The quiet shift towards on-chain infrastructure and why CFOs should pay attention
When systemically important payment platforms begin to explore on-chain settlement infrastructure, finance leaders across the region should take notice. Many organisations understandably view virtual assets as something they can assess later, once the regulatory and operational picture becomes clearer. That confidence, however, may be misplaced.
As large platforms explore on-chain settlement, finance leaders face a turning point that is easy to underestimate. This is not about adopting crypto, but about recognising that the infrastructure underpinning liquidity, settlement, and float management in East Africa is evolving. For CFOs, the question is no longer whether virtual assets affect treasury and risk management, but whether they will be prepared when accountability is required.
For much of the past decade, virtual assets sat outside the CFO’s remit. They were volatile, lightly regulated, and often framed as speculative instruments. For finance leaders focused on control, predictability, and risk discipline, keeping distance felt sensible and responsible.
That position is becoming harder to defend. The shift underway is not driven by enthusiasm or ideology. It is driven by regulation, institutional adoption, accounting requirements, and the gradual integration of digital asset infrastructure into mainstream finance. As this continues, CFOs will increasingly need to understand virtual assets as part of their professional responsibility.
“We don’t touch crypto” is no longer a sustainable position
Until recently, many CFOs could credibly say, “We don’t touch crypto.” The assumption was that not holding assets directly meant no exposure. That assumption is weakening.
Exposure often arrives indirectly. Banks may provide digital asset services. Payment systems may use stablecoins for settlement. Trading partners may operate in tokenised markets. Treasury tools may resemble familiar instruments while running on different infrastructure. PwC’s global research on crypto regulation points to the same conclusion. The boundary between virtual assets and conventional financial activity is narrowing, particularly at the infrastructure level.
As a result, CFOs may only discover exposure after commercial decisions have already been made. At that point, the issue is no longer whether finance approved crypto activity, but whether finance understood, assessed, and managed the risk once it appeared.
Regulators are designing for institutions, not innovators
Another signal of change comes from regulators. In major financial centres, virtual assets are being brought within formal regulatory frameworks. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation establishes a comprehensive approach covering issuance, service providers, custody, and market conduct. In the UK, regulators are moving towards a financial services regime that treats crypto-related activities as regulated activities.
In South Africa, crypto asset service providers are already licensed under existing financial advisory laws, with supervision firmly in place. Dubai, Singapore, and other global hubs have introduced dedicated frameworks for digital assets and stablecoins.
For CFOs, the detail of each rule matters less than the direction of travel. These frameworks are designed for licensed institutions, boards, and senior management, not for start-ups or technologists. In this environment, CFOs will be expected to demonstrate oversight of risk assessment, governance structures, internal controls, and informed decision-making. Regulators will assume that finance leadership understands how virtual assets affect reporting, treasury, compliance, and disclosure.
Accounting and audit: where theory meets reality
Public debate often centres on price volatility, but CFOs know the real difficulty lies in accounting and audit. Virtual assets do not fit neatly into traditional classifications. Under IFRS, guidance linked to IAS 2 and IAS 38 requires judgement on classification, measurement, impairment, and disclosure. Major audit firms have issued detailed guidance to help finance teams apply existing standards to virtual asset holdings and transactions.
In the United States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board is moving towards fair value measurement and expanded disclosure for certain crypto assets, further signalling that accounting standards are evolving.
The implication for CFOs is straightforward. Even without active trading, finance teams may be required to account for, audit, and disclose virtual asset exposure. Auditors will expect defensible judgements and robust controls. Boards will expect clear explanations. Uncertainty or silence will not suffice.
A common misconception is that virtual asset risk is primarily about cyber threats. In practice, the larger risks are governance-related. Who controls access. Who approves transfers. How responsibilities are segregated. What happens if access credentials are lost. Who bears liability if a third-party custodian fails.
These are not technical questions. They are questions of internal control and accountability, familiar territory for CFOs. As global standard setters such as the Financial Stability Board and IOSCO reinforce the principle of “same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome”, expectations around governance consistency are rising.
Treasury will be the entry point
If virtual assets enter organisations at scale, they are unlikely to do so through speculative activity. More often, they will arrive through treasury operations: cross-border payments, liquidity management, asset-backed financing, and tokenised forms of deposits, funds, or commodities. Many of these instruments are deliberately designed to feel familiar.
As professional services firms have noted, tokenisation is increasingly framed not as disruptive, but as efficient. For CFOs, this creates a practical challenge: identifying when something that appears conventional behaves differently in terms of settlement, custody, and risk.
Virtual assets also feature prominently in the global push for financial transparency.
The Financial Action Task Force continues to update guidance on virtual assets and service providers, reinforcing expectations around anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, and information sharing. At the same time, the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework points towards automatic tax information exchange for crypto transactions, following the model established by the Common Reporting Standard.
Transparency frameworks begin with intermediaries and quickly extend across the value chain. CFOs who lived through the rollout of CRS will recognise what follows: tighter deadlines, deeper scrutiny, and little tolerance for late preparation.
The quiet personal risk for CFOs
There is an unspoken dimension to this shift: personal accountability.
When failures occur, post-incident reviews rarely ask why technologists misunderstood the risk. They ask where finance leadership was. CFOs are trusted stewards. In periods of financial change, that trust rests on competence rather than enthusiasm. The greater risk lies not with caution, but with the inability to ask informed questions.
Understanding virtual assets does not require endorsement. It requires acknowledging that they are becoming part of regulated finance and increasingly intersect with finance leadership responsibilities.
The most dangerous position today is not scepticism, but uninformed neutrality.
CFOs still have time to engage deliberately and on their own terms. That window, however, is narrowing. Soon, virtual assets will not be optional knowledge. When that moment arrives, the line between leadership and liability will come down to preparation.
