Nagle



Offline



Activity: 1204

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1204Merit: 1000 Re: Bitstamp's first annual statements September 16, 2014, 07:49:05 PM #2



Also, an annual statement normally contains both a statement of operations and a balance sheet. They just have a balance sheet, and one with too little information. All their liabilities, including customer deposits, are consolidated into one number.



This is worthless. They need an audit. They're not entitled to the "small company exemption" with assets of US$64 million. Here's the "Companies Act" section to which they refer. They may be able to claim that they were a small company in 2012, and get a year after becoming a large company in 2013 to comply. For 2014, they need a full audit.Also, an annual statement normally contains both a statement of operations and a balance sheet. They just have a balance sheet, and one with too little information. All their liabilities, including customer deposits, are consolidated into one number.This is worthless.

Walsoraj



Offline



Activity: 686

Merit: 500





Ultranode







Hero MemberActivity: 686Merit: 500Ultranode Re: Bitstamp's first annual statements September 16, 2014, 08:10:08 PM #3 I'd like to know how much of that $65 million is frozen due to suspicion of illegal activities. If none, then I'd like to know more about Bitstamp's KYC/AML procedures, or lack thereof.

2dogs



Offline



Activity: 1263

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1263Merit: 1000 Re: Bitstamp's first annual statements September 17, 2014, 05:31:55 PM #8 Quote from: Nagle on September 16, 2014, 07:49:05 PM



Also, an annual statement normally contains both a statement of operations and a balance sheet. They just have a balance sheet, and one with too little information. All their liabilities, including customer deposits, are consolidated into one number.



This is worthless.

They need an audit. They're not entitled to the "small company exemption" with assets of US$64 million. Here's the "Companies Act" section to which they refer. They may be able to claim that they were a small company in 2012, and get a year after becoming a large company in 2013 to comply. For 2014, they need a full audit.Also, an annual statement normally contains both a statement of operations and a balance sheet. They just have a balance sheet, and one with too little information. All their liabilities, including customer deposits, are consolidated into one number.This is worthless.

Agree, worthless - why publish this at all, Bitstamp?

Doesn't add much to their credibility - in fact, subtracts from it.



Agree, worthless - why publish this at all, Bitstamp?Doesn't add much to their credibility - in fact, subtracts from it.

2dogs



Offline



Activity: 1263

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1263Merit: 1000 Re: Bitstamp's first annual statements September 17, 2014, 10:32:05 PM #15 Quote from: pawel7777 on September 17, 2014, 09:17:00 PM



Yes, it's a regulatory requirement. The thing is, they did the very minimum they were required by law. It would be very wise of them get proper financial adviser/auditor and also prepare the extended, full accounts (to be more transparent and credible).



They also had some issues with filing the papers on time. I hope that any of the newly appointed directors has some solid knowledge and experience in such things.







Agree, quite poor.

Statements dated Oct 2013 (almost a year ago) and not approved by their board until last month?

No income statement, or statement of cash flows.



In fact, that stinks. Agree, quite poor.Statements dated Oct 2013 (almost a year ago) and not approved by their board until last month?No income statement, or statement of cash flows.In fact, that stinks.

JorgeStolfi



Offline



Activity: 910

Merit: 1002









Hero MemberActivity: 910Merit: 1002 Re: Bitstamp's first annual statements September 21, 2014, 07:04:26 PM #16 It does not say how much profit they made. It says only that, *as of Oct/2013*, they have about 64.9 M USD that belong to clients and about 820 k USD of their own. Apparently it does not include their bitcoin holdings, since their assets (65.7 M USD) are described as "cash in the bank".



Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.