The Future of Crypto Tax Compliance: Integrated Onchain Reporting and the Next Phase After 1099-DA

Last Updated on June 25, 2026 by Patrick Camuso, CPA

Quick answer (read this first):

What is integrated onchain reporting: It is the probable next phase of crypto tax compliance predicted at ETHDenver by Patrick Camuso, in which the tax-relevant data needed to report a transaction is captured at the protocol or transaction level on the blockchain itself, rather than reconstructed off-chain after the fact. Instead of brokers, software, and taxpayers each building their own incomplete version of the record, the tax-relevant attributes would be generated at the point of transaction and could stream toward tax authorities directly.

Why it is coming: Form 1099-DA solves part of the reporting problem but creates significant friction. It covers custodial venues but not decentralized ones, it breaks basis lineage when assets move between custody models, and it forces taxpayers to reconcile three independent records that were never designed to agree. Markets respond to that kind of structural friction by redesigning the systems that produce it.

What it means for investors: The transition is already underway, and the documentation, methodology, and basis continuity that have always mattered are now under a magnifying glass, because the inconsistencies that stayed invisible in a self-reported environment are becoming externally visible to the IRS.

What it means for builders: Protocol design has always carried downstream tax and compliance consequences. As users become more focused on these consequences, builders who design predictable, compliance-aware transactions stand to gain a competitive advantage.

The open questions: Getting there raises hard, unsettled questions about how far reporting should extend into decentralized environments, what role on-chain identity should play, and how to close reporting gaps without sacrificing the innovation and privacy that define the technology.

The Digital Asset Compliance Era Has Begun

For more than a decade, crypto transactions existed with limited visibility to tax authorities. The market operated on self-reported compliance, and the level of non-compliance that came with it was substantial enough that estimates have placed unreported digital asset tax liability in the billions annually. As the market matures into a systemically relevant part of the financial system, that level of non-compliance stops being sustainable, and the integration of digital assets into established third-party reporting regimes becomes inevitable.

That integration has now started with Form 1099-DA, the IRS information return that requires digital asset brokers to report transactions directly to the agency, which went live for 2025 transactions. For 2025 it reports primarily proceeds data, with cost basis reporting phasing in for covered assets in subsequent years. The mechanical significance is straightforward: the IRS now receives transaction data independent of what the taxpayer reports, and it can feed that data into automated matching systems that detect discrepancies far more quickly and far more systematically than manual review ever could.

This is the beginning of what is best understood as the digital asset compliance era. The phase of crypto as a largely invisible, self-reported asset class is ending, and a phase defined by third-party reporting, automated matching, and cross-border information sharing is replacing it. Form 1099-DA is the first major instrument of that transition, but it is not isolated. It sits alongside stablecoin legislation, international reporting coordination, and a slate of tax policy proposals that together are reshaping how Web3 activity is taxed and reported. The full policy landscape is analyzed in our Tax Notes Federal policy analysis, co-authored with the former head of the IRS Office of Digital Assets.

Why Crypto Tax Reporting Is Structurally Harder Than It Looks

Digital assets are taxed as property, which carries specific and demanding implications for anyone transacting in them. Every time an investor acquires a digital asset, they have to track the cost basis. Every time they dispose of one, they have to track the proceeds and match the disposal against the correct tax lot to calculate the gain. None of this is optional, and for most of crypto’s history, all of it has fallen entirely on the taxpayer.

Two features make crypto uniquely difficult compared to traditional assets. The first is the absence of standardized reporting before Form 1099-DA. Stocks and bonds in a brokerage account come with a broker that tracks basis, calculates gain, and issues a clean information return. Crypto had no equivalent, which left every investor building their own records from scratch. The second is more fundamental, blockchains are public, largely immutable ledgers, but they do not record the data that tax reporting actually requires. A blockchain captures that a transaction occurred, the addresses involved, the amounts, and the timestamp. It does not capture tax classification, lot continuity, the identity of the parties, or the jurisdiction in which they operate. All of that has to be constructed through accounting processes and tax reporting that happen off-chain, after the transaction is already settled.

This is the gap that produces the compliance burden. The tax-relevant audit trail that a traditional broker generates automatically does not exist on-chain, so it has to be built from the ground up, and building it accurately across years of activity, multiple wallets, and dozens of protocols is a forensic exercise rather than a software import.

The Three-Record Problem That 1099-DA Intensifies

The core challenge of crypto tax reporting in the 1099-DA era is that taxpayers are working with three sets of records that were never designed to reconcile with one another. The investor starts with on-chain transactions and exchange records, which are not standardized. Those have to be processed through tax software, which applies divergent treatment depending on the platform, the protocols involved, and the nature of the activity. And then those outputs have to reconcile, on the tax return, against what the broker reports on Form 1099-DA.

These three records diverge for structural reasons, not because anyone made an error. The same transaction can carry different timing, different fee treatment, different classification, and different basis across the three systems, all while each system remains internally consistent. We analyze this dynamic in depth in our article on the crypto tax three-record problem. The relevant point for the trajectory of compliance is that Form 1099-DA does not resolve the three-record problem. It makes the divergence visible to the IRS matching system for the first time, which is precisely the kind of friction that drives the next phase.

The Implementation Gaps That Point Toward the Next Phase

Form 1099-DA, as currently designed, carries implementation challenges that are not incidental. They are structural, and each one points toward the limits of the current approach.

The current reporting regime applies only to custodial environments. It does not reach decentralized exchanges or non-custodial platforms. This creates a situation where two economically similar or even identical transactions receive completely different reporting treatment based solely on where they take place. One gets reported to the IRS, the other does not, despite carrying substantively identical tax obligations. A reporting regime with a hole that large in the middle of it invites both inequity and avoidance.

This gap is not an oversight that a quick rule change will close. Treasury did attempt to extend reporting obligations to decentralized finance, finalizing regulations covering non-custodial brokers and certain front-end service providers in December 2024. Those regulations faced significant implementation challenges and were subsequently revoked. The episode is instructive, because it demonstrates that imposing traditional broker reporting on fully decentralized protocols runs into genuine technical limits. Some protocols have no identifiable party that could perform a reporting function, and others execute automatically through smart contracts with no intermediary at all. The custodial-only scope of the current regime is therefore not a temporary starting point so much as a reflection of how hard the decentralized side of the problem actually is. That difficulty has a second-order effect worth naming directly. When reporting obligations attach primarily to custodial intermediaries, transaction flows have a structural incentive to migrate toward the environments that sit outside standardized reporting. A coverage gap that pushes activity into the unreported zone does not stay static. It widens, which is precisely the kind of self-reinforcing pressure that forces a redesign rather than a patch.

Starting in 2025, cost basis is tracked on a wallet-by-wallet, account-by-account basis. The moment an investor moves assets from a custodial environment to a non-custodial one, or back again, the basis lineage breaks. The burden of reconstructing that lineage and reporting it accurately falls on the taxpayer. For investors who have been active in the space for five to ten years, this problem is magnified considerably. A large number of these investors have never accurately calculated their basis, and when they eventually dispose of legacy assets that lack complete basis records, the compliance problem surfaces with full force. The long tail of incomplete historical accounting is one of the most significant exposures in the entire market, and we address it directly in our work on crypto cost basis reconstruction.

Even where reporting exists, taxpayers and practitioners diverge in how they treat specific transaction types. Bridges, wrapped assets, staking, the pricing applied to thinly traded tokens, and newer instruments like prediction market contracts all carry divergent treatment across the industry. As third-party reporting expands, those methodological differences stop being private positions and start being visible discrepancies, which compounds the reconciliation problem rather than resolving it.

This Is Not Confined to the United States

Form 1099-DA is a US instrument, but the trend it represents is global. The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, known as CARF, establishes a standardized cross-jurisdiction reporting regime modeled on the Common Reporting Standard that already applies to traditional financial accounts, and the European Union has implemented its equivalent through DAC8, effective January 1, 2026. The combined effect of Form 1099-DA, CARF, and DAC8 is that digital asset transactions are becoming visible to tax authorities across the major economic jurisdictions at roughly the same time, with service providers collecting reportable data from 2026 and the first automatic cross-border exchanges of that data expected in 2027. The era of jurisdictional invisibility is closing on every front at once, and an investor who assumes that activity on a foreign venue or a decentralized protocol sits outside the reach of reporting is working from an assumption with a rapidly shrinking shelf life.

Why Integrated Onchain Reporting Is the Probable Next Phase

It is unlikely that crypto tax reporting stops at Form 1099-DA. The compliance friction and reconciliation friction created by the coverage gaps, the basis fragmentation, and the treatment variability are going to be felt industrywide as this plays out across 2025 and subsequent years. When markets encounter structural friction of this kind, and when the cost of that friction becomes material, the way markets usually respond is to redesign the systems that generate it so the friction is reduced. This is worth emphasizing, because it reframes where the next phase comes from. Integrated onchain reporting is not only a regime that regulators might impose from the top down. It is the kind of redesign that the market itself moves toward when the cost of the current approach becomes too high to absorb.

The direction that redesign points toward is integrated onchain reporting. Instead of capturing tax-relevant data off-chain through accounting reconstruction after the fact, the tax-relevant attributes a transaction requires, including classification, basis continuity, and the rest of the audit trail, would be captured at the protocol or transaction level on the blockchain itself. From there, that standardized data could stream directly toward tax agencies for reporting. The effect would be to reduce the variability in tax outcomes that currently arises when different taxpayers report the same activity differently, or do not report it at all. That second case matters, because it connects directly back to the non-compliance problem that drove third-party reporting in the first place. A regime that captures the data at the source does not just reconcile the taxpayers who are already trying to comply. It closes the gap on the activity that has never been reported, which is the structural problem the entire compliance era exists to solve.

This is not a near-term certainty, and it is not without serious unresolved questions. But the logic of the trajectory is consistent. The current moment is best understood as a system in transition, one in which enforcement capability has advanced more rapidly than data standardization and validation. The IRS can now match broker-reported data against returns at scale, but the underlying data those matches run on is not yet standardized, complete, or consistently reconcilable across the custodial and non-custodial environments where activity actually happens. A reporting regime that only reaches custodial venues, that breaks basis lineage at custody boundaries, and that forces every taxpayer to reconcile three incompatible records is a regime under structural pressure. Integrated onchain reporting is the architecture that resolves that pressure at its source, by standardizing the data where it originates rather than reconciling mismatched versions of it downstream. Even a partial move in that direction, such as hybrid models that capture front-end service providers and wallet interfaces rather than attempting to reach fully decentralized protocols directly, would close meaningful parts of the coverage gap without requiring the technically doubtful step of imposing reporting obligations on protocols that have no party to impose them on.

The Friction Ahead

The compliance era is going to generate friction across three distinct layers, and understanding them helps clarify where the industry is heading.

The first layer is enforcement and reconciliation. Enforcement capacity is scaling now through Form 1099-DA, automated matching, and broker reporting. Taxpayers have to focus on whether they have calculated their cost basis with the correct methodologies, whether their proceeds calculations match Form 1099-DA, whether they have documented and can defend the discrepancies where the records diverge, and whether they are even applying the correct methodology to the calculation in the first place. There is meaningful divergence on wallet-by-wallet tracking and other questions that materially affect basis, and that divergence becomes an enforcement exposure once third-party reporting makes it visible.

The second layer is architectural, and it is where the deepest and most consequential questions sit. The potential shift toward integrated onchain reporting forces the industry to confront tradeoffs it has so far been able to avoid. How far should tax reporting extend into decentralized environments? What role should on-chain identity play in transactions and in the reporting attached to them? How does the industry reduce reporting blind spots without stifling the innovation that makes the technology valuable or sacrificing the privacy that many participants consider fundamental to it?

None of these questions has a clean answer, and the difficulty is not merely technical. Capturing tax-relevant data at the protocol level would close the reporting gap, but it also presses directly against the permissionless and pseudonymous properties that define much of what makes decentralized systems distinct. Pushing reporting too far into decentralized environments risks driving activity offshore or into structures designed specifically to evade it, which would defeat the purpose. Pushing too little leaves the coverage gap open and the inequity intact. The role of on-chain identity sits at the center of this tension, because reporting ultimately requires knowing who transacted and in what jurisdiction, and building that into systems engineered for anonymity is a fundamental design conflict rather than a feature to be toggled on. These are not questions that resolve once and stay resolved. They are the terms on which the entire relationship between decentralized technology and the tax system will be negotiated, and the way they are answered will determine not just compliance outcomes but the shape of the industry and how it fits into the broader financial system and the society around it.

What This Means If You Are a Builder

Protocol design has always carried downstream consequences for accounting, compliance, and tax reporting, but users are going to be far more focused on those consequences going forward. The way a protocol is designed determines the tax classification, the compliance burden, and the basis tracking complexity that its users inherit.

This creates a genuine opportunity for builders who design predictable transactions that reduce compliance risk and who build their protocols to be compliance-aware from the start, because they can gain a real competitive advantage because as the compliance era matures a user choosing between two protocols may choose the one that produces clean, reportable, defensible transaction data over the one that generates a reconciliation nightmare. Compliance-aware design stops being an afterthought and becomes a feature that protects the protocol’s users, the protocol’s own business, and the bottom lines of the builders who get there first as the regime tightens around them.

What This Means If You Are an Investor or Founder

The investor’s transaction footprint is increasingly going to sit in environments that are reported on by third parties. Any issues with cost basis tracking, with the methodologies applied to calculate basis and proceeds, and with the tax positions taken on specific assets are going to become increasingly visible. Documentation and methodology have always mattered, but they are now under a magnifying glass as these inconsistencies become externally visible through third-party reporting.

The practical implication is that the work of getting compliant is no longer deferrable. The investors most exposed are those holding legacy assets from the pre-reporting era, where basis records are incomplete and the audit trail has gaps. When those assets are disposed of, the entire history behind them can be called into question, and the burden of substantiating it falls on the taxpayer. Building defensible records now, before a disposal or an inquiry forces the issue, is substantially more protective than attempting reconstruction under examination pressure. This is the work our crypto CPA practice has focused on since 2016, and it is the foundation of surviving the compliance era intact.

The Decisions Made Now Will Define the Next Decade

Digital assets have become a market too big to ignore and systemically relevant to the broader financial system. That kind of market maturity is what drives the move toward integrated reporting, and as it rolls out, compliance is going to reshape both market design and the behavior of every participant in it.

The decisions made now, by regulators, by builders, and by investors, will define how Web3 integrates into the global financial system. The builders who understand this and design for compliance, and the investors who build defensible records before they are forced to, are the ones positioned to succeed in the digital asset compliance era. The friction is real and it is only beginning, but it is also predictable, and predictable friction can be planned for.

For investors navigating this transition, our 1099-DA compliance services and crypto cost basis reconstruction services are built for exactly this environment. Work with a crypto CPA established in this market since 2016.

Contact us to discuss your situation

Watch The Full ETHDenver Speech

Frequently Asked Questions

What is integrated onchain tax reporting?

Integrated onchain reporting is the probable next phase of crypto tax compliance, in which the tax-relevant data needed to report a transaction is captured at the protocol or transaction level on the blockchain itself rather than reconstructed off-chain after the fact. Today, a blockchain records that a transaction happened but not its tax classification, basis continuity, or the jurisdiction of the parties, all of which has to be built through off-chain accounting. Integrated onchain reporting would capture those attributes at the point of transaction and could stream them toward tax authorities directly, reducing the variability in how different taxpayers report the same activity.

Is Form 1099-DA the final form of crypto tax reporting?

 Form 1099-DA covers custodial brokers but not decentralized or non-custodial venues, it breaks basis lineage when assets move between custody models, and it forces taxpayers to reconcile three independent records that were never designed to agree. Those structural gaps create compliance friction that markets typically respond to by redesigning the underlying systems. The probable direction of that redesign is integrated onchain reporting, where the data is captured at the source rather than reconstructed downstream.

What is the digital asset compliance era?

The digital asset compliance era is the current transition from crypto as a largely invisible, self-reported asset class to one defined by third-party reporting, automated IRS matching, and cross-border information sharing. It began with Form 1099-DA going live for 2025 transactions and extends through stablecoin legislation, the international Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework, and a range of tax policy proposals. The defining feature is that transaction data is now visible to tax authorities independent of what the taxpayer reports.

Why does moving crypto between wallets create a tax compliance problem?

Beginning in 2025, cost basis is tracked on a wallet-by-wallet and account-by-account basis. When an investor moves assets between a custodial environment and a non-custodial wallet, the basis lineage that connects an asset to its original acquisition can break. The transfer itself is generally not a taxable event, but the burden of preserving and reconstructing the basis record across that move falls entirely on the taxpayer. For investors with years of activity across many wallets and exchanges, these broken lineages accumulate into a significant reconciliation problem.

How does CARF affect crypto investors outside the United States?

The Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework is an international standard being implemented across many tax jurisdictions, designed to make digital asset transactions visible to tax authorities and to enable those authorities to share information systematically with one another. For investors, the practical effect is that activity on foreign venues is becoming visible across borders in the same way that Form 1099-DA makes domestic custodial activity visible to the IRS. The assumption that offshore or cross-border activity sits outside the reach of reporting is becoming less reliable every year.

What should crypto investors do to prepare for the compliance era?

The most important step is establishing defensible cost basis records before a disposal or an IRS inquiry forces the issue. That means reconstructing historical basis where records are incomplete, adopting the correct wallet-by-wallet accounting methodology, reconciling against any Form 1099-DA received, and documenting the methodology behind every position so it can be defended under examination. Investors holding legacy assets from the pre-reporting era carry the most exposure, because disposing of those assets can call the entire history behind them into question. Reconstruction performed proactively is substantially more protective than reconstruction performed under audit pressure.