Cryptocurrencies And IFRS: Current Developments, Accounting Principles, And The Role Of EU MiCA

Cryptocurrencies have moved from niche digital experiments to mainstream financial instruments held by corporations, investment funds, and even governments. Their rapid rise challenges traditional accounting frameworks, particularly the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which were not designed with decentralized digital assets in mind. As cryptoassets become more integrated into business models, the need for clear, consistent accounting principles grows urgent. At the same time, regulatory initiatives such as the European Union's Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation are reshaping the landscape, providing legal clarity that will inevitably influence accounting practice.

Current IFRS Treatment of Cryptocurrencies

At present, IFRS does not have a dedicated standard for cryptocurrencies. Instead, companies must apply existing standards by analogy:

• IAS 38 (Intangible Assets): Most cryptocurrencies are treated as intangible assets. They are initially recognized at cost, with subsequent measurement either at cost less impairment or at revalued fair value if an active market exists. The cost model is conservative, as it allows impairment losses but not upward revaluations unless the revaluation model is chosen.
• IAS 2 (Inventories): For broker-traders or exchanges, cryptocurrencies may be classified as inventory. In this case, they are measured at fair value less costs to sell, with changes recognized in profit or loss. This approach better reflects the trading nature of cryptoassets.
• Not Cash or Financial Instruments: IFRIC clarified in 2019 that cryptocurrencies are not cash equivalents or financial instruments, since they are not legal tender and do not represent contractual rights.

This patchwork approach creates inconsistencies. A company holding Bitcoin as a long-term investment may report it under IAS 38, while an exchange reports the same asset under IAS 2. The lack of a unified standard undermines comparability across industries.

Importance of Review of Current Practice and Laying Down Accounting Principles

The absence of a dedicated IFRS standard means companies face choices that carry serious consequences:

1. Financial Reporting Impact

• Under IAS 38 cost model, upward market movements are ignored, potentially understating assets during bull markets.
• Under IAS 2 fair value treatment, volatility flows directly into profit or loss, amplifying earnings swings.

2. Taxation Effects

• Many jurisdictions tie taxable income to accounting recognition.
• Impairment losses under IAS 38 may reduce taxable profit, while fair value gains under IAS 2 increase it.
• Inconsistent treatment can lead to disputes with tax authorities.

3. Investor Confidence and Comparability

• - Transparent, consistent accounting principles are essential for investor trust.
• - Without them, stakeholders cannot reliably assess a company's exposure to cryptoassets.

4. Strategic Decision-Making

• - Companies must analyze downstream effects of their chosen accounting treatment.
• - The decision is not merely technical—it influences taxation, investor relations, and regulatory compliance.

Thus, review of current practice and laying down clear accounting principles is a strategic necessity. Firms must balance conservatism with fair representation of economic reality, ensuring that their financial statements remain both accurate and credible.

Recent Developments in IFRS and Crypto

Although IFRS has not yet issued a crypto-specific standard, developments are underway:

• Influence of U.S. GAAP: In 2023, the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) introduced ASU 2023-08, requiring cryptoassets to be measured at fair value with changes recognized in net income. This move has sparked discussions within IFRS circles, as convergence between GAAP and IFRS is often pursued.
• IASB Education Sessions (2025): The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has held joint sessions with FASB to explore recognition, derecognition, and disclosure challenges. While no formal project has yet been launched, momentum is building toward a dedicated IFRS standard.
• Professional Guidance: professional firms have published extensive guidance on crypto accounting, emphasizing the need for careful classification and disclosure. These publications often serve as de facto standards until IFRS provides official rules.

The Role of EU MiCA Regulation

The Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, adopted by the EU in 2023 and phased in through 2024–2025, is a landmark framework for cryptoassets. Its significance for IFRS accounting cannot be overstated.

1. Classification Clarity

• MiCA defines categories of cryptoassets: asset-referenced tokens, e-money tokens, and other cryptoassets.
• This taxonomy provides a regulatory backbone that can guide accountants in determining appropriate treatment.

2. Disclosure Requirements

• Issuers and service providers must publish detailed white papers and maintain transparency.
• These obligations align with IFRS's emphasis on disclosure, helping bridge the gap between accounting and regulatory reporting.

3. Supervisory Oversight

• MiCA places crypto markets under the supervision of EU authorities (ESMA and EBA).
• Reliable market data enhances fair value measurement under IFRS, reducing concerns about volatility and manipulation.

4. Tax Implications

• While MiCA is not a tax directive, its harmonization of definitions and reporting obligations will indirectly influence tax authorities.
• Consistent regulatory definitions reduce disputes over classification and taxation.

MiCA thus complements IFRS by providing legal clarity where accounting standards remain ambiguous. Together, they form the twin pillars of transparency and comparability in cryptoasset reporting.

Strategic Implications for Companies

For companies, the convergence of IFRS accounting principles and MiCA regulation means:

• Enhanced Compliance: Firms must align financial reporting with regulatory disclosures, ensuring consistency across documents.
• Risk Management: Clear accounting reduces the risk of tax disputes and regulatory penalties.
• Investor Relations: Transparent reporting builds trust, particularly in volatile markets.
• Future-Proofing: Companies that adopt robust accounting principles now will be better prepared when IFRS eventually issues a dedicated crypto standard.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrencies represent both an opportunity and a challenge for IFRS. Current treatments under IAS 38 and IAS 2 provide a framework, but they are imperfect and inconsistent. The importance of the review of current practice and laying down clear accounting principles cannot be overstated: choices affect not only financial statements but also taxation, investor confidence, and regulatory compliance.

The EU's MiCA regulation adds a crucial layer of clarity, defining cryptoasset categories and imposing disclosure obligations. While MiCA is regulatory rather than accounting-focused, its influence on IFRS practice will be significant. Together, IFRS and MiCA are shaping the future of cryptoasset reporting, ensuring that innovation in finance is matched by transparency in accounting.

Until IFRS develops a dedicated standard, companies must navigate carefully, balancing conservatism with fair representation. In doing so, they not only comply with current rules but also prepare for a future where cryptoassets are fully integrated into global accounting frameworks.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.