NFT Accounting for Companies: Outside ASU 2023-08, Into the Intangible

When US GAAP finally gave crypto a fair-value model, NFTs were left out by design — they are not fungible. So a company's NFTs do not get the headline treatment; they fall back into intangible (or inventory) accounting with all its old problems. This guide is the exclusion, the routing fork, and the valuation issue.

TL;DR

• NFTs are outside ASU 2023-08 — the standard requires fungibility; an NFT is non-fungible by definition.
• No new fair-value model for NFTs → they follow other guidance: typically intangible (IAS 38), or inventory (IAS 2) if held for sale.
• Cost-less-impairment is the common landing point — the pre-ASU problem persists for NFTs.
• Purpose of holding forks the treatment (strategic asset vs held-for-sale vs rights-bearing).
• Valuation is hard — unique, often illiquid, frequently no active market.
• Unsettled — no NFT-specific standard; the documented judgement is the audit artefact.

Why NFTs are excluded from ASU 2023-08

ASU 2023-08's scope criteria require, among other things, that the asset be fungible. An NFT is non-fungible by definition — each token is unique. It therefore fails the scope test and is explicitly outside the new fair-value-through-net-income model (see the ASU 2023-08 scope). This is deliberate: the fair-value model relies on the kind of observable market that unique tokens generally do not have.

Where NFTs land instead

Excluded from the fungible-crypto model, NFTs follow other applicable guidance, routed by the purpose of holding — the same fork as for fungible crypto (IAS 38 vs IAS 2), but without the ASU 2023-08 fair-value override:

The common landing point is intangible, cost-less-impairment — which means the asymmetric impairment problem that US GAAP removed for fungible crypto still applies to NFTs.

The valuation problem

NFTs are unique and often thinly traded: there may be no active market for the specific token. Consequences:

• Impairment testing is judgemental (against what benchmark?).
• Any fair-value disclosure is hard to support.
• Floor prices and collection averages are not the value of a specific NFT.

The illiquidity is exactly why the fungibility-based fair-value model was not extended to NFTs — and why cost-less-impairment with documented judgement is where most corporate NFT accounting settles.

Substance over the "NFT" label

Classification follows substance and purpose, not the token type. An NFT that is really an access pass, a claim, or a right must be analysed for what it conveys, not booked as a generic collectible. A creator or marketplace holding NFTs for sale is in an inventory analysis, not a strategic-intangible one. The label "NFT" describes the token standard, not the accounting.

Practical guidance

1. Do not apply ASU 2023-08 to NFTs — they fail the fungibility scope test.
2. Route by purpose of holding — strategic intangible vs held-for-sale inventory vs rights-bearing.
3. Expect cost-less-impairment for held NFTs — the asymmetric model persists here.
4. Document the valuation judgement — specific-token value, not floor/collection averages.
5. Analyse rights-bearing NFTs for what they convey, not as collectibles.
6. Record the classification and valuation judgement — unsettled area, audit-critical artefact.

How vendor tools handle NFTs

Cryptio and Bitwave inventory NFTs separately from fungible crypto and support a cost-less-impairment intangible basis (or an inventory basis where held for sale). Confirm the tool does not push NFTs into a fungible-crypto fair-value flow, supports a per-NFT impairment basis, and retains the valuation-judgement evidence — treating NFTs like fungible tokens is the structural error.

How Wag3s helps

Wag3s Ledger inventories NFTs separately from fungible crypto, applies an intangible cost-less-impairment basis (or an inventory basis where held for sale), keeps the per-NFT valuation and impairment judgement on the audit trail, and analyses rights-bearing NFTs for substance rather than defaulting them to a collectible line. See the Ledger product page and the Wag3s for accountants page.

Further reading

• FASB ASU 2023-08: Fair-Value Crypto Accounting
• IAS 38: Crypto as an Intangible Asset
• Crypto Impairment vs Fair Value Accounting
• Crypto Held as Inventory (IAS 2)
• Governance Token Accounting
• Crypto Audit Trail and Piste d'Audit Fiable

Sources

• FASB ASU 2023-08, Subtopic 350-60 — fungibility is a scope criterion; non-fungible tokens are excluded from the fair-value-through-net-income model — FASB ASU 2023-08
• IAS 38 Intangible Assets / IAS 2 Inventories — routing by purpose of holding (cost-less-impairment intangible vs held-for-sale inventory)
• No NFT-specific standard; unique, often illiquid assets → judgemental impairment/valuation, unsettled practice (documented judgement)