Awarded once after a correct answer.
Explain the difference before closing it
Useful first : Crypto settlement and reconciliation
Think like an operator · Step 4 / 6
Two balances. A two-token difference.
Fictional control: 1,050 tokens on-chain, 1,048 in the internal ledger at the same cut-off. An operator proposes booking the difference as network fees. Open the evidence before choosing.
A · Transaction receipt
The network fee was paid in the native asset. The token-transfer events contain no two-token fee.
B · Internal journal
A debit of 2 tokens is labelled “network fees”, without a matching token-transfer event identifier.
C · Scope of the extract
Both extracts cover the same chain, contract and cut-off. This scenario assumes the included events satisfy the organisation’s finality policy.
An illustrative investigation, not a prescription for an institution’s books.
Which balances are being compared?
Reconciliation compares independent views of the same economic position at a defined time. Identify the on-chain balance, custody subledger and accounting balance separately. A difference may reflect timing, fees, decimals, a missed event or incorrect asset mapping. The number alone does not identify the cause.
Use the same asset and observation point
Record the network, block reference, asset identifier and extraction time used by each system. Replaying data from incompatible cut-offs can create artificial differences. Preserve raw units alongside display amounts so that rounding and decimal conversion remain observable.
An explained break needs evidence
Assign every break an owner, age, materiality, hypothesis and supporting evidence. Separate an explained timing difference from an unexplained position. A suspense entry can keep processing organized, but does not establish that the underlying difference is resolved. Closure needs evidence and independent review.
Separate observations from hypotheses
Keep observations and hypotheses in separate columns of your notes. “The internal balance is two units lower” is an observation. “The fee was charged to the wrong asset” is a hypothesis until the source receipt and posting establish it. Start by aligning network, asset identifier, units and cutoff. Then follow the missing movement or incorrect entry, keeping the original records available.
Write the exception record
An exception record should let a colleague pick up the investigation without repeating it: expected and observed balances, signed difference, common block reference, evidence checked, hypotheses still open, owner and next action. A timing difference needs the missing event and a later matched state. A mapping correction needs the incorrect entry, corrected rule and review of affected entries. A balancing entry alone does not supply either kind of evidence.
Rebuild the expected closing balance
Use a movement bridge: opening position plus deposits minus withdrawals, plus or minus token-specific events, equals the expected closing position. Treat network fees according to the asset that actually pays them. A token transfer paid in ETH should not automatically reduce the token quantity.
Two matching reports can share one error
Two matching reports can share the same faulty data source. Independence and completeness matter as much as equality. Do not eliminate an unexplained break by changing a balance to force agreement.
From observations to a reviewed correction
- 01Align cut-offs
- 02Bridge movements
- 03Investigate breaks
- 04Review closure
Read these as connected concepts, not necessarily consecutive steps.
Read the explanation
Use a movement bridge: opening position plus deposits minus withdrawals, plus or minus token-specific events, equals the expected closing position. Treat network fees according to the asset that actually pays them. A token transfer paid in ETH should not automatically reduce the token quantity.
Put the mechanism into context
At the same block reference, a fictional token balance opens at 1,000. Confirmed deposits add 200 and withdrawals subtract 150. The independent chain view closes at 1,050, but the internal ledger closes at 1,048. A service report lists a fee of 2 in another asset. You have not yet checked how that fee was posted. The matching numbers are a clue, not a proven cause.
Apply it in the workshop →What this mechanism does not guarantee
Two matching reports can share the same faulty data source. Independence and completeness matter as much as equality. Do not eliminate an unexplained break by changing a balance to force agreement.
The distinction that changes the analysis
A fee charged in the native token can appear as an unexplained discrepancy if the ledger records only the transferred token. Match network, asset, timing and fee entries before closing the break. Posting a balancing adjustment without a cause hides the issue.
Explain it yourself
Revisit the case above. Name what is established, what remains to be checked and the evidence needed to conclude. A strong answer addresses both sides of the diagram.
Two tokens are missing: what do you check?
At the same block reference, a fictional token balance opens at 1,000. Confirmed deposits add 200 and withdrawals subtract 150. The independent chain view closes at 1,050, but the internal ledger closes at 1,048. A service report lists a fee of 2 in another asset. You have not yet checked how that fee was posted. The matching numbers are a clue, not a proven cause.
1,000 + 200 − 150 = 1,050 tokens. Compare the fee asset, amount and transaction reference with the ledger posting. If those records show that a different-asset fee was charged to this token position, correct the mapping and affected entry under review. Without that evidence, neither an immediate adjustment nor a timing classification is justified.
Prepare a correction note
Describe the passage and the proposed correction. This creates a local note for you to share; it sends nothing. Do not include personal or confidential information.