Does the absence of a direct contract with the issuer rule out a financial asset?
The absence of a direct contract with the issuer does not end the analysis. A company preparing IFRS reporting needs to establish what right it holds and which entity owes the corresponding performance. A provider's balance statement does not answer both questions.
A French parent consolidating international subsidiaries may receive several reporting packages using the same “stablecoins” label. BECTRA recommends a separate rights assessment for each holding arrangement before combining the balances. This article addresses group IFRS reporting. It does not determine French or SYSCOHADA statutory accounting or establish that a payment route is lawful.
Start with the contractual arrangement
IAS 32 considers, among other matters, contractual rights to receive cash or another financial asset. Paragraph 13 explains what a contract means; AG7 also addresses chains of contractual rights and obligations. The assessment should therefore extend beyond the holder's direct relationship with the issuer. [S1]
Applying that framework requires evidence. A claim against a provider may be a different asset from rights attached to a token. An economic route from token to money does not, by itself, establish an enforceable contractual chain.
Map each link without creating extra rights
In BECTRA's rights map, A is the company, B the provider and C the issuer. For each A–B and B–C link, record the performance owed, its beneficiary and its conditions. A B–C agreement does not automatically give A recourse against C. Also distinguish B owing money from B acting as an agent transmitting a request. Three names connected by arrows remain a hypothesis until each link is supported.
A closing example: two balances of 100,000 tokens
Assume two subsidiaries each report 100,000 tokens. Neither has produced a direct issuer contract. The inventory totals 200,000 tokens. This quantity does not establish a dollar or euro carrying amount.
For the first subsidiary, an agreement requires the provider to pay money subject to specified conditions. The file needs to identify the beneficiary, obligor, determinable amount, conditions and enforceability. If the evidence supports that reading, the assessment concerns a claim against the provider. It should not be described as issuer-guaranteed redemption.
For the second subsidiary, the provider merely offers to seek a buyer at the prevailing market price. That resale facility does not, on its own, demonstrate a contractual right to cash. Management must investigate the rights held instead of carrying across the first subsidiary's conclusion.
The immediate reporting decision is to retain separate assessments until the assets and contractual terms have been reconciled. Combining quantities helps inventory control; using one accounting classification requires further support.
Prepare evidence a reviewer can use
BECTRA's proposed file contains five components:
• Scope: holding entity, network, token contract, account or address, and reporting-date quantity.
• Agreements: accepted terms, schedules and amendments effective at that date.
• Rights: a beneficiary–obligor–performance matrix linked to the relevant clauses.
• Restrictions: access, suspension and exit conditions, including matters requiring legal analysis.
• Conclusion: the asset assessed, proposed classification, counterarguments and unresolved questions.
External confirmation should address the relevant obligation, rather than merely confirming a displayed quantity. Recoverability and measurement are subsequent questions; they cannot create a contractual right that the evidence does not support.
Keep the 2019 decision within its scope
The June 2019 Interpretations Committee decision addresses a defined subset of cryptoassets, including a characteristic that no contract arises with another party. It does not automatically settle the treatment of every stablecoin or intermediary balance. [S2]
Conclusion
Identify the company's asset and any corresponding obligor before selecting the accounting treatment. BECTRA can prepare a rights map and supporting analysis for discussion with the reporting team and its advisers. The accounting conclusion and enforceability assessment depend on the actual evidence.
Further reading
Sources
[S1] IFRS Foundation, IAS 32, 2026 issued edition, paragraphs 11, 13 and AG7, accessed 25 October 2026: Read the source . IASB framework analysis; statutory accounting and national endorsement requirements are outside this article’s scope.
[S2] IFRS Interpretations Committee, Holdings of Cryptocurrencies, June 2019, scope of the decision, accessed 25 October 2026: Read the source
Comments