HN Explorer

21 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 60.5 ms ] thread
nchuhoai
As shared by Mike Arrington, don't know anything about the validity of the data.
ashray
Wow, they just paid 105k in salaries in the last year? Now that explains all the gross incompetence. Subcontracting expenses... Not sure what that means..
voxic11
Means everyone they hired they hired as a contractor rather then a employee.
eterm
Look at the Salary row, this claims they were running an exchange handling hundreds of millions worth of assets with a salary that would be a struggle to hire an accountant, a developer, security consultant, or anyone else you'd need to successfully run an exchange at that size.

If you believe this leak, take what you will from that.

Edit: Just noticed the subcountractor payment, fair enough but it seems like every person who worked there was a subcontractor then.

at-fates-hands
>>> fair enough but it seems like every person who worked there was a subcontractor then.

Just my experience but when a majority of your workforce is temp contractors, it does not lend itself to consistent quality over time.

Full disclosure: I've been a contractor for 3 years now.

DanBC
> Just noticed the subcountractor payment, fair enough but it seems like every person who worked there was a subcontractor then.

Isn't that just a normal tax dodge?

toomuchtodo
It really depends.

If you dictate what needs to be done, but not how or when, that's usually legit.

But if they're showing up at an office, have to follow your rules, etc, yes, its a tax dodge.

rjtavares
Usually more of a labor law dodge than a tax dodge.
toomuchtodo
Agreed, although you're usually trying to avoid paying your portion of payroll and unemployment taxes.
kalleboo
Most of their support staff/ID verification people etc were international. It's probably way easier to do that kind of hiring as contractors than staff (how would labour laws even work with international staff?)
mephi5t0
is there a line that says "Bonus: 400 mln"
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
jontas
To view the redacted content directly on the Scribd original, just put this in your URL bar and then press enter:

    javascript:$('.absimg').remove();
Edit: I noticed that when you paste the above text, chrome removes the "javascript:" part, so ensure it is present before hitting enter.
cmircea
You could also paste that into the developer console.
jontas
Yea, that's how I did it personally, but I figured the URL bar required less explanation for non-technical people. But you're right, on HN that was probably unnecessary.
mbreese
What are they doing with 3.6M in subcontractors and 3.3M in accountants/lawyers/consultants? Did they have just one employee at 105K? (I assume the CEO?).
efuquen
yup, my thoughts exactly. super shady.
adrianwaj
The big kahuna with the Mt Gox is whether 745,000 bitcoins have in fact gone missing, because whether that's true or not I suspect will change long-term institutional support for the coin. Having large swathes of currency held by unknown or malicious parties will sway investors.
pera
And here you have the full untrimmed background image extracted directly from the pdf using the enterprise forensic tool pdfimage:

http://i.imgur.com/7vDwvYp.png

"Gox styleguide" ?