3 ms·
Your last paragraph is basically assumption of guilt. I don’t think you can make the claim that they are just saying no to the shady ones without more data. Esp
by DannyBee 4y ago
Your last paragraph is basically assumption of guilt. I don’t think you can make the claim that they are just saying no to the shady ones without more data. Especially since they say yes to plenty of shady things
It seems a lot more likely to me they were threatened by regulators or scared of what they would do, and created blanket policies about new clients or what they would attest to as a result than “we are doing diligence on tons of crypto firms that want us as clients and just saying no after we discover they are shady”
- prepend 4y agoWhy would you assume they have a blanket policy? It’s much more likely that the big4, who have been doing the same thing for 100+ years, just applies their normal system when evaluating new clients- what is their ability to perform the work, what is their risk to the firm. The fact is that they haven’t been audited. Financial regulation is set up so you don’t have to speculate or assume why this doesn’t occur. If it doesn’t occur, that’s bad from a risk mitigation standpoint. Since crypto firms are logical entities that know the benefits of auditing and they have lots of funding and can afford it, it seems more likely that they don’t audit because they have bad books. The threat to accounting firms by regulators is that if they audit incorrectly and attest to incorrect things then they will be shut down.