For the last
several years, stablecoin users have simply trusted the issuers to tell them
what backs their tokens. But as stablecoins become more widely used, simply
taking an issuer’s word for it is no longer enough.
This became particularly clear in
August when Tether said KPMG US had completed the first full independent audit
of its financial statements. According to Reuters, KPMG confirmed that it
issued an unqualified opinion on Tether International’s 2025 financial
statements under AICPA standards.
For Tether, that’s
a significant change after years of relying on reserve attestations, and, more
broadly, it shows how expectations around disclosure are changing. For
businesses deciding whether to work with a stablecoin, the quality and
independence of the information regarding that stablecoin is now becoming a
matter of financial security and compliance.
Tether had
previously published attestations from BDO Italia covering the size of its
reserves, whereas the KPMG work examined its financial statements more broadly.
Tether then said the audit went beyond its reserve figures, examining its
transactions, systems and the evidence supporting its financial statements. Its
chief financial officer also said the audited 2025 statements showed reserves
exceeding liabilities by $6.8 billion. KPMG confirmed issuing its opinion,
although the audited statements themselves were not made public.
The thing to
remember here is that, even when an independent audit is able to provide a
different level of scrutiny from periodic attestations, users still depend on
the information ultimately made available to them. So rather than simply asking
whether an issuer publishes reserve figures, businesses should be looking at
who examined them and what the review covered.
Crypto already
provides a degree of visibility that would be unusual in traditional financial
infrastructure. Depending on the network, you can follow token issuance,
transfers between known wallets and settlement activity as they happen.
A trader, exchange
operations team or developer using a blockchain explorer or crypto trading platform can therefore see a
considerable amount of activity without waiting for a company report.
But there’s a limit
to how much information you can see. Although a blockchain can show that tokens
moved from one wallet to another, it can’t independently tell you whether the
issuer has sufficient off-chain assets to meet redemptions or who legally owns
those assets. It also tells you very little about the issuer’s internal
financial controls.
For stablecoins backed by conventional financial assets, an explorer will only tell you part of what you need to know. You also have to have credible information about what’s happening off-chain.
Once a stablecoin is being considered for everyday
business use, you’ll need to understand the benefits and risks involved. And
before an exchange lists an asset or a treasury team approves it for
settlement, someone has to decide whether the risks are understood well enough
to proceed.
Clear reserve information and independently reviewed financial statements can give everybody involved something concrete to work with. Poor disclosure, on the other hand, can mean requesting more documentation or investigating vague claims before an asset can be approved. There’s a practical advantage here that can get lost in the wider debate about crypto transparency. If an issuer makes important information straightforward to find and verify, it also makes life easier for businesses considering its asset.
Regulators are
changing what the market considers normal, too. In Europe, MiCA has brought
reserve management and disclosure into a formal regulatory framework, alongside
the requirements covering custody and redemption for stablecoin issuers
operating within its scope. Of course, that doesn’t make every token equally
safe, and an audit doesn’t automatically remove the financial risks associated
with an issuer. But what regulation can do is move disclosure away from
voluntary claims and towards more consistent requirements.
As these
requirements are becoming more common, businesses will naturally start
expecting the same level of information elsewhere. Detailed reporting that once
stood out can gradually become something counterparties expect before doing
business.
Transparency is
where the whole argument moves beyond just regulation. If you’re responsible
for approving a stablecoin for payments or treasury use, knowing that it holds
its peg isn’t the end of the conversation. You’ll also want to understand how
redemptions work and whether independent scrutiny backs up what the issuer says
about its finances.
A company
considering an integration needs to know that the token works technically, but
its finance and compliance teams also need enough information to understand its
history, and to some extent, the technology behind it. That gives issuers a
commercial reason to improve disclosure even where regulation doesn’t
explicitly require every detail. And making information easier to verify can
reduce uncertainty for businesses deciding whether to support an asset.
Tether’s move from
quarterly reserve attestations to a full financial statement audit illustrates
how expectations around stablecoin disclosure are evolving.
It doesn’t settle
every question, of course, especially since the audit itself wasn’t made
public, and no single report can eliminate financial or counterparty risk.
Still, expectations have clearly changed. Simply saying that a token is “fully
backed” carries far less weight when businesses can ask for independent
evidence of that statement.
Crypto firms now
have to treat transparency as a need and not an optional compliance exercise,
and issuers that make their finances easier to examine may also make their
stablecoins easier for other businesses to work with.