Crypto accounting under IFRS

There's no crypto-specific IFRS standard — so crypto is accounted for under existing ones, mainly as an intangible asset. That has real consequences for how gains, losses, and impairment hit your statements. This page explains the IFRS treatment and how CryptaCount applies it.

General information, not accounting advice. Confirm the right treatment for your facts with your auditor or advisor.

The IFRS position

Following the IFRS Interpretations Committee's analysis, crypto holdings generally fall under one of two standards:

• IAS 2 (Inventories) — if you hold crypto for sale in the ordinary course of business (e.g. as a broker-trader), it's inventory.
• IAS 38 (Intangible Assets) — otherwise, crypto is an intangible asset (it's identifiable, non-monetary, and without physical substance).

Most holders land on IAS 38.

Cost vs revaluation under IAS 38

Under IAS 38, you choose between two models:

• Cost model — carry crypto at cost less any impairment (under IAS 36). Impairment losses can be reversed (up to the original cost) if value recovers — a key difference from US GAAP's old rules.
• Revaluation model — carry crypto at fair value, but only where there's an active market; revaluation gains generally go to other comprehensive income rather than profit or loss.

This is a meaningful divergence from US GAAP, which now requires fair value through net income for in-scope crypto. Crypto accounting under US GAAP →

Why measurement choice matters

Your choice of standard, model, and impairment approach changes your reported earnings, your asset values, and what your auditors test — so it needs to be applied consistently and documented.

How CryptaCount helps with IFRS

• Supports the measurement basis you choose — historical cost or fair value
• Applies impairment under IAS 36 (with reversals where permitted) and lower-of-cost-or-net-realisable-value under IAS 2
• Produces journal entries that post to your ledger under your chosen policy
• Keeps a complete, traceable trail for your auditors

Compliance & reporting → · The crypto sub-ledger →

General information, not accounting advice. Verify with your auditor or advisor.

Why "no dedicated standard" makes IFRS harder, not easier

The defining feature of crypto under IFRS is the absence of a bespoke standard, which means the work shifts from following one rulebook to assigning each holding to the existing standard that fits its facts. The existing page above sets out the two homes — inventory under IAS 2 for a broker-trader, intangible assets under IAS 38 for most other holders — but the consequence worth dwelling on is that the assignment is a judgement, and judgements have to be made consistently, documented, and defended to an auditor. Two businesses holding the identical token can land in different standards because their business model differs, and that is a feature of principles-based accounting rather than a gap to be patched over.

That makes policy design the real first task. Before a single entry is posted, you decide which standard each category of holding falls under, and within IAS 38 whether you adopt the cost or revaluation model — a choice that, as the page notes, drives whether value changes touch profit or other comprehensive income at all. Because that decision shapes reported earnings and asset values for years, it is exactly the kind of policy your auditor will expect to see written down, applied uniformly, and changed only with good reason.

How the IFRS choice reaches into your books

Once the policy is set, it has to be executed every period, and that is where the mechanics bite. Under the cost model, each holding is carried at cost and tested for impairment under IAS 36, with the IFRS-specific wrinkle that impairment can later be reversed up to original cost if value recovers — so your system must remember the original cost and the impaired carrying amount separately to compute a reversal correctly. Under the revaluation model, you need a defensible fair value at each reporting date and an active-market judgement to support using it. Either way, the policy only becomes real when it is turned into journal entries → that post to the right accounts, period after period, without manual rekeying.

Disposals add a second layer. When you sell, the gain or loss depends on the cost basis consumed, which in turn depends on how you track lots of the same asset bought at different times. Inventory under IAS 2 brings its own lower-of-cost-or-net-realisable-value mechanics. None of this is conceptually exotic, but at volume it is unforgiving: a single mis-tracked lot or a missed impairment quietly distorts the statements. A crypto sub-ledger → that holds lot-level history is what keeps the execution honest.

The data and audit trail IFRS demands

IFRS treatment is auditable only if the numbers can be reproduced from evidence. That means preserving, for every holding and movement, the data that justifies its measurement under your chosen model — original cost, impairment history with the inputs behind each test, fair-value sources where the revaluation model applies, and the lot-level detail that supports every disposal. Because impairment reversals and remeasurements recur each period, the trail has to be longitudinal: not just today's carrying amount, but the sequence of events that produced it.

• Original cost and acquisition detail — the anchor for the cost model and the starting point for any impairment or disposal.
• Impairment and reversal history — each test's date, inputs, and result, so a reversal up to original cost can be evidenced under IAS 36.
• Fair-value provenance — for the revaluation model, the source and date of each value and the active-market support behind it.
• Lot-level tracking — the cost basis of each tranche, so disposal gains and losses are computed and reproducible.
• Policy and consistency record — documentation of which standard and model applies to each category, applied uniformly across periods.

The reconciliation challenge under IFRS

The accounting policy can be impeccable and still fail if the underlying data is incomplete. Crypto held by a business spans many wallets, chains, and venues, and before any IAS 38 or IAS 2 treatment can be applied the holdings must be reconciled: the same asset recognised once, internal transfers between your own wallets stripped out so they do not look like acquisitions or disposals, and every lot accounted for so cost basis is intact. An impairment test or a fair-value remeasurement run over an incomplete population produces a confidently wrong number, which is worse than an obviously incomplete one.

This is why reconciliation and measurement cannot be separated. The deduplication and transfer-matching that produce clean holdings are the precondition for the standard to be applied meaningfully. Reconciling once at the ledger and then layering the IFRS treatment on top — rather than measuring first and reconciling later — is what makes the resulting statements both correct and defensible when an auditor traces a remeasurement back to source.

How a crypto sub-ledger supports IFRS compliance

A crypto sub-ledger is the practical engine for IFRS because it carries the two things the standards demand: a complete, reconciled record of holdings and movements, and the lot-level and historical detail needed to measure them under your policy. It applies your chosen measurement basis — cost or fair value — runs impairment under IAS 36 with reversals where permitted, handles lower-of-cost-or-NRV under IAS 2, and posts the resulting entries to your ledger so the treatment shows up in the accounts rather than in a side spreadsheet. The compliance and reporting → layer then sits on that reconciled foundation.

It also keeps you coherent across frameworks. A group reporting under IFRS in one entity and US GAAP → in another faces genuinely different measurement — cost-or-revaluation versus mandatory fair value through net income — and trying to run both off one flat export invites error. Holding one reconciled dataset and applying each framework's policy to it keeps the divergence deliberate and explainable rather than accidental.

Scope and applicability, at a general level

IFRS treatment applies wherever you prepare IFRS financial statements and hold crypto, and the page above already frames the two-standard split. The general point to add is that scope is decided by facts, not by the asset's name: whether a given holding is inventory or an intangible turns on your business model and intent, and tokens with unusual rights may even raise questions about whether IAS 38 is the right home at all. Where a holding's character is genuinely ambiguous, the correct treatment is a matter to settle with your auditor or advisor rather than to default into.

Because IFRS evolves and standard-setters continue to discuss digital assets, the prudent stance is to treat your documented policy as a living position, revisited as guidance develops, rather than a one-time decision. The existing standards named on the page above are the current homes for crypto, but the right application to your specific facts — and any future refinement — is something to confirm against the standards and your advisor.

Common pitfalls under IFRS

• Defaulting every holding to intangible. Crypto held for sale by a broker-trader is inventory under IAS 2; assuming IAS 38 for everything misstates the model.
• Forgetting impairment reversals. Under IAS 36 an intangible's impairment can reverse up to original cost — failing to track original cost separately means you cannot compute it.
• Reaching for fair value without an active market. The IAS 38 revaluation model requires active-market support; using fair value without it is not available.
• Posting revaluation gains to the wrong place. Revaluation gains generally go to other comprehensive income, not profit or loss — a presentation error that distorts earnings.
• Inconsistent application. Switching standard or model without justification undermines comparability and invites audit challenge.
• Measuring on an unreconciled population. Impairment or fair value computed over incomplete holdings is confidently wrong.

How CryptaCount helps with IFRS

CryptaCount turns an IFRS policy into repeatable, auditable bookkeeping. It reconciles your crypto across wallets, chains, and venues into one complete dataset, supports the measurement basis you choose — historical cost or fair value — and applies impairment under IAS 36 with reversals where permitted and lower-of-cost-or-NRV under IAS 2 where the holding is inventory. It tracks cost basis at the lot level so disposals compute correctly, posts the resulting journal entries → to your ledger, and keeps a complete, traceable trail your auditors can follow from a remeasurement back to source. Which standard and model fit your facts remains a judgement to confirm with your auditor or advisor; CryptaCount makes whichever policy you adopt executable at volume.

Can we choose fair value for our crypto under IFRS?

Only through the IAS 38 revaluation model, and only where there is an active market to support the value — with gains generally routed to other comprehensive income rather than profit or loss. Otherwise the cost model applies, carrying crypto at cost less impairment. Which is appropriate for your holdings is a policy decision to confirm with your auditor.

How does the IFRS treatment differ from US GAAP for the same holdings?

Materially. US GAAP → now requires fair value through net income for in-scope crypto, while IFRS generally uses cost-or-revaluation under IAS 38. A group reporting under both will see the same assets measured differently, which is why holding one reconciled dataset and applying each framework's policy to it keeps the divergence deliberate and explainable.

What does an auditor want to see behind our IFRS crypto numbers?

A reproducible trail: original cost, the impairment tests and their inputs (with reversals up to cost where relevant), fair-value sources where the revaluation model is used, and lot-level detail behind each disposal — all tied to a reconciled population. A transaction-level sub-ledger → keeps that longitudinal evidence as a matter of course.

Does holding crypto as inventory change everything?

It changes the standard and the mechanics: inventory under IAS 2 uses lower-of-cost-or-net-realisable-value rather than IAS 38's cost-or-revaluation and impairment-with-reversal approach. Whether your holdings qualify as inventory depends on whether you hold them for sale in the ordinary course of business, which is a facts-and-business-model judgement to confirm with your advisor.