For most corporate treasury programs, the right starting comparison is not simply “tokenized Treasuries versus commercial paper,” but rather three distinct tools: direct or quasi-direct tokenized Treasury exposure, tokenized government money-market products, and traditional commercial paper. They solve different treasury problems. Tokenized Treasury products are best understood as a new settlement and custody layer wrapped around an underlying security or fund exposure. Commercial paper remains a conventional short-term credit instrument with familiar workflows, but it adds unsecured issuer credit risk and usually slower, more intermediated settlement. Tokenization changes operating mechanics far more reliably than it changes underlying asset risk. This post lays out the framework Ridgeway Financial Services uses with crypto-native and fintech treasury teams evaluating these instruments for reserve cash management.

Executive Summary

• According to Ridgeway Financial Services, the durable CFO framing is this: if the objective is principal preservation and high-confidence liquidity, the baseline comparator for tokenized Treasury products is usually government money funds, T-bills, and bank deposits, not unsecured commercial paper. If the objective is on-chain mobility, collateral mobility, auditable ownership, or crypto-native weekend liquidity, tokenized Treasury products gain real relevance.
• “Tokenized” is not an asset class. Under SEC staff’s 2026 statement, a tokenized security is still a security, and the fact that ownership is recorded in whole or in part on a crypto network does not change the application of the federal securities laws. Under US GAAP, the accounting follows the instrument’s legal rights and economic substance, not its wallet format.
• Three distinct legal models exist: issuer-sponsored tokenized securities, third-party tokenized security entitlements, and synthetic tokenized securities. The distinction drives bankruptcy remoteness, accounting treatment, and legal-title analysis. Treasury teams should know which model their product uses before sizing the position.
• On-chain transfer speed is not the same as fiat redemption speed. Peer-to-peer token movement between whitelisted wallets can settle in seconds, but primary subscription and redemption typically remain subject to issuer controls, business hours, transfer-agent workflows, bank rails, and in some architectures, stablecoin conversion.
• Cash-equivalent treatment under ASC 230 turns on the same FASB test for tokenized products as for traditional instruments, not on wallet format. A token that directly represents a T-bill with an effective original maturity to the holder of three months or less can in principle qualify. Many real-world products will not be that clean because the holder may own a fund interest or security entitlement with its own redemption mechanics.
• For most fintech and SaaS companies, in our view at Ridgeway Financial Services, tokenized Treasury products belong in a ring-fenced reserve sleeve, not core operating cash. For crypto-native firms with mature wallet governance, the on-chain settlement utility can justify a larger allocation, but the governance overhead is real.

Contents

• What tokenized Treasury and tokenized money-market products are
• Side-by-side comparison framework
• US GAAP accounting treatment and fair-value analysis
• Tax treatment and regulatory status
• How a CFO should build a reserve and investment policy
• Reserve-policy decision checklist
• Common errors and misconceptions
• Open questions and limitations
• How Ridgeway Financial Services supports tokenized treasury decisions

What tokenized Treasury and tokenized money-market products are

A tokenized Treasury product is generally one of two things. First, it can be an issuer-sponsored tokenized security, where the issuer or transfer agent integrates distributed-ledger records into the official ownership record so that an on-chain transfer updates the master holder file. Second, it can be a third-party tokenized security entitlement, where an intermediary holds the underlying security in custody and issues a token representing the holder’s indirect interest. The SEC staff also distinguishes a third category, synthetic tokenized securities, which give economic exposure but not ownership rights in the referenced security. For treasury use, that distinction is critical because it drives bankruptcy remoteness, accounting, and legal-title analysis.

A tokenized money-market product is not a single legal category. Some products are true registered money market funds under the Investment Company Act and Rule 2a-7, where the token represents a fund share. Franklin’s OnChain U.S. Government Money Fund is the clearest example: the transfer agent maintains the official record of share ownership through a blockchain-integrated recordkeeping system, and the fund intends to remain a Rule 2a-7 government money market fund that invests at least 99.5% of assets in government securities, cash, and fully collateralized repos. Other products marketed as “on-chain cash management” are private funds or offshore professional funds that hold short-term Treasury bills, repos, cash, or interests in other liquidity funds. Economically they may resemble money funds. Legally and regulatorily they can be very different.

Mechanically, most tokenized products follow the same four-step pattern. Issuance begins with KYC/KYB onboarding and wallet whitelisting. Franklin requires AML/KYC onboarding before purchase or redemption and allows purchases through its app or institutional portal. OpenEden requires fully onboarded whitelisted wallets. Ondo limits OUSG eligibility to investors who are both accredited investors and qualified purchasers. Settlement in can occur by bank wire, fiat conversion, or supported stablecoins, depending on issuer architecture. Ondo, for example, states that OUSG subscriptions and redemptions can use USD bank wires or specified stablecoins.

On-chain ownership and transfer then depend on the issuer’s or transfer agent’s recordkeeping model. Franklin’s transfer agent keeps the official ownership record and allows peer-to-peer transfers among active, permissioned wallets, with transfers processed immediately and completed upon blockchain confirmation. The prospectus is equally clear that these peer transfers do not create a public trading market. OpenEden’s documentation likewise states that TBILL tokens sit in the investor’s whitelisted wallet, are transferable only between whitelisted wallets, and represent the investor’s economic interest in the fund together with legal rights to redemption value.

Redemption out is where many CFOs overestimate “instant liquidity.” Peer-to-peer token movement may be near real time, but primary issuance and redemption typically remain subject to issuer controls, business hours, transfer-agent workflows, bank rails, and, in some architectures, stablecoin conversion. Franklin says purchases and redemptions are processed only during normal business hours on business days, are typically paid by the next business day, and may take up to seven days in some cases. Ondo supports redemption to bank wire or certain stablecoins, but that still depends on issuer processes and eligible counterparties. In our work with crypto-native treasury teams, this is the single most common misconception we have to correct: on-chain transfer speed is not the same thing as fiat redemption speed.

Custody is also two layered. The underlying assets usually remain with a traditional fund custodian or prime custodian. Franklin identifies JPMorgan Chase Bank as custodian of the fund’s assets. BNY states it serves as primary custodian for the underlying assets of OpenEden’s TBILL fund. Separately, the token itself may sit in an issuer-hosted wallet, a qualified digital-asset custodian, or the company’s self-custodied wallet. OpenEden expressly says the investor bears responsibility for safeguarding self-custodied TBILL tokens. For a CFO, that means tokenized Treasury products add a wallet-control problem on top of the traditional securities-custody problem. Companies already running structured digital asset custody, whether through a platform we reviewed in our comparison of leading digital asset security platforms or through an internal MPC arrangement, are better positioned than those starting from scratch.

Side-by-side comparison framework

The table below is the durable comparison framework we use with clients. Exact yields, eligible chains, cutoff times, and minimums change frequently by issuer and market conditions, so they should be treated as product due-diligence items rather than policy constants.

Dimension	Tokenized Treasury exposure	Tokenized government money-market product	Commercial paper
Economic exposure	Usually short-dated US Treasury bills, repos, or a fund/SPV holding them; may be direct, custodial-entitlement, or fund-interest exposure.	Usually a share or interest in a government MMF or liquidity fund holding government securities, cash, and repos; a registered Rule 2a-7 fund is the cleanest legal form.	Unsecured short-term promissory note issued primarily by corporations, generally up to 270 days.
Yield profile	Usually tracks front-end government rates less fees and wrapper costs. It is mainly a government-rate product, not a credit-spread product.	Usually slightly below direct-bill economics because of fund expenses, but often smoother operationally for cash management and reinvestment. Government MMFs prioritize capital preservation and liquidity.	Usually offers a spread over government instruments because the investor is taking unsecured corporate credit and rollover risk. That spread is compensation for real credit and liquidity risk.
Liquidity and redemption	Secondary wallet-to-wallet transfers can be fast if both wallets are whitelisted, but primary redemptions depend on issuer windows, compliance checks, and fiat or stablecoin rails.	Best for operational liquidity among tokenized products if structured as a government MMF, but still subject to fund rules, transfer-agent processing, and any issuer-specific delays. Stable NAV is sought, not guaranteed.	Normally liquid only through dealer and custody infrastructure, and secondary markets can be thin. The Fed has noted that CP and other MMF assets do not have substantial secondary markets.
Settlement speed	On-chain transfers may settle in minutes or seconds after blockchain confirmation, but subscription and redemption are often business-hour constrained.	Similar: token transfer can be quick, but creation/redemption usually follows issuer or transfer-agent operating windows.	DTCC supports same-day MMI issuance and automated settlement, but the process still runs through IPAs, dealers, custodians, and DTC participants.
Credit and counterparty risk	Underlying US government credit is strongest, but investors still face issuer, transfer-agent, custodian, wallet, smart-contract, and possible stablecoin conversion risk. Third-party tokenization can add intermediary bankruptcy risk.	Government-asset credit profile is strong, but investors still have fund, custodian, operational, and tokenization-layer risk. A government MMF is not bank insured and the sponsor is not required to support it.	Primary risk is unsecured exposure to the issuer, plus rollover and liquidity risk. Even high-grade CP is corporate credit, not sovereign risk.
Custody requirements	Requires review of both underlying-asset custody and digital-wallet custody. Self-custody raises operational and control demands.	Same two-layer custody issue, though registered-fund versions may feel more operationally familiar to treasury teams.	Traditional securities custody only, usually through custodian banks and dealer networks.
Minimum access thresholds	Highly product specific. Private funds often limit holders to accredited investors, qualified purchasers, institutions, or professional investors, with higher minimums.	Can be much lower when the product is a registered on-chain government MMF. Franklin’s prospectus says the minimum initial purchase for most accounts is $20, though some investors may face higher minimums.	Direct institutional CP usually requires institutional onboarding and large denominations. The Fed notes the usual round lot is about $100,000, though some issuers go lower.
Best use in treasury	Reserve cash that benefits from on-chain mobility, collateral utility, or auditable wallet-level ownership, but not usually the first dollar of payroll liquidity.	Operating cash or near-operating reserve cash if redemption mechanics and accounting support cash-equivalent treatment.	Yield-enhancement sleeve for well-governed reserve portfolios with credit expertise, not a substitute for core operating liquidity.

The practical choice for finance leaders is not whether tokenized Treasuries are “better” than commercial paper in the abstract. It is whether the company values sovereign risk, operational simplicity, and cash-equivalent treatment more than it values incremental spread, and whether it actually needs the on-chain settlement utility enough to justify new custody, compliance, and reconciliation controls. For crypto-native firms, the answer may be yes. For conventional SaaS or marketplace companies, in our view, the answer is often “only for a ring-fenced reserve sleeve, not for core operating cash.”

US GAAP accounting treatment and fair-value analysis

Under FASB’s cash-equivalent definition in ASC 230, an item qualifies only if it is a short-term, highly liquid investment that is readily convertible to known amounts of cash and so near maturity that it has insignificant interest-rate risk; generally, original maturity to the holder must be three months or less. FASB also makes two points CFOs often miss: Treasury bills, commercial paper, and money market funds are common examples of cash equivalents, but not all qualifying items must be treated as cash equivalents, and the company must adopt and disclose a policy for what it includes. The accounting work we do for fintech and crypto-native clients is detailed in our overview of technical accounting memos for digital asset and crypto companies, where this kind of policy election typically gets documented.

For commercial paper, the starting GAAP lens is still debt-security accounting under ASC 320. Debt securities are classified as held-to-maturity, available-for-sale, or trading, with HTM measured at amortized cost, AFS at fair value through OCI, and trading at fair value through earnings; the fair value option can also be elected for eligible instruments. Debt securities classified as cash equivalents remain within ASC 320. In practice, a short-dated, high-grade CP position bought for short-term cash management may be shown as a cash equivalent if it meets the FASB definition, but the debt-security model still matters for measurement and disclosure. HTM positions are subject to CECL under ASC 326-20, while AFS debt securities use the allowance model in ASC 326-30 when fair value falls below amortized cost because of credit.

For direct tokenized Treasury exposure, the accounting should follow the legal rights conveyed by the token. If the product gives the holder enforceable rights to an underlying Treasury security or an economic interest in a fund or SPV, it is generally not the kind of bare crypto asset covered by ASU 2023-08. The new crypto-asset standard under ASC 350-60 applies only when the holder does not have enforceable rights to or claims on underlying goods, services, or other assets, and wrapped tokens are generally outside scope because they may give the holder a right or claim on another asset. For tokenized Treasury products, that usually means the company applies the accounting literature for financial assets or investment interests, not the crypto-asset model.

Whether a tokenized Treasury product is a cash equivalent turns on the same FASB test, not on wallet format. A token that directly represents a T-bill with an effective original maturity to the holder of three months or less can, in principle, qualify. Many real-world products will not be that clean, because the holder may own a fund interest, LP interest, or tokenized security entitlement with its own redemption mechanics rather than a direct bill maturing inside three months. That usually pushes the analysis toward short-term investments, not cash. The fact that a token moves on-chain in seconds does not by itself make it “readily convertible to known amounts of cash” under GAAP if primary redemption is gated by business hours, cutoffs, or stablecoin conversion.

For tokenized government money-market products, the accounting can be the most counterintuitive. Economically, they are often used like cash. Legally, they may be shares of an investment company. Under current US GAAP, equity securities with a readily determinable fair value are generally measured at fair value through earnings under ASC 321. At the same time, money market funds are specifically listed by FASB as common cash-equivalent examples, and a cash equivalent can still be measured at fair value and subject to ASC 820 disclosures. The practical result is that a government MMF interest can be presented as a cash equivalent for treasury purposes if it meets the cash-equivalent definition and the company’s election policy, while its underlying measurement still follows the relevant investment accounting. This is one of the places where controller judgment, robust internal controls over crypto accounting, and auditor alignment matter most.

Fair-value analysis also matters more than many teams assume. ASC 820 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction at the measurement date. Restrictions that market participants would consider can affect fair value. For private tokenized Treasury funds, whitelisting, transfer restrictions, and redemption terms therefore matter. If the company holds an investment in an investment company or similar fund without a readily determinable fair value, ASC 820 may permit measuring fair value using NAV as a practical expedient, with separate disclosure of redemption terms and significant restrictions. That matters for many private tokenized Treasury vehicles but usually not for plain public mutual fund shares with daily NAVs.

Finally, companies that hold other digital assets around the position, such as gas-fee tokens or stablecoins used to subscribe or redeem, need a separate analysis. FASB has been explicit that, depending on terms and rights, stablecoins may fall under intangible-asset guidance, financial-asset guidance, derivative guidance, or even cash-equivalent analysis. Our deeper treatment of how to choose and account for settlement stablecoins is in our piece on choosing settlement stablecoins (USDC vs USDT vs PYUSD vs RLUSD). A treasury team may have one accounting model for the tokenized Treasury position and a different model for the gas token or stablecoin used operationally around it.

Tax treatment and regulatory status

For federal securities law, the durable rule is simple: tokenization does not turn a security into “not a security.” SEC staff’s 2026 statement says the security’s format does not affect the application of the federal securities laws. It also identifies the central legal fork for treasury buyers: issuer-sponsored tokenization is one model, while third-party custodial or synthetic tokenization is another. In the third-party model, the holder may be exposed to risks, including intermediary bankruptcy risk, that would not exist with direct ownership of the underlying security. That is a legal, insolvency, and accounting issue, not just a disclosure issue.

Who can hold tokenized Treasury products depends on their legal wrapper. A registered government MMF can have relatively broad access, subject to KYC and jurisdictional limits. Franklin says individual investors can open accounts through the Benji app, institutions through an institutional portal, and the minimum initial purchase for most accounts is $20. By contrast, private tokenized Treasury funds are often limited to accredited investors, qualified purchasers, qualified institutions, or professional investors. Ondo says OUSG investors must be both accredited investors and qualified purchasers. OpenEden says TBILL is only available to qualifying professional or accredited/professional investors through a permissioned, whitelisted structure.

For commercial paper, the instrument is also a security. Commercial paper offerings often rely on the Securities Act Section 3(a)(3) exemption when the paper is payable on demand or in any event within nine months and proceeds are used for current transactions. The SEC’s current CFI states explicitly that commercial paper payable on demand but no later than nine months from issuance satisfies the maturity requirement of the exemption. That fact matters because many corporate treasurers view CP as “plain money-market paper,” when in law it is still a security distributed through a specialized institutional market.

For tax, the durable framework is again driven by the underlying instrument and wrapper, not by the token itself. For direct Treasury obligations, IRS Publication 550 and Topic 403 state that Treasury bill, note, and bond interest is subject to federal income tax but exempt from state and local income taxes. Treasury bills are generally issued at a discount, and the difference between purchase price and face value is treated as interest income, which means OID and basis mechanics matter if the company is not simply buying and holding to maturity through a standard brokerage workflow.

For a registered tokenized government MMF, the federal tax treatment is typically the familiar mutual-fund treatment. Franklin’s prospectus states that income dividends are generally taxable at ordinary rates, short-term capital gain distributions are taxed as ordinary income, and because the fund seeks to maintain a $1 NAV, sales of shares generally do not create taxable capital gain or loss. The same prospectus also notes that state and local tax outcomes can differ depending on fund holdings and state law. For CFOs, the practical point is that a tokenized MMF does not automatically inherit the tax treatment of direct Treasury ownership. The entity classification of the fund still matters.

For private tokenized Treasury funds, tax treatment can vary materially depending on whether the holder owns a note, a fund interest, an LP interest, or a foreign professional-fund interest. That can change timing, character, withholding, information reporting, and legal-entity consequences. Since the market uses the same “tokenized Treasury” label for very different wrappers, the CFO should insist on written tax documentation from issuer counsel or company tax advisors before investing.

How a CFO should build a reserve and investment policy

A defensible policy begins with cash segmentation, not product selection. Treasury-management guidance from J.P. Morgan and Huntington describes the standard framework: operating cash, reserve cash, and strategic cash. J.P. Morgan describes operating cash as requiring same-day liquidity, reserve cash as a six-to-twelve-month bucket, and strategic cash as one year or longer. Both J.P. Morgan and Huntington describe a cash investment policy statement as the tool that defines permissible investments, risk tolerance, liquidity, return objectives, governance, concentration limits, benchmarks, and reporting.

For a fintech, crypto, or high-growth tech company, that segmentation maps naturally to runway. In our view, a company with under roughly 12 to 18 months of runway should treat nearly all reserves as operating or near-operating liquidity. That usually points to bank deposits, direct short T-bills, and government money funds, with tokenized money-market products considered only if the company already has robust wallet governance and a genuine need for on-chain liquidity. Direct CP purchases are usually a poor fit at this stage because they add unsecured credit analysis and larger operational minimums without solving the primary problem, which is survival liquidity. The cash-segmentation logic we use with clients is laid out in more depth in our piece on managing cash runway for tech, fintech, and digital asset startups.

A company with 18 to 36 months of runway and a more mature finance function can justify a true reserve sleeve. In that case, tokenized Treasury products can make sense if they reduce friction in crypto-native operations, support whitelisted collateral mobility, or improve auditability of holdings across wallets and counterparties. Commercial paper can make sense only if the firm has explicit issuer limits, a downgrade playbook, and board-approved tolerance for credit spread risk. If the team cannot explain why it is being paid more than the government curve, it should not be buying CP directly.

Boards will usually expect the reserve policy to cover at least the following control areas: who approves the policy and exceptions; what instruments are permitted; what minimum credit standards apply; concentration limits by issuer, fund, custodian, bank, and chain; maturity and weighted-average-maturity limits; NAV or valuation methodology; reconciliation procedures between on-chain balances and the general ledger; wallet-control rules; and trigger events for ad hoc review. J.P. Morgan’s cash IPS guidance expressly calls for governance, regular review, final sign-off, and procedures for exceptional circumstances. Huntington similarly highlights credit-quality limits, allocation restrictions, governance, and reporting cadence.

For tokenized products specifically, a board should also expect digital-asset-specific control overlays. Because products like Franklin and OpenEden rely on whitelisted wallets, transfer-agent workflows, and self-custody or hosted-wallet choices, policy should specify approved wallet types, signer thresholds, disaster recovery, incident response, sanctions and AML screening, test-redemption frequency, and whether stablecoin conversion risk is permitted at all. For crypto exchanges, custodians, and digital asset treasury operators, this overlaps significantly with the broader treasury governance work covered in our piece on CFO responsibilities for crypto exchanges, custodians, and digital asset treasury.

Reserve-policy decision checklist

A board-ready checklist for evaluating tokenized Treasury products against commercial paper should cover the following nine items:

1. Define the bucket first. Is the cash truly operating, reserve, or strategic? If it is needed for payroll, tax, debt service, or customer redemptions in the next three months, default to instruments that clearly qualify as operating liquidity.
2. Classify the legal form. Is the company buying a direct debt security, a mutual-fund share, an LP interest, a security entitlement, or synthetic exposure? The SEC’s tokenized-security taxonomy and the offering documents should answer this before treasury approves the trade.
3. Test cash-equivalent treatment early. Ask the controller and auditor whether the specific product can be presented as a cash equivalent under the company’s policy, or whether it will sit in short-term investments. Never assume “Treasury-backed” means “cash.”
4. Map redemption mechanics, not just transfer speed. Document cut-off times, holiday and weekend behavior, fiat versus stablecoin redemption options, in-kind redemption rights, and any delay periods. A peer-to-peer whitelisted transfer is not the same thing as corporate cash in a bank.
5. Separate sovereign risk from wrapper risk. Treasury bills may be low credit risk, but the product can still carry fund, SPV, custodian, wallet, smart-contract, transfer-agent, and stablecoin-conversion risks.
6. Check holder eligibility and transfer restrictions. Registered MMFs, Reg D funds, 3(c)(7) funds, and offshore professional funds have very different holder bases and secondary-transfer rules.
7. Set concentration and maturity limits. For CP, establish issuer caps, rating floors, and downgrade actions. For tokenized Treasury products, cap exposure by issuer, fund, custodian, chain, and wallet infrastructure provider.
8. Resolve tax reporting before trade date. Determine whether the product generates Treasury interest, ordinary mutual-fund dividends, short-term capital gain distributions, or a more complex foreign or private-fund tax profile.
9. Run a failure drill. Test redemption, wallet compromise response, signer unavailability, bank-wire failure, stablecoin depeg procedures, and accounting close reconciliation before sizing the position.

Common errors and misconceptions

Several recurring mistakes show up in this market.

• “Tokenized Treasury equals cash.” It may be a cash equivalent, but it may also be a short-term investment, an equity security, or a private fund interest. The answer depends on maturity, redemption rights, legal form, and policy election.
• “On-chain means instant redeemable cash 24/7.” On-chain transfer can be immediate, but primary subscriptions and redemptions can still be limited to business hours, transfer-agent processing, and banking or stablecoin rails.
• “Government money funds are guaranteed.” A government MMF seeks stability, but Franklin’s prospectus says investors can lose money and that the fund is not FDIC insured or government guaranteed.
• “Commercial paper is basically a Treasury substitute.” It is not. CP is unsecured corporate credit, often held to maturity in a market with limited secondary liquidity and meaningful rollover risk.
• “ASU 2023-08 covers tokenized securities.” Usually not. The crypto-asset standard applies to assets without enforceable rights to underlying goods, services, or other assets. Many tokenized Treasuries and tokenized fund shares sit outside that scope.
• “Tokenization removes intermediaries.” In practice it often replaces some intermediaries with different ones: transfer agents, whitelisting administrators, token issuers, smart contracts, digital custodians, and stablecoin conversion partners. The wider regulatory and operational implications of these new intermediaries are covered in our overview of CFO considerations for real-world asset (RWA) tokenization.

Open questions and limitations

Two issues remain highly product specific. First, final GAAP classification for a given tokenized Treasury or tokenized MMF product depends on the exact legal documentation, rights conveyed, redemption terms, and auditor judgment. Second, tax outcomes for private or offshore tokenized Treasury wrappers can vary substantially by entity type, jurisdiction, and investor profile. Those are not gaps in the public framework so much as reminders that tokenized Treasury products are still wrappers around very different legal instruments. The safest CFO workflow is therefore legal memo first, accounting memo second, pilot allocation third.

How Ridgeway Financial Services supports tokenized treasury decisions

Ridgeway Financial Services works with fintech, crypto-native, and high-growth tech CFOs evaluating tokenized Treasury and stablecoin-based treasury structures alongside conventional cash management. Our scope on these engagements typically includes drafting or reviewing the investment policy statement, mapping the legal classification of candidate products against GAAP cash-equivalent and ASC 320/321/350-60 criteria, modeling the operational impact on close and reconciliation cycles, and building the internal controls and board reporting needed before the first dollar moves on-chain. We work in non-attest advisory roles, alongside the company’s audit firm and external counsel, and tie the policy work directly to the wider fractional CFO services we provide to crypto and fintech companies, including our CFO services for DeFi, stablecoin payments, and crypto fintech startups. Companies operating as stablecoin issuers can also engage us for the related independent reserve administrator role, which complements rather than replaces the periodic attestation work performed by other CPA firms.

Related Ridgeway Resources

• Ridgeway Financial Services for crypto and digital asset companies
• Fractional CFO services for tech, fintech, and blockchain
• Stablecoin reserve requirements after the GENIUS Act
• CFO considerations for real-world asset (RWA) tokenization
• USDC vs USDT vs PYUSD vs RLUSD: choosing settlement stablecoins
• Managing cash runway for tech, fintech, and digital asset startups
• Technical accounting memos for digital asset and crypto companies

Reviewed by YR, CPA
Senior Financial Advisor