

Account for crypto under existing IFRS — typically as intangible assets (IAS 38) or, for broker-traders, inventory (IAS 2) — with cost or revaluation treatment carried correctly through the sub-ledger into your financial statements.

US-GAAP, including FASB ASU 2023-08

Apply FASB ASU 2023-08 — fair-value measurement of in-scope crypto assets, with changes recognised in net income — alongside the disclosures it requires. CryptaCount tracks fair value and the underlying cost basis so both the measurement and the disclosure are supported.

MiCA

For clients operating under the EU's Markets in Crypto-Assets regime, CryptaCount provides the transaction records, reconciliations, and reporting that support MiCA's financial record-keeping obligations.

DAC8 & CARF

The EU's DAC8 and the OECD's CARF introduce crypto-asset reporting obligations built on shared transaction data. CryptaCount maintains that data at the level these frameworks expect, so the reporting can be produced from one clean source.

Audit trail

An immutable, hashed audit trail underpins all of it — every balance traceable to its postings and on-chain origin, which is what turns "trust us" into evidence an auditor can test.

From sub-ledger to disclosure

The reporting doesn't sit apart from the books. It's generated from the same sub-ledger that records every transaction and feeds your GL/ERP — so the financial statements, gain/loss, and regulatory reports all reconcile to the same underlying data. One source, consistent outputs.

Why CryptaCount

• Accounting-first, built by accountants. Designed by an FCCA-qualified team with 10+ years in IFRS and US-GAAP consolidation — the standards aren't an afterthought.
• Traceable by design. Every reported number ties back through balanced journals to an on-chain transaction.
• Keeps up with the perimeter. Coverage tracks evolving frameworks (FASB ASU 2023-08, MiCA, DAC8/CARF) rather than freezing at one moment in time.
• Hosted securely. Run on SOC 2 Type II & ISO 27001-certified infrastructure (Google Cloud).

The full picture: financial reporting and the regulatory perimeter

Crypto compliance for a business splits into two related but distinct problems, and a serious platform has to address both. The first is financial reporting: measuring and presenting crypto holdings and income correctly in the financial statements under the accounting framework each entity reports under — IFRS or US-GAAP. The second is the regulatory perimeter: the reporting and record-keeping obligations imposed by regimes such as the EU's MiCA, the EU's DAC8 and the OECD's CARF. They are different obligations with different audiences — auditors and stakeholders for the first, tax authorities and regulators for the second — but they draw on the same underlying transaction data. That shared foundation is the whole argument for generating all of it from one reconciled source rather than re-deriving each in a spreadsheet every period.

CryptaCount builds the treatment into the ledger so the outputs are consistent and repeatable. The financial statements, the gain/loss schedules and the regulatory reports all reconcile to the same books because they are produced from the same books. When the perimeter moves — and it has moved repeatedly in recent years — the data is already at the level the new obligation expects, rather than something you have to reconstruct after the fact.

How the framework pieces fit together

Read the dedicated pages in this cluster as the detailed view of each piece. Under IFRS crypto accounting →, holdings are typically accounted for using existing standards for intangible assets or, for broker-traders, inventory, with the chosen measurement carried correctly through the sub-ledger into the statements. Under US-GAAP crypto accounting →, in-scope crypto assets are measured at fair value with changes recognised in net income, alongside the related disclosures. On the regulatory side, MiCA → sets the EU's market-conduct and record-keeping expectations, while DAC8 → and CARF → introduce crypto-asset reporting obligations built on shared transaction data. Each page goes deep; this hub is where they connect.

The connecting thread is that none of these outputs should sit apart from the books. They are generated from the same sub-ledger that records every transaction and feeds your GL and ERP. One source, consistent outputs — which is exactly what an auditor or a regulator wants to see, because it means the numbers cannot quietly disagree with each other.

Who carries these obligations

The audiences for crypto compliance reporting are more varied than tax filing alone, which is why a B2B platform has to serve several roles at once:

• Finance teams preparing statutory financial statements that include a crypto position
• External auditors who need to test crypto balances back to source the same way they test any other account
• Accounting and advisory firms producing reporting on behalf of crypto-active clients
• Funds and regulated entities operating inside the MiCA perimeter with record-keeping duties
• Groups exposed to DAC8 and CARF that must produce crypto-asset reporting from clean transaction data

From sub-ledger to disclosure, without a second set of numbers

The single most common failure in crypto reporting is that the financial statements, the gain/loss schedules and the regulatory submissions are each built in their own spreadsheet, from their own copy of the data, at their own moment in time — and then quietly disagree. CryptaCount removes that failure mode by generating all of them from the same reconciled sub-ledger. The measurement that flows into the balance sheet, the realised and unrealised gain/loss that flows into the income statement, and the transaction-level detail that feeds DAC8 and CARF reporting are all views of one underlying record. When a number is questioned, there is one place to look and one answer to give. That is what "one source, consistent outputs" means in practice: not a slogan, but the absence of the reconciliation nightmare that comes from maintaining the same figures in three places. An auditor testing the statements and a regulator reviewing a submission are, in effect, looking at the same books from two angles, and the books agree with themselves because they are literally the same books.

A buyer's guide: evaluating a compliance reporting platform

Compliance is the area where the gap between a convincing demo and a defensible close is widest, so the evaluation questions are deliberately sceptical:

• Does it support both IFRS and US-GAAP? Multi-entity groups frequently report under both, and treatment differs
• Does measurement trace to source? Every reported figure should tie back through balanced journals to an on-chain transaction
• Does it keep up with the perimeter? Coverage should track evolving frameworks rather than freeze at one moment in time
• Is reporting consistent with the books? Financials, gain/loss and regulatory reports must reconcile to one source, not three exports
• Can auditors test it directly? An immutable, hashed audit trail is what lets a reviewer walk balances to source
• Is the infrastructure itself trustworthy? Hosting on certified infrastructure matters when the data is financial and regulated

A platform that answers "supports compliance by supplying the records" honestly — rather than promising to "make you compliant" — is the one to trust. Compliance ultimately depends on your filings and obligations; software supplies the underlying data and the audit trail.

Common pitfalls in crypto compliance reporting

• Re-deriving treatment every period — recomputing classification by hand each quarter is where inconsistency and audit findings creep in
• Reports that don't reconcile to the books — separate spreadsheets for financials, gain/loss and regulatory reporting drift apart and contradict each other
• Fair-value and cost-basis tracked separately — a measurement regime that needs both will fail if only one is maintained
• No traceability to source — a reported number with no path back to a transaction cannot be tested, and an untestable balance is an audit problem
• Freezing on one framework — coverage that ignores the moving perimeter leaves you exposed the next time an obligation changes

How CryptaCount delivers this

CryptaCount is accounting-first, designed by an FCCA-qualified team with deep experience in IFRS and US-GAAP consolidation, so the standards are built into the ledger rather than treated as an afterthought. It tracks both fair value and the underlying cost basis, so a measurement regime that needs both is supported end to end. Every reported number ties back through balanced journals to an on-chain transaction, which is what turns "trust us" into evidence an auditor can test. Coverage tracks evolving frameworks rather than freezing in place, and the whole platform runs on SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001-certified infrastructure. The reporting is generated from the same crypto sub-ledger that feeds your integrations, so one source produces consistent outputs.

Does CryptaCount decide our accounting treatment for us?

No — treatment and policy stay your decision. What CryptaCount does is carry the treatment you select consistently through the sub-ledger into the statements, so the outputs are repeatable and tied to source. The IFRS → and US-GAAP → pages set out the treatments at a general level to inform that decision.

Can one group report under IFRS for some entities and US-GAAP for others?

Yes. Treatment is applied per entity, so a group can carry IFRS measurement for the entities that report under it and US-GAAP fair-value measurement for those that report under that, all from one reconciled set of books with a consolidated view on top.

How does the platform help with DAC8 and CARF?

Both DAC8 → and CARF → are built on shared transaction data. CryptaCount maintains that data at the level these frameworks expect, so the reporting can be produced from one clean source rather than assembled from scattered exports. The software supplies the records; the filing obligation remains yours.

Can our auditors work in CryptaCount directly?

Yes. The immutable, hashed audit trail and transaction-level evidence let auditors test crypto balances back to source, exactly as they would any other account. That is the point of building traceability in rather than reconstructing it at year-end.

What happens when a reporting framework changes?

Because the treatment is built into the ledger and the underlying data is kept at transaction level, adapting to a changed framework is a matter of applying the new treatment to data that already exists, not rebuilding the records. Coverage is maintained to track the evolving perimeter rather than freezing at one moment in time.

How are staking, mining and reward income classified for reporting?

As income, recognised at value on receipt, rather than as a free increase in holdings. Keeping income classified consistently is what lets it flow correctly into the income statement and into the gain/loss schedules, and it ties back through the sub-ledger to the on-chain receipt that produced it. The same classification feeds both the financial statements and any regulatory reporting that depends on it.

Does the platform produce the figures, or do we still rebuild them at year-end?

The figures are produced from the books as you go. Because measurement, classification and cost-basis method are applied in the ledger throughout the period and retained, the reporting outputs are generated from the same reconciled source rather than reconstructed in a spreadsheet at year-end. That is the difference between a repeatable close and an annual research project, and it is what keeps the numbers reproducible when a reviewer asks how one was derived.