With Bitcoin now appearing in official reports and U.S. reserves, is the world of crypto reporting entering a new chapter—despite ongoing resistance from authorities?
IMF acknowledges crypto
On March 20, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) introduced the seventh edition of its Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7), which marks a significant milestone as it incorporates cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) into global standards for monitoring cross-border economic activities.
Created with input from more than 160 nations, the manual establishes the statistical guidelines that central banks and financial ministries utilize to document trade flows, capital movements, and financial services.
Although this update does not confer legal tender status on digital assets or provide them with official support, it signifies a crucial advancement in how governments and global institutions monitor crypto-related activities.
Previously, crypto transactions—estimated in the trillions annually—were inadequately reported or entirely untracked, leading to gaps in economic data and a murky understanding of the true extent of cryptocurrency’s global impact.
BPM7 seeks to remedy this by offering definitive definitions and accounting standards for various forms of digital assets. Consequently, Bitcoin, altcoins, stablecoins, staking rewards, and even NFTs will now be recorded alongside other types of capital flows, investments, and services.
Let’s delve into what this framework entails, the reactions it has generated online, and what it suggests about the acknowledgment and integration of crypto assets.
The current landscape for crypto
The BPM7 framework introduces a well-defined classification for digital assets based on their structure, functions, and economic significance. It divides digital assets into three categories: capital assets, financial instruments, or service-related income, depending on their characteristics and whether they embody any liabilities.
The first significant alteration is the classification of decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. These will now be logged as non-produced, non-financial assets—a category also encompassing land, natural resources, and spectrum rights.
Bitcoin lacks an issuer, is not backed by reserves, and does not convey a claim over anyone’s property, distinguishing it fundamentally from traditional financial instruments. When moved across borders, Bitcoin appears in the capital account as an acquisition or disposal of a non-produced asset.
Ethereum (ETH) and other smart contracts are categorized differently. If they provide features such as ownership, governance, or yield-bearing capability, and if the holder is located in a country different from where the protocol originates, they may be recorded as equity-like assets within the financial account.
For instance, an Indian investor holding Ripple (XRP) tokens linked to a U.S.-based validator might see that investment classified similarly to foreign equity in international investment position (IIP) reporting, aligning crypto holdings with established norms for tracking cross-border assets.
Stablecoins like Tether (USDT) or USD Coin (USDC) are recognized as financial instruments due to their backing by assets and the corresponding liability owed by the issuer to the holder, placing them alongside traditional debt instruments or deposit-like assets depending on their structure.
The manual also lays down new directives regarding crypto-related services. Activities such as mining, staking, and validation are to be treated as service production.
If these activities yield income across borders—for example, staking rewards paid to validators in other countries—they will be classified under computer services imports or exports, akin to other tech-enabled services like cloud computing or software development in trade data.
In some instances, staking rewards might also be classified as investment income, similar to dividends, especially if the staking position resembles equity ownership.
Beyond classification, the manual establishes a framework for consistency. Nations that previously lacked the means to track crypto flows now have IMF-endorsed benchmarks to adhere to.
While the implementation depends on the statistical capacities of individual countries, the guidance establishes a foundation for integrating crypto within broader economic data.
This is especially significant for nations where crypto usage holds economic weight. For instance, in Nigeria, more than 35% of adults reportedly engage with or possess cryptocurrency, as noted in a recent 2023 report.
In El Salvador, where Bitcoin is considered a reserve asset, the national mechanisms for reporting Bitcoin-related inflows are still evolving.
These scenarios exemplify the necessity for structure provided by BPM7.
U.S. accumulates, El Salvador invests
The IMF’s move to formally integrate digital assets like Bitcoin comes at a time when two disparate nations—the U.S. and El Salvador—are taking notable and symbolic actions to incorporate Bitcoin into their respective financial frameworks.
While the IMF’s manual emphasizes statistical clarity, recent policy decisions from both countries illustrate that Bitcoin is transforming from a mere private-sector commodity into something more substantial for governments initially positioned at opposite ends of the crypto spectrum.
On March 6, just two weeks prior to the IMF’s release of its updated BPM7 guidelines, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve for the U.S.
For years, U.S. authorities prioritized enforcement and regulatory scrutiny. Now, the federal government is officially committed to retaining Bitcoin—specifically the portion acquired through criminal and civil forfeitures.
Estimates suggest that the U.S. government currently holds around 200,000 BTC, primarily obtained through legal proceedings related to darknet markets, hacks, and fraud.
While such assets have generally been auctioned off in the past, Trump’s order mandates comprehensive accounting of all federal Bitcoin holdings and prohibits any future sales from this strategic reserve.
A parallel initiative—the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile—will be overseen by the Treasury Department to retain other confiscated cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, XRP, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA).
This action is seen by many analysts as a formalization of the U.S. stance on Bitcoin as a strategic asset. One industry insider remarked that creating a specialized Bitcoin reserve would affirm the asset’s status as “a global resource of significance,” drawing parallels to historical practices of nations stockpiling gold.
While the U.S. is solidifying its custodianship of Bitcoin, El Salvador continues to pursue its direct acquisition of the asset, undeterred by external pressures.
As of March 24, the nation’s total Bitcoin holdings reached 6,125 BTC, valued at approximately $538 million at current prices.
This growth has persisted even after El Salvador finalized a $1.4 billion arrangement with the IMF in December 2024 as part of a broader economic support package totaling $3.5 billion.
That agreement came with specific stipulations, such as urging the government to lessen its engagement in Bitcoin-related transactions and to rely on the U.S. dollar for tax collection.
Nonetheless, since the deal was signed in December, the country has added 159 BTC to its reserves, with President Nayib Bukele clearly indicating his administration does not interpret the IMF agreement as a retreat from its Bitcoin strategy.
On March 5, he rebuffed claims suggesting a shift in the country’s Bitcoin policy, asserting that critics have consistently predicted failure since El Salvador adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021.
Both the U.S. and El Salvador are now among the very few nations with formally acknowledged Bitcoin reserves. Under the revised BPM7 guidelines, their holdings—and the transactions related to acquiring them—will be accounted for in the same manner applied to cross-border land acquisitions, spectrum rights, or natural resource entitlements.
While countries may continue to debate its legal classification, they will now be expected to evaluate it using uniform standards—a shift that could ultimately influence how Bitcoin is treated in international trade, investment negotiations, and cross-border taxation.
Crypto Twitter reacts
The IMF’s integration of Bitcoin into its new global reporting standards has incited more confusion than clarity within crypto communities.
Though the modification to the Balance of Payments Manual was intended to standardize the accounting of digital assets—rather than endorse them—it quickly became a topic of significant discourse online, often portrayed as a more transformative development.
Max Keiser, currently advising El Salvador’s president on Bitcoin matters, was quick to amplify this narrative.
“The IMF has just acknowledged Bitcoin as de facto digital gold,” he claimed, even asserting that the IMF would incorporate Bitcoin into its reserves and the SDR basket.
Neither assertion has been verified, nor is there evidence suggesting that the IMF is contemplating adding Bitcoin to its official reserves.
However, not everyone subscribed to the hype. Dennis Porter, co-founder of the Satoshi Action Fund, scrutinized the IMF’s actual language and challenged the notion that Bitcoin had attained “digital gold” status.
He pointed out that the manual merely describes digital assets as “designed to be used as a means of payment or act as a store of value”—language that does not constitute an endorsement. “This is a significant stretch,” he asserted. “The key phrase is ‘designed to be.’”
Others, including YouTuber Colin Talks Crypto, noted a perceived inconsistency in the IMF’s behavior. He highlighted the recent demand for El Salvador to reduce its governmental participation with Bitcoin, only to update its global standards less than three weeks later to include Bitcoin as a measurable asset.
“First they say don’t hold it,” he tweeted, “then they recognize it.” He likened this approach to how major financial institutions have historically disparaged Bitcoin in public while accumulating it discretely.
The online reactions reveal a deeper issue: the trust gap between global institutions and the crypto community remains significant. If anything, instances like this only serve to highlight that divide.
Many in the crypto space continue to feel that institutions only acknowledge Bitcoin after attempts to suppress or delegitimize it—particularly when they observe a rapid transition from restriction to recognition.
That being said, the IMF’s update holds considerable significance. However, assertions that this implies the IMF holds Bitcoin, endorses it, or equates it with central bank reserves remain—at least for the moment—unfounded.