Standards-anchored to primary IFRS and FASB text. Worked figures are illustrative. Not accounting advice.
TCTokenCapitalisation
Illustrative example

Scenario: token-consumption amortisation

Illustrative example
This illustrative example amortises an asset carried at an illustrative 480,000 on a units-of-production basis keyed to a token-consumption forecast, rather than straight-line. The method is permitted where it better reflects the pattern of benefit IAS 38 §98. All figures are made up for teaching.

The consumption forecast Illustrative example

The asset is a batch-processing model whose workload is forecast to be front-loaded: heavy use as a backlog is cleared in the first year, then tapering. An illustrative token-consumption forecast of 5:3:2 across the three years is evidenced from the pipeline plan and the historical backlog. Because usage is genuinely uneven and forecastable, a units-of-production profile reflects the pattern of benefit better than straight-line IAS 38 §98.

The units-of-production schedule

The 480,000 amortisable amount is allocated in proportion to forecast consumption, so Year 1 takes the largest charge and Year 3 the smallest.

PeriodOpeningAmortisationImpairmentClosingTrend
Y1$480,000($240,000)-$240,000
Y2$240,000($144,000)-$96,000
Y3$96,000($96,000)-$0
Total$480,000($480,000)-$0
Units-of-production roll-forward on a 5:3:2 token-consumption forecast. All figures are an illustrative example.

Compared with straight-line

Under straight-line the same asset would charge an equal amount each year. The difference is timing, not total: both fully amortise the 480,000 over three years. The units-of-production view carries a lower closing value earlier, matching the earlier consumption of benefit.

PeriodOpeningAmortisationImpairmentClosingTrend
Y1$480,000($160,000)-$320,000
Y2$320,000($160,000)-$160,000
Y3$160,000($160,000)-$0
Total$480,000($480,000)-$0
The same asset on straight-line, for comparison. All figures are an illustrative example.

Truing up and the honest caveat

Each period the forecast is trued up against actual token consumption from the ledger, and the remaining charge reprofiled prospectively IAS 38 §104. Whether a consumption profile better reflects benefit than straight-line is a judgement; it is defensible here only because the forecast is evidenced and the unevenness is real. Where the pattern cannot be determined reliably, straight-line remains the correct default.