Crypto Accounting: IFRS vs US GAAP After ASU 2023-08

Accounting for crypto assets has long been awkward, because the rules were written before crypto existed. Now a real divergence has opened up between the two dominant accounting frameworks: under US GAAP, the FASB has introduced dedicated fair-value rules, while IFRS still has no crypto-specific standard. For any finance team operating across both worlds, understanding that gap is essential.

The US GAAP position after ASU 2023-08

The FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2023-08 in December 2023, and it is effective for fiscal years beginning after 15 December 2024, with early adoption permitted. It marks a significant shift: in-scope crypto assets must be measured at fair value at each reporting date, with changes in fair value recognised in earnings rather than other comprehensive income. This replaced the previous, widely criticised approach of treating crypto as an indefinite-lived intangible subject to impairment only — which meant companies wrote values down when prices fell but could not write them back up when prices recovered.

The IFRS position

IFRS has no standard written specifically for crypto assets. Instead, following guidance from the IFRS Interpretations Committee, holdings are generally accounted for under existing standards. Crypto held in the ordinary course of business for sale (for example by a broker-trader) can fall under IAS 2 Inventories. Otherwise, cryptocurrency typically meets the definition of an intangible asset under IAS 38, accounted for using either the cost model or, where an active market exists, the revaluation model — under which upward revaluations go to other comprehensive income, not profit or loss. Our detailed cryptoasset accounting guide works through the IFRS and FRS 102 mechanics.

Where the frameworks diverge

The headline difference is the fair-value treatment. US GAAP now mandates fair value through profit or loss for in-scope crypto. IFRS, by contrast, defaults to an intangible-asset model where gains are either not recognised at all (cost model) or recognised in other comprehensive income (revaluation model) rather than in earnings. The practical effect is that the same Bitcoin holding can show materially different reported profit and equity depending on which framework an entity uses — a real problem for comparability and for groups consolidating across both.

Why the divergence matters

For multinational groups, dual reporters, and investors comparing companies across markets, this gap creates friction. A US company holding crypto may now report volatile fair-value gains and losses straight through earnings, while an IFRS reporter holding the identical asset may show a flat carrying value. Analysts need to understand which framework drives the numbers before comparing crypto-heavy balance sheets, and finance teams need clear policies and disclosures so users are not misled.

What finance teams should do

Identify which framework applies to each entity, document the accounting policy clearly, and ensure disclosures explain the basis of measurement. Where an entity reports under both frameworks, build a reconciliation so the difference is transparent. As crypto holdings become more common on corporate balance sheets, this is fast becoming core technical knowledge — the kind covered in our financial reporting and digital-assets CPD.

Frequently asked questions

Does IFRS require crypto to be held at fair value?

Not by default. Under IAS 38, crypto is generally measured at cost, or at a revalued amount where an active market exists — in which case increases go to other comprehensive income, not earnings. Only inventory held by traders under IAS 2 follows a different path.

What changed under ASU 2023-08?

It requires in-scope crypto assets to be measured at fair value each reporting period, with changes recognised in earnings — replacing the previous impairment-only intangible model.

Will IFRS adopt a similar fair-value rule?

There is no crypto-specific IFRS standard at present, so the divergence persists. Finance teams should monitor standard-setter activity but plan around the current rules.

Crypto accounting is one of the clearest current examples of IFRS and US GAAP pulling apart. Knowing exactly how, and why, is essential for anyone reporting on or analysing digital-asset holdings.