Crypto accounting under US GAAP

US GAAP changed fundamentally for crypto: under ASU 2023-08, in-scope crypto is now measured at fair value, with gains and losses flowing through net income every period — replacing the old impairment-only model that only ever wrote values down. This page explains what changed and how CryptaCount applies it.

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

What changed

ASU 2023-08 (codified in ASC 350-60) is the FASB's first dedicated crypto standard. For in-scope crypto assets, it requires:

• Fair-value measurement each reporting period (under ASC 820),
• with gains and losses recognised in net income — both increases and decreases, whether or not you sold,
• and separate presentation of crypto on the balance sheet and of its remeasurement in the income statement, plus added disclosures.

This replaced the old model, where crypto (an indefinite-lived intangible) was carried at cost less impairment — impairments were permanent, gains were only recognised on disposal, and recoveries couldn't be written back up.

Effective date

ASU 2023-08 is effective for fiscal years beginning after 15 December 2024 (so 2025 for calendar-year entities), including interim periods, with early adoption permitted. It applies to all entities — public and private companies, not-for-profits, and others — that hold in-scope crypto. So for most reporting now, it's the current standard.

What's in scope

The standard uses narrow criteria — broadly, fungible crypto assets that are intangible, created on a distributed ledger, secured by cryptography, and not issued by the reporting entity. That deliberately excludes NFTs (non-fungible) and certain wrapped or issuer-linked tokens, so not every digital asset qualifies — which assets are in scope still has to be assessed.

Why it matters

Mark-to-market means crypto now introduces earnings volatility that wasn't there under the old rules — finance teams need systems that can value holdings at each reporting date and post the remeasurement correctly, with evidence the auditors will accept. Crypto accounting under IFRS →

How CryptaCount helps with US GAAP

• Measures in-scope crypto at fair value each period under a fair-value basis
• Posts remeasurement gains and losses to your ledger, presented separately
• Handles the scope assessment inputs (fungibility, asset type) so the right assets are measured the right way
• 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.

What the fair-value model actually changes day to day

The headline of ASU 2023-08 is well known from the page above — in-scope crypto moves to fair value through net income under ASC 350-60, replacing the old cost-less-impairment model. The operational consequence is more interesting than the headline: fair value is not a thing you do once, it is a thing you do every reporting period, in every period including interim ones. That turns crypto from a quietly carried asset into a recurring measurement task, where each reporting date requires a defensible value, a posted remeasurement, and a clear separation of crypto and its remeasurement on the face of the statements. The model is conceptually simpler than the old impairment-only regime, but it is more demanding because it has to be performed continuously rather than only on a write-down or a sale.

It also changes the character of your earnings. Because both increases and decreases now flow through net income whether or not you sold, crypto introduces period-to-period volatility that the old model suppressed. Finance teams therefore need systems that can value holdings reliably at each measurement date and post the change correctly, with evidence an auditor will accept — because the remeasurement is now a visible, recurring line rather than an occasional impairment footnote.

How ASU 2023-08 reaches into your books

Executing the standard means three things happen on a cycle. First, in-scope holdings are valued at each reporting date under the fair-value guidance in ASC 820, which requires a value you can support and a source you can point to. Second, the change since the prior measurement is posted as a remeasurement gain or loss to net income, presented separately from other results. Third, crypto is shown separately on the balance sheet, with the added disclosures the standard introduced. None of that is real until it becomes journal entries → that land in the right accounts each period — which is precisely where a manual, spreadsheet-driven approach tends to break down at volume.

The scope assessment feeds directly into this. As the page notes, the standard applies to a narrow, fungibility-based set of crypto assets and deliberately excludes NFTs and certain issuer-linked tokens, so not everything you hold is measured the new way. That means your books have to distinguish in-scope from out-of-scope assets and measure each correctly — an in-scope token at fair value through net income, an out-of-scope asset under whatever treatment applies to it. Carrying the scope determination as data on the crypto sub-ledger → keeps that split consistent rather than re-litigated every quarter.

The data and audit trail US GAAP fair value demands

Fair-value accounting lives or dies on evidence of value. For every in-scope holding at every measurement date, you need the value used, the source it came from, and the date and time it was struck — preserved so the remeasurement can be reproduced months later when an auditor asks how a given period's gain or loss was reached. Because the measurement recurs, the trail is inherently time-series: not just this quarter's value, but the sequence of values and the remeasurements between them, each tied to its source.

• Fair-value provenance — the value, source, and timestamp at each measurement date, so every remeasurement is reproducible under ASC 820.
• Period-by-period remeasurement record — the gain or loss posted each period, traceable to the change in value that produced it.
• Scope determination — which assets are in scope and which are excluded, captured as data so the split is consistent across periods.
• Separate presentation support — the detail needed to present crypto and its remeasurement separately, plus the added disclosures.
• Lot and movement history — acquisitions, disposals, and transfers underlying the holdings being measured, so the population is complete.

The reconciliation challenge under US GAAP

Mark-to-market only produces a trustworthy number if it is run over a complete and correct population. Crypto held across many wallets, chains, and venues has to be reconciled before any measurement date: the same asset recognised once, internal transfers between your own wallets removed so they are not mistaken for activity, and every holding present so the fair-value sweep does not silently miss a balance. A remeasurement computed over an incomplete holdings list is confidently wrong, and because it now flows straight to net income, the error lands directly in reported earnings rather than being buried in a footnote.

The recurring nature of the standard makes this worse if reconciliation is treated as a one-off. Every reporting date is a fresh opportunity for the population to drift — new wallets, new venues, new tokens — so reconciliation has to be a standing process, not a year-end scramble. Reconciling once at the ledger and then sweeping fair value over the reconciled holdings, period after period, is the only approach that keeps each quarter's earnings impact defensible.

How a crypto sub-ledger supports US GAAP compliance

A crypto sub-ledger is the natural home for ASU 2023-08 because it supplies exactly what the standard needs on a cycle: a reconciled population of holdings, a fair value at each measurement date with its provenance, and the posting machinery to record the remeasurement in your ledger with separate presentation. It also carries the scope determination as data — fungibility, asset type, issuer relationship — so the right assets are measured the right way without re-deciding each period. The compliance and reporting → layer then builds on that reconciled, valued foundation.

It keeps you coherent across frameworks too. A group reporting under US GAAP in one entity and IFRS → in another faces genuinely different measurement — mandatory fair value through net income versus cost-or-revaluation under IAS 38 — and running both off one flat export is a recipe for inconsistency. Holding one reconciled dataset and applying each framework's policy to it keeps the difference deliberate and explainable, which is exactly what an auditor reconciling the two will look for.

Scope and timing, at a general level

The page above states the effective-date and applicability picture, and the general point to underline is that for most reporting now this is the current standard, applying broadly to entities that hold in-scope crypto. Beyond that framing, the precise application of the effective date to your fiscal calendar, and whether early adoption is relevant to you, are matters to confirm against the standard and your auditor rather than to assume from the broad shape.

Scope is the part that most rewards care, because the standard's criteria are narrow and the line is genuinely consequential: an in-scope token rides the fair-value-through-net-income treatment, while an excluded asset — an NFT, a certain wrapped or issuer-linked token — does not, and which side an asset falls on must be assessed rather than presumed. Documenting that scope reasoning belongs in the audit trail next to the numbers, because a defensible explanation of why an asset was or was not measured at fair value is part of the record.

Common pitfalls under US GAAP

• Measuring only at year-end. The standard applies each reporting period, including interim ones — a single annual remeasurement understates the cadence the rules require.
• Applying fair value to out-of-scope assets. NFTs and certain issuer-linked tokens are excluded; sweeping them into the fair-value treatment misstates them.
• Weak valuation provenance. A fair value with no recorded source or timestamp is hard to defend when the remeasurement is questioned.
• Running the sweep over an incomplete population. A remeasurement computed on a holdings list missing a wallet flows the error straight to net income.
• Ignoring separate presentation and disclosures. Crypto and its remeasurement must be shown separately, with the added disclosures — folding them into other lines is a presentation error.
• Re-deciding scope every quarter. Without the scope determination held as data, the in-scope/out-of-scope split drifts between periods.

How CryptaCount helps with US GAAP

CryptaCount makes ASU 2023-08 executable on a cycle. It reconciles your crypto across wallets, chains, and venues into one complete population, measures in-scope holdings at fair value each period, and posts the remeasurement gains and losses to your ledger with the separate presentation the standard requires. It carries the scope-assessment inputs — fungibility and asset type — so the right assets are measured the right way without re-deciding each quarter, and it keeps a complete, traceable trail your auditors can follow from any period's remeasurement back to the value and source behind it. Whether a specific asset is in scope remains a judgement to confirm with your auditor; CryptaCount makes the recurring measurement, posting, and evidence behind it repeatable rather than a quarterly spreadsheet exercise.

Do we have to remeasure crypto every quarter, or just at year-end?

Each reporting period, including interim periods — the fair-value model is recurring, not annual. That makes a standing reconciliation and valuation process essential, because every measurement date needs a complete population and a defensible value. A transaction-level sub-ledger → is what makes performing that each period practical rather than a scramble.

Which of our assets are actually in scope for fair value?

Broadly, fungible crypto assets that are intangible, created on a distributed ledger, secured by cryptography, and not issued by your entity — which excludes NFTs and certain issuer-linked or wrapped tokens. Because the criteria are narrow, the in-scope/out-of-scope determination must be assessed per asset and confirmed with your auditor, then carried as data so the split stays consistent across periods.

How is this different from IFRS for the same holdings?

Substantially. 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 measure identical assets differently, which is why holding one reconciled dataset and applying each framework's policy to it keeps the divergence deliberate and explainable.

What evidence supports a remeasurement if an auditor questions it?

The value used at the measurement date, its source, and its timestamp, tied to a complete reconciled population and to the prior period's value so the gain or loss is reproducible. Because the measurement recurs, the trail is a time series of values and remeasurements — exactly the longitudinal evidence a transaction-level sub-ledger → preserves as a matter of course.