Stablecoins under SYSCOHADA: reasoning without identified specific guidance
A company in Côte d'Ivoire holds stablecoins at year-end. Its finance director needs to establish what the company owns, how it should be measured and where it belongs in the financial statements. A token name and a wallet screenshot cannot support those three decisions.
The practical answer is a classification file linking verified facts, contractual rights, accounting analysis and unresolved questions. The following approach concerns a non-financial company applying SYSCOHADA, illustrated by a hypothetical close in Abidjan.
The official framework and the limits of our search
The AUDCIF adopted in 2017 has applied to individual financial statements since 1 January 2018. Regulated sectors may use specific frameworks, so a conclusion for an ordinary trading company cannot simply be transferred to a bank. [S1]
Our review of the OHADA institutional publications and CNC pages consulted had not identified specific stablecoin classification guidance by 23 October 2026. This is a documented search limitation, not proof that no text or opinion exists. BECTRA analysis must therefore remain distinguishable from official guidance.
AUDCIF Articles 16–17 require inventory procedures and supporting evidence. Article 18 links account selection to the nature of the transaction and permits necessary subdivisions. Article 10 requires supplementary notes when applying a provision is insufficient to achieve a true and fair view. These provisions do not classify stablecoins. [S2]
Establish the right before selecting an account
The token file should identify its contract, network, issuer and terms effective at the reporting date. It must then answer a basic question: what right can the company enforce, and against whom?
Access to an exchange does not by itself demonstrate a direct redemption claim against the issuer. An intermediary balance also requires a review of the customer agreement: asset ownership, return obligations, fees, restrictions and the consequences of failure. These are contractual review questions; no legal conclusion is assumed.
For each proposed classification, the preparer records the relevant criterion, the evidence supporting it and the objections. The recognition and measurement rules for that classification must then be examined. Cash, receivables, inventory and intangible assets are not interchangeable options selected for a preferred accounting outcome. Creating a sub-account does not resolve an uncertain classification.
Worked example: 5,000 tokens held by an Abidjan company
Assume a non-financial company preparing individual SYSCOHADA accounts under the normal system, outside any sector-specific framework. It holds 3,500 tokens in a wallet whose access it controls and 1,500 through an intermediary. Withdrawals from the latter are suspended at the reporting date. The contract does not establish a direct issuer redemption right.
The movement register must reconcile the 5,000 units to the opening balance, receipts, transfers and fees. For the company-controlled wallet, the team reconciles the network balance and evidence of access control. For the intermediary, it obtains a statement identifying the company, the agreement and the suspension notice. Rights over those 1,500 units require separate substantiation; the displayed quantity does not answer the ownership question.
At a wholly illustrative quote of CFAF 600 per token, the gross calculation is CFAF 3,000,000: CFAF 2,100,000 for the company-controlled wallet and CFAF 900,000 for the intermediary balance. These amounts organise the reconciliation. They are neither a prescribed carrying amount nor evidence that the company can receive three million CFA francs.
A simulated exit of all 5,000 units, with a fee of 20 tokens, would produce 4,980 × 600 = CFAF 2,988,000. Omitting the blocked 1,500 units would make that simulation misleading. The hypothetical CFAF 12,000 fee and the withdrawal restriction must remain visible; their accounting treatment requires separate analysis. Even the accessible 3,500 tokens do not become a bank balance through multiplication.
Prepare a file a reviewer can use
BECTRA recommends five sections:
• Scope: entity, country, reporting framework, reporting date and time, tokens and networks.
• Inventory: movements, balances, reconciliations, access controls and intermediary confirmations.
• Rights: dated agreements, beneficiary, counterparty, redemption, return obligations and restrictions.
• Measurement: proposed classification, rule examined, price and currency inputs, fees and facts affecting value.
• Decision: reasoned conclusion, open issues, named owners and proposed financial statement disclosures.
In this example, confirmation of the rights and restrictions affecting the 1,500 units comes before finalising presentation. Established facts remain separate from working assumptions. Missing evidence is described and assigned to an owner; it should not disappear behind a general statement about prudence.
Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal belong to the BCEAO monetary area, while CEMAC countries use the BEAC framework. [S3] A common OHADA accounting framework does not establish that a payment route can be transferred between those areas. Exchange-control, payment and national obligations must be reviewed for the actual country and route. This article neither establishes their legality nor describes their detailed regime.
Escalate a technical question through the proper route
The CNC-OHADA supports accounting standard-setting. Its institutional page describes referral through the Permanent Secretary and competent standard-setting bodies, with requests addressed to the Permanent Secretariat. [S4] A company can prepare its question with its advisers and identify the appropriate body, without assuming a direct referral entitlement or a guaranteed answer.
A useful submission includes contract clauses, reporting-date facts, possible treatments and their effects. Asking only “Which account should hold stablecoins?” leaves too many facts unresolved.
Conclusion
For a finance team in Abidjan or Dakar, the first deliverable is a note connecting each conclusion to its evidence. Unit reconciliation, rights analysis and measurement perform separate jobs. Bringing them together gives those responsible for the accounts a clear record on which to decide.
BECTRA can help the finance team prepare the documentary file and classification analysis for review by the professionals responsible for the accounts. An engagement can begin with a position inventory and missing-evidence assessment. The deliverable is a reasoned note and supporting evidence, rather than an audit opinion or an official standard-setting position.
Further reading
Sources
Sources reviewed on 23 October 2026. Hypothetical case and BECTRA method; search limitations are stated in the article.
[S2] AUDCIF published by Senegal's Ministry of Justice, Articles 10 and 16–18, PDF pages 19–22. — Read the source
[S3] BCEAO, History of the CFA franc: UEMOA/CEMAC distinction and issuing institutions. — Read the source
[S4] OHADA, CNC-OHADA presentation: role and referral process. — Read the source
Comments