887500+ entries in 0.638s
mircea_popescu: yeah but
the shit is, hosting is
this complex fucking industry
davout: as in, we wouldn't have
this debate
davout: if you paid
the hosting fee monthly it wouldn't be an issue at all
davout: i don't know how exactly
to express
this, but i
think
that somehow you're
trying
to get accounting
to do something it's not really supposed
to
mircea_popescu: for a number of reasons. i just don't
think
they actually work.
mircea_popescu: now, i agree
this is at least attackable from a "standard accounting" perspective,
mircea_popescu: what's
the value of
the company next month ? 50 + whatever it fished or 50 + whatever it fished + 50 * 11 / 12 ?
mircea_popescu: well let's look at it. company has 100 btc. it buys "the right
to use a boat for 1 year" for 50.
davout: especially since what i'm saying is just : "do
the same
thing, just use different words"
davout: but how does your way of accounting change
that? doesn't
the server already exist ?
mircea_popescu: tyvm. i'm
trying
to reinvent
the wheel deliberately. both gaap and irfs suck.
mircea_popescu: as
to
the relevance :it's not just
taxes. why should a shareholder
that buys now get
the benefit of an arbitrary charge for 1 year ?
davout: it also depends on whether you already shelled
the money out
mircea_popescu: one of
the reasons im doing
this is
to sound out some sort of accounting/reporting scheme for nonzero asset companies
davout: anyway, like you said, it doesn't really matter
that much
davout: the whole "it can't be
taken as a one
time charge" is relevant when you use expenses
to reduce your net result as a way
to reduce your
taxes, i don't
think it has much relevance in BTC-LAND
mircea_popescu: it matches
the amortisation just whine what are you whining about!
mircea_popescu: these btc can't be
taken as a one
time charge, as
they reflect a multi-period
thing
davout: the box is not yours,
the service is, you can resell
the service, but you don't usually amortise IT services like
this (which is another way of saying it's horribly wrong)
davout: no you can resell
the remainder of your one year period
benkay: at
the end of amortization, you don't have a
thing
to sell for scrap value.
davout: can you resell
the box ? no, so what you bought is a service,
tracking its accounting value makes no real sense
mircea_popescu: well in
this sense
the house you own is not "yours" as you only have fee simple on it.
davout: you bought
the right
to use it for one year
davout: to me
tangible is something i can
touch, in my understanding IP is intangible yet it can be resold
mircea_popescu: davout yes it would be, at
the cost of making a more extensive account plan
than "cash", "type 1" and "type 2"
mircea_popescu: some others do not or not necessarily.
these are intangible.
mircea_popescu: the rationale behind
that separation between "tangibles" and "intangibles and goodwill" was
that some items have a resale value.
these are
tangible.
davout: the proper way
to account for
this is
to write an expense under "IT services"
davout: an item
that has a 0 accounting value may still have a shitton of utility value
mircea_popescu: so i have a special knapsack where i keep
the 0 value items ?
davout: when you have amortised something,
that
this something reaches a zero accounting value,
that means you still own
the physical
thing
davout: since it's not going
to stay in your books as an asset
davout: so yeah, i don't really understand why you'd amortise something
that you do not own
mircea_popescu: actually...
they probably end up sold
to
the government
davout: to a french person, leasing is like some stuff you do usually with cars where you pay a fat premium
the first month, and
then rent it
mircea_popescu: they go on
to run shared servers or w/e loosened out boxes do in
this life.
mircea_popescu: benkay yeah. because i don't want
to be stuck with one year odl boxes.
davout: ok,
that's what i call "renting"
davout: did you buy
the physical box? or did you buy
the right
to use it for one year, it
think
that's
the question
benkay: do you have
to give box back
to another entity?
benkay: what happens at
the end of
the year?
mircea_popescu: that sounds a little nutty. what's leasing in
this approach ?
davout: like
to me it sounds contradictory, either you rent for a limited
time, or you buy and it's yours forevar
davout: so
then, why one year? i don't know with other countries but in france you usually amortise IT stuff on 3 years,
the rest on 5 and buildings on 20
mircea_popescu: because if you liquidate
today you have a server worth x
davout: why are you amortising in
the first place btw ?
davout: it represents an expense on month #1
too since you probably need it for dev purposes, and it's ok
to prorate
mircea_popescu: if its after a full period it can;'t be reported in
the respective period
mircea_popescu: because i'm of
the school
that
the respective charge belongs in month 2 and is reported in month 2
davout: either you account for
them on a monthly basis (which i've never seen, but
this is BTC after all) or on a yearly basis, you seem
to go for
the former, so my question is "why don't you start accounting for an expense of 1/12th of
the server value on month #1"
mircea_popescu: actually let's switch back
to english, ppl will be
trying
to
translate your frogspeak for no avail
davout: bon, pourquoi
tu commences pas à l'amortir
tout de suite
ton serveur ?
davout: why don't you start amortising (spellt
that way)
the server right away ?
davout: explained like
that it sounds about right :-)
mircea_popescu: then B brings 100 btc in, gets his 100 shares, and now a 300 btc corp is divided
to 200 shares
mircea_popescu: simple example : A and B meet
to make a fishery. A contributes 100 BTC gets 100 shares, B is going
to fish, gets 100 sws at 1.
davout: anyway, i had a question regarding
the financial statements
mircea_popescu: if share value doubles management realises half
that gain, investors
the other half
davout: doesn't
this somehow equate
to
the management not really acting in
the shareholder's interest ?
mircea_popescu: so
the issuing of sws
to managemend hedges against
this situation you described
davout: (and i read
that correctly on
the MG statement, you have as much outstanding warrants
than issued shares, right?)
davout: why would it want
to hedge
them against getting diluted since it also owns 10x more warrants ?
mircea_popescu: now what's management
to hedge re its 10 issued shares ?
mircea_popescu: ok. company A has 100 shares issued, of which managwement owns 10. company A has 100 shares issued as sws
to mnanagement
davout: is
the motivation
to get a god deal on
them
mircea_popescu: well... one of
the advantages of management getting ssws in
the first place.
mircea_popescu: management holds a shitton of warrants in
the first place
davout: it starts getting fun when you
think
that management might want
to cover
the "unfair" dilution risk by hedging
the warrants using inside information
davout: which is good,
the contrary wouldn't have been right
davout: mircea_popescu: it doesn't have
to be accounted for per-se, but
the warrants list has
to come with
the financial statements, because as you said it is something
that needs
to be
taken into account
to get a full picture of
the company
davout: just account for it as exceptional revenue when it comes in, if it does, any loss relative
to
the par market price will be borne by shareholders getting diluted at a bargain
mircea_popescu: this has
to be accounted as
this is
the point of accountingh
mircea_popescu: it could be argued
that a company with issued sws is worth less
than
the same w/o having issued
them
mircea_popescu: there may be nothing
to provision in
that perspective, however,
davout: there's really nothing
to provision
davout: there's zero risk for MG,
the ones actually bearing a risk are
the shareholders, not MG
davout: let's not get into
this right now
mircea_popescu: whenever
they come due
they just issue more dollarsd and pay
davout: ok, so
there's zero risk for MG
mircea_popescu: basically,
the us govt bonds are in fact us govt stock warrants
davout: will
the shares be summoned into existence by MG or will MG buy
the shares at market price and resell
them
to
the holders of a warrant at
the agreed-upon price ?
mircea_popescu: the only catch is
that
the par value of
that share by
then MAY be higher
mircea_popescu: bought at
the price. having a warrant for 1 share at 1 btc means you pay 1 btc get
the share
davout: or will
they be bought