Maijoor to Chair IFRS Foundation, Woods to Lead IASB: What It Means for Crypto Asset Accounting

Two senior appointments announced on 11 August 2026 will shape the trajectory of global accounting standards for years ahead, and for firms and CFOs carrying digital assets on their balance sheets, the names at the top of the IFRS Foundation and the International Accounting Standards Board matter more than they might first appear. Steven Maijoor will become Chair of the IFRS Foundation Trustees, while Sam Woods is set to lead the IASB itself. The timing is significant: the standard-setting bodies are managing an agenda that still has unresolved questions around crypto financial statements and digital asset classification, and a change in leadership always carries the potential to accelerate, redirect, or reprioritise that work.

Who Is Taking the Helm and Why It Matters

Steven Maijoor at the IFRS Foundation

Maijoor is a well-known figure in European financial regulation. He served as Chair of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) for a decade, a tenure that covered the post-financial-crisis regulatory rebuild across the EU, the rollout of MiFID II, and the early years of crypto-asset market oversight in Europe. His appointment to the IFRS Foundation Trustees places him in a governance and funding role rather than a technical standard-setting one, but that distinction should not be underestimated. The Trustees set the strategic direction of the Foundation, oversee the IASB's independence, and are responsible for ensuring the Foundation has the resources and mandate to tackle emerging areas, digital assets among them.

His deep familiarity with EU regulatory architecture is relevant context for accounting firms advising clients who report under IFRS as adopted by the EU. The EU endorsement process for IFRS standards is separate from the IASB's own publication process, and a Foundation chair with strong ties to European institutions could influence how quickly and smoothly new or amended standards move through that endorsement pipeline.

Sam Woods at the IASB

Woods brings a different kind of experience. His background at the Bank of England and the Prudential Regulation Authority means he arrives at the IASB with a granular understanding of how financial institutions account for, stress-test, and report on risk-bearing assets, a category that increasingly includes crypto holdings at banks, insurance entities, and large corporates. The IASB Chair is the senior technical voice of the board, setting the agenda for active projects and representing the standard-setter in dialogue with national bodies, preparers, and investors.

For firms and CFOs focused on ifrs crypto assets, the IASB chair's posture toward digital asset accounting will determine whether the board revisits the narrow-scope guidance currently embedded in IAS 38 (intangible assets) and IAS 2 (inventories), or whether it pursues a dedicated standard. That question has been open for several years, and a new chair with a financial-stability background could bring fresh impetus to resolve it.

The Current State of IFRS Crypto Accounting

Where the IASB Stands Today

Under existing IFRS guidance, most crypto assets held by corporates and investment entities are treated as intangible assets under IAS 38, carried at cost less any impairment, with an option to use the revaluation model only where an active market exists. Commodity broker-traders may use IAS 2 fair value less costs to sell. Neither treatment is purpose-built for the volatility, liquidity, and custodial characteristics of digital assets, and preparers have long called for a dedicated standard or at minimum a formal agenda decision that resolves the most contested classification questions.

The IFRS Interpretations Committee issued an agenda decision in 2019 confirming the IAS 38 treatment for holdings like Bitcoin, but that decision predates the explosion in stablecoin use, tokenised securities, and DeFi-related receivables that now sit on corporate balance sheets. The new IASB chair will inherit an environment where preparers, auditors, and investors are pushing for clearer rules, and where the gap between IFRS and US GAAP treatment is becoming more pronounced.

The US GAAP Contrast

In the United States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) moved decisively in 2023 by issuing ASU 2023-08, which requires fair value measurement of certain crypto assets under what became ASC 350-60. That standard took effect for fiscal years beginning after 15 December 2024. The result is that US GAAP reporters now recognise unrealised gains and losses on qualifying crypto assets through the income statement each period, a treatment that is both more transparent and more volatile than the cost-less-impairment model most IFRS preparers still apply.

This divergence creates a material comparability problem for firms with clients on both sides of the Atlantic, or for multinational groups that consolidate entities reporting under different frameworks. The gap is also a commercial consideration: IFRS preparers holding the same Bitcoin position as a US GAAP peer will show different balance sheet values and income statement outcomes, which matters for covenant calculations, investor presentations, and regulatory capital assessments. You can read more about how unresolved questions under ASC 350-60 affect crypto financial statements in our earlier analysis.

Implications for Accounting Firms and CFOs

Standard-Setting Pace and Project Prioritisation

Leadership transitions do not rewrite existing standards overnight, but they do shift the internal culture and agenda priorities of a standard-setting body. Maijoor's background in securities regulation and Woods's grounding in prudential oversight both suggest that disclosure quality, investor protection, and systemic risk visibility will be themes they bring to the Foundation and IASB respectively. Each of those themes has a direct read-across to digital asset reporting, where current IFRS disclosure requirements leave significant room for inconsistency between preparers.

Accounting firms advising IFRS-reporting clients should anticipate that pressure on the IASB to address crypto asset accounting will not diminish under the new leadership, and could intensify. The practical implication is that policies adopted now under the current narrow-scope guidance may need revisiting if the IASB launches a formal project on digital assets, which would trigger mandatory policy changes under IFRS 8, IAS 1, or whichever standard ultimately governs the area.

EU Endorsement and MiCA Interaction

For firms with EU-based clients, the intersection of IFRS reporting and the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) adds a further layer of complexity. MiCA imposes prudential and disclosure requirements on crypto-asset service providers and issuers that do not map neatly onto existing IAS 38 treatment. A Foundation chair with deep EU regulatory ties may be better positioned to facilitate dialogue between the IASB and European regulatory bodies on how financial reporting standards should interact with MiCA's requirements, particularly for e-money token issuers and asset-referenced token issuers who must hold reserve assets and report on their composition.

CFOs at EU-domiciled entities that are also MiCA-regulated should be discussing with their auditors now how their IFRS accounting policies for crypto reserves interact with MiCA's prudential requirements. This is an area where regulatory and accounting standards are converging, and the new leadership at the IASB will inevitably be drawn into that conversation.

Audit and Assurance Considerations

From an audit perspective, any signal that the IASB is preparing to revisit digital asset accounting standards will affect how auditors approach estimates, disclosures, and going-concern assessments for clients with material crypto holdings. Audit committees should be asking their external auditors what position they would take if IAS 38 treatment is amended mid-cycle, and what transitional relief, if any, a new standard might offer. Firms that have built internal methodologies around the current cost-less-impairment model will need to be ready to adapt, potentially within a single reporting year if a new standard is finalised with a short effective date.

The parallel track in the US is also worth watching: the SEC proposed rulemaking on digital asset accounting adds another variable for groups with US-listed entities or SEC-registered funds. A coordinated or divergent response from the IASB under new leadership will determine whether global groups face converging or further fragmenting disclosure regimes.

What Firms Should Do Now

Immediate Actions

The appointments themselves do not change any current reporting requirement. But they are a signal that firms should treat digital asset accounting policies as live rather than settled. The following steps are worth considering without delay:

• Review which clients hold crypto assets on their balance sheets and confirm the accounting policy applied, including the basis for any active-market assessment under IAS 38's revaluation model.
• Document the rationale for current policy choices in a way that is audit-defensible and capable of being updated quickly if new IASB guidance or an agenda decision changes the required treatment.
• Identify clients subject to both IFRS reporting and MiCA obligations, and map any gaps between their IFRS disclosures and MiCA's transparency requirements for reserve assets.
• Engage with the IASB's public consultation processes. If the new leadership opens a request for information or an exposure draft on digital assets, accounting firms are well-placed to submit responses that reflect real-world preparer experience.
• For multinational clients reporting under both IFRS and US GAAP, prepare a reconciliation narrative that explains the divergence in crypto asset treatment to audit committees and investors proactively.

Monitoring the Transition

Maijoor and Woods are not yet in post as of the announcement date, and the handover period is itself a moment when standard-setting activity may be relatively stable. Firms should use this window to get internal policies in order rather than waiting for external pressure. The IASB's work programme and any new agenda items will be published through the Foundation's standard public channels, and subscribing to those updates is a basic step that pays dividends when changes arrive quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the new IFRS Foundation chair have direct authority over accounting standards?

No. The IFRS Foundation Trustees govern the Foundation's overall structure, funding, and strategic direction, but they do not write or approve the technical content of accounting standards. That is the IASB's role. Maijoor's influence will be felt through agenda-setting at the governance level and through the Foundation's engagement with regulators and funders, including in the EU.

What is the current IFRS treatment for Bitcoin and similar crypto assets?

Under existing guidance, most corporate holders of Bitcoin and similar crypto assets account for them as intangible assets under IAS 38, using the cost model (cost less any impairment). The revaluation model is only available where an active market exists. Commodity broker-traders may measure at fair value less costs to sell under IAS 2. Neither approach is purpose-built for digital assets.

How does IFRS differ from US GAAP on crypto asset accounting?

Since ASC 350-60 became effective for US GAAP reporters, qualifying crypto assets must be measured at fair value with changes recognised in the income statement each period. Most IFRS preparers still apply a cost-less-impairment model, meaning the same asset can produce materially different balance sheet values and income statement outcomes depending on the reporting framework applied. This is a live comparability issue for cross-border groups and investors.

Should CFOs change their crypto accounting policies now in anticipation of new IASB guidance?

Not preemptively. Accounting policies under IFRS should be changed only when required by a new or amended standard, or where a voluntary change produces more reliable and relevant information and is applied consistently. What CFOs should do now is document current policies robustly and monitor the IASB's work programme so that any required changes can be implemented in a planned rather than reactive manner.

How does MiCA interact with IFRS for crypto-asset issuers in the EU?

MiCA imposes prudential, reserve, and transparency requirements on asset-referenced token and e-money token issuers that do not map directly onto IAS 38 or any other existing IFRS standard. EU-regulated issuers may need to present reserve asset information in their MiCA disclosures that differs in basis from their IFRS financial statements. This gap is a known area of tension that the new IASB leadership may be asked to address, but no formal IASB project has been announced to resolve it as of this report.

Source: Accounting Today