Topic: Accounting for the nonzero asset corporation. The MPEx standard. - page 2. (Read 3575 times)

I think this implies booking an expenditure such as this as goodwill is wrong, but I could be reading this incorrectly?

This led me to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Well, if you have infinite time, even doing mining by hand and calculating the hashes on paper will earn you 21 million BTC.

I don't really get the accusations against more recent forum members, the points mentioned seem reasonable to me (a May 2011 account... )

The part about the loans where a loan with no end date is accounted as infinite made me smile. Essentially it makes all those PMBs empirically worthless.

Any framework or set of criteria with respect to capitalization vs. expensing that is loose enough to deem the contest payout to be capital in nature can be used to justify capitalized just about every other expense imaginable. There is a reason that preexisting standards are so stringent with respect to capitalization criteria (identifiability, future economic benefit, measurability, etc).  This all seems to be lost on MP.

Without trying to start an argument, I was curious why the S.MG art contest payout was listed as an asset and not an expense?

Let's try and think together, maybe it helps.


Perhaps I am. The reason may be (A) a flaw in my reasoning, or (B) a mutual shared characteristic of those with very recent accounts. Such as for instance a tendency to assume rather than research combined with an unwarranted delusion of self importance. The former is a pitfall even experienced members fall into; the latter is amply discussed in psychological literature. They who lack the qualification to do a job also lack the meta-qualification to allow them to distinguish between doing well and doing poorly.

Now, if all you're stating is that A or B, that's all fine and good (and quite banal). If you are actually pretending like A, then you'd better damn well show cause. You fail to do so, and if you fail to do so and we have to judge between you claiming A on your own authority and me claiming B on my own authority we have no choice but to examine your authority and compare it to mine.

This is why you're very well served by actually showing cause, and by you I mean he just as much as you yourself. If you're curious, the reason for this confusion between you and him would be that the only characteristic one could pin on either of you is the date of your registration, other than that you've done nothing and can lay claim to nothing. Again, I can appreciate that this may on the surface (ie, on the basis of your ignorance, easily explained by your recency) seem to work both ways. It is not however the case that it works both ways: you don't know to whom you're speaking because you're ignorant, whereas I don't know to whom I'm speaking because you're meritless.

Now run along and acquire some merits, such as for instance bringing a fucking argument that's useful, rather than more posing and butthurt (which is not useful).

You're arguing with your registration date vs those of others quite often. Maybe you shouldn't even respond if you don't have an argument against what was brought up.

And to spare you to look up: I'm also registered April 2013.

The entirety of your message can be broken into a list of statements predicated on your authority. I am perfectly unimpressed with this: in a battle of authority yet another April 2013 btctalk account and yet-another silver whatever take no cake in a dispute with MP.

Should you be willing to rephrase in a more adequate manner it might perhaps be useful.

I'm not sure what preexisting accounting standards did to you, but your attack against them is unwarranted.

a) They are not uniquely tailored to fiat currency. Having a your reporting currency in BTC does not change anything structural. Accounting standards were actually developed when the currency was commodity-backed and not fiat.

b) The lack of taxes is also irrelevant to reporting standards. Accounting standards do not match tax standards anyway. All that would happen with BTC securities is that those handbook sections related to taxes (i.e. future income tax method, taxes payable method, disclosure requirements, etc) were just become irrelevant.

c) In your post you discuss forward-looking statements/projections. It is a mistake to include such projections in with the financial statements. The two need to be segregated, like what you see in annual reports.


With respect to your example statements for S.MG:

http://polimedia.us/trilema/2013/smg-june-2013-statement/

a) You need to have note disclosure for the breakdown of your accounts. For example, what your intangibles are composed of and the amortization period (even if it is 12 months). In this case it is obvious because there has been almost no activity, but for business which are in operation it can become complicated.

b) Your treatment of the prize as an intangible is inappropriate. This is a perfect example why relying on pre-existing accounting standards is a good idea. The guidelines and rules with respect to capitalization of intangibles and goodwill is hashed out thoroughly (I prefer IFRS to US-GAAP in this case, but either is good).  I'll save you some reading time: the prize cannot be capitalized and needs to be expensed.

c) You should value the warrants on the B/S. They represent a possible future stake in the business.

d) Your "incoming and outgoing" table, which I presume is a cashflow of sorts, needs to have a rec at the bottom. Basically "Opening + Changes based on the table = ending" and then the ending ties to the cash balance on the B/S. Right now the "Changes" are not even netted.

Point c) is actually a perfect example of what I think the right course of action would be for Financial Reporting. Those preexsting standards which are applicable and make sense should be used, we should not be trying to reinvent the wheel. However, there is indeed too much complexity in certain areas with how current standards deal with things. In those isolated instances, it is certainly justified in attempting to improve clarity for the users of the statements by simplifying. c) is a good example of this as the current standards would treat the warrants in a much more complicated manner. My strategy with TU.SILVER has been to treat outstanding options written by the company as a liability held at cost. Is this compliant with IFRS or US GAAP? no. Is the additional complexity related to adhering to current standards worth it to the users of the statements? no.

You probably want to read this.