US Accounting Overhaul May Boost Corporate Demand for Stablecoins

A report backed by Stripe-focused blockchain venture Tempo argues that a proposed US accounting change could make stablecoins far more usable for corporate finance. If finalized, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) would allow certain stablecoin holdings to be treated as cash equivalents—potentially removing a key accounting friction point that has discouraged some companies from holding or deploying dollar-backed tokens.

The proposal, discussed in an Accounting Standards Update examined by Tempo, targets how firms account for stablecoins on their balance sheets. Under current practice, even fully backed stablecoins may not count toward a company’s reported cash reserves, which can complicate liquidity measurements and loan covenant calculations.

Key takeaways

• FASB’s proposed guidance could allow qualifying stablecoin holdings to be classified as cash equivalents, improving how they appear in corporate treasury reporting.
• Tempo says the key requirement is not the token itself, but whether the company has direct redemption rights with the issuer.
• Corporate use may be easier for stablecoins where redemption arrangements exist directly between issuer and holder, rather than only via exchanges.
• Public comment on the FASB proposal runs until Nov. 19, with the board set to review feedback before finalizing any effective date.
• The accounting development follows the July 2025 passage of the GENIUS Act, which created a federal framework for payment stablecoins and will take effect in January 2027 (or earlier depending on rulemaking timelines).

Why accounting classification matters for corporate stablecoins

Tempo’s report centers on a practical problem: stablecoins are widely described as cash-like because they are designed to maintain a one-to-one peg to the US dollar, typically through regulated reserve structures. But traditional corporate accounting frameworks do not always treat them the same way as cash.

In its analysis, Tempo points to the FASB proposal originally introduced for public consideration in August. The change is aimed at whether certain stablecoin holdings can qualify as cash equivalents—an accounting category companies often rely on when reporting liquidity and managing financing agreements.

That distinction matters beyond bookkeeping. If stablecoins do not count toward cash reserves, they can reduce apparent liquidity, affect key ratios, and potentially trigger complications in loan covenants even when the tokens are fully backed.

Direct redemption rights, not just stablecoin ownership

A central theme in Tempo’s argument is that eligibility would hinge on the structure of a firm’s access to redemption—not merely on buying a stablecoin.

Tempo says the proposed approach would require companies to have direct redemption rights with stablecoin issuers. As an example highlighted in the report, purchasing USDC through an exchange may not automatically provide the contractual relationship needed for cash-equivalent classification.

Tempo also points to Coinbase’s 2025 annual report, which classified USDC and other payment stablecoins as cash equivalents. The justification, Tempo notes, was Coinbase’s redemption arrangement with Circle—again reinforcing the idea that contract terms with the issuer are likely to be decisive.

Tempo summarized the logic this way: “Your contract with the issuer is what qualifies, and the token alone doesn’t get you there.” (Tempo’s comments are cited in the report.)

What comes next for the FASB proposal

The FASB proposal is still in progress. Tempo notes that public comment is open until Nov. 19, after which the board will review responses, incorporate feedback, and determine whether and how the guidance will be finalized—including the effective date.

For corporate treasurers, the open question is what counts as “direct redemption rights” in practice and how firms can structure holdings to meet the new criteria if adopted. Companies that currently hold stablecoins through intermediaries may need to revisit their custody, treasury operations, and—potentially—the contractual arrangements that govern redemption.

Tempo’s emphasis on the issuer relationship suggests a likely divide: stablecoin programs built on issuer-level redemption access may become more straightforward for financial reporting, while token exposure obtained strictly through secondary-market purchases could remain harder to classify as cash equivalents.

Stablecoin rules and accounting changes move in parallel in the US

This accounting discussion comes as the US stablecoin regulatory framework continues to take shape. In July 2025, the GENIUS Act passed, establishing what the report describes as the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. The law 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—such as reserve backing and redemption obligations—Tempo’s analysis targets the accounting treatment for companies holding these tokens.

At the same time, market growth underscores the importance of corporate readiness. DefiLlama data cited in the report indicates the market for US dollar-backed stablecoins has surpassed $300 billion. As stablecoin usage expands beyond trading into payments and business settlement, accounting compatibility becomes more than a technicality—it affects whether companies can deploy stablecoin strategies without disrupting financial reporting and risk controls.

There are also indications the US government is exploring ways to strengthen the role of dollar-backed stablecoins abroad. Bloomberg reported that the administration is weighing partnerships with private companies for overseas stablecoin initiatives, potentially involving the Treasury Department, State Department, and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). According to the coverage cited, the goal could include reinforcing the dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency.

Investors and operators should track issuer contracts and timelines

Even if the FASB change advances, Tempo’s analysis suggests that corporate eligibility will depend on contractual redemption access, not simply on holding a token. Over the coming months, readers should watch the details emerging from the comment period—especially how “direct redemption rights” is interpreted—and whether companies adjust treasury and custody arrangements to align with the proposed cash-equivalent criteria.