Topic: Accounting for the nonzero asset corporation. The MPEx standard. (Read 3568 times)

LOL, wtf are blabbering now? You must be talking about yourself to yourself... this is sad indeed. Get some rest, sockpuppet.

Generally, because they don't. But they'd love to.


He was trying that sometime last year. He neither has the emotional/mental stability to pull it off over extended intervals (above, say, half an hour) nor really much of anything to say outside of the froth.

He did contribute to the general pile of lolz surrounding Bitcoin the fabulous idea of a PMB that does no hashing. Literally, some sort of "Spend BTC to buy shares in the profit made by ovens. They don't hash but they do produce waste heat!". Supposedly revenue was going to be generated from the pocketbooks of various...artists.

With ideas like that you can readily understand why we'd keep him around, the man's a walking, talking parody.

From the experience of friends; I'm told it takes a few weeks to really take hold, which is much too drawn-out of a buzz for me.

Regardless of my feelings about MPOE-PR, having to read through your posts is no better. Petty insults, thinly veiled racism, and boorish sarcasm, oozing vulgarity. There's a lesson about irony here, if you care to look for it.

It's not even a question of whether or not I "believe" you, it's a question of whether your words hold any weight, given the way you've chosen to present them.

Protip: tone down your rhetoric about five notches, and people might start taking you seriously over time.

I guess your must be talking form your own experience and I am glad, it helps you with your bipolar disorder.

BTW, did you even read this crap he wrote? Seriously. His absurdity is only good for hiding real numbers and make an empty sacks, like hes scams are, to look good.
If you do not believe me, it's OK. I do not take it personally. Please show this nonsense to someone who understands finances and let them explain it to you.

BTW, this guy has problems understanding financial concepts like asset and equity, no wonder he needs to invent his own distorted ways of making sense of it all. LOL.

EskimoBob, try lithium. I've seen it work wonders.

Amazing! Wow!  When self absorbed diletante like Popescu is starting to blather about his standards, you know it's going to be a comedy hour. Really pathetic one, but still comedy.
Let's put our hands together and give this gypsy sociopath and his eager PR clown one more round of applause.

Only way anyone can get exited over this nonsense is if you have 0 understanding why and how business operates and why and how accounting/finances work. Actually, you need to have 0 experience and complete lack of mental ability to understand wtf is happening.
Mircea Popescus understanding of finances is a joke. He has no real life experience in finances and this is painfully obvious.

LOL, and you, MPO-PR, keep humiliating yourself by copy/pasting your masters drivel to this forum.  Every village needs an idiot and you 2 are filling this role famously. Keep up the good work comedy!

And one more round of applause!

You can start your angry whining noẃ.

I'm not saying that dollars shouldn't be liquid, though. I'm just observing they aren't really. But this is really a minor point anyway, the larger point is to get people thinking in BTC. That's half the battle.

I guess that depends on what sorts of arrangements you have made for conversion of USD to BTC. I see no reason why you could not have set up with other parties a quick conversion route? The quickest route would be to hand people cash and have them send you btc, but if that is not reasonable then if they trust you enough then once you initiate the USD transfer they could send the btc right away.


right, I was trying to think of something applicable to me which would be an example of this category, and that is the first thing that came to mind.

Dollars are not particularly liquid and certainly not cash. They're at best account 2, soon to move to 3 I imagine, unless them people get their shit together presto. By the same token a car is not liquid. So if what you meant is, "I'll take this accounting system and apply it as if the USD was a unit of account" then I guess you did it right.


In the perspective where "you" are a company that somehow got a college diploma, yes.

Just to make sure I understand:

 account 1 (cash) would include things like: USD, bitcoins, and 10 shares of S.Dice
 account 2 (tangibles) would include things like: a house, a car, 1000000 shares of S.Dice
 account 3 (intangibles) would include things like: my college diploma - I paid a bunch to get it and it is definitely worth something since it helps me get a job, but there is no way for me to sell it.

Fundamentally, the account plan has three account types in it: 1, 2 and 3.

One is stuff that's for all practical purposes liquid BTC. If a payment out of 1 is decided, the operator getting through his payment mechanism is the highest latency of the entire process. This is pretty well equivalent to the fiat notion of cash, wherein the time it takes the person to get their wallet out/sign the check/type the pin is the larger hurdle.

Two is stuff that certainly has a BTC value, but that value may not be as liquid. This is pretty close to the fiat notion of tangible property, such as your house or a car or a coffee table book about coffee tables. While it's clear that the stuff has some resale value, it's not clear exactly what it is, and moreover that would probably depend on how much time is available. You'll get a better price for your house or for the coffee table book if you get to wait for buyers rather than have to be a seller.

Three is stuff that has no BTC resale value. It just can't be sold as an item, like your experience of a soda can's fizzle can't later be sold by you as such. This stuff is however not exactly worthless, in the following perspective: if we're trying to recreate the company from scratch it may be a required cost. This contrasts with buying the company to strip it down, like in a liquidation, in which case we simply ignore the third account. There's no convenient synonymous concept for this third account in fiat, like we had cash and "tangibles" for the other two. For the sake of comprehensibility it was named "intangibles and goodwill", not as two separate items but as a single term, to denote all that which isn't cash and isn't resellable on its own. You can't distinguish the "goodwill" part of the third account, and contrast it with the "intangible" part, as it's one single account and not thus divisible. The compound structure of the name just reflects an inadequacy of the English language for this application and not more.

This three-account approach has the advantage that while still keeping things simple enough (and indeed for the fiat-formatted minds "too simple"), it also brings into accounting focus the foremost valuation problem, which is to say the difference between corp-valuation-as-is versus corp-valuation-as-it'd-cost-to-rebuild-from-scratch. People with any experience in the VC game will instantly recognize these as "what the VC would like to value at" and "what the founders would like to value at", respectively.

Once we grok this much we might move on, but so far a) we're too full of our own farts to grok why we should working our butts off to grok it in the first place; b) we're not really there yet anyway, as there's precious little actual entrepreneurship going on and c) it might turn out it is actually good enough.

Aha, I had forgotten about the artwork retained after the contest. I guess I saw the category "Intangible assets and goodwill" and mistakenly thought that was part of goodwill rather than an intangible asset. Thanks for answering my question

But now we know a bit more about "goodwill". Is it used in the same way in this accounting standard as described in the wikipedia quote? (If somebody wants to cite a better source than wikipedia, that would be great too)

The payout is listed as an expense (in red, first table). The thing which was obtained in exchange for it is listed as an asset, of the intangible kind. I won't bother with the pedestrian discussion of goodwill as understood by the local wikipedia experts.


I would guess reading diligently is not where your interests lie. You know there's something to be said for reading with a view towards understanding the subject matter, as opposed to whatever it is you're doing.


I take it you rarely see people.

Not a problem. Yea, typically banks, insurance companies and private lenders will back out of goodwill when assessing a company. I'm not sure if anybody but me cares, but the history of goodwill and its treatment by the accounting profession is fascinating. It is one of those things which everybody would rather not allow because of how fuzzy and potentially misleading it is, but it has to be allowed as it does more often than not represent the true economic substance of an acquisition (nobody would be able to buy Coke or McDonalds at Book Value + FMV adjustments, for example).

https://i.imgur.com/7BGvoVV.jpg

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Liar, Lunatic or Lounge Lizard.

I suspected as much (used to work for a hungry insurance underwriter). Thanks for the clarification.

Your reading of "acquisition" is not correct. The type of goodwill that the article is referring to is when one company acquires another, the difference between the purchase price and the Book value + FMV adjustments is treated as goodwill on the B/S of the acquirer. Goodwill is basically the extent to which the acquirer "overpays" for the identifiable assets of the business. "Acquisition" in this context does not refer to merely the purchasing of any asset.

There is a little more complexity here such as negative goodwill and when there is a non-controlling interest, but you get the gist of it.

Sorry, double post

Emphasis mine; what counts as an acquisition? They've got BTC1.337 worth of artwork, acquired from a contest winner.

Your would be correct Mr. Lambert.

The key here however is not that the art contest payout was capitalized, after all MP has indicated he thinks very little of IFRS so it is not a problem per se that he does not follow its rules. What is important is that it would be impossible to develop a framework which both allows something like the contest payout to be capitalized while at the same time not allowing all sort of other absurd things to be capitalized that any sane person would think should be expensed. One of the biggest areas of fraud and management manipulation of performance has been aggressive capitalization. WorldCom is but one example of many. There is a reason that the criteria is so fleshed out in IFRS and US GAAP. MP is effectively trying to create a framework on an ad hoc basis. It is doomed to failure unless he leverages heavily off of current mainstream standards.

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.