Crypto
Reconciliation across exchanges and wallets
Representative scenario: crypto accounting and reconciliation.
Verified case to be addedInstitutional finance operations for Swiss fintech, crypto and payment businesses
When the auditor asks where the number came from, you should already have the answer.
Audit-ready accounting, reconciliation and reporting for Swiss crypto, payment and fintech companies. No key-person dependency. Full company accountability.
Finance Risk Check
Question 1 of 3
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Industries
Built for how your industry actually moves money
Select your industry to see the financial flows, the risks and the services that apply.
Flow · Risk · Control
01
Crypto and Digital Assets
Wallet, exchange and custody flows reconciled to source.
Primary risk Records that cannot be traced to a blockchain or custodian statement
↗02Payment Companies
PSP and transaction flows tied to settlement and bank statements.
Primary risk Unreconciled transaction volume at review
↗03Fintech Platforms
Multi-source financial flows across products and entities.
Primary risk Reporting that does not tie out across sources
↗04SaaS and Technology
Subscription, revenue and payroll flows with group reporting needs.
Primary risk Revenue and reporting data that scale without control
↗Client outcomes
What you get is an outcome, not a service
Four end states. Every engagement is structured to move the finance operation toward the outcomes relevant to its agreed scope.
01
Reconciled
Financial sources tie to the ledger. Nothing material remains unexplained without being reported.
02
Explainable
Every figure traces to a source that can be shown and supported.
03
Review-ready
Records are structured to withstand audit, bank, SRO and investor review.
04
Continuous
Closing, reporting and controls operate on a documented cadence.
Verifiable evidence
Evidence you can verify, not claims you must take on faith
Each category is intended to connect a statement to supporting evidence. Items that are not yet verified remain explicitly marked before publication.
E-01
Professional liability insurance
Coverage details — to be verified.
E-02
Group operating history
Group history — to be verified.
E-03
Swiss qualifications
Qualifications — to be verified.
E-04
Contractual SLA
Service commitments are defined in the agreed engagement.
E-05
Documented review
Review procedures follow the agreed control and engagement scope.
E-06
Centralised communication
One channel for requests, updates and sign-off.
E-07
Backup coverage
Continuity is structured beyond one individual.
E-08
Access controls
Control implementation and evidence — to be verified.
E-09
Memberships
Membership details — to be verified.
Service model comparison
Why the operating model matters
The work may be called accounting in every case. The difference is how specialist capability, continuity and responsibility are organised.
Compare by
Internal
In-house accountant
An employee working inside the business.
External
General outsourced accounting
An external provider serving the agreed accounting scope.
ACCELIOSpecialist external
Specialist outsourced finance and accounting
An external specialist team for fintech, crypto and payment operations.
Fintech specialisation
Depends on hire
Capability depends on the experience of the individual.
Varies by provider
May focus primarily on standard bookkeeping and compliance.
Core focus
Designed around fintech, crypto and payment finance operations.
Resourcing model
One employed role
The business recruits and manages the position.
Provider-defined
Assignment and team structure depend on the provider.
Competence-based
Work is assigned within the team according to competence and scope.
Continuity
Internally arranged
Backup and handover must be organised by the business.
Engagement-dependent
Coverage depends on the provider’s operating model.
Process-based
Central intake, documented procedures and escalation support continuity.
Controls and review
Business-defined
The business determines supervision and review.
Provider-defined
Procedures vary with the provider and engagement.
Scope-defined
Control and review procedures are defined for the relevant work.
Responsibility boundary
Employer model
The business owns the process, decisions and employee management.
Contract-defined
Responsibilities are determined by the engagement terms.
Explicitly defined
Accelio performs the agreed services; the client remains responsible for source information, decisions and approvals.
Typical operating patterns are shown for comparison. Exact services, responsibilities and review procedures are defined in the relevant engagement scope.
Company accountability
No key-person dependency. Accountability stays with Accelio.
Work is delivered through a defined operating model, not carried by one individual.
Core principle The engagement is with Accelio, while work is assigned according to competence and scope.
01
Structured Intake
Requests and documents enter through agreed channels and are tracked centrally.
02
Competence-Based Assignment
Work is assigned to the team best placed to deliver the agreed scope.
03
Preparation
Records are prepared against a documented standard.
04
Defined Review
Review procedures follow the relevant work and engagement scope.
05
Documented Delivery and Follow-up
Delivery is recorded and open items are tracked to closure or reported with the decision required.
Financial data flow
From source to statement, every step controlled
Financial data moves through a documented path from source systems to review-ready outputs.
01
Sources
Financial data enters
Banks · PSPs · Exchanges · Custodians · Wallets · Payroll · Group entities
→
02
Controls
Records are controlled
Classification · Reconciliation · Exception review · Approval · Closing controls
→
03
Outputs
Evidence is delivered
General ledger · Financial statements · Management reporting · Audit schedules
Client use cases
Recognise your situation
Choose the situation closest to yours to explore the relevant service path.
01
Changing fiduciary
A controlled transition with no loss of record integrity.
Explore switching provider →02Broken reconciliation
Records that do not tie out, repaired to a controlled standard.
Explore reconciliation →03Preparing for audit
Records structured to withstand external review.
Explore audit support →04SRO or licence preparation
Finance operations aligned to regulatory review.
Explore regulatory readiness →05Reporting too slow
Reporting on a cadence management can rely on.
Explore financial reporting →06Bank or investor information request
A response supported by records that hold up.
Explore review support →Case studies
How the model applies, by scenario
Representative engagements by industry and operating challenge. Verified client cases will be added when available.
Payments
PSP settlement records brought under control
Representative scenario: payment and PSP accounting.
Verified case to be addedFintech
Multi-entity reporting prepared for review
Representative scenario: fintech platform reporting.
Verified case to be addedSaaS
Recurring reporting with a dependable close
Representative scenario: SaaS reporting.
Verified case to be addedReconciliation
Broken records assessed and repaired
Representative scenario: broken reconciliation repaired.
Verified case to be addedAudit readiness
Records structured for external review
Representative scenario: preparing for audit.
Verified case to be addedSecurity preview
Security and access, made explicit
The controls intended to protect client data are stated plainly. Implementation status and supporting evidence must be confirmed before publication.
Open Security & Accountability Center01
Role-based access
Access limited to what each role needs.
02
Multi-factor authentication
Status to be verified.
03
Controlled personnel access
Named individuals, individually authorised.
04
Data location
Location to be verified.
05
Approved subprocessors
Subprocessor list to be verified.
06
Incident response and business continuity
Plans to be verified.
FAQ
The hard questions, answered directly
Straight answers to the questions clients ask before they move.
What happens if you make an error?
If an error is attributable solely to our work, we assess the impact, inform the client where required, correct our professional work without an additional service fee under the engagement terms, and review the underlying control. Details of professional liability coverage are available upon request.
Who works on our accounting?
Your engagement is owned by Accelio and delivered by an assigned team rather than being dependent on one individual. Work is allocated according to competence, access is controlled by role, and escalation follows a documented route.
Do you use contractors?
We may use approved specialists or contractors where a mandate requires specific expertise or additional capacity. Their access is role-based and controlled under our confidentiality, security and review framework. Contractual responsibility remains with Accelio.
What happens if an employee leaves?
Work is documented and cross-covered, so a departure does not interrupt the agreed service. Backup coverage is built into the operating model.
Can you guarantee an SRO or FINMA outcome?
No provider can guarantee a regulator's decision. We prepare records to withstand review and do not promise outcomes.
Where is our data stored?
Data location and hosting details must be verified before publication.
What if our current accounting is in poor condition?
We start with a controlled assessment, agree a remediation plan and transfer responsibility in stages so nothing is lost.
Confidential consultation
Find the weak point before the auditor, bank or regulator does.
A private introductory conversation to understand your business, current finance setup and whether Accelio is the right fit.