Stablecoin settlement under SYSCOHADA: when is the customer receivable discharged?
Receiving a token and discharging a customer receivable are different facts. A company may observe a transfer before establishing which amount of debt it settles.
Keep the agreement in the file
Established framework. OHADA accounting requires supported transactions. No stablecoin-specific receivable-discharge rule was identified here. The payment agreement’s validity and effect require assessment under applicable law.
BECTRA illustration — Assessing rights before choosing an accounting classification.
Identify what was actually settled
BECTRA analysis. Distinguish an advance, full settlement and an unresolved transfer. The recipient may accept either a token quantity or a value in the invoicing currency. That distinction matters when explaining a residual balance.
A third-party payment may relate to the invoice, but the connection needs evidence. A blockchain address does not itself legally identify the debtor.
BECTRA illustration — Distinguishing a custodian’s aggregate balance from client rights.
Fictional case
A customer owes 1,000 currency units and delivers tokens whose agreed settlement value is 980. Depending on the agreement, a residual amount or an accepted adjustment may remain. Accounting should not conceal the commercial decision behind an automatic conversion.
Uncertainty. Local law, contractual terms and monetary restrictions still require verification. Recording settlement does not establish compliance.
Conclusion
The remaining receivable should reflect the agreement performed. An on-chain event supports a movement rather than providing a complete conclusion on discharge.
Further reading
Sources
Sources reviewed on 19 October 2026. Examples are fictional; BECTRA analysis is distinguished from applicable rules.
Comments