The balance that grew while nothing happened
Every other kind of record in this area starts with an event that somebody deliberately caused. You bought something, you sold something, you moved something. Each of those produces a document, however inconvenient its format.
Rewards are different. Nobody pressed anything. A balance was one number in the morning and a slightly larger number in the evening, and depending on the platform there may be no line, no notification, and no export row to show for it.
Airdrops go further still: assets can appear that you never sought, from a project you have never heard of, at a moment you were not paying attention.
So the records problem is unusual. It is not about extracting data from a difficult document — it is about the absence of a document at all, and what an honest record does when the evidence was never created.
What we do not do — and it matters more here
We do not read the blockchain
No on-chain lookups and no wallet connection. On this topic that limitation bites harder than anywhere else, because rewards are frequently the events that only exist on chain or in a balance.
We do not value receipts
Recording what a reward was worth when it arrived needs a price at a moment. We do not look those up, and a value we invented would sit in your record looking exactly like one that was read.
We do not say what is income
Whether a reward is income, when it is recognised, and how an unsolicited airdrop is treated all vary by jurisdiction and by circumstance. That is a qualified adviser's work.
We do not reconstruct missing rewards
If a platform produced no record, we cannot produce one either. Inferring rewards from balance changes would be manufacturing evidence.
What remains is narrower than a crypto tax product would claim and is genuinely useful: reading the reward statements that do exist into dated rows, keeping receipts distinct from purchases, and marking the gaps honestly.
Why these are the hardest records to keep
| A purchase | A reward | |
|---|---|---|
| You caused it | Yes | No |
| You noticed it | At the time | Possibly never |
| A document exists | Almost always | Sometimes |
| There is a cost | Yes, that is the point | Nothing was given up |
| Frequency | Occasional | Sometimes daily |
| Individual size | Meaningful | Often negligible |
Rows two and three between them explain almost everything. A record only exists if somebody noticed and something was written down, and rewards routinely fail both conditions.
The last two rows create the second problem. Events that are individually negligible and collectively substantial are exactly the kind that nobody records at the time and everybody needs later.
Read what statements you do have
Upload reward statements, periodic summaries or exports containing reward lines and see them come back as dated rows. Free tier, no registration.
Upload a document
Drop your documents here
or browse to upload
Free: 10 pages / month · Upgrade for more
Files encrypted in transit · auto-deleted after processing · GDPR compliant
Five kinds of receipt, which behave differently
Staking rewards
Regular, predictable, often daily or per epoch. Usually documented on exchanges, frequently not when staking directly.
Airdrops you claimed
You did something — connected a wallet, met a condition. There is at least a moment you can date.
Airdrops you did not claim
Assets simply appear. No action, often no notification, sometimes noticed months later.
Forks and distributions
A holding you already had becomes two. Nothing arrived from outside; something split.
Referral and promotional credits
Frequently documented well, because the platform wants you to see them.
They are grouped together in conversation and they are not the same thing. The third and fourth in particular raise questions the others do not — an asset that arrives unbidden, and a holding that becomes two holdings without anything being received.
How each is characterised is a question for your adviser. What matters for records is that they are distinguishable, because a record that calls all five “rewards” has thrown away the distinction that the characterisation depends on.
What a receipt row needs
| Field | Note |
|---|---|
| Date received | The date it arrived, not the date you noticed |
| Asset and quantity | As stated, at full precision |
| Kind of receipt | Which of the five — the distinction the treatment rests on |
| Cost | Left empty, never zero |
| Where it arrived | Which platform or wallet |
| Evidence | Statement, screenshot, or 'balance change only' |
| Whether you sought it | Relevant for unsolicited receipts, and only you know |
The cost field is worth dwelling on. Zero asserts that the acquisition cost nothing, which is a substantive claim about the transaction. Empty says nothing was given up and no cost figure exists — which is what actually happened.
The distinction seems pedantic until somebody applies a method to the record and a zero flows into a calculation as though it had been observed.
The evidence field is the one that turns an uncomfortable record into a defensible one. “Balance change only, no statement available” is a poor evidential position honestly described, which is a great deal better than the same position undescribed.
The frequency problem
A holding that pays daily produces three hundred and sixty-five rows a year. Several assets across several platforms and the count runs into thousands, each for an amount too small to matter individually.
This creates a genuine tension. Recording every receipt is technically correct and produces a record nobody can work with. Summarising is practical and quietly discards information — the dates, which for many purposes are exactly what mattered.
How granular your records need to be is a question for your adviser, and the answer depends on your jurisdiction and how the receipts are characterised. It is not a question a tool should answer by default.
What can be said generally is this: keep the granular version and summarise from it, rather than summarising as you record. Aggregation is a one-way operation, and doing it at the moment of capture forecloses every choice that depended on the detail.
A practical middle path many people take is to keep daily rows in the record and hand over a monthly summary, with the detail available on request. That satisfies the working requirement without destroying anything.
Things you never asked for
Unsolicited receipts are the strangest part of this topic and worth treating separately.
Assets can appear in a wallet without any action on your part. Some are legitimate distributions from projects you had a connection with; some are promotional; some are attempts to induce you to interact with something unwise.
Two practical observations, neither of which is tax advice. First, the fact that you did not seek something does not automatically mean it is absent from your records — it arrived, and your balance reflects it, so a record that omits it is incomplete.
Second, and more importantly: an unsolicited token of unknown provenance is not something to interact with in order to tidy up your books. Attempting to move or dispose of it can be exactly what the sender wanted. Note it and ask someone before touching it.
For the record itself, the useful fields are the date it appeared, the quantity, and an explicit note that it was unsolicited and unclaimed. Whether that produces any consequence is your adviser's question, and they cannot answer it about something you never wrote down.
When there is genuinely no document
This is the case that has no clean answer, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
If a platform never produced a reward statement, never included rewards in an export, and has since stopped operating, then there is no document and there will not be one. No tool can read what does not exist, and inferring rewards from balance differences would be constructing evidence rather than recording it.
What can be done is limited but real. Note the period during which the arrangement was active. Note the asset. Note what you do know — an approximate rate, an opening and closing balance, whatever the platform advertised at the time.
Then mark the whole thing clearly as reconstructed rather than recorded, and say what it was reconstructed from. That is a materially different document from one that presents the same figures as observed.
Whether a reconstruction is acceptable, and on what basis, is your adviser's judgement. Labelling it honestly is what lets them make it — and is the single most valuable thing you can do with a gap.
And the preventive lesson, which applies from today onward: take a dated screenshot of a reward balance periodically. It costs seconds and it is frequently the only evidence that will exist.
Rewards that compound
Many arrangements automatically reinvest rewards rather than paying them out. The balance grows, nothing is ever received into a spendable position, and the record becomes ambiguous.
From one point of view a single number simply increased. From another, a reward was received and then immediately used to acquire more of the same asset — potentially two events, each with its own date and its own consequences.
Which reading applies is a question for your adviser, and it varies. What the record can do is show what actually happened at the level of detail the platform reports, without collapsing it into whichever reading is more convenient.
This is one place where documentation quality varies enormously. Some platforms report each compounding event; others report only a period-end balance, from which the individual events cannot be recovered.
If your platform reports the detail, keep it. It is a form of evidence you cannot recreate later, and the fact that it may turn out to be unnecessary is not a reason to discard it now.
A year of rewards, in numbers
Invented but representative. One holder, three staked assets, one year.
| Asset | Frequency | Rows a year | Documented? |
|---|---|---|---|
| A, on an exchange | Daily | 365 | Yes, in the export |
| B, staked directly | Every few days | ~90 | No — balance only |
| C, on an exchange | Monthly | 12 | Yes, statement |
| Airdrops | Three times | 3 | Two of three |
Four hundred and seventy rows for one holder in one year, of which roughly ninety have no document behind them at all. That is the shape of the problem: mostly volume, with a solid minority that is not merely tedious but genuinely unevidenced.
Asset B is the interesting line. It produces the fewest rows of the three staked assets and consumes most of the effort, because every one of them has to be reconstructed from balance movements rather than read.
Which suggests a practical prioritisation: the arrangements that document themselves are cheap to handle regardless of volume, and the ones that do not are expensive regardless of how few. Sort by documentation, not by row count.
Noticing a receipt you missed entirely
The hardest version of this problem: an asset you did not know you had. It arrived, nothing notified you, and it has been sitting in a wallet for two years.
There is no reliable way to find these from documents, because by definition no document reached you. What can be done is a periodic stock-take, and it is worth building into whatever annual routine you already have.
Compare holdings to your own record
List what you believe you hold, then look at what each wallet and account actually shows. Anything present that is not on your list arrived somehow.
Look for assets you never traded
A token you have no acquisition for is either an airdrop, a fork, or something someone sent you.
Check the low-value entries
Unsolicited receipts are usually small, which is exactly why they go unnoticed for years.
Date what you find
Not when you found it — when it arrived, if the wallet can tell you. The two dates are different and the earlier one is the relevant one.
The last point is the one people get wrong. Recording the date you noticed rather than the date it arrived puts an event in the wrong period, and if the arrival date is available it is the one that matters.
And to repeat a caution from earlier: an unfamiliar token found this way should be noted, not interacted with. Tidying it up by moving or disposing of it can be exactly what was intended by whoever sent it.
Six traps
Recording cost as zero. It asserts something about the transaction that nothing supports; empty is the accurate description.
Summarising as you capture. Aggregation is one-way, and the dates are frequently the thing that mattered.
Treating all five kinds as one category. The distinction is what any characterisation rests on.
Omitting unsolicited receipts. They arrived and your balance shows it, so leaving them out makes the record incomplete.
Interacting with an unknown token to tidy the books. That may be precisely the intent of whoever sent it.
Presenting a reconstruction as a record. Label what was reconstructed, or the whole record loses its credibility.
What happens when a reward is later sold
Rewards do not stay rewards. Eventually some are sold, swapped or spent — and at that point the receipt record and the disposal record have to meet.
This is where an incomplete reward record produces its most visible failure. A disposal needs to know what the disposed holding cost, and a reward that was never recorded has no entry to point at. The result is a sale with no acquisition behind it.
Worse, rewards are usually fungible with purchased holdings of the same asset. Sell part of a balance built from both purchases and rewards and something has to decide which units went — a question that cannot even be asked if the reward units were never recorded as arriving.
What the record needs to have preserved
Each receipt as its own dated entry with its own quantity, exactly as purchases are kept as individual lots. The reason is the same one given on cost basis records: aggregating early forecloses methods that might otherwise have been available.
And the distinction between the five kinds of receipt matters here too, because a disposal of something acquired as an unsolicited airdrop may be treated differently from one acquired as a staking reward. A record that called both “reward” cannot support the distinction.
None of which tells you how any of it is taxed — that remains your adviser's work. But it does explain why the effort of recording small, individually negligible receipts is worth making at the time rather than at the point of sale, when the information no longer exists.
Where to start
Two things, one retrospective and one that starts today.
Looking back: gather whatever reward statements exist, from every platform, and read them into dated rows. Then list the arrangements for which no statements exist at all — that list is your reconstruction problem, and knowing its size is the first useful fact.
Looking forward: start taking a dated screenshot of reward balances at a regular interval, monthly is plenty. It takes seconds, requires no tooling, and for platforms that produce nothing it is the only evidence that will ever exist.
The second habit is worth more than the first exercise. Everything not yet documented becomes reconstructable at best; everything from now on can simply be recorded.
How these rows fit into the wider record is on how to prepare crypto records for tax, and the acquisition side is on crypto cost basis records.