With Bitcoin now in the IMF's books and U.S. reserves, is global crypto reporting entering a new phase?

The IMF's decision to formally account for digital assets like Bitcoin comes at a time when two very different nations — the U.S. and El Salvador — are taking visible and symbolic steps to anchor Bitcoin within their respective financial strategies.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has included cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), in its global economic reporting standards for the first time, integrating digital assets into the seventh edition of the Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7).

Announced on March 20, the update to the BPM7, which is used by central banks and finance ministries to measure cross-border economic activity, follows a year of consultation with 160 countries.

The manual sets out the statistical rules used to record trade flows, capital movements, and financial services in a comparable way across countries.

While the update does not grant any legal status to digital assets or provide any official backing, it represents a key step in how governments and international institutions will measure crypto-related activity.

Until now, trillions of dollars in yearly crypto transactions were either not recorded or inconsistently reported, leading to gaps in economic data and limited visibility into the true scale of crypto’s cross-border impact.

BPM7 addresses this issue by providing clear definitions and accounting rules for different types of digital assets. As a result, Bitcoin, altcoins, stablecoins, staking rewards and even NFTs will now be tracked alongside other forms of capital flows, investments and services.

How crypto now counts

The BPM7 framework introduces a clear taxonomy for digital assets based on their structure, function and economic role, classifying them as either capital assets, financial instruments or service-related income depending on how they operate and whether they carry liabilities.

The first major change is the classification of decentralized cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. These are now recorded as non-produced, non-financial assets — a category that also includes land, natural resources and spectrum rights.

Bitcoin has no issuer, is not backed by reserves and doesn't represent a claim on anyone, making it fundamentally different from traditional financial instruments. When transferred across borders, Bitcoin is recorded in the capital account as an acquisition or disposal of a non-produced asset.

Ethereum (ETH) and other smart contract-based tokens are treated differently. If they offer ownership, governance or yield-bearing features and the holder resides in a different country from the protocol's origin, they can be recorded as equity-like assets under the financial account.

For example, an investor in India holding Ripple (XRP) tokens tied to a U.S.-based validator set may have that position treated like foreign equity under international investment position (IIP) reporting, aligning crypto holdings with existing cross-border asset tracking norms.

Stablecoins such as Tether (USDT) or USD Coin (USDC) are recognized as financial instruments primarily because assets back them and they carry a liability from the issuer to the holder, placing them in the same category as traditional debt instruments or deposit-like assets depending on their structure.

The manual also provides new guidance on crypto-related services. Mining, staking and validation are now treated as service production.

If these activities generate income across borders — such as staking rewards paid to validators in other countries — they are recorded under computer services exports or imports, mirroring how tech-enabled services like cloud computing or software development are handled in trade data.

In some cases, staking rewards may also be treated as investment income, comparable to dividends, particularly if the staking position resembles equity ownership.

Beyond classification, the manual sets a framework for consistency. Countries that previously lacked the tools or definitions to track crypto flows now have IMF-endorsed standards to follow.

While implementation will depend on each country's statistical capacity, the guidelines establish a baseline for aligning crypto with broader macroeconomic data.

This matters most for countries where crypto usage is economically relevant. In Nigeria, for instance, over 35% of adults report using or owning crypto, according to a 2023 report by KuCoin.

In El Salvador, where Bitcoin is a reserve asset, national reporting mechanisms for Bitcoin-related inflows remain underdeveloped.

These are exactly the cases where BPM7 provides much-needed structure.

America hoards, El Salvador buys

The IMF's decision to formally account for digital assets like Bitcoin comes at a time when two very different nations — the U.S. and El Salvador — are taking visible and symbolic steps to anchor Bitcoin within their respective financial strategies.

While the IMF's manual focuses on statistical transparency, recent policy actions by both countries highlight how Bitcoin is becoming more than just a private-sector instrument, especially for governments that previously stood at opposite ends of the crypto spectrum.

On March 6, just two weeks before the IMF published its revised BPM7 guidelines, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve for the U.S.

For years, U.S. authorities focused on enforcement and regulatory oversight. Now, the federal government is officially committing to hold Bitcoin — at least the portion already seized through criminal and civil forfeitures.

According to estimates, the U.S. government currently controls approximately 200,000 BTC, mostly acquired through legal actions involving