## The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics" ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics"](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/issue-note-recording-of-crypto-lending-borrowing-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/issue-note-recording-of-crypto-lending-borrowing-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/issue-note-recording-of-crypto-lending-borrowing-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.json) --- ### Typology and classification of crypto assets - Recommends typology and classification of crypto assets. - Crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a general medium of exchange (CAWLM) are treated as nonproduced nonfinancial assets and reported as a separate category. - Security crypto assets follow the treatment for securities lending; "cash‑like" assets such as Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDCs) on the blockchain follow cash lending treatment. ### Nature and economic use of CAWLM - CAWLM increasingly used to generate additional revenues for holders through lending and staking, and to support borrowers’ operations (e.g., crypto exchanges/digital platforms). - CAWLM can be used in both forms of lending: - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability (e.g., some stablecoins) — treated as financial instruments. - CAWLM without a corresponding liability (e.g., Bitcoins, Ether) — treatment requires further elaboration. ### Crypto lending and borrowing — definition and mechanics - Crypto lending: institutional units lend crypto assets to other institutional units for a specified period in exchange for an agreed payment/revenue in crypto assets or in fiat currencies. - Functionally similar to traditional cash lending where borrowers receive assets and agree to repay with interest; borrowed assets can be used for lending, trading, investing, liquidity management, staking, short selling, etc. - Borrowing typically requires depositing collateral equivalent to or higher in value than the borrowed crypto assets; collateral remains unavailable to the borrower until return, and may be liquidated if the borrower fails to repay. ### Ownership and economic ownership considerations - Macroeconomic statistics distinguish legal ownership and economic ownership; statistics follow the economic ownership principle (the institutional unit entitled to benefits and accepting associated risks is the economic owner). - Two perspectives on crypto lending: - Treated as lending in cash: transfer of economic ownership to the borrower, creation of a financial asset/liability, lender holds a claim for return of equivalent CAWLM plus interest/revenue. - Treated analogously to repo/securities lending: legal ownership may transfer while economic ownership remains with the original owner (no transaction/position in CAWLM recorded). - Centralized platforms often permit on‑platform transfers but may restrict transfers outside the platform. ### Centralized versus decentralized platforms — operations and implications - Centralized platforms: - Can take custody and/or ownership of deposited assets (crypto on‑lent may be transferred to the platform’s wallet). - Set payment rates, handle collateral, manage lending/borrowing processes. - Lend at higher revenue rates and pay lower revenue to depositors; if ultimate risk of deposited assets lies with the platform, classify as other financial intermediaries except insurance corporations and pension funds. - Generate implicit fees (similar to "implicit financial services on loans and deposits" or "FISIM" in the 2008 SNA/BPM6) plus explicit charges: transaction fees, origination fees, liquidation fees, custody fees, premium services. - Example: Nexo Fixed term deposits — balance limit for Bitcoins in the Base tier is 25,000 USD; if the lender’s Loyalty level is Base and have 60,000 USD worth of Bitcoins in a fixed term, lender will be earning 4 percent annual interest on 25,000 USD, whereas the remaining 35,000 USD (above the balance limit) will be earning 2.5 percent annual interest. - Decentralized platforms: - Do not take custody; smart contracts temporarily lock assets and add them to lending pools. - Facilitate lending by pooling funds and matching supply/demand algorithmically; interest rates typically determined algorithmically. - Operate like investment fund managers or financial auxiliaries: they facilitate pooling and redistribution without taking on the risk; assets on‑lent are not recorded on the platform’s balance sheet. - Main output could be treated as the spread between interest on loans and deposits (similar to commissions), supplemented by explicit charges (transaction fees, loan origination fees, collateral liquidation fees); fees on decentralized platforms are typically distributed among liquidity providers and token holders. ### Platform outputs and economic classification - Centralized platforms that assume ultimate risk should be treated and classified as other financial intermediaries (not financial auxiliaries). - Centralized platform output: implicit fee component plus explicit charges; combined treatment may include both income and service charge elements. - Decentralized platform output: primarily facilitation and managerial services; possible treatment as financial auxiliaries with output akin to commissions, but further investigation required on accounting for implicit fees. ### Proposed recording options for lending/borrowing of CAWLM - Option 1A: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated as lending in cash and related revenue is treated as interest. - Option 1B: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated similar to lending of securities or lending other nonfinancial assets such as gold (i.e., no transaction/position is recorded in CAWLM) and related revenue is treated as interest. - Option 2: Lending is regarded as putting CAWLM at the disposal of another institutional unit under a resource lease and related revenue is treated as rent. - Option 3: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated as provision of services, and related revenue is treated as a payment for those services. ### Rationale and implications of Option 1A (lending treated as cash) - Views lending of CAWLM as economically equivalent to lending in cash: a debt obligation with corresponding financial account entries. - Advantages: - Aligns macroeconomic recording with economic substance and real‑world use of CAWLM in lending. - Captures the loan transaction within the financial account, focusing on economic function rather than asset classification. - Challenges: - Volatility and valuation of CAWLM require careful treatment to reflect economic implications. - May diverge from basic principles if CAWLM’s limited use as a medium of exchange is emphasized. - Would represent a different treatment compared with securities lending, repurchase agreements, gold loans, oil lending, and precious metals leasing unless those are reconsidered. ### Rationale and implications of Option 1B (treat as securities/gold lending) - Treats CAWLM lending as analogous to securities lending: legal ownership transfers to the borrower while economic ownership remains with the original owner; no transaction in CAWLM recorded in the financial account when lending is without cash collateral. - Revenue recorded as interest by convention, consistent with fees for securities lending and (monetary and nonmonetary) gold loans (see paragraph 11.68, BPM6). - Institutional units borrowing CAWLM can on‑lend as legal owners; platforms treated as financial auxiliaries. - Note: if cash collateral is exchanged, treatment is as a repurchase agreement (collateralized loan) with no transactions/positions in securities recorded. - Limitation: link between income and related stocks is not maintained if there is no provision of liquidity/cash; borrower records investment income debit/expenditure but no financial position. ### Classification dilemma and resource-lease (rent) treatment (Paragraphs 23–26) - Paragraph 23: CAWLM are classified as nonproduced nonfinancial assets; lending of CAWLM could be treated as putting them at the disposal of another institutional unit under a resource lease, with resulting revenue recorded as rent. - Proposed textual change to rent definition: delete “for use in production” so rent reads: - "Income receivable by the owner of a nonproduced nonfinancial assets (the lessor or landlord) for putting the assets at the disposal of another institutional unit (a lessee or tenant) for use in production." - Paragraph 24: If borrowed CAWLM are on-lent to other institutional units, sub-leasing guidance (BPM6 paragraph 11.90) should be adjusted so income receivable from subleasing or on-lending without a corresponding liability is recorded as rent, as is income payable to the owner by the owner of the lease. - Paragraph 25: For lending channeled through centralized platforms, total revenue could be split into: - (i) implicit service charge payable to the platform; and - (ii) rent excluding the service charge for the deposited assets. - Practical note: splitting the two components may be challenging and requires further guidance. - Paragraph 26: Conceptual objections to rent/resource-lease treatment include: - CAWLM are fungible, unlike typical nonfinancial assets under resource lease (which are intended for production and non-fungible). - Current definition of rent requires assets to be used in production; CAWLM are not used in production. - Key platform functions (e.g., liquidity management) are not captured by rent. - Borrower assumes full custody and ownership of borrowed assets, conflicting with resource-lease characteristics. ### Option 3 — Treatment as provision of services (Paragraphs 27–29) - Paragraph 27: Option 3 treats lending of CAWLM as provision of services and related revenue as payments for services (financial services, trade-related services, operating leasing services, other business services, or a new services category). - Paragraph 28: Arguments for services treatment: - Lending that supports platform functioning can be treated as other business services; without these services platforms cannot operate. - Consistency across evolving crypto activities (e.g., crypto staking, cloud, pooled mining). - Easier implementation and uniform recording for similar revenues. - Paragraph 29: Objections to services treatment: - Services cannot be traded separately from their production; they must be provided to consumers by completion (2008 SNA paragraph 6.17). - On-lending practices undermine service characterization. - If households lend CAWLM, classifying lending as service production would inappropriately classify households as service providers. - High charges (interest) in crypto lending could overstate services and distort GDP. - Services are typically provided only in relation to produced assets. ### Recommendations and research agenda (Paragraphs 30–32) - Paragraph 30: Lending of nonproduced nonfinancial assets (including CAWLM) does not align cleanly with current macroeconomic frameworks; financial reporting disclosures are inconsistent; recording crypto lending/borrowing is complex. - Paragraph 31: Drafting team view: - Option 2 and Option 3 are not appropriate. - Options 1A and 1B have equally supporting and balanced arguments for treating crypto lending. - Paragraph 32: Proposed actions: - Further elaboration of current concepts/definitions of assets and revenue relating to crypto activities. - Include treatment of CAWLM lending in the SNA/BPM research agenda regardless of interim recommendation. - Research topics to include: - Recording of lent/borrowed assets on institutional balance sheets depending on agreed revenue treatment. - Treatment of on-selling (re-selling) of lent/borrowed crypto assets and whether negative asset positions of CAWLM can be recorded on balance sheets (analogous to on-selling of gold or securities temporarily acquired through gold loans or securities lending/repurchase agreements). - Inclusion of revenues from securities lending and gold loans in research to enable holistic discussion. ### Outcomes of AEG (October 2024) and BOPCOM (November 2024) discussions (Paragraphs 33–37) - Paragraph 33: AEG and BOPCOM supported Option 1B: - Treat lending of CAWLM similar to lending in securities or other nonfinancial assets such as gold loans. - Related revenue treated as interest. - Paragraph 34: Treatment when crypto assets have a corresponding liability: - Straightforward as they are financial assets. - For stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), apply principles of cash lending. - For security crypto assets, follow securities lending principles. - Paragraph 35: Sectorization of crypto lending platforms: - Platforms intermediate in both crypto assets with a corresponding liability (financial assets) and without (nonfinancial assets). - ISIC Rev.5: trading/brokerage of crypto assets with a corresponding liability are financial service activities; trading/brokerage of crypto assets without a corresponding liability are nonfinancial service activities. - To maintain consistency with ISIC Rev.5, platforms should be classified as either financial auxiliaries or nonfinancial digital intermediaries depending on predominant activity. - Paragraph 36: AEG and BOPCOM supported further research on this item as part of the post-2025 SNA/BPM7 Research Agenda and agreed that securities lending, gold loans, and other fungible assets should be included in the Research Agenda for a holistic discussion. - Paragraph 37: Proposed updates to specific BPM7/2025 SNA chapters are provided in Annex 2 of the Note. ### Annex I — Lending/borrowing channelled through platforms (recording approaches) - Centralized platforms (off-chain; platform assumes economic ownership): - Lending/borrowing considered between lender and platform and between platform and borrower of CAWLM. - Lending CAWLM treated as lending in cash for recording, with CAWLM classified as a nonfinancial asset. - Lender records a loan receivable (a financial asset) denominated in units of CAWLM and decreases CAWLM holdings. - Platform records a CAWLM asset and a loan payable denominated in CAWLM units. - Revenue/payment receivable by the lender from platform is recorded as interest income recorded in cash. - Loan repayment entries reflect both financial liability in CAWLM units and any changes in value of CAWLM over time. - This method captures the lending within financial accounts though CAWLM remains classified as a nonfinancial asset and the loan is denominated in crypto units. - Footnote 23: Crypto-denominated loans are revalued regularly into fiat currency based on current market prices; revaluation adjustments handle gains/losses due to crypto volatility. - Decentralized platforms (on-chain; platform does not assume ownership): - Lending considered as between crypto owner and borrower facilitated by platform. - Recording approach between lender and borrower is the same as for centralized platforms, but no loan assets/liabilities are recorded against the platform. - Recording of CAWLM-denominated loans follows same principles regardless of centralized or decentralized platform. - Footnote 24: Although it seems to have characteristics of a deposit, it cannot be considered a “deposit” as it does not concern deposit-taking corporations. ### Annex II — Proposed textual updates (high-level highlights) - Joint 2025 SNA Chapter 5/BPM7 Chapter 4: - Paragraph 5.177: Classification rule for crypto platforms as financial auxiliaries if principal activity involves facilitating transactions in crypto assets with a corresponding liability; otherwise included in nonfinancial corporations. - Paragraph 5.178: Add bullet point noting crypto exchanges/trading/lending platforms that facilitate buying/selling and lending/borrowing of different types of crypto assets. - BPM7 Chapter 11: - Paragraph 11.118: Include platforms intermediating (including lending/borrowing) in crypto assets with a corresponding liability under financial services enabled by Fintech. - Paragraph 11.150–1: Nonfinancial intermediation services to include fees/commissions for intermediation of non-produced nonfinancial assets such as crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange. - Joint 2025 SNA Chapter 22/BPM7 Chapter 16: - Paragraph 22.82: Fees received from staking treated as nonfinancial services (computer services in BoP current account); guidance on classification of crypto assets with/without corresponding liabilities and platform classification. - Chapter 8, 2025 SNA: - Paragraph 8.121: By convention, all fees payable to owners of securities used for securities lending, owners of gold used for gold loans, and owners of crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange used for crypto lending, should be recorded as interest. - Chapter 12, BPM7: - 12.68a: Define crypto lending and state fees payable to owners of crypto assets without a corresponding liability used for crypto lending should be recorded as interest. - 12.106: Fees for nonmonetary gold loans and fees on lending of crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange should be included in interest under other investment income. *Source: The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics," Guidance prepared by the Statistics Department (IMF) in consultation with SNA/BPM editorial teams.* ### 1. The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics," ### The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics" ### Typology and classification of crypto assets - The Guidance Note provides recommendations on typology and classification of crypto assets. - Crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a general medium of exchange (CAWLM) are treated as nonproduced nonfinancial assets and reported as a separate category. - Security crypto assets follow the treatment for securities lending; "cash‑like" assets such as Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDCs) on the blockchain follow cash lending treatment. ### Nature and economic use of CAWLM - CAWLM are increasingly used to generate additional revenues for holders through lending and staking, and to support borrowers’ operations (e.g., crypto exchanges/digital platforms). - CAWLM can be used in both forms of lending: - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability (e.g., some stablecoins) — treated as financial instruments. - CAWLM without a corresponding liability (e.g., Bitcoins, Ether) — treatment requires further elaboration. ### Crypto lending and borrowing — definition and mechanics - Crypto lending: institutional units lend crypto assets to other institutional units for a specified period in exchange for an agreed payment/revenue in crypto assets or in fiat currencies. - Functionally similar to traditional cash lending where borrowers receive assets and agree to repay with interest; borrowed assets can be used for lending, trading, investing, liquidity management, staking, short selling, etc. - Borrowing typically requires depositing collateral equivalent to or higher in value than the borrowed crypto assets; collateral remains unavailable to the borrower until return, and may be liquidated if the borrower fails to repay. ### Ownership and economic ownership considerations - Macroeconomic statistics distinguish legal ownership and economic ownership; statistics follow the economic ownership principle (the institutional unit entitled to benefits and accepting associated risks is the economic owner). - Two perspectives on crypto lending: - Treated as lending in cash: transfer of economic ownership to the borrower, creation of a financial asset/liability, lender holds a claim for return of equivalent CAWLM plus interest/revenue. - Treated analogously to repo/securities lending: legal ownership may transfer while economic ownership remains with the original owner (no transaction/position in CAWLM recorded). - Centralized platforms often permit on‑platform transfers but may restrict transfers outside the platform. ### Centralized versus decentralized platforms — operations and implications - Centralized platforms: - Can take custody and/or ownership of deposited assets (crypto on‑lent may be transferred to the platform’s wallet). - Set payment rates, handle collateral, manage lending/borrowing processes. - Lend at higher revenue rates and pay lower revenue to depositors; if ultimate risk of deposited assets lies with the platform, classify as other financial intermediaries except insurance corporations and pension funds. - Generate implicit fees (similar to "implicit financial services on loans and deposits" or "FISIM" in the 2008 SNA/BPM6) plus explicit charges: transaction fees, origination fees, liquidation fees, custody fees, premium services. - Example features: Nexo Fixed term deposits — balance limit for Bitcoins in the Base tier is 25,000 USD; if the lender’s Loyalty level is Base and have 60,000 USD worth of Bitcoins in a fixed term, lender will be earning 4 percent annual interest on 25,000 USD, whereas the remaining 35,000 USD (above the balance limit) will be earning 2.5 percent annual interest. - Decentralized platforms: - Do not take custody; smart contracts temporarily lock assets and add them to lending pools. - Facilitate lending by pooling funds and matching supply/demand algorithmically; interest rates typically determined algorithmically. - Operate like investment fund managers or financial auxiliaries: they facilitate pooling and redistribution without taking on the risk; assets on‑lent are not recorded on the platform’s balance sheet. - Main output could be treated as the spread between interest on loans and deposits (similar to commissions), supplemented by explicit charges (transaction fees, loan origination fees, collateral liquidation fees); fees on decentralized platforms are typically distributed among liquidity providers and token holders. ### Platform outputs and economic classification - Centralized platforms that assume ultimate risk should be treated and classified as other financial intermediaries (not financial auxiliaries). - Centralized platform output: implicit fee component plus explicit charges; combined treatment may include both income and service charge elements. - Decentralized platform output: primarily facilitation and managerial services; possible treatment as financial auxiliaries with output akin to commissions, but further investigation required on accounting for implicit fees. ### Proposed recording options for lending/borrowing of CAWLM - The Guidance Note considers the following options for recording stocks/flows and revenue associated with lending/borrowing of CAWLM: - Option 1A: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated as lending in cash and related revenue is treated as interest. - Option 1B: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated similar to lending of securities or lending other nonfinancial assets such as gold (i.e., no transaction/position is recorded in CAWLM) and related revenue is treated as interest. - Option 2: Lending is regarded as putting CAWLM at the disposal of another institutional unit under a resource lease and related revenue is treated as rent. - Option 3: Lending of CAWLM to another institutional unit is treated as provision of services, and related revenue is treated as a payment for those services. ### Rationale and implications of Option 1A (lending treated as cash) - Argues that CAWLM lending functions economically like lending in cash: a debt obligation with corresponding financial account entries. - Advantages: - Aligns macroeconomic recording with economic substance and real‑world use of CAWLM in lending. - Captures the loan transaction within the financial account, focusing on economic function rather than asset classification. - Challenges: - Volatility and valuation of CAWLM require careful treatment to reflect economic implications. - May diverge from basic principles if CAWLM’s limited use as a medium of exchange is emphasized. - Would represent a different treatment compared with securities lending, repurchase agreements, gold loans, oil lending, and precious metals leasing unless those are reconsidered. ### Rationale and implications of Option 1B (treat as securities/gold lending) - Treats CAWLM lending as analogous to securities lending: legal ownership transfers to the borrower while economic ownership remains with the original owner; no transaction in CAWLM recorded in the financial account when lending is without cash collateral. - Revenue recorded as interest by convention, consistent with fees for securities lending and (monetary and nonmonetary) gold loans (see paragraph 11.68, BPM6). - Institutional units borrowing CAWLM can on‑lend as legal owners; platforms treated as financial auxiliaries. - Note: if cash collateral is exchanged, treatment is as a repurchase agreement (collateralized loan) with no transactions/positions in securities recorded. - Limitation: link between income and related stocks is not maintained if there is no provision of liquidity/cash; borrower records investment income debit/expenditure but no financial position. *Source: The Guidance Note (GN) F.18, "The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics," Guidance prepared by the Statistics Department (IMF) in consultation with SNA/BPM editorial teams.* ### 23. As CAWLM are classified as nonproduced nonfinancial assets, it could be argued that the lending ### issue-note-recording-of-crypto-lending-borrowing-in-macroeconomic-statistics ### Classification dilemma and resource-lease (rent) treatment - Paragraph 23: CAWLM are classified as nonproduced nonfinancial assets; lending of CAWLM could be treated as putting them at the disposal of another institutional unit under a resource lease, with resulting revenue recorded as rent. - Main conceptual point: the classification expansion to include CAWLM has not been matched by related income definitions; modifying the definition of rent is required to maintain the link between income and the related stocks. - Proposed modification to rent definition (textual change suggested): delete “for use in production” from current definition so rent reads: - "Income receivable by the owner of a nonproduced nonfinancial assets (the lessor or landlord) for putting the assets at the disposal of another institutional unit (a lessee or tenant) for use in production." - Paragraph 24: If borrowed CAWLM are on-lent to other institutional units, sub-leasing guidance (BPM6 paragraph 11.90) should be adjusted (text in bold in source) so income receivable from subleasing or on-lending without a corresponding liability is recorded as rent, as is income payable to the owner by the owner of the lease. - Paragraph 25: For lending channeled through centralized platforms, total revenue could be split into: - (i) implicit service charge payable to the platform; and - (ii) rent excluding the service charge for the deposited assets. - Practical note: splitting the two components may be challenging and requires further guidance. ### Conceptual objections to rent/resource-lease treatment - Paragraph 26: Objections include: - CAWLM are fungible, unlike typical nonfinancial assets under resource lease (which are intended for production and non-fungible). - Current definition of rent requires assets to be used in production; CAWLM are not used in production. - Key platform functions (e.g., liquidity management) are not captured by rent. - Borrower assumes full custody and ownership of borrowed assets, conflicting with resource-lease characteristics. ### Option 3 — Treatment as provision of services - Paragraph 27: Option 3 treats lending of CAWLM as provision of services and related revenue as payments for services (financial services, trade-related services, operating leasing services, other business services, or a new services category). - Paragraph 28: Argument for services treatment: - Lending that supports platform functioning can be treated as other business services; without these services platforms cannot operate. - Consistency across evolving crypto activities (e.g., crypto staking, cloud, pooled mining). - Easier implementation and uniform recording for similar revenues. - Paragraph 29: Objections to services treatment: - Services cannot be traded separately from their production; they must be provided to consumers by completion (2008 SNA paragraph 6.17). - On-lending practices undermine service characterization. - If households lend CAWLM, classifying lending as service production would inappropriately classify households as service providers. - High charges (interest) in crypto lending could overstate services and distort GDP. - Services are typically provided only in relation to produced assets. ### Recommendations and research agenda - Paragraph 30: Lending of nonproduced nonfinancial assets (including CAWLM) does not align cleanly with current macroeconomic frameworks; financial reporting disclosures are inconsistent; recording crypto lending/borrowing is complex. - Paragraph 31: Drafting team view: - Option 2 and Option 3 are not appropriate. - Options 1A and 1B have equally supporting and balanced arguments for treating crypto lending. - Paragraph 32: Proposed actions: - Further elaboration of current concepts/definitions of assets and revenue relating to crypto activities. - Include treatment of CAWLM lending in the SNA/BPM research agenda regardless of interim recommendation. - Research topics to include: - Recording of lent/borrowed assets on institutional balance sheets depending on agreed revenue treatment. - Treatment of on-selling (re-selling) of lent/borrowed crypto assets and whether negative asset positions of CAWLM can be recorded on balance sheets (analogous to on-selling of gold or securities temporarily acquired through gold loans or securities lending/repurchase agreements). - Inclusion of revenues from securities lending and gold loans in research to enable holistic discussion. ### Outcomes of AEG (October 2024) and BOPCOM (November 2024) discussions - Paragraph 33: AEG and BOPCOM supported Option 1B: - Treat lending of CAWLM similar to lending in securities or other nonfinancial assets such as gold loans. - Related revenue treated as interest. - Paragraph 34: Treatment when crypto assets have a corresponding liability: - Straightforward as they are financial assets. - For stablecoins and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), apply principles of cash lending. - For security crypto assets, follow securities lending principles. - Paragraph 35: Sectorization of crypto lending platforms: - Platforms intermediate in both crypto assets with a corresponding liability (financial assets) and without (nonfinancial assets). - ISIC Rev.5: trading/brokerage of crypto assets with a corresponding liability are financial service activities; trading/brokerage of crypto assets without a corresponding liability are nonfinancial service activities. - To maintain consistency with ISIC Rev.5, platforms should be classified as either financial auxiliaries or nonfinancial digital intermediaries depending on predominant activity. - Paragraph 36: AEG and BOPCOM supported further research on this item as part of the post-2025 SNA/BPM7 Research Agenda and agreed that securities lending, gold loans, and other fungible assets should be included in the Research Agenda for a holistic discussion. - Paragraph 37: Proposed updates to specific BPM7/2025 SNA chapters are provided in Annex 2 of the Note. ### Annex I — Lending/borrowing channelled through platforms (recording approaches) - Centralized platforms (off-chain; platform assumes economic ownership): - Lending/borrowing considered between lender and platform and between platform and borrower of CAWLM. - Lending CAWLM treated as lending in cash for recording, with CAWLM classified as a nonfinancial asset. - Lender records a loan receivable (a financial asset) denominated in units of CAWLM and decreases CAWLM holdings. - Platform records a CAWLM asset and a loan payable denominated in CAWLM units. - Revenue/payment receivable by the lender from platform is recorded as interest income recorded in cash. - Loan repayment entries reflect both financial liability in CAWLM units and any changes in value of CAWLM over time. - This method captures the lending within financial accounts though CAWLM remains classified as a nonfinancial asset and the loan is denominated in crypto units. - Footnote 23: Crypto-denominated loans are revalued regularly into fiat currency based on current market prices; revaluation adjustments handle gains/losses due to crypto volatility. - Decentralized platforms (on-chain; platform does not assume ownership): - Lending considered as between crypto owner and borrower facilitated by platform. - Recording approach between lender and borrower is the same as for centralized platforms, but no loan assets/liabilities are recorded against the platform. - Recording of CAWLM-denominated loans follows same principles regardless of centralized or decentralized platform. - Footnote 24: Although it seems to have characteristics of a deposit, it cannot be considered a “deposit” as it does not concern deposit-taking corporations. ### Annex II — Proposed textual updates (high-level highlights) - Joint 2025 SNA Chapter 5/BPM7 Chapter 4: - Paragraph 5.177: Classification rule for crypto platforms as financial auxiliaries if principal activity involves facilitating transactions in crypto assets with a corresponding liability; otherwise included in nonfinancial corporations. - Paragraph 5.178: Add bullet point noting crypto exchanges/trading/lending platforms that facilitate buying/selling and lending/borrowing of different types of crypto assets. - BPM7 Chapter 11: - Paragraph 11.118: Include platforms intermediating (including lending/borrowing) in crypto assets with a corresponding liability under financial services enabled by Fintech. - Paragraph 11.150–1: Nonfinancial intermediation services to include fees/commissions for intermediation of non-produced nonfinancial assets such as crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange. - Joint 2025 SNA Chapter 22/BPM7 Chapter 16: - Paragraph 22.82: Fees received from staking treated as nonfinancial services (computer services in BoP current account); guidance on classification of crypto assets with/without corresponding liabilities and platform classification. - Chapter 8, 2025 SNA: - Paragraph 8.121: By convention, all fees payable to owners of securities used for securities lending, owners of gold used for gold loans, and owners of crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange used for crypto lending, should be recorded as interest. - Chapter 12, BPM7: - 12.68a: Define crypto lending and state fees payable to owners of crypto assets without a corresponding liability used for crypto lending should be recorded as interest. - 12.106: Fees for nonmonetary gold loans and fees on lending of crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a medium of exchange should be included in interest under other investment income. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/approved-guidance-notes/issue-note-recording-of-crypto-lending-borrowing-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf_