Earmark CPE

Earn CPE Anytime, Anywhere

Cryptocurrency

The IRS Now Knows Who’s Trading Crypto But Can’t Tell What Anyone Owes

· ·

The IRS now knows who’s trading crypto, but it still can’t tell if anyone owes tax. That’s the reality of the new 1099-DA reporting system that just went live, and it’s about to affect every tax professional with crypto clients.

On a recent episode of the Earmark Podcast, host Blake Oliver sat down with Lawrence Zlatkin, Vice President of Tax at Coinbase, to explain what the new 1099-DA form reports, where the gaps are, and what changes Coinbase is pushing for in Washington. With a front-row seat to crypto taxation’s biggest challenges, Lawrence offered insight on where the system works (and where it doesn’t).

The problem is that the IRS’s new reporting brings crypto tax enforcement into the mainstream, but the underlying framework creates massive overreporting with little tax benefit. Treating stablecoins as property and requiring reports on tiny gas fees generates millions of forms that tell the government almost nothing about actual tax liability. Tax professionals must bridge the gap between what the IRS receives and what matters for computing taxes.

The 1099-DA: What’s There and What’s Missing

Think of the 1099-DA as crypto’s version of the 1099-B that brokers send for stock trades. The basic concept is familiar: the form goes to your client and the IRS, and the government matches what taxpayers report against what exchanges report. Tax pros have worked with this system for decades.

But this first-year version is bare-bones. As Lawrence explained, “We are implementing the system barely 18 months after Congress issued the regulations. The 1099-B system was developed over a period of five years, and even longer for gross proceeds.”

The result is a “skeletal version” that reports just two things: who the customer is and their gross proceeds from transactions. The critical missing piece is cost basis.

“We’re including basis for our customers for informational purposes, but that information is not actually going to the government,” Lawrence said. Next year, exchanges will start reporting basis, but only when they have it.

Blake walked through a simple example. Say your client sells Bitcoin for $100. The IRS gets a 1099-DA showing $100 in gross proceeds. But if your client bought that Bitcoin for $90, the actual taxable gain is just $10. That $10 is the only number that matters for taxes, but it’s invisible to the government this year.

The problem worsens with transfers between wallets and exchanges. When crypto leaves Coinbase for a self-custody wallet or another exchange, the basis tracking breaks. “The only person who knows what’s in a non-custodial wallet is you because you’re the owner,” Lawrence explained. When that crypto returns to an exchange, there’s no way to reconstruct what happened in between.

So what’s the point of all this reporting? Lawrence was candid. “The government’s concern has been that there’s been underreporting and noncompliance in the ecosystem generally. So what this achieves from their standpoint is they find out who’s really participating.”

Until now, the IRS’s only crypto signal was that checkbox on the 1040, which Lawrence diplomatically called “gobbledygook.” It asks about digital asset transactions. Now the IRS will see actual dollar amounts attached to names. They’ll spot whales with millions in proceeds. They’ll identify non-filers.

“There’s nothing nefarious or awful or evil about that,” Lawrence said. “It’s just that they will have that information they didn’t otherwise have before.”

The practical takeaway is, “you are in control of your tax data,” Lawrence emphasized. Clients who consolidate their activity on a single exchange will have better records. Coinbase provides transaction history and gain/loss data through its “position service.” But clients bouncing between exchanges and wallets need to maintain their own records. Nobody else can do it for them.

The Stablecoin Problem: When Property Isn’t Property

Missing basis data would be manageable if the tax framework made sense. It doesn’t, especially for stablecoins.

Since 2014, the IRS has classified all crypto as property rather than currency or cash equivalents. This includes stablecoins like USDC, which are designed to trade at exactly $1. Every time your client uses USDC, that’s a reportable disposition of property.

“Stablecoins are designed to be stable and consistent and traded at par with the US dollar,” Lawrence said. “99.9% of the time, it’s intended to trade within a fraction of a decimal of the US dollar. So in essence, we’re not reporting a gain or loss. So it’s over-reporting of data. There’s no fundamental purpose for that. I would argue that the only reason for that is surveillance.”

The scale is significant. Coinbase must report stablecoin transactions exceeding $10,000 to the government. Hundreds of thousands of customers received 1099s this year that include these transactions. And taxpayers must report even smaller amounts. Coinbase just won’t tell the IRS about those.

Blake offered his own example. Earmark uses USDC to pay vendors for international transactions where stablecoins are faster than traditional banking. Under current rules, every payment is a reportable property disposition. “It’s as if the IRS got every bank transaction,” Blake said. “Americans would never stand for that. We’d call that surveillance and overreach.”

Lawrence revealed this isn’t hypothetical. Five years ago, the Treasury Department proposed requiring banks to report credit card transactions over $10,000 in aggregate. “That was quashed for the reasons you just described,” he said. Yet here we are with stablecoins.

There’s a small silver lining. “The tax system is based on income. If there’s no gain or loss, there’s no taxable income, and there’s no penalty,” Lawrence explained. You can’t underpay taxes on zero gain. But the reporting requirement still exists.

De Minimis Madness: When Pennies Become Paperwork

Beyond stablecoins, tiny transactions that generate enormous paperwork are another reporting nightmare.

Gas fees, which are the network costs for blockchain transactions, often involve disposing of pennies or fractions of dollars worth of Ethereum. Each one is technically a property disposition that must be tracked and reported. Each might have actual (if microscopic) gain or loss.

The volume is staggering. Coinbase files millions of 1099-DAs containing hundreds of millions of underlying transactions that feed into Form 8949. Lawrence estimates that about half qualify as de minimis, meaning they’re essentially meaningless for tax purposes.

“We’re not going to pave roads and solve the deficit on the backs of de minimis reporting for crypto,” Lawrence argued. He’s pushing for a threshold below which transactions become exempt from reporting or taxation. Should it be $5? $50? $200? Should it be income-based or transaction-based?

“At what point do we stop requiring reporting for transactions?” Lawrence asked. “If the IRS gets bombarded with billions of transactions that are tiny in nature because people are required to report them, the system itself breaks.”

These billions of transactions are being reported today, and the IRS’s ancient computer systems must somehow process them all.

The Washington Agenda: Common Sense Reforms in Political Gridlock

Lawrence came with a clear policy agenda that included ten priorities, although the conversation covered highlighted six in detail.

Beyond stablecoins and de minimis thresholds, Coinbase is pushing for the following reforms:

  • Crypto lending should work like securities lending. “You’re not disposing of crypto because you’re going to get the same amount back,” Lawrence explained. Under current securities rules, that’s not taxable. Crypto should be the same.
  • Staking rewards timing. The IRS says rewards are taxable when received. Others argue they shouldn’t be taxed until sold. “That’s a source of friction and debate,” Lawrence noted.
  • Charitable deductions are perhaps the clearest absurdity. Donate over $5,000 in Bitcoin, and you need a formal appraisal. “You can type it in Google and get a Bitcoin price, just like you get the price of any stock or security,” Lawrence said. Bitcoin has “readily ascertainable fair market value.” The appraisal requirement is “ridiculous.”
  • Foreign investment rules. The US has safe harbors that allow non-US persons to trade securities through US brokers without triggering US tax. No equivalent exists for crypto. “We’re the best and safest market in the world,” Lawrence said. “We’d like to preserve that for crypto, not just for regular old investment assets.”

So why hasn’t anything passed?

“I’m cautiously optimistic,” Lawrence said. President Trump has been supportive. He met with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong last week. The White House issued a report on digital assets, including tax provisions. Treasury has been “by and large very supportive.”

But Congress is the bottleneck. The House is narrowly Republican-controlled, and crypto has become more partisan than it should be. “This should not be a partisan debate,” Lawrence insisted. “This ecosystem benefits Democrats and Republicans.”

The Clarity Act for crypto regulation is under discussion. So is broader tax reform. But as Lawrence diplomatically put it, “Things don’t move as quickly as we might like in Washington.”

What This Means for Tax Professionals

The picture Lawrence painted is clear, even if the rules aren’t. The 1099-DA tells the IRS who’s trading and how much, but it lacks the cost basis needed to determine actual tax liability. Tax professionals must fill that gap by reconciling gross proceeds against basis records scattered across exchanges, wallets, and spreadsheets.

Meanwhile, classifying stablecoins as property without de minimis rules creates millions of reportable transactions with zero tax consequences. It’s all noise, no signal.

The reforms Coinbase wants make sense. But with narrow Congressional majorities and partisan friction, don’t expect relief before next filing season.

The message for practitioners is crypto is no longer niche. With millions of 1099-DAs arriving and IRS matching letters sure to follow, you need to understand what these forms show, how to help clients track basis, and where the traps are. Firms that build this expertise now will serve a growing client base. Those who don’t risk being blindsided along with their clients.

“Everyone wants to talk about tax,” Lawrence joked at the start. By the end, it’s clear why. The intersection of crypto and tax is where innovation meets regulation, and right now, regulation is playing catch-up.

Listen to the complete episode of the Earmark Podcast for Lawrence’s full breakdown of Coinbase’s policy priorities and practical advice on basis tracking. You can earn free NASBA-approved CPE credit by listening and taking a short quiz at earmarkcpe.com.

When 37,000 Japanese Investors Discovered Their Dividends Were Now “Divine”

· ·

Picture opening your quarterly dividend envelope in February 2007, expecting yen, one of the world’s most stable currencies, but instead finding paper vouchers denominated in “Enten,” which literally means “divine money” in Japanese. These heavenly tokens were only good in one man’s bizarre marketplace where you could buy bedding, socks, and produce, but definitely couldn’t pay your rent.

This actually happened to 37,000 Japanese investors who discovered their life savings had been converted into monopoly money.

In the latest Oh My Fraud episode, “Divine Yen, Devilish Fraud,” host Caleb Newquist unpacks one of Japan’s most absurd financial frauds. The story of Kazutsugi Nami and his Ladies & Gentleman company—yes, that was the actual name—offers critical lessons for accounting professionals in a time of growing cryptocurrency schemes.

A Career Built on Fraud

You might think a fraud conviction would end someone’s career in finance. Kazutsugi proved otherwise, repeatedly.

His criminal timeline reads like a fraudster’s greatest hits. In the 1970s, as vice president of APO Japan, he helped market fake exhaust gas removers through a pyramid scheme. The devices didn’t work, but 250,000 people bought in before the company went bankrupt and authorities came knocking.

Most people would have learned their lesson. Not Kazutsugi.

By 1973, he’d already founded Nozakku Co., selling “magic stones” that supposedly purified tap water. The timing was perfect, as Japan faced severe water contamination from rapid industrialization, and desperate people wanted solutions. At its peak, Nozakku pulled in roughly ¥2 billion annually (about $6-8 million in late 1970s dollars). The stones weren’t magic. They didn’t purify anything. By 1978, Kazutsugi was in prison for fraud.

In a move that should make every accounting professional pause, in 1987, while his fraud record was still fresh, Kazutsugi founded Ladies & Gentleman (L&G). Eventually, 37,000 investors would hand over billions of yen to a convicted fraudster. One victim later justified their investment because L&G had been “in business for a long time.”

The bizarre culmination came on February 4, 2009, when police arrived to arrest him. Instead of hiding, Kazutsugi held court at a restaurant, charging reporters ¥10,000 each to attend his breakfast press conference while he sipped beer at 5:30 AM. He’d even packed spare underwear, expecting the arrest.

When asked about defrauding investors, his response was pure theater. “Do you think I could behave openly like this if there had been a fraud?” Later, he added, “Time will tell if I’m a con man or a swindler.”

The Divine Currency Revolution That Wasn’t

Kazutsugi didn’t just promise returns; he promised revolution. He called Enten the future of money, a currency that would break free from Japan’s economic system. He claimed governments would eventually adopt it and that he had a divine decree to eliminate poverty worldwide.

At investor events that resembled religious revivals, Kazutsugi styled himself as a modern-day Oda Nobunaga, one of Japan’s great historical figures, who unified Japan through military conquest in the 16th century.

The 36% annual returns Kazutsugi promised should have been an immediate red flag. In 2007, when Japanese government bonds yielded around 1.5%, 36% guaranteed returns defied financial gravity. Yet thousands of investors, many elderly and seeking retirement security, handed over their savings.

The scheme’s genius was its gradual escalation. Initially, L&G paid dividends in real yen, establishing trust. Then in early 2007, dividends became partially Enten. Finally, they were paid entirely in this imaginary currency that could only be spent in L&G’s internal marketplace, essentially a curated flea market offering comforters, vitamins, and produce.

As Caleb observes in the episode, these are exactly the products “multi-level marketing companies love because you can just claim it’s enhanced by whatever mystical bullshit you are selling that year.”

When Vision Meets Delusion

During the episode, Caleb and producer Zach Frank explore fascinating parallels between cult leaders and modern tech CEOs. Both sell transcendent visions that attract devoted followers.

“They see themselves as right. They’re cocky, they know the way, and they’re the only ones who know the way,” Zach observes.

This absolute certainty becomes magnetic. Caleb notes how Elon Musk, before his political involvement exposed his character. “He had this vision for the world. We’re going to Mars and we’re going to save the world. And people are like, yeah, I’ll follow you anywhere.”

Zach offers crucial insight about why these figures gain traction. “We’re in a time where gurus are becoming more popular than ever. It has to do with the lack of trust in institutions and science in general. People want to find someone to give them the answers to everything.”

When traditional systems seem to be failing, like during the 2007-2008 financial crisis when L&G was collapsing, the person who claims to have all the answers becomes irresistibly attractive.

The Spectacular Collapse

When L&G announced dividends would only be paid in Enten—no more real yen—investors understandably panicked. Some wanted to know whether they could exchange Enten for things like rent and food. They could not.

Like a classic bank run, investors crowded outside L&G locations demanding money and answers. The Japanese press pounced on the story. In November 2007, L&G filed for bankruptcy with estimated losses between ¥126 billion to ¥226 billion (roughly $1-2 billion USD). It was rumored to be Japan’s largest consumer investment fraud ever.

Even as police led him away, Kazutsugi insisted, “I am the poorest victim. Nobody lost more than I did.”

In March 2010, Kazutsugi was sentenced to 18 years in prison, a harsh sentence by Japanese standards. Even then, he insisted Enten was the future.

Lessons for the Profession

For accounting professionals, these patterns translate into specific warning signs:

  • Gradual shifts in payment methods that move from standard to non-standard practices
  • Closed ecosystems where value can only be realized within the company’s control
  • Recruitment-based growth models dressed up as community building
  • Attacks on regulators rather than substantive responses to concerns
  • Appeals to revolution that discourage traditional due diligence
  • Impossible guaranteed returns justified by proprietary methods

Distinguishing between legitimate innovation and sophisticated fraud requires more than technical knowledge; it requires understanding the psychology of persuasion.

Real innovations might disrupt industries, but they don’t violate mathematical laws. A 36% guaranteed return isn’t innovation; it’s impossibility. A currency that only works in one company’s marketplace is company scrip, a practice outlawed in most developed nations for good reason.

As Caleb warns, “If someone promises you a 36% annual return, but that return comes back to you in tokens that are only good for bedsheets, fruits, and the occasional pressure cooker, you are not diversifying your portfolio. You are subsidizing a cult with slightly better stationery.”

Listen to the full Oh My Fraud episode to hear the complete breakdown of this bizarre case, including more details about the victims and the reasons smart people fall for obvious frauds. The episode offers insights that connect historical frauds to modern schemes and the psychological vulnerabilities that transcend cultures and currencies.

Whether it’s cryptocurrency, NFTs, or the next financial revolution, the pattern persists: charismatic leaders promising transformation, impossible returns dressed as innovation, and schemes that create confusion where clarity is desperately needed. Our role as accounting professionals is to ensure that when someone claims to be building the future, they’re working with real materials, not divine intervention.

Your Crypto Loss Might Not Be Deductible (Even Though Your Neighbor’s Is)

· ·

When someone loses $100,000 to a cryptocurrency scammer, the financial blow is devastating. But finding out whether that loss is tax-deductible means navigating rules written decades before anyone imagined digital theft.

In this episode of Tax in Action, host Jeremy Wells, EA, CPA, tackles a confusing area of tax practice: theft losses. While theft has existed forever, the digital age creates entirely new ways for criminals to steal—from “pig butchering” scams to romance frauds—that challenge how we apply old tax laws to new crimes.

The Three Categories That Determine Everything

Before helping clients who’ve been scammed, tax professionals need to understand which of three categories their loss falls into. This distinction can mean the difference between a valuable deduction and no tax relief at all.

Under IRC Section 165, losses fall into three buckets. Losses from a trade or business and losses from transactions entered into for profit—even outside a business—are generally deductible. However, personal losses not connected to business or profit-seeking are the problem area.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated personal casualty and theft losses for 2018 through 2025. The only exception is losses from federally declared disasters. As Wells explains, this even includes theft during disasters, like the looting that happened after Hurricane Katrina when “there was just a general lack of any sort of law enforcement.”

This means two neighbors could lose the same amount to the same scammer, but only the one who was investing for profit gets a deduction. The retiree who sent money for personal reasons? They’re out of luck.

The Three-Part Test Every Practitioner Must Know

Beyond figuring out the category of the loss, Wells explains that courts have developed three essential criteria for any theft loss claim.

First, the theft must have occurred under state law where the loss happened. This requirement isn’t in the tax code or regulations; it comes from court cases trying to define “theft” when the IRS never did. The 1956 Edwards v. Bromberg case said federal courts must look to state law, but as Wells notes, that creates “probably about 50 different definitions, one for each state.”

Second, you must be able to determine the amount lost. For cash or stocks, this is straightforward. But for jewelry or collectibles? You’ll need insurance records, appraisals, or reasonable estimates. Proving value becomes nearly impossible without documentation from before the theft..

Third, you need to know when the taxpayer discovered the loss. This is crucial because it’s not when the theft happened, but when the victim realized it. Wells emphasizes: “That could be the same day, maybe a few hours later. It could be a few days later. It could be weeks, months, or even years later.”

The courts are clear about one thing: simple disappearance isn’t theft. Wells shares the Allen v. Commissioner case, where someone lost jewelry in a museum. Despite searching everywhere, publishing newspaper ads, and filing police reports, the court denied the deduction. Why? The taxpayer couldn’t prove someone actually stole it rather than it just being lost.

Timing Is Everything (And It’s Complicated)

The timing of theft losses works differently than most people expect, especially with digital assets and cryptocurrency.

A theft loss is deductible in the year you discover it; not when it actually happened. But Wells stresses a major catch: if you have a “reasonable prospect of recovery” through insurance or lawsuits, you can’t claim the loss yet. You must wait until you know with “reasonable certainty” whether you’ll be reimbursed.

“It’s not that you go ahead and claim it, and then wait until you receive the reimbursement,” Wells clarifies. “You have to wait until the outcome of that process is actually either known or within a reasonable certainty.”

With cryptocurrency scams, you might have three different dates spread over years: when the theft occurred, when you discovered it, and when you know recovery is impossible. Each delay pushes your potential deduction further into the future.

When Corporate Fraud Doesn’t Count as Theft

Surprisingly, even massive corporate fraud doesn’t create theft losses for shareholders. Wells uses Enron as an example. Investors lost everything due to “fraudulent and illegal activity,” but for tax purposes, these remain capital losses, not theft losses.

The 1975 Payne v. Commissioner case established this rule. Corporate executives don’t have “specific intent to deprive that particular shareholder” of their money. Even when executives commit crimes that destroy your portfolio, you haven’t been “robbed” in the tax law sense.

This distinction matters enormously for crypto investors. When an exchange halts withdrawals or a platform gets “hacked,” you need to determine whether it’s actual theft (potentially deductible if for profit) or platform failure (capital loss at best).

Five Modern Scams and the Profit Motive Test

In 2025, the IRS Chief Counsel addressed five common scams that don’t fit the traditional Ponzi scheme mold. The key factor? Whether victims had a profit motive.

Deductible scams (entered into for profit) include:

  • Pig butchering scams work by “fattening up” victims. Scammers start with small investments that show big returns. Victims invest more and more until the scammer disappears with everything. Because victims expected investment returns, the loss is deductible.
  • Compromised account scams involve criminals convincing victims their accounts need securing. Since victims move investment funds expecting to preserve them, the profit motive remains intact.
  • Phishing scams use fake websites to steal login credentials for investment accounts. Again, the investment nature preserves deductibility.

Non-deductible scams (personal losses) include:

  • Romance scams create fake relationships before asking for funds, often for medical emergencies. There’s no profit expectation; just personal generosity. As Wells emphasizes, “There’s no expectation of profit here. So that makes the theft loss nondeductible.”
  • Kidnapping scams involve fake ransom or bail demands. These are fear-motivated, not profit-motivated, making them personal and nondeductible.

The cruel irony? Two victims could withdraw the same amount from identical IRAs and send it to the same overseas account. But only the one expecting investment returns gets a deduction. The one motivated by love or fear gets nothing—plus they owe tax on the IRA withdrawal.

Lessons from the Experts Who Got It Wrong

Wells ends with a humbling case: Booth v. Commissioner. The taxpayer bought Civil War-era land rights that turned out to be invalid, then got sued after selling them to someone else.

Eighteen Tax Court judges split 10-8 on whether this was theft loss or capital loss. The Ninth Circuit reversed them, saying it was both. When Wells polled tax professionals, only 13% got it right.

“There are a lot of smart tax people out there and they can disagree and they can even be wrong,” Wells reflects. “The important part is that we keep thinking about these issues.”

What This Means for Your Practice

For tax professionals dealing with theft losses, three things matter most:

  1. Document profit motive upfront—not after the loss. The client’s intention when entering the transaction determines deductibility.
  1. Track timing carefully. Discovery dates and recovery efforts affect when (or if) clients can claim losses. This might mean waiting years.
  1. Know the current guidance. The IRS issues new interpretations as scams evolve. What wasn’t deductible yesterday might be tomorrow.

The collision between 1950s legal precedents and 2020s digital crimes creates daily challenges. While the basic rules haven’t changed in 70 years, applying them to cryptocurrency scams and online fraud requires both historical knowledge and modern insight.

For clients devastated by digital-age theft, understanding these rules helps you identify opportunities where they exist and provide clarity where they don’t.

Ready to master these distinctions? Listen to Jeremy Wells’ complete analysis in this episode of Tax in Action, where he breaks down additional examples, Form 4684 reporting details, and why even seasoned professionals struggle with these issues.

The Bitcoin Debate: CPA Skeptic vs. CPA Believer

· ·

When Bitcoin hit $100,000 in December, I knew it was time to explore this controversial asset further. So, I invited Noah Buxton, co-founder and CEO of The Network Firm LLP, onto the Earmark Podcast for a fascinating discussion about Bitcoin’s true value.

As a CPA who first learned about Bitcoin when it was worth just $1, I’ve always approached it with healthy skepticism. Call it a professional habit—we accountants are trained to question everything.

Why Should Bitcoin Be Worth Anything? 

Here’s what keeps nagging: Bitcoin produces no earnings, pays no dividends, and seems mainly useful for speculation (and sometimes less-than-legal activities). So why should it be worth $100,000, or $1,000, or even $1?

Noah acknowledged my concerns about speculation driving prices. But he made an interesting case for Bitcoin as “digital gold,” arguing that its fixed supply and independence from central control make it appealing in our inflation-prone world.

The Network Effect Is Real

One question I often hear is: “Why Bitcoin? Can’t anyone create a cryptocurrency?”

Noah pointed out something I hadn’t fully appreciated – the massive infrastructure built around Bitcoin. We’re talking thousands of businesses facilitating payments and billions invested in mining equipment. That’s not easily replicated.

But here’s the thing: being first doesn’t guarantee staying first. (Remember Myspace?) While Bitcoin has a strong lead, its dominance isn’t guaranteed forever.

The Government Bitcoin Play

Here’s where things get interesting. Crypto lobbyists are pushing for the U.S. government to start buying Bitcoin as a national reserve—billions of dollars worth annually.

As a skeptical CPA, this makes me nervous. It’s like early Bitcoin hold are pushing for taxpayers to become their exit liquidity. When you consider that roughly 10,000 wallets control a huge portion of Bitcoin, this starts looking like a massive wealth transfer waiting to happen.

The Real Promise: Blockchain

Despite my Bitcoin skepticism, I’m bullish on blockchain technology. Noah called it “the biggest accounting innovation since double-entry bookkeeping,” and I think he’s onto something there.

His firm, The Network Firm LLP, is doing fascinating work in digital asset auditing. They’ve even built their own software called Ledger Lens to tackle the unique challenges of verifying blockchain transactions.

What This Means for Accountants

As CPAs, we’re in an interesting position. While we need to maintain our professional skepticism about Bitcoin’s value proposition, we can’t ignore the growing importance of blockchain technology in our field.

The skills needed to audit and verify blockchain transactions will only become more valuable. Whether Bitcoin remains the dominant digital asset or not, the underlying technology is here to stay.

My Take

After my conversation with Noah, I’m still skeptical about Bitcoin’s current valuation. But I’m also more appreciative of the complexity of the debate.

As accounting professionals, we need to tread a careful line: maintaining healthy skepticism while remaining open to genuine innovation. The future of our profession might depend on achieving this balance.

Want to hear my complete discussion with Noah? Check out Episode 83 of the Earmark Podcast.