How can a company evidence a stablecoin balance at year-end?
A balance shown in an application may be accurate today without answering the year-end question. Finance teams should first define what they need to establish: how many units of which instrument existed, on which network or account, at what time? Attribution to the company, availability and measurement then require their own supporting evidence.
This article focuses on quantities at a specified date. It complements the SACF ownership analysis and is not a prescriptive audit programme.
Define the position before gathering evidence
BECTRA analysis. An identifiable position links a legal entity, custody arrangement, network, token or contract identifier, address or account, and reference date. A stablecoin’s commercial name does not establish all these attributes. A representation on another network or a claim recorded by a provider may require a different analysis.
Finance teams should also separate token quantities from monetary measurement. Observing 100,000 units does not establish a value of USD 100,000 or the ability to redeem immediately for that amount. Existence, rights and valuation address different questions.
Match the evidence to the assertion
Established requirements. In France, NEP 500 addresses the relevance and reliability of evidence obtained by statutory auditors and distinguishes assertions including existence, rights and obligations, completeness and valuation. In the United States, AS 1105 governs audit evidence in engagements subject to PCAOB standards; it does not automatically govern every US company’s audit. [1–2]
BECTRA application. Observing units at an address supports an assessment of existence at that address. It does not by itself establish that management has disclosed every company address or that the observed assets belong to the company. A signature may indicate technical capability, but its significance depends on custody arrangements and the signer’s authority.
Reconstruct the quantity at the reporting date
BECTRA analysis. Data extracted after year-end must support reconstruction of the position at the relevant date. The evidence should explain the network, observation point, block or transaction history used, time convention and data transformations. A screenshot without a reproducible method is harder to assess.
When starting from a current statement, subsequent movements can be used to work back to the reporting date. Transfers, conversions, fees and changes in token representation must be explained. Network-specific finality considerations should be documented; this article does not prescribe a universal confirmation count.
Illustrative example. The ledger records 100,000 units at year-end. The next day’s statement shows 103,000. A subsequent receipt of 5,000 and payment of 2,000 reconcile the difference: 103,000 − 5,000 + 2,000 = 100,000. This calculation reconciles quantities. It does not independently establish ownership or the appropriate carrying amount.
With a custodian, identify what the client statement represents
BECTRA analysis. Where a provider uses an omnibus address, its aggregate on-chain balance does not necessarily equal one client’s holdings. Evidence should explain allocation to the company’s account, contractual return rights and the relationship between statements and available external data. First establish whether the company is tracking tokens held for it or a claim against the provider.
Established requirement and limitation. AS 1105.10A addresses external electronic information provided by the company. It requires understanding its source and processing, and testing modifications or relevant controls. A file supplied by management does not become independent evidence simply because its original source was external. The auditor determines the appropriate procedures. [2]
Identify the engagement’s applicable framework
For France, this analysis refers to NEP 500 as presented in the H2A’s current framework. A PCAOB engagement uses AS 1105. In the OHADA area, the institution publishes the regulation harmonising audit practices and its implementation materials. Engagement teams must still identify the applicable standards edition and relevant national provisions. These audit frameworks do not themselves determine stablecoin accounting classification. [1–3]
Normative uncertainty. In 2026 the IAASB published proposed revisions including ISA 500. An exposure draft must not be treated as an effective standard. Requirements should be checked again for the audited period. [4]
Questions to resolve before concluding
• Scope: are the positions identified unambiguously?
• Date: can the quantity at year-end be reproduced, rather than only the extraction-date balance?
• Reliability: are data sources and transformations explained?
• Custody: does the statement concern the company or a wider client pool?
• Exceptions: have discrepancies and conflicting information been investigated?
Conclusion
Evidence of a stablecoin quantity requires a dated observation, defined scope and an understandable information trail. The conclusion should specify what has been established and what remains to be assessed: rights, completeness, restrictions and measurement. Keeping those questions separate makes the evidence more useful to finance teams and auditors.
Further reading
Sources
Official sources accessed on 20 October 2026. Practical applications and the numerical example are BECTRA analysis.
1. H2A — NEP 500, Caractère probant des éléments collectés, approval date stated as 28 December 2023; French Commercial Code article A. 821-74: https://h2a-france.org/normes/caractere-probant-des-elements-collectes/
2. PCAOB — AS 1105, Audit Evidence, current version, particularly .05–.08, .10A, .11 and .29: https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS1105
3. OHADA — Publication of the regulation harmonising accounting and auditing practices, regulation of 8 June 2017 effective from 1 January 2018: https://www.ohada.org/mise-en-ligne-du-reglement-portant-harmonisation-des-pratiques-des-professionnels-de-la-comptabilite-et-de-l-audit-dans-les-etats-membres-de-l-ohada/
4. IAASB — Proposed Revisions for Audit Evidence & Risk Response: ISA 330, ISA 500, ISA 520, proposal published in 2026, not treated as an effective standard: https://www.iaasb.org/publications/proposed-revisions-audit-evidence-risk-response-isa-330-isa-500-isa-520
Comments