Abstract:The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has amended the accounting standards for and disclosure of crypto assets, as highlighted in the accounting standards update on December 13.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has amended the accounting standards for and disclosure of crypto assets, as highlighted in the accounting standards update on December 13.
The amendment is based on feedback from stakeholders which shows that the Board needs to prioritize the improvement of the accounting for and disclosure of crypto assets. According to stakeholders, the then accounting for holdings of crypto assets as indefinite-lived intangible assets fails to provide information that facilitates decision-making to investors, lenders, creditors, and other allocators of capital.
“Specifically, accounting for only the decreases, but not the increases, in the value of crypto assets in the financial statements until they are sold does not provide relevant information that reflects (1) the underlying economics of those assets and (2) an entitys financial position,” reads the update.
The amendment requires entities to subsequently measure assets at fair value, with changes recognized in net income for each reporting period. They should separate crypto assets measured at fair value from other intangible assets in the balance sheet and separate changes from the remeasurement of crypto assets from changes in the carrying amounts of other intangible assets in the income statement.
Information to be disclosed for yearly and interim reporting periods includes the name, cost basis, fair value, and number of units for each significant crypto asset holding and the aggregate fair value and cost base of the crypto asset holdings that are not individually significant. Furthermore, they should disclose the fair value of those crypto assets, the nature and remaining duration of the restriction(s), and the circumstances that could cause the restriction(s) to lapse for crypto assets that are subject to contractual sale restrictions.

The visible fee in an MT4 white label proposal is rarely the real cost of operating it. For an existing broker, the decision is not simply whether an MT4 white label platform is “cheap” or “expensive.” The real question is whether the commercial model remains viable after integration, support, data, client migration, compliance, and exit costs are included. That is why an MT4 white label cost review should be built as a 24- to 36-month operating case. It should compare three credible choices: 1. Keep the present MT4 setup and improve its weakest controls. 2. Replace the MT4 white label provider but retain the client proposition. 3. Migrate selected clients or products to another platform while running MT4 in parallel. This guide explains how to build that case without relying on headline prices or generic vendor claims.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has grown remarkably recently. However, it has also amplified the scope for financial fraud. One such is the rapid use of deepfake technology involving AI-generated videos, images and audio clips imitating real people. Fraudsters are leveraging these technologies to impersonate financial advisers, celebrities, business leaders and government officials to lure victims into fake investment schemes. Understanding the emerging implications, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has cautioned investors of investment avenues promoted through convincing AI-generated content. Seemingly authentic, deepfakes are designed to manipulate trust and make people transfer funds before authenticating the investment’s legitimacy.

The decision to switch white label providers or migrate to a modern white label trading platform is no longer a luxury for growth-minded brokers—it's a strategic necessity for survival in 2026. The convergence of technological stagnation, regulatory evolution, and shifting client expectations has created a perfect storm.

ABET, a Bulgaria-based brokerage firm, faces severe allegations from users for the reportedly inefficient way it handles their funds. While some alleged illegitimate account blocks by the broker, others reported fund scams and trade manipulations. These ABET reviews have raised question marks over the broker’s legitimacy.