31–40 of 506 posts
FTX was also audited by a top firm, Armanino!Changed nothing... In the article says: Following the collapse of FTX, Paul MacIntosh, EY’s US financial services crypto co-leader, said on LinkedIn that proof of reserves reports do not assess companies’ internal controls, “which ultimately was the downfall of FTX”.
Armanino is to Mazars as Raspberry Pi is to Apple. They are not even close in stature.
What does it say that a lower-tier accounting firm wouldn't even complete this garbage process?
What a misleading title > However, the accounting firm said on Friday that it had “paused its activity relating to the provision of proof of reserves reports for entities in the cryptocurrency sector due to concerns regarding the way these reports are understood by the public”. According to communications seen by the Financial Times, the level of media focus on the matter was also a factor in Mazars’ decision ... Maz…
I don't know if you have ever worked with a large accounting firm but when they 'pause their activity' that means that they are not going to tie their name to yours, effectively that's as much as saying we will not go down with you. Alternative reading is that they found fraud but they don't want to be the ones to ring the bell on a customer. Binance is an exchange that holds balances, and those balances are in their…
"To prepare a proof of reserves report, an auditor uses procedures agreed with the company but does not vouch for whether those procedures are appropriate. The auditor also does not give any assurance or opinion over the numbers in the report, as it would in a full financial audit." What does it say that a lower-tier accounting firm wouldn't even complete this garbage process?
They're not in the big four but they are quite large and well respected, at least they were until they - and BDO, another large accounting firm - were flagged as insufficient in terms of oversight by the UK regulators.
See: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-20/mazars-bd...
So they're on thin ice and they will not risk going down with this particular ship.
What a misleading title > However, the accounting firm said on Friday that it had “paused its activity relating to the provision of proof of reserves reports for entities in the cryptocurrency sector due to concerns regarding the way these reports are understood by the public”. According to communications seen by the Financial Times, the level of media focus on the matter was also a factor in Mazars’ decision ... Maz…
I think the point was, it wasn't even an audit, and Mazars is worried that people will misconstrue it as them giving Binance a clean bill of health (and then hate Mazars if Binance comes crashing down). Also, presumably Binance has reserves because it needs them. Also, wouldn't the same logic apply to FTX? But then it turned out they were playing with the customers' money.
If they saw the same headlines I did they were worried that people were misconstruing it as them giving Binance a clean bill of health
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point was, it wasn't even an audit, and Mazars is worried that people will misconstrue it as them giving Binance a clean bill of health (and then hate Mazars if Binance comes crashing down). Also, presumably Binance has reserves because it needs them. Also, wouldn't the same logic apply to FTX? But then it turned out they were playing with the customers' money.
The title puts "halts proof of reserves work" next to "outflows hit $6B", which on quick reading implies that they halted the actual "audit" presumably because something went wrong , hence why i think it's misleading And while the article makes it clear that they withheld their report for PR reasons, I'm sure most people here will assume that the "audit" went wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if you have ever worked with a large accounting firm but when they 'pause their activity' that means that they are not going to tie their name to yours, effectively that's as much as saying we will not go down with you. Alternative reading is that they found fraud but they don't want to be the ones to ring the bell on a customer. Binance is an exchange that holds balances, and those balances are in their…
afaik binance uses various wallets, their BNB is used for tranactions
The way money has been routed between various accounts (both internal and external) suggests that they are using timing rather than actual reserves to make it look as though they are solvent when in fact they are not. Time will tell if that is an accurate reading of the situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title puts "halts proof of reserves work" next to "outflows hit $6B", which on quick reading implies that they halted the actual "audit" presumably because something went wrong , hence why i think it's misleading And while the article makes it clear that they withheld their report for PR reasons, I'm sure most people here will assume that the "audit" went wrong
It's a journalist's job to be suspicious. Yeah, maybe it's a total coincidence that these things happened together. Maybe the rat just happened to be leaving this listing and waterlogged ship! To visit its relatives! But that's not how a journalist thinks.
FTX was also audited by a top firm, Armanino!Changed nothing... In the article says: Following the collapse of FTX, Paul MacIntosh, EY’s US financial services crypto co-leader, said on LinkedIn that proof of reserves reports do not assess companies’ internal controls, “which ultimately was the downfall of FTX”.
There is a Big Four of auditing, and Armanino is certainly not one of them. I've never heard of them.