Proof Beats Promises

A Vendor Evaluation Framework for Crypto Reporting

Digital asset reporting should be judged by one standard: can the numbers be explained and defended. The right partner proves accuracy and traceability across wallets, exchanges, custodians, and protocols. Use the steps below to run a side‑by‑side test and score vendors on what matters.

Goal: choose a reporting partner on evidence, not feature lists. This framework helps CFOs, controllers, fund admins, and audit partners run a fair, repeatable evaluation that measures defensibility, not demos.

How to Run a Side‑by‑Side Test

1. Assemble a representative wallet set: include staking, HFT bursts, OTC transfers, internal movements, and at least one complex DeFi position.
2. Fix your accounting policy up front: lot relief method; yield recognition timing; pricing hierarchy; principal versus yield treatment.
3. Give each vendor identical inputs: wallet addresses, exchange exports where required, custody confirms, and the policy document. Disallow manual cleanups.
4. Define required outputs: trial balance; income statement; realized and unrealized schedules; asset roll‑forwards; yield by day and wallet; exception logs; workpaper‑ready exports.
5. Score on evidence: validate tie-outs, review audit trails, measure run time at volume, and test how quickly support resolves open exceptions.

Outputs Built for Review

Finance teams and auditors expect deliverables they can attach to workpapers. Require: income statement summaries for digital-asset activity; realized and unrealized gain or loss schedules; asset roll-forwards by wallet and asset; yield by day and wallet; pricing source logs at recognition time; exception logs with dispositions; and a click-through audit trail that ties each number to its source record. Include clear control totals and period identifiers so controllers can map schedules into the GL.

Score the Eight Dimensions

Score each 1 to 5; weight by importance to your program.

1. Accuracy
   What to test: side‑by‑side reconciliation against an independent sample; consistent classification of tricky events; deterministic reruns.
   Evidence to request: reconciliation report.
2. Traceability and Audit Trail
   What to test: transaction lineage preserved through transfers; every figure links to a source record; immutable change history.
   Evidence to request: click‑through audit trail.
3. Scale and Performance
   What to test: processing millions of rows; high‑frequency bursts; parallel ingestion; no timeouts.
   Evidence to request: performance metrics at your scale; sample run time on your wallet set.
4. Coverage Depth and Breadth
   What to test: native integrations that remove the need for CSV uploads; ability to ingest any source via a controlled Custom Upload when needed.
   Evidence to request: list of native chains; example of a fully reconciled on‑chain history without CSVs.
5. Operations and Governance
   What to test: access; evidence retention; clear period‑close workflow.
   Evidence to request: access; retention policy.
6. Security and Privacy
   What to test: data segregation; encryption in transit and at rest; key management; breach response.
   Evidence to request: security overview.
7. Support and Expertise
   What to test: responsiveness; technical depth; experience supporting IRS or regulator reviews; ability to explain results to auditors.
   Evidence to request: anonymized case studies; sample responses to complex inquiries.

Red Flags to Watch For

• Coverage claims that require CSVs for most activity; native support is limited.
• Demos on pristine wallets; reluctance to test your addresses.
• Manual spreadsheet patches to reconcile gaps.
• Pricing that is opaque; smoothed or averaged prices without disclosure.
• No lot‑level lineage; inability to separate principal from yield.

RFP Questions That Prove Readiness

1. Show a transaction‑level audit trail for a complex transfer chain; include the originating source IDs.
2. Demonstrate how your system enforces our policy choices.
3. Process these addresses at full volume and provide run‑time metrics.
4. Explain how pricing is sourced at the recognition timestamp; show fallbacks.
5. Provide an example of exception handling and resolution; include timestamps and ownership.
6. Deliver workpaper-ready schedules with control totals and references so our accounting team can map them to GL accounts with minimal adjustments.

Total Cost of Ownership

Factor in implementation, ongoing maintenance, support, and the cost of review cycles when reports are not defensible. The price of the wrong tool includes audit fire drills; delayed closes; lost deals. The right partner reduces operational drag and preserves credibility.

How NODE40 Meets the Framework

• Evidence over claims: we invite side‑by‑side testing with your wallets.
• Depth where it matters: native support for the chains we advertise; Custom Upload for any other source when breadth is required.
• Review‑ready outputs: financial statements, roll‑forwards, and workpapers with click‑through audit trails.
• Built for volume: high‑frequency bursts; large histories; consistent reruns.

Run this framework with your wallets; we will participate in the side-by-side and supply evidence. Proof creates confidence; confidence protects value.