How should stablecoins be classified under IFRS?
A company receives 1,000,000 euro-pegged tokens. Its treasury dashboard reports EUR1,000,000, but the issuer’s terms restrict direct redemption to certain holders and require checks before conversion. The quoted peg does not answer the first accounting question: what right does the company actually hold?
“Stablecoin” describes a stabilisation mechanism, not an IFRS category. The closing memorandum should start with the contractual terms, their enforceability and the intended use. A price close to EUR1, or an ERP label, cannot determine the classification.
Establish the right before selecting a Standard
In 2019, the IFRS Interpretations Committee considered a narrow type of cryptocurrency: there was no issuer and no contract with another party. For those assets, the Committee concluded that IAS 2 applies when they are held for sale in the ordinary course of business and IAS 38 otherwise. That decision does not automatically cover a stablecoin carrying a contractual claim against an issuer.
The first document is therefore the contract applicable to the identified holder: who must deliver the euros, when, subject to which restrictions, and can that party refuse? The IAS 32 definition of a financial asset includes a contractual right to receive cash or another financial asset. If that right is substantive and enforceable, the analysis moves to IFRS 9. A euro peg alone does not create the right.
Retain the terms effective at the reporting date, evidence of the holder’s identity, the wallet status, the redemption procedure and legal analysis of enforceability. The ability to sell a token on a platform is not the same as a claim against its issuer.
IFRS 9 is only the starting point
Once a contractual right to receive cash is established, IFRS 9 still requires an assessment of the business model and the contractual cash flow characteristics. A stated EUR1 redemption price does not by itself support amortised cost: variable fees, restrictions, suspension clauses, the holder’s ranking or exposure to the reserve may affect the analysis.
The file should explain the selected conclusion, redemption scenarios and the treatment of differences. It should also separate recognition of the asset from liquidity and counterparty risk. Regulatory classification and IFRS accounting arise from different requirements; one does not mechanically determine the other.
No enforceable claim: consider IAS 2 or IAS 38
If the holder has no contractual right to receive cash, the logic of the 2019 agenda decision becomes relevant. IAS 2 may apply when the tokens are held for sale in the ordinary course of business. This criterion concerns the entity’s actual business, not market liquidity.
In other cases covered by that analysis, IAS 38 may apply to an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance. The entity then documents measurement, useful life, impairment indicators and disclosures. A policy that assigns every stablecoin to intangible assets conceals differences in the rights attached to each product.
Cash and cash equivalents require a separate test
IAS 7 describes cash equivalents as short-term, highly liquid investments that are readily convertible to known amounts of cash and subject to an insignificant risk of changes in value. This presentation test does not follow automatically from IFRS 9 classification or a target peg. Redemption delays, limits, suspension windows and depegging risk all require assessment.
A financial asset is therefore not automatically a cash equivalent. The closing memorandum should reconcile the accounting balance, operational availability and presentation in the statement of cash flows.
Worked case: 1,000,000 tokens, two possible outcomes
Hypothetical case. Company A holds 1,000,000 tokens quoted at EUR1. The first batch of 600,000 gives A a direct, documented and enforceable right to euro redemption. The second batch of 400,000 was acquired through an intermediary; A can only sell it on a platform and the terms give it no direct recourse against the issuer.
The peg is the same, but the two batches should not be combined before analysis. The first may meet the definition of a financial asset and then move to the IFRS 9 tests. The second requires analysis under IAS 2 or IAS 38 based on the activity and facts. This is a methodological illustration: the final conclusion depends on the contracts, enforceability and circumstances of the holding.
BECTRA can prepare a product-holder matrix that records, for each token, the issuer, the redemption obligor, restrictions, use, Standard analysed, measurement method, ERP account, control owner and missing evidence. Management signs a batch-level conclusion instead of approving a generic label.
Conclusion
IFRS classification starts with a right, not a stability promise. The contract and enforceability point towards IFRS 9 or, without such a right, the IAS 2–IAS 38 analysis. IAS 7 adds a separate cash presentation test. A matrix tied to contracts and ERP accounts makes the closing decision reviewable.
Further reading
Sources
Sources reviewed on 3 November 2026. IFRS materials establish the requirements; KPMG is identified as practitioner interpretation. Hypothetical case and matrix: BECTRA analysis.
Comments