ASAF October 2026: Crypto Accounting Returns to the IFRS Agenda
The IFRS Foundation has confirmed that cryptocurrency accounting will be a formal discussion item when the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum (ASAF) convenes in London on 1 and 2 October 2026. For preparers, auditors, and CFOs who carry digital assets on their balance sheets under IFRS, that single line in the meeting agenda carries real weight: it signals that standard-setters are still actively deliberating how cryptocurrencies should be recognised, measured, and disclosed, and that the current patchwork of national and entity-level policies remains very much under review.
What ASAF Is and Why Its Agenda Matters for IFRS Crypto Assets
ASAF is the IFRS Foundation's principal consultative body, bringing together national standard-setters from major jurisdictions to advise the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) before it finalises positions. When a topic appears on an ASAF agenda, it typically means the IASB is testing ideas, gathering cross-border input, or preparing to move a project from research to active standard-setting. A listing is not a done deal, but it is far more than a footnote.
The path that brought crypto back to the table
Cryptocurrency accounting has been a recurring, unresolved item for international standard-setters for years. Under current IFRS, most entities holding cryptocurrencies treat them either as intangible assets under IAS 38 or, where they are held for sale in the ordinary course of business, as inventory under IAS 2. Neither standard was designed with digital assets in mind. IAS 38's cost or revaluation model means that unrealised gains on Bitcoin or Ether are generally invisible on an IFRS balance sheet unless the asset is subsequently revalued, and even then only within the revaluation model's constraints. IAS 2 inventory accounting is available to broker-traders but is equally awkward for assets with no physical substance and highly liquid secondary markets.
The IASB published a narrow-scope agenda decision through its IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) in 2019, confirming the IAS 38 / IAS 2 split but explicitly declining to develop dedicated guidance. That decision has remained the de facto global benchmark, even as crypto markets grew and corporate treasury holdings of digital assets became mainstream. The October 2026 ASAF session suggests the IASB is now revisiting whether that 2019 position remains adequate.
What ASAF discussions typically produce
ASAF meetings generate observer notes and staff summaries that feed directly into IASB deliberations. A discussion on cryptocurrency accounting at this level could lead to a formal research project, an exposure draft, or an updated agenda decision from IFRIC. None of those outcomes is guaranteed from a single meeting, but each would represent a meaningful shift from the current state of play.
The US GAAP Contrast: ASC 350-60 Already in Force
The timing of the ASAF agenda item is particularly pointed when set against developments in the United States. FASB's Accounting Standards Update on crypto assets, codified as ASC 350-60, requires entities to measure qualifying crypto assets at fair value through net income, with changes recognised each reporting period. For US GAAP preparers, the era of cost-less-impairment for Bitcoin and similar assets is over. Unrealised gains now flow through the income statement.
Why the gap between IFRS and US GAAP creates real problems
A company reporting under IFRS and a company reporting under US GAAP can hold identical Bitcoin positions and produce very different financial statements. The IFRS entity may show no gain at all in a rising market, while its US GAAP counterpart reports a headline profit. For multinationals, consolidation becomes complicated where subsidiaries report under different frameworks. For investors and analysts comparing listed entities across jurisdictions, the lack of a common model undermines the comparability that IFRS was designed to deliver. These practical pressures are almost certainly part of what has put the topic back in front of ASAF.
For a deeper look at how tokenised asset settlements are already straining existing accounting workflows, see our piece on how tokenised bond settlements are reshaping crypto accounting workflows.
Implications for Preparers and Audit Firms Right Now
An ASAF agenda item does not change anything overnight. Entities still apply current IFRS, and auditors still sign off against it. But the October 2026 meeting should prompt a set of concrete actions before year-end.
Accounting policy disclosures
Under IAS 1, entities must disclose significant accounting policies and, where standards do not directly address a transaction, the judgements made in selecting a policy. If management has chosen IAS 38 for its crypto holdings, the rationale should be documented and kept current. If a change in IFRS guidance were to emerge, entities that have already articulated their reasoning will find transitions easier to manage and will face fewer questions from auditors and regulators.
Fair value information in the notes
Even where fair value is not the primary measurement basis, IFRS 13 requires fair value disclosures for assets measured at cost. Entities holding material crypto positions should ensure their fair value measurement processes are robust, consistently applied, and auditable. That includes the choice of pricing sources, the treatment of exchange-specific spreads, and the classification within the IFRS 13 fair value hierarchy. If the IASB were to shift toward mandatory fair value measurement, entities with a well-documented existing fair value process will transition far more smoothly than those who have treated it as a box-ticking exercise.
Impairment tracking
Under IAS 38, crypto assets are subject to impairment. Entities must assess at each reporting date whether there is any indication of impairment and, if so, estimate the recoverable amount. In a volatile market, this is not a once-a-year exercise. Audit committees should confirm that management has a live process for monitoring crypto valuations between reporting dates and that any impairment triggers are escalated promptly.
Positioning for a potential standard change
Finance and accounting teams that have built flexible digital asset accounting workflows, ones that can accommodate both cost and fair value measurement, will be best placed to adapt if IFRS moves toward an ASC 350-60-style model. This is also worth noting for firms advising clients on their chart of accounts and accounting system configuration. Building in the ability to report fair value movements now, even if not required, reduces the cost of any future transition. The question of which FASB fair-value treatment and what it means for US GAAP preparers involves is one firms advising both sets of clients should already be monitoring.
What Audit Firms and CFOs Should Watch For After October 2026
The October meeting will be followed by IASB staff summaries, typically published within weeks. If the IASB signals an active project, the next milestones would be a formal project announcement and eventually a discussion paper or exposure draft open for comment. Each of those stages represents an opportunity to shape the outcome.
Engaging with the comment process
National standard-setters, large audit networks, and industry bodies all have a voice in the ASAF and IASB comment process. CFOs and finance directors at entities with material crypto holdings should ensure their professional bodies are aware of their practical concerns, specifically the cost of impairment tracking, the volatility that fair value through profit or loss would introduce into earnings, and the challenge of pricing illiquid or novel token types. These are legitimate points that standard-setters weigh when drafting guidance.
Jurisdictional variation in the interim
While the IASB deliberates, individual jurisdictions will continue to apply their own interpretations of current IFRS or maintain local GAAP rules that diverge from the international baseline. Audit firms with multi-jurisdictional clients should maintain a living matrix of how each relevant jurisdiction treats crypto assets, updated as local regulators and standard-setters issue guidance. That matrix is also a client advisory product in its own right.
The Broader Standard-Setting Context
The October 2026 ASAF session sits within a wider moment for financial reporting of digital assets. Stablecoins, tokenised securities, and central bank digital currencies are all generating accounting questions that existing standards do not cleanly answer. The ASAF crypto agenda item may well extend beyond simple Bitcoin or Ether holdings to touch on how IFRS should treat these newer asset classes. Preparers with exposure to any of these instruments should follow the October outcomes closely.
The gap between IFRS and US GAAP on digital asset accounting is not merely a technical inconvenience. It affects how capital markets price companies, how auditors assess going-concern risks, and how regulators interpret financial health. A move by the IASB to align more closely with FASB's fair value approach would be one of the most consequential changes to corporate financial reporting in years. That makes the 1 and 2 October 2026 ASAF meeting, modest as a two-day advisory session may sound, a date worth marking on every finance team's calendar.
Firms and CFOs looking for a structured framework to manage their crypto reporting obligations in the interim should review our crypto compliance and reporting resource centre for practical guidance across IFRS and US GAAP environments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is ASAF and what authority does it have over IFRS?
ASAF, the Accounting Standards Advisory Forum, is an advisory body established by the IFRS Foundation to give national standard-setters a structured channel to inform IASB deliberations. It does not issue standards itself, but its discussions directly shape the IASB's research agenda and the drafting of exposure drafts and final standards.
How do most IFRS preparers currently account for cryptocurrencies?
The prevailing approach, confirmed by the IFRS Interpretations Committee in 2019, is to apply IAS 38 (intangible assets) for holdings not held for sale in the ordinary course of business, or IAS 2 (inventories) for broker-traders. Under IAS 38, assets are carried at cost less impairment unless the entity adopts the revaluation model, meaning unrealised gains are not recognised in profit or loss for most holders.
What does the US GAAP approach under ASC 350-60 require?
Under FASB's ASC 350-60, entities must measure qualifying crypto assets at fair value each reporting period, with changes recognised directly in net income. This means both unrealised gains and losses flow through the income statement, creating a very different earnings profile compared to the IAS 38 cost model used under IFRS.
Does the ASAF agenda item mean IFRS will change soon?
Not necessarily. An ASAF discussion is an early stage in a potentially long process. The IASB could decide to open a formal project, update the existing IFRIC agenda decision, or conclude that no change is needed. Preparers should monitor the staff summaries published after the October 2026 meeting for clearer signals about direction and timeline.
What should CFOs and audit partners do now?
Three practical steps are relevant now: review and document existing accounting policy choices for crypto holdings under IAS 38 or IAS 2; ensure fair value measurement processes are robust and auditable even where fair value is only disclosed rather than recognised; and build flexibility into accounting systems so that a transition to fair value measurement, if required, does not require a complete system rebuild. Engaging with professional bodies during any future comment period is also advisable for entities with material exposures.
Source: IAS Plus (Deloitte)