IMF now officially tracks Bitcoin in cross-border finance — just weeks after warning El Salvador to scale back
With Bitcoin now in the IMF’s books and U.S. reserves, is global crypto reporting entering a new phase — despite official resistance?
Table of Contents
IMF wakes up to crypto
On Mar. 20, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) published the seventh edition of its Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7), marking the first time cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) have been integrated into global standards for tracking cross-border economic activity.
Developed in collaboration with over 160 countries, the manual outlines the statistical rules used by central banks and finance ministries to record trade flows, capital movements, and financial services.
While this update does not grant digital assets legal status as currency or offer official backing, it represents a key step in how governments and international institutions measure crypto-related activity.
Until now, crypto transactions — estimated to be in the trillions of dollars annually — were inconsistently reported or not recorded at all, 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.
Let’s explore what this framework entails, the reactions it has sparked on social media, and what it means for the recognition and adoption of crypto assets.
How crypto now counts
The BPM7 framework introduces a clear taxonomy for digital assets based on their structure, function, and economic role. It classifies digital assets into three categories: 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 does not have an 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 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 Mar. 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 darknet markets, hacks, and fraud cases.
While these assets have typically been auctioned off in the past, Trump’s order mandates a full accounting of all federal Bitcoin holdings and prohibits future sales from this strategic reserve.
A parallel structure — the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile — will be managed by the Treasury Department to hold other confiscated cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, XRP, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA).
The move was seen by many analysts as an effort to formalize the U.S. position on Bitcoin as a strategic resource. Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, told CNBC that the creation of a Bitcoin-only reserve would ratify the asset as “a global asset of consequence,” drawing parallels to how countries once built up their gold reserves.
While the U.S. is formalizing its custodianship of Bitcoin, El Salvador is continuing its direct accumulation of the asset, regardless of international pressure.
As of Mar. 24, the country’s total Bitcoin holdings reached 6,125 BTC, valued at approximately $538 million at current prices.
This accumulation continued despite El Salvador finalizing a $1.4 billion agreement with the IMF in Dec. 2024—part of a broader $3.5 billion economic support package.
That deal came with explicit conditions. The IMF asked the government to reduce its involvement in Bitcoin-related transactions, limit public sector activity in the crypto space, and continue using the U.S. dollar for tax collection.
Yet, since the agreement was signed in Dec., the country has added 159 BTC to its holdings. President Nayib Bukele has made it clear that his government does not view the IMF deal as a reason to step back from its Bitcoin strategy.
On Mar. 5, he dismissed suggestions that the country’s Bitcoin policy was softening, stating that critics have wrongly predicted failure since El Salvador first adopted Bitcoin as legal tender in 2021.
Both the U.S. and El Salvador are now among the only nations with formally declared Bitcoin reserves. Under the new BPM7 standards, their holdings — and the flows associated with acquiring them — will be accounted for using the same methods applied to cross-border land purchases, spectrum licenses, or rights to natural resources.
Countries may continue to disagree on its legal role, but they will now be expected to measure it in consistent terms—something that could ultimately impact how Bitcoin is treated in international trade, investment negotiations, and cross-border tax reporting.
Crypto Twitter lights up
The IMF’s inclusion of Bitcoin in its new global reporting standards has sparked more confusion than clarity across crypto circles.
While the update to the Balance of Payments Manual was meant to standardize how digital assets are recorded — not endorse them — it didn’t take long for parts of the online community to frame it as something bigger.
Max Keiser, currently serving as Bitcoin advisor to El Salvador’s president, was among the first to amplify the narrative.
“The IMF has just recognized Bitcoin as de facto digital gold,” he wrote, even going a step further to claim the IMF would add Bitcoin to its own reserves and the SDR basket.
Neither claim has been confirmed, nor is there any indication the IMF is considering Bitcoin as part of its official reserves.
But not everyone bought into the hype. Dennis Porter, co-founder of the Satoshi Action Fund, took a closer look at the IMF’s actual wording and pushed back against the claims that Bitcoin had been elevated to “digital gold” status.
He pointed out that the manual simply references digital assets “designed to be used as a means of payment or act as a store of value” — language that falls far short of endorsement. “This is a massive stretch,” he said. “The key phrase is ‘designed to be.’”
Others, like YouTuber Colin Talks Crypto, pointed to a perceived contradiction in the IMF’s behavior. He referenced the IMF’s recent demand that El Salvador scale back its government-level involvement with Bitcoin, only to update its global standards 18 days later to incorporate Bitcoin as a trackable asset.
“First they say don’t hold it,” he posted, “then they recognize it.” He compared the approach to large financial institutions historically talking down Bitcoin publicly while acquiring it quietly in the background.
What the online reactions reveal is something deeper: the trust gap between global institutions and crypto-native communities hasn’t narrowed. If anything, moments like this make it more visible.
Many in the space still believe that institutions only acknowledge Bitcoin after first trying to suppress or discredit it — especially when they see a timeline that goes from restrictions to recognition in less than a month.
That said, the IMF’s update is meaningful. But claims that this equates to the IMF holding Bitcoin, endorsing Bitcoin, or placing it on the same level as central bank reserves are — at least for now — unsupported.
