Classification value confusion (doc vs. template vs. import)

Hi,

I’m not confident with the current speed and stability of implementing new import sources.
That is why I’m currently writing a conversion script to convert several exchange CSV exports to Accointing CSV template.
I plan to publish the script when its working.

While reviewing the available information concerning the Accointing template I found a different lists of possible values for the field classification (optional).

Here a short overview about the possible values based on the source:

  • Accointing_template.xlsx (18.01.2018 11:11:11):
    • add funds
    • airdrop
    • bounty
    • fee
    • gambling_income
    • gambling_used
    • gift_received
    • gift_sent
    • hard_fork
    • ignored
    • income
    • interest_paid
    • lending
    • lending_income
    • liquidity_pool
    • lost
    • margin_fee
    • margin_gain
    • margin_loss
    • master_node
    • mined
    • payment
    • remove funds
    • staked
  • classification support page (30.12.2021 09:00:00)
    • Add Funds
    • Airdrop
    • Bounty
    • Fee
    • Gambling
    • Gambling Income
    • Gift Received
    • Gift Sent
    • Hardfork
    • ICO
    • Ignored
    • Income
    • Interest Paid
    • Internal
    • Lending
    • Lending Income
    • Liquidity Pool
    • Lost
    • Margin Fee
    • Margin Gain
    • Margin Loss
    • Masternode Income
    • Mined
    • Mining
    • OTC
    • Payment
    • Remove Funds
    • Staked
    • Staking
    • Staking Income
    • Swap
  • error message when importing CSV with wrong classification (30.12.2021 09:00:00)
    • add_funds
    • airdrop
    • bounty
    • gambling_income
    • gift_received
    • hard_fork
    • ignored
    • income
    • lending_income
    • liquidity_pool
    • margin_gain
    • master_node
    • mined
    • staked

When you compare these lists you’ll see that non matches the others.
The closes match is reached when comparing import-error and XLSX-template but even their add_funds does not match add funds.

This is kind of frustrating when you start the implementation based on documentation and then upon usage get an error message due to unsupported values.

  1. Can you please create or update documentation to provide classification names supported by your import routine?

Regards,
aul_coin

I have written some scripts in VBS for Gate.io and Nexo. I am happy to share with you if you are interested.

1 Like

I released the first version of my converter on Github: GitHub - Andrwe/accointing-convert: Script to convert Crypto transaction exports to Accointing CSV format

@droblesa I’ll gladly review the scripts to integrate gate.io into accointing-convert.

I created a github project for further plans…

3 Likes

Please let me know when your conversion scripts are finished :smiley:

I will alert the team that there are some inconsistencies in our classifications :slight_smile:

Also, here is an updated article: The Different Types of Crypto Transaction Classifications - The Hub: Crypto and Bitcoin Tax Blog | ACCOINTING.com

The list of definitions that’s in the review process is the master list. Those are the classifications that are currently in the system. Any other classifications can not be used.

Also, our template can only use a certain subset of them. For example, you can not use “internal”, “OTC”, or “ICO”, because these classifications must pair 2 transactions together using our platform to be used.

1 Like

I understand, that classifications which require 2 or more transactions to be matched, are not supported by the import process. But further stripping down the list of supported classes seems to be a log of management and implementation overhead to me as it means that you are implementing the mapping of transactions at two places within you API.
I know there is the phrase “grown historically” for software projects that are living for some time and it requires a log of effort to migrate and merge old code into new one but keeping it causes confusion for the users unless it is at least fully documented.

Thank you for the update. I also like that the list is sorted alphabetically. :slight_smile:
It would help for my project to have a marker for all classes that are supported within the import template including the name that should be used for it.

We are currently working to make the same names on the document and the article the same :slight_smile: I will reply here when it is finished :slight_smile:

1 Like