Tanith YarnDemon
Hypernet Inc.
Umbrella Chemical Inc
23
   |
Posted - 2012.07.18 03:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
I probably shouldn't be posting this while suffering from hydroxol-caused checmical imbalance and insomnia all at once, but running an audited bond myself I figured it'd be relevant. And I wanted to.
I got an audit for many many reasons. Gaining trust probably being one of the smallest ones. The bond is even overcollaterized, and in hindsight I would most likely have gotten by just fine without either audit or collateral. Admitably I'd to some degree even have been interested in getting audited without launching a bond as it DOES give you a few valuable insights(Well, did for me).
Yes, the auditors offers consultancy and opinions, which alone is worth the rediculous low cost they're charging. These opinions are for you as an investee to consider, if you disagree - ignore them, they're also for the investors to ponder as it gives a second opinion of someone supposedly objective. I have never before ran a bond, his opinions means I have someone to bounce ideas with. Mechanics changed during the setup of my bond, which forced me to make drastic changes. This role could probably be filled with a lot of people, having someone experienced with past and current similiar bonds aswell as the details of your own operations makes things alot easier.
As for sharing the APIs in public to verify claims, yes, it's free, it also shares those oh so important cashcows. I chose to share my keys with VV as I trust him not to exploit anything he finds in them, and not to share it to third parties.
Furthermore a huge portion of the audit is not based on the API in the first place. It's based on whatever the auditor can get hold of regarding the client. Just how deep that goes varies from auditor to auditor, and most likely from service to service. "Simple" checks such as going over the forum history and checking any dubious posts, from the client or any supposed trusted friends or alts(which the API would help to confirm) being but one part of it. This is information mostly already available to the potential investors, but most won't spend the time to go over it. The audit means they don't have to assuming they trust the auditor.
The one piece of security I imagine an auditor actually could provide is busting ponzis through repeated checks. If each month you get a detailed report that this month the "NAV increased by X and Y primarily due to Z type operations" a ponzi is virtually impossible to orchestrate. It obviously prevents no one from taking what he has and run, it just ups the ante in terms of effort invested to pull the same size of scam off. Looking back a huge portion of the big scams could not have been done with
Long drunken story short, it seems to me your big beef is the terminology, not the service. Call it whatever you want, the service is sound, regardless of wether certain clients and investors seem to expect things not provided |