US Accounting Changes May Boost Corporate Interest in Stablecoins, Tempo

A Stripe-backed blockchain startup, Tempo, says a potential change under US accounting rules could remove a practical hurdle for corporate stablecoin adoption: how companies classify certain token holdings on their balance sheets. In a new report, Tempo points to a proposal from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that would allow qualifying stablecoins to be treated as “cash equivalents,” a classification that can materially affect liquidity reporting and financing conditions.

At issue is that, under current practice, many stablecoin holdings do not automatically count toward a company’s reported cash reserves—even when those tokens are fully backed by US dollars. That gap can create friction in corporate treasury operations, including how stablecoins are reflected in liquidity ratios and loan covenants.

Key takeaways

• Tempo argues a FASB proposal could help eligible stablecoin holdings qualify as cash equivalents, improving how they appear on corporate balance sheets.
• The change hinges on contractual terms, particularly whether companies have direct redemption rights with the issuer.
• Tempo notes that simply purchasing stablecoins through an exchange may not be sufficient for cash-equivalent treatment.
• The FASB proposal is open for public comment until Nov. 19 before a final rule and effective date are set.
• Broader US stablecoin policy is moving forward through the GENIUS Act, which establishes federal regulation for payment stablecoins.

Why accounting classification matters for corporate treasuries

Tempo’s report focuses on an Accounting Standards Update proposed by the FASB in August. While stablecoins have increasingly been discussed as payment and settlement rails for businesses, the accounting lens often determines whether they can be integrated smoothly into corporate treasury workflows.

Under existing accounting approaches, stablecoin balances may be treated differently from cash and cash equivalents. Tempo emphasizes the consequences: when tokens don’t qualify as cash equivalents, companies may face distortions in how liquidity is measured. That can affect internal decision-making and external obligations, including loan covenants that are tied to cash or cash-like assets.

Tempo also frames the proposed accounting adjustment as enabling a more straightforward use case—allowing companies to use stablecoins for payments and settlements without triggering the same accounting complications that exist today.

The “contract with the issuer” condition

A central point in Tempo’s analysis is that the accounting outcome would not depend solely on the token’s backing. Tempo says the FASB proposal would require companies to have direct redemption rights with stablecoin issuers to qualify for cash-equivalent treatment.

Tempo illustrates the practical distinction: buying a stablecoin such as USDC through an exchange would not necessarily provide the company with the same redemption rights needed for cash-equivalent classification. In other words, the mechanism of acquisition—and the contract governing the company’s relationship to the issuer—could determine whether the accounting treatment changes.

“Your contract with the issuer is what qualifies, and the token alone doesn’t get you there,” Tempo said.

Tempo also highlights an example from industry practice. It cites Coinbase’s 2025 annual report, which classified USDC and other payment stablecoins as cash equivalents. Tempo attributes that classification to Coinbase’s redemption arrangement with Circle, reinforcing its broader argument: documentation and direct contractual rights may be as important as the stability mechanism itself.

What happens next for the FASB proposal

The FASB proposal is currently at the public comment stage. Tempo notes it remains open for submissions until Nov. 19, after which the board will review feedback, finalize the approach, and determine an effective date.

For companies evaluating stablecoin usage, the timing matters. A final accounting rule could reduce uncertainty for treasurers by making it clearer when stablecoin holdings will be treated similarly to cash equivalents. Until then, corporate adoption plans may continue to vary depending on how counterparties structure redemption arrangements and how firms interpret the existing framework for their specific holdings.

US stablecoin rules are expanding alongside accounting changes

Tempo’s accounting push lands in a wider regulatory shift in the United States. The FASB initiative comes after the passage of the GENIUS Act in July 2025, which established the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins.

According to the report details, the GENIUS Act is scheduled to take effect in January 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators finalize implementing rules—whichever comes first. While the GENIUS Act focuses on requirements for stablecoin issuers, Tempo’s analysis underscores a different—but complementary—problem: how companies account for stablecoins they hold.

The report also points to the speed of market growth. It states that US dollar-backed stablecoins have surpassed $300 billion, citing DefiLlama data. That scale makes balance-sheet treatment more than an accounting technicality; it increases the likelihood that corporations, auditors, lenders, and treasury teams will need consistent rules to manage stablecoin assets in mainstream finance.

Finally, Tempo’s discussion connects accounting and policy momentum to the broader geopolitical framing of stablecoins. It references reporting that the Trump administration is exploring ways to promote dollar-backed stablecoins overseas, potentially reinforcing the US dollar’s role as a dominant reserve currency. Bloomberg has reported the administration is weighing partnerships with private companies, potentially involving the Treasury Department, the State Department, and US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).

Even if those overseas initiatives develop on a parallel track, the same underlying theme is likely to persist: stablecoin adoption—whether domestic or international—depends not only on issuance and redemption frameworks, but also on how regulated and corporate participants can account for these assets with confidence.

Investors and builders should watch what companies argue during the FASB comment period—particularly around redemption rights and how “direct” access is documented—because those details may determine whether stablecoin adoption inside corporate treasuries becomes materially easier once the final rule takes effect.