Crypto assets may be held by a custodian for safekeeping on behalf of its customers. Arrangements for holding crypto assets can vary, but generally a contract, or terms and conditions, sets out the nature of the arrangement.

If a reporting entity determines that it has control of the crypto assets, the reporting entity records the crypto assets on its balance sheet based on the classification guidance in CA 1.2. The reporting entity will also reflect a corresponding liability to return the crypto assets, which will need to be assessed to determine whether it contains an embedded derivative under ASC 815.

The determination as to whether a reporting entity controls, and therefore should record an asset and a related liability for crypto assets it holds on behalf of its customers, will require the use of judgment based on the facts and circumstances. In determining whether to reflect crypto assets on- or off-balance sheet, a reporting entity may need to consider the following factors, among others:

Following this evaluation, if a reporting entity determines it does not have control of the crypto assets, a reporting entity should evaluate whether it has an obligation to safeguard its customers’ crypto assets under SAB 121.

Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 (SAB 121) addresses the accounting by a reporting entity that engages in activities in which it has an obligation to safeguard crypto assets held for its customers. SAB 121 requires a reporting entity that performs custodial activities, whether directly or through an agent acting on its behalf, to record a safeguarding liability and a corresponding asset at the fair value of the crypto assets safeguarded by the reporting entity for its customers.

Before applying SAB 121, we believe a reporting entity must first determine whether it has control of the crypto assets (see CA 3.7). A reporting entity that has control of crypto assets would not be in the scope of SAB 121 and would not record a crypto asset safeguarding obligation to safeguard its own crypto assets.

SAB 121 applies to reporting entities that safeguard their customers’ crypto assets either directly or through the use of an agent (i.e., a sub-custodian). To illustrate the application of the guidance, SAB 121 provides an example involving a reporting entity operating a platform that allows users to transact in crypto assets. A “platform” is not a defined term and is not required for reporting entities to be in scope of the guidance.

We believe the following factors, among others, should be considered in assessing whether a reporting entity has an obligation either directly or through an agent acting on its behalf to safeguard a customer’s crypto assets (not all factors are required, nor is any one factor determinative):

The analysis of whether SAB 121 applies should be performed on an entity-by-entity basis. As a result, more than one entity may be in scope related to custodial services of the same end customer’s crypto assets.

Example CA 3-1 illustrates a scenario in which multiple entities would apply SAB 121.

EXAMPLE CA 3-1
Platform operator agreement with customers is silent on sub-custodian services

Company A provides its customers with a platform to transact in crypto assets and provides safeguarding services. In order to use the platform, customers sign a contractual agreement with Company A. The agreement is silent as to whether Company A uses a sub-custodian to safeguard the customers’ crypto assets, and customers interact directly with Company A for any issues or complaints. Company A enters into an agreement with Company B to provide sub-custodial services and opens an account with Company B in its name for the benefit of its customers. Company B does not have any information about Company A’s customers.

Does SAB 121 apply to Company A? Does SAB 121 apply to Company B?

Yes, we believe that both Company A and Company B should recognize a SAB 121 safeguarding obligation and corresponding asset. Although Company A contracts with Company B as a sub-custodian to safeguard its customers’ crypto assets, Company A still needs to evaluate whether it is in the scope of SAB 121. Company A owns the relationship with its customers on the platform, and customers interact directly with Company A for any issues or complaints. The customers are not aware that Company B is performing sub-custodial services for Company A. Moreover, Company A’s account with Company B is an omnibus account in Company A’s name and is not segregated by customer. Based on the foregoing considerations, Company A would likely conclude it is in the scope of SAB 121 and should recognize a safeguarding liability and a corresponding asset.

No. SAB 121 states that the interpretive guidance applies to:

Additionally, given historical practice of application of SAB Topics, we believe SAB 121 applies to:

Based on discussions with the SEC staff, we understand that SAB 121 also applies to broker-dealers in the scope of ASC 940.

Although SAB 121 is not required to be applied by private companies that do not meet any of the circumstances above, we encourage such private companies to consider whether they expect to meet any of these circumstances in the future. Private companies under US GAAP may elect to apply the guidance in SAB 121 voluntarily, and if so, should comply with all of the SEC’s requirements set forth in SAB 121.

A “crypto asset” is defined in SAB 121 as “a digital asset that is issued and/or transferred using distributed ledger or blockchain technology using cryptographic techniques.” Accordingly, in addition to cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin, Ethereum), we believe SAB 121 applies more broadly to other crypto assets, including stablecoins, utility tokens, and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

No. SAB 121 should not be applied by analogy to assets other than crypto assets that are safeguarded by a custodian. The SEC staff believes the custodial risks related to crypto assets are different from those of other custodial relationships. These risks include increased regulatory risks as a result of a limited regulatory environment over holding these assets, technological risks (e.g., safeguarding the crypto assets), and the lack of legal precedent due to the unique characteristics of these assets.

SAB 121 requires a reporting entity that performs custodial activities, either directly or through an agent acting on its behalf, to record a safeguarding liability and a corresponding asset. As there are unique regulatory and legal uncertainties with custodial activities related crypto assets, SAB 121 states that the safeguarding liability should be measured at the fair value of the crypto assets safeguarded by the reporting entity for its customers, and should be remeasured to fair value at each subsequent reporting date. Fair value has the meaning as defined in ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements.

Similarly, the corresponding asset should be measured at the fair value of the crypto assets safeguarded by the reporting entity for its customers and remeasured to fair value at each subsequent reporting date (i.e., measured on the same basis as the safeguarding liability). The nature of the corresponding asset is similar to an indemnification asset as described in ASC 805, Business combinations. Therefore, like an indemnification asset, a reporting entity would need to evaluate whether any potential loss events, such as theft, impact the measurement of the asset. In practice, we believe the corresponding asset will generally be measured at the same amount as the safeguarding liability unless there is a hack or other event that results in the destruction, loss, or theft of the crypto assets.

We believe the determination of the principal or most advantageous market (as discussed in ASC 820-10-35-5 through ASC 820-10-35-6C) should be the same for the recognition and remeasurement of the safeguarding liability and corresponding asset. See FV 4.2.2 for additional information.

A reporting entity will need to evaluate when to derecognize a safeguarding liability previously recorded for custodial services of crypto assets. Generally, the safeguarding liability should be derecognized only when the reporting entity no longer has an obligation to safeguard the crypto assets. In many cases this may be straightforward; for example, a reporting entity would derecognize the safeguarding liability at the point in time when a customer is provided with the crypto assets that were safeguarded by the custodian.

For the corresponding asset, derecognition is likely to occur when the safeguarding obligation is relieved and derecognized (e.g., when the customer is provided with the crypto assets that were safeguarded by the custodian). However, in the event of destruction, loss, or theft, derecognition of the corresponding asset may occur sooner than the safeguarding liability.

A reporting entity may need to apply additional judgment when there is a loss event and the reporting entity purchased an insurance arrangement to cover the loss of crypto assets. We believe purchasing insurance rarely changes the primary obligation of the reporting entity in an event of loss and is not sufficient to derecognize the safeguarding obligation. Instead, a reporting entity should continue to recognize and measure the safeguarding obligation and separately account for the impact of the insurance policy (which should be accounted for separately from the corresponding asset). Refer to PPE 8.2.1 for guidance on recognition of insurance recoveries. The safeguarding liability would be derecognized when the obligation is relieved or the reporting entity is legally released from any claims or potential future claims.

The safeguarding liability and corresponding asset recorded in the financial statements create a related deductible temporary difference and taxable temporary difference, respectively. Therefore, the reporting entity should record a deferred tax asset related to the safeguarding liability and a deferred tax liability related to the corresponding asset. In practice, we believe the deferred tax liability will generally be measured at the same amount as the deferred tax asset. In accordance with ASC 740, both the deferred tax asset and deferred tax liability should be recorded and disclosed separately.