What accounting treatments apply under SYSCOHADA?
In Abidjan, a services company receives 10,000 US dollar-referenced tokens in settlement of a CFA6,000,000 invoice. At year-end, 7,500 tokens remain in a self-controlled wallet, 2,000 have been converted by a service provider and 500 have paid fees and a supplier. The accountant cannot close the file with a screenshot and the label “stablecoin”. The file must establish what the company controls, the rights attached to the tokens, the value of each movement and the treatment selected under SYSCOHADA.
Start with the applicable framework and its limits
The OHADA Uniform Act on Accounting Law and Financial Information (AUDCIF), adopted on 26 January 2017, has applied to individual accounts since 1 January 2018. The revised SYSCOHADA is annexed to it. The framework requires orderly records, supporting evidence, an inventory and additional disclosures when the financial statements alone do not provide a faithful representation.
A review of accessible OHADA institutional publications on 12 November 2026 did not identify official guidance that expressly classifies stablecoins. This limitation does not prove that no opinion exists. It means that the company must not present an internal analysis as an OHADA rule. The treatments discussed here are a working method to be validated with the competent accounting professional in the relevant country.
Accounting also remains separate from monetary, foreign-exchange, payment and anti-money laundering rules. The BCEAO’s May 2026 conference specifically treated stablecoins as a financial-stability, regulatory and cybersecurity issue. Recording an entry therefore does not make a transaction permissible.
Identify the right before selecting a balance-sheet line
The preparer gathers the white paper, redemption terms, custody agreement, wallet addresses and any observed restrictions. The file then answers three questions: does the company have a direct right against an issuer, does it control the tokens or only a claim against an intermediary, and why are the tokens held?
Those facts guide the analysis among possible families such as receivables, cash-related items, inventory used in the business or another asset. They do not permit management to select whichever line produces the preferred result. The absence of specific guidance makes it necessary to record the criteria applied, objections considered and final conclusion. If two treatments remain reasonably possible, the uncertainty should be escalated to the officer responsible for the accounts and, when material, explained in the notes.
Separate initial recognition, movements and year-end measurement
On initial recognition, the accounting entry must reflect the underlying transaction. A customer receivable is discharged only when the contractual payment conditions are met. Purchasing tokens with bank funds is a separate transaction. Platform and network charges should be isolated before deciding whether they enter the asset’s cost or remain expenses.
During the period, every transfer should retain its transaction identifier, timestamp, counterparty, gross quantity and fees. Moving tokens between two wallets controlled by the same company does not, by itself, create income or an expense. A conversion, payment to a third party or loss of control may trigger derecognition and a result that requires analysis.
At year-end, the team reconciles quantities, verifies which rights remain enforceable and applies the measurement method attached to the documented classification. The issuer’s stated peg is not sufficient evidence of recoverability. A freeze, price gap, custody suspension or lack of an accessible market must remain visible in the file.
Worked case: reconstruct the 10,000 tokens
The case is hypothetical. The customer invoice is CFA6,000,000. The company receives 10,000 tokens and documents CFA600 per token at settlement. The quantity roll-forward is:
• tokens received: 10,000;
• converted by the service provider: 2,000;
• supplier payment: 450;
• network and service fees: 50;
• closing balance: 7,500.
At CFA600, the closing balance represents CFA4,500,000 for arithmetic control only. If an observable exit price at year-end is CFA585, the indicative amount becomes CFA4,387,500, a CFA112,500 difference. That difference does not automatically determine an entry: its treatment depends on the documented classification and measurement rule. The file must also explain the CFA1,200,000 converted, the CFA270,000 paid to the supplier and the CFA30,000 of fees according to their actual nature.
The useful deliverable is a transaction-level reconciliation listing the on-chain identifier, commercial evidence, counterparty, quantity, selected rate, rate source, fees, proposed account and reviewer. The 10,000 tokens should never become one unsupported journal entry.
A decision memo that a reviewer can reproduce
The year-end memo opens with the selected classification and the facts supporting it. It then addresses initial recognition, fees, disposals, year-end measurement and disclosures. Every conclusion points to archived evidence. Unresolved matters are named, with an owner and target resolution date.
The memo should not copy the group’s IFRS analysis. SYSCOHADA governs the relevant accounts; consolidated accounts or IFRS reporting may require a separate conclusion. The memo also does not replace tax analysis or the entity’s country-specific foreign-exchange review.
Conclusion
Under SYSCOHADA, the treatment of a stablecoin starts with the right held, the transaction that brought it into the company and its actual use. The company should separate invoice settlement, conversions, payments, fees and the year-end balance. Where no specific guidance has been identified, a defensible file depends on traceable facts, a consistent method and transparent uncertainty.
Further reading
Retain one fact sheet for each token, a wallet-to-ledger reconciliation, applicable contracts, evidence for the rates used and approval by the local professional. A change in redemption rights, custody arrangements or intended use should trigger a new review without erasing the initial decision.
Sources
• OHADA, “Publication of the new Uniform Act on Accounting Law and Financial Information (AUDCIF)”, 15 February 2017, accessed 12 November 2026: https://www.ohada.org/publication-du-nouvel-acte-uniforme-relatif-au-droit-comptable-et-a-l-information-financiere-audcif/
• OHADA, “OHADA Accounting Law”, accessed 12 November 2026: https://www.ohada.org/le-droit-comptable-ohada/
• BCEAO, “2026 International Conference on Crypto-assets and Digital Innovation”, 8 May 2026, accessed 12 November 2026: https://www.bceao.int/sites/default/files/2026-04/Communique-sur-la-Conference-internationale-2026-sur-les-crypto-actifs.pdf
• COFEB-BCEAO, “FinTech Overview”, 2022, accessed 12 November 2026: https://cofeb.bceao.int/sites/default/files/2022-11/Pr%C3%A9cis%20sur%20les%20FinTech.pdf
Comments