Explorer

The firm selected for testing certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures over revenue and accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the review of type one revenue. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm selected for testing certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures over revenue and accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of information produced by the issuer used in the performance of certain controls. (AS 2301.16)

The firm selected for testing certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures over revenue and accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified a control deficiency in its testing of a control over certain other revenue ('type two' revenue) but did not evaluate the severity of the deficiency and its effect on the firm's control risk assessment. (AS 2301.34)

The firm selected for testing certain controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures over revenue and accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain other controls. The firm did not perform any procedures to test those controls during the current year but rather relied on the results of its testing in the prior year. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The firm identified fraud risks related to type one revenue. To test this revenue the firm selected large value contracts that were open at year end for testing. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of type one revenue. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.13)

The firm identified fraud risks related to type one revenue. To test this revenue the firm selected large value contracts that were open at year end for testing. For the contracts selected for testing the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test revenue because it limited its procedures to reviewing the contract. (AS 2301.13)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test type two revenue. (AS 2301.08)

To test accounts receivable the firm selected a sample of accounts receivable aged more than a certain number of days. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of receivables. (AS 2315.24)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data it used to test realized gains/losses beyond documenting the methodology used by the external party to price the digital assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information from external sources that the issuer used in an impairment calculation. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to (i) test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced information and (ii) evaluate the relevance and reliability of information from external sources that were both used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the useful lives for certain long-lived assets because it did not evaluate the significant differences between this assumption the significant assumption used by the issuer in an impairment calculation and industry information. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data included in certain system-generated reports that it used in its substantive procedures over depreciation expense. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer earned revenue through cryptocurrency mining. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate (1) the terms and conditions of the issuer's arrangements with its mining pool operators and (2) the method used by the mining pool operators to allocate consideration to the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external data it used to substantively test this revenue beyond documenting the methodology used by one source to price crypto assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the review of certain aspects of this significant account. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to (i) evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions (ii) evaluate whether data was appropriately used in determining the estimate and (iii) test the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain other controls over this significant account. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of these controls because it did not obtain evidence that these controls were designed effectively and operating effectively during the entire period of reliance. (AS 2301.16)

The issuer recorded a significant account based on estimates. The firm identified and tested controls to reduce the nature timing and extent of its substantive procedures to test this significant account. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test this significant account beyond performing a retrospective analytical review testing certain data used to determine the estimate and comparing activity reports for this significant account to the general ledger. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the items selected related to the first type of transaction the firm did not sufficiently test the quantity of digital assets transferred because its procedures were limited to testing the quantity of digital assets received which were a different type of asset than the assets transferred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer reported goodwill and intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures beyond (i) obtaining and reading the issuer's analyses and/or press releases (ii) performing sensitivity analyses and (iii) performing certain tests of mathematical accuracy to test certain of the issuer's impairment analyses including consideration of contrary evidence in the work papers for one of the analyses. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The firm identified certain fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not examine the underlying support for the journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions in the issuer's contracts for certain types of revenue to determine their effect on the recognition of this revenue because it limited its procedures to evaluating the terms and conditions of one contract for certain of these types of revenue. (AS 2301.08 .11 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the presentation of certain types of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain other revenue was recognized in conformity with the applicable accounting standard beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition policy. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm identified certain fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not examine the underlying support for the journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain items selected related to the second type of transaction the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's recognition of realized gains/losses. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain items selected related to the second type of transaction the firm did not evaluate the reliability of certain external data used as audit evidence in testing certain of these transactions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized realized gains/losses on the sale of digital assets through two different types of transactions. The firm's substantive procedures to test these realized gains/losses included testing a sample of transactions for each transaction type. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from the applicable accounting standards related to the presentation and disclosure of digital asset transactions. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the impairment of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other long-lived assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment calculations. Specifically it did not evaluate significant differences between the assumptions and (i) similar significant assumptions used by the issuer in another estimate (ii) industry information and/or (iii) information from an external source. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of the industry information and information from the external source. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test another portion of an impairment including whether it was appropriate to record the impairment. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not (1) obtain an understanding of the likely sources of potential misstatement of revenue (AS 2201.34)

The firm did not test or test the controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports used in its testing of long-lived assets for impairment. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm did not test the fair value of the purchase price allocations to one asset category. (AS 2502.15)

The firm selected for testing controls over reviews of revenue reconciliations. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over reviews of revenue reconciliations. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and schedules that were used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and schedules that were used in the performance these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not (2) identify and test process level controls over the issuer's revenue (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not (3) test the operating effectiveness of the issuer's information technology general controls ('ITGCs') that it had identified and tested for design effectiveness. (AS 2201.44)

The sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure over one category of revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining the sample size for a test of controls and did not consider factors relevant to determining the sample size for its substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

In addition the sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure to test another category of revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedure was designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of long-lived assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports that were used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test transfers of the long-lived assets between asset categories because it tested transfers for one quarter which did not constitute audit sampling and therefore the testing results could not be projected to the population of transfers during the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of documents used in testing the transfer of long-lived assets. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of revenue. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)