## f18 — The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [f18 — The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/fitt/f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/fitt/f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/fitt/f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf.json)

---

### Background and typology
- The guidance note presents the current consensus reached by IMF, OECD, and international expert groups on recording most types of crypto assets and discusses four recording options for crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a general medium of exchange (CAWLM) and for crypto assets designed to act as a medium of exchange within a platform only (CAWLP).
- Key conceptual grouping (as presented by the guidance note):
  - Crypto assets designed to act as a general medium of exchange:
    - with a corresponding liability:
      - issued by a monetary authority (e.g., central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that qualify as crypto assets)
      - not issued by a monetary authority (e.g., stablecoins with a claim on the issuer)
    - without a corresponding liability (CAWLM) (e.g., crypto assets such as Bitcoin)
  - Crypto assets that act as a medium of exchange within a platform or network (payment tokens):
    - with a corresponding liability
    - without a corresponding liability (CAWLP)
  - Security tokens (always have a counterpart liability):
    - Debt security crypto assets
    - Equity crypto assets
    - Derivative crypto assets
- Consensus points in the guidance note:
  - All crypto assets meet the asset boundary.
  - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability are recorded as financial assets (debt securities, equity, derivatives as appropriate).
  - Payment tokens with a corresponding liability should have a separate subcategory under debt securities.
  - CBDC issued by a monetary authority is classified as currency; similar non‑monetary‑authority instruments should be recorded under a new distinct financial asset category.
- The guidance note focuses on CAWLM and asks two core classification questions:
  - Whether CAWLM are financial or nonfinancial assets.
  - If nonfinancial, whether they are produced or non‑produced, and how to account for activities related to their creation.

### Four classification options considered (high‑level)
- Option I — Produced nonfinancial assets (e.g., “digital valuables”):
  - CAWLM treated as produced nonfinancial assets; miners’ reward viewed as capital formation.
  - Pros: Consistent with the counterpart liability criterion (except monetary gold); aligns with CAWLM first appearing in miners’ wallets; adds to capital formation.
  - Implementation: expand produced nonfinancial assets (e.g., valuables).
- Option II — Non‑produced nonfinancial assets:
  - CAWLM treated as non‑produced assets “released” to owners of existing coins and distributed to new owners (miners) in exchange for validation services or IPP enhancement.
  - Pros: Consistent with counterpart liability criterion; consistent across mineable and non‑mineable CAWLM and across validation types; adds to production/consumption/trade in services or to capital formation for IPP creation.
  - Implementation: expand non‑produced nonfinancial asset category.
- Option III — Financial assets (new exception to counterpart liability rule):
  - CAWLM treated as financial assets despite no counterpart liability (analogous to monetary gold by convention).
  - Pros: Distinguishes CAWLM from other financial assets by creating a separate asset class.
  - Cons: Breaks the counterpart liability rule (except monetary gold); risks inflating a country’s financial position without corresponding liabilities; could open door to other commodities becoming financial assets.
- Option IV — Hybrid assets:
  - CAWLM treated as produced assets at creation (capital formation), while transactions in existing CAWLM are treated like financial transactions; may require a new account between capital and financial accounts.
  - Pros: Avoids classifying payments with CAWLM as barter while not equating CAWLM with traditional financial assets; capital formation recorded for creation only.
  - Cons: Requires a new asset category and a new account; implementation and tracking of new vs existing coins are operationally challenging.

### Approaches to CAWLM classification (conceptual reasoning)
- Approach 1 (nonfinancial produced): Counterpart liability criterion implies CAWLM are nonfinancial; treating them as produced valuables avoids creating a new exception.
- Approach 2 (exception / financial): Analogous to monetary gold convention; arguments for treating CAWLM as financial assets include their role as alternatives to fiat and financial instruments and user trust; arguments against stress lack of formal backing and volatility.
- Approach 3 (hybrid): Recognizes mixed features—medium‑of‑exchange design (financial) but no counterpart liability (nonfinancial)—and proposes differentiated recording for creation versus exchange of existing CAWLM.

### Accounting for creation and mining activities (Issue 2b)
- Modes of issuance:
  - Mineable CAWLM enter circulation via miners solving cryptographic puzzles (proof‑of‑work), requiring algorithmic solutions, specialized computing equipment, energy, and time.
  - Non‑mineable CAWLM enter circulation via explicit sales or payments to validators under alternative consensus mechanisms (proof‑of‑stake, proof‑of‑authority).
- Two alternative treatments for creation:
  - Regard CAWLM as produced assets: miners are producers; miners’ output split into explicit validation fee (services) and newly mined CAWLM (capital formation). Practical and straightforward; aligns with CAWLM appearing first in miners’ wallets.
  - Regard CAWLM as non‑produced assets: miners’ activity recorded as validation services or as enhancement/maintenance of an IPP; new coins are created “off production” and allocation to initial owner (designer or existing coin holders) must be determined—this approach maintains consistency across validation types.
- Allocation mechanisms when CAWLM are non‑produced:
  - Designer as initial owner (sensible when explicit sales occur).
  - Owners of existing coins as initial owners when new coins benefit existing holders (dilution compensated via new coin release).
- Implementation requires detailed data on miners’ explicit fees, block rewards, stocks, transaction counterparties; current availability of such data is unclear.

### Numerical examples and accounting implications (selected exact figures from guidance note)
- Example 1 (cross‑border purchase):
  - Country B purchases CAWLM from Country C for US$100; Country B imports goods of US$80 from Country A and pays with CAWLM.
  - Selected exact outcomes for Country A (Goods Exporter):
    - Net saving: +80 for all four treatments.
    - Net lending/borrowing: 0 for Valuable; 0 for Permits; +80 for Financial Asset; +80 for Hybrid Asset.
    - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: +80 for Valuable and Permits.
    - Change in stock of financial assets: +80 for Financial Asset.
    - Current account balance: 0 for Valuable; +80 for Permits, Financial, Hybrid.
  - Example IIP implication: when CAWLM is a financial asset, net effect on IIP is zero when purchased with or sold for currency; when CAWLM is classified otherwise, IIP effects differ (negative when purchased, positive when sold).
- Example 2 (investment vehicle with revaluation):
  - Country B buys CAWLM for US$100 from Country A; value increases to US$120.
  - Selected exact outcomes for Holder (Country B):
    - Change in net worth: +20 in all treatments.
    - Change in stock of financial assets: +20 for Financial Asset treatment.
    - Current account balance: -100 for Valuable, 0 otherwise.
    - Change in net international investment position: -100 for Valuable and Permits; +20 for Financial; -100 for Hybrid.
- Example 3 (mineable coin illustrative transactions):
  - Assumptions:
    - Country B consumer pays a transaction fee of US$10 in existing CAWLM.
    - Country A miner receives US$90 in new CAWLM as a Block reward.
    - Miner incurs US$80 of electricity input.
  - Miner (Country A) exact outcomes by treatment:
    - Output of validation services: Valuable 10; Permits 100; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 10.
    - Output of CAWLM: Valuable 90; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 90.
    - Gross Value Added: 20 in all options.
    - Net Saving: 20 in all options.
    - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable -80; Permits -80; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -70.
    - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: Valuable 100; Permits 100; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0.
    - Change in stock of financial assets: Valuable -80; Permits -80; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -80.
    - Change in stock of hybrid assets: Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +100.
    - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits 100; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +10.
    - Change in IIP: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0.
  - Transactor (Country B) exact outcomes:
    - Consumption of validation services: Valuable 10; Permits 10; Financial Asset 10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +10.
    - Net Saving: -10 in all options.
    - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10.
    - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits -10; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10.
  - Owners of existing CAWLM selected outcomes:
    - Consumption of validation services: Permits 90; Financial Asset 90.
    - Net Saving: Permits -90; Financial Asset -90.
    - Other changes in volume of assets: Permits 90; Financial Asset 90.
- Example 3 (non‑mineable coin illustrative transactions):
  - Assumptions:
    - Country B consumer pays a transaction fee of US$10 in existing CAWLM.
    - Country A entity receives US$15 in new CAWLM as a Block reward.
    - Entity incurs US$5 of electricity input.
  - Miner/Entity (Country A) exact outcomes:
    - Output of validation services: 25 in all options.
    - Output of CAWLM: 0 in all options.
    - Gross Value Added: 20 in all options.
    - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable -5; Permits -5; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +20.
    - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits 25; Financial Asset 25; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +25.
  - Transactor (Country B) exact outcomes:
    - Consumption of validation services: 10 in all options.
    - Net Saving: -10 in all options.
    - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits -10; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10.
  - Owners of existing CAWLM selected outcomes:
    - Output of CAWLM: Valuable 15.
    - Consumption of validation services: 15 in all options.
    - Net Saving: Permits -15; Financial Asset -15.
    - Current account balance: Permits -15; Financial Asset -15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -15.

### Key conclusions from the guidance note
- All four classification options yield the same gross value added but differ in the type of output recorded (validation services versus creation of a new coin).
- Recording CAWLM as nonfinancial or hybrid assets versus financial assets leads to differences in net lending/borrowing and in stocks of asset categories, but not in overall net worth.
- In international accounts, treating CAWLM as financial assets (by analogy to monetary gold) changes outcomes for net lending/borrowing and for the change in the international investment position (IIP); the guidance note notes further discussion is needed on including CAWLM in the IIP.
- Treating CAWLM as produced vs non‑produced nonfinancial assets leads to the same net lending/borrowing but different current account results depending on whether payment is recorded as barter trade or as a service plus capital account movement.
- Operational feasibility and data availability are central constraints to implementing any option.

### Measurement challenges and data collection recommendations
- Core measurement challenges identified:
  - Pseudo‑anonymous transactions and difficulty assigning residency to senders/recipients.
  - Valuation challenges and separating flows from valuation changes given high price volatility.
  - Lack of comprehensive data on economic use, stocks, and cross‑border flows.
- High‑level recommended data elements to collect:
  - Stocks of crypto assets by resident institutional sectors and changes during the period, ideally with counterpart country breakdowns.
  - Data on creation of crypto assets: explicit fees, block rewards, input costs (electricity, equipment, labor).
  - Data on use: purchases of goods and services by sector; use as alternative investment.
- Suggested data collectors and approaches:
  - Tax authorities, regulatory bodies (exchanges, wallets subject to AML rules), surveys of resident holders and market players, and international exchange of data when main players are nonresident.
- Recommended testing and pilot data collection:
  - The drafting team recommends testing with volunteer countries/entities including:
    - (a) countries with significant mining activity (examples given: Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Malta, Canada, and the US);
    - (b) countries with many crypto exchanges/wallet providers (examples given: US, UK, and Singapore);
    - (c) countries that are intensive users of crypto assets (examples given: Nigeria, Philippines, El Salvador, Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam);
    - (d) large enterprises that accept bitcoin or other crypto assets as payment.
  - The drafting team recommends countries share crypto asset data collected through international organizations to resolve asymmetries and improve cross‑country consistency.
- Risks highlighted:
  - New digital money (foreign CBDCs or CAWLM) circulating domestically could undermine residency‑based monetary and external statistics, especially in fragile countries.
  - The guidance note illustrates two scenarios for CBDC data sharing; one scenario posits five countries issue CBDC by end of 2021 and agree to report holders’ data to a central IMF unit to permit compilers elsewhere to identify holdings by residents.

### Practical data collection items and example questionnaire elements
- Specific data items by entity (selected exact items):
  - Mining enterprise or validation provider:
    - Holding gains/losses on crypto assets.
    - Input costs: Electricity; Equipment; Employment; Labor costs (or hours spent).
    - Receipt of transaction fees in crypto assets: Explicit fees (existing coins); Block reward (new coins) in the case of CAWLM; Sale of crypto assets (in exchange for fiat currency or other assets).
  - Example survey items for a Bitcoin mining company:
    1. Number of Bitcoins mined during the period — Units.
    2. Value of Bitcoins mined (at price of the day of the transaction) — USD.
    3. Explicit Fee received for validating the transactions (in Bitcoins) — Value — Units / USD.
    4. Input costs related to mining/validation services — USD (Electricity; Maintenance of equipment; Labor costs; Other input costs).
    5. Use of Bitcoins — sold to resident exchanges; sold to nonresident exchanges; transferred to head office/others; payments for purchase of goods and services; Other uses (Number / Value — Units / USD).

### Future issues flagged
- Rapid evolution of crypto asset types may require revisiting recommendations.
- NFTs require separate treatment; classification options include treating NFTs according to the underlying digital asset (e.g., valuables for digital artwork) or as certificates of authenticity (comparable to permits).
- Noted NFT sale examples and exact figures:
  - Beeple “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” sold for $69.3 million.
  - NBA Top Shot LeBron James highlight sold for $208,000.

*Source: IMF guidance note "f18 — The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics", International Monetary Fund.*

### SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics - SECTION I: THE ISSUE

### Background
- Recent years saw a significant proliferation in the number and types of crypto assets; no universal or consistent taxonomy exists yet and guidance on how to record them in macroeconomic statistics is still largely absent.
- The IMF and the OECD began exploring statistical measurement of crypto assets in 2018, with discussions at the IMF’s Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics (Committee), the OECD Working Party on Financial Statistics (WPFS), and the Advisory Expert Group (AEG) on National Accounts, feeding into interim guidance.
- An IMF paper was published in 2019; the OECD issued updated proposals in 2020.
- The guidance note (GN) presents the current consensus on recording most types of crypto assets and discusses four recording options (with pros and cons) for:
  - Crypto assets without a corresponding liability designed to act as a general medium of exchange (CAWLM)
  - Crypto assets designed to act as a medium of exchange within a platform only (payment tokens without a corresponding liability, CAWLP)
- The GN focuses on CAWLM while noting the same line of reasoning applies to CAWLP; both will be classified similarly in terms of financial versus nonfinancial and produced versus non-produced, but kept in separate (sub)categories to reflect scope differences.
- Classification should be based on macroeconomic statistics principles while assessing policy/regulatory/legal user arguments and international accounting standards; alignment with monetary authorities, financial regulators, BIS, and IMF perspectives is desirable.

### Issues for Discussion
- Issue 1: Typology of Crypto Assets
  - Crypto assets are digital representations of value that rely on cryptography and decentralized peer-to-peer architecture based on distributed ledger technology (DLT).
  - Developing a sufficiently granular classification is important because several types may require different recording and users want separate information; IMF (2019) and OECD (2020) proposals are broadly in line.

### Typology: Current broad grouping
- Crypto assets can be grouped into three broad categories:
  - Crypto assets designed to act as a general medium of exchange:
    - with a corresponding liability:
      - issued by a monetary authority (e.g., central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) that qualify as crypto assets)
      - not issued by a monetary authority (e.g., stablecoins with a claim on the issuer)
    - without a corresponding liability (CAWLM) (e.g., crypto assets such as Bitcoin)
  - Crypto assets that act as a medium of exchange within a platform or network (payment tokens):
    - with a corresponding liability
    - without a corresponding liability (CAWLP)
  - Security tokens (which always have a counterpart liability):
    - Debt security crypto assets (e.g., Bond-i)
    - Equity crypto assets
    - Derivative crypto assets (i.e., derivative contracts that rely on cryptography and can be exchanged peer-to-peer even if the underlying asset is not a crypto asset)
- Notes on classification scope and exclusions:
  - Hybrid tokens should be classified into one of the other categories according to their main characteristics.
  - New types like non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are omitted from this GN; NFTs are not intended as a medium of exchange and raise separate classification challenges. The GN recommends that NFTs be addressed in a separate guidance note coordinated by the Digitalisation Task Team (see Annex VII “Future Issues”).

### Classification: Asset boundary and consensus
- Consensus points:
  - All crypto assets meet the asset boundary because institutional units holding them have ownership rights, they act as a store of value, can be exchanged for goods and services, and provide economic benefits and risks to the holder.
  - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability should be recorded as financial assets:
    - Debt security crypto assets recorded as debt securities.
    - Equity crypto assets recorded as equity.
    - Derivative crypto assets recorded as financial derivatives.
  - Payment tokens with a corresponding liability are negotiable instruments serving as evidence of debt and qualify as a form of debt securities; a separate subcategory for payment tokens with a corresponding liability is advisable.
  - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability designed to act as a general medium of exchange:
    - If issued by a monetary authority, classify as currency.
    - If issued by a non-monetary authority, record under a new, distinct financial asset category to separate them from traditional currency and deposits.
- The GN focuses on recording CAWLM and addresses two core questions:
  - Whether CAWLM are financial or nonfinancial assets.
  - If nonfinancial, whether they are produced or non-produced; and how to account for activities related to their creation.

### Issue 2a: Are CAWLM Financial or Nonfinancial Assets?
- Definitions and reference framework:
  - Financial assets: “Financial assets consist of all financial claims [...], shares or other equity in corporations plus gold bullion held by monetary authorities as a reserve asset” (2008 SNA, paragraph 11.8). A financial claim is “the payment or series of payments due to the creditor by the debtor under the terms of a liability” (2008 SNA, paragraph 11.7). Monetary gold is an exception where no corresponding liability is recorded.
  - Nonfinancial assets: derive value from benefits obtained from (direct or indirect) use in production activities, except valuables which are produced goods held as stores of value (2008 SNA paragraphs 10.13 and 9.57).
- Observations on CAWLM characteristics:
  - CAWLM appear hybrid/undefined: they have features of both financial (designed as medium of exchange) and nonfinancial assets (no corresponding liability) but do not fully meet either statistical definition.
  - Three different statistical approaches to CAWLM are possible.
- Approach 1: Treatment of CAWLM as a New Type of Nonfinancial Asset
  - Rationale:
    - Following the counterpart liability criterion, CAWLM lack a corresponding liability and therefore would not be classified as financial assets (excepting monetary gold historically).
    - Treating CAWLM as another exception could open the door for other commodities frequently traded in financial markets for store-of-value properties (e.g., silver and nonmonetary gold) to become financial assets.
    - Recording CAWLM as financial assets without a counterpart liability could create inconsistencies between the sum of financial assets and the sum of liabilities worldwide.

*Source: IMF guidance note "f18 — The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics", SECTION I: THE ISSUE.*

### 14.      Considering the main role that CAWLM currently seem to play in financial markets (i.e., as

### The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics

### Classification and current assessment of CAWLM
- CAWLM currently function primarily as a store of value with high volatility rather than as a medium of exchange.
- The guidance note argues there is not a strong enough basis to create an exception to the counterpart liability criterion (similar to monetary gold) to classify CAWLM as financial assets at this point.
- Monetary gold has been an exception since the first edition of the Balance of Payments Manual (published in 1948) because of:
  - its role in international payments and reserves management when the IMF was founded in 1944, including that 25 percent of initial quota subscriptions and subsequent quota increases were to be paid in gold; and
  - its favorable characteristics as a reserve asset in terms of liquidity, return, and safety.
- Public trust in CAWLM derives from the strength of their underlying technology and their network of miners/validators, rather than formal backing by monetary authorities.

### Monetary-statistics and broad-money considerations
- Broad money aggregates share the characteristic of low volatility, which CAWLM lack; many CAWLM are designed with fixed supply (e.g., Bitcoin) and therefore lack low volatility.
- If evidence emerges that a CAWLM has a stable value and acts as a widely accepted medium of exchange, it could meet the definition of broad money in the MFSMCG (paragraph 6.11) and be treated as a financial asset in that context.
- Given current characteristics and use (mostly as means of payment or investment rather than as a general medium of exchange), CAWLM are considered appropriately classified as nonfinancial assets for now.

### Proposal: CAWLM as a subclass of nonfinancial assets ("digital valuables")
- The guidance note proposes treating CAWLM as a type of valuable or a new subclass called “digital valuables” under nonfinancial assets unless evidence shows they act as a general medium of exchange.
- Distinctive features justifying the subclass:
  - intangibility;
  - high price volatility;
  - limited number of units that can be mined (exhaustible after a certain period), analogous to precious metals and stones.

### Approach 2 — CAWLM as a new exception to the counterpart liability criterion (treat as financial assets)
- Monetary gold is treated as a financial asset by convention because it serves as a store of value and can be used as a means of payment to settle financial claims (PSDS Guide, IMF, 2011, paragraph 3.12).
- Fiat currency could plausibly be viewed as another exception given its role facilitating economic transactions and the public trust it commands, though fiat is issued and backed by monetary authorities.
- Arguments for recording CAWLM as financial assets:
  - CAWLM derive value from acting as alternatives to traditional financial instruments or fiat currency and from users’ trust they will act (or start acting) as mediums of exchange.
  - Creating a separate asset class would distinguish CAWLM from other financial assets given lack of formal backing by central banks.
- Arguments against:
  - CAWLM do not match the existing definition of valuables (they do not derive intrinsic value from artistic/sentimental reasons).
  - Treating CAWLM as financial assets would be a break from current counterpart-liability rules and would require broadening the coverage of financial assets and creating a new subclass reflecting CAWLM properties.
- Recording CAWLM as financial assets could change consolidated national net worth from:
  - current: sum of nonfinancial assets, monetary gold, and the net claim on non-residents,
  - to: sum of nonfinancial assets, monetary gold, net claims on non-residents, and CAWLM (if CAWLM were treated as another exception).

### Approach 3 — CAWLM as a new hybrid asset class
- A hybrid asset class could reflect CAWLM’s mixed features: designed as medium-of-exchange instruments (financial) but lacking counterpart liabilities (nonfinancial).
- Under the hybrid approach:
  - Acquisitions of goods and services with existing CAWLM would be treated as acquisitions against financial assets (not barter).
  - Net acquisitions of existing CAWLM against other assets would not be treated as capital formation.
  - Creation of new CAWLM would be treated as production contributing to capital formation, similar to produced nonfinancial assets.
- Transactions would be treated differently depending on whether they involve creation of new CAWLM or exchange of existing CAWLM.
- One technical option: introduce a new account between the capital account and the financial account to record transactions in existing CAWLM (but not creation of new CAWLM, which would remain capital formation).
- Introducing a new account implies:
  - a new balancing item and changes to the definition or interpretation of net lending/net borrowing (2008 SNA, paragraph 10.28; BPM6, paragraph 2.18);
  - two model variants depending on whether net lending/net borrowing is the balancing item of the financial account or of the capital account (Annex III):
    - If net lending/net borrowing is maintained as balancing item of the financial account (Model 2), the new balancing item would reflect “the difference between changes in net worth due to saving and capital transfers and net acquisitions of non-financial assets (acquisitions less disposals of nonfinancial assets, less consumption of fixed capital)”; net lending/net borrowing would be re-defined as acquisition of financial assets net of incurrence in liabilities.
    - If net lending/net borrowing remains as the balancing item of the capital account (Model 1), its definition would remain roughly unchanged and the new balancing item would cover net acquisition of financial assets net of incurrence in liabilities; no equality would exist between the capital-account and financial-account balancing items.
- Benefits of the hybrid approach:
  - avoids treating payments with CAWLM as barter transactions while not equating CAWLM with traditional financial assets that have counterpart liabilities;
  - international trade effects on the current account would be the same whether payments are made with financial assets or CAWLM;
  - capital formation would be unaffected by payments with CAWLM, consistent with payments using financial assets.
- Operational challenges:
  - separating and tracking newly created versus existing CAWLM in practice may be difficult, especially for mineable CAWLM.

### Accounting for activities that create CAWLM (Issue 2b)
- Mineable CAWLM typically enter circulation through miners solving cryptographic puzzles (proof-of-work) using:
  - algorithmic solutions protected by intellectual property;
  - specialized computing equipment;
  - considerable energy to operate and cool machines;
  - substantial time to solve puzzles.
- Non-mineable CAWLM enter circulation via:
  - explicit sales; and/or
  - payments to validators using alternative consensus mechanisms (e.g., proof-of-stake, proof-of-authority).
- The designer of a CAWLM determines the issuance method (explicit sales, proof-of-stake, proof-of-work, etc.).
- Treatment implications:
  - If CAWLM are treated as hybrid assets, production-related creation of new CAWLM could be recorded as capital formation (produced assets), while exchanges in existing CAWLM would be recorded in the proposed transactions account for existing CAWLM.
  - Transactions in CAWLM after production are considered transactions in existing assets and would not appear in the current account of the balance of payments; thus, transactions in hybrid assets will not affect the current account once produced by a mining entity.

*Source: IMF guidance note on the recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics.*

### 29.      The activities related to the emergence of new CAWLM coins are regarded as production

### f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics - 29.      The activities related to the emergence of new CAWLM coins are regarded as production

### Treatment of CAWLM: Two alternative approaches
- Approach 1 — Regard CAWLM as produced assets:
  - New CAWLM come into existence as a result of miners solving cryptographic puzzles or are created and brought into circulation by their designer; miners (or issuers of non-mineable coins) can be considered responsible for production.
  - Miners’ output viewed as two components: an explicit validation fee (services consumed) and newly mined CAWLM (capital formation in national accounts).
  - Practical rationale: miners using highly efficient machines (example technical specifications: "14 TH/s" and capacity to mine "0.03600399 Bitcoin per month" for the Bitmain AntMiner S9) have higher chances of producing most new CAWLM.
  - Implementation implications:
    - Straightforward and easily implementable.
    - If CAWLM were treated as non-produced, specific assumptions would be needed to assign initial ownership; two difficult-to-implement alternatives are noted: (i) new CAWLM brought into circulation by miners but not seen as production, or (ii) initial ownership attributed to designer or holders of existing coins (both may create bilateral asymmetries).
    - If miners’ costs are to be recognized without treating coins as produced, an additional assumption might be needed that costs relate to production of a separate intellectual property product (IPP).

- Approach 2 — Regard CAWLM as non-produced assets:
  - Miners’ activities can be treated as production of validation services or as enhancement/maintenance of a crypto asset framework IPP rather than production of the asset itself.
  - Consistency across validation types: validators who receive only explicit fees and validators who receive explicit fees plus new coins are engaged in similar activities; treating coins as non-produced aligns recording across these cases.
  - New coins could be treated as creation “off production” and brought into circulation according to the designer’s setup; miners are remunerated for validation (explicit fee and implicit fee in the form of new coin).
  - If treated as enhancements of the crypto asset payment and settlement framework, mining activities could be treated as gross capital formation or regular maintenance of an IPP (analogous to mineral exploration and evaluation).
  - Main challenge: accounting for the “off production” creation and allocation of newly created coins—who benefits and thus who is the initial owner (designer, owners of existing coins, miners).

### Allocation of newly released coins when treated as non-produced
- One approach: regard the designer as initial owner (more sensible when coins are sold explicitly).
- Alternative approach: regard owners of existing CAWLM (coins already in circulation) as initial owners when new coins are brought into circulation in exchange for production activities (proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, proof-of-authority).
  - Rationale: existing owners benefit from increased use and acceptance of CAWLM and receive compensation for dilution in the form of newly released coins.
  - Mechanism: new coins are “released” to owners of existing coins via other changes in the volume of assets; those owners then distribute them (indirectly) to new owners (e.g., miners) as payment for production activity.
  - If production is capital formation of IPPs, a positive other change in volume of CAWLM would be offset by a negative one for the IPP.
- Implementation requires detailed information on transactions by counterparty, stocks, and miner activities (explicit fees, block rewards, etc.); availability of such data is currently unclear.

### Outcomes: Typology and classification consensus
- Consensus points:
  - Broad agreement to distinguish types of crypto assets as described in earlier material.
  - All crypto assets meet the asset boundary (see referenced arguments).
  - Crypto assets with a corresponding liability should be recorded as financial assets, with specific classifications:
    - Crypto assets designed to act as general medium of exchange, with a corresponding liability:
      - issued by a monetary authority — classified as currency under “currency and deposits” (AF.2).
      - not issued by a monetary authority — classified under a separate new asset class.
    - Crypto assets that only act as a medium of exchange within a platform or network (payment tokens), with a corresponding liability — classified under a separate subcategory under “debt securities” (AF.3).
    - Security crypto assets (always have a counterpart liability):
      - Debt security crypto assets (and utility tokens) — classified under “debt securities” (AF.3), possibly with separate subcategory for utility tokens.
      - Equity crypto assets — classified under “equity and investment fund shares and units” (AF.5).
      - Derivative crypto assets — classified under “derivatives and employee stock options” (AF.7).
- Recording of CAWLM designed as a general medium of exchange is addressed in sub-issues; payment tokens without a corresponding liability (CAWLP) recommended to be classified in line with CAWLM, in a separate (sub)class.

### Four classification options considered (treatment of CAWLM and mining-related activities)
- Option I: Produced Nonfinancial Assets
  - CAWLM are nonfinancial produced assets; expenditure counterpart is capital formation by producers.
  - Pros:
    - Consistent with counterpart liability criterion as applicable to all financial assets except monetary gold.
    - Consistent with some international accounting standards and some regulators’ views (including IMF).
    - Consistent with CAWLM first appearing in miners’ wallets.
    - Adds to capital formation.
  - Implementation requirement: expand or change category of produced nonfinancial assets (e.g., definition of valuables).
  - Notes: May lead to barter trade when CAWLM used as medium of exchange (currently limited).

- Option II: Non-Produced Nonfinancial Assets
  - CAWLM are non-produced nonfinancial assets “released” to owners of existing coins via other changes in volume of assets; distributed to new owners (miners) in exchange for validation services or IPP enhancement/maintenance.
  - Pros:
    - Consistent with counterpart liability criterion.
    - Consistent with viewing miners as receiving coins in exchange for validation services or IPP maintenance/enhancement.
    - Ensures consistent recording across mineable and non-mineable CAWLM and across validation types.
    - Adds to production/consumption/trade in services or to capital formation for IPP creation.
  - Implementation requirement: expand category of non-produced nonfinancial assets (e.g., contracts, leases and licenses).
  - Caveat: practical implementation may require assumptions on counterpart of implicit validation fee or IPP payment, potentially affecting bilateral asymmetries.

- Option III: Financial Assets
  - CAWLM treated as financial assets “released” to owners of existing coins via other changes in volume of assets; distributed to new owners as payment.
  - Pros:
    - Consistent with the definition of nonfinancial assets (note: text states "Consistent with the definition of nonfinancial assets" but labels this option as Financial Assets).
  - Cons:
    - Inconsistent with counterpart liability criterion for financial assets (except monetary gold); would require an update adding an exception and might open door for other commodities to be regarded as financial assets.
    - Holdings of CAWLM could increase a country’s net financial position without counterpart, creating inconsistency between total financial assets and liabilities globally and complicating IIP interpretation.
    - Practical implementation may require assumptions on counterpart of implicit validation fee or IPP payment, risking bilateral asymmetries.
  - Adds to production/consumption/trade in services or capital formation for IPP creation.

- Option IV: Hybrid Assets
  - CAWLM are produced assets (outcome of miners’ or creators’ activity) with expenditure counterpart as capital formation; transactions in existing CAWLM are treated like financial transactions.
  - Pros:
    - Consistent with current definitions of financial and nonfinancial assets.
    - Consistent with CAWLM appearing first in miners’ wallets.
    - Adds to capital formation.
    - Does not lead to barter trade when CAWLM is used as medium of exchange (limited at present).
  - Cons:
    - Requires creation of a new asset category and a new account.

### Main implementation challenges and data needs
- Precise recording under any approach requires:
  - Detailed information on transactions of CAWLM by counterparty.
  - Stocks of CAWLM.
  - Activities of miners (explicit fees, block rewards through new coins, etc.).
- Uncertainty remains whether sufficient information will be available to compile macroeconomic aggregates pertaining to CAWLM.

*International Monetary Fund*

### 45.      FITT members broadly supported the recommendations and related discussion on the

### The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics

### FITT members' overall views and discussion themes
- FITT members broadly supported the recommendations and related discussion on:
  - the distinction of crypto assets,
  - the asset treatment of crypto assets with corresponding liability,
  - the four classification options for CAWLM, including related pros/cons (Questions 1–5).
- Comments and suggestions from members included:
  - The description of Option IV (hybrid asset approach) requires further elaboration and has similar properties to the treatment of valuables—nonmonetary gold.
  - Consideration of the recommendations of Task Team-International Standard Industrial Classification once available.
  - Support for providing a recommendation on classification of CAWLM based on theoretical/conceptual considerations rather than relying solely on testing.

### Preliminary positions on classification options for CAWLM (Question 6)
- Views were split between Option I and Options III and IV; two members provided no preliminary views.
- Arguments supporting Option I:
  - CAWLM are far from being widely used as a medium of exchange.
  - Introducing an additional exception to the counterparty liability criterion is inappropriate because CAWLM lack the low volatility common to money-like instruments that constitute broad money.
  - With Option I, the national accounts community must broaden the scope of valuables in paragraph 10.13 of the 2008 SNA to include digital valuables.
- Arguments supporting Options III and IV:
  - Option IV supporter: CAWLM could be included in valuables at their creation but not after they have been transferred (i.e., beyond the year of first creation).
  - Another member: mining for CAWLM is a production activity (as is gold mining), but transactions in pre-existing valuables like non-monetary gold and bitcoin should be regarded as financial in nature.
  - A supporting member noted that if CAWLM becomes the dominant medium of exchange in the long run, they could be classified as a hybrid asset at that point and only if creating a new category is appropriate.
  - Recommendation that assets with similar attributes (e.g., non-monetary gold and other precious metals traded on similar exchanges) be treated analogously.

### Consensus on approach and testing (Question 7)
- Several members questioned using testing to inform the final recommendation and suggested a recommendation should be provided on conceptual grounds only.
- Nevertheless, the drafting team recommends a testing phase to gain information on:
  - practical challenges of measuring CAWLM,
  - how specific macroeconomic aggregates are affected under each recording option discussed.

### Next steps and data collection recommendations
- Although no definitive recommendation is provided for how to classify CAWLM, the drafting team recommends countries begin collecting data to measure transactions and stocks of these assets and compile related statistics.
- Preferred set of volunteer countries/entities should preferably include:
  - (a) countries with significant mining activity related to Bitcoins and other crypto assets (examples given: Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Malta, Canada, and the US);
  - (b) countries with many crypto exchanges/wallet providers (examples given: US, UK, and Singapore);
  - (c) countries that are intensive users of crypto assets (examples given: Nigeria, Philippines, El Salvador, Argentina, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam);
  - (d) large enterprises that accept bitcoin or other crypto assets as payment.
- Rationale: information about acceptance by large enterprises is important to assess use of CAWLM as a medium of exchange.
- Testing phase value:
  - provides insight on practical measurement challenges,
  - informs how macroeconomic aggregates are affected under each recording option.
- Data collection guidance:
  - The four approaches require about the same information to compile accurate and detailed statistics.
  - Testing countries should collect data on CAWLM ownership and transactions from households, corporations, government, and non-profit entities.
  - Annex VI contains recommendations on data items and a sample questionnaire for CAWLM mining entities.
- Data sharing recommendation:
  - The drafting team recommends that countries share through international organizations crypto assets’ data they collect to resolve asymmetries arising from the decentralized CAWLM economy and fill missing information.

### IMF internal user perspectives on CAWLM without corresponding liability (Annex I)
- Main takeaways from an internal IMF consultation:
  - Strong preference to maintain, for now, the current statistical treatment of CAWLM and digital tokens without counterpart liabilities as nonfinancial assets.
  - Important to continue monitoring developments: market trends, CAWLM adoption and usage, and use of CAWLM as a means of international payment, because these can evolve fast.
  - If CAWLM were to be classified as financial assets, concerns arise about conflicts with central banks, regulators, and IFRS, and about legitimizing highly speculative investments and potential financial integrity and consumer protection issues.
  - Widely viewed that CAWLM are not anticipated, for now, to become a significant medium of exchange given the growth of stablecoins and the high possibility that central banks will issue CBDCs.
  - The possibility of creating a separate statistical category for “hybrid assets” such as CAWLM could be explored.
  - Some support for viewing cryptos as “hybrid assets” with features of both financial and nonfinancial assets (no counterpart liability but higher liquidity and potential use as means of payment).
  - Legal/user perspective considerations: classification of financial assets depends on the legal relationship between holder and providers in the ecosystem and private law implications on rights and obligations.
  - Important to consider whether CAWLM would achieve significant market depth (capitalization) and liquidity (ease of convertibility) to pose systemic financial stability risks.

### Decision frameworks and typologies (Annex II.1 and II.2; Annex III sequence of accounts)
- Decision tree and typology:
  - A decision tree is provided to assist in classifying crypto assets in the overall framework of digital assets (not exhaustive).
  - Typology distinguishes assets that always have a counterpart liability and those that may be hybrid or utility tokens providing future access to goods or services.
- Sequence of accounts for hybrid assets (two model options):
  - Model 1 retains B9 Net lending (+)/net borrowing (-) as the balancing item of the capital account; introduces an Acquisition of hybrid assets account and AH hybrid assets entries in capital accounts and a separate H acquisitions less disposals of hybrid assets in acquisition account.
  - Model 2 retains B9 Net lending (+)/net borrowing (-) as the balancing item of the financial account; introduces B9C Net change in holdings and modifies where hybrid assets are reflected and how net lending/net borrowing are calculated across accounts.
- Both models present alternative placements of hybrid assets and implications for the net lending/net borrowing balancing item and calculation with errors and omissions.

### Numerical examples and key accounting differences (Annex IV)
- Example 1: Use of CAWLM in cross-border purchase of goods
  - Scenario: Country B purchases units of CAWLM from Country C for US$100. Country B imports goods of US$80 from Country A and pays with CAWLM.
  - Main differences in recording for Goods Exporter (Country A), Goods Importer (Country B), and CAWLM Seller (Country C) under four treatments: Valuable, Permits, Financial Asset, Hybrid Asset (Model 1).
  - Selected exact figures shown in example tables:
    - Country A: Net saving +80 for all four treatments; Net lending/borrowing 0 for Valuable and Permits, +80 for Financial Asset and Hybrid Asset; Change in stock of nonfinancial assets +80 for Valuable and Permits, - for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of financial assets - for Valuable and Permits, +80 for Financial, - for Hybrid; Change in stock of hybrid assets - for Valuable/Permits/Financial, +80 for Hybrid; Current account balance 0 for Valuable, +80 for Permits/Financial/Hybrid.
    - Country B: Net saving -80 for all four treatments; Net lending/borrowing -100 for Valuable and Permits, -80 for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of nonfinancial assets +20 for Valuable and Permits, - for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of financial assets -100 for Valuable and Permits, -80 for Financial, -100 for Hybrid; Change in stock of hybrid assets - for Valuable/Permits/Financial, +20 for Hybrid; Current account balance -100 for Valuable, -80 for Permits/Financial/Hybrid.
    - Country C: Net saving 0 for all treatments; Net lending/borrowing +100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of nonfinancial assets -100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of financial assets +100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial, +100 for Hybrid; Change in stock of hybrid assets - for Valuable/Permits/Financial, -100 for Hybrid; Current account balance +100 for Valuable, 0 for Permits/Financial/Hybrid.
  - International Investment Position (IIP) implication:
    - When CAWLM is a financial asset, net effect on IIP is zero when purchased with or sold for currency.
    - When CAWLM is classified otherwise, net effect on IIP is negative when purchased with currency and positive when sold for currency.
  - Current account impact:
    - If recorded as nonfinancial asset, purchases show up as barter trade: recording as valuable does not affect current account balance; recording as a non-produced nonfinancial asset does not affect net lending/borrowing.
- Example 2: Use of CAWLM as an alternative investment vehicle
  - Scenario: Country B purchases CAWLM from Country A for US$100, holds it, and value increases to US$120.
  - Selected exact figures shown in example tables:
    - Seller (Country A): Net saving 0 for all treatments; Net lending/borrowing +100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of nonfinancial assets -100 for Valuable and Permits, - for Financial, 0 for Hybrid; Change in stock of financial assets +100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial, +100 for Hybrid; Current account balance 100 for Valuable, 0 otherwise; Change in net international investment position +100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial, +100 for Hybrid.
    - Holder (Country B): Net saving 0 for all treatments; Net lending/borrowing -100 for Valuable and Permits, 0 for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of nonfinancial assets +120 for Valuable and Permits, - for Financial and Hybrid; Change in stock of financial assets -100 for Valuable and Permits, +20 for Financial, -100 for Hybrid; Change in stock of hybrid assets - for Valuable/Permits/Financial, +120 for Hybrid; Change in net worth +20 for all treatments; Current account balance -100 for Valuable, 0 otherwise; Change in net international investment position -100 for Valuable and Permits, +20 for Financial, -100 for Hybrid.
- Conclusion summary from numerical examples:
  - Main differences between the four treatment options emerge in net lending/borrowing and the stock of assets.
  - When CAWLM are treated as nonfinancial assets, net lending/borrowing is the same because acquisition less disposal of valuables and of permits are recorded in the capital account.
  - When CAWLM are treated as financial or hybrid assets, net lending/borrowing reflects only the part of the transaction involving current and capital accounts.
  - Country-specific outcomes vary by treatment: e.g., Country A records increases in different asset categories depending on treatment; Country B typically records a decrease in financial assets when currency is used; Country C records differing impacts depending on classification.
  - International accounts: classifying CAWLM as financial assets can neutralize IIP effects when exchanged for currency; other classifications can produce positive or negative IIP effects.

### Questions for discussion (exact text)
- 1) Do you agree with the distinction of crypto assets proposed in paragraph 5?
- 2) Do you agree that all crypto assets meet the asset boundary?
- 3) Do you agree that all crypto assets with a corresponding liability should be recorded as financial assets?
- 4) Do you agree that the main questions on the classification of CAWLM discussed in the GN are (i) whether they concern financial or nonfinancial assets, and (ii) how to account for their creation?
- 5) Do you have any suggestions on the digital assets’ decision tree (Annex II.1) and typology of crypto assets (Annex II.2)?
- 6) Do you agree with considering the four classification options for CAWLM as well as related pros and cons presented in the GN? Are there any other options and pros and cons that should be considered, if so please specify?
- 7) Do you have any views on the classification options for CAWLM and CAWLP? If so, please explain your preference.
- 8) Do you agree that the countries should start collecting data on ownership, transactions, and stocks of crypto assets following the high-level guidance provided in Annex VI?
- 9) Do you agree that the classification of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) be addressed in a separate guidance note (under the Digitalization Task Team)?

*FITT drafting team; IMF guidance note on the recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics.*

### Conclusion:

### The recording of crypto assets in macroeconomic statistics — Conclusion

### Key conclusions on recording options
- Different recording options do not lead to differences in gross value added but lead to differences in type of output.
- When CAWLM are treated as a permit or a financial asset, the full output is recorded as validation service.
- When CAWLM are recorded as a valuable or hybrid asset, part of the output concerns the creation of a new coin.
- Recording as a nonfinancial or hybrid asset versus a financial asset leads to differences in net lending/borrowing because net lending/borrowing reflects the difference between changes in net worth due to saving and capital transfers and net acquisitions of nonfinancial assets.
  - For hybrid assets, only the creation of the asset and not the acquisition of existing ones for the payment of validation services contributes to net lending/net borrowing.
- Different recordings lead to differences in stocks of the different asset categories, although they do not lead to differences in overall net worth.
- In the international accounts, recording CAWLM as different kinds of assets leads to different outcomes for net lending/borrowing and for the change in the international investment position (IIP) because in the example crypto assets are included in the IIP if treated as financial assets (in line with the recording of monetary gold). The GN notes that it still needs to be discussed if this is the preferred approach.
- Recording as produced or non-produced nonfinancial assets leads to the same net lending/borrowing but to different current account results:
  - If recorded as a valuable, the payment of CAWLM in exchange for validation services is fully recorded as barter trade and does not affect the current account.
  - If recorded as a non-produced nonfinancial asset, the delivery of the validation service is reflected in the current account, whereas the payment is reflected in the capital account.
  - If recorded as a hybrid asset, the current account reflects the provision of validation services and the capital account only the production of the new coins.

### Example 3 — Mineable coin: illustrative transactions and accounting differences
- Transactional assumptions:
  - Country B consumer pays a transaction fee of US$10 in existing CAWLM.
  - Country A miner receives US$90 in new CAWLM as a Block reward.
  - Miner incurs US$80 of electricity input.
- Main numerical outcomes for the Miner in Country A (values depend on recording option; listed exactly as in GN):
  - Output of validation services: Valuable 10; Permits 100; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 10
  - Output of CAWLM: Valuable 90; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 90
  - Gross Value Added: 20 in all options
  - Net Saving: 20 in all options
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable -80; Permits -80; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -70
  - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: Valuable 100; Permits 100; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of financial assets: Valuable -80; Permits -80; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -80
  - Change in stock of hybrid assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +100
  - Change in net worth: 20 in all options except Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +20
  - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits 100; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +10
  - Net lending/borrowing (current account basis): Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +10
  - Change in IIP: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset 100; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
- Main numerical outcomes for the Transactor in Country B:
  - Consumption of validation services: Valuable 10; Permits 10; Financial Asset 10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +10
  - Net Saving: -10 in all options
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: Valuable -10; Permits -10; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of financial assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of hybrid assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Change in net worth: -10 in all options
  - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits -10; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Change in IIP: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
- Main numerical outcomes for Owners of existing CAWLM (crypto asset community):
  - Consumption of validation services: Valuable -; Permits 90; Financial Asset 90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Net Saving: Valuable -; Permits -90; Financial Asset -90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable -; Permits 0; Financial Asset -90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Other changes in volume of assets: Valuable -; Permits 90; Financial Asset 90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Change in net worth: Valuable -; Permits 0; Financial Asset 0; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Current account balance: Valuable -; Permits -90; Financial Asset -90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Change in IIP: Valuable -; Permits 0; Financial Asset -90; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -

- GN conclusion for mineable coin example:
  - Different recording options produce the same gross value added but different types of output.
  - Recording as nonfinancial or hybrid asset versus financial asset leads to differences in net lending/borrowing and in stocks of asset categories, but not in overall net worth.
  - Inclusion of crypto assets in the IIP when treated as financial assets (as per monetary gold analogy) creates different international account outcomes; this treatment requires further discussion.

### Example 3 — Non-mineable coin: illustrative transactions and accounting differences
- Transactional assumptions:
  - Country B consumer pays a transaction fee of US$10 in existing CAWLM.
  - Country A entity receives US$15 in new CAWLM as a Block reward.
  - Entity incurs US$5 of electricity input.
- Main numerical outcomes for the Miner/Entity in Country A:
  - Output of validation services: 25 in all options
  - Output of CAWLM: 0 in all options (no new coin output recorded)
  - Gross Value Added: 20 in all options
  - Net Saving: 20 in all options
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable -5; Permits -5; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +20
  - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: Valuable 25; Permits 25; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of financial assets: Valuable -5; Permits -5; Financial Asset 20; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -5
  - Change in stock of hybrid assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +25
  - Change in net worth: 20 in all options except Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +20
  - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits 25; Financial Asset 25; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +25
  - Net lending/borrowing (current account basis): Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset 25; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +25
  - Change in IIP: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset 25; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
- Main numerical outcomes for the Transactor in Country B:
  - Consumption of validation services: 10 in all options
  - Net Saving: -10 in all options
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Change in stock of nonfinancial assets: Valuable -10; Permits -10; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of financial assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
  - Change in stock of hybrid assets: Valuable -; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits -10; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -10
  - Change in IIP: Valuable 0; Permits 0; Financial Asset -10; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) 0
- Main numerical outcomes for Owners of existing CAWLM:
  - Output of CAWLM: Valuable 15; Permits -; Financial Asset -; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Consumption of validation services: Valuable 15; Permits 15; Financial Asset 15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +15
  - Net Saving: Valuable 0; Permits -15; Financial Asset -15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -15
  - Net lending/borrowing: Valuable 0; Permits -15; Financial Asset -15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -15
  - Other changes in volume of assets: Valuable -; Permits 15; Financial Asset 15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) +15
  - Change in net worth: 0 in all options except Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -
  - Current account balance: Valuable 0; Permits -15; Financial Asset -15; Hybrid Asset (Model 1) -15
  - Change in IIP: 0 in all options
- GN conclusion for non-mineable coin example:
  - Different recording options lead to the same values of gross value added and to the same types of output (unlike the mineable coin).
  - Recording as a nonfinancial asset versus financial or hybrid asset leads to differences in net lending/borrowing and in stocks of asset types, but overall net worth is the same in all options.
  - International account differences mirror those for mineable coins.
  - The only practical difference between mineable and non-mineable coins in these examples is that, when CAWLM are recorded as a valuable, output for a non-mineable coin is entirely validation services, whereas for a mineable coin part of output is the creation of a new coin.

### Annex V — Measurement challenges (practical feasibility)
- Core measurement issue: obtaining relevant information on the emergence, ownership, and use of crypto assets; further exploration required in testing the GN guidance.
- Specific concerns:
  - The pseudo-anonymous nature of crypto asset transactions, despite transaction recording in a digital ledger (usually public, as with bitcoin).
  - Difficulty of assigning geography to transactions and positions when residency of senders and recipients is unknown because owners of digital addresses are unknown.
  - Difficulty of valuing positions and separating flows from valuation changes given high variance in crypto asset prices.
  - Current lack of comprehensive data on economic use of crypto assets in the national and international economy.
- Required data to implement classification recommendations:
  - Mining activities: where mining takes place, inputs used, block rewards, and residency of transactors whose transactions are validated.
  - Stocks of crypto assets by various economic actors in the country (potentially collectible by tax authorities).
  - Flows of crypto assets between countries and institutional sectors (potentially collectible by tax authorities or via cooperation with crypto asset exchanges or service providers).
  - Use of crypto assets as medium of exchange: information on use by entities in purchasing specific goods and services (possibly broken down into domestic purchases and purchases abroad) and on acceptance by sellers.
- Need for cross-country data sharing:
  - Explore sharing data from crypto asset exchanges and crypto asset service providers across countries to improve data quality and cross-country consistency.
- Global data needs:
  - Timely data collection on cases where crypto assets act as a general medium of exchange, to measure money, liquidity aggregates, and international capital flows at relatively high frequency.
  - New digital moneys such as CBDCs and stablecoins are likely to be issued by nonresident financial intermediaries, limiting access for national compilers.
  - If Bitcoin and other CAWLM become significant instruments for payments and store of value, similar data availability concerns apply.
- Risks to statistics and policy analysis:
  - Successful implementation of CBDCs and crypto assets may seriously undermine measurement of money, liquidity aggregates, and international capital flows when foreign CBDCs or crypto assets circulate domestically and data are unavailable to national compilers.
  - Available commercial data lack key breakdowns (country of residence and institutional sector) of parties in digital money transactions or positions.
  - Collaboration among central banks issuing CBDC and among regulators of countries with crypto asset issuers and/or hosting digital money exchanges and wallets is needed.
- Particular vulnerability of fragile countries:
  - New digital money poses a significant global threat to residency-based macroeconomic statistics, especially in fragile and unstable countries with weak fiat currencies lacking capacity to restrict use of foreign digital money or access data.
- Currency substitution challenges:
  - Currency substitution driven by foreign CBDCs or crypto assets used as medium of exchange will challenge compilation of monetary statistics and international capital flows.
  - Example risk: residents in an emerging country opening accounts in a foreign CBDC (e-RMB) for imports could rapidly change liquidity measures; compilers need to know amounts and speed of substitution.
- Data needs from central banks issuing CBDC:
  - Enhanced collaboration and data exchange among CBDC issuers required to report CBDC holdings by counterpart country and institutional sector—splitting at least into money issuers, CB and Other Depository Corporations (ODC) holdings, central government, and money holding sectors.
  - Data exchange among central banks can be facilitated by an international organization with global reach, such as the IMF; a central database could be created for CBs issuing CBDCs to report CBDC holdings by nonresidents.
- Scenarios illustrating impact of data-sharing arrangements:
  - Scenario 1: Five countries issue CBDC by end of 2021 and agree to report holder’s data to a central unit located in the IMF Statistics Department. Those five CBDCs are used globally. Compilers of Monetary and Financial Statistics in other countries access the central database to identify amounts of each CBDC held by residents in their own country and use the data in calculating monetary aggregates.
  - Scenario 2: No central database exists (bilateral arrangements needed). Compilers of MFS in countries where foreign CBDCs are used make bilateral arrangements with issuing countries. Small, low-income countries face the burden of contacting CBDC issuers, detracting from limited resources to compile high quality MFS. Situation complicated further by crypto assets when issuing jurisdictions do not collect relevant data to share.

### Annex VI — High-level guidance on crypto assets data collection
- Recommended primary data elements to collect:
  - Stock of crypto assets owned by resident institutional sectors and changes in these stocks (financial transactions, revaluations, and other changes) throughout the year, including cross-border flows and positions ideally broken down by counterpart country.
  - Data on creation of crypto assets: transaction fees—broken down into explicit fees and block rewards—paid to/received by miners and validators for clearing transactions on the blockchain and on other forms of bringing new coins into circulation. Also collect input costs (e.g., labor, machinery, electricity).
  - Data on use of crypto assets: use in purchasing goods and services by sector and use of crypto assets as an alternative investment.
- Possible data sources and collection approaches:
  - Develop a dataset collecting crypto asset ownership and transaction information from households, corporations, government, and non-profit entities.
  - Potential collectors:
    - Tax authorities (interest in identifying owners for tax purposes).
    - Regulatory bodies targeting main crypto market players (crypto asset exchanges, wallets, trading platforms) that are subject to anti-money laundering regulations requiring customer identification; caveat that these entities may not be registered domestically.
    - Surveys targeting main players in the crypto asset market (if resident) and entities involved in crypto activities or ownership.
    - International exchange of data when main players are located in other countries.
- GN recommendation: countries should begin collecting information on ownership, creation, and use of crypto assets in the domestic economy and cross-border transactions to support accurate and detailed statistics.

*Source: IMF Guidance Note (GN).*

### 3.      The f ollowing is a list of specific data items about which members should collect information. The

### The Recording of Crypto Assets in Macroeconomic Statistics — Specific Data Items and Recommendations

### Specific data items to collect (by target entity)
- Tax authorities
  - Ownership of crypto assets by businesses and individuals at beginning and end of recording period
  - Gains/losses from holding and selling crypto assets
- Retailers that accept payments in crypto assets
  - Use of crypto assets to purchase of goods and services (domestic versus non-resident)
  - Receipt of crypto assets in sale of goods and services (domestic versus non-resident)
- Mining enterprise or validation provider
  - Holding gains/losses on crypto assets
  - Input costs in relation to validation services and/or mining
    - Electricity
    - Equipment
    - Employment
    - Labor costs (or hours spent)
  - Receipt of transaction fees in crypto assets
    - Explicit fees (existing coins)
    - Block reward (new coins) in the case of CAWLM
    - Sale of crypto assets (in exchange for fiat currency or other assets)
- Crypto asset designer
  - Value of coins held at beginning and end of recording period
  - Release of new coins during the recording period (mineable or non-mineable) by counterpart country
  - Input costs in relation to design and/or management of crypto asset
    - Electricity
    - Equipment
    - Employment
    - Labour costs (or hours spent)
- Crypto asset exchange / trading platform / wallet
  - Information on use of crypto assets
  - Information on creation of new crypto assets
  - Information on revaluation of crypto assets
  - Purchase/sale of crypto assets (in exchange for fiat currency or other assets)
  - Stocks of crypto assets held by residents/non-residents and possibly sector at the beginning/end of a period

### Rationale and emerging data needs
- A recent proposal in the U.S. Senate aims to:
  - (i) collect more data on crypto assets, primarily from crypto asset exchanges, and
  - (ii) raise tax revenues from the crypto industry.
- The proposal targets exchanges because they have data on who owns crypto assets and how much, and records of who sold what crypto to whom and for how much.

### Specific recommendations for Monetary and Financial Statistics (MFS) and Balance of Payments / IIP compilers
- General observation:
  - Digital currencies or new means of payment using DLT networks (such as Bitcoin’s blockchain) challenge measurement of monetary and liquidity aggregates, and cross-border financial transactions and positions.
  - In countries with weak currencies or unbanked populations, the emergence of digital money may significantly impact monetary (currency substitution) and external sector (new cross-border payment channels) statistics.
- Recommended simplified data collection exercise characteristics:
  - Targeted Fintech Companies:
    - Resident wallet providers (for positions data, i.e., amount of crypto assets held by the different institutional sectors)
    - Resident currency exchanges (for transactions data, especially to collect cross-border transactions data)
  - Nonresident Fintech Companies:
    - Nonresident wallet providers and currency exchanges used by residents, with estimates on the share of the domestic market
    - If actual data are difficult to collect from nonresident providers, a survey among resident holders of crypto assets may estimate importance of these providers domestically
  - Data Collection (Positions):
    - Aggregated data on resident institutional unit’s holdings of crypto assets by type and broad sector classification (money issuers—CB and ODC—central government, and money holding sectors)
    - For nonresident customers, aggregated data by broad sector and country of residency
  - Data Collection (Transactions):
    - Aggregated data on resident institutional unit’s cross-border transactions in crypto assets by type and by sector and country of residency of counterparty
    - Cover purchase/sale of crypto assets by type (including CAWLM), purchase/sale of goods and services, remittances, and direct investment (e.g., real estate) using CAWLM
  - CAWLM Data Tracking:
    - Aggregated data on customer transactions and holdings of CAWLM, aiming at measuring to what extent CAWLM is used as:
      - a means of payment only (i.e., both buyers and sellers, or remittances senders and recipients immediately convert the CAWLM sent/received into fiat currency), or
      - a medium of exchange (i.e., both buyers and sellers, or remittances senders and recipients maintain positions in CAWLM, bearing the risk of appreciation/depreciation)

### Example: Possible survey questionnaire (Bitcoin Mining Company)
- Items and units suggested in the example questionnaire:
  1. Number of Bitcoins mined during the period — Units
  2. Value of Bitcoins mined (at price of the day of the transaction) — USD
  3. Explicit Fee received for validating the transactions (in Bitcoins)
     - Value — Units / USD
  4. Input costs related to mining/validation services — USD
     - a) Electricity — USD
     - b) Maintenance of equipment — USD
     - c) Labor costs — USD
     - d) Other input costs — USD
  5. Use of Bitcoins
     - a) sold to resident exchanges — Number (could be a fraction) / Value — Units / USD
     - b) sold to nonresident exchanges — Number / Value — Units / USD
     - c) transferred to head office/others — Number / Value — Units / USD
     - d) payments for purchase of goods and services — Number / Value — Units / USD
     - e) Other uses

### Future issues highlighted by the Guidance Note (GN)
- Rapid change in crypto asset landscape:
  - The arguments and recommendations in the GN are based on the drafting team’s best understanding of the most common CAWLM at the time of writing; significant developments may necessitate changing recommendations.
- Emergence of new types of crypto assets:
  - Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are highlighted as a new type that may become economically relevant.
- Characteristics and classification challenges for NFTs:
  - NFTs are built on DLT and represent ownership of a unique digital asset (code on a DLT platform representing authentic ownership rights).
  - NFTs can represent artwork, video clips, music, virtual real estate, special tweets, and other collectables.
  - Examples cited:
    - In March 2021, the artist Beeple sold “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” as an NFT for $69.3 million.
    - In February 2021, an NBA Top Shot highlight of LeBron James dunking sold for $208,000.
    - NFTs have also been used for Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s original source code and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s first-ever tweet.
  - Classification options discussed:
    - Classify each NFT according to the digital asset they represent (e.g., NFTs representing digital artwork classified in valuables, akin to traditional artwork; NFTs representing music rights or other produced/non-produced non-financial assets recorded accordingly).
    - Alternatively, classify NFTs as comparable to a certificate of authenticity and ownership for the corresponding asset (and so classify like permits).
- Policy implication:
  - Economic accountants should continue monitoring significant developments in the crypto space that may necessitate changing classification and data-collection recommendations.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/data/statistics/bpm6/fitt/f18-the-recording-of-crypto-assets-in-macroeconomic-statistics.pdf_